[Closed] Oh Rolf 🙁

[i]What truly baffles me is how Harris's wife and daughter where there to support him throughout his trial. [/i]

He's clearly very capable of manipulating people and he's had a lot of time to do that with his close family.

I think also, for some families of people like this, they *want* to believe that the person they've loved and invested their lives in isn't the person that it's claimed.

If someone accused your partner of a crime like this (and you genuinely had no idea if it had happened or not) who would you side with - the accuser who you may feel has other motives or your partner. If you went with the former and the prosecution didn't go ahead or they were found not guilty how would you feel. He's slightly unusual in that he admitted some of the things he was accused of but others have denied them all.

Seems like I am the only one who agrees with Edukator then ..

All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.

I do find it hard to believe that there can be such a difference between some people's public persona and what they're really like.

While I do have some sympathy with Edukator's point of view as memory is a very fragile and easily corrupted thing, if 12 people all found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt there must be something in it other than some mis-remembered past meetings.

I can only think that most people of a wide spectrum of ages up to the point of him being arrested only thought well of Rolf and it must have been very hard for them to convict him. Without being there we'll never know.

A sad day, whatever actually happened.

All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.

Nothing "alleged" about it. He's been found guilty.

He's guilty as charged by the British Judicial system. Agree or don't it makes no difference. The fact is he's a loathsome human being as, it appears were many of his cohorts. If this affects your fond memories of him as a child that's just tough. If he had his hand down your pants when you were 7 you might not remember him in such a glowing light. I just wonder how many more are waiting to be uncovered. The Bryn Estyn homes enquiry gets a bit too close to powerful people to ever get a satisfactory outcome.

All seems like a witch hunt to me.

How is prosecuting a pedophile like hunting witches ?

Are pedophiles a much maligned group of people who are misunderstood and unfairly persecuted by society ?

It's not a witch hunt - that's going after someone with no interest in whether or not they've done wrong. And so what if it was 20/30/40 years ago. This sort of thing can screw people up for decades - see the friend of his daughter who has been telling psychiatrists/counsellor about this abuse for the last 15 years. That was a factor in the jury assessing the truthfulness of her evidence, and whether she'd just jumped on the supposed post-Saville bandwagon as some imply. Clearly not the case once all the evidence was put before the court. Common sense says there must be a balance struck between how long ago a crime occurred and whether or not it is prosecuted, but the severity of the incident is the issue there, the effect on the victim being one factor for consideration.

Notions of what constitutes sexual assault, sexual harassment, consensual sex, pimping and many other crimes have changed.

Thankfully you are still there to tell us all what is acceptable to do with a 7 year old and what is not.
Its a fairly insensitive subject to troll on tbh

It was illegal then it is illegal now and you really need to find a better hobby.

Views have changed. That's why you won't find anyone getting done for saying 'nice tits' to a lass in a pub in 1980. That's why you'll almost certainly not see anyone getting done for slapping someone's bottom in the student union bar 20 years ago.

In the same way you won't see anyone getting prosecuted for calling someone a ni**er 10 years ago, but the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence were prosecuted and convicted almost 20 years after they killed him. It's the severity of the crime that justifies whether or not a prosecution is appropriate many years later. Slap on the arse, no, groping and having sex with children, yes. Ok there will be grey areas, but I'm struggling to see how anyone objects to a predatory serial sex offender facing justice even years after his offending.

[i]but the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence were prosecuted and convicted almost 20 years after they killed him[/i]

surely this was only because the police didn't bother investigating at the time rather than some delay in reporting it?

Society has moved on, thank goodness, but these things were always nasty and always illegal, and as someone who has to help mop up the pieces and deal with victims, it is good to see this result.

Mindless trolling by people who think that all crimes are equivalent, and murder should be forgiven if you don't go after apple scrumpers. 😕

surely this was only because the police didn't bother investigating at the time rather than some delay in reporting it?

I'm struggling to see how anyone objects to a predatory serial sex offender facing justice even years after his offending.

Strange isn't it ? Perhaps it's because Rolf Harris looks like a funny and jovial version of Colonel Saunders with an excitable and amusing demeanor, and if he looked a little more like how a pervert should look like it would be more acceptable.

