I was very dismayed when I heard the news that Rolf Harris had been found guilty on all 12 charges and now faces a substantial jail term.

Sorry, but this just doesn’t add up.

It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.

He apparently did it openly, and gained a reputation for it. Even though he was known as The Octopus as a result of this, he was generally not thought of as being a pervert or pedophile, nor anything of the sort.

It really could be, and I would strongly suggest should be, interpreted as nothing more than playful behaviour, if at times a little worrying for some young women.

Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus.

I think Rolf has copped a very raw deal here.

Your thoughts……

Ludwig,
I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.

Bet you two wouldnt be saying that if it was your daughters that he groped.

LUDWIG...jesus in acim/talks of........extreem examples/that
physicly.embody/mortal sins[you haVE\HEARD OF.....SINNING/IN THE HEART[;SPIRITUALLY/ITS GUILT/...JUST THiNKING IT

dam/caps...anyhow/christ is the embodyment/of love thy neighbour
rolf/as much\as i wish/the same powers/embodies.now/that/excess we buIld in/DE-SPOILING\oUR KIDS/THAT raises he little demons/as if christ/incarnate\GODHEADS/thinking....they\are/god.

the sheeple\love the power/too much
and thats fine/groping your nutsac/is fine/TOO?/ok great
but maTE/IN\THE NEXT LIFE'.Ianything we thinking/is known to all
between mind reading/and voice-projection/there are no secrets/there

and rolf/and his mother/will soon/'be there'
he is 88?..still tied\to his mothers breast\warming his arm
thing is/.it shouldnt be/a big issue/but funny enough i got three techings/in it\just yesterday

case one\was a/3times/mother/plus-pram'in blue-jeans/who seemed to/be out walking/the vieuw was breathtaking/but i resisted/the demons/and walked past\briskly/not even\looking back/.i put the flowers.on dads grave.and went/to\the shops/deep-in\thought..

so deep/in thought/i missed/the front-vieuw\butt/by chance glanced/to seea beyonce/tight short skirt cradeling a botT/BEYONCE WOULD ENVEY
by/then i was facING AWAY\FROM THE SHOP/S0/JUST BREATHED=IN/THE GLORY/.........damm caps

anyhow'she turned\the corner/a thought came-out rush/down/the side street/just to see\the front/the rear/was perfection/but then my angels showed me;.stalking scum/and i turned/back/to the SHOP

AS I WANDERD/ON\I RECALLED.....THE MATURE TREES/KILLED CAUSE THEY WERE PLANTED/eOVER A SEWR/50 YEARS AGO/AND/.damm caps.there was a watcher/watching they didnt disturb/the bats\in a drained swamp/fast turning into/a rubbish pit..

anyhow yarned/with this shiela/mentioned/that\i been finding flowers/in rubbish bins-of late/mature/she said/i love flowers/so setting off\to the shop/I]thought/if still there/i would bring he a bunch.[just for fun]

anyhow the bins were empty/so i set oFF HOME/remembering the flowrs thing/started creating\an amasing bunch/of flowers/but in baCK-TRACKING TO THE SWAMP/CHANGED MY MIND\AND LEFT THEM NEar the cemetry

went home

now some/would have talked/.with diry minds
in the spirit-realm/we talk/only in our minds
thus in heaven/she would have seen\the the the lust.
and that/lust demon-lust be reigned in/.if only god didnt make them so cute[but i think its not god but satan/

by what right\do we even/have these tests

if its good/we will meet-in the next life
they will know/i loved/butt/from/a-far-having
no need to polute/such pureity\by the likes/such as me,

Bet you two wouldnt be saying that if it was your daughters that he groped.
mikk,
my daughters would be telling him off & that'd be it ! (well, I don't have daughters) It's when kids were brought up in this warm'n fozzy PC world that they allow things like that to happen. You know, silly parents, even more silly kids.

individual,

"....The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up...."

Bloody Hell!

We are talking about quite young girls here. Notwithstanding that Harris's "groping" appears to be at the lower end of this sort of scale - if he'd done it to me or my daughter, I would have been shocked.

Just where does any man (or woman) get off putting his hands in anyone's private places - especially in the circumstance of a first meeting?

How do you lead someone on when you're only just meeting them and find their hands caressing your buttocks?

Rolf always seemed to me warm and generous. My childhood is imbued with that. If I'd met him and he'd done that, I would have been very confused and upset...just like those girls...not knowing what to do about it.

That's why he got away with it for so long.

We totally agree with Ludwig. Groping is totally different to rape. Groping was quite common behavior in the 50's and not treated seriously. Parents should have taught their children how to deal with this sort of thing. Poor Rolf was apparently well known for being "tactile" and parents should have taken more care of their offspring. Or were they more interested in getting their children to the top. It would seem that money might well be the driving force for the current case. If he was not famous (and rich) we would not be hearing anything about this. I hope all the likely future "damages" suits will be dismissed or the plaintiffs awarded just $1 only

How do you lead someone on when you're only just meeting them and find their hands caressing your buttocks?
Poirot,
You're having me on aren't you ? In my world when you just met someone you start off with talking to them etc.. If there's a mutual attraction then instinct will guide you. If someone, let me re-phrase that, if a strange woman started to pat me up & down within moments of meeting I'd be pulling away as fast as Hasbben did from his aircraft carrier. Even as a youngster I'd have reacted that way. What it was in this case, the girls were besotted because they were with a celebrity & therefore didn't want to reject him. Had any normal off-the-street bloke behaved that way they'd have screamed blue murder if he as much as looked at them. They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame & when they realised a few years later that it didn't get them anywhere they started the molesting caper. Was the judge in that case a male lookalike feminist by any chance ?

individual,

".... if a strange woman started to pat me up & down within moments of meeting I'd be pulling away as fast as Hasbben did from his aircraft carrier....."

This is what I'm saying. Meeting a celebrity, especially one renowned for his cuddly warm image like Rolf, receiving a "hug" and finding his hand in a place way beyond what's acceptable would be a shock. Everyone knows when someone has one "too far" in that respect. Imagine if we were hearing of a female celebrity meeting 13 year-old boys and putting her hand down their backs, caressing their buttocks and anything else in the vicinity.

And because his "groping" of relative strangers appears to be at the low end of molestation, you are blaming the girls because they didn't make a song and dance about it while his hands were still roaming.

Young girls meeting a friendly warm entertainer don't expect to be groped in areas that should be private, especially on a first meeting with celebrities.

Don't get me wrong, If there's one person I would have nominated to live next door to, it would have been Rolf, because he always seemed so lovely. I'm sad that my ideal "nice guy" has fallen from such heights.

I'll add that this :

"....They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame & when they realised a few years later that it didn't get them anywhere they started the molesting caper. Was the judge in that case a male lookalike feminist by any chance ?..."

...is crap!

Come off Indi and co, how can you push such a nonsensical line. Harris is a predictor who will get what he deserves! Just as Robert Hughes gets what he deserved. The pattern with these types of crimes, and make no mistake they people are criminals, a person perceived as an authority figure, be they an actor, or a Catholic priest, or what ever, take advantage of that position of authority to perpetrate crimes against vulnerable members of society, children!

cont'

cont'

Quoting some the nonsense posted so far!

<<It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping,>> Diminished responsibility.

<<he was generally not thought of as being a pervert or pedophile, nor anything of the sort>> Who by? Other perverts and pedophiles, Harris wasn't a member of the club? That must be comforting to his victims.
<<Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus>> Prove your innocence by pointing to worse offenders. Gee, Ivan Milat should have used that one, he could have pointed to Martin Bryant as a worse offender, could have got off.

<<The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up>> It was the victims fault, they had an ulterior motive, they wanted to some time in the future make money. No was was it done for the pleasure of the perpetrator, it was done for the future money making aspirations of children.

<<I know ordinary blokes who are no different>> That's nice, you a few criminals also.

<<my daughters would be telling him off & that'd be it>> The childs fault, you must be wise in the ways of the world before you are 3, otherwise you cop what you deserve.

<<Groping is totally different to rape>> So is jaywalking...so.

<<Parents should have taught their children how to deal with this sort of thing>> So, if you can't blame the children then blame their parents, but never blame the perpetrator, don't forget he is a nice guy!
<<Poor Rolf>> The poor perpetrator, he been found out, shocking isn't it. My heart bleeds for poor Rolf.

I think we should just tie his kangaroo down sport, and cut off his extra leg! and that is the opinion of Jake the Peg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJleJbn9G6Y&feature=kp

What Rolf is alleged to have done was wrong, it was wrong in 1960 and it's still wrong in 2014, however....
The hysteria surrounding the case is way out of proportion to the offences and what's particularly disturbing is the way the organisations with which he was associated are taking this scorched earth approach to his life and works, in spite of his lewdness he did actually do some good in the world.
What also upsets me is that all these journo's and bloggers are now saying "Looking back there was always something a bit off about him".
Balls! Nobody thought that way until about 18 months ago, he fell from grace to be sure but he was never seen as a disgraceful character beforehand.
The other problem I have is with the hypocrisy over Harris, Saville and all is that other celebrities with higher profiles who are known or suspected to have had relations with underage girls are given the benefit of the doubt while the baying crowds are set upon B-list dorks and minor sensations from the seventies.
Where does it end? Should Charlie Chaplin's films be banned? The music of Jerry Lee Lewis, Ted Nugent, Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones?

I'm quite astounded at the poor Rolf aspect to this thread.
This is about someone who was doing their groping inside the pants of quite young girls, not a misunderstanding over consent with another adult.

Its not a case of some innocent hugs with someone later deciding that Rolfs hand was a little out of place. Quite clear sexual abuse of children which while seemingly popular with some not as far as I'm aware socially or legally acceptable at the time.

I do get bothered by the difficulty a defendant would face providing clear recollections so many years after the events but I've not got the impression that the guilty verdict was based on flimsy evidence. I don't know neat answers to that issue, child sexual abuse is an issue where the victims often feel powerless to address the issue for a long time afterwards especially when the abuser has such a high and popular profile. Its only relatively recently that I've seen much indication that authorities will go after celebraties on that issue.

It seems quite credible to me that after years of feeling powerless to have an abuser brought to justice a trigger event such as public awards for the abuser might be enough for the abused to take the risk of getting it dealt with.

There are people who end up on the wrong side of the justice system who deserve some sympathy. Someone who uses their profile to prey on children for their own satisfaction is not one of them.

R0bert

individual,

I actually "revolted" by your comments....blaming the girls.

I'm sure, you'd be thrilled, if you had daughters, if what happened to me when I was ten had happened to them.

Sexually innocent ten year-old is lured by step-father of friend to sit on his knee...other people in the room....hands roaming to definitely where they shouldn't have been.

Child (me) "shocked!"...speechless...goes outside feeling dirty and confused.

My fault was it?

Men with your attitude disgust me.

And men who take the opportunity like cuddly Rolf did need to be brought to account.

(Btw...that revolting step-father of friend tried it again...and was stopped in his tracks by the ten-year old me)

Oh come on Poirot,
You're only getting dirty because old Rolf wasn't one of your leftie touching boys brigade. His crime was being a heterosexual.
Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?

There's no pleasing you is there Ludwig...

You complain about inaction on the part of police in pursuing allegations (of traffic related offences) and manage to also complain when they do (in this case of sexual assault).

Rolf Harris has had his day (well months, really) in court, obtained expensive defense council to present his case, been judged by a jury of ordinary people who unlike anyone here had the opportunity to listen to all of the evidence presented, and was found guilty.

Occasionally a legal system can deliver justice.

But my sentences are not the ones Rolf Harris will be concerned with.

There are no winners in this.

I get a sense of hysteria around this topic, with a number of inquiries going on at the moment.

woe betide an innocent who gets caught up in it.

Sorry Poirot, I don't know what it is with some people, are they just ignorant? It happened in my partners family, where a stepfather done I think 7 years for rape of a woman in NZ. Now back with partners sister, in NZ, and niece wont have a bar of him. We thought it was all to do with his crime of rape. We only recently found out from the niece, she is a grown woman now, after a very long talk, that her reason is not the rape of another person, all those years ago, so much, but the fact he (stepfather) molested her (the niece) when she was a child. Her mum can't understand why she wont have anything to do with the stepfather, "after all he's done time for a crime" and "he didn't do all that much to you...like he didn't rape you to". Now after hearing what her niece had to say, my partner is on her side, so am I. Yet we still cant abandon my partners sister, and we certainly wont abandon her niece. Its all very sad indeed.
Niece told her mother a long time ago what the stepfather had done to her, but although my partner and sister are so close, she never said one word about the molesting of her own daughter, only about the rape, which was public knowledge anyway, and let her sister believe it was the reason for the rift with her daughter. People are strange at times indeed. Niece does not want my partner to tell her mother thst she now knows what happened to her, unless sister tells her, which she never has, even though they have talked many times about the relationship.

This case, like that of Robert Hughs, was based on events that happened thirty or forty years ago in some circumstances and, while I'm not suggesting the guy is not guilty, this was also a time when incest was a common occurrence and, unlike pedophillia, incest was usually swept under the carpet.

I also have a problem with victims who for some reason wait thirty of forty years to come foreword. Now if the waitined until they were adults I might understand, but not
as long as they do as it opens the way for copy cats in my view.

Ludwig, may i suggest that digitally penetrating a young girl goes well beyond just groping her.

Dear Ludwig,

I have absolutely no problem with Rolf Harris being found guilty of molesting these young girls. It is a crime now and it was a crime then. All those who are questioning whether or not the indictment should have been brought in the first place are either misguided or in at least one case determinately misogynistic.

It is in the sentencing where the severity of his actions should be reflected. If they are commensurate with someone who had raped these girls instead of molesting them then I think there will be a case to made that Harris has been treated unfairly however I think this will be unlikely. We need to wait and see.

In any event I do think such a high profile case will serve as a deterrent to those who think they are above the law because of their wealth and fame. This can only be a good thing.

I an sure that these events will impact slightly on my enjoyment of his classics from the past but 'Two little Boys', 'Jake the Peg' and 'Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport'' will remain great memories from my childhood. It is sobering to think there are some kids whose memories of him will be very dark indeed.

Of course such behaviour can't be condoned but to make hypocritical & opportunistic use of something that happened in a person's life decades ago is questionable.
We never get to hear about ordinary offenders i.e. non-celebrity. Child molesterers usually get shunted around from community to community until they re-offend again & again.
Authorities are famous for failing those victimes but if it involves a celebrity it's another story.
I just can't subscribe to the selective traumas out there. When I copped crap from theft no-one cared even though it really impacted on me & my family. When people who have been married for many years suddenly turn around & claim trauma I find it jus a tad opportunistic.

individual,

"Oh come on Poirot,
You're only getting dirty because old Rolf wasn't one of your leftie touching boys brigade. His crime was being a heterosexual.
Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?"

Well, well...that's about as cretinous as it gets on OLO.

I was merely attempting to demonstrate how it is for a young child/person who is suddenly confronted with an adult in authority doing something like that.

I've had my doubts about your "ethics" for a while on this forum, but dismissing my recount with such venomous partiality is highly enlightening.

So are you saying that if heterosexuals molest young girls - that's fine - because they're heterosexuals?

So an innocent ten year-old is molested by a an adult and the best you can say is what you posted?

We'd have to travel quite a long way on this forum to come upon that kind of grotesque morality.

Shows you up for the way your mind works nicely.

rechtub,
You're talking about the U.K where Rolf Harris has lived for most of his life so can you prove that incest was more common there from the 1960's to the 1990's when Harris is alleged to have offended against girls?
When I was a kid we were warned about "dirty old men" and "fairies" who might want to cuddle,touch us or "interfere" with us, we were told who the "pervs" were in the community and warned not to go near them.
The thing is though that some of the "pervs" were just harmless eccentrics, loners or simpletons who didn't deserve the epithet and as it happened it was my basketball coach who was the biggest "fairy" in town, he molested many young boys and is now in jail.
Nobody called Rolf a "Perv" when I was a kid, he was just seen as a daggy performer who all the oldies liked, he sat in the pantheon of squares and goody-goodies alongside Darryl Somers, The Seekers and Johnny Young.
The media outrage over Rolf is mostly faked or contrived by people who were not even born when he was on television or who are snobs who looked down on his hokey act from the beginning.

Where the offender is the moneymaker for an industry that contributes hugely to advertisers, a complainant 'whistleblower' would be very unlikely to risk it until others came forward.

Harris hasn't been sentenced. He has been found guilty after having the best defence his wealth could buy. That defence, the entrepreneurs who make money out of him and thousands of kiddie-fiddlers can be expected to wage a spin war against the victims and even to claim some deficiencies in the police investigation and the Court itself.

However the real question is why didn't the self-proclaimed fearless seekers of the truth and protectors of public interest, the media, sniff it out and report earlier? I suspect that the answer to that is in my opening paragraph - the well-off and powerful escape the attention of the media. Even where the rug is occasionally lifted, the powerful do not even have to life a finger, for there are many sycophant columnists and editors who immediately, proactively, spring to their defence.

Where a Court can finally obtain a conviction against the powerful who have grievously abused the trust placed in them by the public - a trust encouraged and burnished thorough the accolades and honours conferred on them by other by community leaders and pillars of society - it is appropriate and incumbent upon the Court to punish severely as an example to others.

Offenders choose to commit their crimes. Some choose to offend numerous times having found sly means to avoid accountability earlier. Lets not allow spin to convince us that the victims are actually the ones at fault.

We should be getting more curious at the uncomfortable relationship between those who should be protecting us and the powerful knobs, male and female, who do not believe that the laws should ever apply to them.

Freedom of speech is our only chance, but there are always those who want to limit it and censor.

Dear individual,

So 13 years old young girls “just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up”?

I don't think even runner would stoop to such amoral depths.

And you blame feminism?

Misogynistic clap trap.

You need help my friend.

From a police point of view and from many years ago there was plenty of dirt about the man back then but nothing that would stick.
The same went for "Hey Dad" and another host of a major children's show so maybe someone will come forward about him.
Let him die in prison and strip his money and give it to the victums while his family lives in shame and poverty.
There can be no forgiveness for any sex offender.

Jay of Melbourne, "The thing is though that some of the "pervs" were just harmless eccentrics, loners or simpletons who didn't deserve the epithet and as it happened it was my basketball coach who was the biggest "fairy" in town, he molested many young boys and is now in jail."

I didn't see your post before posting.

A story.
Not so long ago a local primary school called the police and had a well-publicised 'lock-down', heaps of hysteria with 'concerned' parents, the full disaster, after a teacher reported a possible 'Child Molester' allegedly grooming children at a boundary fence.

The truth was that it was a frail old gent who always walked in full view on the pedestrian walkway at the front of the school. In the last year he has not been making it to his bus seat pit-stop, but stops short to gather his breath. His wife is dead and children long departed to the four winds to pursue work. He is clean, neat and will be proudly independent to the end. He is a good citizen and a positive role model.

In the next school assembly the teacher was lauded by the obviously concerned headmistress and children were warned of the constant dangers posed by lurking men. If I had been the principal I would have been wondering about the teacher's maturity and judgement, and asking why she didn't casually stroll over to the old chap to greet him with a flask of water and ensure he wasn't about to drop in the hot sun.

We have to manage the risk presented by the very few real threats, while keeping the good in our culture.

SteeleRedux & Poirot,
Thank you for your criticism, you popped up as expected in your full glory of goody-good.
Now tell me about those poor kids that have lost their family harmony because of your Leftie idealist ALP governments have ruined so many families ? Ah, I see that's different, no sex involved, just a financial shafting when dads lost their jobs.
What about the morons next door in high density housing whose babies suffer the agony of music noise.

I think the issue worth noting here, is that Harris "targeted" young girls for his "groping".

The majority appear to have been around 13-14 years of age.

Who thinks a grown man doing that is doing the right thing?

He might have received the name "Octopus" as some flighty description of a fun loving tactile guy - and perhaps he would have carried on taking his chances "if" his chosen cuddles were from grown women. They would have put up with it or put him in his place rather speedily.

Instead we have testimony along the lines of

"However, she told the court the entertainer began indecently assaulting her at age 13, when she joined the Harris family on an overseas holiday in 1978.

The woman told the court she was taking a shower at their Hawaii hotel and was wrapped only in a towel when Harris gave her "one of his big hugs and tickles".

She said the performer then put his fingers into her crotch area.

The woman said she felt "numb" and disgusted after the abuse happened.

When she was 15, she said Harris sexually assaulted her in her bedroom, before laughing and joking with her parents downstairs."

Another....

"A second witness told the court she was 13 or 14 when Rolf Harris groped her buttocks at a celebrity event in Cambridge."

And...

"A third witness said she was only seven or eight years old when the entertainer assaulted her in Portsmouth after she had asked him for an autograph.

She said the entertainer put his hand down her back and between her legs. He then did it a second time, she told the jury."

And I think this one was quite young - and in the pub as part of theatre troupe celebration with Harris...

"Another Australian witness, Tonya Lee, asserted that Harris had indecently assaulted her twice in an English pub during a theatre trip to the UK in 1986."

Grown men interfering with young adolescent or pre-pubescent girls is not on...no matter how many people say you're only having a "grope".

Sexual abuse of children is horrendous and intolerable.

The fact that Rolf Harris committed many of these offences in
plain sight of people - indicates that he thought his
celebrity status placed him above the law.

We haven't even begun to calculate the damage that
Mr Harris's crimes have done to the victims.
There is no doubt that Mr Harris's reputation
has taken a severe battering.
Rightly so.

Mr Harris was an adult who misused his position -
preying on vulnerable - innocent children. And there is no
excuse for that behaviour.
None.

In addition to the 4 complainants in the trial, another 6 women
gave supporting evidence that the artist and entertainer had abused them in Australia, New Zealand, and Malta, between 1969 and 1991.
None of the accusers knew each other.

It is very important that we all do everything we humanly
can to protect vulnerable young people.

Excusing the behaviour of men like Mr Harris
is not the way to do it.

Amazing.

A simple, sordid tale of a pathetic dirty old man, having exploited his cheesy avuncular image to stick his fingers inside vulnerable children.

The fact that he is a successful, if somewhat daggy, entertainer should be entirely irrelevant to the case. The only reason the trial went on for so long was because he had the resources mount an expensive defence, unlike your common-or-garden pervert. If you strip away the celebrity aspects, and concentrate on the evidence presented over the seven weeks of the trial, it is pretty clear that he saw nothing wrong with exercising his fantasies on children, careless of the impact on their lives.

In the words of one (Australian) reporter from the trial:

"...we’ve also heard the dull, dead voice of a woman who blamed her ruined life on abuse by one of Australia’s til-now-favourite sons.
And we have heard of others left scarred, disgusted and disillusioned by their encounter with a man they had admired, even loved."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rolf-harris-guilty-the-moment-on-the-witness-stand-he-came-closest-to-convicting-himself-20140701-zsrij.html

I hope they put him away. Ideally, with a six-foot-six tattooed father-of-teenage-daughters as a cellmate.

really pleased to see that even the 'progressives ' display that they don't believe in moral relativism unless of course it suites their cause. The porn Rolf seemed addicted to obviously fed his appetites. Oh thats right it can't harm anyone.

So Harris went down on twelve counts. I believe he's eighty four, obviously well past his performing days other than painting I suppose ? The presiding judge warned him that he could expect gaol on his return to Court for sentence tomorrow, Friday (I think?).

So what'll he get ? I don't know, but I can hazard a guess at what he's already received...? Total public humiliation. Having most, if not all of his art works, which currently hang in some very prominent places, removed. Being stripped of all his awards, both here and in the UK. Plus many other penalties, punitive actions, and sanctions, he's yet to even encounter ?

I've heard several of the victims have issued a criminal compensatory writ with a large firm of lawyers in Melbourne ? So it would appear Harris will encounter some pretty costly civil pecuniary penalties (if successful) too ? I'm not sure in British jurisprudence, if the Court can impose a solid fine, together with a custodial penalty for such offences ?

Boy oh boy, if that's what many of us really wish to witness, this eighty four old individual punished VERY severely, we'll most assuredly see it, there'll be no doubt of that !

I for one will have no delight in seeing it happen, notwithstanding I hate and detest 'kiddie .....s !

Sung wu.

Thanks to RObert, Paul and Foxy (and others) for making reasonable unemotional sense in their posts.

I think Pericles nailed it in his post.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rolf-harris-guilty-the-moment-on-the-witness-stand-he-came-closest-to-convicting-himself-20140701-zsrij.html

I'm afraid Rolf Harris has only himself to blame for all this.

