General Chat

When this first came up a couple of months ago, I mentioned it to my brother, who was as gobsmacked as I was, then proceeded to say "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, Two little boys eh. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Personally, he was never a particular favourite of mine, but would agree that he never came across as being quite as slimy as Stuart Hall & Jimmy Saville.

Errol,
thanks for informing me what the term "making indecent images" means.

I had taken the term quite literally. (as you probably guessed).

I had therefore that the "making" he is accused of WAS a deliberate action - and therefore even worse than downloading (or finding) images online.

Now I am wiser - but I bet that a lot of other people made the same (incorrect) assumption that I did.

We live and learn.

OK. We will move on

ChrisofWessex I was not suggesting that at all - just wanted to clarify what "making images" means from a legal not IT point of view.
"Making" is not necessarily a deliberate action.
Sorry if it comes across as otherwise.

Errol, I am the first to admit that I am not computer literate - I gathered from Tessa that Rolf Harris had made illicit images rather than download, I thought that this meant he had put images on pc.

However I would point out to you that I would have thought that if the rest of my post had been read; it was obvious that I, in no way, condone abuse - mental or physical of any child.

I will not say what I would like to see done to these abusers when found guilty.

I would term sexual assault as both mental and sexual abuse.

This is the first time I have ever seen or heard a word against Rolf Harris.

There was something about Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall that made me not quite like them and Gary Glitter was certainly odd. Jonathan King too had something about him.

It was quite a shock to read Stella's post. Hearing Rolf Harris being blue must be as shocking as hearing the Queen fart!

ChrisofWessex - even worse than what?

Surely sexual assault is worse?

Making an indecent image does not mean taking a picture it is merely an umbrella term and usually means viewing an indecent image online, ie visiting a webpage.

Because when you visit a webpage, the images are (in normal computer setups) automatically stored on your computer it is given the term "making an indecent image".

Every single member on here "makes" images on a daily basis because every single web page they visit stores information (including pictures/images) on the computer used.

I think in terms of 'shock' this case perhaps affects more than some of the other cases simply because many of us watched him from when we were children and saw him as 'fun and kindly' throughout. It takes away a bit from your own confidence in being able to make the right call on people?

As far as performers go you know it is an act for the audience, but some genuinely are just what they appear to be.

I personally hope it is not true, there have been accusations against people where they are subsequently found to be innocent.

Tess - as you say that making the images is even worse.

I feel that the modern world with all the technology encourages these people.

That any child be hurt mentally or physically in order to give gratification to a type of adult is beyond me and feel that short sentences should not be given in view of age but sentenced as appropriate to the crime. The victim has to live a lifetime with the hurt.

As I said earlier Cynthia..... "You may well be shocked when you first hear this sort of news, but if you sit back think about it, you shouldn't be shocked, these people are just names"

We obviously see things differently, because I don't regard so called celebs as people who could let me down, they are all just entertainers, they aren't people I take much interest in, other than when I watch them perform.
Some maybe more likeable than others, but I still don't class them as people I know, because I don't know them.

I also don't like or dislike most performers for how they act when performing, for instance just because someone uses bad language in their act, I wouldn't assume they were bad people, equally, someone who is gushy and sweet in their act, I wouldn't assume were nice, in life, and I don't find swearing offensive, if used in an performance, where I know I could expect it.

What I do find offensive though are those who outwardly are Snow White, but inwardly are really The Evil Witch, give me a swearer any day

i find i very sad that the man has gone somewhere he shoudnt have.

Until we hear the evidence we wont know exactly what he did .

A bit of a shattered illusion on the man but personally I would prefer to hear what he is alleged to have done first

Usually, the term "making indecent images" does not mean actually taking a photograph or anything like that. It just means viewing something on the internet (for example).

Well I WAS shocked Lynda.


There are some 'celebrities' whose talents/acts/shows, I simply don't like and won't watch as personally, I consider them unpleasant and distasteful.


There are some who seem unable to raise a laugh unless they use bad language and tell obscene jokes - rather like a child trying to impress it's peers.


We have long since moved from the gently suggestive, mild innuendo humour and gone headlong into the blatantly descriptive sexual acts


Then, there are other 'celebrities' whom I have enjoyed watching, laughed heartily at their witty and astute jokes, trusting from experience, that their humour will raise my 'feel good factor'.


When anyone I have 'trusted' lets me down, then I am shocked, hurt and bewildered. :-(

Like with the revelations of JS it was said that others in
the business knew what was going on,makes me wonder
if the same applies to other celebs. Anyway at the age of
82? These celebs if found guilty will serve very little time in
prison unfortunately.

Emma

Chris of Wessex.

He is accused of MAKING indecent images of children.

Downloading is bad enough - but Making the images is even worse in my book.



I have no idea if he is innocent or guilty of all or any of the charges.

but hope that the truth will prevail and justice done.

When it first came out - I did not believe it - however since yesterday, I have changed my mind.

The downloading of indecent photographs of children as recent as last year? That is it for me. But again the jury will decide.

if he supposedly did these things in 1980, that was about the time or just after when i saw him telling his filthy jokes in front of children....

Friends and neighbours are standing by entertainer Rolf Harris who faces 13 counts of child sex offences.

Family friend and fellow singer Vince Hill said his stomach turned when he heard the news. "While everyone is innocent until proven guilty I hope he'll be okay because a possible prison sentence would hit him hard," Mr Hill said.

"This just isn't the Rolf I know. But whatever happens to him - and everyone is innocent until proven guilty - I'll always be his friend. He knows that."

Another friend, Australian performer Maria Venuti, said the Harris she knew was talented, gorgeous and charming.
"But I'm in a real bind here," she told Fairfax Radio. "If he is guilty then you wouldn't want to be standing up for this sort of behaviour."

The entertainer faces six counts of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old girl in 1980 and 1981, and three charges of indecent assault on a girl aged 14 in 1986. He is also charged with four counts of making indecent images of a child in the first half of 2012.

no you cant really, unless you were there, in the room, and no every inch of the details of the case,

no1 except the accused and the victim, "if there is one" no exactly what did or didn't happen,

but its people guessing n presuming that discourages victims to come forward for fear of being disbelieved or labeled a liar,

l'm not shocked, l'm not shocked at anything nowadays to be honest:((((

jude