The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Rolf Harris

Rolf Harris

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 118
  7. 119
  8. 120
  9. Page 121
  10. 122
  11. 123
  12. All
So… Poirot…

You have written yet another post that doesn’t address the topic!

It beggars belief that you keep doing this sort of fragrant infringement of the forum rules, while at the same time criticising me for my behaviour. This is duplicity in the extreme. And of course it is your behaviour that led me to have strong words to say to you in the first place.

Now, there is something very interesting in your second last post…

< The prosecution's case here is that he was a serial molester over a large number of decades and that he also groomed the main complainant in this case from the age of 13. >

This is just extraordinary. Talk about emotive and utterly over-the-top language. A ‘serial monster’… for very briefly, gently and opportunistically touching girls, four of which were examined in court… and hence four only of which were of any relevance to the case.

Of course he was wrong to do this. But a serial monster?

Wow.

Surely any commentator could see that that sort of language is utterly inappropriate and extremely unbalanced.

< …groomed the main complainant… >

In other words, he befriended his daughter’s friend, to the point of touching her sexually, in a manner that she was at peace with, and which could only have resulted in repeated touchings if she continued to be at peace with it…. and would never have happened if she had rejected it at the start and would have stopped at any point along the way if she had indicated that enough was enough.

This is what ‘grooming’ amounts to, doesn’t it?

How else could you interpret it?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 22 September 2014 9:46:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a very interesting point, isn’t it Poirot.

I can understand why you haven’t responded.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 8:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you are still wittering on, Ludwig.

More fool you, really, as you seem insistent upon digging yourself an ever deeper hole.

Because this post of yours is possibly the creepiest yet. Your defence of the indefensible has reached yet another level of pure sleaze, of a dimension that almost defies belief.

You start off quite slowly:

>>for very briefly, gently and opportunistically touching girls<<

As if this approach were in itself an excuse for his behaviour. Instead of which, it depicts very clearly some deplorable characteristics your morality, where brevity, mildness and frequency are somehow more important than the act itself: child molesting.

But it gets worse. This, I would imagine, is the tenor of your conversations with your "twenty mates".

>>...he befriended his daughter’s friend, to the point of touching her sexually, in a manner that she was at peace with, and which could only have resulted in repeated touchings if she continued to be at peace with it…. and would never have happened if she had rejected it at the start and would have stopped at any point along the way if she had indicated that enough was enough.<<

So, she must have agreed to the sexual touching, in the view of you and your mates, because she didn't "reject it at the start". Therefore she must have been "at peace with it".

This attitude demonstrates two things. One, that you have no idea whatsoever of the potent mixture of fear and shame involved in these transactions. Here, have a read, and start to get your head around the principles involved:

http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/a-survivor-of-a-paedophile-ring-tells-her-story-20140918-10eno2.html

The second aspect is what it says about you, and the fact that you still, after all this time, believe that offences are trivial.

Just be careful, when discussing this with your "twenty mates", that there isn't a twenty-five stone tattooed father of girls within earshot.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 12:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles!

You’re back!

By crikey are you all over the shop!

One minute you are saying that there is nothing to debate. The next minute you are saying; ‘count me in Ludwig’, I’m very interested in pursuing the debate.

You doggedly, almost obsessively, pursue me to get you to respond to you, after presenting yourself in your reappearance on this thread on ~26 July as one who should absolutely NOT be responded to as you were obviously not interested in the debate but is very interested in playing the man, and in the most low-life manner you could muster.

And then when I finally did respond to you, on the proviso that you address the debate and leave the personal stuff out of it, you didn't hang around for long!

You pushed me about my moral compass, then as soon as I outlined it, you were gone…. thus demonstrating very clearly that there was nothing about my moral compass that you could argue with….and you certainly would have if you could have!

Come on, get it together mate!

OK, welcome back.

So I wonder if this is the start of another long Ludwig-Pericles ding-dong battle, of the sort of which we have had many…. or whether you will be off again as soon as you realise that there is nothing else that you can pick holes in.

I’m betting on the latter.

.

I’ll fully respond to your post later.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 8:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol!....after post upon post of berating Poirot for posting off topic...what does Ludwig do - but post a whole post "off topic".

To reiterate Pericles' point: >>...he befriended his daughter’s friend, to the point of touching her sexually, in a manner that she was at peace with, and which could only have resulted in repeated touchings if she continued to be at peace with it…. and would never have happened if she had rejected it at the start and would have stopped at any point along the way if she had indicated that enough was enough.<<

"At peace with it"...sounds a bit sicko to me.

What 13-15 year old would be "at peace" with a not particularly attractive middle-aged father of a friend interfering with her sexually at his whim - covertly and opportunistically.

Rolf, the middle-aged man, chose not only to break the law, but to load this child with guilt and shame...for YEARS.

And Luddie thinks she was at peace with it!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 8:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not to mention, that Ludwig sounded a bit over-the-top excited that someone was addressing him.

Methinks he's getting way to weird a thrill from pasting his odious sentiments on this thread.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 8:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 118
  7. 119
  8. 120
  9. Page 121
  10. 122
  11. 123
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy