Thanks Cossomby. That is a good point of debate.

You are probably right. Trouble is, we just don’t know. And when there is an element of doubt, there is a genuine concern.

This whole issue is so emotive. There are very many people who very strongly condemn Harris. There was a great deal of pressure on the judge and jury to find Harris guilty on all counts and to give him a big sentence.

There is also an enormously long time period between this case and the offences. There is a big paradigm shift in how we think about pedophilia as a result of the enormous extent of institutional molestation that has come to light in recent years. There are real concerns about how Harris was able to repeatedly touch ‘C’ a whole series of times, and do it for about a minute on several occasions, and stop as soon as he got an indication from this girl that enough was enough.

So all-considered, it was surely beholden on the judge to give us something a bit more convincing about the veracity of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’s complaints, than just saying ‘I am sure’ that they are accurate accounts.

Well Pericles, your last post does NOTHING to further the debate. It seems like you just threw it together really quickly, because you couldn’t be bothered actually addressing the debate.

Hey, you raised the issue of my moral compass, and said that it was the only thing worth debating.

But now you’ve basically avoided the issue and just fallen back on the personal condemnation diatribe. Really, that doesn’t help us here.

How about telling us (me and all the hundreds of enthralled readers who are following this thread) just what you think is wrong with my explanation of my moral position, sentence by sentence, if you would…. please.

I put it to you that you cannot genuinely say that anything in my explanation of my moral position is wrong or flawed or immoral or amoral or unprincipled or unethical.

You can put it whichever way you choose, Ludwig.

>>I put it to you that you cannot genuinely say that anything in my explanation of my moral position is wrong or flawed or immoral or amoral or unprincipled or unethical.<<

I can, and I have, and it is.

The simple fact that you believe that Harris'actions were nothing more than "a bit of groping", demonstrates a complete absence of empathy for the victims of a predatory paedophile.

As the judge pointed out, unambiguously, these were the actions of "a sex offender - committing 12 offences of indecent assault on four victims who were variously aged between 8 and 19 at the time".

What more evidence do you need of your lack of morality, or even awareness, than the fact that you consider indecent assault to be no more than "a bit of groping"?

Be specific.

"How about telling us (me and all the hundreds of enthralled readers who are following this thread) just what you think is wrong with my explanation of my moral position, sentence by sentence, if you would…. please."

I think we have it wrapped up in that paragraph....Luddie thinks there's "hundreds of enthralled readers who are following this thread" - and he's obviously quite enamoured of that thought.

To me, wanting to regurgitate the same points and arguments over and over again appears somewhat unbalanced. We've already debated the points Ludwig wants to rehash many times - and still he wishes to do it again.

Is it any wonder, in that case, that we now turn to Ludwig himself for examination? Why, after forensically picking the case apart and putting our views across "so many times", is Ludwig inviting us to do just that once more?

He says.....

"I put it to you that you cannot genuinely say that anything in my explanation of my moral position is wrong or flawed or immoral or amoral or unprincipled or unethical."

It's an odd statement, seemingly devised so that Ludwig can go on pretending to himself that his long thread is somehow a show stopper - with Ludwig having the starring role.

For him to continually toot his horn this far into the thread to bring attention to his odious ethics regarding Harris's crimes seems deliberate and inflammatory. He's enjoying bating us with statements that are beyond the pale in a society that condemns grubby pedophiles and their defenders.

It appears, he's quite excited at any attention he can muster from any of us - and continually goads by rehashing points that have already been well and truly debated.

Quite an interesting psychological study of a poster who appears to be vicariously enjoying the "cause célèbre" aspect of this thread in association with Harris's crimes.

Weird!

Good point, Poirot.

>>It appears, he's quite excited at any attention he can muster from any of us - and continually goads by rehashing points that have already been well and truly debated.<<

I really should stop feeding this sad addiction of his. Now that you point it out, I realise it is a strategy he has adopted on other threads, where he goes to enormous lengths to maintain an argument that he has well and truly lost any number of times. I was under the misapprehension that I was doing him a favour by drawing his attention to the massive flaws in his assertions, but I guess some people just cannot listen.

Perhaps it is time I bowed out, and let him have the last word that he so desperately craves.

I agree.

My last post on this topic.

My recommendation to all: do not engage with Ludwig on any topic.