Poirot,
Just once more. I am not excusing what Harris did. If you choose to read things out of context well, sorry, can't help you.

Dear Poirot,

One of the rules of this forum is Do not Flame.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

I certainly consider individual's first post on this thread as flaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

But even more disturbing is the attitude he has displayed. The obvious lack of empathy and the 'blame the victim' mentality which speaks to me, in this regard at least, as the same mindset as that of Rolf Harris.

Dear individual,

This again is your quote;

“I think it's a crystal clear case of the true face of feminism in its whole glory. The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up. I know ordinary blokes who are no different but their behaviour is tolerated because they have no fame nor money. Many feminists are just so callous & opportunistic.”

There is absolutely no way you can claim anybody has taken this out of context. If you had retracted and apologise for it I think most of us would have moved on. You have instead decided to double down.

And do not try and claim you were not excusing what Harris did. That was exactly what you did when you blamed the girls, their mothers and feminism instead of him.

It is evident that your politics has placed a millstone around your morality and we are left with a very toxic individual. Well may you say “I can't help you” well neither can we because that help only comes via a professional.

Just a real shocker.

individual,

".... If you choose to read things out of context well, sorry, can't help you."

What can you possibly mean by that? You've done nothing on this thread but blame the victims - or their mums - or the lawyers (which, oddly enough in this situation, you refer to as "grubby").

Again....

"The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up......"

"....They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame...."

"....His crime was being a heterosexual....

"....So, when mums push their georgeous little darlings literally into the laps of celebrities...."

"...blame game starts & nowadays it's grubby lawyers first stop".....

"...Blame yourselves."

If that's "not excusing" what Harris did - I'd hate to see what was.

Indi, Not only is Poirot, reading your comments "out of context" as you put it, so am I. and I suspect a whole lot of other contributes are as well! Your line of "Naughty old Rolf, but, but, but...here is the list of the guilty.

1. The victims, first and foremost
2. The parents for selling their children
3. The feminists for being female
4. The lefties for being lefties
5. The ABC for being homosexual, its always the ABC's fault anyway.
6. The media for reporting un-newsworthy news
7. The judge for thinking he is a number 3
8. The jury for not having a real job
9. The lawyers for making a quid
10 The law makers for making stupid laws
11 The cops for not chasing real crooks

Indi that about covers the list of wrong doers in this case, does it not. Can't for the life of me think of anyone else who might have done something wrong in this matter, can you?...

I wrote in the opening post:

>> It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that. <<

Soggy, you replied:

<< Luddy for me the form or extent of sexual predation does not enter into it. It is all about the vulnerability of the “selected” victim. >>

I find that quite extraordinary. Surely the extent of predation, whether it be groping, digital penetration or rape… and the severity and frequency of it, has got a whole lot to do with it.

I wrote:

>> Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus.<<

You replied:

<< There are no degrees in the crime of unlawful under age carnal knowledge. >>

There are most definitely extents of severity.

<< Luddy whatever Harris got busted for you can be assured that he and Saville shared their experiences and as constant child predators got up to worse… >>

No, we can’t be assured of that at all.

<< …Primarily because an overt libido coupled with a psychological penchant for children and that is a sexually driven power trip that they don’t grow out of...they grow into it. >>

You can’t assert that. There seems to be no continuation of this sort of behaviour from Harris over the last ?25 years.

<< So I don't agree with your thought process Luddy, its morally unbalanced. >>

Sorry Soggy, but I think your thought process is a bit off-balance here. You are making assertions beyond what has been determined and beyond what we can know. You certainly can’t assert this sort of thing as fact.

This is one of the reasons that I didn’t believe what was being said in the media, and indeed didn’t accept any of it until I read the judge’s sentencing remarks:- There are just too many people, in the media, and all manner of ‘expert’ commentators, who are just too willing to project things to a far worse or stronger extent than what they should be.

Paul1405,
Out of that ganging up lot you definitely get the crown. Give me a day to look up your mentality in the thesaurus.