Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:00 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Not Rolf
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:05 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
I'm pretty sure I heard on the news today he had just 'two' images that he has been charged over?

The sick members of our society (that reaches to the highest, untouchable echelons - fact!) don't have just 'two' images of children being abused, they have thousands!

Hard to believe the charges against Rolf can be substantiated but guess we'll just have to see...

...had some dealings with Jim Davidson myself in the past, and whilst being something of a hard task master, I always found him to be fair and honest. I wasn't surprised when he was singled out, but neither did I believe the charges against him.

Having also been on the wrong end of a malicious accusation of a similar nature I can whole heartedly confirm it is not a nice experience...

...and that was at the tail end of the 70's when the 'Gene Genie' was a somewhat less than fictional character!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not Rolf
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:13 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
Isaac_AG wrote:
I suppose it depends on the pics he had.

My mother's ex husband's friend was arrested for pictures he had. he was an artist with a 5 year old child who went to ballet and one day after a bath she was dancing naked, he thought it was so beautiful he took a few pics of her and then painted her from the photos, the painting was not explicit and he put it in an exhibition, someone complained, the police confiscated his painting searched his house and found the original photos and charged him with having illicit pictures of children. I think it was the CPS that decided that there was no case to answer, but for a time the man was absolutely distraught that his innocent picture taking and painting could have been seen as anything other than innocent.

Alison


I can appreciate what he went through; I took a photo' of my eight-year-old daughter in the bath for the same reason (lots of bubble bath, hardly any flesh...) and some jobsworth at the photo processing firm took it into their head to inform the Social Services, at a time when my six-year-old son was the subject of an 'at risk' investigation because a Social Worker noticed he had 'bruises on his legs...'

...while he was at a week long football camp!

You have to be very strong under those circumstances; it also helps if you happen to know one of the countries most eminent Child Psychologists!

Listening to the panel trying to rubbish his findings was almost amusing...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not Rolf
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:47 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11108
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
That does nothing but vindicate the actions of the social services.

Are they supposed to ignore concerns?

The images of concern would not be on the charge sheet were they not indicative of something.

Sorry to hear you were the innocent party suffering accusations Stevo, but think about the line being very thin and we should all expect scrutiny in the name of protection and justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not Rolf
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:47 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
It was the vigour with which they pursued such flimsy suspicions that was so scary, compared to the blatant incompetence demonstrated in so many hi-profile cases where every opportunity for intervention is ignored!

Even 20 years after the event it makes me angry to remember it...

...I'm just glad that my grown-up kids can be so blasé about it today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not Rolf
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:19 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
That Rolf's a wrong 'un.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group