It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roy Harper now faces child sex charges ...the police snapping at the heels of 70s rockers...

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Then and now:

This album cover was released in all it's full glory back in '69. Oddly, no one was arrested for this ghastly crime.


en.wikipedia.org...
The release of the album provoked controversy because the cover featured a topless pubescent girl, holding in her hands a silver space ship...

------------

Oh the horror!!

en.wikipedia.org...
"...many girls are potential band molls [...] About 20 girls a day come to our house. On Sunday, it averages 50. I'll give you a typical example of what happens. Last week a girl walked in and said, 'Right, boys who's going to make love to me first?' She used a rather more obscene expression than 'make love' [...] And only recently we were in a Victorian country town when five girls aged between 15 and 18 somehow got into our hotel room. They didn't say a word. They took their clothes off and said: 'Will you judge and see which one of us has got the best breasts?' "
—Jim Keays, from the Oz band "The Masters Apprentices" July 1968


edit on 10-12-2013 by starviego because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2013 by starviego because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Personally, I think it stinks.

I mean, yeh, Jimmy Savile, fair enough.

They had to make a big thing out of that...because it was a big thing.

But this is getting boring.

A never-ending chain reaction of contemptuous, paranoid, Victorian English prudishness.

Turn it in...

The most prudish nation on the planet that yet somehow manages also to be a nation of colossal perverts.

Ha.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 




IMO this has more to do with police-state fear-ism than any real criminal issue.


No it isn't, it's about people taking advantage of their 'celebrity' or positions of power and influence to manipulate and exploit impressionable young people to satisfy themselves contrary to the laws of both the UK and USA.

If you are ok with this then that is entirely up to you - personally I think that if any adult knowingly takes advantage of an under-age person then they should be prepared to pay the consequences, regardless of how long after the event.

I accept that values within society change with time and I accept that there are different types of sexual abuse of under-age children. But I don't believe we should just ignore these crimes just because they happened a few years ago or because they were 'rock god's' or some other sort of 'celebrity'.



Face it, being a rock star has certain perks. Does it ever!!


But they are just people the same as me and you, no better and no worse and they should be judged, governed and policed by exactly the same rules that you and I are.

Condoning it or simply turning a blind eye will only help perpetuate it.

reply to post by CranialSponge
 




It's considered to be one of the "perks" of being rich and famous.


And therein lies much of what is wrong with the world - acceptance of the excesses of those with money, power and influence.

reply to post by 8675309jenny
 




Again not to legitimize these guys, but I think they would do better focusing on the pre-pubescent kiddy fiddlers.


I can certainly understand, and to an extent agree, with those sentiments - but it's a bit like saying the police should concentrate on catching murderers rather than people who only commit violent assaults.

reply to post by CJCrawley
 




Personally, I think it stinks


Why?
He committed a crime, shouldn't he be punished?



I mean, yeh, Jimmy Savile, fair enough.
They had to make a big thing out of that...because it was a big thing.


Or was it deflection?



But this is getting boring.


Well don't read about it then....lots of things bore me, I just ignore them.



A never-ending chain reaction of contemptuous, paranoid, Victorian English prudishness.


Got to say many UK laws that are based on outdated and uninformed moral values really piss me off; prostitution, drugs etc - the abuse of under-age children isn't one of them.



The most prudish nation on the planet that yet somehow manages also to be a nation of colossal perverts.


Hardly 'the most prudish nation on the planet', plenty of nations have far more 'prudish' laws than the UK.
'Colossal perverts'? - there does seem to be a lot, but I'd hazard a guess and say not significantly more than other country's. Maybe we just like exposing them - again, deflection tactics? Let's face it, very few of those in real positions of power and influence seem to be exposed in any of these revelations.....and they are generally regarded to be heavily involved in such practices.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


Out of curiosity why did you black out the breasts of the girl on the Blind Faith album cover?



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I didn't; the link did. Which is a telling comment on the New Fear. We live in an age in which an 18yr old is arrested for having sex with his 16yr old girlfriend, and when a 15yr old girl has to register as a sex offender for 'sexting' a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend. Like everything else, human sexual expression is being pathologized and criminalized.

edit on 10-12-2013 by starviego because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 




I didn't; the link did. Which is a telling comment on the New Fear.


Apologies. I incorrectly assumed you had as uncensored pictures of the album cover are readily available all over the internet.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I just think it's an overreaction.

It's analogous to McCarthyism and the witch hunts.

