Harry Cook Charged With Seven Counts of Sexual Assault

Discussion in 'Karate' started by Kogusoku, May 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    Gary Glitter is a good example of how severe an individual can mess up not only the lives of their victims, but their own life.

    As jwt eluded to earlier there is potential income that can still be earnt while undertaking a custodial sentence. Maybe there is a greater potential for royalties from book sales than that of music.

    I have seen Gary Glitter in concert twice, both fantastic events. Full of glam, fancy dress, weird make up and platform boots (not me I hasten to add).
    Both concerts were at large venues and he really rocked the house. The thing is because concerts of this type are quite personal (as is music in general) there is no chance of him performing again. Radio will never want to be associated with him and his royalties will have stopped.
    I just wonder if the same is true of the likes of Harry Cook and his books. You may not see his stuff in Waterstones, but do you think there will still be internet sales?
  2. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    No , i think all sales will stop pretty much dead.
    It only took a couple of days for his wiki page to get updated , and there seem to be a number of threads on the subject now.
  3. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    So far as I am aware most of his books were only available directly from him. Sales came from word of mouth and positive reviews in magazines and the online community. Most of these were limited edition, but I agree with you that future sales are unlikely.
  4. John Paul Marti

    John Paul Marti Valued Member

    For the reason that those who have any of his books (like me) and quote them there will always be someone who says 'Harry Cook, isn't that the guy who....'
  5. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Michael Jackson?

    I thought about this, because I have his published works.

    And, from what I recall, the Beatles had a spell where the public dispised them and started to destroy their albums.
  6. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    Wasn't that after Lennon claimed they were bigger than Jesus ?
    Hardly the same.
  7. robertmap

    robertmap Valued Member

    Interesting point - because to SOME people that - 'taking the lords name in vain' or whatever - WOULD be a worse crime .... It could be interpreted as breaking one of the ten commandments... You know of course that there is no commandment about non-consensual sex per se....

    There is:
    'You shall not commit adultery' but that's not the issue in the Harry Cook case.

    and there is 'You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.' which might be stretched to include rape or sexual molestation .... but I don't know... never heard rape interpreted as a breach of that one...

    Another point is that people like heroes and hate it when heroes have 'feet of clay'... there is also an element of the witch hunt... a favourite quote (can't remember from where)

    Run Witch run,
    the good folk come to burn thee.
    Their keen enjoyment hid behind,
    their Gothic mask of duty.

    I won't buy anything (book, music, whatever) from someone whilst they are in prison - but once they are released and the law has thus decided that their debt to society has been paid - then I think that MAYBE that changes things...

    Of course there is a big difference between issues in which one is personally involved (or involved due to empathy caused perhaps by their own personal history or experiences) and ones to which a person is just a casual observer - I find that a number of people who comment on topics like these seem to assume that there should be some Universal Constant of morality or experience - there is no such thing.

    The lesson - if there is one is, I suggest - that we need to teach children that people in authority only have authority in a limited sense and that certain activities are not acceptable no matter if it is a teacher, instructor, police officer, religious figure, family member or whomever...
  8. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    So blasphemy is worse than molestering a underage person?
  9. Kogusoku

    Kogusoku 髭また伸びた! Supporter


    Most of the times I agree with your points of view, but in this case, you're being a bit of a prat, jumping at anything.
  10. Kogusoku

    Kogusoku 髭また伸びた! Supporter

    Umm, in a semantic way, it is; Harry Cook is married.

    He had an extra-marital affair (i.e. adultery) where he took advantage of his position, authority and knowledge of a minor for sexual gratification.

    Legally and morally he has lost his way all over.
  11. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    I know I let this go last time but .......


    I'd be interested in just what counselling you were doing.

    You're not showing any good attributes towards those affected by this guy's actions. Nor are accepting what some others here think, you are being judgemental towards some of us when we pick you up on something.

    You seem to lack the ability to not impose your judgement and prejudice on those here whom you feel are saying something that goes against your beliefs.

    I'd wonder about the level of supervision you received whilst doing this work with the troubled youths and if you were a counsellor you'll know what I mean by that.
  12. kravi2

    kravi2 Valued Member

    Actually, you are wrong. The 10 commandments are simply the first 10 of 613 (some are, of course, only applicable to men or women, rather than both). Rape is a definite no-no.

  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    As Harry is not Jewish then no, there is not 613 there is only 10
  14. kravi2

    kravi2 Valued Member

    Well, don't the Christians aknowledge most of the commandments in the Old Testament? I mean, they override some (no kosher rules relevant), but keep others (ban on homosexual practices). So unless rape has been overturned by Paul's letters (or whatever else they feel override the Old Testament rules), the rules in the Old Testament are still valid to Christians, right?

  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    The 613 are only believed applicable to the Jewish faith. The 10 were christian tenets and technically even those were replaced by the "new covenant"

    I do not know ANY christians that observe niddah or mikvah for example, so you cannot in good conscience pick and choose rules that do and some that don't because they fit with your sense of modern morality.
  16. kravi2

    kravi2 Valued Member

    My understanding was that a percentage (I have no idea what percentage) of the commandments were nullified by certain writings, such as Paul's letters (or maybe it was Peter?). However, those that weren't overridden by the New Testament were still valid. Such as witches, homosexuality, etc. I would assume that rape was not countered by something to replace it in the New Testament, so is still very much a no-no in orthodox christianity.

  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Hey I agree - but the 613 are not christian tenets ...just saying!
  18. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    I think most people don't need an ancient script to tell us rape is wrong nor value the opinion of it's followers telling certain sections of the community how to live their lives.
  19. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Maybe worth noting that Harry Cook hasn't been charged with rape. I don't know if someone with more knowledge of the law can correct me, but I think rape and sexual assault are distinct offenses in the UK, unlike in the US where the definitions are more similar.

    In the UK, according to wikipedia, sexual assault involves:

    Obviously, this is not morally forgivable or trivial, but at least it suggests that he didn't violently force himself on anyone. I'm not knowledgable enough of the law to know whether calling him a rapist is libellous, but maybe we should play it safe?
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Yes they are different - rape by definition is penetrative per anus or per vagina. It used to be just with teh penis but was expanded to include penetrative acts with objects.

    Sexual Assault is broader, but it is still forcing himself on somebody against their will so - although slightly pedantic in application - it is unlawful bodily force per se.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page