I mean it's almost like saying that anyone could be a pervert/child molester, even people who seem very nice. How scarey is that ?

google Owen Oyston if you think a grey beard guarantees innocence.Impeach the Colonel now...

RH always made my flesh creep on TV. Only met him once.

I think the reason there is even a debate here (there shouldn't be) is because the way the media has reported the case now, following the verdict, isn't particularly nuanced. He language used is hyperbole to some degree. If you were a child victim of rape by jimmy savile you might feel aggrieved if the media wasn't able to differentiate between what happeed to you and the teenage girl (or the 7/8 year old) that had her bottom fondled.

The debate isn't whether what Harris did was or wasn't utterly reprehensible because clearly it is. It's about whether what he did was as bad as what Savile did, to use a comparison. Savile raped children. Harris sexually assaulted them and in all but 11 of the 12 counts of that charge, the assulat was groping of a teenage, is post pubescent) girl.

Harris should get a custodial sentence in my view. But it shouldn't be as long as what Savile would/should have got and the language we use to describe these two should not be the same. There are degrees of wrong doing and I think the media is ignoring that in favour of headlines.

Enough of this sensible discussion, I've got some art to sell.. any takers?

[url= http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/dreweatts/catalogue-id-2864602/lot-14800501 ]http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/dreweatts/catalogue-id-2864602/lot-14800501[/url] - Mr J Savile by Mr R Harris.

wwaswas, perhaps not a great example because as you say, different reasons. My point was simply that the more severe the crime, the longer period of time a prosecution remains reasonable/in the public interest.

The debate isn't whether what Harris did was or wasn't utterly reprehensible because clearly it is. It's about whether what he did was as bad as what Savile did, to use a comparison.

That news to me. I haven't heard the debate about whether what Harris did was as bad as Savile. Such a debate is completely inappropriate and unhelpful imo.

What's most concerning is the current massive consumption/production of paedophile imagery and acts in the UK, deviant sexual predators don't have an obvious image, you would be shocked by just how many there are in your local areas who on the face of it appear to be ' normal' family men as well as others.
A ' troll' on this thread made some surprising statements regarding Spain and age of consent etc etc etc and I know in other foreign countries what is accepted there is abhorrent to some of us in the UK. Just shows how some folks minds work and what's acceptable and unacceptable/ justifiable to them.
The human race can be a sick, sad, bad group of animals, thankfully for every bad one there is a good one in existence!

It's not about the shape of a face (an assumption often reinforced by the movies, IMO - eg: Billy-Bob Thornton [i]looks[/i] "hard"), but the shape of a mind. Which remains hidden from most. In these cases, deliberately, by disguise.

All seems like a witch hunt to me.

Is that based on you having been in court every day to hear all the evidence, and the witnesses from both sides being tested by cross-examination?

The human race can be a sick, sad, bad group of animals, thankfully for every bad one there is a good one in existence!

That seems rather an arbitrary statement. Where is the bad line drawn, where the good one? Is it really a 1:1 ratio or are there orders of magnitude more bad than good or vice versa? I think it's going to take some research.

Variable, depending on philosophical outlook and the current state of human nature.
Which of course varies due to circumstance.
🙂

All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.

You're saying that without any basis to say that and when the limitation period for civil assault claims relating to the sexual assaults proven would have passed decades ago. You pillock.

Our minds are free, what we do with our bodies is limited by social rules and laws. We learn to manage our desires within the framework of the society we live in. Societies are variable with differing values, when viewed from the inside you can perhaps label them "good, bad, sick, sad" or whatever, doing that to another society you're not a member of is judgmental. I'm doing it, I find the lack of prescription laws in the UK unfair because I'm used to living in a society with prescription laws. Other are judging 60s events through modern eyes.

When Lewis and Clarke crossed the US they found the Amerindian willingness to lend wives strange but fitted in. The Amerindians mocked the explorers because they ate dogs. Two different but functional worlds.

