Rolf Harris & like minded horse people

Broke_But_Happy said:
Personally I think the names of the accused should be kept private until they are actually found guilty in a court. The victims are kept anonymous, so why shouldn't the accused be offered the same privacy.
As for the celebrity convictions, I am wondering just how much of this is a witch hunt - with them actively trying to get people to come forward to make allegations against people what is to stop someone making a false allegation? It would be very difficult to prove where you were on a day 30/40 years ago...
I'm not saying that some of these aren't completely true, but I do wonder how many false allegations have been made in these cases... According to a quick google search 2 men per month are falsely accused of rape...
Click to expand...

Agree completely
 
A finding of not guilty does not mean that an offence has not been committed. If all women who make a complaint were then charged with perjury, how many people would ever make a complaint? The rate of reporting is low, the number taken by CPS is lower still and the conviction rate even less, this is after all an offence which usually takes place in private
 
YorksG said:
A finding of not guilty does not mean that an offence has not been committed. If all women who make a complaint were then charged with perjury, how many people would ever make a complaint? The rate of reporting is low, the number taken by CPS is lower still and the conviction rate even less, this is after all an offence which usually takes place in private
Click to expand...

and an accusation does not necessarily mean guilty. Anyone can walk into a police station and claim they have been raped. If they name their alleged attacker, very swiftly that person will find themselves arrested. A ball starts rolling that is very difficult to stop. The victim is protected, and their anonymity is kept. The alleged rapist is named the minute they make their first court appearance.it can take up to two years for the PF to set a court date. It can then take up to a year after the initial hearing for a trial to commence. Can you imagine what that does to the accused and their family?
3yrs of knowing that if a jury don't believe you, you're going to jail, for up to 7yrs.
there is a fault with our justice system that this can be allowed to happen. I firmly believe that anyone found to have made a false allegation should serve the same sentence as their alleged attacker was facing.
as broke vut happy states, two men per month falsely accused. Not sure if this is UK or England only, but I do know a Scottish solicitor who has 3 young men on his books, all awaiting trial because a one night stand decided she'd changed her mind after the event. Their DNA, and the 'victims' word could be enough to convict.
sad times.
 
As the door of his cell slams shut behind him, the lights go out, Rolf puts his head in his hands and begins to cry. Behind him a voice sings, "Do you think I would leave you crying, when there's room in my bunk for two..."
 
smokey said:
and an accusation does not necessarily mean guilty. Anyone can walk into a police station and claim they have been raped. If they name their alleged attacker, very swiftly that person will find themselves arrested. A ball starts rolling that is very difficult to stop. The victim is protected, and their anonymity is kept. The alleged rapist is named the minute they make their first court appearance.it can take up to two years for the PF to set a court date. It can then take up to a year after the initial hearing for a trial to commence. Can you imagine what that does to the accused and their family?
3yrs of knowing that if a jury don't believe you, you're going to jail, for up to 7yrs.
there is a fault with our justice system that this can be allowed to happen. I firmly believe that anyone found to have made a false allegation should serve the same sentence as their alleged attacker was facing.
as broke vut happy states, two men per month falsely accused. Not sure if this is UK or England only, but I do know a Scottish solicitor who has 3 young men on his books, all awaiting trial because a one night stand decided she'd changed her mind after the event. Their DNA, and the 'victims' word could be enough to convict.
sad times.
Click to expand...

That's not what YorksG is talking about though Smokey. I'm all for keeping the names of the accused private for the very reasons you have stated. What YorksG is talking about and I said in my post on the previous page as well is in response to comments that the "victims" should be named if no conviction is made. We're just saying that just because a man or woman isn't convicted, doesn't mean that they are not guilty, it can just mean that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the conviction. They could be guilty as sin and get away with it on a technicality...it happens a lot.

If we want "victims" to be named...you could potentially have a real victim, named as being a liar because there was no conviction who then has to live with having been raped AND the fallout of being named publicly as having made it all up. That should never happen. Not least because of the awful consequences for the person, but also because it will discourage so many other real victims from coming forward.
 
Luckily I've never experience this, I've worked on several yards and thankfully the only interaction I've had has been strictly professional. The barn I work in now has a little bit of flirty banter but it's strictly banter, no physical contact ect.
 
