TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

From a New York Times article, 1993 (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/03/books ... gewanted=2) :

Today many psychotherapists assume that everything significant that happens to us is imprinted somewhere in there, or maybe filed away in a dusty drawer (a metaphor for those of us who came of age before computers). Yet this view is increasingly at odds with that held by most academic psychologists. Researchers who study memory and the brain are discovering the brain's capacity to construct and invent reality from the information it processes. Their studies support what poets and novelists have always known: that memory is not a fixed thing, with its own special place or file drawer in the brain. It is a process that is constantly being reinvented. A "memory" consists of fragments of the event, subsequent discussions and reading, other people's recollections and suggestions, and, perhaps most of all, present beliefs about the past.

Thus, in the laboratory, the eminent memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus and her associates at the University of Washington have been able to inject false memories into people's minds by the mechanism of suggestion ("Remember when you were lost in that shopping mall at the age of 5?"). Similarly, the Canadian psychologist Nicholas P. Spanos and his team at Carleton University in Ottawa have created false memories of previous events and even of previous lives (at least in volunteers who believe in reincarnation). These scientists are finding that in the formation of a memory, current beliefs about past events are more important than what actually happened. This is why an event that seemed trivial when we were children can be reinterpreted and given new emotional significance when we are adults -- and vice versa.

I suggest the Libertarian View article is read again in the light of the above paragraphs: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... able-doubt

None of my posts, nor the aforementioned article, take a view regarding the guilt or innocence of Rolf Harris. Rather, they cast serious doubt on the reliability of 'evidence' which amounts to nothing more than allegations and unreliable memories, not to mention false accusations. But, as I indicated earlier, if such witness evidence is impressive enough a jury can be swayed.

As for Harris's lack of loud and immediate protestations of innocence confirming his guilt, this is such ludicrous nonsense as to hardly merit a response. Suffice it to say that he is being advised and guided by his lawyers, and even an early appeal is not something to be rushed into. It can often take years for cases to be re-examined, as can be seen from examples on this (US) site: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I never said a lack of an immediate protest, appeal is a sign of guilt, I said no appeal is a sign of guilt, and that would be true, no innocent man would spent time rotting in prison on the advice of his lawyer, he would want the allegations tested and tested again.

As said anyone would believes there's nothing wrong with rape porn is 'not' worthy of an opinion on this matter, here's a summary of just one days evidence that shows that article for what it is, and shows these allegations that RF was rightly convicted over are a lot more serious and true than some seem to think, could come with more just can't be bothered.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ro ... er-3540055

That article proves absolutely nothing of any real value. There is no proof of what age the person was when the sexual encounters happened, other than one person's word against another, there is no proof or witnesses to the sexual assaults and the whole post shows that something happened, but we're not really sure when, where or how they happened.

Hardly proof enough to send a bloke to prison, in my eyes.

I have no intention of defending Harris, he probably is a dirty pervert for all I know, but I feel his right to a fair trial should be defended. From what I have seen of the trial, I can't actually see anything conclusive enough to send him to prison.

So, Forever, you’re saying that, because an appeal has not yet been made, only a few days after the court case, this is a full admission of guilt. Sorry Forever, but that’s bollocks, for reasons I’ve already explained.

I’ve just taken another look at that Libertarian View article in defence of rape porn. Much as I abhor pornography, I have to admit that, far from being the rant of an aggrieved pornographer, the article is in fact a cogently argued piece backed up with the results of academic research.

The Rolf Harris article, too, is perfectly well-argued, and the author obviously had access, though not necessarily first-hand, to the evidence presented in court.

These articles, even if one does not agree with them, are sensibly written and are far more preferable than demagoguery which appeals to the prejudices and passions of the mob. The mob is easily swayed; witness the hanging trees of the American South when innocent men were hung by lynch mobs solely as the result of a false accusation from a southern belle.

The Mirror article about the accusation from the friend of Harris’s daughter, as cambgull says, proves nothing. There have been a number of recorded cases where a young woman has made false allegations of rape or abuse merely because she was embarrassed or ashamed about an earlier consensual sexual encounter, or to cover up her cheating on a partner or boy friend.