He should have kept his hands to himself.

I think that there ought to be some limitation on the length of time between an offence and prosecution, memories dim and witnesses may have died or be in the grip of dementia.
If people don't come forward once they pass the voting age by five years then the matter ought to be let rest.

o sung wu,
You and I both know that this sub culture of sick humanity was there in our day and is still there.
There is only one answer to the problem but unfortunately Australia does not subscribe to capital punishment.

o sung wu, I've been trying to determine the known time period that the offences occurred over. Nothing definate so far other than comments that the abuses occurred over a period of around 30 years starting sometime in the 70's. It's not some bad mistake made in his teens and its clear that Harris has never tried to put it right. This was not a one off incident from someone in a short term bad place, rather a string of abuses occuring over many years against children both known to him and trustedin his care and complete strangers who he happened to have access to.

I don't think in that case his age matters.

I would be in favor of leniency if he had at some stage in the past sought treatment and taken steps to undo as much of the damage as he could. He has done none of that, instead denying his abusive behaviour.

Is Mise there is a good case for some kind of statute of limitations for any offence where the offender can be located, clearly Harris is in that category. I do though think the shift to a willingness by authorities to prosecute high profile abusers has been slow in coming and there are good reasons why some of these cases have not been dealt with earlier. I'm not entirely happy with any answer I can see to that aspect of the issue.

R0bert

Hats off to the police for excellent detective work, going the long hard yards and for handling it all so discreetly to protect all parties and the evidence against the ratbags of the media. If there was ever a case that could easily have ended in a mistrial through media stupidity, sensationalism and arrogance it was this one.

Thanks to the police here too, serving and past, for dealing with scum and often while being criticised by tabloids and headline hunting politicians. Thank God so many police make it personal and give so much of themselves to the job.

So many people are in a state of denial about this - looking for excuses or conspiracies. It somehow challenges their world view and perhaps even the memory of their childhood.

The simple truth is that he was just another celebrity who thought his fame meant he could get away with inappropriate behaviour. He's not the first and will certainly not be the last.

It seems tame compared to the long-term institutionalised abuse still being investigated in this country but was still wrong.

Prison seems rather harsh because he will now live out the rest of his life in disgrace and as an object of loathing for many.

There is no joy in this for anybody but I find it difficult to feel genuinely sorry for him.

I feel more sorry for myself because of the now-tainted memories I have of him.

The feelings of the girls involved seem to have been brushed aside too.

Individual seems to have a strange fetish for talking about the "lefty ALP" at every opportunity.

I think he'll find that most sexual perverts and predators present themselves publicly as being extremely conservative and typically homophobic.

That includes chair-sniffing Liberal politicians and the occasional right-wing shock-jock. These are the biggest hypocrites of all.

<< …because his "groping" of relative strangers appears to be at the low end of molestation, you [individual] are blaming the girls because they didn't make a song and dance about it while his hands were still roaming.

Yes Poirot, right at the lowest end of molestation, if at all. I would say not molestation at all. Not by a long way actually.

He did this openly and gained a reputation for it.

What does that tell us?

I think it pretty clearly says that neither he nor anyone else thought too much of it… certainly not to the extent of it being illegal, paedophilic or molestationary.

There is something very wrong in our society that his actions can now be classed as being of a very serious nature.

This is completely different to the surreptitious activities of paedophile priests who knew they were doing bad things, and the cover-ups by the churches other institutions.

We’ve been disgusted by child abuse in many faith-based and other institutions. Well, I think we need be very careful to cop the real offenders and to not tar everyone with the same brush who may have done something which was in any way a little bit less than proper.

I think Rolf has been caught up in this paedophile purge, and that we are going to look back on his punishment with a lot of regret in a few years’ time, as being a very over-the-top reaction, promulgated much more by large-scale disgust over decades of hidden child abuse than by his actual activities.

<< What Rolf is alleged to have done was wrong, it was wrong in 1960 and it's still wrong in 2014, however.... The hysteria surrounding the case is way out of proportion to the offences and what's particularly disturbing is the way the organisations with which he was associated are taking this scorched earth approach to his life and works… >>

Absolutely, Jay. There are too many people thinking in simplistic black and white terms, who can see only that he has been convicted and is therefore a despicable pervert, end of story.

Quite frankly I think there are a lot of quite disgusting people out there who are far too ready to completely condemn and destroy someone, if they are just given the opportunity.

<< …in spite of his lewdness he did actually do some good in the world. >>

Yes. We could all do with a bit of perspective as to what he has achieved and given to us compared to the magnitude of his wrongdoings.

Pericles "I hope they put him away. Ideally, with a six-foot-six tattooed father-of-teenage-daughters as a cellmate."

Yes, exactly.

Ludwig, you are a disgrace.
Harris digitally penetrated girls aged 7 to 15. If that isn't a paedophile, what is?
Would you feel that he was not guilty if it was a female relative of yours?

Harris had all the money and power in the world to pay for great lawyers, but they still couldn't get him off could they?
He deserves the same punishment as any common paedophile ...

Ludwig,

"Yes Poirot, right at the lowest end of molestation, if at all. I would say not molestation at all. Not by a long way actually.

He did this openly and gained a reputation for it.

What does that tell us?"

We are talking about "adolescent and pre-pubescent" girls.

How is caressing girls' buttocks and putting his hand in a girl's crotch "not molestation"?

I mean really...that's a serious question.

And many of these instances were on first meeting the man.

Ludwig...how would you feel if someone you just met reached down your back, caressed your buttocks and then had a bit of a feel of your crotch?

I'm sure you'd be thrilled to know that a stranger took that liberty with your body...(and you're not a young girl who's just been taken advantage of by a celebrity.)

You say:

"This is completely different to the surreptitious activities of paedophile priests who knew they were doing bad things..."

Why is it completely different?

The reality is that it's not "completely different". This man repeatedly targeted young girls and felt them up for his own pleasure - totally disregarding the impact those actions had on their lives.

The message I'm getting is don't bat an eyelid if a stranger touches up your young daughter...it's only a bit of a grope...stop yer griping.

Unbelievable!

<< The fact that Rolf Harris committed many of these offences in plain sight of people - indicates that he thought his celebrity status placed him above the law. >>

That’s an interesting assertion Foxy.

It doesn’t make sense. Why would he think that?

Everyone else around him would have to have thought that too, wouldn’t they. It would only have taken one person to think that he was acting in an unacceptable manner to have gone to the authorities with a complaint.

There doesn’t seem to be any indication that anyone ever went to the police during the decades that he was doing this stuff. Correct me if you know otherwise.

Not every single person around Rolf would have been an avid fan or devotee. There would surely have been a few who would have gone to the authorities if they had thought that he was behaving in a seriously unacceptable manner.

This all suggests that he was behaving in a manner that was acceptable or tolerable or at worst; considered a bit dodgy but not to the extent of warranting police action.

I put it to you that he behaved in a manner that he came to understand was not going to get him into trouble.

I would have thought that he would think along the lines that his celebrity status, and hence the very many people who came to know about his ‘octopus’ activities, would have made him much more vulnerable to lawful action if he thought he was behaving in a seriously bad manner.

<< Excusing the behaviour of men like Mr Harris is not the way to do it. >>

Agreed.

I am not excusing his behaviour. But it does need to be put into context. And it would seem to me that what he is now facing is far and away too severe a penalty. (We’ll find out tomorrow just how severe the jail term is going to be).

Hi there ROBERT & CHRISGAFF1000...

It should be noted herein, I'd already finished typing a response to you both, and I've just lost the bloody lot !

Hi ROBERT...

Under British jurisprudence I'm sure some crimes impose a 'statute of limitations', as to what they are; I don't really know ? To my way of thinking, offences of this category should never be 'statute barred'. Serious and heinous crimes against children, I'm sure are open to prosecution, ad infinitum.

Hi CHRISGAFF1000...

Your suggestion does have substantial merit, particularly as the 'rock spider' concerned never has the opportunity to again defile a child. There's a lot to be said for a suspended sentence ?

Another remedy (though not available to us here, sadly) which is practised widely both in Singapore and Malaysia, is up to a dozen strokes of the rotan. There's substantial evidence suggesting this distinctive method of 'behaviour modification' does have great eminence amongst the judiciary presiding in both nations.

Apparently it has the effect of frightening the bedevil out of those contemplating further or repeat excursions into 'crimes of similar facts'. That gave most of 'em their initial introduction to the inimitable rotan.

Though one would never know what's in the mind of some of these people ? The mere act of sexually assaulting a child, is beyond comprehension of any normal man or women ? Anything that might masquerade as a successful cure for such offenders, is far from the grasp of most Psychiatrists and other Medico's ? It'll take many years before they can ever originate drugs of a kind, that ensures complete protection from these offenders, for the community at large. Until then, we must identify and lock-up these evil, albeit 'sick' critters, in order to safeguard our precious children.

Dear Ludwig,

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you.

You appear to be saying because Rolf Harris has had the fame and glory as a public entertainer taken from him he has been punished enough. Doesn't the argument follow that someone without that measure of public recognition to lose should face jail instead.

This is a ludicrous proposition.

And what of the countless young girls who had their trust of adults broken in a very disturbing manner through his actions. How do we judge the long term damage wrought? Where is their measure of justice? I think the likelihood of success in court if any one of them alone had brought an action against Harris would have been slim. However law enforcement and the courts we able to bring a number of victims together to present a more formidable case against this man and his resources, resources provided to him by his fame and success as an entertainer.

No I think at this stage justice has bee served.

No-one says that harris's antics weren't wrong. As a matter of interest I don't recall hearing anything about actual intercourse so the term abuse is already out of context.
As several posters have already stated crystal clear it is the inconsitency with which Harris is treated vs non-celebrities . We had one who had actual sexual intercourse with 10 or so year old & he went to jail for 1 year. He had all his rotten teeth fixed while decent peole can't get near a dentist no matter how hard they try. We have an older bloke who consistently has very young girls around whom he provides openly with alcohol in return for alleged sexual favours but nothing is being done. I can't hear any do-gooders getting upset there so the celebrity component must have something to do with it & of course the publicity in this age of extreme vanity.

Actually it's quite interesting that I find myself arguing fairly hard against the actions of Harris.

When the story first broke I was sad. I thought perhaps someone was mistaken and it would all be sorted out. Who was more likeable and trustworthy than our own Rolf?

But as the details emerged, it appeared this man relied on his celebrity status to get away with behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated otherwise.

Ludwig says:

"This all suggests that he was behaving in a manner that was acceptable or tolerable or at worst; considered a bit dodgy but not to the extent of warranting police action.

I put it to you that he behaved in a manner that he came to understand was not going to get him into trouble."

It's more likely that he discovered early on that his particular reputation and celebrity status acted as some sort of shield for his actions. Targeting quite young girls with gropes to their private parts would be understood by any reasonable measure as "taboo".

Why, in that case, Ludwig, was his defence in a couple of instances built on denying that he had met the girls and was never where they said they met him?....That they were "making it up"?

A defence which was blown away during the trial.

Why did he not just say that he considered his groping acceptable because he thought everyone knew about it and he hadn't yet been charged with anything?

"Harris denied inappropriately touching any of the alleged victims and pleaded not guilty in court. "They are all making it up," he told the jury in late May."

"Harris initially denied being in the city at that time. However, he later admitted he had been there after TV footage was dramatically uncovered mid-trial of him taking part in a 1978 episode of Star Games in Cambridge."

"Harris's defence counsel suggested the entertainer had never been to the community centre in question and the witness must have confused him with another man."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-guilty-of-indecently-assaulting-four-girls/5542644

I think you are excusing his behaviour.

SteeleRedux, excellent post <<This is a ludicrous proposition...>>
could not agree more. I am pleased that this discussion has been in the main kept apolitical by posters who generally show political diversity on most subject, but not on this one. I did say most.

Indi, Indi, Indi, "No-one says that harris's antics weren't wrong" Indi you must not read your own posts! What other conclusion can one draw from what you put up so far?

I'll just grab one of your spurious posts on the subject;

<<I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.>>

My interpretation of the above is it was all the fault of the victim.

<< You appear to be saying because Rolf Harris has had the fame and glory as a public entertainer taken from him he has been punished enough. Doesn't the argument follow that someone without that measure of public recognition to lose should face jail instead. >>

Steele, I think we need to look at the overall punishment. Harris has got an awful lot to lose, as opposed to someone who doesn’t have much to lose. Perhaps the jail sentence needs to reflect this. Perhaps it IS appropriate that he receives a lighter jail sentence than someone in the equivalent position would receive who does not have the recognition or enormous accumulated life works and reputation to lose.

Harris built up his wealth and reputation by doing a great deal of good stuff by way of entertaining millions of people for several decades. This is now all in tatters. I don’t think that you should just set that aside and say that he should otherwise be punished with a jail term as if he hadn’t already copped a very severed penalty or as if these enormous losses were not relevant to the magnitude of a formal sentence.

<< When the story first broke I was sad. I thought perhaps someone was mistaken and it would all be sorted out. Who was more likeable and trustworthy than our own Rolf? >>

My sentiments exactly, Poirot.

He is the same age as my parents. I grew up Perth. My mother has always been a great fan. He has always been one of the main solid unquestionably good people in my life, if of somewhat daggy and marginal entertainment value.

I’m having a great deal of trouble coming to terms with the current state of affairs. I can’t write this without bloody tears streaming down my face…. and I’m sitting in a café amongst lots of people writing this on my laptop.

Ludwig,

Yes, it's startling.

But of course, you and I are judging Harris from his public persona.

Often in life, we hear of people whose conduct in private is at odds with their public reputation.

As I mentioned earlier, Harris would have been one of my top picks for a fantasy "perfect neighbour".

That says it all.

It's hard to splice up the image when we have the instance of an 84 year-old "nice guy" exposed also as someone who repeatedly targeted "young girls" in this manner.

Not an honourable way for any man to conduct himself - and he appears to have done it in a serial manner with no regard whatsoever for the shock and disgust it generated in his victims - accusing them of "making it up".

That's pretty low on any scale...for with celebrity comes an even greater onus on right conduct.

we all/share your pain/and tears ludwig
but fail to see/why this needs upset you so.

you surely know/of this thing called the appeal process
[we see the pitcures of him going/yo lock-up
he gets special protection/hooks up with fellow protected-custody/deviants/who gave in to un-civil habbits[he wil do a few weeks/then win the appeal/on teqnicality

its important to reMEMBE/HARRIS FELL OUT WITH THOSE IN THE INCROWD/THUS WAS THROWN TO THE LIONS/but i couldnt cares less where rolfy spends his time hiding from all the tears/the faulse-god/wiTH FEET OF CLAY/USED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE GO AWAY.

but now/cannot
i suggest that google-eyED bbc/CLOWN/HIs parter in crime coached ol roffle harras..but the punitive instincts of man/who abused/even the dead/cripple-insane/are n0thing to the punitive pu..andrgatives he gets pumped into him non stop in hell

i dont want any-of it/by tying my wagon to his fate
many men hear the cry/but few refuse the call..
if any young girl/is on stage/the old guy/gal.
needs it/tHEIR NEEDS REVEAL/WHY BOTHER TRYING TO C0NCEAL

THIS OBSESSING OF CHILDREN..runs deep
[LIKE HAIRLESS...BITS/that look like innocent kids
there is no justification for seeking the [pleasure from innocenits their child-hood we despoilt..kids dont even get into it/he wont get the time/HIS BETRAYAL/HAS EARNED

to whom much was given
much better was only to be expected.
yes they creep/into our heart/but onlyto break-it/by taking/our kids;innocence/

unless it happens/to-you[it did/my uncle\IT WAS JUST FONDLING/MUTUAL MASTERBATION[i say just/because iT MADE ME THE WANKlER I NOW AM[it forces adult awareness/the need to be wary/but worse revealed/the potential/to unleash/the same beast[in me]

i cant hug kids without hearing the caution/adults touching kids is sick

a ex mate/once offerd sweeties/to my kid/for a kiss
i never saw him agaIN/teaching my daughter to sell kissing for sweets/is the first step.[when i se a/man/with a kid/in the park/the rush/of submerged emotion/near makes me sic*

hell

OUG,

"i cant hug kids without hearing the caution/adults touching kids is sick"

While I understand the point you are trying to make, it's actions like those of Harris which add fuel to the fire.

If Harris had hugged those girls "appropriately" there would be no problem regarding the ones who he met at events.(although he'd still have some explaining to do regarding the children he was personally associated with) The problem arises with his overstepping decent physical interaction with young girls who he is first meeting.

How anyone can excuse any man (famous or not) with greeting a young girl by caressing her buttocks and/or feeling around her crotch is beyond me.

And behviour such as this by a grown man to an 11-12 year-old:

"Another witness against Harris was an Australian woman who said the entertainer assaulted her at the home of family friends in Darwin when she was 11 or 12 years old in the late 1960s.

The woman said she froze as Harris approached her, put his arms around her and gave her a tongue kiss."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-guilty-of-indecently-assaulting-four-girls/5542644

I was that age once - there is no way that behaviour is acceptable, especially to under-age girls. A grown woman at least can make the judgement to put up with it or tell the perpetrator in no uncertain terms to desist. Girls just emerging from childhood feel powerlessness, violation and shame - especially when a "big star" is the one doing the deed.

There is a line...Harris crossed it repeatedly.

Dear Ludwig,

In answer to your earlier question here is a link
regarding Rolf Harris's behaviour and what the police
and investigators stated according to testimonies
and the evidence they found.

Mr Harris committed many offences in molesting young children in
plain sight of people. According to investigators and the
police - Mr Harris thought his celebrity status placed him
above the law.
In addition to the 4 complainants in the trial -
another 6 women gave supporting evidence that the artist and
entertainer abused them in Australia, New Zealand, and Malta,
between 1969 and 1991. None of the accusers knew each other,
yet they told similar stories of what had happened.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/crime/rolf-harris-guilty-more-women-come-forward-with-abuse-allegations-after-verdict-9574378.html

The evidence is there.
And no excuses can be made for the abuse of children.
"Rolfie wants a cuddle!"
However, the man did more than just "cuddle!"

It is interesting that often the perpetrator of a sex crime will blame the victim "she was asking for it!" or some such line, or will diminish the seriousness of the crime with "After all, I didn't do all that much, I didn't rape her!" or some such rubbish. Interesting that other criminals rarely use such a defense, I can't imagine a bank robber saying "The bank should not have been there!" or "After all, I only stole $10,000, its not that much theses days."
I see the apologists for Harris on here peddle the same line. Remember when a thief breaks into your house and steals your big flat screen TV, its your fault, anyway its not that serious, after all, he didn't steal you car from the garage!"

I think you have this absolutely right, Ludwig.

>>I think Rolf has been caught up in this paedophile purge<<

But unlike you, I think this is a good outcome.

Many people who previously did not have, or did not feel they had, a voice to complain, found the necessary support that allowed them to bring these acts into the daylight. Case in point - one girl actually wrote to the Queen at the time her maj was having her portrait done by Mr Harris.

"'He ruined my life. You need to know what kind of man you’ve let near the Queen,' she wrote to royal staff. The notes, which remained anonymous, were handed to Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection Group, who certified their credibility and filed them as evidence. However, they remained uninvestigated until Harris became an official suspect in 2012."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rolf-harris-guilty-victim-wrote-to-the-queen-to-warn-her-as-the-presenter-painted-her-portrait-9575140.html

How powerless must this person have felt. Even writing to the Queen didn't get the attention of the police - just another crank, I expect they said to themselves. Only when the extent of Jimmy Savile's predations became widely known, did they feel sufficiently confident to tell somebody.

Ludwig there are in my view a range of problems with the idea that Harris should get a smaller sentence because of what he has to loose.

I don't really want to see exta time for the factors I mention, making a point to highlight the problems I see with what you have posted.

- Its very subjective
From outward appearances Harris wife and daughter have stuck by him (some suggestions that Bindy may not be as close as court appearance were made to look). My impression is that Harris is very fortunate to have a spouse that still supports him after what has been exposed. For many family is all they really have and it can be gone for far less cause than what Harris has admitted to let alone what he has been found guilt of. Perhaps a harsher sentence because he has support that others don't have.
- Its unlikely his family will be left broke regardless of how any suggested lawsuits go. Harris wife would almost certainly have ownership of enough assets to ensure that she never need to be sleeping rough. Other criminals may not have that luxury and spend their time inside worrying about their families financial situation. Perhaps a little more time for that as well.
- Most people as you point out have never enjoyed fame, recognition and fortune. Many of those have given much to the community in various ways without any rewards of the type Harris has enjoyed. Perhaps a little more time for that.

I feel bad doing this when you are upset however your defense of someone who has shown himself to be a serial betrayer of the privileged position he enjoyed, someone who has betrayed over an extended period the trust of family, friends and fans is not something that I can leave be.

If there is evidence that the conviction was a setup then present it but dismissing touching up little girls as trivial as you appear to be doing does you no credit and does not fit with the character I know from OLO.

R0bert

Dear Ludwig,

From your words I can see how distressed you are with the turn of events. In a way you, like so many others who have taken his songs and other works into their memories, often very fond childhood ones, are victims too.

I am of the opinion the hurt you are feeling possibly has you reacting to this news in a manner you might not have otherwise countenanced.

Perhaps if Harris had shown contrition and apologised to his victims I might have been inclined to support in a small way the position you are taking. He did not so nor do I.

R0bert has pointed out that Harris seemingly has retained the support of his family. Would you consider a less famous person being completely rejected by his wife and family because of his actions as having lost more that Mr Harris?

The point I am making is that I think we are on a very slippery slope when trying to judge the manner of personal loss in cases like this. I feel there would need to be highly extenuating circumstances for these things to be given much weight in sentencing. I am as equally uneasy about making an 'example' of someone through heavier sentencing because of their fame. Let us hope the judge resists the temptation either way.

Dear individual,

Your quote again;

“I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.”

Just nick off.

Just to reiterate the difference between a high profile celebrity targeting "young girls" and grown women.

This is interesting...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-new-zealand-mp-maggie-barry?CMP=twt_gu

"Maggie Barry, a sitting MP, said the incident gave her a chilling insight into the dark side of the Australian-born entertainer, who was convicted in London on Monday of a string of sex assaults against girls between 1968 and 1986.

Barry said she was in her mid-20s and working at a regional radio station when she lined up an interview with Harris, who was touring the country."

"When he put his hand on my leg I said, 'You can stop that right now', and I stood up and said, 'You're a sleazy creep.' At that point he got a bit nasty and the publicist came in and smoothed things over."

She said that after she confronted Harris over his behaviour he "began to cut up rough [became angry] and protest and called me a couple of names" before the publicist intervened and he apologised.

But she said it showed Harris thought he could act with impunity because of his fame and the situation could have been far more serious if he had molested someone who was younger or more vulnerable and not willing to stand up to him.

"It seemed that he was pretty confident and arrogant if he thought he could try it on with someone like me," she said."

O sung wu,

The rattan as wielded in Singapore is a fearsome punishment and the recipients spend at least a week (and more) sleeping on their stomachs after an application, they are literally black and blue.
I have seen a video of a Singaporean recovery cell, courtesy of an Indian Police Officer of my acquaintance. Not nice.

On limitations; 72 years ago I and some of my school mates were groped and kissed by a male teacher; should I now sue the organization to which he belonged for compensation and have him posthumously branded a kiddie fiddler?
He left the organization, married and had a family and, by all accounts, thereafter led a blameless life; should the effect on his family be taken into account whilst thinking about suing?

We called him "Slobber Lips" bye the way!

Hi there IS MISE...

Your last paragraph raised some interesting propositions concerning the unlawful activities of 'slobber lips' seventy years in the past ? Does 'time' mitigate in anyway this man's actions all these years ago ? Ostensibly since his marriage and the birth of his children, is it appropriate now to publically denounce him to the world, for the crimes, that he'd perpetrated seventy odd years ago ? Is that justice ? Obviously he's deceased ? Therefore, who'd receive the punishment ?

Imagine the pain, the public humiliation and the enduring sadness that his surviving family must carry for the balance of their own existence ? Surely that's only punishing the innocent.

You might ask what would I do ? I really have no idea. What I will admit too, is the awful pain and anguish I've had occasion to purposely and wilfully impose and inflict on many poor bastards when I was working as a detective ? Perhaps if I'd handled things a little differently, there would've been less misery left in the wake of some of my jobs (investigations) notwithstanding positive results generally ensured. You see,'fear' is a tool that must be wielded very judiciously and definitely, NOT indiscriminately. It's not our (police) job to punish.