_GG_ said:
That's not what YorksG is talking about though Smokey. I'm all for keeping the names of the accused private for the very reasons you have stated. What YorksG is talking about and I said in my post on the previous page as well is in response to comments that the "victims" should be named if no conviction is made. We're just saying that just because a man or woman isn't convicted, doesn't mean that they are not guilty, it can just mean that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the conviction. They could be guilty as sin and get away with it on a technicality...it happens a lot.

If we want "victims" to be named...you could potentially have a real victim, named as being a liar because there was no conviction who then has to live with having been raped AND the fallout of being named publicly as having made it all up. That should never happen. Not least because of the awful consequences for the person, but also because it will discourage so many other real victims from coming forward.
Click to expand...

I get that absolutely gg, and I do agree that everything should be done to ensure that real victims do come forward, and that they get justice. I guess I was just trying to show the flip side of that argument. As I said, our system is seriously flawed. I wish I had the answer, as there doesn't seem to be a way around it. Other than not naming anyone involved until a conviction is achieved.
i agree, we cant go about naming every victim where there is no conviction. I think educating young women in particular about the consequences of a false accusation for the accused is something to consider. Perhaps discourage the ones who simply regret their actions the night before from crying 'rape', and making them understand that they do real victims a great disservice.
 
I think people do need to be more vigilant and I think it is a very sad world we live in where young people and children are taken advantage of... It isn't something that is new though- you only have to look to the churches for abuse, to celebrities, to schools, and childrens homes- all of which happened years and years ago but is only now coming to light. I think the other sectors will be rocked by claims in the future as people become less scared to report it- and that may well include well known names from the equine industry.

But I agree with Smokey in many ways as I also do think that nowadays many people are so paranoid that they will claim abuse or harrassment when it is not necessarily. What about also young people (both men and women) which push social boundaries or claim to be older than they are? I was SHOCKED when a young girl at the yard showed me a photo of her friend on social media- she was stood in a seductive pose, in her underwear, face full of make up and photo available for all to access and view through her profile. SHE WAS 14!! She claimed to be 20 on all her social media accounts- so what about the guy that assumes she is older, pursues her, sleeps with her, to find out she is underage? Situations like this make an absolute mockery of the real victims of abuse. Young people seem to think they grow up so quickly nowadays and we need to manage that accordingly.

There needs to be a lot more responsiblity and vigilance from government, companies (especially social media!!), parents and schools to educate young people about staying safe, relationships, about the implications of law etc. There are plenty of real cases of abuse out there, which truly are abhorent, but there are also many, which arise from situations as the above, and I think the courts and law needs to consider how to address these seperately.

It was commented on at the yard the other day that gone are the days of the 'pervy old man'. He was not an abuser, but someone who would make the odd inappropriate remark, and didn't mind eyeing up women, but would never dream of abuse or the like. We had one, our farrier. He was absolutely harmless but very friendly, a total joker and called every his 'beauty' or 'honeychild'. Even from a young kid that was our nicknames, including the 70 year old owner of the yard. If I were a 14 year old on a yard nowadays, he would be labelled a pervert or someone who has his eye on young girls, potentially grooming them....
 
_GG_ said:
In terms of the "victim", part of me would like to see this looked at carefully and where there was no doubt about the innocence of the accused and deception of the so called victim, naming should be an option. People should not be allowed to get away with causing so much disruption.
Click to expand...

Erm, they Aren't....

''The UK police have similar guidelines, published in 2011, although each force has its own version. The guidelines are supposed to protect women and children, but the prosecutions have continued. There were 35 prosecutions of women for lying about rape in a 17 month period''

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ave-to-face-her-victim-in-court-29733885.html

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10531308.Cwmbran_woman_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/

http://m.worcesternews.co.uk/news/national/news/11258508.Rape_accuser_faces_jail_for_lying/

It's so difficult to get this right though - here's a sickening story about a woman who spent 2 years in jail after been raped 3 times by a stalker and consequently accused of lying and wasting police time. Turns out she was telling the truth.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/lisa-longstaff/rape-victims-prosecuted-for-false-rape-allegations

To routinely name accusers whose's cases have not resulted in a rape conviction would prevent pretty much anyone reporting a rape ever again. And effectively leave rapists do behave however they wish, with impunity.
 
smokey said:
I get that absolutely gg, and I do agree that everything should be done to ensure that real victims do come forward, and that they get justice. I guess I was just trying to show the flip side of that argument. As I said, our system is seriously flawed. I wish I had the answer, as there doesn't seem to be a way around it. Other than not naming anyone involved until a conviction is achieved.
i agree, we cant go about naming every victim where there is no conviction. I think educating young women in particular about the consequences of a false accusation for the accused is something to consider. Perhaps discourage the ones who simply regret their actions the night before from crying 'rape', and making them understand that they do real victims a great disservice.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think we've all said the same thing in this thread earlier on :)

misskk88 said:
I think people do need to be more vigilant and I think it is a very sad world we live in where young people and children are taken advantage of... It isn't something that is new though- you only have to look to the churches for abuse, to celebrities, to schools, and childrens homes- all of which happened years and years ago but is only now coming to light. I think the other sectors will be rocked by claims in the future as people become less scared to report it- and that may well include well known names from the equine industry.

