Starpeve Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Pippy, I am enheartened by your similar observations when I was in fact expecting a raft of criticism for my post. It is so wrong, isn't it? And who profits? The legal teams, and them alone. The flak I have copped for supporting my friend when OBVIOUSLY where there is smoke there is fire was a lesson in itself. In actual fact, the only reason my friend was offered the deal was due to a conversation I had with his lawyer, in which I demonstrated(anectodally?) that I could demonstrate errors in the timeline used by the prosecution. This involved me incriminating myself in illicit drug use( only grass) and was relatively trivial, yet had the described effect. Which tells me that they knew how tenuous their case was. So many arseholes, so few bullets. And yes, I think solicitors is an appropriate name for the f*****s. Prostitutes by profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's interesting to note that in North America, the term "solicitor" refers to someone who canvasses homes and businesses trying to make some sort of deal for goods or services. They are annoying and usually unwelcome. There are signs everywhere that state "No Solicitors". In this modern age school kids are not taught what a solicitor is, so they happily knock at my door. When I point at the sign they either ask me what a solicitor is or tell me they aren't soliciting, just selling magazine subscriptions so they can go to Cancun, because the nearly 70% of my property taxes that goes to the schools just doesn't stretch far enough to get the little angels a week on the beach. Jehovahs Witnessii also freely knock, they have told me that what they are doing is far more than soliciting, it is Gods Work. When the politicians (rarely any more) go door to door they also knock away, they have let me know that local politics is vital, and far more than soliciting. Having a No Solicitors plaque is exactly the same as not having a No Solicitors plaque. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starpeve Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Weeeell, as long as it's Gog's work, eh? "We're on a mission from God... " Blues Brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EastEnder Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 "How's about that, then?" As for the legal profession in general, always remember that the government has unlimited resources and manpower to throw at any case. The defendant is usually stuck with a court-appointed low-life attorney who'll fart, pick his nose and doze off in court — just as the judge does... OK; apologies to FretPlay for going off at a tangent again... When I was an undergrad in Edinburgh my favourite haunt was a very old pub called (appropriately) "The Jolly Judge". One evening I overheard a group of barristards discussing their cases (as they shouldn't) and one said - and I promise you all I'm not making this up; "Of course we knew he was innocent.......but we had enough circumstantial on him to 'prove' to the jury he was guilty! Haw! Haw! Haw!...." 'Cupid Stunts' as Kenny Everett would have said. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 In my suburban southern California paradise... I'm sorry to say my only recollection of your particular Southern California paradise is a place we drove by couple times a day, out past where the atvs went up hills, called Cheeky Monkey. The other was a bar downtown, fairly big, and completely responsible for my lack of recollection of your particular Southern California paradise. This was 15 years ago, I'm sure all the names have changed. Oh, and a place that sold Cigars and Speedos. I kid you not. I went in for a smoke exactly once. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Picture the cell door closing and Rolf Harris collapses on the floor in tears...... Suddenly the voice from the bunk above bursts into song "did you think I would leave you crying, when there's room on my bunk for two" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanHenry Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 This whole Operation Yewtree thing shows up serious and worrying possibility's. It seems to me that anyone can be going about their business, then out of the blue, someone can come along and accuses you of molesting them 30 or 40 years previously. How can anyone be expected to account for their movements or whereabouts after that length of time? Why was it not brought up at the time? One witness in the Jimmy Savile investigation was a Hospital porter at where Savile did his voluntary work, who claimed that he thought it strange that Savile wanted the key to the children's ward in the middle of the night! If he had any reservations about the situation and did nothing about it at the time then this represents a gross dereliction of duty. There's no point in proffering this information twenty years later. My local Member of Parliament was taken to court for allegedly raping a younger man (he is openly gay). When the police couldn't find enough evidence they press ganged other associates of the M.P to give evidence against him, trying to get them to say that he'd sexually assaulted them. Non of them wanted to make those claims! He was found not guilty but the guy has used all his life's savings on his defence. As a former teacher myself, how am I to know if an ex student with some kind of mental issues is going to come forward and make an accusation? I could end up being dragged out of a care home for the elderly! It strikes me that it's one persons word against another (30 or 40 years later), and when it's someone rich or famous, other "victims" come crawling out of the wood work. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 When I asked my wife she said she couldn't have it hanging there any longer knowing what he had done. I guess your wife is entitled to her opinion. I don't know how widespread that opinion would be. Lots of artists are not exactly saints. I'm not familiar with Harris's work. From a brief search, he looks to be quite an accomplished artist. Art is art. I probably wouldn't have taken the print down. Well, unless it was a self-portrait of the dude, which I wouldn't have been crazy about anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 I guess your wife is entitled to her opinion. I don't know how widespread that opinion would be. Lots of artists are not exactly saints. I'm not familiar with Harris's work. From a brief search, he looks to be quite an accomplished artist. Art is art. I probably wouldn't have taken the print down. Well, unless it was a self-portrait of the dude, which I wouldn't have been crazy about anyway. I guess there is 'economy of scale' here to a certain extent. My wife wants to burn it but I don't so as with all these