This debate is "bonkers" - and it's already been done to death many times over.

(one wonders why Ludwig is so set on revisiting the machinations time and time again - as if he's going to convince us "eventually?)

Rolfie decides to break the law. Rolfie decides to indecently assault a young girl ("C")...and because she hasn't the temerity to stop him as he's launching his assault - apparently the blame lies with her)

Yup...a moral compass that comes up with bilge like that isn't just faulty.....

It's exploded!

Regarding one’s moral compass…..

Is jumping over onto this thread, engaging Jay123 the village idiot, directly playing the man while contributing nothing to the debate… and even admitting that one was not interested in the debate because ‘there was nothing to debate’, morally sound or morally corrupt or what??

Which direction was your moral compass pointing regarding that very grubby piece of work, Pericles?

How morally sound is it to condemn someone and be happy to see them get totally destroyed for undertaking nothing more than a few inappropriate touches of underage girls?

How morally sound is it to see things in such black and white terms as to condemn someone like this as being a despicable pedophile, equal to someone who has molested, injured, deprived the liberty of, and raped hundreds of girls, or boys?

How morally corrupt is it to not have a reasonable perspective about this sort of thing, and to not be interested in the greater perspective?

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Enough about your immorality.

Now to my very strong morality…

My moral compass is based on principles like these:

When someone does something wrong, be sure to understand just what they have done as best you can, bearing in mind the full perspective, any mitigating circumstances and any doubts about the veracity of the complaints and charges.

continued

When you are not absolutely sure that the charges are real as stated, or that you think the penalties are too severe or light, or anything else that doesn’t seem to add up, then endeavour to find out, and debate the issue.

Do not get put off or cowered into submission by unscrupulous people who hold opposing views who are incapable of entertaining sensible debate and just wish to condemn you and make you look as bad as possible.

Respect the legal system, but do not worship it. Question anything that seems as though it could possibly not be quite right. Realise that this sort of critical inquiry is a fundamental part of the legal system, and that if it was not allowed, then judges could get away with being much less accountable for their decisions.

Realise that pedophilia strikes right at the core of our social mores. And that this is why lots of people are so condemnatory of anyone that is deemed to have done anything that comes under the banner of pedophilia.

And realise that social mores do not always sit comfortably with dispassionate analysis… and that matters concerning pedophilia arouse very passionate responses, which are not necessarily very logical or reasonable.

Realise that there is a great deal of highly passionate pressure upon the judicial system to very severely deal with pedophiles, no matter what they might have actually done, regardless of whether their activities involved rape, etc or just tipped into the realms of pedophilia with nothing more than very gentle and brief touchings.

Etc. You get the picture.

My morality is based around the understanding of a realistic perspective, not only of what is right and wrong but of how wrong something is… and how appropriate the penalties are.

In short:

Me: very morally sound. You Pericles; rather dodgily moral at best.

"In short:

Me: very morally sound. You Pericles; rather dodgily moral at best."

Lol!

Like I mentioned...this thread has now taken ownership of the "Bonkers" title on OLO.

Since this thread is still going, it gives me a chance to comment on something that troubled me earlier: Ludwig's views on the judge's words.

Ludwig wrote: "I find his word: ‘I am sure’ to be very unconvincing, in just the same way as lots of people say ‘I am sure this is true’ when what they really mean is that they think this is true but they aren’t absolutely sure. If they were absolutely sure, they would simply say; ‘this is true’."

Ludwig is correct that people often say things ironically, reversing the meaning or underplaying for effect. (A plumber recently categorised my iron roof as 'ordinary' - it was totally stuffed and had to be replaced.)

However judges have to be extremely very careful in how they word their judgements because of the possibility of legal challenges. It would be quite dangerous for them to use irony because of the risks of misinterpretation.

Further, what they say is "their" judgement. They understand that they will be quoted, their words will go down in the judicial record, and may set precedents. It would be essential for a judge to say "I am sure" to make it clear that this is their formal judgement on a contested matter (ie where two parties contradict each other). They would restrict the form "it is true" to statements that were evidentially proven such as "the performance at which the alleged event happened was held at the Town Hall on 5 October 1980".

One way to assess this would be to do a textual analysis of judicial statements generally and this judge's past record of judicial statements. Is the terminology "I am sure..." a standard one in similar contexts in legal judgements? Did this judge regularly use this format? I don't know, but then neither does Ludwig. It would be necessary to do some substantial research to find out.

In the meantime, however, I conclude the judge is most likely to have said what he meant and meant what he said, using a formalised set of words to indicate that it was a "judgement".

Really, Ludwig?

>>Me: very morally sound. You Pericles; rather dodgily moral at best.<<

Until recently, I might have been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you might be so upset at being in the wrong, you just want to continue to muddy the waters of the discussion until everyone else stops out of sheer logic-fatigue.

But we are long past that. You have consistently asserted, and reasserted, your belief that the worst of Rolf Harris' behaviour was "a bit of groping". You have failed to take any opportunity to deny that is what you do in fact believe. You have chosen to maintain this stance against all the evidence, deciding - unilaterally - that there must be other interpretations of that evidence.

It is also indicative of your recidivism that you started lecturing others on the need to stay on topic, while simultaneously attempting to lead the discussion in another direction entirely. Away from your own tacky morality, and towards the more neutral ground of dispassionate evaluation of available information. Which might have worked, but for the vast number of self-incriminating statements that preceded this change of tack.

You should contemplate some of your own statements:

>>Realise that pedophilia strikes right at the core of our social mores. And that this is why lots of people are so condemnatory of anyone that is deemed to have done anything that comes under the banner of pedophilia.<<

Think about that for a moment, and reflect where your behaviour sits on a scale of one to ten, where laissez-faire is one, and total revulsion is ten. Think of this recent statement of yours, when self-assessing your score:

>>He never did anything that went beyond risky activity, around the very margins of pedophilia.<<

and

>>...by and large, YES I still hold the sentiments expressed in my opening post<<

Then you might just see why the low number you ascribe to yourself can never be understood, or condoned, by people who actually do believe that yes, paedophilia is entirely loathsome, and that those indulging in it should be punished accordingly.