The question of 'appropriate' punishment, has in recent years, caused me much disillusionment and cynicism. I guess that's the reason why the whole Harris case, has me quite ambivalent as to an appropriate punishment for this eighty four year old man ?

Rolf Harris has been sentenced to five years nine months.

More information has been released in the wake of his conviction.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-websites-indecent-images-children?CMP=soc_568

"Rolf Harris browsed websites showing images of girls believed to be as young as 13, it can now be reported following his conviction for indecent assault.

When detectives examined the 84-year-old entertainer's desktop computer after they searched his home in Bray, Berkshire, in 2012 while investigating historical claims of indecent assault, they discovered he had visited websites with such names as "My little nieces", "Tiny teen girlfriends" and "Russian girlfriends".

They also found a note in Harris's diary, in his handwriting, with instructions on how to delete the history on his internet browser programme."

Anyone still of the notion that all Rolf was up to was a little harmless groping might like to peruse the Judge's sentencing remarks.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf

Ludwig, if you read this, I think you'll realise why Rolf has been convicted.

Not "groping"...but full on sexual abuse.

This all makes me wonder why those who are (rightly) so against this kind of behaviour, are so quiet about Australian sex tourists going to Asia & callously exploit the poverty of families there. There are Australians who have their their own child sex network & no-one seems to think anything of it. I spoke with a fairly high ranking bureaucrat who proudly claimed to have "gone through a thousand" girls in an asian country. Perhaps they were of sufficient age for his conscience but could he have "achived" this here ? Let's focus on those asian sex tourist Australians now that Rolf is put away. Probably not as high profile if we can't find a celebrity but probably even more perverse. Anyone see the TV show what really happens in Bali ? Well, they conveniently forgot about the australian perverts latching onto the little kids of poor families.

Poirot high lighted Harris's use of child porn. Thats been mentioned earlier as well and is the subject of strong views by some.

There is too much we don't know to be certain in Harris case but one aspect I wonder about in this issue generally is the role of access to child porn. Some are adamant that access to porn contributes to the problem, I suspect it may give an outlet to divert the problem away from physical contact with children.

All of the known offences in Harris's case occurred prior to the type of ready access to porn that the internet made possible. In this instance Harris's known abuses according to the sentencing notes seemed to have ceased a few years before the internet became popular (mid 1990's).

Its been covered previously but there is some evidence that internet takeup has some correlation with reduction in sexual assault rates.

I'm of the view that the majority of church workers who have sexually abused children would not have had much access to porn during the era when the abuses seemed to have mostly occurred.

Its possible that porn plays a similar role to that played by nicotene substitutes for people with nicotene addictions in diverting the cravings for the real thing.

Clearly the later view still has the massive problem that porn is based around images of real people, that some of it involves high level abuse of real children. Even if access to child porn does reduce the incidence of fresh offences the source of those images does not appear to have leave an ethical way to allow such access.

I think there is a good case for more open investigation of ways of dealing with the issue, that paedophiles are people with mental health problem's which they have to deal with constantly seemingly with few options for support to deal with it.

Sometimes the level of disgust at a problem is so high it hinders societies constructive dealing with it to then point that does more to perpetuate the problem than reduce it.

R0bert

INDY.KINDY\QUOTE..<<>.This[?]..all makes me wonder/why those\who are (rightly) so against/this kind of behaviour,/are so quiet about Australian/sex tourists..going to Asia/callously exploit\the poverty of families there.>>

govts/are\formed/by loyalty/ties
having the 'dirt'..on your man[oe woman]//ensures they rise/to the top/or else/we do a roffle*harris..[a/to ya[..get-it

Adult/sex\by..choice[with/or\without/cash/
or gift;..SUPPLEMENTAL ADVANTAGE\payment/ETC..IS FINE?
[ITS/JUST\THE AGE/OR THEIR/POVERTY?]

we judge/the beast/as just/more baser/than/us
if its some-supreemist/or cult/thing..regardless of informed concent/ite vile.

KIDS/LIKE FEELING GOOD/all the things that parents love/kids love
kids/smoke/have erections/act girlly/but its the despoiling of innocence/thATS really a sin.

'sex/with children/is perfectly/fine[in hell]
infact/the first impression/of hell/is usually/noting all the ugly kids/the second usually/is realisation/your body has reverted/to its child[new-incarnated/form/AGAIN NOTICING/THE CHANGE/CAN TAKE DECADES

BUT ARROUND/you are infinite perverse evil lives/realised/now in hell
[we become/that we love/insatiable sex addicts/come back as say rabbits/and as humans need submerge/this baser urge[look arroud/you/all life=is equal/before god/but for your tiny/goodnes/your body could have been anyone/of them

like dogs/think/nothing\of\age/relation/but
the urge for mating[in in/is\season]even dogs get a break/till they men0*sterate

<<>>There are Australians/own child sex network>>

yes/run/by//the public-service\actualy deliverd/in come car\
i have met two/and they loved it/grew up with the power people[they love them tiny people[not darwfs]both i met/were under 5 foot/croan-up

butjudges/policelawyers/the public sevants/its 24/7
but they do get a taste/for the good-life
[sp[iritualy/its measured/by\its fruits

<<>no-one seems to think/anything of it.>>

thats/unfair/many/OF-us/came\here/to end/the delusions/but we so love our material peversionillusion[delusions]..that we became as lost as the rest of us

our cries attract/do-gooder spirits
just trying to help our cries/end the lies
they come/into the honey trap/as helpless as our cries

so i refuse to cry/to trick/yet another spirit/to help the karma/we live-out..in this satans/realm

<<>.nyone see the TV show/what really happens..in Bali?>>

yes/the system/recrutes/kids/with-lost/minds
to blackmail\into corrupting their spirit[karma]

<<>Well,./they conveniently/forgot/about the australian perverts latching..onto the/poor kids..in poor families>>.

TAKE-AWAY/THE ROLE/MODEL[A WORKING/INVOLVED FATHER]
CREATE A DEPENDANT WOUMB/dumb dowN-THE KID/WITH HEAVEY METAL/IN VACINE/AND POISEN LIGHT ETAL/IN OUR FOOD/FEED A CHEMICAL COCKTAIL/OF FRUICTOSE/TRANSFATS/DENATURED/powders

damm caps

RObert,

I wasn't aware of any particular predilection regarding Harris and porn until I read that article about him sourcing it on the internet after his conviction.

He seems to have been particularly attracted to young pubescent girls.

Whether his perusing of those sites occurred simply because he could do it with relative ease - as opposed to getting hold of hard copy which would have been a risk with his renown.

I'm more inclined to think it had less to do with porn and more to do with the fact he just decided he fancied young girls and was going to allow himself to indulge his appetite whenever it was possible.

I will say that reading the judges remarks on his abuse of his daughter's friend, that Harris's actions displayed classic abuse behaviour - a man of fifty targeting for sexual activity a 13-15 year old family friend over many years...really is the most damning of all the evidence.

Like most people, I was shocked about the allegations firstly and then the conviction of Rolf Harris. Hard to believe and I do not have any idea what an appropriate punishment should be. I feel let down, I suppose like finding a trusted friend or employee has been lying or stealing from you. Or your partner has been unfaithful. There are many questions of why and how could it be. No answers are readily available.

Having said that, I do also think that the affect on the victims is exaggerated in most. I think kids are far more resilient than many adults acknowledge. While such has an affect at the time, like many other adverse experiences, kids deal with it generally over time.

There have been millions of kids subjected to pedophillia and incest since the beginning of time. Did all have their life 'ruined'? What about the horrible things kids see in war zones or in other aspects of life. Only a day ago there were press pictures of a bloke in Syria or Iraq being crucified and a heap of kids looking on. I have seen videos of a kid being shown how to cut a persons throat. As a kid I saw and learnt about slaughtering animals for food and hunting. What about the girls that suffer FGM by the very ones they trusted to care and protect them. How could they inflict so much pain if they loved them? But they get over it and inflict the same pain to their own daughters, which is hard to believe.

So I take the claims of 'ruined' their lives with a pinch of salt, or does that only apply to us in the modern western world as incest and pedophillia is still part of society and culturally acceptable in many societies.

I think kids learn to deal with many unpleasant experiences they encounter in life, far more than many adults give them credit for. We cannot shield our kids from every thing, as much as we would like to, but kids do learn from experiences.

Thanks for all those responses since my teary crack-up yesterday morning. Much appreciated.

<< I am of the opinion the hurt you are feeling possibly has you reacting to this news in a manner you might not have otherwise countenanced. >>

Fair enough, Steele.

But I’m sure the opposite is true for many, including several respondents on this thread. They have been too ready to take a very harsh line, without having sufficient knowledge, having relied only on the often very sensationalist media coverage.

Now, having read the sentencing remarks of Justice Sweeney (thanks for the link Poirot), I can at last have a high degree of confidence in the nature and magnitude of the offences. But up until that point, I was not willing to accept what I was hearing in the media to any more than a general extent, while considering the possibility that it was being beat up out of all proportion. I think that was a wise thing to do.

Consider this story (again, thanks Poirot): http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-websites-indecent-images-children?CMP=soc_568

< Harris was charged with four counts of making indecent images of children – the notion of "making" an image, based on a 1978 law, also includes viewing them on a computer >

Who would ever have thought that making an image included simply viewing an image on your computer?

Obviously without that explanation, everyone would have thought that Rolf had been right into some really hard-core child porn activity, rather than just viewing images (which incidentally are absolutely borderline at being interpreted as child porn). We have to be so careful about what we read. There is so much scope for us to be wildly misled.

I’m not trying to downplay Rolf’s activities here, just trying to elucidate an accurate perspective.

I think we now have an accurate overall perspective of this issue. It would seem to me that a jail term of two years, five and a half months (half of what he was sentenced to… the judge saying that he will serve half of his sentence in jail), is all considered quite reasonable.

Yeah, Banjo...I dunno.

The girl who was Bindy's friend who endured years of abuse followed by years of alcoholism...before she could even bring herself to tell her family, is a case where a life was ruined.

What we have to keep in mind is that in our culture there is a"huge taboo" on sexually interfering with a minor. Minor's themselves are well aware of it, and anybody whose raised children knows that at around ten years of age, kids generally start to become more private regarding their bodies. They start to cover up and seek privacy for their hygiene issues.

They become aware of the taboo.

So when an adult comes along and violates it, they feel the weight of societal mores - they feel violated and grubby. That's quite a big psychological load to take on, especially when it all rests on the actions of an adult who decided to help themselves to someone's body by taking advantage of trust.

I mentioned earlier my own experience (one which individual chose to ridicule) It was no laughing matter - and even though I stopped the next attempt, it did leave me scarred. The thing is that there is no way I would have dreamed of telling an adult. I don't know why that is, but a psychologist could probably tell me. It was my own private shame that this man had done that. It was "taboo" and I was left feeling shame, confusion and powerlessness.

Strangely enough, I appear to have processed it quite healthily, as I'm now waffling about it on this forum...but for most of the years of my life I kept it private, told no-one....it was a significant scar on my psyche.

Excellent posts R0bert and Banjo. Very thought-provoking stuff.

Whether children report sexual assault or not seems to depend a lot on the prevailing adult attitudes and the relationship between parents and the aggressor.

In our case at school most of us apparently told our parents and in my case, at least, after some initial doubt my father, by some astute questioning, believed me.
He told me many years later that he raised the matter with some of the other fathers, compared notes, and the teacher voluntarily left both the school and the organization.

We all got on with life and generally forgot about it, my first conscious remembering of the incidents was at a class reunion about 20 years later when we had a bit of a chuckle about it.

Is Mise,

"Whether children report sexual assault or not seems to depend a lot on the prevailing adult attitudes and the relationship between parents and the aggressor."

True.

In my case I had been taken in by this family after my father had gone off on one his tangents and abandoned me for that period.

The perpetrator was the step-father of the other kids in the house. I wish I had spoken up, even to the other kids, but I was mortally ashamed of what had happened (and like some of Rolf's actions, it happened when other people were around)...anyway I felt isolated in my predicament - and was mightily relieved when some short time later this man left.

(I suspect he may have done even worse to his step-daughter...but again, nothing was ever said.)

...............

Ludwig,

"Who would ever have thought that making an image included simply viewing an image on your computer?

Obviously without that explanation, everyone would have thought that Rolf had been right into some really hard-core child porn activity, rather than just viewing images (which incidentally are absolutely borderline at being interpreted as child porn)."

I think you're splitting hairs here...viewing them, but not downloading them, printing them...whatever. It fits in with his predilection for young pubescent girls. In any case, those charges are not going to be pursued.

Also, the UK Attorney General's Office tweeted last night that Rolf Harris's sentence has been referred to them under the unduly lenient sentences scheme.

For my part, I think there is little to be gained from increasing his sentence. Justice has been served for his victims. He'll endure jail time and his reputation is in tatters now the truth of his actions has been revealed.

Ludwig>> It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.<<

Luddy for me the form or extent of sexual predation does not enter into it. It is all about the vulnerability of the “selected” victim.

Luddy Harris’s moral crime is in the act of choosing a victim that is physically psychologically and in terms of credibility substantially less powerful than him, Age of consent laws are in place to protect children from cowards like Harris.

To choose a child or adolescent as your victim deserves jail time for just the predatory behaviour. In sheer moral terms you would have to have more respect for a bank robber than Harris.

>> Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus.<<

There are no degrees in the crime of unlawful under age carnal knowledge. Five years on top is not enough for the number of convictions, five years inside would fit my moral scale better.

Luddy whatever Harris got busted for you can be assured that he and Saville shared their experiences and as constant child predators got up to worse. Primarily because an overt libido coupled with a psychological penchant for children and that is a sexually driven power trip that they don’t grow out of...they grow into it.

So I don't agree with your thought process Luddy, its morally unbalanced.

I can't help wondering about the feelings of
Mr Harris's wife and daughter in all of this.
How must they be feeling at this time?

Did they know anything or suspect
anything about their husband and father over all
these years? Surely there must have been tell-tale
signs that something was wrong with his behaviour.
Especially in the case of the daughter's best-friend
being molested while they were on holidays together
and the daughter sleeping in the next bed.

What possible explanation could be made for turning
a blind eye to all this?

I read somewhere that Mr Harris's daughter is financially
dependent on her father (he gives her a monthly alowance).
In 2012 Bindi wrote to her father to ask if she was the
sole inheritor of his 11 million pound estate.

I suppose money could be a good motivator for someone's silence.
Money, fame, love - a combination of all three perhaps?
- who knows? But now that things are out in the open -
and Mr Harris's reputation has taken such a battering -
where does that leave his wife and daughter?

IM GLAD/YOUR\AT/PEACE..ludwig/but you do raise/an interesting point
and i will as usual jump-in/where even demons wouldthin/twice.

i love porn/i love looking at shapes sizes/seeing the vast extreems god goes to
and even/the greater/lenGTHS/WE OURSELF GO TO

i have looked at the entrY veils/of the gates/by which humanity gains HER admitance/its just perfect/in all its shapes designs signes of wear and tear/point being/it calms me..im one who was awakend/early

and loved/it
but dont want to get real/with a real person
as im so over the lot/of it/yet slave to the porn
so many faces/looking with eye contact/unashamed/like eve

it want the porn that screwed roffle harris/it was fame/and people pandering to him from birth telling him how special he is/then he met savlon/and aopted the role model/we coached encouraged nurtured him into/because he too was awoken/to adult-hood adult try

if only woman were on heat/like the 20s/40/s..and 60's
the way we are suposed to be[we are herd beasts/we need peers
we dont need to be tied to a faulse reality[like living with mum
or with'the boys'..in traditional society/they have division/of\the sexes[to redirect sex drive into ..serfdom\

my life is mess enought/without messing up[or getting iNTO THE MESS/OF OTHERS//PORN FILLS THE NEED/TO KNOW/why it is so/BACKTO the place of our birth[cause im not obsesed with the staff/of\life..

anyhow a come on/must be clear
never asume permission/when its shock
but but for that freeze INSTINCT/maNY WOMAN WOULD NEVE CHOSE TO BREED

I KNOW IF I WAS FEMAIL/I WOULD BE LESBO/FEMINISATnumero/0no

Foxy,

With respect, those inferences are unfair and could be construed as allegations of complicity for financial gain. I hope you meant none of that.

Sometimes there is no better explanation than the trust that an offender abused, and his/her victims are the people close to him/her as well as the more obvious, direct victims who are the complainants.

I my voluntary work I have listened to the very sad stories of a number of people. The simple fact is that criminals (and Harris is one) are very manipulative people who can be adept at leading double lives. I could relate the story of a lovely old fellow I visit whose wife, a professional, led (and continues to lead!) not two but three parallel lives and managed to strip the family assets. She even had a house where she lived operated from when not at the family home (which she returned to at night) and then another.. He found out some of it through accident, but the available family finances are so 'shot' and controlled by her that he cannot achieve any separation.

That was a long story and to some unbelievable, but it is fact and anyone in community work could tell many.

The court arrived at the view that Rolf Harris was highly manipulative and unrepentant. His wife and daughter may never have known anything and you can be sure from the court evidence that Harris made very few slip-ups. We should believe the court. There is no sharing of blame, he did it all himself. He is a very nasty s.o.b to put everyone through the long legal processes and court appearances. We should be reminded too, that behaviour generalises.

The penalty is soft for the lives ruined by him.

Poirot,
Please stop making things up here, I did not riducle your experience, far from it. Trying to put things into perspective is not ridicule in any thesaurus.
Come to think of it when some high profile Labor people were charged with worse, the media was far less like the bloodhounds onto Rolf Harris. Any particular reason ? What about that Qld. Labor leader Keith Wright ? The hounding wasn't very long at all there was it ? Then there was that insufferable fat slob from the NT who topped himself. Not much hounding there either. I wonder how many more would surface after a little digging ?
Why not ? Because they din't fit the profile of the feminist cosshair on account of being conservative in politics.

Dear OTB,

Thank You for pulling me up on what I wrote.

Re-reading that post of mine I can now see
that I should have
phrased things differently and made it clearer.

I did not mean to cast any blame on the wife
and daughter.

And of course - You're absolutely right - clever
people can manipulate others - and can lead double-lives
very successfully as history teaches us.

Foxy,

I didn't imagine you were blame shifting.

Referring to the story I related about the elderly chap, it is difficult to understand how he didn't spot the duplicity. However that is in hindsight and many who trust their spouse to manage the finances would not have fared any better. He is dealing with a dangerous woman.

Rolf Harris' spouse and daughter were and are dealing with a dangerous man. He is shameless and unrepentant. I would be very surprised indeed if his behaviour doesn't generalise. Deceit goes hand in hand with a range of other nasty behaviours, blackmail, coercion and bullying being possible examples. Is he a ruthless, manipulative, puppeteer? Probably.

Dear OTB,

Thank You for that.

Food for thought.

individual,

You are so full of it.....

What do we make of this?

"[Poirot] Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?"

I'll let the rest of the posters on this thread draw their own conclusion on that.

You have no cred here whatsoever...having spent the first part of this thread blaming his victims for Harris's predation.

Poirot,
Well, What did you do ?

A couple of things I'd like to raise;

I think it was POIROT who said how hard it must be for a child to firstly approach, and then inform an adult that they've been 'interfered with' or sexually assaulted ? It would be extremely arduous and even terrifying for the child to initially, know who to speak with ? Mum or Dad ? Will they believe me ? Will I get into trouble ? Particularly if the assault was occasioned by a family member or friend ? The poor little buggers ?

Police may suspect even know, of many people engaged in this disgusting behaviour ? And yes, it's not entirely unknown where there are instances when innocent men have had their character absolutely besmirched by some vindictive, acrimonious men and women, by making a totally spurious allegation, merely because of some vengeful issue which has absolutely nothing to do with their behaviour ?

Evidence of this crime, may be occasionally seen in the Family Law Court. Neither is it entirely remote as a sequel to this falsification, the unjustly accused person, suicides as a consequence of this deception.

In conclusion, coppers may suspect even know an individual is guilty of an offence. But he must prove it to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt.

Dear O Sung Wu,

In the case of Rolf Harris - the proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt. And nothing excuses his behaviour.
Nothing!

We also as a society need to stop this blame shifting
onto the victims. We need to get the message across -
you do the crime - you do the time!

And we need to say No! To child abuse, domestic violence
(male and female), rape, and other abuses. These crimes touch
virtually all of us. With blame shifting -
victims are often reluctant to report the crime, because
they're afraid that other people - including family,
friends and jurors will suspect they did something to
"ask for it." Many victims are unwilling to relive
the experience in submitting to police interrogation,
medical examination, and court proceedings.

having spent the first part of this thread blaming his victims for Harris's predation.
Poirot,
The show business is renowned for sexual weirdoity, in fact I doubt if there were an ABC if it weren't for homosexuality or the SBS for that matter.
So, when mums push their georgeous little darlings literally into the laps of celebrities they're flushed with dreams of grandeur in showbiz. Then, when things don't go according to plan, the blame game starts & nowadays it's grubby lawyers first stop. Absolutely no-one can plead ignorance with the goings-on in showbiz. To stop celebrities from groping the little darlings, don't push them into the environment. Blame yourselves.

individual,

you are quite something.

Not content with posting this bilge early in the thread:

"....The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up...."

And...

"....They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame & when they realised a few years later that it didn't get them anywhere they started the molesting caper. Was the judge in that case a male lookalike feminist by any chance ?"

And....

"You're only getting dirty because old Rolf wasn't one of your leftie touching boys brigade. His crime was being a heterosexual.
Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?"

You now post this...

"...So, when mums push their georgeous little darlings literally into the laps of celebrities they're flushed with dreams of grandeur in showbiz. Then, when things don't go according to plan, the blame game starts & nowadays it's grubby lawyers first stop. Absolutely no-one can plead ignorance with the goings-on in showbiz. To stop celebrities from groping the little darlings, don't push them into the environment. Blame yourselves."

So here we have lovable Rolf Harris. Before all this came to light, which parent wouldn't trust a bloke like Rolf? He was the quintessential nice guy next door. You're blaming the mum of that 8 year-old for allowing her daughter to try and get Rolf's autograph. For Gawd's sake, she hadn't pushed her daughter into the lap of a heavy metal rocker smelling of rum...it was Rolf.

She was waiting for "an autograph".

And what happened to that young girl? Rolf, in that initial and brief encounter, put his hand up her skirt and indecently assaulted her in the crotch over her underpants.

How can you possibly blame a parent for that sort of thing happening with a celebrity of the reputation of Rolf?

You're still contorting yourself ridiculously in order to lay the blame anywhere but at Rolf's feet.

Did you even read the sentencing remarks and what he did to Bindy's friend?

I find it interesting that the likes of Jim Saville, Rolf Harris, Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods all set up charities. Is this to compensate for evil done?

Poirot,
Just once more. I am not excusing what Harris did. If you choose to read things out of context well, sorry, can't help you.

Dear Poirot,

One of the rules of this forum is Do not Flame.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

I certainly consider individual's first post on this thread as flaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

But even more disturbing is the attitude he has displayed. The obvious lack of empathy and the 'blame the victim' mentality which speaks to me, in this regard at least, as the same mindset as that of Rolf Harris.

Dear individual,

This again is your quote;

“I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.”

There is absolutely no way you can claim anybody has taken this out of context. If you had retracted and apologise for it I think most of us would have moved on. You have instead decided to double down.

And do not try and claim you were not excusing what Harris did. That was exactly what you did when you blamed the girls, their mothers and feminism instead of him.

It is evident that your politics has placed a millstone around your morality and we are left with a very toxic individual. Well may you say “I can't help you” well neither can we because that help only comes via a professional.

Just a real shocker.

individual,

".... If you choose to read things out of context well, sorry, can't help you."

What can you possibly mean by that? You've done nothing on this thread but blame the victims - or their mums - or the lawyers (which, oddly enough in this situation, you refer to as "grubby").

Again....

"The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up......"

"....They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame...."

"....His crime was being a heterosexual....

"....So, when mums push their georgeous little darlings literally into the laps of celebrities...."

"...blame game starts & nowadays it's grubby lawyers first stop".....

"...Blame yourselves."

If that's "not excusing" what Harris did - I'd hate to see what was.

Indi, Not only is Poirot, reading your comments "out of context" as you put it, so am I. and I suspect a whole lot of other contributes are as well! Your line of "Naughty old Rolf, but, but, but...here is the list of the guilty.

