Ludwig, "I think it really is a case of the authorities going after the WRONG person with the Harris case, while things hundreds of times worse were happening"

I take it that you are arguing about priorities, not that offenders whose crimes are not as serious as the the Rotherham abuses should not be charged. Words on a page can seem to have a different meaning to that intended.

Of course you are right in that priorities for investigation and allocation of resources seem askew in this case. The Rotherham abuses were (and are!) on-going, resulting in more victims, the offences are far more serious and long-reaching (drugs for example), it was already known about and reports were already before responsible persons including politicians.

To say <<There are BOUND to be MANY more offenders out there of a much more serious nature, who will escape investigation.>> Totally illogical, there are people who get away with murder, so should all murderers get off? So should Harris get off. If I should get booked for speeding, should I get off, others speed and get away with it, as I said totally illogical.
Beach, <<However your faith in the media responding to public opinion or acting in the 'public interest' is rather quaint and misplaced.>> Rubbish! I'm not saying that at all, if the media could get some mileage out of Harris in some way, not necessarily in the 'public interest' way, but to increase readership or viewers etc, and therefore revenue, don't you think they would be doing so. Nothing like a but of spice and division to get peoples interest and the money rolling in. If Ludwig was the British PM, or third in line to the thrown, or just won Wimbledon and making public what he has been posting here don't you think the media would not be all over it? Oh, in the public interest of course, no other reason.

<< I take it that you are arguing about priorities, not that offenders whose crimes are not as serious as the the Rotherham abuses should not be charged. >>

Absolutely, OTB.

Its not just about priorities in terms of the severity of offences, its about the most effective use of resources. And one has surely got be a little concerned about the enormous resources that went into convicting Harris that would otherwise surely have gone into dealing with more significant cases.

Sorry Paul, I have read, reread and rereread your last post and I just can’t understand what you are trying to say, in your first paragraph, re: ‘illogical’.

I wrote:

>> There are BOUND to be MANY more offenders out there of a much more serious nature, who will escape investigation. <<

I can’t imagine what issue you would have with this.

You wrote:

<< If Ludwig was the British PM, or third in line to the thrown, or just won Wimbledon and making public what he has been posting here don't you think the media would not be all over it? >>

YES!!

If I was a well-known person, it would get into the media for sure….. and then there might be a bit of critical analysis of all the various points that I have raised.

Of course there would still be all of the sorts of reactions that we’ve seen on this thread. But it wouldn’t be all so incredibly one-sided; there would at least be a few people out there who would be willing to delve right into my suggested possibilities that it could all be quite different to what it has been portrayed.

I’ve said a couple of times in this discussion that I think this will happen. When the atmosphere becomes a little less heated, and perhaps a few other cases have run their course, the community will be more receptive and the media more inclined to really explore the sorts of points that I have raised.

Ludwig, I do not understand this <<Its not just about priorities in terms of the severity of offences, its about the most effective use of resources. And one has surely got be a little concerned about the enormous resources that went into convicting Harris that would otherwise surely have gone into dealing with more significant cases.>>
These are criminal matters, they have to be investigated and persecuted. Should the victims be told "Yes, we believe a criminal offence has been committed but, its not economically prudent to pursue the matter.>>
So how much should society set aside to investigate criminal matters each year, and when the budgeted amount is exhausted what do you do then? Issue 'Get out of Jail Free Cards'. Our legal system costs a lot of money, I don't deny that, but its necessary expenditure to catch people like Harris. In Harris's case a lot of the prosecution cost would have to do with Harris putting up a very strong defense case.

Paul

<< These are criminal matters, they have to be investigated and persecuted. >>

Well…. no. They don’t need to be pursued. The authorities could make a decision about the significance of the offences and the likelihood of getting a conviction, and could decide not to pursue someone, even if there is a high probability that they did offend or they were absolutely known to have offended.

When you look at the magnitude of offences in Rotherham and compare them to Harris, you’ve got to wonder whether they should have bothered with Harris at all. Especially when he apparently stopped offending many years ago while Rotherham is still a very active event.

You’ve got to consider that Harris did nothing more than very brief opportunistic touchings. I mean, this is just extraordinarily different to what has been happening in Rotherham.

<< Should the victims be told "Yes, we believe a criminal offence has been committed but, its not economically prudent to pursue the matter >>

If the offence is very minor or if there isn’t a particularly high chance of getting a conviction, then yes. Ideally, no. But in the practical real world, yes.

<< So how much should society set aside to investigate criminal matters each year, and when the budgeted amount is exhausted what do you do then? >>

I don’t know. But resources are not infinite. They do need to be carefully allocated, and this should happen with priority on the most serious matters.

continued