In the 60s the headmaster of my junior school spent much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee. Headmasters these days never touch kids and if they really need to, find a find a member of the appropriate sex to deal with the child and make sure there are witnesses. The headmaster of Madame's school never shuts his office door. A teacher in the sixties would give an upset child a comforting hug/pat/hair ruffle, these days kids have to be left to cry - Madame says the female secretary still dares to give girls hug when they are sent to her. We are moving towards a zero contact society because everyone assumes a friendly gesture will be taken the wrong way and land them in trouble.

Society evolves, it changes, to label the changes good or bad depends entirely on your point of view. My views are based on what I've lived and seen

We are moving towards a zero contact society because everyone assumes a friendly gesture will be taken the wrong way and land them in trouble.

We're not. (No doubt, you'll keep saying it and if that's what you need to do to convince yourself, you go and knock yerself out dude.)

Edukator I admire you for ploughing an individual furrow but cant see what your post has got to do with child molestation. In fact I find your first paragraph a bit disturbing.

News of the sentances just in. They are going to remove his testicles and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail.

In other news Oscar Pistorius is going to have coaching lessons to change his voice from a whining little bitch to a mans voice.

A teacher in the sixties would give an upset child a comforting hug/pat/hair ruffle, these days kids have to be left to cry

That [i]may[/i] be the case in whatever specific example you are referring to.

But it certainly isn't a general rule.

hora -
News of the sentances just in. They are going to remove his testicles and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail.

In other news Oscar Pistorius is going to have coaching lessons to change his voice from a whining little bitch to a mans voice.

He got convicted of 12 offences.
Does anyone actually believe those are all the atrocities a pedophile who happens to be friends with Saville has comitted?
I'm sure many were too scared to come forward and more will come to light in the future.

I recall the sixties was brutal and abusive with corporal punishment the norm....IIRC it led to folk growing up free of empathy and craving attention

Pondo you strike me as abit [i]vanilla[/i] at best

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/01/rolf-harris-convicted-silence-sexual-abuse-disturbed?CMP=fb_gu

Edukator.

Some forms of morality have almost always been considered universally absolute.
For very good reasons.
Sexual contact with children is damaging to the child, physically and mentally, even in societies where it is not illegal.

Attempting to justify any sexual assault by an adult on any child is unacceptable.
Always.

There appear to be plenty of people on here who cannot grasp this simple concept, going by previous threads on the subject.
I'll link to a few later.

I find it quite disturbing, tbh.

In the 60s the headmaster of my junior school spent much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee.

The only purpose I can think of for recalling this bizarre alleged behaviour is to suggest that in the 1960s it was perfectly acceptable for a headmaster to spend much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee.

Headmasters spending their day bouncing little girls on their knees was not acceptable in the 1960s, and if your argument relies on people believing bollocks like that then I suggest you just give up.

hora -
Pondo you strike me as abit vanilla at best

[i]Does that mean anything to anyone else?[/i]

does anything Hora types? 😆

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.itv.com/news/2014-07-01/footage-shows-rolf-harris-joking-with-jimmy-savile-in-1992/ ]Plenty more to come I'm afraid[/url]

If someone calls you 'abit Vanilla' it means your insipid/abit bland dear.

Don't know if there's anything to be drawn from it, or whether it's reflective of the number and complexity of the charges, but the jury deliberated for well over thirty hours, which suggests it wasn't that clear cut to them.

Gotta say, fair play to the women who came forward, can't imagine how hard that must have been. There was a woman on Jeremy Vine today, she'd taken her daughter to see him (the woman owned one of his paintings) - she had to ask her daughter today whether anything had happened, which must be a pretty horrid conversation to have to contemplate...

hora -
If someone calls you 'abit Vanilla' it means your insipid/abit bland dear.

Technically, I believe it's known as the 'Stretford Defence'.
😉

I think there are two Horas. The thoroughly pleasant chap I met and the one who posts on here.
I wonder if by chance they could be related?

Back ontopic, it always gets my back up when the comment 'it was a different era' is bandied around. Usually around parenting, to hide bad parents as though bad parenting was the norm. When it wasn't. I remember friends parents being good/heads screwed on and others who were complete selfish idiots.

A different era when applied to the gropers in the media - so that was all blokes then, it was the norm to grab a stranger womans arse or physically casually assault a female work colleague?