1. The victims, first and foremost
2. The parents for selling their children
3. The feminists for being female
4. The lefties for being lefties
5. The ABC for being homosexual, its always the ABC's fault anyway.
6. The media for reporting un-newsworthy news
7. The judge for thinking he is a number 3
8. The jury for not having a real job
9. The lawyers for making a quid
10 The law makers for making stupid laws
11 The cops for not chasing real crooks

Indi that about covers the list of wrong doers in this case, does it not. Can't for the life of me think of anyone else who might have done something wrong in this matter, can you?...

I wrote in the opening post:

>> It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that. <<

Soggy, you replied:

<< Luddy for me the form or extent of sexual predation does not enter into it. It is all about the vulnerability of the “selected” victim. >>

I find that quite extraordinary. Surely the extent of predation, whether it be groping, digital penetration or rape… and the severity and frequency of it, has got a whole lot to do with it.

I wrote:

>> Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus.<<

You replied:

<< There are no degrees in the crime of unlawful under age carnal knowledge. >>

There are most definitely extents of severity.

<< Luddy whatever Harris got busted for you can be assured that he and Saville shared their experiences and as constant child predators got up to worse… >>

No, we can’t be assured of that at all.

<< …Primarily because an overt libido coupled with a psychological penchant for children and that is a sexually driven power trip that they don’t grow out of...they grow into it. >>

You can’t assert that. There seems to be no continuation of this sort of behaviour from Harris over the last ?25 years.

<< So I don't agree with your thought process Luddy, its morally unbalanced. >>

Sorry Soggy, but I think your thought process is a bit off-balance here. You are making assertions beyond what has been determined and beyond what we can know. You certainly can’t assert this sort of thing as fact.

This is one of the reasons that I didn’t believe what was being said in the media, and indeed didn’t accept any of it until I read the judge’s sentencing remarks:- There are just too many people, in the media, and all manner of ‘expert’ commentators, who are just too willing to project things to a far worse or stronger extent than what they should be.

Paul1405,
Out of that ganging up lot you definitely get the crown. Give me a day to look up your mentality in the thesaurus.

Hi there FOXY...

I couldn't agree with you more. There are no winners in matters such as the Rolf Harris crimes. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement, the judiciary, the medical profession and anyone else who might claim to be a stake holder, this type of heinous crime (paedophilia) has been around since time in memorial. Without any prospect of either a cure or favourable change.

Unfortunately, there are some crimes, generally those against the person, particularly of a sexual nature, we'll never manage to eradicate them. I guess we all realize that human nature being what it is, has some inherently evil components within. And there's nothing much that can be done about that.

o sung wu,
" coppers may suspect even know an individual is guilty of an offense. But he must prove it to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt"
Mate, that is how far backward "the job" has gone.
I remember a case involving the head of the old Tramways Union (Tommy Juno) who had half the kids on the North Shore of Sydney acting out sex roles for his camera which he sold on to his pedophile associates.
He was so far entrenched in the corrupt system of government of the day that he was untouchable.
They found him in a open grave at Botany cemetery with his legs, all three of them, chopped off and bled out.
One of the coppers they believed to have carried out the extra judicial "topping" was my brother who was on paid suspension from that day to the day he retired (22 years later and three ranks up),
The courts couldn't or wouldn't convict so there were willing men who did the tasks on behalf of the community.
Warren Lamfranchi was a classic case of coppers knowing and courts failing to act. Roger did.
Not today so the community suffers in silence

Hi there CHRISGAFF1000...

How the job has changed. I don't believe I'd survive in it today. What you say is spot on. A bit of 'sidewalk' justice did wonders with some of the slugs we had to deal with then. Today there's no fear, nor respect, even any assistance rendered to the coppers now. Your body armour is worn backwards to protect yourself from both peers and superiors alike...a sad, sad state of affairs.

Remember, the Oceanic and Coogee Bay pubs back in those days, they were part of the Millers group ? Saturday arvo, you'd have your snouts informing on their mothers if you'd let 'em - the likes of 'Dutchy van Hooten, Mick the Turk and other notables at the bottom bar of the Oceanic. With big Roy Thurger wandering around stunned because he was always pissed, as the 'Doorman'. You'd possibly remember he was shot dead outside his Laundrymat, as he attended there to pick-up his takings from the place ? He could hold his hands up though, only beaten (points) by Bobby Dunlop for the Empire Light Heavyweight title. He was also an associate too of Joe Meisner (incorrect spelling, sorry) some sort of karate champion, anyway he'd take care of many of the SP bookies with their enormous takings.

Times have changed Chris, and so have we I suspect ? Take it easy mate.

individual,

"Out of that ganging up lot you definitely get the crown...."

I'm going to address that comment as you now appear to think we're ganging up on you.

Did it ever occur to you that not only have your comments on this thread been controversial, but for you, late in the thread, to deny the gist of them is an insult to fellow posters' intelligence?

You came onto this thread with all guns blazing, with seemingly the main intention to deflect blame from the perpetrator, Rolf Harris, and plant it squarely at the feet of his victims and their defenders.

Some of your comments have been outrageous - not least your reply to me after I had related my own painful experience from childhood.

It's not all that easy to talk about things like that on a public forum, but I was genuinely trying to add another dimension to the discussion by telling it from an assaulted child's point of view.

To have you reply thus

"Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?"

...was gobsmackingly offensive. Here again you displayed a complete lack of empathy for a child's plight in that situation. Your despicable comment is probably the worst of its kind I've encountered in all my time on OLO.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that you would dismiss my own childhood experience with such cruelty. You have flitted about on this thread variously accusing Harris's victims of setting him up, trying to get fame, to make money from cooking up molestation stories. You've blamed feminists. You've tried to divert the thread to talk about the sex trade in Asia. You've had a go at lefties and Labor, mums, lawyers.......anyone but bloody Rolf Harris!

If you're feeling the heat from criticism - you're the one who's been stoking the fire.

.....

SteeleRedux

Yes : )

Thanks Poirot.

Indi, I thank you for the crown. As I read it Harris has been fairly treated by the British justice system, and he was entitled to nothing less than fair treatment under the law. he got it and it will continue for him. Unfortunately, fair treatment wasn't something he afforded his victims.
The "good" thing to come out of this, is not Harris's conviction, but the fact that it has promoted many other victims of these types of crimes to come forward and report what happened to them in the past. I'm sure that was never good old Rolf's intention, but lets "thank"him for that.

IM Pposting this here/cause its to topic

ant says..by way of redirection<<..A skype interview with Dr Shakhova below...There are clips showing how ice containing methane can be lit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQDVr1eMLK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BVsS6vo60Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ooWqpCdZE
Posted by ant>>>

THIS WAS SAID/IN REPLY
TO A RATHER BIASED BIGOTED REPLY/FROM ME
that revealeD HOW/his claimed experience*[with a hundred square miles of melting tundra[is clearly localised/but he compounds his ERROR*

the point where this interelates..is life isnt black/nor white
its about how EVERYstory has two sides[and once we judged/ANYTHING*..we became one-eyed

i think/nothing better reveals/this inherant human weakness [loVE]
hw once we love/things..we blind ourselves/to the other things

its rumoured god is one-eyed/he only sees us via our loves
we dont notice when he 'sins'..cause we dont dare judge god

lets face it/rolf is a bloke*
made a faulse god..[and every false-god/hAS feet rooted in the dirt

lets return/to the falty reasoning[of the one in call ant]

DEAR ANT
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16430&page=23

<<..In relation to methane; disputing methane shows a misunderstanding of what happens when permafrost melts>>

mate/the area\..of the melt'..is minute/in relation/to the total combines methane emisions from wormfarms/and far less than home compost bins/or rpotting food we never een ate/yet transported arround the world/frozeN/THEN DEFROSTED/PURE METHANE BMEASUABLE/IN LIGHT-YEARS/AND YOR CRYING ABOUT A LOCAL-EVENT?

<<>>and how it reacts in water>>

MATEY//ICE MELT=water..99 percent the tundra=still under ice/you got a few hundred square miles/a local event

>>,,.The science is there,..>>

but its been manipulated/modeled modified/set up to fail
paid to blog bloggers speading one eyed science bling

<<>.no way of challenging it.>>
cause your one eye/wont see/your own reproof
you bought into the lie/roffle harris is a pervert

dont want to know more
but we all sinned/none of us has clean hands
we all fight our imnnerr demons/but few act it out[even fewer get bent out of shaPE/BY A LOCALISED EVENT

<<MORE/ANT-RANT> \..It's a bit like
challenging the existence of oxygen.>>

YES/IM FINALLY CONVINCED*
one-eyed/mate..why/because you judged.

PS/i/FIXED UP..YOUR HttP*PS-MESS 2
cause/i..dont\need..hide..'your/proof'
proof/of what..eh-wot?

love you so much poirot*
the one thing never forgot.

I have been wondering why they picked on Harris. There must be just so many more even higher profile celebrities, lawyers, judges, politicians etc who'd offer even more interesting exposure than him ?
I can't help thinking that it was because of his nice bloke image that they came down on him so heavily. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's only been a "groper" or similar. Have they picked him to take the pressure off some of the pillars of our society ? I just can't help thinking that this is the case. You know the real penetrators. I can smell a Rat here.

INDY/quote..<<.,I have been wondering/why they picked on Harris.>

once/you\fall-out/of favour
or/the counter-dirty person you got the/dirt on dies
[WE/KNOW-FOR/SURE;.there are many more[like last years there was a huge list]........and he is the only one[and they didnt need persue/the porn/link.

its a big issue/indy/but your to forgiving
[as far as god is concerned/he neveR ALLOWS/a bigger burden/then we can bare.//.[the innocent cant come/here\.plus we ech/got\a life-previeuw/and bought the ticket[got our life in sentience

[i noted on the street.and at nimbin[everyone/there had early awaken

<<./There must be just so many more/even higher profile celebrities>

mATE/ITS NEAR ALL OF EM/but.as i said/only when they get like clinton/or that bbc jerk[or like dikk cheecky/who shoots lawyers/hge dont agree with

<<>,lawyers,judges,politicians/sports-heroes.
girlguides.priests[wherer kids/are.its a moving feast[that kid/with
the old folks it was one in four/get molesterd
now its near one to one[two to one[at bst]

the red shirt/KID/Ihad 400 perverts withn 100 mile radius
e

<<>who'd offer even more/interesting exposure\than him/HARRIS>>?
PLENTYBELISCONE/FRENCHIE/THAT BANK PRESIDENT/THE CANADIANPM/THE LIST IS ENDLESS

ANYONE WANT TO/BUY ORGAN/TO ORDER??
satans realm/is really sick

<<>>Correct me if I'm wrong>

you are

<>>but I think he's only\..what/ibeen a "groper">>
a fat oppertuity/fish?f\he hugged/you
and licked/hids finger/and shuved-it/where te sun dont shine
better or worse that me/isnt an excuse
its not a rating/

they picked him to take the pressure off some
of the pillars of our society

<<>You know the real penetrators.>>>..
we all/see\them..on\tv/everynight
ask/why/they only convicted/the lackeys[murdocs mates got off/cause via secret recordings/ya get all the dirt/

suspende sentance/he can be bought

</I can smell a Rat here...>>
be carefull/mate\they got your dirt/too[no secrets/means\just that

no secrets*]full-stop[*

Individual,

It's possibly not really worth my time and trouble at this stage of the proceedings, but since you're still defending Rolf and attempting any line of mitigation for his "crimes, I'll take you up on your offer.

"....Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's only been a "groper" or similar...."

You are wrong...and I'm happy to correct you.

Read this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf

Contained in it are all the grizzly details of Harris's predation and his sexual abuse of one teenager in particular. I can't post the pertinent passages here because they are quite graphic - you'll have to read them for yourself.

(Other posters on this thread made themselves aware of the detail - why haven't you before now?)

(Hint: - they go way beyond "groping")

Even this ABC News article contains this warning:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/rolf-harris-trial-reporting-downfall-of-childhood-hero/5574350

"Read Justice Nigel Sweeney's sentencing of Rolf Harris in full - WARNING: CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT"

Will be waiting patiently for your next spiel attempting to paint this predator as "hard done by".

Poirot,
Are you stupid ? How many more times do I have to tell you I'm not defending Harris ? Are you so thick that you can't read anything as it is meant. Why don't you just give up wasting our time here.

individual,

Okay mate....gloves off.

I have possibly been mistaken that you have been defending Harris's depraved behaviour because you were being purposely belligerent.

I've now come to the conclusion that you really are "thick".

The judge's sentencing remarks have been up on this thread now for a day or so, and I have been urging fellow posters to read them because it squashes any doubt that Harris was merely a "playful groper" and has been unduly slammed by the establishment.

Ludwig read them...and he now understands why they went after Harris.

You, on the other hand, have sailed merrily along ignoring the detail of the case - detail that we were not all privy to during the trial. You haven't sought to apprise yourself of the gory detail of what Harris perpetrated against his daughter's friend serially and over many years. Anyone who read it would feel disgust.

Have you read it - are you going to?

And then you toodle along here after 104 posts and say ".......Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's only been a "groper" or similar...."

Pathetic!

You say to me "Are you stupid?"

One of us is...but I suspect it ain't me.

Indi, you can't be that stupid, after all you can tap on a keyboard and post your drivel. read the links Poirot has provided and then tell us it just "a bit of groping".

Poirot, Indi must be getting some perverse pleasure geeing you up with his crap. But then again he does claim to have "mates" up there in the wilds of North Queensland who do the same sort of thing as Harris and everyone in that neck of the woods thinks its all okay.
Indi, if you have such "mates" they certainly are a strange bunch indeed, you included. Take some advice, I would suggest you get some new "mates" as well. After all your known by the company you keep!

o sung wu,
That sure is one classic "Rogues Gallery" you bring to life there old pal.
Over the years you start to forget the names but the deeds never go away.
I remember Roy Thurger and the Oceanic and Coogee Bay pubs and I think I actually miss them in some small way.
I actually had a conversation with an old colleague the other day and we were talking about how easy it really was to 'handle' the hoods of the day. Today you wouldn't wander amongst the crims with less than a 12g pump and a 223 semi and plenty of back up.
90% of the 'knockabouts' I knew could well have been called 'gentlemen' compared to these gits today.
The old "Bunch of C#@ts" in Sussex St and the "The Bells" were my favored intel gathering spotes and we used to sort info out with the beaks and crime reporters in the old "Ox on the Rocks" over the best steaks and mussels in town.
God I miss it.

individual,
"I have been wondering why they picked on Harris. There must be just so many more even higher profile celebrities, lawyers, judges, politicians etc who'd offer even more interesting exposure than him ?
Be very circumspect and careful when you enter this domain.
You are entering the arena of the pedophile networks (alive and well today)
There a couple of us on this forum that could tell you a lot more than would be good for you to know, but that;s another story.
Remember Franka Arena (Tina Arena's mum and remember her fate when she started to air the dirty washing in parliament}

Dear individual,

How dare you.

You sir are utterly contemptible.

I remind you again that these are your words;

“I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.”

8 to 13 year old girls leading him on?

Instead you simper “I'm not defending Harris”. That is a deflection. You have not been accused of defending his behavior instead you stand rightfully condemned of attacking the victims saying they 'led him on'. It is cowardly, low and spiteful.

You have not retreated nor apologised in any manner for this ignorant, chauvinistic, hateful comment and now you are attacking someone who has herself been a victim.

Why are you still here?

< History to be rewritten after conviction

Now, history must be rewritten. There are awards and titles to be revoked, plaques and paintings to be removed. >

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/rolf-harris-trial-reporting-downfall-of-childhood-hero/5574350

Hold on! Too much too soon.

Harris’ awards and artwork have got nothing to with his misdemeanours.

There is something fundamentally wrong with awards being revoked when they were given for a certain reason and now taken away for an entirely different reason which quite frankly has got nothing to do with why he got those awards in the first place.

Same logic with the removal of his artwork.

People need to be careful about overreacting here…. and regretting it later.

in Indigenous communities child sexual abuse has been shown to be up to 50 times that of the wider community. Not the same outrage however except for any Govt. that tries to do something about it.

'evening to you CHRISGAFF1000...

You're spot on with what you say about todays crooks ! They're not a patch on some of the blokes you and I would know from times past ? Today if you wanted to clear the public bar of any pub, you'd hose 'em out, because you'd never want to touch 'em, pure filth.

Speaking of pubs, and the old 'Bells', Jimmy Carruthers was the licensee down there for some time, I seem to recall ? His licence permitted him 'early opening' (0600h) in order to accommodate the change of shifts of the wharfies at Garden Island. You're right, sometimes you do get a bit nostalgic when you hear a name, or an event, or something ? There were some good blokes in the job, I often wonder what happened to them, where they are and what they're doing ? Musing upon days gone by, an indelible sign of my advancing dotage I'm afraid.

I'm wondering if some have taken the wrong inference from some of individuals comments. Wish I could underline the word some by the way.

I came across an article regarding a missing dossier on a paedophile ring amongst british politicians http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/05/david-cameron-demands-answers-paedophile-ring_n_5559443.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

There is in my view some basis for a view that politicians and the judicary protect each other to some extent, actually writing that I also think the media is also part of that protection when it suits. Thats the aspect that stuck out for me in one of recent posts by individual that has drawn some ire. Not helped by the suggestion that it was only groping, as if that makes it a minor issue.

Ludwig, I've not found specifics on what the awards were for but my impression is that Harris got generalised awards rather than ones for specific achievements. Being an all round nice guy and giving entertainers a good image type awards rather than best painting, best song type awards. If thats the case then his actions wiped any basis for those awards out. I still can't see why you are so bothered by the consequences Harris is wearing for his actions, they are far less harsh than many people wear for one off incidents or sometimes no wrongdoing at all. Harris was a serial sexual abuser who has shown no regard for the consequences of his actions on others. There are far worse abusers around but that does not take away from his actions.

R0bert

now you are attacking someone who has herself been a victim.
SteeleRedux,
I did ask her to explain what action she took with her stepfather but she chose not to. As for 8 to 13 year old girls leading him on? Is that so impossible ? Are you trying to tell me that at that age some kids are not capable of doing that ? What with so much around us in media & advertising you're trying to tell me there's no such influence ? Come on now, if it's not about money then it's about sexual exploitataion & connotation. Why, even toys have been produced to that effect for even younger children. What about the Wiggles ? Even they have tried it with their two Mommies or two Daddies ? What age is their target group ?
Chrisgaff1000 has it spot-on. Disagreeing with reality is the one thing you Lefties are so terribly wrong at. Accepting it is virtually beyond you. Much easier cop-out to attack those who think deeper.

RObert, you say <<There is in my view some basis for a view that politicians and the judicary protect each other to some extent,>> that may well be true, but in its self has no bearing on the Harris case.
Its not in dispute Harris received various awards, and some of those awards were for meritorious community works. But, in noway does such awards lessen Harris' offences, nor should they be used as a 'get out of jail free card'. It would be just as irrelevant to say Harris' music was good and loved by millions therefore that is mitigation for his crimes, its not.
<< As for 8 to 13 year old girls leading him on? Is that so impossible ?>> Indi, read the judges comments, you seem to choose not to, and instead choose to put your own ill-informed comments in their place.
<<Much easier cop-out to attack those who think deeper.>> Indi, based on some of your comments, you do not appear to "think" at all.

Well, Good morning...

I did think perhaps I might be finished here, having spent way longer on this subject than I intended to...mainly due to being constantly appalled by everything that dribbles off individual's fingers onto his keyboard.

And he hasn't disappointed me today.

individual says....

"I did ask her to explain what action she took with her stepfather but she chose not to..."

What weasel words are they!...this guy should be a pollie.

This is what you said to me after I related my story.

""Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?"

The insinuation loaded in that sentence is palpable, You weren't interested at all in what, if any, action came of my own experience. Your despicable reply was a barbed attack on myself, because you appear to be a nasty piece of goods who has little sympathy for any "youngster" who is taken advantage of by an adult.

You have done nothing on this thread but seek to mitigate Rolf's culpability in his own demise.

RObert says:
"I'm wondering if some have taken the wrong inference from some of individuals comments..."

No we haven't. Do you need any better example for individual trying to weasel out of his original point than the one I have written above?

And now he compounds it with..

"As for 8 to 13 year old girls leading him on? Is that so impossible ?"

Yes, I can imagine how an 8 Year-old waiting for an autograph could be construed by an innocent middle-aged entertainer as a come on - and deserving of a grope in the crotch.

Here we go again....individual is insinuating that it couldn't possibly have been Harris who availed himself of opportunities to do what he did, the poor bloke was perhaps led on, not only by a girl he saw often, but by complete strangers he'd just met...and that explains his serial abuses

(individual: "What about the Wiggles ?"....What about them?)

ITS Beginning:to look like\obsessiveness/to_the_point
of/nonsense/or\Residual-BLOAT/mote*/gloat?

<<I did/ask her>......BEFORE/OR\AFTER?

for titillation/or\rectification/guilt?\blame?/shame?
its clearto the/30 people witnessing your word/IT FEELS\LIKE THE LATTER

TITILATE/INDY<</explain/what action\she"

AS AN/II YEAR-OLD<<took with/the\]stepfather""
-SHE SLIT;HIS THROAT EAR TO EAR
CUT-OFf HIS\tiny-PENIS/jammed-it/down his throat

\she took/his two brains\and turned them
into eye-balls[get it],;feel better/now\knowing?

<<..but she/chose/not to"

hear-say/insane-speculation/
revealing\she-has more control/over her-self/than\you have[over your/selfishness]

.<<As for;....8 to 13 year/old girls/leading*him-on?""

ohh/lordy/come-on

<<Is\that/so impossible?..""

clearly/you-have some/past issues
no/13 years olds dont/'lead you on'[its demons/in your mind\feeding your\selfishness/how your god/and\their snot.].

[how-to\tell/the individual/we get
what\he/obsess-over[but]no young/girl\even wants_to\talk/to him

in fact/there's\a creepy individual-page/on facebook\saYing beware of this wwwcanker/he thinKs\like a dog does/that girls-old enough to bleed /want to\MOTHER/YOUR-SPAWN/OR/THAT-BIT\OF-YOU;SO-FORELORN[RELEASE/YA-GRIP/YOUR-LOSING/BLOOD-FLOW/TO YA HEAD

<<Are you\trying-to tell\me/that/at that
age\some kids/are-not capabl/of doing-that?""

because/the issue\needs clarification/no
they\are-not/PHYSICALY/CAPABLE\OF SAFLY/DELIVERING/YOUR-KID
BEING\yet/kids/themselves\the damage/done-to/child-brides/damaged/trying to give-birth/is-clear

they/arnt\flirting/their\in-shock
but/kids\like groan-ups/can\do/'act'/re-act/feign/or\go intO SHOCK/

maTE/let\the issue/drop
stop playing-with yourself/or\us.......[adjust]

your nice-niece isnt giving you the come-on/neither is pure/0

<<.What/with\so\much around/us in media>"
MATE/STOP WATCHING/KIDDIE PORN/KIDDIE/PROGRAMING/grow-up

<<&advertising''

yes/buy/this\pheromoan/GROAN/and all\little girls
wil\ want only to please-you

LORDy/oh/please/cant you see/the/absurdity\out-grow/ya\fantasy?

think/;they have/father-issues/and
your abusing-mental-cases[demeaning\thyself...................

<<you're trying/to tell me/there's\no such influence>''

we each/have repeatedly\tried/to tell you
you need spend/less time\OBSESSIVLY-thinking/about little
BOY-TOYS/AND\girls needing any

LET/ALONE-a/perverse/PERSISTENT/LEECH/
so/OBSESSING\delusions/ABOUT.....THEM

Come on now,GROW-UP/
groan woman/are so-much better/FUN
KNOW/REALIZE\that\BE-IT/little girls/boys/or family pets/
your\a big boy now/,SO-do/try becoming a toy-boy/in the\old folks hom0

[and stop taking\them blue pills
[thats not\the real you/but\you lost\the real you/long ago

usually at this stage/we get some repentance
but/your obsessive demons/just drone-on

<<if it's not\about money/lollies/toys
nor/\false-promises/lies\distortions/deviant/

<<then it's /aboutsexual-exploitation""

and\by law/your the exploiter

<<&connotation."
remains/this guy\individal/really believes/this/

danger will*/robbing-some

<<>Why,/even toys>''

tickle-me/elmo[was only\produced/to redirect/
exposure/that\of\its/actors/love of abusing innocents/
a true sock-puppet/thats where\your heading-to/[or comming from]

<<What age/is their target group""?

usualy under-8/they think/somehow/
/but rejection/from adult=woman\dont make-OUT/OR\EVEN/WISH-TO/SPEAK/to you

so\your/choing\to not-let/it-go
obsessivly/so/just so/ya-know

<<Lefties are\so terribly/wrong at>

realization;that\this/guy/really\Believes/that?
CHANGE/HANDS-RIGHTY/NIGHTY/NIGHTLY

.i thank-goD
[OR RATHER HOPE]<<.Accepting it-is\virtually beyond you.>

BUT SADLY/NOT\YOU?
ANY-0NE/OF-US/COULD BE/THE NEXT/INDIVIDUAL
THE/NEXT\ROFFLE-HARRASS

<<Much easier\cop-out>
GIVING-IN/TO\THE DEMONS/FEEDING-just\ON/YA LUST

<<>to attack\those/who think deeper.>
it/just-gets/creepier
MATE/YOUR\NOT-THINKING=AT/ALL./
YOU/DONT CARE/FOR\ANY-ONE[JUST YOU?]

chrisgaff,

Did you ever frequent the first floor of the Crystal Palace just up from Mick Smith's in George St?