But I agree with Smokey in many ways as I also do think that nowadays many people are so paranoid that they will claim abuse or harrassment when it is not necessarily. What about also young people (both men and women) which push social boundaries or claim to be older than they are? I was SHOCKED when a young girl at the yard showed me a photo of her friend on social media- she was stood in a seductive pose, in her underwear, face full of make up and photo available for all to access and view through her profile. SHE WAS 14!! She claimed to be 20 on all her social media accounts- so what about the guy that assumes she is older, pursues her, sleeps with her, to find out she is underage? Situations like this make an absolute mockery of the real victims of abuse. Young people seem to think they grow up so quickly nowadays and we need to manage that accordingly.

There needs to be a lot more responsiblity and vigilance from government, companies (especially social media!!), parents and schools to educate young people about staying safe, relationships, about the implications of law etc. There are plenty of real cases of abuse out there, which truly are abhorent, but there are also many, which arise from situations as the above, and I think the courts and law needs to consider how to address these seperately.

It was commented on at the yard the other day that gone are the days of the 'pervy old man'. He was not an abuser, but someone who would make the odd inappropriate remark, and didn't mind eyeing up women, but would never dream of abuse or the like. We had one, our farrier. He was absolutely harmless but very friendly, a total joker and called every his 'beauty' or 'honeychild'. Even from a young kid that was our nicknames, including the 70 year old owner of the yard. If I were a 14 year old on a yard nowadays, he would be labelled a pervert or someone who has his eye on young girls, potentially grooming them....
Click to expand...

I have a friend on facebook who has a 7yr old son. He is a very physucally active kid, great. She takes lots of pictures and posts them, fine. She posted a picture of him last week where he had pulled down his shorts to just about cover himself down below and was shirtless, showing off his 6 pack. This was a pool shot as well and honestly it concerned me enough to message his mum. I have known her my whole life and I just said, "none of my business really, but I just wanted to let you know that when you post pictures on facebook, you no longer have any rights over how that image is used or shared. The picture of your son today will be available to anyone who wants it and can be shared on any website, anywhere in the world for anyone to view. Just wanted you to know in case you didn't already".

I wanted to spell it out for her, but didn't think that would be right. She messaged back and was horrified. You can't be too careful.

A friends daughter took a really seductive selfie and shared it on facebook when she was 12. She lost facebook for a year and now is only allowed it in the living room with her parents there.

It genuinely scares me to see how some young, really young kids dress and pose nowadays.
 
lastchancer said:
Erm, they Aren't....

''The UK police have similar guidelines, published in 2011, although each force has its own version. The guidelines are supposed to protect women and children, but the prosecutions have continued. There were 35 prosecutions of women for lying about rape in a 17 month period''

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ave-to-face-her-victim-in-court-29733885.html

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10531308.Cwmbran_woman_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/

http://m.worcesternews.co.uk/news/national/news/11258508.Rape_accuser_faces_jail_for_lying/

It's so difficult to get this right though - here's a sickening story about a woman who spent 2 years in jail after been raped 3 times by a stalker and consequently accused of lying and wasting police time. Turns out she was telling the truth.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/lisa-longstaff/rape-victims-prosecuted-for-false-rape-allegations

To routinely name accusers whose's cases have not resulted in a rape conviction would prevent pretty much anyone reporting a rape ever again. And effectively leave rapists do behave however they wish, with impunity.
Click to expand...

Totally agree....I have said the very same thing as your last sentence myself in this thread, a few times I think. My message throughout has been that it must be a very difficult balancing act. I know liars have been convicted, but the comment of mine that you have quoted was in response to a post about naming and shaming the "victim" where there is no eventual conviction. So I was just saying that I think it needs looking at carefully as there should be no doubt of someone deceit if you are going to name a victim as having lied.
 
