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.