Dear OUG,

Damn!

Yes, OUG,

Your last post on this thread was amongst the most unintelligible you have ever posted.

Do you want us to read your views or just scroll past?

Notwithstanding my respect for originality, you need to have a bit of respect for your audience.

IM Sorry the key board is dying
my anger busts/em to bits
dtto the mouse

but guys the curse wasnt aimed at you
it was between an individual [who shall remain unmamed]/and the anger[at my sympathy]/in me at his wurds

mate/WE EACH Got a life previeuw/I SHOULD'A PAYED
MORE ATTENTION TO THE FINE DETAILS/ but didnt wanT to individualise it

but yet generalities abound
the lates thing going is the dot dot dot
as i wait for the words forms to shape my commentary

yet again
im sorry
and individual/i feel for you/but after it was done to me
i simply cant awake others ever again/i must speak in code and riddles lest i sat things im not supposed to give away/its turning into a witch hunt/it will BREAK yet more famliy lies up

but we need break the past
GO WITH THAT WHICH LASTS
we all have feet/of clay*/secrets to keep/moral hurdles to leap

go johan
YOU ONE POINTING-FINGER TYPER/~be gone
WOW[I LIKE THAT
~_-_~
o o
\-/

\/\/
!-!
(*)
/ \
= =

8*_*_*_*_*_*_*8
...........................................?

Dear Poirot,

I feel the perception of any of OUG's posts often comes down to one's frame of mind at the time of reading. There have been occasions when others have lauded a particular piece which I have found unintelligible nonsense, virtually scat poetry done for effect.

To me his last post was a pretty sweeping evisceration of individual and once on board I happily went with the flow.

Dear individual,

You claim;

“I did ask her to explain what action she took with her stepfather but she chose not to.”

No you instead said “You're only getting dirty because old Rolf wasn't one of your leftie touching boys brigade. His crime was being a heterosexual.
Btw, did you end up getting your stepfather locked up or wasn't he famous enough ?”

The intimation, given your earlier post was that he didn't have the money of fame to induce her to file a report. Utter gutter stuff.

I think there is some small part of you that acknowledges what you said was completely out of line but instead of retracting it you have decided to bully your way forward. It is time to stop shovelling my friend, the hole is as deep as it possibly could be.

Then again you may well see nothing wrong with what you have been posting here and no empathy for Harris' victims because 'they led him on'. In that case the label psychopathic would seem to be an appropriate.

“ defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduringantisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

OOPS/SORRY

i need to fore*give and let-IT BE*live
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16465&page=0

~_-_~
_o o_
-\-/-
http://rss.infowars.com/20140706_Sun_Alex.mp3
-\/\/-
_!-!_
-(*)-
+/ \+
=\ /=

8*_*_*_*_*_*_*8
...........................................?

What weasel words are they!..
Poirot,
Now that's what a Leftie would call a really logical explanation. I' just so proud of you.
Also re 'an 8 Year-old..' you conveniently left out the 13 year old because there could more than likely be some truth to it at that age than an 8 year old which is unlikely to the extreme.
How young were Harris's victims ?
(individual: "What about the Wiggles ?"....What about them?) Or was it Play School, Google it ! Ask SteeleRedux, he's bound to have a link stashed away on that.
My point & it is a point you don't want to get, is that I believe Harris although obviously guilty is a scapegoat to prevent bigger names from popping up. I hope for the kids sake that it fails.

Dear individual,

This was your before;

“The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up.”

And this is your after;

“My point & it is a point you don't want to get, is that I believe Harris although obviously guilty is a scapegoat to prevent bigger names from popping up. I hope for the kids sake that it fails.”

As OUG so succinctly put it;

“BEFORE/OR\AFTER?

for titillation/or\rectification/guilt?\blame?/shame?
its clear to the/30 people witnessing your word/IT FEELS\LIKE THE LATTER”

Titillation to attempted rectification. Sums it up beautifully.

Mate if you can't or don't want to see how to properly address this then I can't help you. Swallow some pride and act like an adult.

I agree with Ludwig in his opening post where he says "it was just a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risque activity, and nothing worse than that" and "it was nothing more than playful behavior" and "I think Rolf has copped a very raw deal here".

Rolf is the victim here. The victim of opportunistic female gold diggers. Rolf's a touchy feely person, so big deal if his hand slipped down too low. Girls like being touched up anyway. So Ludwig is right, and they should free Rolf immediately.

Swallow some pride and act like an adult.
SteeleRedux,
Nothing to do with pride whatsoever. When terms like 'assault' are used for a hand sliding to where it shouldn't then it is in my opinion way out of context.
Hence, my suspicion of Harris being a scapegoat for more serious offenders who more than likely actually did "assault".
Poirot still hasn't told us if she was "assaulted" or inappropriately touched.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“Poirot still hasn't told us if she was "assaulted" or inappropriately touched.”

And why on god's earth should she have to tell you that?

Has OUG hit the nail on the head? Are you obsessing over under age sex or in his words “GIVING-IN/TO\THE DEMONS/FEEDING-just\ON/YA LUST”.

Then you come out with;

“Hence, my suspicion of Harris being a scapegoat for more serious offenders who more than likely actually did "assault".”

So spitting on his fingers and digitally penetrating two of the under age girls is not assault in your book? Just 'inappropriate touching' huh?

That's right, I forgot, they were just gagging for it weren't they. Look at what you are saying, it is disturbing, it is creepy, it is sick, it does lack empathy for the victims and most of all it is frightening that you feel no remorse about making these views public here.

Yup,...certainly a little weird stuff going on here with individual.

Here's individual...still attempting to mitigate convicted Rolf Harris's crimes against minor's. He's made a career out of it on this thread. The fault is anyone's but the perpetrator, Harris.

So now he's having a go at the 13 year-old insinuating that she possibly led him on...

He says...

"Also re 'an 8 Year-old..' you conveniently left out the 13 year old because there could more than likely be some truth to it at that age...."

individual refuses (apparently) to read the judge's sentencing remarks, and continues in the weirdo vein of trying to plant responsibility for these crimes on the 13-15 year-old victim.

Nice one, individual.

"Poirot still hasn't told us if she was "assaulted" or inappropriately touched."

Being inappropriately touched "is" being assaulted....that's why Harris was convicted of "indecent assault" not only on the more serious sexual charges with his daughter's friend, but also on the other charges of touching and groping inappropriately.

I love this...

"When terms like 'assault' are used for a hand sliding to where it shouldn't then it is in my opinion way out of context."

What would you call it then, individual? I can assure that a child being subject to a "hand sliding" anywhere private - and then staying there for some time - is a particularly unsettling, even horrifying experience.

Who gives any unbalanced adult the right to invade a child's (or anyone's) private places?

Of course it's assault.

And...to top it off, he's now mitigating the seriousness of Harris's crimes by claiming he's a "scapegoat" because other profile people are likely up to the same thing.

It doesn't seem to matter which tack he comes up with, he's determined to make non-stop excuses for the fact that Rolf Harris carried out these actions with free will, serially and over many years.

For someone who claims he's not defending Harris, you've gone way out of your way to excuses his actions, play them down or write them off altogether.

Of course it's assault.
Poirot,
if a crook Police officer wants to lay an assault charge he can do so by simply saying you assaulted him when you merely tapped him on the arm to get his attention.
I got the distinct feeling you & Steele are of the same calibre as such a copper.
as for your personal situation I can only say YOU brought that up, not I.
To quite honest I doubt your story of assault now that you've exposed your despicable mentality.

This is fascinating.

A classic example of trolling.

After all, no-one in real life could actually hold the views espoused by individual, could they?

Outside a fully-operational paedophile ring, that is.

Pericles is so right!

"This is fascinating.

A classic example of trolling.

After all, no-one in real life could actually hold the views espoused by individual, could they?

Outside a fully-operational paedophile ring, that is."

And one does wonder why I've been so sucked in to debating with individual and his decidedly "creepy" argument.

Fascinating though...

His latest.

"If a crook Police officer wants to lay an assault charge he can do so by simply saying you assaulted him when you merely tapped him on the arm to get his attention.
I got the distinct feeling you & Steele are of the same calibre as such a copper.
as for your personal situation I can only say YOU brought that up, not I.
To quite honest I doubt your story of assault now that you've exposed your despicable mentality."

Who gives a flying toss whether you believe me or not, indy. You're lurching now from one ridiculous argument to another. We're all beginning to get a little sea sick...what with that and your nauseating excuses for these crimes.

Step it up a bit...the only value you have now on this subject is entertainment...and even that is waning.

Dear Pericles,

I'm not so sure it is trolling since individual's attempts at mitigation and diversion (as feeble as they were) are not that typical of a troll which is why I chose to describe it as flaming.

I think it might be a case of various hangups coalescing in a perfect storm.

Hatred of feminists, of the left, of PC, of do-gooders, of those who disagree with him on this forum I think have resulted in him originally posting a comment that he might not have if he had given it more thought.

Possibly if the condemnation had come from others on his side of politics then we may well have seen a retraction but given the primary source of disapproval he felt he had to stick to his guns and defend the indefensible.

He had most certainly been showing signs of testiness before this but his actions here have firmly placed him with the other OLO fringe dwellers with whom rational debate is a waste of time.

Individual is so right. It's not assault at all. If it was, just about every man in existence would now be doing jail time. I bet Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and all the hundreds of other 60s stars still alive, are now shaking in their boots because of the Rolf Harris case. These guys must have touched up thousands of girls, and as soon as one gold digger comes forward with a "story" for sale it opens up the floodgates.

Good afternoon to you INDIVIDUAL...

You made a remark some little time back, where you inferred there were probably much higher profile individuals than Rolf Harris, who've committed worst crimes against children - or words to that effect ? Well you're quite correct.

I often marvel at the capriciousness of people when they're on a specific tangent ? An example if I may, years back I'd been on the periphery of a job involving a bloke by the name of Leonard Keith LAWSON (dec). This individual had committed some atrocious crimes against the person, (CHRISGAFF1000 would know him?) including that of murder, rape, abduction, including a young school girl, at an exclusive Moss Vale Boarding School for girls, in NSW. And amazingly, abducting and assaulting a girl 'inside' the Chapel of Parramatta Gaol !

LAWSON was a particularly gifted artist. In fact prior to gaol he was a commercial artist and a Comic Book author/artist penning the successful comic, 'The Lone Avenger' Cowboy series. He therefore continued with his art, the entire duration he was in custody. People from all strata of the community, sought out and purchased LAWSON'S artwork. Some of his works were even hung, in a NSW government display at 'The Rocks', Circular Quay.

How so ? One could well argue, society had knowledge of LAWSON'S crimes ? Whereas, Rolf HARRIS was a beacon of the Aussie musical society, and a brilliant Artist as well ? Until recently, when his dark antecedents were ultimately and publically disseminated.

An interesting proposition I would've though ?

Poirot, I hope you saw my wish to highlight the word some. I don't see any benefit in me adding to the discussion about the other parts. I've already said as clearly as I can my views on the idea that it's only groping. Compounded by some of todays posts. I'm still trying to work out if RightIsRight was having a stir or was serious. Looking at some of his or her other posts I' concerned it may have been genuine.

I was though interested in the point raised regarding those they don't go after and to be clear Paul I agreed it does not mitigate anything about Harris but he is in jail and I think the discussion about him has bogged down into largely entrenched positions however the broader topic of dealing with paedophiles need not sit there. The loss of a dossier on a paedophile ring amongst british parlimentarians and the seeming lack of action on that does seem relevant. Likewise individuals point about the seemingly low levels of action over what is as far as I know very high levels of child sexual abuse in indiginous communities.

Given the polarised nature that parts of this debate have taken on I'll clarify a couple of points.

I don't generally work with the assumption that because I disagree with most or much of what someone says on a topic that everything they say on the topic is invalid. Sometimes those people are the ones that help me think outside the box the best.

TBC
R0bert

Part 2
I very strongly disagree with the claims being made that Harris actions were minor (although there are far worse things in the world).
The characterisation of digital penetration of children and other forms of groping as hand slipage and minor is deeply concerning. I don't agree that Harris should have a reduced sentence because of other things he has lost. To clarify for Paul my point about the awards was that as far as I'm aware they seem to have been general recogition awards rather than for specific actions, given what Harris had been doing there is not no basis for an award for service to the arts (or similar) to be valid.

Overall I disagree with much of what I've read of individuals posts on this topic but I do think the points he makes about the way others are not dealt with is an aspect that is worthy of discussion.

R0bert

RObert,

I do take your point...and yes the discussion has become bogged down regarding individual's intransigence in the face of all the evidence. I'm inclined, as you know, to respond when I'm impugned and individual has "got right up my nose" several times in this discussion.

Being as this thread is ostensibly about Rolf Harris, I'd like to point out in the face of some lamenting that others are getting away with the things he was pinged for, how long he got away with his behaviour - just being known as the "Octopus".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/seven-women-who-have-gone-public-about-sex-abuse-by-rolf-harris-since-he-was-convicted-20140707-zsyl0.html

Tale upon tale of him not only groping, but slipping his hand in quick time under women's panties. It seems he had no shame - on live TV, at garden parties - you name it, he was trying it on.

Only the fact that most of these instances were with grown women stopped him from going further and enabled him to keep getting away with the behaviour.

(Right is Right ain't getting a reply to his/her loony comments from me)

It was all circumstantial evidence, hearsay evidence, and he said she said evidence. So the jury had to make a decision based not on empirical evidence, but on opinion, old stories and hate from the witness box against Rolf Harris.

He was convicted on the 'opinion' from the witness box, that transferred to 'opinion' from the jury. Empirical proof? Nah, there was none and nobody cared about that. They just wanted their name in lights, their 5 minutes of glory and a conviction. They succeeded, they got what they wanted, and the press made a fortune in extra sales. That's how the system works, and justice based on proper evidence be damned.

Dear R0bert,

You wrote;

“Overall I disagree with much of what I've read of individuals posts on this topic but I do think the points he makes about the way others are not dealt with is an aspect that is worthy of discussion.”

Of course the proposition that some are not dealt with even handedly in matters such as this is worthy of discussion.

But I don't think it is an excuse to move past individual's comments either.

Firstly because his points were on the whole flippant and dismissive of the gravity of child molestation. Recall his cry for those who have 'lost their family harmony because of your Leftie idealist ALP governments” or “in high density housing whose babies suffer the agony of music noise”.

Secondly there would have been many who had observed Harris acting inappropriately and assuaged their guilt by saying 'well it is at the bottom end of the scale so I won't make a fuss', 'anyway look at all his art and good works he does'.

I have no doubt if he had been brought to book earlier children, many of them yet unnamed would have been spared sexual assaults from him.

One of the primary lessons from the whole sorry case is that we should challenge and act on inappropriate behaviour.

I'm not sure there are too many people who feel individual's behaviour on this thread was in any manner appropriate. Since he has not dealt with it then I feel it is incumbent on the rest of us to state quite clearly that he has crossed the line and not be allowed to shirk the responsibility of his words.

As to Right is Right and Lester1 they are either individual's sock puppets or a true trolls, hollow men.

Poirot, no disagreement on that. I'm not convinced that you will make a difference but I've had my moments when I've felt the need to stick with similar issues.

Steeleredux, "One of the primary lessons from the whole sorry case is that we should challenge and act on inappropriate behaviour". That's been a thought on my mind in regard to this. I have the impression that there were a number of adults who at the time made the assumption that the behaviour was isolated and didn't act on it.

I understand that stance but wonder if there are ways the legal system could track "minor" complaints to help identify patterns without creating opportunity for malicious witchhunts. I use the word "minor" to indicate offences where the person making the complaint does not consider it in isolation to be worth the pain of a prosecution but which if part of a larger pattern would warrent action.

R0bert

and then there came the which hunts

we saw you looking[a thought crime]
nanny state gone mad

rob/QUOTE<<,but wonder if there are ways\the legal system could track "minor" complaints to help identify patterns without creating opportunity for malicious witchhunts."~

ER
NO

LOOK ROB/ALLREADY WE ARE MORE SURVEILED THAN ANY who came before us[high security clearance/excepted]

but te point is/w allrwady bein watched/more kiddy fiddlers than ever in the prison higer education/crime incarceration-system

mate police need police crime not everytime a guy is caught looking

its gotten insane/i lived in the 60's]saw the beginning of this freelove thing[and watched as govt destrOYED IT WITH DRUG WARS AND/the war against 'aids[putting into our minds/the thought my next lover could kill me

it ended the love/over night
just a the elite wanted/decentralise what stuff and nonsense/divide and conqueer

<<I use the word "minor" to indicate offences""

offences againt qwho/the machines watyching the few?

<<<where the person making the complaint""

oops do i hear natzie stasie nsa/mosad asio/
you westate?does not consider it in isolation to bvill monitor old men/looking foa thrill

and them old bagsthat admit to liking sall boys
or baby smelling/bewares/your realising hell on earth

<< worth the pain of a prosecution but which if part of a larger pattern would warrent action.""

i have this app[for a mobile phone]
you push the app button/and every recording device in the vicinity switches itself on

one scream/the causation is gone
a pannic button[or monitor te kids heart rate/is how the spirit/judges

as we know its not the name/lablke of what we do
but the fruits be they bitter or sweet
its the result/of our act*

what good did your act do
what inury/why send little girls to stand on stages/in little skirts/just like groan-sups/flirt*

its a morrass/what fear will govt instil uin us next
to yet further divide us/rolf IS A BETTER MAN THAN GEORGE BUSH
yet they arnt as low as we humans have become/the pussy-mess needed airing

o sung wu,
Yes, I knew Lennie very well.
He did a 10+ year sentence for rape. His art, the church and his community reputation eventually got him parole.
He lasted a few month before he was back at molestation and rape.
Inside he was a constant source of Intel information from inside the prison.
He was so hated that he had his own cell with an inside lock to stop other prisoners from getting to him. He actually had two cells with an arch cut in the adjoining wall giving him a bedroom and sitting/studio room.
He used to sit in the front row with a guard at all the visiting concerts, because he was basically the verger in the prison church/concert hall, no doubt to pander to his deviant sexual tastes given the show girls that visited with the concerts.
It was one of these girls that he attacked holding her hostage in the theater with a knife to her throat.
When we arrived the guards had secured the scene and he was in the padded cell.
From memory I thing the AG refused to prosecute on the grounds of his mental condition but it was rumored that he had a couple of Lawson's paintings hanging in his office.
The victim received no compensation because of a disclaimer they had to sign when entering the prison.
Frensham was the girls school and he took a group of them into the local bush ostensibly to photo shoot a Red Indian Girl scene for an add.
He tied them all up to trees and proceeded to rape them all managing to kill one of them when the police tried to arrest him.
He died in prison around 2002 pr 2003.
Lennie was a classic example of plausibility.

Hi there CHRISGAFF1000...

Re LAWSON, it's quite bizarre really, an individual like him; so talented, so academically intuitive, yet a complete emotional f....-up ? Yeah, you're right he died in Grafton around that time, ten or twelve years ago. I do remember he was a quietly spoken sort of bloke who rarely swore (that I heard, at least). Yet extremely dangerous around women, nevertheless.

I reckon 'I've exhausted my memory your worship, may I refer to my notes' ? Speak with you later Chris.

Right Is Right and others gives Harris's actions the okay with this;

<< agree with Ludwig in his opening post where he says "it was just a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risque activity, and nothing worse than that" and "it was nothing more than playful behavior" and "I think Rolf has copped a very raw deal here".>>

Either you have not read the judges comments or you are perverted.
As it is now public knowledge as to the sex acts Harris performed on his victims I'll post an extract from the full judgment as follows;

" On this occasion after Bindi had got up, and whilst she and/or your wife were in the house, and again in breach of trust, you went into the bedroom where ‘C’ was still in bed. You took her pants down, spat on the fingers of one of your hands, and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 5), then you took off your glasses bent down to her vagina and started licking it (Count 6) - continuing until she closed her legs and pushed you away."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-full-statement-from-the-judge-who-sentenced-rolf-harris-to-jail-20140704-3bee0.html#ixzz36oiVwWzM

The girl was 15 at this time! Harris was 50, there was absolutely no evidence presented that the girl in anyway "invited" or encouraged Harris to do anything. I am as open minded as the next person, and what consenting adults do in their bedroom is fine by me.
I believe the girl would most likely have been terrified and sickened by Harris's action, and for you and others to label it;

"somewhat risque activity, and nothing worse than that" makes you and others in my book SICKO'S!

just to prove/peer-pressure/works
[quote/from/other-roffle harras thread

steel/quote<<.<<Dear individual,

You wrote;“Just like I agree that child sex tourists should be charged on their return to Australia notwitstanding (sic) them being Australian.”

No you most certainly do not.

You thought..>>

steel/..benifit/of-doudt?

indies/new point..<<>.SteeleRedux,
To defend these sicko Australians who prey on the poverty of the families up there is the height of a lack of integrity.
One thing Harris did not have to do & that is look for cheap sex like so many australian sex tourists do in Asia.>>

but then

,,<<the child prostitutes/in Asia>>

have no option/screw/OR YA SCREWED/ITS PURE oppertuinism

<<>.are just leading our Aussie blokes on>>

oh lordy/indy\why ya doing this to yaself?

like you say/they-d?..<<..to get at their money
and they are the dinky di victims not the girls.>>

OK MAYBE/PEER\presure-failed

<<>.They'r ruining thousands of lives with as yet unimaginable consequences...

who is they masked crusadist?

ITS/CONFUSED SIGNALS

INDY/BI-POLAR/QUOTE..<<>.What Harris did is not to be tolerated, what Australians do in Asia is tolerated by other Australians or at least I see no evidence of any being treated like Harris..>>

AND/NO..im not saying bi-polar/leads to kiddy fiddling
in fact i suggest its caused by it*

R0bert, to say <<the way others are not dealt with is an aspect that is worthy of discussion.>> I agree it is worth discussion, but the actions of others, in no way should be used by Harris or anyone charged with a crime as some sort of defense. The only relevance that unrelated similar crimes should have are as a guide for the sentencing judge. nothing more than that.

Sexual abuse of children in state care ‘endemic’ in Victoria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/sexual-abuse-children-state-care-endemic-victoria

Nearly three-quarters of the reported incidents took place in residential care homes, where about 500 children are currently placed.

Sexual abuse in Victoria’s out-of-home care system has been described as “endemic” after leaked documents revealed hundreds of reports of alleged rape, indecent assault and exploitation of minors in the year to March.

Internal documents reveal a total of 342 critical incidents of a sexual nature reported in the state’s child protection system, which houses children who are removed from their parents due to significant risk of harm.