In the Rolf Harris case, the young woman with a drink problem could easily have made the accusation against Harris as an excuse for her drinking. I believe it’s called blame-shifting. Harris could indeed have been telling the truth when he said she was over eighteen at the time. He may be guilty. He may be innocent. We don’t know. But what is certain is that all that was presented to the court were accusations and the flimsiest of evidence from biased witnesses.

Which brings us to the real point of this thread: the opportunities such cases, and the way they are dealt with by the powers-that-be, give to false accusers with their own agendas, along with the potential for injustice. As the final comment in the Rolf Harris article says: ‘I really don’t know (and nor do you!) whether Rolf Harris is an evil paedophile monster or an 84 year old national treasure who has been ruined by greedy/malicious opportunists. I do know that if all it takes to send a man to prison and ruin his life is an uncorroborated accusation from 45 years ago, then no man is safe under British justice.’

Gullscorer wrote:So, Forever, you’re saying that, because an appeal has not yet been made, only a few days after the court case, this is a full admission of guilt. Sorry Forever, but that’s bollocks, for reasons I’ve already explained.

No that's not what I'm saying at all, go back and read the point I'm making, you'll see it's very different. And on the case of the woman who's now a drunk, thanks to dirty Rolf, if that was a false allegation , why did RF write a letter apologising to the girls father, so a sexual encounter did happen clearly, and if the girl was 18, why apologise, that's consensual sex between to adults, RF would have nothing to apologise for, unless, because the truth of the matter, the girl wasn't 18.

Also featured in that days evidence, was an allegation made by one of Rolfs victims directly by her brother to RF, accusing him of abusing her, his answer 'it takes two to tango' Hang on a minute here, what does that tell us, he's just been accused of abusing a minor and says that, sorry the actions of a guilty man.

Forever, regarding an appeal, here’s what you posted: ’cant see any appeal launched yet, and if there isn't one, a full a admission of guilt in my book.’ I rest my case.

Regarding Harris’s letter to that young woman’s father, you could just as easily ask why a paedophile, knowing he had committed an offence, would incriminate himself by writing an apology for such offence.

He would more probably have been aplogising simply for having the relationship with the teenage adult woman, not something most of us would approve of given the huge age gap, but, being over eighteen, would not be a criminal offence.

You have linked to a Mirror report to support your argument. This one provides further illumination: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ro ... nd-3535014

(Note how at one point it refers to his accuser as the ‘victim’, perhaps inadvertently revealing the author’s own prejudice and showing how easily the mass of readership can be influenced?)

This report gives a recap of Harris’s testimony: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ro ... an-3611829

The point of all this is that, as the Libertarian View article (http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... able-doubt) points out, people cannot be found guilty of crimes unless the evidence proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the witness evidence presented at this trial is unbiased, independent and objective, and none of the evidence corroborates anything. Whether or not you believe Harris to be guilty or innocent, the more one examines the case the more unsafe the conviction appears.

Completely agreed GS.

Unfortunately, the opinions of people like F'rev are what has sent Harris to prison. If we keep up with this viewpoints of, 'look at all these horrible things he's been accused of! He looks a bit weird too. He must be guilty! Dirty paedo.' then we'll just descend into an anarchistic society of an accusation meaning a conviction, and we all know that would just be awful.

I hope he appeals and I hope he wins. Not because I believe he is innocent or guilty, but that I don't believe he has been convicted of anything which has actually been proven.

It's going to get worse. The way things are going, an accusation will indeed mean an automatic conviction. Police would lose the power to unilaterally drop rape investigations, even if they think there is insufficient evidence to proceed, under Labour plans to revolutionise the way sexual crimes are handled. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 88173.html

At present there is no obligation for police to refer cases to the prosecutors before a decision is made to drop a case. But under proposals put forward by the shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry, officers would have to get the agreement of the Crown Prosecution Service to end an investigation.

Mrs Thornberry hopes the plan would end the 'culture of rape' and sexual violence being an 'optional crime to investigate' and help end a 'culture of defeatism' where the authorities believe there will never be a large number of rape convictions because they are 'too difficult' to prosecute.

You can see the feminist ideology permeating through all this, ignoring the increasing number of false accusations and treating these and other cases where there is no evidence or the circumstances are ambiguous as if they were all actual rapes, and broadening the definitions of rape and abuse down to absurd levels. A sense of balance is required. Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of man-hating feminism is taking us step by step into totalitarianism.

This is what they do. Find men who, over the decades, have been in contact with thousands of women. At least 1% of these women will be psychopaths, 2% will have BPD, 5% will be malicious, 15% will be mercenary etc - and rely on 40 years of man-hating abuse hysteria to have distorted all their memories and all their attitudes. Trawl through these women and tell them they can get thousands in compensation if they make abuse allegations. Ensure that their identities are kept secret and that they are not prosecuted for lying. (Even if they were OK with their memories of consensual events, persuade them that this was abuse).

Use the comparatively infinite resources of the state and hundreds of police officers to collude with potential accusers in order to manufacture some credible-sounding stories relating to sexual matters from 40 years ago - any details surrounding which can never be accurately remembered. Use these expert resources to coach the accusers with regard to what they should say and how they should present themselves in court. (Call it "supporting victims through the trial process".) And then prosecute; knowing full well that the defendant's life will be messed up even if totally innocent .

(Please also take full note of the fact that it is NOT the job of the police to seek out any evidence for the defence; except in so far as it might seriously thwart their chances of a conviction).

Hide the accusers behind screens in the courtroom. Do not allow highly relevant evidence to be tested. Do not allow defendants to question their accusers directly. Advise the jury to ignore certain types evidence for the defence but advise them to take into account the same type of evidence for the prosecution. (e.g. "She was absolutely fine the following morning," should not count for the defence, but "She was tearful the following morning," should count for the prosecution.)

Lie to the public at every opportunity in order to hide the fact that the vast majority of abuse allegations - over 80% - cannot be substantiated and encourage the media to maintain the hysteria.

Also notice that crimes of violence and serious anti-social behaviours are a constant threat to all of us, and yet the UK's Crown Prosecution Service and the police expend many millions on trying to dredge up mountains of flaky evidence on old men who are not a threat to anybody and whose alleged crimes were mostly trivial. In short, these witch-hunts have little to do with justice or with protecting citizens. http://www.angryharry.com/Sex-Crazed-Justice-System.htm

Gullscorer wrote:Forever, regarding an appeal, here’s what you posted: ’cant see any appeal launched yet, and if there isn't one, a full a admission of guilt in my book.’ I rest my case.

Agreed that's what I did say, and here's your response; As for Harris's lack of loud and immediate protestations of innocence confirming his guilt, this is such ludicrous nonsense as to hardly merit a response.

The important bit of my statement is highlighted in red, and important bit of yours in blue, do you not see a difference now, what I said wasn't anything do with and immediate appeal, its to do with an appeal full stop, you've no doubt seen the rough justice programmes, no innocent man will sit in prison for 2.5 years with out making a huge noise.

Gullscorer wrote:This is what they do. Find men who, over the decades, have been in contact with thousands of women. At least 1% of these women will be psychopaths, 2% will have BPD, 5% will be malicious, 15% will be mercenary etc - and rely on 40 years of man-hating abuse hysteria to have distorted all their memories and all their attitudes. Trawl through these women and tell them they can get thousands in compensation if they make abuse allegations. Ensure that their identities are kept secret and that they are not prosecuted for lying. (Even if they were OK with their memories of consensual events, persuade them that this was abuse).

Use the comparatively infinite resources of the state and hundreds of police officers to collude with potential accusers in order to manufacture some credible-sounding stories relating to sexual matters from 40 years ago - any details surrounding which can never be accurately remembered. Use these expert resources to coach the accusers with regard to what they should say and how they should present themselves in court. (Call it "supporting victims through the trial process".) And then prosecute; knowing full well that the defendant's life will be messed up even if totally innocent .

(Please also take full note of the fact that it is NOT the job of the police to seek out any evidence for the defence; except in so far as it might seriously thwart their chances of a conviction).

Hide the accusers behind screens in the courtroom. Do not allow highly relevant evidence to be tested. Do not allow defendants to question their accusers directly. Advise the jury to ignore certain types evidence for the defence but advise them to take into account the same type of evidence for the prosecution. (e.g. "She was absolutely fine the following morning," should not count for the defence, but "She was tearful the following morning," should count for the prosecution.)

