No Rolf.... Sexual Court Case Equality

Its interesting they don't mention Rolf Harris....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25401024

Now, he's in court on some abhorrent charges, but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty, and guilty or not Rolf Harris was part of UK culture linking us to Australia for decades, one can't simply change the list of Aussies in the UK because one is in court...

This is a little like mentioning iconic German leaders and leaving Hitler out cus he was... well Hitler.

And I know mentioning Nazi's derails my point, it always will, but the case against Rolf Harris is still on going, his name is mud either until the end of time, if he goes down, or he's exonerated by being acquitted, either way we simply don't know at this moment... But the media stance, and the naming & shaming is interesting.

I don't believe that these court cases about kiddy fiddling and sexual charges against the likes of Harris, or DLT, or Bill Roache come up for no reason.  I think some are genuine, some are money grubbing and some are delusions seeking attention, but I think some of the cases where the accused are named & shamed before their day in court, like Michael LeVell, Jim Davidson & Fredie Star only for them to be found not guilty don't result in their names being restored.

Indeed I feel in the latter case where the accuser maybe found to be guilty of lying there should be a case against them and they should be named and shamed, its perhaps not as cut and dry as this, I personally have experience of a situation where two sisters were sexually assaulted from the ages of 3-5 to their early teens by their step-father and when it came to court the step-father was found not guilty, but you can see in those girls (well women now, they're both in their 30's and early 40's) the psychological shadow of the past and also the shadow that he got away with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24037910

I'm no legal expert, I do think I'm a bit of a common-sense expert, and so I think maybe total anonymity should be imposed, on the case, the persons and the press.  And breaking this before the conclusion of a case in court should be contempt of court.

Otherwise lives maybe ruined, both of real victims, to falsely accused defendants to real abusers and rapists.  (Of course the last case is fine, ruin them all, but the former two categories I think out weigh the latter in the current atmosphere of the press).

Dangerous Dogs

I have to say this ladies experience is similar to the problems I dealt with last year, having to tackle staffies attacking a neighbours dog and also the persistent straying of a dog from a rented property on our street.

The police in our area were totally in effective in the second case, but in the first the woman bitten in the scuffle with the dogs refused to press charges, they let that dog get away with attacking theirs unprovoked, now you can see the struggle these people had with that large dog in that report.

I was riding the back of such a dog, and at the time I'd punched, pulled and tried to control that animal, and I have a black belt in karate, my punches get attention.

My only options were to stick a screw driver into the things brain, or throttle it... I was reduced to strangling the thing to death.

As the owner of four dogs, one an older lab, and three young, small, dogs... if any of them were now attacked I'd simply have to kill the attacking dog, because these pitbulls and staffies are trophy dogs they're not under control, many times - like that one reported - they have no lead, no collar, or collars which can be slipped, and never any muzzle.  Because people, mostly - but not exclusively - young men are using them as weapons.

Because if two dogs are fighting and you intervene, and the dogs bite you, the law says its your fault, its not a dog attack, it was animal on animal... But that is such a shaded area, for a large dog attacking my little dog, my little dog is 3 kilos... a large dog would kill him... I'd have to kill that dog.  And I'm afraid to say what else I'd do to its owner with the grief.

But, I should not have to have that worry, people should self control their dogs, they should not be a burden on me for their life choices.  And if their life choice is stupid, like having these huge uncontrollable dogs, then the law and society should protect me, not reinforce their right to stupidity... The laws current stance smacks of being too softly softly touchy feely, and it leaves me for one feeling very exposed.

My Jedi Wife

My wife is starting a new job, and she's having those first day nerves, so much so she just said she's not going...

I've talked her around and sent her on her way, this is a common knee jerk reaction we all have, but unfortunately unlike most of us my wife has parents whom let her get away with this far too often as a child, and so she acts out now as an adult.

But, hey ho... What I'm worried about now is whether the wife figures out my pep talk I just gave her was from Master Yoda...

"I try" she said "I will try"...

Immediately, yes you guesses it, I hit her with... "There is no try, do or do not".

The resolution which washed over her face was worthy of the Jedi order.