The total includes 98 alleged rapes, 96 reports of indecent sexual assault and 73 alleged incidents of sexual exploitation, where children are abused in exchange for cash or other gifts, the ABC reported.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/jul/07/theresa-may-to-announce-inquiry-into-claims-child-sex-abuse-allegations-ignored-politics-live-blog

http://www.medicaldaily.com/adhd-drugs-may-increase-risk-heart-problems-kids-it-cause-alarm-291542

http://govtslaves.info/10-videos-govt-doesnt-want-see/

http://www.naturalnews.com/045874_cancer_rates_Argentina_agrochemicals.html

THE HIGHEST CAUSE OF INJURY TO KIDS
is untended consequence/30 years ago/the incidence of
autism/ran about 1 in 1000[its NOW 1 IN 30]
MANY SUGGEST ITS THE MERCURY/preservative/but who knows[i cal it child abuse/plus these new vacines are made by gmo-viris/putting the vacine/info-into bacteria/almost as bad as putting it/into chok egGS
but there ya go/most damage is by ignorance

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/07/hpv-vaccine-trials-in-india-is-merck.html

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2840&page=0

you may have heard..about a recent case..where internationally a cyber child-porn/ring..was busted..[near 1000 australians were named...but the police/sat on the info...in the end word got out/and hurredly they busted from memory about 40

you see..the names of the people..needed to get veted via chanels..[like..some criminals..have done deals/witness protection etc..[plus others are so high up..[running the courts,govt,schools..[and docs as well as ngo's,..they need the slow/system..to be made even more slower

you cant concieve..how blatent these child/lovers..[pediphiles].,are...govt-cars/deliver the children to govt members/judges and seniour public servants...you may..[or may not]..be supprised..how having the dirt..on certain people..keeps them in the party-line]

this child issue goes globally...is trans-generational..i have talked to third generation children..now mothers..[where grandmother let her children be abused,..then the mother let it happen..[and the kids..[now as adults are terrified..often homeless living on the streets..[or in nut houses because they couldnt stop it happen..to their kids]

much of the feigned power..of a certain religion comes from their ability to conduct pediastry upon the young..[as autherised in the un holy talmud]

http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm
quotations;from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,(Book)

YEBAMOTH,60b...Rabbi.Ramanos who conducted an inquiry..and..'found'..in it..the daughter of a..'proselyte'..who was under the age of three years and one day...,and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest."

(footnotes)"..A proselyte..under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest...And was married..to a priest.

(i.e.,permitted to continue to live with her'husband'."]

(Book)

SANHEDRIN,..55b-55a:.."What is meant by this?...Rab said:..Pederasty with a child below nine years of age..is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that.

(footnotes)"..The reference is to..the passive..'subject'/victim..of sodomy

Rolf Harris should appeal. As someone else said earlier, he is the victim here. If he wasn't famous and rich he wouldn't have been targeted by the money grabbers.

we shall know them*[you]by their works\
THERE IS A CHILD DEAT CULT/RUNNING POLITICS LAW AND MANY OTHER THINGS
ie the fruits/OF CHILD PERVERSION is hell..just as the fruit of war=/death

here we got\the joke of a secular..*[god-free/gods lands]SCREWING UP KIDS/LIVES/VIA RELIGIOUS-ZEALof the demmons/their works earn
god gave it..to us/yet we are establishing a secular state
is compounded/by the kiddy perversion//hIDEN BEHND WALLSOF WARWEARY KIDS

[mate secular/ISRAEL\is code for demon*state..[as
per revelations/the/UPON KI\demons/stand-in/the holy oDDIES BODESf holies]

Child sacrifice..was practised in ancient times..as offering to the Ammonite god Molech..a worship of natural fertility..*which was forbidden*by the laws of Israel. See Leviticus 18:21; 20:1 - 5; 1Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 1717; 21:6; 27:10; Jeremiah 32:35; Ezekiel 16:21.

[is/this..what the settlers,,[under..THE ATHEIST[secular]..star..are doing..in the deserts..of/the..lampstand..[the/fox/in..the hen-house?]

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2994&page=0

tell me...ever heard..of the/clean hands doctrine?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664&page=0

No-one..would get\killed if/duel/passport-holder secular-Israeli civilians...simple/went/Home..and left/god\fix the godless...alone

the/god\of-life..isnot served.by any death

know them*/by..their secular works
godless=demon/talmud=demonic

what laws..do settlers..
in..dark/places..[inothers lands/with duel passorts
diplomatic immunity..etc..[what HOLY text..do they..live under?

talmudic [sic*].law?

http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm
quotations;..from the Soncino Edition
of the Talmud,(Book]

SANHEDRIN,..55b-55a:.."What is meant by this?...

Rab said:..Pederasty with a child
below nine years of age..is not deemed
as pederasty..with a child above that.

(footnotes)"..The reference is to..
the passive..'subject'/..*victim..of sodomy

UNDER NINE

now lets..go younger

YEBAMOTH,60b..*...Rabbi.Ramanos who conducted an/inquiry..and..'found'..in it

the daughter of a..'proselyte'..
who was under..the age of three years[and one day]...,

and Rabbi declared her/eligible*
to live with a priest."

(footnotes)"..A proselyte..under the age of three years
and one day may...be married by a priest...

*And was married..to a priest.

(i.e.,permitted to continue/to live with her'husband'."]

[not gods mozaic..law..like in./.the bible

(Book)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp%3Fdiscussion%3D3071%26page%3D0&sa=U&ei=Mk6eUp36Ks2ZlQWzn4D4DA&ved=0CBgQFjAJ

Right is Right, Oh! ye the wise one, pray, please tell us. How do we stop those naughty 8 year old girls from molesting 50 year old men.

That, Paul, is a bloody good question; the answers should be illuminating (if there are any).

Paul, they are NOT 8 year old girls, they are grown women making claims about what they "said" happened decades ago. No eye witnesses, no proof, just claims. One has already sold her story. Rolf Harris had a sexual relationship with just ONE of them, and that was when she was an adult. Money is the motive. Rolf Harris is an easy target for them.

Just about every star in the history of entertainment has groped hundreds of girls ... are we to put them all in jail?

Every time I go to address RightisRights disturbing attitude to the sexual molestation of young girls I end up deleting the post, far to close to flaming without evidence to support what I want to say.

For others who may not have followed the detail, there were a number of victims who as far as we know did not know each other making similar allegations regarding Harris's abuse of them. Very similar patterns of behaviour on Harris part.

The onus at this point is for those who claim its a setup to provide some evidence to back those claims. Evidence that the women had colluded before going to the police or some other credible cause to question the evidence. At this point there is no sign of credible evidence that Harris has been unfairly convicted, just an apparent desire from some that victims of abuse not be believed.

R0bert

RisR To say <<Just about every star in the history of entertainment has groped hundreds of girls ... are we to put them all in jail?>>

Like Indi's claim that all his mates are "doing it" down at his local or some such place, is simply denying the reality of the situation. You play down the seriousness with which the community, and consequently the courts, views Harris's actions. You, like Indi seem to choose to ignore, or failed to read, what the judge had to say about what Harris actually done. No wonder so many victims wont come forward when so many in our community hold the views that you and others do. Not only do victims have to live with the personal torment as to what happened to them when they were children, but then have to be subjected to another form of abuse when seeking justice as adults!
Your attitude to sex abuse victims is not uncommon, its not uncommon for the victim to be blamed for what happened by family members, by the police, and by many in community in general. Talk about making a tough situation, tougher, you people take the cake!

right is wrong
but i see where he is comming from
lest/we forget getting a rock band/is a good way to get layed

where right became wrong/was boringly/wrong
is/labling all 8 year olds as gold =diggers-and horn-bags
then implYING there making it up/when we know what comes off on tour stays in the tour rEcords.

thing is if loving 8 is wrong/then mr right/needs see he is wrong
sure in the ideal world/its possible to say to the\super/ego's..[stars]
i love ya music but not ya dong a nong.

there lies the crux of the issue/we guys say she is a nice sort
go up to the super starle/hoping she is a harlot/but with these stars/front is all they got/the parts they play/get confused

if someone comes up gushing saying they will do anything
well mr right/taking advantage of such adulation is wrong
if their under age/even if one did COME UP TO Mr RIGHT CRYING DO ME RIGHT OH RITE ROTE ONE...ignore the age limitation/you go to jail..[regardless is right feels right or wrong.]

we all know the rules are there to protect the weakest
so mr right/simply admit it was put out there wrong.

right is often a matter/of meeting need within the law/
even if the law seems wrong/change it dont ignore it/

look the kiddy sex topic/must end.
if adult woman hate you realize\your chasing the wrong sex.

RObert and Paul,

I think we can dismiss Right is Right's boneheaded comments with the contempt they deserve.

No better way than to reprise Pericles' comment to individual and apply it to those of Right is Right...

"This is fascinating.

A classic example of trolling.

After all, no-one in real life could actually hold the views espoused by individual, could they?

Outside a fully-operational paedophile ring, that is."

the courts have now ruled*
christian kiddy camps must admiot homo.s

it shares a bit of a moral/guidence
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16482&page=0

<<>.Instead of allowing greater freedom to express religious belief in the public sphere, the impact of a tyranny of tolerance religion is to confine religion to the private, subjective realm of the mind.

But belief and practice are inseparable. Freedom to believe must surely be accompanied by the freedom to speak so long as no threat is posed to social cohesion and the well-being of others.

However, it may often be the case that those whose ways of life are guided by the search for meaning and solemn obligation to live dutifully may clash with the values of the secular state.

For example, if the search for ultimate truth leads to an individual believing that same sex marriage is wrong, she or he may face accusations of hate speech and homophobia.

Yet it is in just such circumstances that the religious believer may demand the freedom to express in public his or her religiously inspired views about human sexuality.

It is not hard to see that if those actions are met with the coercive force of the state, broader rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression are bound to be put at risk.>>

so now we know/the difference between whats right and whats wrong
till next time the pedophiles[meaning siply child-lover.]..move on/but i find these kiddy fiddlers are all deficient;..in something
that feels much like empathy or c0mpassion misguided missdirected.

I said in my opening post:

>> Sorry but this doesn’t add up <<

Well, having studied the judge’s sentencing remarks, I’ve got to say that there are definitely things that don’t seem to add up.

I struggle with this issue. I find myself vacillating somewhat as to the extent of accepting Harris as a pedophile, or a bit of a grub, or just a pretty normal human being.

I am inclined to see him as a flawed human being in much the same way as has been evident amongst many others throughout the eons…. and indeed in a manner in which literally millions of men behave and get away with without ever being brought to task.

In short, I often feel as though the sort of things he did are just par for the course. Many young women, in many cultures around the world including ours, must have similar and much worse experiences.

Indeed we all have seminal moments where people wrong-do us in a manner that changes us and relieves us very suddenly of some of our naivety. In that regard, we shouldn’t be pulling out sexual activity as being significantly different or worse than all manner of other stuff that affects us.

It is very hard to come to terms with. But ultimately I find myself strongly disagreeing with Paul1405, Pericles and others who have condemned Harris.

I’d like to express a critical analysis of Judge Sweeney’s remarks.

Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. >

That was the entirety of the action.

< In her Victim Impact Statement ‘A’ states, which I am sure is true, that you took her childhood innocence; for which she blamed herself and became an angry child and teenager, unable to express herself and unable to trust men. >

Well hold on. I wonder how intensively cross-examined ‘A’ was over this assertion. It seems like a leap too far for such an action to cause such consequences. And it is surely not at all verifiable nor reasonable to assume that her anger as a child and teenager and lack of expression and trust for men all arose from this single very quick once-off event. Did the court hear about any other things that happened in this girl’s life, or was the assumption that she was telling the truth just blithely accepted?

It is all very easy to say things like this. Very easy to beat up the consequences of all manner of bad encounters with people. And I would suggest that in this case, having gone to the extent of making a complaint, it was in ‘A’s interest to maximise the negative consequences of Harris’ actions and make them seem as bad as possible.

I am concerned greatly about this. I wonder how thoroughly scrutinised these claims were in court. Should they have been dismissed? Or considered as probable but not proven and quite possibly not anywhere near as bad as stated?

Very likely she was just telling the truth without any exaggeration. But we just don’t know.

Harris got nine months imprisonment for that.

Well I think that is just outrageous. Something in the order of a three hundred dollar fine would have been much more appropriate.

continued

Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

< You groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times. >

That was the entirety of the action.

Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.

Harris got six months imprisonment for that. He should have received NO penalty at all for such a non-issue.

Regarding Counts 3 to 9: ‘C’ starting in 1978:

On Count 3:

< You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs and you went up to ‘C’’s bedroom on the top floor of the house.

You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her jeans and knickers, and digitally penetrated her vagina. The episode lasted for about a minute until she managed to get away. >

Well… how did it last for a minute? There is no suggestion that Harris was preventing her from ‘getting away’. Surely if she had not wanted it to happen, she would have got away immediately or rolled over or otherwise made her private parts inaccessible.
On Count 4:

< You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her dungarees and knickers and digitally penetrated her vagina. You continued for up to a minute until she managed to get away >

Same thing again. What is with the time-frame of about a minute? How did she manage to get away after that time and not before?

On Counts 5 & 6:

< ‘C’ was visiting Bindi at Bray and was permitted by her parents to stay – sleeping in one of two single beds in Bindi’s room. >

Surely, if ‘C’ had been repulsed by Harris’ previous actions, she would not have been staying overnight in his house on this occasion. She would have known by this time that there must have been a considerable likelihood of further contact from Harris.

continued

< You took her pants down, spat on the fingers of one of your hands, and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 5), then you took off your glasses bent down to her vagina and started licking it (Count 6) &#8208; continuing until she closed her legs and pushed you away. >

Two counts from this one action. Sorry, but that is absurd.

So how did he take her pants down and put his head right in her crotch if she wasn’t willing to let him do it? It does not compute.

< Counts 7 & 8 arose from another single incident in the same period between the autumn of 1980 and Easter 1981– and thus when ‘C’ was still aged 15 and you were aged 50. Again ‘C’ was visiting Bindi at Bray and was sleeping in one of the two single beds in Bindi’s room. >

Again ‘C’ had placed herself right in the position where surely she knew, and expected, Harris to physically contact her again.

< you entered the room, again in breach of trust, pulled ‘C’’s pants down to her ankles, spat on the fingers of one hand and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 7), then you licked her vagina again keeping an eye on Bindi (who was still asleep) as you did so (Count 8) &#8208; continuing until ‘C’ closed her legs and pushed you away. >

Again two counts from one action, which is surely absurd.

Again, how could this happen without ‘C’s tacit approval?

continued

On Count 9:

< …in 1984 when she was aged 19… >

< ‘C’ was using the indoor swimming pool when you appeared in your swimming trunks and got in. >

< you touched ‘C’s breasts and then put one of your hands down her bikini bottom and digitally penetrated her vagina. >
Well… she was 19 and she let him do it. There is no offence.

< Whilst I do not sentence you in relation to what you did to ‘C’ in the decade that followed that offence, I am sure that offences against her continued until 1994. >

How can the judge say that?

How could ‘C’ continue to put herself in the position where Harris could physically contact here if she was repulsed and deeply negatively affected by the experiences?

< I have no doubt, in view of the evidence given at trial by ‘C’, and by the doctors and counsellors who treated her, that it was your crimes against her that resulted in her becoming an alcoholic for many years with all that that entailed, and that thus (as I have already touched on) you caused her severe psychological harm >

Again, how can the judge say that?
I would suggest that ‘C’ must have gone along with it all the way up to1994 when she was 29…. and indeed went along with it right from the start in 1978 when she was 13.

No other conclusion makes any sense!

Ok, maybe I’m wrong. But the point is surely that the judge and the jury could not be sure that what ‘C’ has said in her Victim Impact Statement was true at face value. And if they couldn’t be sure…. and I would suggest there was a very large reasonable doubt… then it should not have been allowed to weigh against Harris’ defence.

continued

It would seem that in each of their encounters Harris was very gentle and brief. ‘C’ kept putting herself in situations where those encounters could happen. She then continued to have encounters with him long after her childhood.

Conclusion: Nothing of any great consequence ever happened there. Yes it was illegal to touch an underaged girl in the way that Harris did. But in the circumstances…. as far as I can glean entirely from the judge’s sentencing remarks; it was all pretty benign.

On Count 3 Harris got 15 months imprisonment. Well sorry but I think that is just outrageous. A $1000 fine would have been more appropriate.

On Counts 3 to 9, some of which he got concurrent sentences, he received a total of 42 months imprisonment.

I do not see these offences, all added together, as the sort of misdemeanour that someone should be sent to prison for.

On Counts 10, 11 & 12:

< …you got Tonya to sit on your knee, put your hand on her thigh under her skirt and moved it up to her vagina over her tights and knickers and fondled her there until she managed to make an excuse and fled to the Ladies toilet. >

< Counts 11 & 12 arose from a single incident after she came out. >

< You got her in a forceful bear hug, put one hand down her top and into her bra and played with one of her breasts for about 30 seconds, fondling and squeezing it (Count 11). Then, really quickly, you moved the same hand under her skirt, down her tights and knickers and quickly digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 12). You then stopped and walked away. >

Three counts from this one action. That is absurd.

But yes, that was bit rich. Harris should certainly be ashamed of himself for that effort.

He received 21 months imprisonment for this. Well, that really is a very hefty sort of sentence. Again I would think that it is not something to send someone to prison over.

continued

I have spoken to quite a lot of people about this in recent days. Responses fall into two categories – those who don’t really care and don’t have any feeling for the detail of the situation and just go along with the media in thinking that Harris is a despicable pedophile, and those who have more interest and can see it in a broader perspective and think that Harris has been very badly done-by here, and that the sorts of things that he has done are really just as common as dishwater, and are very meek in the greater scheme of things.

I've skimmed through all the posts on this subject and feel sorry that Rolf Harris's demise does not seem to lead to anything that resolves or solves the problems of child abuse. I have no argument against his guilt or jail time, but all men are rubbished and the price of sex just goes up and up and understood less than ever.
Many of the posts are personal attacks on others which is not good.
One thing positive was, I think, was the testimony from some of the female victims that their mental health suffered and they felt dirty, tarnished etc. afterwards. I think men, growing up post war especially, do not appreciate the danger of casual and random sexual molestation. In that period after the war, dysfunction was obviously very high. All men, from every nation was fighting "with GOD" and millions were killed. No surprise that "with God" did not have much meaning after the war. IMO religion did not make any adjustments and just got more fundamentalist.

In the 60's when Rolf and I were growing up, boys would have heard about the scoring system,with one been a kiss and 10 "all the way". We all heard about the local "bike". Personally I never found the "local bike" and I didn't look. I expected that if I worked hard, got a good job, that relationships would follow as it had in the past. She'd be sweet. BIg mistake!

Rolf's problem is that by his own diagnosis he is "touchy, feely"
I am sure that today there is scientific explanation for this and medical science could fix the "touchy, feely" syndrome
SADLY, I don't think this will be allowed to happen, and the sex business will just roll on.

laz91,

The problem with a guy who diagnoses himself "touch feely" is that, in Rolf's case, his touchy feeliness was directed uninvited to underage girls and women who in some cases he'd just met. Also his touchy feely habits were directed straight to the private areas.

As I've mentioned before, our society has a social taboo on the feeling up of underage girls - and also to the uninvited touching of private parts of women who you've just met.

I imagine if Rolf had been caught trying any of his antics by the fathers or partners of his victims, he would have had his block knocked off.

Another thing I'll add for those attempting to blame the girls and women for leading him on is that this man daggy but "lovable" entertainer is no Brad Pitt or George Clooney. A guy like Rolf is definitely not the type to get a woman's heart thumping with desire.

LUDWIG/<<.Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt>>

see that is a little thing[if it occured once]
but the twice/well.ok benifit of the doudt

but twice..<<between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. >..

thats a bit discusting[under law]..and i suppose will happen near anytime a girl in in a crowd/but.[and i gues here is thE RUB].that stranger in he crowd/or boy-in the playground/hasnt got that public face[that reminds you every time/to over think things

yes its true a good lawyer[not mnoralk lawyer].could have made this into a non EVENT/researched her past broken her as happens everyday s cases where THEY GET 7 MOTHS JAIL DISMISSED FOR TIME SERVED/or suspended sentance..in rape

see rape is prevelant/i suggest that all rape is serial-rape
its just the way they found that works[like a pick up teqnique/that assures getting layed/With just thREE STEPS/saying their name 3 times

but we dont need blck magic/we need reason this issue out
because it cghurned in her mind/everytime/for his fame/the ongoing extention/of a simple gropE

yes sorry mate
its the rethinking that does the damages
a random stranger groping may cause upset [via recall\in crowds/
but a man such as harras and that other looney tunes who screwed the dead/i resent seeing him wheeling the corpse arround/in tv footage

mate its not what he did
but the damage seeing him eventually did
[i like inteligent conversation/while making love/not childish innocence/destroyed..unthiningly]

<<That was the entirety of the action>

for him/and he no doudt instantly forgot
he didnt do it for perversion[guys often tougch each other up

ITS A GUY THING
BUT SHE WASNT A GUY([LUS SHE WASNT ALLOWED TO FORGET]
sorry not yelling/im with you\but we must see this through

<<>you took her childhood innocence;>>

[she never had even 'touched'/herself
now touching it reminds her of him[imprinted;the first they never forget.

<<for which she blamed herself
<<became an angry child and teenager,
<<unable to express herself and unable to trust men. >

sexualy frustrated/because he took away her\very identity;
her owning/controling;her own~sex?.........HE PEAKED/HER BEFORE THE MAIN-EVENT/LEFT-HER HANGING;HER WHOLE LIFE/WHOLESALE*theft.

but guys do it all the time?
its just the way/it is*[fame has privledge/and burden;to whom much is given/;much better is t be expected

the higher they crawl
the bigger te fall*

I have no doubt that child abuse is even more prevelant today than in past decades. People are naive and deliberatlely blind to the fact that the sexualisation of children (especially young girls)which is essentially pornography leads to the únivited touching of private parts. The denial of the adamic nature leads to many men and woman living in fairyland. Somehow in their mind they could not comprehend how an arty/farty could be a child molestor. The porn industry I have no doubt feeds numerous men and woman to carry out acts of their adamic nature. That's why some deviant judge (see SMH today) and others are now seeing child molesting as 'natural' just like homosexuality. Nothing will change because dads and mums still think its cute to dress nine year olds like tarts and send them to Madonna or Pink concerts.

I am in no way condoning what he did in any way, I do think some of it was blown out of proportion. It wasn't that long ago that a pat on the butt or a hand on a thigh was not sexual but simple affection. It does sound like to me that he is a sleaze, however in nearly every report I have read it seems all the victims would wait until they had a chance to get away without causing a scene. This in itself enables him to continue. Why didn't anyone jump away instantly and make a scene? That's what I did when I was groped by a school bus driver. And guess what, he lost his job and was known to be a perv, which made others aware to stay away from him.

Dear Ludwig,

I have expressed sympathy for the distress you have felt at Harris' fall from grace. It is for that reason I intend to go gently here.

Your 4 posts contain a lot of material so forgive me if I just address the first of your points about victim A.

If I had an 8 year old daughter a 39 year old man approached her in a shopping centre, lifted her dress and rubbed her vagina not once but twice, he would have placed his life at risk if I had been in the vicinity and if I hadn't I would have demanded he be dealt with by the full force of the law. I do know that would have been a traumatic episode for my child and would most certainly have dramatically raised their anxiety levels when around strangers. I would want the perpetrator assessed and given mandatory treatment before he was released back in to the public. What you are saying is that he should have been given a $300 fine be free to do the same thing to another child.

Well sir I think that is outrageous.

Ludwig, include me in the list of those condeming Harris for his actions.

I don't agree that groping the privates of anybody you have just met without clear adult consent is a trivial matter. In most cases that appears to have been what occured other than with his daughters friend. I'm not much of a fan of the idea of sentencing based on specific outcomes rather than actions other than within the context of norms and identifable risk. We will rarely know all of the circumstances that lead to long term outcomes. Harris actions in groping the girls were not generally socially acceptable nor legal at the time, he took a risk in groping them for which he now pays the penalty.

Agreed that as an adult the choices Bindi's friend made after the first assault occurred don't make a lot of sense. I get the impression that she was confused by the whole thing, flattered and repulsed at the same time. The thing to keep in mind is that when that started she was still a young child and Harris was a far older adult, the responsibility for those actions rests entirely with him. Her choices as a young adult would have been influenced by all that had gone before including grooming by Harris.

Some aspects are messy, attempts to mitigate blame from Harris on that basis fail on the simple basis that Harris was the adult involved. On a lesser note he also appears to have been the initiator of the events so its not even as though he was caught by surprise by someone elses choices and failed to respond appropriately or quickly enough.

Nothing said so far has indicated that any of the girls initiated sexual activity with Harris, even apart from the adult vs child aspect that puts the responsibility firmly withnHarris. Remember these were children being abused by an enormously popular and well liked celebrity.

R0bert

Ludwig,

"....those who don’t really care and don’t have any feeling for the detail of the situation and just go along with the media in thinking that Harris is a despicable pedophile, and those who have more interest and can see it in a broader perspective and think that Harris has been very badly done-by here, and that the sorts of things that he has done are really just as common as dishwater, and are very meek in the greater scheme of things."