Rusty there are hora twins? 😯

Some forms of morality have almost always been considered universally absolute.
For very good reasons.
Sexual contact with children is damaging to the child, physically and mentally, even in societies where it is not illegal.

Attempting to justify any sexual assault by an adult on any child is unacceptable.
Always.

There appear to be plenty of people on here who cannot grasp this simple concept, going by previous threads on the subject.
I'll link to a few later.

I find it quite disturbing, tbh.

I once made a comment about the rock stars of the era in question on a different thread - Ronnie Wood etc as well as John Peel, I think were the discussion points. At the time I was attempting to express what I perceived to be the attitude held by some at that time. It was immediately jumped on by Bunnyhop and, iirc, you, too - expressed in very similar terms. When folk like you take the moral high ground, for whatever reason, and deliberately misconstrue other folks musings and opinions, it makes for an unpleasant discussion, almost like you have to defend yourself, and once you’ve been branded, that’s that.

The attitude in the sixties was different to nowadays and while I agree that all molestation and unwanted sexual attention is wrong, I understand that, as a result of those attitudes, victims were unable to come forward because it simply wasn’t believed or accepted by the majority of British society at the time, [i]in my opinion[/i]. Kids should be seen and not heard etc. All total bollocks but it did happen. To discuss these issues while denying backward attitudes existed and influenced the behaviour of victims and confidants alike is just being unrealistic.

And before you pipe up about me talking shit, I was on the receiving end of abuse that went unpunished and unnoticed. As a victim I always felt guilty; as if it was my fault. That’s what certain types of folk are good at - making you feel wrong no matter what the reality.

Ronnie Woods/John Peel- are unique just like Townsend. Lets not forget those who did wrong were outed so you can see it wasn't the norm. Otherwise no one would out them. Plus the vast majority (rest) of the stars aren't outed- so either the massive majority are normal or there is one or two more stars who may pop up out of the woodwork.

What bothers me is the likes of Ronnie Woods- can blatantly woo an underaged girl as hes got the blessing of her mother and yet his band members etc etc etc aren't screaming the obvious at him. Just 'I dont want owt to do with that mess'?

yet his band members etc etc etc aren't screaming the obvious at him. Just 'I dont want owt to do with that mess'?

Kind of the attitude I was referring to. Back then it was, as you put it..."No * way am I getting involved with that!" where as nowadays it's.."No * way am I letting someone get away with that!"

It's never been acceptable but it's definitely been tolerated.

teasel.

Firstly:
Everything I say is just an opinion.
Just like anyone else.

Secondly:
I'll reread that thread (the one about the teacher?).
If I've been a judgemental prick, then I unreservedly apologise.

Thirdly:
I don't think that condemning sexual contact between adults and children could be considered to be 'getting on a high horse'.

Lastly:
I agree that attitudes toward the discussion of such assault and the repercussionds thereof have changed.
I've never said otherwise.
I assumed we had all taken that as read.

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.
Which is what I said previously.

Don't know if there's anything to be drawn from it, or whether it's reflective of the number and complexity of the charges, but the jury deliberated for well over thirty hours, which suggests it wasn't that clear cut to them.

Don't know if you've served on a jury, but I have, and 30 hours doesn't seem like an especially long time, particularly as they have a duty to consider all the evidence, some of which was from a long time ago, and contradictory (e.g. the "I've never been to Cambridge" - "Oh look here's a video of you in Cambridge" stuff). Doesn't mean they didn't all think "guilty" from the start, more that they have made an effort to discharge their duties properly.

Thirdly:
I don't think that condemning sexual contact between adults and children could be considered to be 'getting on a high horse'.

Lastly:
I agree that attitudes toward the discussion of such assault and the repercussionds thereof have changed.
I've never said otherwise.
I assumed we had all taken that as read.

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.

Dunno, I get the feeling that the attitude towards celebrities (rock stars spring to mind, a Radio 1 DJ would be similar) and teenage groupies was different back in the 70s, there was more acceptance of a "stud" type figure.

With smaller children it was never acceptable, but it was far more likely to lead to a response similar to the Catholic church - get the offender out of here and away from [i]our[/i] kids, [i]their[/i] kids are someone else's problem.