It's mob mentality combined with prudery and a hypocritical holier-than-thou attitude.

And frankly, I can think of worse crimes, and more productive avenues for the police to pursue, than consensual sex between an adult and a minor that allegedly took place several decades ago, when the adult was famous and pursued with offers of casual sex by all kinds of attractive people of varying ages.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 



Hmm, prudery you say ?

Yes, I guess there are plenty of grown men who are more than happy to stick their 3rd appendage inside a pubescent girl who hasn't even finished developing breasts yet and most likely hasn't gotten her periods yet either... (what a great way to avoid knocking someone up, eh ?!).

Afterall, these "horny" tweens are throwing themselves at these guys anyways, right ?

Thus making it all perfectly okey dokey.

And besides, our justice system can only handle one crime at a time therefore we should only be concentrating on chasing after the "real" pedophiles... cause, you know... a "horny" 13 year old girl is just a bonus anyways, so no big deal.

Why waste the courts time on such silly matters ?




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 




We live in an age in which an 18yr old is arrested for having sex with his 16yr old girlfriend,....


Not in the UK where the age of consent in 16.
But I get your point and agree with it - it's ridiculous tarring a 17year old for having sex with someone who is 15 as a paedophile and to be fair I think in UK Law a certain amount of discretion is given in such cases.
But that shouldn't be seen as carte blanche for all 15 year olds to be viewed as fair game for adults.



.....and when a 15yr old girl has to register as a sex offender for 'sexting' a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend.


Absurd.

My mother was 15 when she fell pregnant with my older brother.
My Dad had just turned 17.
They are still very happily married after nearly 50 years of marriage and still act like teenagers sometimes when out in public together.

reply to post by CJCrawley
 




I just think it's an overreaction.


I don't - but I do think it's very possible that it's been carefully orchestrated so as to deflect from other people and issues.



It's mob mentality combined with prudery and a hypocritical holier-than-thou attitude.


Well, I don't think I could ever be accused of having a 'mob mentality' and I'm most definitely not a prude, not by any stretch of imagination. And whilst undoubtedly being prone to hypocrisy on the odd occasion I certainly haven't got a holier-than-thou attitude - but I do think that if any grown man takes advantage of his age, experience, wealth, celebrity or position to knowingly shag a 13 or 14 year old he should go to jail for a very long time.
Just my opinion.



And frankly, I can think of worse crimes,...


A moot point - do we cease pursuing burglars and petty thieves because there are terrorists and serial killers in our midst?


edit on 10/12/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



a pubescent girl who hasn't even finished developing breasts yet and most likely hasn't gotten her periods yet either


All supposition.

In this case, she might have looked like a 21 year old for all you and I know.

I mean, that's where we get the phrase 'jail bait' from...isn't it?

You know, under age girls creating the illusion that they are much older than they are?




Afterall, these "horny" tweens are throwing themselves at these guys anyways, right ?


I would think so, wouldn't you?

Have you ever come across the word 'groupie' before?




Thus making it all perfectly okey dokey.


I'm not sure it's "okey dokey" but it's consensual.

It's not like they've snatched a kid off the street and had sex with her against her will, is it?




And besides, our justice system can only handle one crime at a time therefore we should only be concentrating on chasing after the "real" pedophiles


I never hear about police chasing down someone who allegedly burgled a house in Wapping in 1978, or whatever.

Perhaps when I do, I wont have any grounds for complaining about the current witch hunt of feeble old men who allegedly had under age consensual sex back in the day.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


You know the guys in Led Zep did the same thing. They had a girl have sex with a shark. With the hundreda if not thousands of fans in their rooms partying each night. You know many of them were underage females. It was pure hedonism in the roxk scene back then. I doubt they werw pursuing the youngest I think they were just high and aurrounded by girls obsessed with them. Not an excuse by any means. As for Harper.. sounds more like he was seeking underage girls.

As others posted I bet this kind of thing happened a lot with the rockstars of the day.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



I do think that if any grown man takes advantage of his age, experience, wealth, celebrity or position to knowingly shag a 13 or 14 year old he should go to jail for a very long time.


Why if it's consensual?

Guilty of breaking the law, certainly.

I don't understand where this draconian attitude comes from as soon as sex rears its ugly head.

We all have sex! (Well, in my case, I have fond memories...)

Is a person under the legal age of consent unable to give consent? Of course not!

If a minor (under 16) chooses to have sex that's their business, as is their choice and age of partner.