So if I read this http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf (how's that for detail, eh?)...and come away thinking Harris is a despicable paedophile, according to you "I don't really care".

But if I read the judge's sentencing remarks and come to the conclusion Harris was (in your words) "very badly done by"...then I'm looking at in a broader perspective.

What kind of "broader perspective" excuses Harris's perverted conduct and allows someone to think he was "very badly done by"? He chose to do those things. He broke the law. How is it that he becomes the victim here...according to you?

....

Bec,

Does it occur to you that these young girls may have been rather startled that a major personality like Rolf touched them privately? Can you imagine what sort of confused thoughts would have coursed through their minds? He's not a nobody bus driver...he's famous lovable kindly guy-next-door Rolf. And many of his adult victims gave him short shrift, but took it no further because they were able to stop him before he had a chance to go further.

Come to think of it, Ludwig, I'm "astounded" that after reading the judge's remarks that you continue to attempt to mitigate Harris's culpability in his own crimes - and the seriousness of his conduct.

Just because others might be up to the same thing - or worse - is no reason to excuse his behaviour - especially resting on your line that he has been "very badly done by".

Justice has been served. Harris must have known that if his activities ever came in for scrutiny that he had further to fall than the average molester.

And still he did it.

He knew what he was doing and what he had to lose if it ever came to light.

How can you say he has fared badly?

Poiret, that is exactly why this situation stinks. People are more worried and upset about the situation because the perp is a "somebody rather than a "nobody". It shouldn't make any difference. Did it occur to you the shock you receive when someone you walk past every week day, have come to know and have even befriended for years touches you privately. Ever heard of stranger danger? Just because someones image and name is world wide doesn't mean you know them. My bus driver was literally the "lovable kindly guy-next-door" guy.
We condition our children to be in awe of people we don't even know. I feel extremely sorry for these young girls and lady's, and hope that they can get past this.

Bec,

If you had read the entirety of this thread, you would realise that "some" posters here are attempting to diminish Harris's culpability in his crimes by saying that he has been targeted because he's a "somebody".

Nothing about Haris's being brought to justice "stinks" at all.

He's a man who molested underage girls...full stop.

Btw....I've already related an "experience" here, so there's no need to wonder what I think about such an occurrence.

"We condition our children to be in awe of people we don't even know. ..."

That is no reason to excuse the fact that Harris elected to molest an 8 year-old waiting for an autograph. It's uncommonly perverted behaviour from anyone....and that's beside the rest of his crimes.

After reading the posts by Ludwig on page 28, plus some other posts from him, let me say that if I knew who Ludwig was in real life I would never let any of my 3 children anywhere near him, whether supervised or unsupervised. If I lived next door to Ludwig I would move my children away asap, and if I was ever in a position where I couldn't move them asap I would inform the police of his sexual attitudes towards molestation of young children, and take all steps that could be taken to have him legally monitored, for the protection of my children.

JAY321............THATS A STRONG SECOND POST
about someone you dont know/hope/WONDER/re your third post\

your wrong

Wow!...I failed to notice Ludwig's very long and detailed defence of Rolf's crimes on page 28.

Extraordinary that he should defend a man in his 50's taking liberties with an underage girl...and Ludwig appears to be intimating that she asked for it by being in his orbit on an ongoing basis...and poor old Rolf was just doing what came naturally.

Will examine his mitigations for Harris when I have a little more time.

Again, it's astounding to have Ludwig continue to make excuses for a middle-aged man molesting underage girls...as if Harris was lured by some experienced femme fatales - and had no control over his own deviance.

Hold on there Poirot.

You say:

<< Will examine his mitigations for Harris when I have a little more time. >>

How about doing that before you lambast me for my very carefully considered views on this subject.

Look at it all in the detail that I have looked at it…. and then pass judgement.

o sung wu,
"may I refer to my notebook your Honor?"
I came across an interesting co incidence after our discussion about Lennie Lawson the other night.
The girl who Lawson took as hostage in Parramatta prison was the same girl that Dr. Harry Bailey, of Chelsford "Deep Sleep" fame, married and later killed with psychotropic drugs although the coroner said it was suicide.
An interesting sight you might like to look at is this one.Some interesting name in the photos.
http://studentweb.usq.edu.au/home/d9811076/index.html
God I'd hate to be in the 'job' today.
Sleep well old mate.

Luwig,

Regarding your opening post on page 28.

You say...

"I find myself vacillating somewhat as to the extent of accepting Harris as a pedophile, or a bit of a grub, or just a pretty normal human being.'

"In short, I often feel as though the sort of things he did are just par for the course...."

"Indeed we all have seminal moments where people wrong-do us in a manner that changes us and relieves us very suddenly of some of our naivety. In that regard, we shouldn’t be pulling out sexual activity as being significantly different or worse than all manner of other stuff that affects us."

Before we get to the nitty-gritty, I'll remind you that touching up young girls is socially, and therefore, criminally taboo in our culture.

It may have been "par for the course" for Rolf Harris to see young girls as opportunities to indulge his sexuality, either fleetingly, or in the case of his daughter's friend, more intimately...but as a grown man he knew what he was doing was beynd the pale.

I'm afraid our society does pull out all manner of sexual activity for censure...that's the way it works in our culture. Harris knew that. He may have shown limited bravado, and engendered an extra thrill, in ambushing his young victims in public settings, but it's not something he went round bragging about. According to him "They were all making it up"!

He also knew that his behaviour if exposed and convicted, would receive the derision of the community he inhabited.

The fact that he committed these offences serially and over a considerable period of time, tells us that they weren't aberrations of character, they were calculated behaviours to take advantage of young people for his own selfish pleasures.

That is contemptible.

Ludwig,

next..

"Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. >"

You say...

"That was the entirety of the action."

This young child was 8 when this occurred - Rolf Harris was 39.

This 8 year-old was waiting for an autograph.

39 year-old Harris apparently took it upon himself (par for the course?) to put his hand up her skirt and and touch her vagina over her clothing.

He was found guilty of doing just that...and you appear to think that a $300 fine is just the ants pants for such a deed.

I can just hear the judge in Ludwig's court..."No problem there, Mr Harris just pop a few bob in the naughty jar and she'll be apples."

Most inappropriate for something our culture holds in contempt!

........

Next...

"Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

< You groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times. >

That was the entirety of the action.

Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.

Harris got six months imprisonment for that. He should have received NO penalty at all for such a non-issue."

Interesting that you think a 48 year-old man taking liberties and groping the buttocks of a 16 year-old is a "non-issue".

I wonder how "light-on" you'd consider it if you met someone famous and before too long they had their hands around your buttocks?

If he'd have kept his hands to himself it would have been a "non-issue". Just where does he get off putting his hands all over people without an invitation in any case?

Poirot, Ludwig has shown by his posts he's a pedophilia supporter. People like that don't change in the face of reasoned, intelligent debate. Please don't give him status by even bothering to argue points with him, as it just empowers him. Let's just hope and pray he doesn't ever put his attitudes into practice, if he hasn't done so already.

We must protect our innocent children.

Ludwig, your attempt to disarm the judges's findings in the Harris case is interesting. I have confidence that the finding of Mr Justice Nigel Sweeney in the case were both measured, and only determined after careful consideration of all the evidence by his honour.
Your attempt to add mitigation to Harris's action is in my opinion unrealistic. This by you sums up your general attitude to what the judge said <<Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.>>

My only question is; Do you drink down at Individuals local pub? Where the men are men, and the kiddies are there for their pleasure, whilst the gals look on.

i have seen bum smaking live on tv
i have seen ballbag busting on tv

my wife was raped before i met her
it took me three decade to realise every time 'we made love'
for her it was like being raped again/so yeah rape stinks

but humans are touchy feely//and this is way post defacto
point being in the sceme of things no invasion was occasioned
and te jury clearly used info from other cases to arrive at a judgment

the point being we know it wll be appealed/and cleaned up on appeal
if fonding is a crime/its on the exreem limits of criminality[legaly speaking]/however wrong repugnant physicly

but next time its clear he needs rape them/its te same jail time
in fact its way more than rapists get

loo its clear from our reactions/w dont come from huggy feely families
in fact our famiy goe to great lengths to avoid any contact at all[its lie we are priests AND TOUCHING EACH OTHER IS SICK

NOW LUDwIG MAY COME FROM ONE WHERE ThEY HAVE CLOSENESs
damm faking caps/THE NEW GUY is just too intrested in luddy/his writing style seems familiour/footballers do it even basket ballers do it/and net ballers do it too/its clear you lot never been in a change room

but let we forget/the topic is rolf harraS
not LUDWIG

Ludwig,

Regarding "C" - and your attempts to shift partial responsibility onto her for Harris's crimes.

Here you have contorted your reasoning grotesquely to defend Harris's actions.

Pedophiles rely on the shock, fear, shame and muteness of their victims for the continuation of their perversions. So although Harris was a fifty year-old man and "C" was fifteen and traumatised, we have you intimating that because she wasn't quick-witted enough to cut him short in under a minute or brave enough to shout the house down...that she was giving him "tacit approval" to indecently assault her.

You also intimate that because she continued to visit the Harris house that she was perhaps inviting his attentions. You don't know how powerless she felt to avoid such an outcome. It took her years and a bout of alcoholism before she could even bring herself to tell her family.

So instead of analysing "C", I hope you don't mind if I analyse you.

It seems to me that you, Ludwig, are taking Harris's fall from grace "personally". You don't seem to be able to digest the fact that your hero has been found guilty of these crimes. If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots.

But because it's "nice guy" Rolf whom you always looked up to, you feel a big chunk of your invested "self" has been trashed significantly.
That's why you're going to such ridiculous lengths to diminish the actions of Harris - and to transfer responsibility, at least partly, to anyone else including his victims and the judiciary.

Your, lament, Ludwig, appears to have less to do with the actualities of the case, and more to do with a facade torn asunder exposing the sordid underbelly of all-round nice guy, Rolf.

Thanks Poirot for having a closer look at my critique of the judge’s sentencing remarks.

Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

Do you really think nine months in jail is warranted for such an action?

"Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

Surely you don’t think that the six months jail time he got for simply squeezing this girls left buttock is appropriate.

It is a matter of appropriate penalties, and should NOT be a matter of utter condemnation for lower-end-of-the-scale actions, as seems to be the mindset of the likes of Jay.

Two seminal moments happened to me at school, which killed my respect for two people that I had held in the highest regard and left me totally bewildered, angry and very wary of all authoritiy figures, if not all people. Years later I very strongly wanted to get back at both of them.

Firstly, I was bullied a fair bit at school. On one occasion I was bullied and there was a bit of a scuffle. The deputy head master just happened by right at that moment. He was completely disinterested in the details or who was in the wrong, even though he would have known that the other kid was a bully and I was most likely the victim on that occasion. It wouldn’t have been hard for him to have sorted that out. But he just couldn’t be bothered. He just caned us both. The bully didn’t think anything of being caned yet again. But that was the one and only caning that I ever got, for having done absolutely nothing wrong. Caning was the top punishment. Only the really bad kids got caned for doing really bad things. Well, that was what we had been led to believe.

continued

Dear Jay123,

As you appear to be new to this forum, although it is hard to know these days, welcome. You will find there is rigorous and sometimes even rancorous debate but on the whole there are some niceties that are observed.

When viewing what you claimed of Ludwig;

“Let's just hope and pray he doesn't ever put his attitudes into practice, if he hasn't done so already.”

plus what you wrote in your earlier comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192522 I think you went too far. There is no evidence that Ludwig is a danger to children no is there any indication that he is ever likely to be.

Obviously my posts to individual indicate the line might be somewhat nuanced but it is still there nonetheless.

I hope you enjoy OLO.

Secondly, some kid picked a fight after school and threw me to the ground on the school verandah, just completely out of the blue. The headmaster just happened by right at that moment. He told us both to stay put until he came back. Then he just went home and left us there. The other kid nicked off quickly. I was left waiting, by myself, alone in an empty school, too afraid to go as it would have been in direct violation of what the top authority figure of the school had told me to do. Eventually I left... at about sunset.

In both these simple instances, authority figures stuffed up very badly, and yet their actions were presumably normal practice. This had a huge impact on me. But even if I had made a big deal of these episodes, there would have been no come-back on them at all, let alone court cases, sackings, public condemnation and jail sentences.

Poirot, the actions of these two men was every bit as bad as Harris’ simple groping activities, IMHO.

We all have seminal moments like this. We all get wrongly-done by. Many people would have had much more significant experiences than I had in my childhood. I do not think that sexual matters, at the lower end of the scale as with Harris, should be treated in a far worse way than all manner of other things that affect us.

The trouble is that we have terribly blinkered people like Jay, who just jump straight to the end of the spectrum and completely condemn people, and are perfectly happy to see them completely destroyed, as a result of really pretty minor misdemeanours.

I wonder if Jay can appreciate my school experiences at all, or whether he/she would tell me that they were non-events and that I was a total woose for letting them affect me so deeply, and that non-sexual things like those are completely different to anything with a sexual connotation?

I will reply to your post regarding ‘C’ later.

Ludwig, "Do you really think nine months in jail is warranted for such an action?"

I don't have a daughter but my partner does, I can assure you that if some creep took it upon himself to grope her in the way that Harris groped his victims I'd and her family would consider 9 months far to small a sentence. Likewise if someone chose to grope the boys in our care.

I still don't get why you are so determined to stick up for Harris. This was not a one off incident, a really bad day for him where he just lost the plot. It wasn't a carelessly placed hand.

Now days a headmaster who did what yours did would most likely lose their job, possibly facing more serious consequences than that even if it was just an oversight rather than a deliberate and repeated action. Harris was not a one time offender, he was a serial abuser who showed no concern for the impact of his actions on his victims.

Yes there are other things that people do to hurt others some of which we find it much harder to put clear boundaries around. That in no way mitigates Harris actions.

R0bert

Ludwig continues on with his support of pedophilia. He has just written that he considers the pedophilia of Rolf Harris to be "really pretty minor misdemeanors".

THIS is precisely why men like Ludwig are a potential danger to our children. To these type of men, it's never a real crime, it's just "having a bit of fun, playing around".

People, by debating specific points with Ludwig you are making him feel empowered. He clearly has absolutely no insight into these matters and certainly no intention of changing.

People like Ludwig need medical and psychiatric help, and he won't get that here. Please don't allow him to feel empowered. Think of the innocent victims of pedophilia.

Ludwig,

I appreciate that you, like all of us, experience instances of unfairness...and that authority figures are prone to dumping everyone in the same basket and not addressing individual blame.

You ask...

"Do you really think nine months in jail is warranted for such an action?"

The difference between your story and Rolf's is that he "did" perpetrate the crimes.

You appear to be regarding each incident as an isolated aberration...not something that Harris did purposely and serially that was targeted, as in this case, at a very young child.

Just take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of, not only the child, but the parents.

Off we go to an event, and we're a little bit excited because we know that lovely Rolf Harris is going to be there. He's a great guy who's entertained us for years and even hosted a show about animals being treated in an Animal Hospital...just the thing an 8 year-old would find appealing.

So Mum and/or Dad, full of trust and not a care in the world, send Miss 8 off to line up for an autograph.

And 39 year-old Rolf goes straight to it and feels up the 8 year-old in the crotch.

Of course, it wouldn't matter if the perpetrator was friendly Mr Smigginblooper the janitor....a 39 year-old man getting his jollies from feeling up an 8 year-old is not on!

In this case, Rolf made use his fame and reputation to draw people to him...and then...

...abused them.

Poirot, please don't enable Ludwig to feel empowered by debating specific points with him. Both you and I surely know he has absolutely no intention of changing, no matter what you say. Debating with him won't change him, it only makes him feel empowered. He needs medical/psychiatric help in order to change. Society doesn't need Ludwig's empowerment. Let's all think of the innocent victims instead.

Jay,

We've been communicating with Ludwig for years...none of us think he's a pedophile.

I do however, think he's uncommonly hung up on Rolf's situation - and I might add - making himself look a tad ridiculous by defending him.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Ludwig appears to be taking Rolf's situation personally, because of a long held admiration for this man...and finding it difficult to digest the gravity of Harris's digression from acceptable behaviour.

He mentioned earlier in the thread that he was almost in tears at the verdict.

I think Ludwig would do well to examine his own apparent adherence to Rolf's "former public image" and allow himself to accept that Harris is profoundly flawed in this matter...irregardless of his years as family entertainer and all-round good guy.

dear robert/please know..i love michael*jackson/his music sooths me
from his earliest days..woman and men have had..and desired him/he had his\soul/spirit/driven out of him.

from his father/who expected\every gesture to be perfect
to his brothers doing as brothers do/enjoy the spoils of fame

there can~be no doubt/that many\horrid things was done/to micheal
the rich./and famouse\demand their playthings/its loose loose

so michael slept\with children/HED/LOST-HIS*OWN[inner-child]
i love him yet/the beauty\of his music makes for no regret
its said i will never falL in love again/but their wrong
y\u can be loving your hating/thats no love at all;SEE?

i dare y0u to lisen\to michaels music/and not/feel his pain
we*/all feel pain/no s0meone big wanted a media detractioIS
the system..is very good at hiding ITS SINS/+\RED~HERRINGS*

ludwig/i too\got strap-once
unjustly/that seems a big*key..[much like molestation
getting accused and hurt severly/when you done nuthin wrong for trying to speak-up/well that cuts deep/opens our eyes just like being touched up.

i know me/and\if any movie*STARharlet*TOUCHED ME UP
well wooopppeeE[i have been~that lonely]
\i met 20 year old virgins[ie they stopped loving\for 20 years
[i recall this old lady/went o the police STATION/for her rewards[it seems her mother*told her as a 12 years-old;stay a virgin till your 80/and\the police give..you two grand

thing is nuns have earned their heaven
but reject heaven\but briefly first to visit hell /;get-to release/\some pent~up heat-out/get\the kinks out-of\a cramped/up life expectation
[im told sex-is great\for period cramps]but that some 'girls begin tO MENTRAIT AT 8/they are-tmo sexualised/plus the female horemoans in our plastics drinks..and food .

how aboUT THESE/POOR CHILDREN BARELY ALIVE/consciouso
THAT BBC pervert\loved loving these dead and defective
who are we to judge the love\returned from a corpse/as cold as stone
[in budism/they say enlightenment reaches out with the thought of oneness one gets of sitting with 'the dead'..then realization/that we the dead and the living are one/complete/energy circular event/of energy changing STATE/yet what is iT THAT makes THESE shaped scratchings have form/in\min/that inform the mind/via the seeing linkages of our minds eye;]

Personally, I find the people who had to sit in Southwark Crown Court for six weeks, who heard the evidence first-hand and passed their judgement, far more convincing than someone 11,000 miles away, reading a couple of newspaper articles, and then pontificating on what is right and what is wrong.

But hey, who am I to make such a wild call.

Dear Pericles,

Are we allowed to pontificate on this one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

To All,

I am totally confident that the whole legal process with Harris has been followed to the letter of the law in Britain. The sentence applied has been appropriate, given the nature of the crime and believe the sentencing judge has acted fairly towards Harris giving him 5 years and 9 months.
Poirot, I too have been and still are an admirer of Harris's music, artwork etc, but in no way does that lessen his crime. If Fred Harris the house painter, and part time bath time crooner had done exactly the same as the more famous Rolf Harris, I would now expect Fred would be doing 5 years and 9 months in a cell next door to the more famous Rolf.

<<A judge (Garry Neilson) in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.>>

SteeleRedux, I am opposed to incest if for no other reason it is genetically dangerous. Just take one look at the British Royal Family! I rest my case.

Very interesting. I was just about to post that exact link Steele, when I noticed that you have beaten me to it.

Now THERE is something to really be concerned about. This judge’s thinking is terrible!

In an earlier post (Thursday, 10 July 2014 12:14:34 PM) you said regarding my comments about ‘A’,

<< Well sir I think that is outrageous. >>

However you did not address my main concern, which was whether ‘A’s assertions about the effect it had on her were properly scrutinised in court or basically just taken entirely at face value.

I would suggest that there is a very large reasonable doubt there about the extent of the claimed effects. It is quite probably totally true, but it could also be blown right out of all proportion.

It is surely the role of the court to make sure that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or else treat it very carefully if not dismiss it completely. I don’t think the court did this.

I also note that you said:

<< …lifted her dress and rubbed her vagina not once but twice… >>

Judge Sweeney said:

< you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing >

He just touched the front of her pants by all accounts. Where does your ‘rubbed’ reference come from?

See, you’ve overstated it, Steele. Not deliberately of course, but overstated and incorrectly stated nonetheless.

continued

This is exactly why I have taken the approach that I have – because I perceive a whole lot of this tendency to assume that Harris’ actions are worse than they really are, that all are interpreted in the worst manner that they can, or are just not viewed at all in a level-headed manner.

So I have set about to show that it all can be viewed really quite differently, in a much less terrible manner.

I think my views here have at least much merit as the views of those that can’t help but see the worst interpretation.

OK, maybe my suggestion of a $300 fine for Count 1 regarding ‘A’ was a little light-on. Maybe. But nine months jail for this, for a first offence, or what had to be assumed by the court to be a first offence, is surely completely outrageous.

Ludwig,

"This is exactly why I have taken the approach that I have – because I perceive a whole lot of this tendency to assume that Harris’ actions are worse than they really are, that all are interpreted in the worst manner that they can, or are just not viewed at all in a level-headed manner.

So I have set about to show that it all can be viewed really quite differently, in a much less terrible manner."

But you aren't viewing Harris's crimes in a level-headed manner. You are viewing them from a skewed vantage point - one where you've sought to mitigate nearly every action he perpetrated.

If we examine your defence of Harris, we'll notice that as the details of his actions emerged, your defence has been ratcheted up incrementally to match your knowledge of the gravity of crimes.

You initiated this thread claiming Harris was no-more than a playful groper - and everyone knew what he was doing.

We've gone from that to you forensically itemising his actions - even his most heinous ones (not denying them, mind you) - but instead, in the most grave case, attempting to pin partial responsibility onto his victim.

I'll repeat that a 39 year-old man putting his hand up a "small" child's" dress and interfering with her private parts, even over her knickers, is worthy of jail time....especially in conjunction with all the other similar crimes he was found guilty of in the same trial.

Paul,

You said "I am opposed to incest if for no other reason it is genetically dangerous. Just take one look at the British Royal Family! I rest my case."

That's a cheap shot, care to illustrate your point with reference to any of the current members of the Royal Family?

The Judge's remarks seem reasonable to me and I fail to see what the furor is about.

Poirot, regarding your reply to me re: ‘C’…

There was a whole series of very similar touching events, which all seemed to last for about one minute. After multiple episodes of touching by Harris, the girl slept over in Harris’ house with Bindi, entirely voluntarily, not with her parents present. She then continued to have occasional contact with Harris, clearly of her own volition, for years after her childhood.

What does this tell us?

Sorry, but it just flies in the face of the interpretation of ‘C’s experiences amounting to serious pedophilia. or of the girl becoming an alcoholic as a result.

Hey, you might be right in your interpretation, but please see the very real possibility that I might be right, or that the truth might lie somewhere in between.

<< So instead of analysing "C", I hope you don't mind if I analyse you. It seems to me that you, Ludwig, are taking Harris's fall from grace "personally". >>

No Poirot. I explained in my previous post to SteeleRedux why I see the need to take a different interpretation to the predominating one.

<< You don't seem to be able to digest the fact that your hero has been found guilty of these crimes. >>

Hey, that’s exactly what I have done – very carefully digest it. And I think you will agree that the judge’s sentencing comments is just about the best single document on which to base this ‘digestion’.

<< If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots. >>

Careful, you wouldn’t have a clue about that. You set yourself up to be knocked down with statements like that. Maybe you would remember a thread I started on Bill Henson. And I was also very close to starting one on Robert Hughes.

continued

<< That's why you're going to such ridiculous lengths to diminish the actions of Harris… >>

I implore you to not close your mind. It is all too easy to just dismiss the different interpretation that I am putting forward, or to consider the very real possibility that the truth lies somewhere in between your interp and mine.

<< Your, lament, Ludwig, appears to have less to do with the actualities of the case, and more to do with a facade torn asunder exposing the sordid underbelly of all-round nice guy, Rolf. >>

Maybe not such a ‘sordid underbelly’, Poirot. You use strongly emotive language. You see, you’ve totally made up your mind on this issue, based on a hard-line interpretation of all that has eventuated in the trial, and with no consideration that there is enormous scope for it all being interpreted quite differently, and not actually being anywhere near as bad as what you have come to believe.