Lie to the public at every opportunity in order to hide the fact that the vast majority of abuse allegations - over 80% - cannot be substantiated and encourage the media to maintain the hysteria.

Also notice that crimes of violence and serious anti-social behaviours are a constant threat to all of us, and yet the UK's Crown Prosecution Service and the police expend many millions on trying to dredge up mountains of flaky evidence on old men who are not a threat to anybody and whose alleged crimes were mostly trivial. In short, these witch-hunts have little to do with justice or with protecting citizens. http://www.angryharry.com/Sex-Crazed-Justice-System.htm

Glad you posted this, you wanted to know, have questioned in the past about the legitimacy and why it sometimes takes so long to people for alleged victims to come forward.

Well there you've just answered your question, it such a dreadful attitude displayed above that's a part of the reason, the post is here now for to read and judge for themselves.

cambgull wrote:Completely agreed GS.

Unfortunately, the opinions of people like F'rev are what has sent Harris to prison. If we keep up with this viewpoints of, 'look at all these horrible things he's been accused of! He looks a bit weird too. He must be guilty! Dirty paedo.' then we'll just descend into an anarchistic society of an accusation meaning a conviction, and we all know that would just be awful.

I hope he appeals and I hope he wins. Not because I believe he is innocent or guilty, but that I don't believe he has been convicted of anything which has actually been proven.

Sorry Camb please don't get offended here, but do try to credit me with some intelligence, I am not a member of the pitchfork brigade, I don't subscribe to kneejerk reactions either. I do fully and genuinely believe RF is a guilty man, and I'm sound in the knowledge he's where he belongs .

Think it's totally ridiculous to suggest such an attitude put RF in prison, if this attitude existed why did both Micheal Le Vell and Bill Roache both get found not guilty on all counts, because it doesn't so please credit jurors with intelligence as well, Rf was interviewed by the Police, they didn't believe him, the C.P.S didn't appear to believe him either, all the evidence, was subjected to full cross examination , the jurors would have been witness to the behaviour witness' and many others things that only those in court would see, strangely enough they didn't believe RF either.

That's the thing about allegations of sex crimes, they often happen in private, even with in marriage, really if ever is there witness' even DNA evidence isn't proof of a crime, it is the most difficult thing to prove.

On the subject of Harris, here's some video's, fully except they prove nothing, but certainly do not look for Harris;

A joke really ?

Here's one with his close friend Saville; safely leave in my capable hands

close friends, Rolf didn't know what saville was up to.

Interesting

False allegations, hoping he appeals and wins, sure ?

forevertufc wrote: Agreed that's what I did say, and here's your response; As for Harris's lack of loud and immediate protestations of innocence confirming his guilt, this is such ludicrous nonsense as to hardly merit a response.
The important bit of my statement is highlighted in red, and important bit of yours in blue, do you not see a difference now, what I said wasn't anything do with and immediate appeal, its to do with an appeal full stop, you've no doubt seen the rough justice programmes, no innocent man will sit in prison for 2.5 years with out making a huge noise.

Well Forever, given that the wheels of justice (the mills of the gods) grind slowly, your phrase "can't see any appeal launched yet" is certainly imbued with a sense of immediacy in the timescale of recent events. Rolf Harris has not been in prison for 2.5 weeks! In any case, I'm sure you can now understand how easy it is for the same short piece of text to be seen as having more than one meaning, depending upon who writes or reads it, in much the same way as Rolf Harris's letter has been..!! Can't you..??

Unlike victims of sexual abuse who are almost universally distressed, hurt, and sad, one of Harris’s alleged victims exhibited no such non-verbal clues following the alleged incident. In fact she wrote in her personal diary that she had ‘great day’ while on holiday with Harris and his family. That's pretty clear and unambiguous, yet so-called experts would have us believe that victims often stay quiet about their bad experiences. That may be true in some cases, but it's also true that some people stay quiet about their bad behaviour and even try to shift the blame by making false accusations. You can see how difficult it can be to weigh the evidence, particularly when it proves nothing one way or the other. Which is why different juries can arrive at different verdicts.

