A couple of points. Western legal systems tend to have the concept of reasonable doubt built into them. So its possible to speculate all sorts of reasons to accept that Harris was mostly innocent a group of people (assumed to for the most part to be reasonable) looking at the body of evidence against him came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt. No one has yet pointed to any evidence withheld from that jury to make a case that they were not working with the facts.

So in the realms of the imagination its possible that Harris was largely innocent or in some way his actions might be mitigated by some circumstance not already allowed for in the judgement in the real world a group of people looking at all the admissable evidence cam to the conclusion that there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

As for redeming himself. At Harris age probably very difficult. Others may have some chance, accept responsibility for their actions, do the time, ensure they never ever place themselves in the type of contact with children again that places them at risk. Those recent years Harris appears to have spent not abusing children might have counted for more if he had shown some remorse for his actions and accepted responsibility for them.

R0bert

You can count me in, Ludwig.

>>...if there is actually anyone here who is genuinely interested in the thread subject<<

I most certainly am. But I'm not too sure that you are still "genuinely interested in the thread subject".

Which is...

>>It seems that the worst of [Rolf Harris' crimes] was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.<<

And that the victims were actually to blame:

>>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.<<

Perhaps you could let us know.

In your own good time, of course.

I repeat, Harris was convicted on the basis of the evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is of course possible that aliens had abducted him and were exercising mind control however given the lack of evidence for that possibility what may be possible but implausable should be discounted.

Kiddy fiddling was against the law at the time Harris committed the offences, the fact that some of his peers seemed to be getting away with it at the time should never be an out. He was as I understand it sentenced on the basis of sentencing laws from the time the offences occured, not on the basis of more up to date laws which reflect an improved understanding of the harm done.

He was and is a creep who preyed on children and women who were not in a position to raise a stink about his behaviour at the time. He has shown no public remorse for his actiins. His defence was based on calling his victims liers, not an expression of remorse and shame for his actions and a plea that he didn't understand the wrong he was doing at the time.

There is nothing about Harris actions at the time or since other than that he appears to have stopped his abuse of children some years ago that deserves any sympathy or respect. Given his unwillingness to face up to his earlier actions I'm not inclined to view his stopping as a rejection of the harm he had been doing by sexually abusing others.

R0bert

Finding someone who agrees with you should be a worrying event, Ludwig, rather than reassuring.

>>I can’t say that he might not possibly be right on the money, or that he isn’t at least a whole lot closer to the truth than any of those who have presented strong anti-Rolf sentiments on this thread. I don’t know. All I can say is that his views could POSSIBLY be right.<<

This person - should he actually exist - claims to know that "Rolf is basically a very gentle person", which is contrary to the stories of people who have actually met him. That should ring alarm bells, for a start.

What you still haven't told us is whether you still hold the views with which you began this thread - the actual topic, if you will, that we all need to be discussing. Let me remind you.

>>It seems that the worst of [Rolf Harris' crimes] was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.<<

And that the victims were actually to blame:

>>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.<<

Perhaps you could let us know.

In your own good time, of course.

What idea does you mate have Ludwig?

<<He said that he thinks that Rolf is basically innocent>>
<<could possibly be leading to such an extraordinary level of public humiliation and then to the destruction of his reputation, career and all that he had achieved. Innocence isasmuch as Rolf had thought that he had not done anything wrong that should be of any significance to anyone!>> yuda, yuda, yuda

From the judges summation when referring to a 15 year old girl and a breach of trust;
"You (Harris)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 (Harris) away."

Your mate is either ignorant of what took place, or he/she too is a basket case.

Problem being, Paul, that Graham told us not to post anything explicit.