Maybe your interp is right.

Maybe it is a long way off the mark. Please consider that possibility.

Ludwig,

Earlier in this thread you attempted to mitigate the gravity of Harris's action by comparing them to similar actions (as in the case of "C") committed by Savile and Catholic priests.

Since then you've learned that Harris's actions aren't far removed from such examples at all.

I'm sure that if you were able to forensically examine the actions of convicted priests, Savile and countless other pedophiles in the same way you have done with Harris, you would be able to apply the same types of mitigation that you have done for him.

Does it occur to you that if you have to contort your argument to such an extent to remove blame or gravity from Harris's crimes, that you are barking up the wrong tree?

We have laws which reflect what is and is not acceptable conduct in our culture.

Harris violated these tenets, and has been duly convicted and punished.

"You see, you’ve totally made up your mind on this issue, based on a hard-line interpretation of all that has eventuated in the trial, and with no consideration that there is enormous scope for it all being interpreted quite differently, and not actually being anywhere near as bad as what you have come to believe."

What do you mean, Ludwig... the interpretation of all that eventuated in the trial made by the jury who were there, or the quite different interpretation presented by the defence, or the the scope of the interpretation of it being only as bad as that believed and expressed by the judge?

Let's apply the same logic of interpretation to the expressions of expiation, remorse, mitigation, explanation or apology made by Rolf Harris...

[sounds of crickets chirping]

If you find Rolf Harris appealing in the future... offer your services to his legal team.

Ludwig, "< you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing >

He just touched the front of her pants by all accounts. Where does your ‘rubbed’ reference come from?"

Step back and have loom at what you are doing here please. You are so desperate to place better look to Harris's actions that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of in the opposite direction. Touching the front of someones pants leaves a lot of room for non sexual contact, touching the area where the vagina is located leaves very little. Was the girl wearing pants under her skirt or a pair of undies, some mixed use if the term I admit but referring to undies as pants looks like an attempt to make the actiin less than it was.

Are you so caught up in defending that you have lost track of the context of what you are actually writing? Do you really believe that touching young girls on or in the vagina is a trivial point?

I'm intrigued by the way the discussion has gone. Your determination to defend Harris and the lengths you have gone to to recast his actions illustrates the hurdles victims of sexual assault face when their assailant is a popular and trusted figure (the local priest etc). The continued refusal of those of us who like and respect you to believe that you really mean what you say is also telling, on the face of it I should be forming a similar view to the one Jay123 has formed and I'm struggling to come to grips with that. The views you ar expressing here are abhorent and I just don't want to believe you really mean them.

R0bert

That's a cheap shot, care to illustrate your point with reference to any of the current members of the Royal Family?

Yeah! The Queen of England and Prince Phil are cousins! The Queen and Prince Philip both have Queen Victoria as a great-great-grandmother. They are also related through Prince Philip's father's side. His paternal grandfather, King George I of Greece, was Queen Alexandra's brother.
Proof they are inbreeds. Except for Harry, he's okay.
p/s Charlie was related to Di.

Poirot, Catholic Priests! It was all the Altar Boys fault, have you not seen the provocative way they get about, in those frilly little dresses.

Ludwig you are doing your best to act as an apologists for Harris, and all you seem to be doing is dragging yourself down. You went as far as claiming in your own judgement, that for one offence Harris should have been slapped with a parking fine ($300), yeah for parking his grubby hand in the wrong place. You have blamed everyone associated with the case, except the perpetrator himself, Harris.
If Harris believes he has been harshly dealt with, he has the right of appeal before a different judge(s). You can't say Harris has not been given full opportunity to defend himself, he has

Paul,

Still a cheap shot, you have not illustrated one incestuous relationship within the current Royal Family and if you intended to indicate that the members of that family are in anyway physically or mentally impaired by being the product of close (but legal) relationships; then we await your examples.

Ludwig,

"<< If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots. >>

Careful, you wouldn’t have a clue about that. You set yourself up to be knocked down with statements like that. Maybe you would remember a thread I started on Bill Henson. And I was also very close to starting one on Robert Hughes. "

Okay, well that indicates to moi that you apparently have a problem with those of renown being accused or convicted of sex crimes against minors.

Have you ever thought of starting a thread whenever the average Joe Bloggs has been convicted of a sex crime?

Regarding "C"....irrespective of the fact that you are attempting to pin partial responsibility onto a 15 year-old who was abused by 50 year-old Harris...

How does that excuse the choice he made to indecesntly assault this young girl?

I mean tell me how that even partially exonerates Harris?

Harris of his own volition and free will, knowing that it is a crime to sexually touch a minor, decides that he is going to sexually touch a minor....not just once but many times in the most intimate of ways.

So disregarding you theory of "C"'s behaviour tantamount to "asking for it" (which I find repugnant in the extreme) - explain to me how a man indulging in a criminal act of his own free will is mitigated in any way of his crime?

Paul1405 you said on the previous page, "Ludwig you are doing your best to act as an apologist for Harris".

Paul, it is FAR more serious and insidious than that. Yes, Ludwig is an apologist for Harris, but he goes MUCH further by detailing specific acts of pedophilia and then saying it's not really all that serious and/or he attacks the child victims and 'their' actions. Ludwig is blatantly and insidiously defending pedophilia itself.

Pedophiles, and their supporters, are not grubby little men in raincoats hanging around schools and instantly visible. Pedophiles and their supporters are your pleasant dads, your compassionate priests, your caring teachers, your funny entertainers, your grandfathers, your uncles, your sons .... and your nice, reasonable, lovely men who write on forums.

By engaging with Ludwig directly, you will NEVER change him. He feels empowered by your attention to his pedophilia support, and his dismissal of the victims of pedophilia.

Please be aware Ludwig is not merely supporting Harris, he is...and this is vital to realise .... supporting the actual pedophile actions themselves by attempting (unsuccessfully) to diminish the actual pedophilia itself and to diminish the victims.

As I said before, Ludwig and people like Ludwig will only change if they seek medical/psychiatric assistance. I doubt Ludwig will ever do that, as he clearly lacks insight into his affliction.

Discuss the subject yes, but by directly engaging with Ludwig on the specific points he raises only makes him feel empowered.

I would like to back up the point made by WmTrevor.

I feel there would have been some implications for the length of Harris' sentence from the impact it has on the victims but the judge would have given far more weight to the lack of admission, contrition and empathy for the victims shown by Harris, I mean the guy even sang Jake the Peg in the witness box for crying out loud and had denied even being in that town.

Referring to my earlier scenario of a 39 year old twice lifting an 8 year old's dress to touch her vagina if that person had pleaded guilty, been a first time offender, given evidence of emotion imbalance due to illness or deep stress of some kind, shown convincing remorse for his actions, committed to getting the appropriate treatment and offered heartfelt apologies to his victim and her family I may have countenanced a lesser sentence that that given to Harris. Since none of these were offered in his case then what he got was entirely appropriate.

<< Okay, well that indicates to moi that you apparently have a problem with those of renown being accused or convicted of sex crimes against minors. >>

Poirot, you could choose to take that negative view of it, or you could take the view that this indicates that I do have a considerably broader interest in the whole subject than just regarding Rolf Harris, and that I have given it a lot of thought over a lot of years.

See, if I may be so bold; you do go straight to the negative state, and very strongly so (mind you, only about 1% as much as Jay! [reincarnated Nhoj?] who must by now be a considerable embarrassment to your side of this debate!)

It indicates to me Poirot that you are not going to see anything I write in anything other than a very negative manner.

And therein lies one of the big reasons why I am so interested in this whole subject:

Someone does something wrong (and Harris has clearly done that), and then there are many people who just jump straight to the worst possible interpretation, and just cannot be pulled back from it no matter what more moderate people might say about it. Courts and judges get swayed by this. Over-the-top findings can be made by a jury and over-the-top punishment enforced by a judge.

I am not saying that this is definitely the case with Harris, but I am saying that there is a very real possibility of it being so.

continued

<< Regarding "C"....irrespective of the fact that you are attempting to pin partial responsibility onto a 15 year-old who was abused by 50 year-old Harris... How does that excuse the choice he made to indecesntly assault this young girl? >>

I doesn’t.

Again Poirot, I am offering a different less severe perspective, not an exoneration of Harris.

<< I mean tell me how that even partially exonerates Harris? >>

It is certainly grounds for some mitigation. Firstly, all those episodes of genital contact, certainly beyond the first one or two, would not have happened if the girl had been really repulsed by it and had thus not put herself in the position where they could happen.

Sorry but that seems to be the case, in a very straightforward manner. And what’s with her continuation of contact with Harris, for many years up to the age of 29, if she was so repulsed by his actions?

I see a really quite blatant disconnect here, again based entirely on the judge’s sentencing remarks. Please Poirot, consider this very closely.

Again… and I feel the need to say this repeatedly…. you and the judge might be right, but please consider the possibility that my interpretation could be correct or that something in between yours and mine is closest to the truth.

There ARE potential mitigating circumstances here. This does not mean that Harris wasn’t very wrong, but it does mean that the magnitude of the offences could be considerably less than what you think.

continued

<< Harris of his own volition and free will, knowing that it is a crime to sexually touch a minor, decides that he is going to sexually touch a minor....not just once but many times in the most intimate of ways. >>

Yes. But that is far from the full story. It is not just totally black and white.

<< So disregarding you theory of "C"'s behaviour tantamount to "asking for it" (which I find repugnant in the extreme) >>

Why do you find this so repugnant? Why are you so closed-minded as to not think that this is a very real possibility?

Please reread the sentencing remarks, and particularly consider how all the repeated episodes of Harris’ contact with ‘C’ could happen… and continue for about a minute each time before she apparently very gently pushed him away.

<< …explain to me how a man indulging in a criminal act of his own free will is mitigated in any way of his crime? >>

If the other party is actually letting him do it, then there is a very big mitigating factor.

And here I go again saying that you might be right, but please consider the possibility that I am right – that ‘C’ did indeed allow him to do it. If this was so, it wouldn’t exonerate Harris, but it surely would be considerable mitigating circumstances.

Let's get this straight, Ludwig. Regarding Harris's repeated indecent assaults of "C" - there is "no" mitigating factor before the law.

He was sexually interfering with a minor.

That's it.

"If the other party is actually letting him do it, then there is a very big mitigating factor."

No it's not a mitigating factor at all. Not in the case a middle-aged man indecently assaulting a minor.

What is it with you that you keep attempting to excuse Harris's perversions?

Do you not realise that a mature man (and especially one of Harris standing) rely on the trauma and the shame of their victims to keep their lips well and truly sealed. I know because the one time it happened to me, I was totally immobilised by the shock and shame of it.

"C" was being secretly abused by Harris. Perhaps she felt she had little choice but to continue to visit as Bindy's friend. She couldn't tell anyone why she didn't want to go to the Harris house, could she.

That's what perverts depend on which is why it often takes a long time for these things to come to light

Others have said here that it's a wonder any minors come forward at all when people like you are on hand to blame the victims.

And I agree with the others that it's obvious Rolf was still relying on his fame and nice guy reputation to protect him in the witness box. Who else up on charges for indecent assault of minors would stoop to singing ditties in the witness box?

"They're all making it up", he says. "I was never in Cambridge", he says.

So when you say: "See, if I may be so bold; you do go straight to the negative state, and very strongly so.."

You're darn tootin' I do...after reading the sentencing remarks, no-one of reasonable morality could do anything else.

I'm flabbergasted that you continue to defend this paedophile...and your argument has done more to define his evil actions to me than anything else I've read on the matter, save the judge's comments.

Wow Poirot. You’ve totally hardened your stance. There is a whole bunch of statements in your last post that amount to assertions that you cannot make. You can suggest that they possibly or probably or are likely to be the case, but you can’t assert them as facts.

My oft-repeated fundamental principle here; that a less severe interpretation of Harris’ misdemeanours is perhaps closer to reality, perhaps not, but certainly worth considering… has fallen on deaf ears and a closed mind.

Crikey, all you needed to say is: “Yes Ludwig, I can see your point. There is a possibility that it is not as bad as it seems, and that interpretations other than mine [Poirot’s] are possibilities. Highly unlikely, but yes; possible ”

That would have settled this discussion. But alas, you have totally closed your mind and asserted that you are right, end of story.

Damn pity that is.

<< I'm flabbergasted that you continue to defend this paedophile. >>

It seems like you are flabbergasted that I offer anything whatsoever that is different to your HARDLINE interpretation of this whole affair.

Hey, how many times do I have to say it – I’m offering a different somewhat less severe interpretation, not a defence of Harris for his wrongdoings. And I have been doing so in a very logical and cool-headed manner.

We have always got along well on this forum, for some years now. I thought I could have a friendly or at least neutral debate with you. But alas, it was not to be.

Go ahead and think the absolute worst of Harris. Don’t let anything stop you from doing that. Don’t consider my comments regarding the disconnect that I found in the judge’s comments. Do continue to see things in very black and white terms.

Goodnight.

Poirot, and others, I beg you to stop communicating directly with Ludwig on this subject. You are only making Ludwig feel empowered.

He only sees his excuses for pedophilia and his diminishing of the victims, in black and white terms. We all know he lacks insight and compassion on this issue, not because he admires Harris, but because he is defending the actual pedophile actions themselves and is also attempting to diminish victims of pedophilia.

Nothing whatsoever that you say directly to him will influence him in any way at all.

Please, I implore you to not make Ludwig feel he has status on pedophile issues. You are paying close attention to what he says and this makes him feel empowered on the issue.

I'm praying that pedophile victims are not reading his posts, as I could barely imagine the deep extent of their hurt, dismay and pain regarding Ludwig's posts. That a grown man could be that lacking in insight would be deeply hurtful to any victim of pedophilia.

Please Poirot, Paul, Steele, RObert, WM Trevor carry on the discussion, but I implore you to exclude Ludwig, just ignore him. He will never change. He needs help, and he can't get it here on this forum, and he doesn't want it anyway. Please don't empower that man by paying attention to his repugnant defense of certain types of pedophilia.

I agree Jay123.
I think Ludwig protests too much.

At the end of the day, Harris was convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and is in prison possibly until he dies.
One can only hope he is doing his time very unpleasantly...

Jay123, I'd need more evidence before I was ready to accept that this is an empowerment issue for Ludwig.

I tend to only ever cut off communication where continuing the communication seems to increase a risk of harm or if the communication is so bad that conversation is unworkable. I'd rather see bad ideas out in the open and rebutted than have some sense left that they have been silenced because opponents could not rebut them.

We may not change Ludwig's mind on this but I tend to work from an assumption that other may not not be as entrenched in their views.

I am reaching the point where the arguments seem far to repetitive and there may be little point in continuing the discussion on the existing points.

R0bert

OK ROBERT..how about a new angle
i will change nappies/but some nappies are more messy than others
so when the naby girl has poop every where/where is the parent allowed to clean/what areas not to clean/the thing is at what point are we cleaning too much.

i see woman getting great joys from baby sniffing but is a man goes arround BABY sniffing hes the peRvert/AND EVEN I AM QUICK TO CAST THE LABLE

we live in an era where they put no go areas/a man taking his grandaughter to play in the park geTs nought but foul looks
jusT out shopping with the clearly younger mother and daughter/you get the constant judgements

LIFE I FULL OF THESE SMPLE ABSURD BOUNDRIES.like we have a male teacher shortage caus we know is gong to arise if you even tak individualy with a student.

we tend to throw our sins at we are thinking/on others
is us thinKing him a pervert/his problem or ours/cleaRly its his/but then we become that wE DISPISE

AND AS FOR BACKWARDS JONGO;YES it seems..HES BACK

if you never been an older male/seen out walking\with kid
you got no clue untill ya do\and there is nothing better than a pevert in the media/to alianate the father comforter figure[anyhow its our cros to bare]

all i know is backWARDS j's abc or rather 1 2 and threes
seems like a secret mystery j to me/but i dont care who he is/we each should be able to speak freely/if only that we not nuthing we are shamed of.

are all/most some or all;
lawyers defending murder..are they murderers too?

i see j321 just trying out his vengeance/bile\on some specific one

just remember this

And next time you unthinkingly
are forced/to change a poopy nappy...
a lot of crrrr ap falls into the cracks/some you can
clean others need a woman to do it cause we need more feminists.

aND CAUSE ALL MEN ARE Blusterds

oug, are you playing games or do you genuinely think Harris was checking to see if nappies needed changing?

There is a concept called reasonable doubt used in western legal system. No sane person could confuse Harris's actions with that of a parent changing a nappy (or any if the other actions parents, doctors etc sometimes need to take) to care for the needs of children.

I've got no respect for the kind of spin and contortions implied in that part of your post. Its dishonest BS.

I agree that the hype around men and children has been badly over played in some circles. As a single parent I noticed how adament my sons friends mums generally were that play dates would happen at their place, not mine.

On the other hand I've often taken my partners kids on outings without my partner and never encountered negative reactions out and about despite being an older male caring for children.

Negative stereotypes about men and children won't be helped by those of you claim poor comprehension of the boundaries around appropriate touch (and other interaction) and inappropriate touch etc with children. There are some complexities at the boundaries, medical emergencies etc but for all of the situations raised so far in regard to Harris and all of my dealings with children other than my own those complexities have never been an issue.

R0bert

Don't be so puerile, OUG. Cleaning up babies after "pooping" isn't particularly different for either gender. I've had one of each - and for both a good wipe is sufficient. There is no requirement to go probing any further on a female baby...which appears to be the ridiculous point you are trying to make.

....

Ludwig,

You appear to be getting cross with me because I refuse to come around to your way of thinking.

Problem is that I can't countenance why you are going to so much trouble to mitigate Harris's actions...except that you have long admired his public persona and are having trouble dealing with the fact that "such a nice guy" has been convicted of such crimes.

Whether it's you partially blaming the victim - or you complaining about the sentence severity, it seems you hop about coming up with any and every excuse for the fact that a grown man purposely committed these offences.

And that's after you were apprised of the detail. Before that, according to you, he was just being a risque groper.

It's just been one long episode of you not liking the fact that "Rolf Harris" got pinged for such crimes - and seeking, therefore, to grasp any mitigating factor your imagination can come up with.

And you criticise me because I'm not buying any of them.

Sheesh!

RObert is right that we are now repeating our arguments so it's probably no use going on much longer.

To All

Harris has done the crime, and now he must do the time. I have confidence in the British legal system to believe Harris got a fair trial, the verdict was correct and the sentence was appropriate. Despite all the media hype, and all the sensationalism applied to the case, which is understandable given Harris is a high profile person. To its credit the British legal system was able to divorce itself from the hype surrounding the case, and acted in a clinical fashion, ensuring Harris got a very fair trial indeed. I am please that Harris got that fair trial he was entitled to, and that once again justice has been served.

R0bert, you are another long-time good OLO buddy. Twice as long as for Poirot. Going on for nine years now.

Firstly, I say to you the much-repeated bottom line of my argument – that there is a possibility that things are not as they seem and that other interpretations of a less harsh manner regarding Harris’ wrongdoings are possible, and very much worth considering.

You wrote:

<< Step back and have loom at what you are doing here please. You are so desperate to place better look to Harris's actions that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of in the opposite direction. >>

Ok, I have stepped back and had a good hard close look at my approach to this issue.

My assessment is…. that I really am just gently and calmly putting forward suggestions as to how things could be viewed somewhat differently. And it seems that some people on this thread just completely can’t handle that.

I would hazard to say that perhaps others can, and have simply chosen not to comment further, as they can see the hard time Ludwig is getting from Poirot and company, let alone the utter absurdity and defamation that Jay/Nhoj is pumping out, and they are loathe to get embroiled in that. Maybe. Who knows.

<< Your determination to defend Harris… >>

I do find this sort of statement incredible. I was very much aware of the way that many people think – in very black and white terms, which is why I keep abundantly repeating my motive – to suggest that there are other possible interpretations of this whole affair, and NOT to exonerate Harris.

But alas, it seems that no amount of emphasis on this is going to cut through the polarised thinking of some people (No offence R0bert, but crikey I do find it very frustrating, and really quite amazing that I can get no traction here with intelligent articulate skilled debaters such as you and Poirot).

continued

Please; there are shades of grey here, or points on a spectrum, as with all manner of things. The judge had to very carefully assess a whole host of things and to decide accordingly what penalty to apply on a spectrum from nil to extremely harsh.

The judge has made a call, based on all factors. But he could very easily have made quite a different decision about the length of Harris’ sentence, if he’d seen things even just a little bit differently.

He could very easily have declared that his sentence be twenty years. Or he could have decided that there is a lot of uncertainty about the exact veracity of some of the claims put forward in court, and declared on this basis that he get a non-custodial sentence.

Views differ enormously on this.

All I am saying is that one should have an open mind.

When you look at the total spectrum of pedophilia / child-molestation / child-touching offences, and you look at the uncertainties in the Harris affair, then surely you can see that maybe…just maybe, he shouldn’t be outrightly condemned for his actions and have his life and legacy destroyed as a result.

It is fascinating that every person that I spoken to about this whole affair is further towards the view that Harris has been too severely dealt with than I am. Not one person, who has any interest in the subject, has expressed views in line with you or Poirot.

I think that there are lots of people out there who feel similarly to what I do, as is evident with some of the early comments on this thread, but who are just not willing to get embroiled in an inevitably narky online conversation with those who won’t consider anything other than a very hardline view.

topic is sickening/but in the sceme of things isnt like someone burnt down yo\r house or stole your car/or lobbied that govt tax you for smoking but not drinking..

look there..are\real evils-in the world/things govt do
that need.the guilt/shame/to follow the party line

we hear of\these child-solders kilLing\raping
AMPUTATING..and we can forgive them?U

bt not\an..old foggie/whos best-aTe\sleeps..with the dead
guys/the in crowd=is=..the in crow\because*the MASTERS have/the dirt on them.

get=that=as long as\those/..in power think
their l0ving of children..is worse..than stealing\the peoplES ASETS/PEACE-OF/MIND,..STEALING-US\blind by lies..

[i have met two of them]..remember//and they were fine/playing the game[EVENTUALLY/ITS/just,like\the casting couch..to be a bigger crimethan stealing\the nations/pension-funds[like bill\clinton did]

its about hOw..we laughed/AT..that rogue]kelly]..that killed two coppers..but lock-up and get upset..by fanny petting..[look;my uncle masterbated me/at 13/..it opened-up my eyeS/i\havnt trusted adults ever since/point being..it made me\the scum-bag..i am

SO YES\its eVil/i have..punished my selF..\for..oVer a/HALF-century
but..i now/Know/..too ..any by far\..are in hell simply/because they couldnt..*let it go..[willingly\remain/victims][n0t/my-fault;its~theirs.]

/all this carry-on/its\time we moved on.

how about[THE-killing 42 kids[in israel]..this-time..
00 last-time[the secret\of life/Im not seeing\the same vengence/passion..in ending wars.

think to ask why?
the media gives you're herrings..[LAUGH/..NOW-CRY]
here worry/about\this fanny petting\not kids being disemboweled and irradiated with cancer causing heavy metals in god-hole lands

[lets honor mass murders/?\by loCking-up kiddy fiddlers
-KILL/BUT-DONT..TOUCH.?!

i think the big-thing is/did you inhale/ENJOY[OR/ANNOY]
well thats..stockholms sin/drone[SEE PSHYCS]

[im sick of/reading
/hithe kiddy porn/like petting her bits/..RIGHT;HERE.

just quoting this junk*is sick
hi..s.problem\not-yours

ok a mindless fool touched ya up
and the kid reminds you of it..[it wasnt the kids]NOR;YOUR\fault]

sex is a issue/if groan-up woman..did it..[these/imbecilic/sic*idiots wouldnt look twice\at kids..but/if yOUR BUTT UGLY..LIKE FERGUSON.OR PRETTY-personally repulsive\like roffle*harrass

look
if you dont forgive/you join them..in hell
most in hell simply couldnt forgive..[as far/as\moral-sins go]
your un*forgiving of yourself\becomes the bigger sin/

screw the lot of em.
only/that-we/reallY WANT-]TO/KNOW]..SEEPS-IN.

im so over thinking/about this rubbish any Further
its only post limits/why the hell do we need kidS on tv..at all?

think about that~!
someones getting tittilated/or fixated
makE these\TV-children..wear day clothing not/SEXED-UP/sleep ware