They are guilty only of a technical breach of law, no better or worse in principle than if they drank alcohol.

If they are being manipulated or abused, that remains to be seen...but, of course, plenty of people are manipulated and abused in their relationships who are above the legal age of consent, so nothing cut and dried here.

Each case has to be examined on its own merits and I find this whole "paedo" thing, and "lock him up and throw the key away" automatic response to be irrational and scary.




do we cease pursuing burglars and petty thieves because there are terrorists and serial killers in our midst?


Obviously not, point taken.

But I find that certain crimes are pursued while others are ignored.

And it's not prioritised rationally.

Anything to do with sex will be assiduously pursued, you can rely on that.

But why?

Hence my point about prudery.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 




Why if it's consensual?


Because in the eyes of the law they are not 'mature' enough to be able to make a reasoned judgement on such matters.

If a 13 year old child accepted an offer of heroin would you be ok with it?

It may be consensual but it's not in the child's best interests and the adult should know that and should have enough self-restraint.

Some 13-14 year old's may indeed be 'mature' enough, but the vast majority most definitely aren't and they need to be protected.



I don't understand where this draconian attitude comes from as soon as sex rears its ugly head.


With regards to adults I agree entirely with you, the outdated, overly moralistic and repressive attitude to sex is mystifying......but it's another thing altogether when we are talking about children.
Yes, we should be more open and relaxed with them, sex is not something people should be ashamed of, quite the opposite.

But in these cases we are talking about grown adults who use their status and position to use and exploit children with little or no regard for the emotional and psychological stress and damage it can cause those children - that is completely unacceptable and they deserve to be punished.



We all have sex! (Well, in my case, I have fond memories...)


That got a smile out of me - I'm still doing ok, but.....



Is a person under the legal age of consent unable to give consent? Of course not!


But are they mature enough.
Offer many 13 year old children a cigarette and they'll consent to smoke it, but is it in their best interests? Are they able to make a reasoned and considered decision?



If a minor (under 16) chooses to have sex that's their business, as is their choice and age of partner.


No it's not, it's illegal.
If I choose to take drugs it's my choice, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's illegal.



Each case has to be examined on its own merits....


But it's almost impossible to legislate for 'each case to be examined on it's own merits'. That leads to inconsistency, confusion, different interpretations and is open to massive levels of abuse.
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

As I said previously the law does allow some level of leeway, a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old will be treat completely different by the judicial system than say a 30 year old would be if he was having sex with a 13 year old.



I find this whole "paedo" thing, and "lock him up and throw the key away" automatic response to be irrational and scary.


Can't say I agree with you there.

I have a daughter and watched her grow through puberty to reach womanhood free from any such thing.
But I had the worry and the uncertainty and I know how I would have reacted if she had been exploited, manipulated or abused by an adult.



....But I find that certain crimes are pursued while others are ignored.


Most definitely.....and I wonder how many children would Jimmy Saville et al been allowed to abuse if the victims had come from middle-class and affluent backgrounds rather than from broken homes and those in care?

Perhaps it would be more accurate and searching to ask why certain criminals are pursued while others are ignored?



Anything to do with sex will be assiduously pursued, you can rely on that.


Not necessarily, depends who is having sex and with whom, and perhaps even how.
You can guarantee that if Wayne Rooney is having regular sex with some run of the mill prostitute or Z-list celebrity it'll be headline news and result in a guaranteed police investigation.
If Charlie boy or any of the relatives are implicated in any sort goings-on with homeless rent boys then it will be covered up and some draconian banning order enforced.



Hence my point about prudery.


I find it sad that the Mary Whitehouse brigade still have so much influence in UK society.
The strange thing is I don't know anyone whose views they represent, as a rule the British people are not prudish.
So why their influence?
Just whose agenda are they serving?

Many current laws are based on a repressive moral code that are in fact damaging to society.

But the safety and well being of our children should not be compromised.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

On 5 February 2015 Harper was unanimously acquitted by a jury of indecently assaulting a 16 year old girl in 1980. The following day (6 February 2015), Harper was cleared of a second charge of indecent assault, and the jury at Worcester Crown Court was discharged after failing to reach verdicts on the remaining charges.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's great news.

Even if you're innocent, it must be hell to go through long drawn-out court proceedings like this.

I still believe you can't completely fairly judge a person by their actions in a different time and culture by the standards of the present time and culture.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

He had an album named stormcock and you guys are just now getting around to investigating this guy?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join