_GG_ said:
I have a friend on facebook who has a 7yr old son. He is a very physucally active kid, great. She takes lots of pictures and posts them, fine. She posted a picture of him last week where he had pulled down his shorts to just about cover himself down below and was shirtless, showing off his 6 pack. This was a pool shot as well and honestly it concerned me enough to message his mum. I have known her my whole life and I just said, "none of my business really, but I just wanted to let you know that when you post pictures on facebook, you no longer have any rights over how that image is used or shared. The picture of your son today will be available to anyone who wants it and can be shared on any website, anywhere in the world for anyone to view. Just wanted you to know in case you didn't already".

I wanted to spell it out for her, but didn't think that would be right. She messaged back and was horrified. You can't be too careful.

A friends daughter took a really seductive selfie and shared it on facebook when she was 12. She lost facebook for a year and now is only allowed it in the living room with her parents there.

It genuinely scares me to see how some young, really young kids dress and pose nowadays.
Click to expand...

I wish people were more aware of the rights that are given to fb when photo's are uploaded, there was a case in our local paper about innocent pic's of kids that were digitally altered and put on some nonce website. Facebook is very dangerous in so many ways.
 
lastchancer said:
I wish people were more aware of the rights that are given to fb when photo's are uploaded, there was a case in our local paper about innocent pic's of kids that were digitally altered and put on some nonce website. Facebook is very dangerous in so many ways.
Click to expand...

It really is. There was a thread on here in the last week or two about someone being told off by a family member for having shared a photo of a niece or nephew. Point it...a photo can only be shared if you post it in the first place.
 
_GG_ said:
A friends daughter took a really seductive selfie and shared it on facebook when she was 12. She lost facebook for a year and now is only allowed it in the living room with her parents there.
Responsible parenting! I think not enough people do this kind of thing now or are that interested in their childs online lives. I also think that schools/parents do not work together enough for the benefit of the child. Schools blame parents, parents blame schools, government blames anyone but itself.. It really needs a total over haul because quite clearly the laws there to protect are not working, but neither is the education of our children.

As an example my parents were clueless about computers and internet when I was a 13. I set it up, I installed everything, I used it, whereas they did not even know where the on button was! Luckily I was a sensible kid and used it for talking to friends and watching stupid childish videos... but even that now leads you to material a kid shouldn't be viewing through 'suggested' or 'you might want to view' options. When it comes to technology the generational gap between parent and child is bigger than ever and that in itself causes issues. It is unfiltered, unmoderated and those who are out to cause harm can hide behind a screen, while kids can hide their online actvitity from parents.

Sorry I am totally off the OP's original viewpoint here- but just another side of the coin in what is a very hard debate and topic to tackle effectively.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
When it comes to the kids posting inappropriate photos on Facebook and the like, that is down to parenting. I strongly believe that parenting in this country has gone seriously down hill and that we are starting to see the effects of it. I'm all for children's rights, however with rights come responsibilities and that seems to have been forgotten. I remember hearing on the radio about a young lad who sadly died from bloody poisoning following a piercing, the consensus was that it was that the schools should be educating kids on the risks when in fact it is down to parents. If parents were to educate their children, "this is not normal, if this happens come and tell me" etc (the pants rule) then fewer children in theory should be at risk. Although considering the huge shock over RH then this will obviously not be infallible. I'm not a parent but when I come into contact with children - usually a friends - then I treat them as small adults, I give them options and explain what would happen for each choice and let them make their own minds up, this then teaches them very early on about the consequences of their actions. Whilst children should be children, babying them does not help them as when they hit their teens they are still naive in some respects and don't understand that unfortunately, at times, the world is a dangerous place.
 
misskk88 said:
_GG_ said:
A friends daughter took a really seductive selfie and shared it on facebook when she was 12. She lost facebook for a year and now is only allowed it in the living room with her parents there.
Responsible parenting! I think not enough people do this kind of thing now or are that interested in their childs online lives. I also think that schools/parents do not work together enough for the benefit of the child. Schools blame parents, parents blame schools, government blames anyone but itself.. It really needs a total over haul because quite clearly the laws there to protect are not working, but neither is the education of our children.

As an example my parents were clueless about computers and internet when I was a 13. I set it up, I installed everything, I used it, whereas they did not even know where the on button was! Luckily I was a sensible kid and used it for talking to friends and watching stupid childish videos... but even that now leads you to material a kid shouldn't be viewing through 'suggested' or 'you might want to view' options. When it comes to technology the generational gap between parent and child is bigger than ever and that in itself causes issues. It is unfiltered, unmoderated and those who are out to cause harm can hide behind a screen, while kids can hide their online actvitity from parents.

