Tie me kangaroo down sport and two little boys.

[briansworms]

@Brainsworms that last bit made me laugh
@Jacknife i really dont know what to say to your comment/question. Its true Rolph was talented but knowing what he has done just makes it all nothing to me. Thats just me though.

Careful with Brainsworms, people might confuse it with Briansworms. LOL

 

[montysrainbow]

Careful with Brainsworms, people might confuse it with Briansworms. LOL

Lol oh god sorry!

 

[Jacknife]

To say "throw it all away" is not going to fix what he has done. Although, what was once OK or accepted in years gone past is kind of moot because we have evolved and "know better" for the most part now. I dont personally want to look at or listen to his work as it makes me nauseous. I can acknowledge he has talent though, I dont feel he should financially benefit from it.

@briansworms that last bit made me laugh
@Jacknife i really dont know what to say to your comment/question. Its true Rolph was talented but knowing what he has done just makes it all nothing to me. Thats just me though.

I didn't mean it as what his art was to him, and nothing about him profiting from it. I meant what it has done for us, as a culture.
To argue we now no better so its moot is silly - they knew full well back then too, it's simply that social proprieties - and law - have changed.

His work probably means nothing to most these days on an emotional level, but I don't think you can take away it's contextual value simply because he's a criminal now.

 

[fallenfeathers]

What a nice bunch of people we have here.

Are you referring to me? I'm guessing you haven't been a victim of this sort of crime, have you?

 

[Bluetongue1]

fallenfeathers, I had a similar reaction to that statement and constructed a lengthy response. However the conversation had moved on and so I binned what I had written. I shall endeavour to recall the main points...

As I've grown older it is quite amazing how many individuals I have come to know of that have been victims of this form of criminal abuse. The perpetrators so often convince the victim that he or she is to blame and if they let others know what has happened they will the ones who get into trouble. By the time a victim is old enough to appreciate the reality of what happened, they usually feel it is too late to do anything about it. Not being able to address the issue and see justice done so often results in a deep seated bitterness. For the most part it remains hidden but every now and then there is cause for it to surface. Not only victims feel this bitterness but also those who have been confidants of victims and have been privy first hand to the damage done. The abuse of trust is insidious enough on its own, but the physical and emotional rape of an innocent child is surely one of the the most heinous crimes that one individual can commit against another. In conclusion, I reckon the responses of forum members have been well tempered. I most certainly have not read anything that I felt was not well and truly warranted.

Blue

 

[Fil_14]

I didn't mean it as what his art was to him, and nothing about him profiting from it. I meant what it has done for us, as a culture.
To argue we now no better so its moot is silly - they knew full well back then too, it's simply that social proprieties - and law - have changed.

His work probably means nothing to most these days on an emotional level, but I don't think you can take away it's contextual value simply because he's a criminal now.

Actually, it has now been proven that he was a criminal when he did all of this 'art'.
Would you still hold the same views if he assaulted one of your kids? Then used those very hands to create this 'art'.
Sorry mate, but we do not live in the 15th/16th/17th/18th or 19th century.
You probably know someone personally that has been abused. But too afraid to tell anyone around them about it, because people like you will make excuses or defend them.
Again, would you defend a predators credibility if they abused your child? Just like your doing now......


Fil...

 

[montysrainbow]

....

 

[Bluetongue1]

Yes, it is very pesonal. Good on you for posting about it! It shows that you are now in control. It does not matter than others know because it no longer has the hold over you it once had.

Maybe your mother did know you were telling the truth but to support you at that time she had to admit what had happened to her, which is likely more than what she did eventually admit to. Such is the power these things can hold over someone.

Blue

 

[champagne]

why throw him in jail what does this achieve? make him publicly apologise to the victims and take away all his money so he live his life out a poor old man with nothing... Instead of wasting the money housing him in jail why don't they use the money to stop these things from happening to more people?

 

[montysrainbow]

Thanks Blue and yes good point champagne.