Don't know if you've served on a jury, but I have, and 30 hours doesn't seem like an especially long time

Can there be a prosecution without a complaint?

In terms of rockstars Bill Wyman went to the police voluntarily at the beginning of yewtree and was told he had no case to answer as there had been no complaint.

Smith herself confirmed publicly three years ago that she was 14 when they first had sex, and a decade earlier her older sister had called for him to be prosecuted.

“I went to the police and I went to the public prosecutor and said, 'Do you want to talk to me? Do you want to meet up with me, or anything like that?’ and I got a message back, 'No’,” he said.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rolling-stones/9962776/Ex-Rolling-Stone-Bill-Wyman-reveals-he-approached-police-regarding-sex-claims.html ]Telegraph[/url]

I'd have thought you'd been reading my posts long enough to know they are the whole truth when it comes to my personal experience, Ernie. I've had a look at friendsreunited to see how others remember that headmaster. One states " Mr ****** A churchwarden and respected member of the community. I shall only say I am glad I am a boy".

I'm not challenging whether the alleged behaviour occurred, I'm challenging you apparent suggestion that such behaviour would have been considered acceptable in the 1960s.

Edukator - what you're describing is 'Everybody knew, nobody said' not that if it had been reported to the police by multiple victims that no action would have been taken because it was seen as morally and legally acceptable.

It seems to me Edukator considers it acceptable in this time.
Nice.

All the kids saw it happening, many reported it back to their parents and nobody lifted a finger. My sister attended the same school and my parents simply told her to keep away from him. Unacceptable behaviour but tolerated, see Teasel's comments. Homosexual grooming was tolerated in the cycling club I was a member of in the 70s (I wasn't the one doing the grooming).

The only possible reason a headmaster could want to spend his day bouncing little girls on his knee would be for sexual gratification.

The suggestion that in the 1960s had parents/adults been told of the behaviour they would have simply dismissed it as a perk of the job is quite ludicrous.

EDIT : "my parents simply told her to keep away from him" ffs. No teacher ever touched me or made physical contact with me at any time in my school years, beyond with a cane, and I can't recall any other pupil having a different experience.

[i]"Homosexual grooming was tolerated in the cycling club I was a member of in the 70s"[/i]

Again, ffs. "Homosexual grooming" was not tolerated in the 1970s. I knew kids in my school in Peckham who boasted that they engaged in the despicable act of "queer bashing".

Gutted if it's true gutted for him if it's not - No winners in this one.

If true - the victims are the winners..!

It seems to me Edukator considers it acceptable in this time.
Nice.

In case you haven't understood my position:

1/ I'm in favour of "prescription", a legal limit to the time after a crime one can be prosecuted for it. I don't believe a crime can be safely prosecuted 30-40 years after the events on witness statements. If you want to know more, do some research on the justification for prescription in French law.

2/ Rolf has been prosecuted because the British system allows it. I am not convinced the conviction is safe or fair but he has been found guilty by the court so will be sentenced. Given that he poses little or no threat to society I think a suspended sentence would be the most appropriate.

3/ Sex crime against children is unacceptable. What legally constitutes sex crime has evolved over the years. Corporal punishment is no longer legal in schools which has removed much of the ambiguity that existed in the 60s and 70s. What was allowed or tolerated then is plain illegal now. However we shouldn't apply 2014 standards to cases concerning events that took place back then. Headmasters that took pleasure in spanking little girls bums (as school rules allowed, parents were then happy with, and the law permitted) should not be dragged through the courts 40 years later. And nor IMO should Rolf.

Those are just my opinions guys, I'm not trolling.

You truly do live in a world of your own Edukator.

You calling me a liar is getting tiresome, Ernie. I was there, I was the one being groomed. As a streetwise 15-year-old I made it clear the first kiss wasn't welcome and that was the end of it.

He has a different point of view. Other nearby European neighbours have similar different views. You and I may think he is wrong, but constantly going over the same old points seems a waste of bandwidth to me.

Wait...so you didn't tolerate it?

Is confuse.

😛

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.
Which is what I said previously.

I wasn't really referring to the legalities, more the attitude and as I wrote on the other page, it's been tolerated in the past. Mogrim's first paragraph on the other page puts it better than I could.