As for your other posts, your response to the Angry Harry article which I quoted says and achieves nothing except perhaps to reveal your own stance on the issues, as does your last post, which in my view actually proves Cambgull’s point. For many people, sexual abuse is one of those subjects which stir up primitive emotions making it impossible to remain detached, dispassionate and open-minded. But I should hate to think that your mind-set is such that, in the absence of any independent corroborating evidence, you accept without question an accuser’s version of events, but reject out of hand an equally valid and plausible explanation by the defendant.

There’s no doubt that you do fully and genuinely believe Rolf Harris is a guilty man. I honestly don't know. Some of his admitted sexual activities, which are not criminal, I still find odious and abhorrent, but they do not prove his guilt as to the charges against him. Having looked closely at the case, I fully and genuinely believe that the conviction is unsafe. But the ‘knowledge’ in which you feel so secure is, to others, little more than the result of innuendo, rumour, guilt by association, the prejudice and passions of the mob, and a climate of hysteria where mere accusations are accepted as proof of incontrovertible truths.

We all detest and abhor rape, paedophilia, violence and abuse, but all this recent focus on sexual abuse investigations is a witch-hunt if ever there was one. A climate in which accusations alone are sufficient to condemn and convict is not one which is conducive to the proper pursuit of justice.

One final point. Already in some places there are calls for the burden of proof to be placed on defendants in such cases, and for a defendant’s assertion of his right to silence to be viewed in a negative light: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11291109 If some people have their way, the accused will be considered guilty until proven innocent. How can that be justice?

And as I said in my post on the ‘Assaults on our Freedoms’ thread, it should be remembered that the right of silence is a right that is sacrosanct to our freedoms. It wasn't designed to shelter the guilty, but the innocent, and that's what most people (including politicians) don't get. Too often the innocent think they can just tell the truth and the police will drop the charges. That's not how it works, as any criminal defence lawyer will tell you. This right was originally designed to protect innocent people who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

Current trends are horrifying, and are further signs that western civilisation is now in a process of disintegration.

forevertufc wrote:Sorry Camb please don't get offended here, but do try to credit me with some intelligence, I am not a member of the pitchfork brigade, I don't subscribe to kneejerk reactions either. I do fully and genuinely believe RF is a guilty man, and I'm sound in the knowledge he's where he belongs .

Think it's totally ridiculous to suggest such an attitude put RF in prison, if this attitude existed why did both Micheal Le Vell and Bill Roache both get found not guilty on all counts, because it doesn't so please credit jurors with intelligence as well, Rf was interviewed by the Police, they didn't believe him, the C.P.S didn't appear to believe him either, all the evidence, was subjected to full cross examination , the jurors would have been witness to the behaviour witness' and many others things that only those in court would see, strangely enough they didn't believe RF either.

I'm sure you do believe it, I just haven't seen any conclusive proof that he's guilty of any of the charges, hence why I came to the opinion that seeing the same information and coming to a conclusion that he is guilty beyond any doubt would mean there has to be quite a large amount of bias against the subject or the defendant himself.

Michael Le Vell and Bill Roache were acquitted for two main reasons.

Firstly, they weren't working with children. As far as I'm aware, the only person to be found guilty without working with children is Max Clifford. When you work with children, there is this extra danger level when you get accusations like these, so it's automatically assumed that they've done something to all of these kids. Put simply, if you work with kids and get accused of being a paedophile, then you're guilty until proven innocent. Harris couldn't adequately prove his innocence, hence he was found guilty.

Secondly, and the most important reason why they were both acquitted. The accusations were absolute bullshit. In the case of Le Vell, there were inconsistencies in the story, the daughter couldn't get her facts right and supposedly kept flashing micro expression smiles whenever she recanted evidence, as if she was smug that people were believing her rubbish. The whole case probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the mother.

As for Roache, well there just wasn't really anything at all. One of the accusers says there was information the Jury didn't hear. Well then that's what your lawyer is for. Get him to bring new evidence to the trial. Oh wait, you don't actually have any evidence, do you? Now she's going to take him to a civil court where she can attempt to get lots of money for without actually having him punished. Brilliant. I remember now, that was the whole point of the case wasn't it? Money!