One more thing.

>>I wonder Pericles if you want to go there, given your demonstration of a highly corrupted moral compass regarding your reappearance on this thread for the specific reason of denigrating me rather than addressing the subject at hand.<<

If you recall, the subject at hand is:

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

And that is the only subject that interests me: how you can possibly defend the disgusting antics that the judge summarized thus:

"the verdicts of the jury show that in the period from 1969 to 1986 you were also a sex offender - committing 12 offences of indecent assault on four victims who were variously aged between 8 and 19 at the time. There were a number of aggravating features."

OK, this is good Pericles; we are actually getting right into debating the subject!

I wrote:

>> 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. <<

Pericles, you replied:

<< It doesn't sound to me that you are at all convinced that Harris is to blame. >>

Well, it would appear that you are wont to pick and choose what I say, and if it doesn’t sit with your preconceived notions, then you reject it.

I can’t say it any more clearly than this… again….

Harris was to blame!

Even if ‘C’ was a willing party all the way, he was still in the wrong to touch a minor in that sort of a manner.

Do you get it? Or are you going to come back yet again and insist that I think Harris was not to blame??

Now, the question I ask is very pertinent indeed:

How did Harris touch ‘C’ to the extent that he did if she was not willing to let him do it?

He stopped as soon as she gently pushed him away, which was after about a minute. If she’d gently pushed him away as soon as he started, he would have presumably stopped then.

I put it to you Pericles that he could not have put his head down there if the girl was not willing to let him do it.

continued

I put it to you that she was a willing party to his actions, on each occasion regarding Counts 3 to 9… and that if she hadn’t been, then NONE of those events would have happened. Nothing would have happened after the holiday in 1978 that ‘C’ spent with the Harris family.

Re-read the sentencing remarks about the details of Harris’ actions regarding ‘C’, and then see if you can honestly assert that ‘C’ was definitely not a party to his actions. You surely CAN’T!

Anyone reading that, and maintaining an open mind, would have to consider there to be a very real possibility of ‘C’ being very accepting of Harris’ advances.

But again… even if this was the case, Harris was still wrong for doing it.

Judge Sweeney wrote:

< …but I am sure, in the light of the jury’s verdicts, that ‘C’ gave truthful evidence as to what occurred, and that it was the indecent assaults that you carried out on that holiday that emboldened you to commit offences against her in this country thereafter. >

Wow, what a controversial statement!

Firstly, even if ‘C’ had been a willing participant, Harris would still have been found guilty. The jury would still have to have found him guilty.

So the jury’s verdict of guilty does NOTHING to suggest that ‘C’ was or was not a willing participant.

And yet the judge declared that because the jury found Harris guilty, he was therefore sure that ‘C’s account was accurate!

This is a terrible flaw in logic in the judge’s statement!

continued

I wrote, quoting the judge:

>> In her Victim Impact Statement, which I am sure is true…<<

You replied:

<< He made that observation about "B", not "C". >>

NO Pericles, you’ve got it wrong! Go re-read the sentencing remarks.

The judge wrote in paragraph 13:

< In her Victim Impact Statement, which I am sure is true, ‘C’ says, among other things… >

But yes, he also said this ‘I am sure’ bit in relation to both ‘A’ and ‘B’.

I wrote:

>> We simply don’t know to what extent ‘C’s complaint was critically examined. <<

You replied:

<< But we do know. The judge tells us so. >>

Well, now that I have brought to your attention the flaw in basic logic expressed by the judge in this regard, maybe you will rethink this.

<< The only debate left on this thread is your moral compass >>

NO Pericles. That is NOT the only debate here. It shouldn’t be a part of it at all.

But if you insist, I will delve right into that. You won’t come out of it looking like someone who has a well-tuned moral compass, I can assure you of that.

Stay tuned…….

I find it somewhat concerning, Ludwig, that you can write...

>>How did Harris touch ‘C’ to the extent that he did if she was not willing to let him do it? He stopped as soon as she gently pushed him away, which was after about a minute. If she’d gently pushed him away as soon as he started, he would have presumably stopped then. I put it to you Pericles that he could not have put his head down there if the girl was not willing to let him do it.<<

...and at the same time believe that this is not about your general attitude to men molesting young girls.

Because only someone who believes that "the worst of it was a bit of groping" can spend so much time and energy defending the antics of someone who clearly believes the same.

And if that isn't indicative of your moral compass, I don't know what would be.

The only thing wrong with Ludwig's compass is that it points South South West instead of North.