Sorry I am totally off the OP's original viewpoint here- but just another side of the coin in what is a very hard debate and topic to tackle effectively.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we've got a little off topic.

On topic then...I remember lots of flirty sillyness as a kid with old farmers and a few dealers, but never anything physical or really bad. Just a little inuendo and I'd be worried about a child that couldn't tell the difference between innocent jesting and serious grooming. This is where education is key.

One of the women in the Jimmy Saville case had her bottom patted by him in a room full of people and she called it sexual abuse and said that she has never fully gotten over the humiliation of it. I personally find that to be extremely OTT and almost belittling of the far more serious offences he committed against others. I'm not saying it shouldn't have upset her or that he shouldn't be in trouble for doing it...but a pat on the bum should not be something that affects you for the rest of your life. She blamed it for the eventual break up of her marriage and failure to ever be happy. I just find that hard to swallow.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
_GG_ said:
misskk88 said:
_GG_ said:
A friends daughter took a really seductive selfie and shared it on facebook when she was 12. She lost facebook for a year and now is only allowed it in the living room with her parents there.

Yeah, we've got a little off topic.

On topic then...I remember lots of flirty sillyness as a kid with old farmers and a few dealers, but never anything physical or really bad. Just a little inuendo and I'd be worried about a child that couldn't tell the difference between innocent jesting and serious grooming. This is where education is key.

One of the women in the Jimmy Saville case had her bottom patted by him in a room full of people and she called it sexual abuse and said that she has never fully gotten over the humiliation of it. I personally find that to be extremely OTT and almost belittling of the far more serious offences he committed against others. I'm not saying it shouldn't have upset her or that he shouldn't be in trouble for doing it...but a pat on the bum should not be something that affects you for the rest of your life. She blamed it for the eventual break up of her marriage and failure to ever be happy. I just find that hard to swallow.
Click to expand...

completely agree with you there gg, bit OTT. Certainly not on the same scale as some of the awful crimes he committed. That smacks of jumping on the bandwagon.
i hadn't read the whole thread, and realise that a lot of the points you had made, I repeated. Its a complicated subject, but one that should be simplified where it can, in fairness to all involved. At least until a conviction is achieved.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
smokey said:
_GG_ said:
misskk88 said:
completely agree with you there gg, bit OTT. Certainly not on the same scale as some of the awful crimes he committed. That smacks of jumping on the bandwagon.
i hadn't read the whole thread, and realise that a lot of the points you had made, I repeated. Its a complicated subject, but one that should be simplified where it can, in fairness to all involved. At least until a conviction is achieved.
Click to expand...

Yep, yep and yep!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
with regard to tarring all men with the same brush. My Husband has been a professional riding instructor all his life - some 30 yrs in the industry at riding schools. He moved away from the place he worked to live with me and has since found it vary hard to get a job. when he went to the job center and said he was an experienced and qualified riding instructor they said "oh you won't get work like that round here - your a man and that job involves touching children no one will touch you with a barge pole" the only jobs they suggested he go for was call center work (where apparently its OK to be a man!)? But that kind of attitude is terrible - I was really angry....
 
Blythe Spirit said:
with regard to tarring all men with the same brush. My Husband has been a professional riding instructor all his life - some 30 yrs in the industry at riding schools. He moved away from the place he worked to live with me and has since found it vary hard to get a job. when he went to the job center and said he was an experienced and qualified riding instructor they said "oh you won't get work like that round here - your a man and that job involves touching children no one will touch you with a barge pole" the only jobs they suggested he go for was call center work (where apparently its OK to be a man!)? But that kind of attitude is terrible - I was really angry....
Click to expand...

What an ignorant attitude from the job center, guys work in all areas of teaching, nursing, and care. Unbelievable that someone paid to help should be that dismissive, he should write to the manager of the jobshop. Probably a waste of time though, I remember the careers advice service at school was singularly unhelpful for anyone who wanted something other than factory, clerical or army work.
 
Kat said:
I think this thread is really sad and this kind of attitude will drive genuine men and boys out of the sport.

It is possible for men to be around women and girls entirely innocently you know!
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

There's also a huge difference between someone being a 'bit of a perv' & a sex offender. Thankfully I don't know any of the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top