The suggestion that in the 1960s had parents/adults been told of the behaviour they would have simply dismissed it as a perk of the job is quite ludicrous.

A friend of mine had an experience at the age of twelve. She was a quick developer, so to write, and that was all it took for the perpetrator to think it okay.

"C'mon, you know you want it".

When she told someone in a position of authority she was told all stable girls go through the same thing. This was 1984. So, you may well be correct; it might not have happened in the sixties but it sure as **** happened in the eighties...

You calling me a liar is getting tiresome, Ernie. I was there, I was the one being groomed.

And I find your continual misrepresentation of what I've said tiresome. "Homosexual grooming" was not tolerated in the 1970s, whatever you might claim. I have no idea whether or not you were molested as a child, and I have never at any time given an opinion on the matter. Troll on.

We're at anecdotal evidence now are we?

I see...

Edukator its an interesting life you have had from a sexually abusive head, grooming in a cycling club, racial abuse in leicester because you were white

You must tell us about your adventures in europe when you left....were they as atypical?

1/ I'm in favour of "prescription",

3/ Sex crime against children is unacceptable.

Homosexual grooming was most definitely tolerated in that cycling club in the 70s, Ernie, I was there, I was groomed and I soon realised that the vast majority of members knew what was happening but kept quiet. If the majority knew but neither said nor did anything they "tolerated" homosexual grooming. At the time I wasn't too bothered by the sexual advances which I simply rejected, I was however annoyed that I hadn't been warned by other members, especially a slightly older one who'd been targeted before me

You persist in accusing me of lying about what happened in one cycling club in the 1970S, Ernie, when you weren't there but I was. I invite every member that reads this to read both our posts on this thread (especially this page). I an in no way misrepresenting what you say but you are definitely saying a fact I state is untrue. You are accusing me of lying.

You persist in accusing me of lying about what happened in one cycling club in the 1970S

I persist in calling you a liar when you suggest that homosexual grooming was tolerated or considered acceptable in the 1970s. I have no idea what happened in your cycling club, I wasn't there.

If what happened in your cycling club in the 1970s wasn't typical of that era why are you mentioning it ?

Why do you not want to punish the sexual offender for his sexual offences?

I think the media shaming and being dragged through the court system has been punishment and rehabilitation enough. I don't think he is a threat to any young person given what he's gone through, and there can't be many people who don't know who he is and what he has done. I've already stated this is a previous post but as you asked... .

My life here has been really interesting, Junkyard. Some really great experiences. Some days it rains though, today it's raining so hard the satelite signal has gone and the ZDF coverage of the Switzerland-Argentina match is intermittent.

Ernie, read back, I have always given the context of a 70s cycling club. Please, please, please, read back. I have not referred to homosexual grooming in any other context.

This has to be one of your best Troll ever Edukator.
You against everybody.
What will you discuss next week, Necrophiliacs?
You'll be fapping all week after this one's done.

Character assassination from half a dozen posters because I think Rolf only deserves a suspended sentence. Four that have chipped in with similar views though - only to get character assassinated too.

Your last post says far more about you than it does me, Iolo, you wrote it.

Edukator - Troll

Ernie, read back, I have always given the context of a 70s cycling club. Please, please, please, read back. I have not referred to homosexual grooming in any other context.

Got you. You are not claiming that homosexual grooming was tolerated or considered acceptable in the 1970s in the wider society, just in your 1970s cycling club. Well I can't argue with that, I wasn't there - remember ?

So why are you mentioning it on this thread ? Was Rolf Harris in your cycling club ? Explain please.

Why a suspended sentence? The sentence is not only to protect the public, it's to punish - pour décourager les autres.

Ben and Ernie, could you both reread the thread, please. I've already covered both those points.

You think that being exposed as a sex offender is enough punishment?

Edukator - Troll

Ben and Ernie, could you both reread the thread, please.

Not a chance. So what's the connection with Rolf Harris and your cycling club ?

If you had read back you wouldn't have needed to ask that question, Ben. You posted less than a minute after I suggested you read back.

I think I've made all my views clear and provided adequate explanation.

.