Ludwig, based on you cost assessment annalists, if presented with two similar cases, and given the laws finite resources to fight various cases, then Harris may well have never been prosecuted at all. Harris with his 20 million quid could have got off scott-free, put into the too hard basket. Now that other bloke Jake Thepeg, a doley relying on a public defender, he's a soft target , we'll go right after him.

Poirot, (above post) I think the word is "Touché" on that one.

Thanks Poirot.

That’s good. Directly in line with the subject of this thread.

However I would still suggest being very careful about the true context of his comments.

In your quotes we are reading what journalists have said that Harris had said, and have put it into some sort of context, which is their interpretation.

We all know that we need to be a tad careful about that second- or third-hand sort of assertion… not least in very emotive cases like this one, where there are many people who really want to think the absolute worst of the defendant.

But having said that; they are probably pretty accurate.

So, it begs the question then; why did you put up so many posts that were not contributing to the topic but were just sniping from the sidelines?

It would seem that you are very willing to put up relevant stuff very quickly where you can, but that when I raise points that you can’t counter or argue against, you simply choose to snipe instead.

I’ve got to admit that I have found that to be most unfortunate, especially given that we had got along very well for years before this thread.

"So, it begs the question then; why did you put up so many posts that were not contributing to the topic but were just sniping from the sidelines?"

I put of reams of on-topic material...that is...until two thirds of the way through the thread when you began abusing me (and others) for not agreeing with your "possibilities".

And falsely accusing me (and others) of abusive posts.

You have behaved abominably during this thread - completely lost my respect.

Paul, again I am finding it difficult to understand just what you are trying to say.

I think there is a tendency to go for soft targets rather than more difficult but much more significant cases.

I was involved with environmental regulation for many years. I suspected early on that my department pursued small easy targets much more readily than larger, somewhat more difficult, much more expensive, and much less certain-of-conviction cases. I heard many colleagues express the same sort of concerns.

This is probably the case across the board, with all manner of legal matters.

And when a soft target of a minor nature is a famous person who can be made an example of to great effect, and thus highlight the 'great work' of the regulatory body that has brought forth the prosecution, then it really does become quite irresistible to put resources into that, ahead of larger and more significant issues.

Ludwig, that is why we have people like the DPP in Oz, I assume they have similar in England, who's job it is, is to evaluate the evidence and to some degree preempt the courts. The DPP launch prosecutions where there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Harris was not actually a soft target, he had a numbers of strings to his bow to use in his defense.

<<And when a soft target of a minor nature is a famous person who can be made an example of to great effect, and thus highlight the 'great work' of the regulatory body that has brought forth the prosecution, then it really does become quite irresistible to put resources into that, ahead of larger and more significant issues.>>

Some of what you say in the above could well be true, but its only based on speculation, we can not say its fact. I must say we differ with the notion that the offences were of a "minor nature", I didn't consider them so. the judge obviously didn't either with a sentence of 5 years 9 months, but having said that Harris wasn;t treated in the extreme category either. I don't agree Harris was simply a soft target, he had several things going his way, fame and fortune not the least. If larger and more significant cases come to light, then they too must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just feel in the Harris case its was a victory for justice, even if as you say there was something in it for the prosercutors.

Paul

<< Some of what you say in the above could well be true, but its only based on speculation, we can not say its fact. >>

YES!

Same applies for a lot of what I have raised on this thread – it is speculative. There is a POSSIBILITY that it could be true. And it is well worth considering that possibility.

<< I must say we differ with the notion that the offences were of a "minor nature" >>

We do indeed differ on this fundamental point. The more I think about the whole case, the more I think that Harris has been absolutely clobbered with a sledge hammer, while a small tack hammer would have been much more appropriate.

I refer to the overall penalty that he has copped, not just to the official court-imposed jail sentence.