domestic things a deal is done and it's under the stairs. However were it a Caravaggio worth millions and you suddenly discovered he was a murderer, which he was, what do you do then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Hello! Without knowing much about His case...what if, it turns out to be that He was falsely accused? His art will cost huge sums. :D Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr faustus Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 There is an interesting article about this on the BBC's website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28129274. The art critic basically argues that you should keep it if you like it. But, according to the art critic, they are atrocious paintings that only sold for such sums because of his celebrity status. I'd say (not the article) that if the value of the painting and the reason for holding on to it is because of his celebrity status then they should be gotten rid of, as it's just that status that has been tainted by the guilty verdict. But, I suspect everyone's feelings on that score are different. The responses from the people who own something of his seem to be consistent in that they feel "uncomfortable" or "weird" displaying his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I have the feeling that someone wants to spread it as a fact, that His paintings lost their values due to the verdict. Then, suddenly all of them will appear in one person`s collection... "Rotschild and Waterloo"-case. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie123 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 My wife bought a Rolf Harris print a couple of years ago. It is a hand signed small limited edition print in a fine frame and has hung in our living room until recently I discovered it was no longer there. When I asked my wife she said she couldn't have it hanging there any longer knowing what he had done. This got me thinking, if you had a guitar that was owned by someone famous or a named model would you stop playing it if the they were in court for a crime of any kind and if you decided to sell it would the notoriety put it's value we or down? Food for thought! i think the chance of owning a guitar that belonged to a famous person is very slim never mind that they comited a serious crime like rolf harris but if say a famous guitarist had a signature copy of there guitar made and it was on the market to purchase for example say a guitarist like say jimi hendrix and you gst a signature hendrix strat then it came out that he had done the same as rolf harris. would i sell this copy of his strat my answer is dont be silly of course not why would you .just because they did what they did makes no difference in there guitar and even more so for a copied version . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 There is an interesting article about this on the BBC's website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28129274. The art critic basically argues that you should keep it if you like it. But, according to the art critic, they are atrocious paintings that only sold for such sums because of his celebrity status. I'd say (not the article) that if the value of the painting and the reason for holding on to it is because of his celebrity status then they should be gotten rid of, as it's just that status that has been tainted by the guilty verdict. But, I suspect everyone's feelings on that score are different. The responses from the people who own something of his seem to be consistent in that they feel "uncomfortable" or "weird" displaying his work. The value of anything is only what someone is prepared to pay for it. The most famous picture of all is the Mona Lisa, it was once a forgotten painting in the Louvre but in the early 1900s it was stolen and then recovered. The theft become big news world wide and everyone who visited Paris wanted to see it. The rest as they say is history. As to my painting I guess E Bay awaits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 In a sense, I think this is a matter that broadly speaking is a matter of "politics." Obviously that's nothing to do with operation of government, but rather one's perception of the direction of culture that is a blanket sort of "politics" regardless. My guess is that the response to the print will be determined overall by that sort of politics. I can't forget a case I was close to in a professional role in which I walked into a "child molestation by a school teacher" court trial and it seemed reminiscent of something out of a movie. One side of the main courtroom aisle were supporters of the man, the other side was filled with those who would have approved lynching prior to court action. The bulk of the testimony indicated serious questions whether the guy was guilty of anything contrary to the applicable law. The jury found the guy "not guilty" of all but one lesser charge that still was a felony and ensured he'd never teach school anywhere again. The only conclusion I and attorney and journalist friends could reach was that the jury was certain the guy was innocent, but wanted to keep him from children forever as a registered sex offender "just in case" they were otherwise wrong. BTW, that's a case where the judge, defense and prosecution all thanked me for my even-handed work. But it was criticized from outside the system because I didn't call for hanging or nomination of sainthood. That's why I call it "politics." Oh - and I really like Wagner's music, especially the Liebestod - and frankly I don't care if anyone thinks that makes me somehow "racist" or not. In fact, in a sense I consider that Wagner's use of violin work behind and supporting a contrary melodic theme as forecasting how the B3 would be used in a lotta blues bands. <grin> m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starpeve Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 As always,M, a beacon of knowledge and experience , from which you seem to have a deep well to draw from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Star... naaaah... I'm just older than most dirt. <grin> m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 To fill in some of the background to this story for members outside the UK, Rolf Harris is one of a string of show business people who have been brought to court for similar offences, some found guilty some acquitted. The cat is out of the bag now and there is talk of missing papers in parliament naming MPs going back to the eighties. But where will it end, a friend of mine told me she had her bum squeezed by a celebrity during a photo shoot some thirty years ago. It always makes me laugh when I see him now on TV, a very mature man. I don't suppose she will sue him but you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.