 

[apprenticegnome]

I'm not 100% convinced either way about his guilt or innocence. Guilt by association is not necessarily a crime but brings in to question someones character for further scrutiny. The only information I have heard so far is hearsay and some of it is very questionable. As for the porn pictures it is hard for us to comment on them without knowing the full nature of the photos for example there is a lot of naked child related photos on the web relating to nudist sites, national geographic sites etc. I think it was the today show or ACA that used a prominent solicitor pointing out the prosecutions smoking gun as Rolfs denial that he had been to Cambridge. If that's a smoking gun call me a liar because my wife and myself have both said weve never been to a certain town before when were planning holidays only to jolt our memory later. I'm not protecting Rolf, just looking for definitive proof to satisfy my own curiosity. We can only hope that the legal profession has got it right as they are human and can make mistakes. If someone out there can post a link with some damning evidence it would be appreciated to help sway my thoughts. If indeed he is guilty then he is in the right place. I am cautious as I have family that are victims but on the other side of the coin I have been a victim of malicious allegations of physical assault etc and people including police improperly judged my character even though there were witnesses and the claims lacked evidence. I was lucky I was able to prove the claims wrong, if I did not have the proof I most likely would have been wrongly convicted. Often an allegation can be more damaging than the truth.

 

[CrystalMoon]

I cannot be so open MR, suffice to say I dont trust males very easily specially those I am supposed to. I wont post any more on this thread as it has bought up too many old wounds. I hope Harris rotts before he dies

 

[montysrainbow]

........

 

[wokka]

I believe about 1 in 5 women have been sexually abused as children and the majority of those by family or close freinds of family!

 

[Jacknife]

Are you referring to me? I'm guessing you haven't been a victim of this sort of crime, have you?

Actually, it has now been proven that he was a criminal when he did all of this 'art'.
Would you still hold the same views if he assaulted one of your kids? Then used those very hands to create this 'art'.
Sorry mate, but we do not live in the 15th/16th/17th/18th or 19th century.
You probably know someone personally that has been abused. But too afraid to tell anyone around them about it, because people like you will make excuses or defend them.
Again, would you defend a predators credibility if they abused your child? Just like your doing now......


Fil...

As usual you(and other people here) have completely missed my point because you didn't bother to actually read and think about what I've posted, you're just waiting to espouse your own opinion.

I'm not defending the man. I never did. He can rot for all I care.
I was asking a question on peoples thoughts on the matter.
Don't make scenarios where 'it's my kid' 'how would you feel' because you're missing the point. You're bringing personal emotions into a essentially non-subjective argument.

Please people, think before you type.

 

[montysrainbow]

I really should think before i type but my fingers always beat my brain!

 

[Darlyn]

Jacknife has an interesting point. Will the artwork still be regarded for it's aesthetic quality or will it be denounced because of the deeds of the artist?
I assume its market value will take a dive but if beauty is in the eye of the beholder does the beauty diminish because of the artists deeds?
I guess we will find out soon, but if Gary Glitter is anything to go by, he is banished from radio playlists because of his disgusting behaviour.

 

[Woma_Wild]

Unfortunately, convicted child abusers reoffend when let out of prison. Going to jail will have little affect on him.(he may suffer at the hands of other inmates though)
I don't think his celebrity status matters. If he is guilty, he must be punished for his crime. Perhaps because of his social status gave him a false sense of security that his victims wouldn't talk and if they did, no one would believe them.
As for his art, I wouldn't want it in my home. Keeping it would be an insult to his victims.

 

[wokka]

To me it is the actions of the man which are wrong irrespective of who the man is. Similiarily, it is the artwork that is to be appreciated irrespective of who did it. If we denounce everything because it may have passed through the hands of criminals it may be a very dull world.

 

[Jacknife]

To me it is the actions of the man which are wrong irrespective of who the man is. Similiarily it is the artwork that is to be appreciated irrespective of who did it. If we denounce everything because it may have pased through the hands of criminals it may be a very dull world.

My point exactly.