Ludwig,

next..

"Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. >"

You say...

"That was the entirety of the action."

This young child was 8 when this occurred - Rolf Harris was 39.

This 8 year-old was waiting for an autograph.

39 year-old Harris apparently took it upon himself (par for the course?) to put his hand up her skirt and and touch her vagina over her clothing.

He was found guilty of doing just that...and you appear to think that a $300 fine is just the ants pants for such a deed.

I can just hear the judge in Ludwig's court..."No problem there, Mr Harris just pop a few bob in the naughty jar and she'll be apples."

Most inappropriate for something our culture holds in contempt!

........

Next...

"Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

< You groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times. >

That was the entirety of the action.

Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.

Harris got six months imprisonment for that. He should have received NO penalty at all for such a non-issue."

Interesting that you think a 48 year-old man taking liberties and groping the buttocks of a 16 year-old is a "non-issue".

I wonder how "light-on" you'd consider it if you met someone famous and before too long they had their hands around your buttocks?

If he'd have kept his hands to himself it would have been a "non-issue". Just where does he get off putting his hands all over people without an invitation in any case?

Poirot, Ludwig has shown by his posts he's a pedophilia supporter. People like that don't change in the face of reasoned, intelligent debate. Please don't give him status by even bothering to argue points with him, as it just empowers him. Let's just hope and pray he doesn't ever put his attitudes into practice, if he hasn't done so already.

We must protect our innocent children.

Ludwig, your attempt to disarm the judges's findings in the Harris case is interesting. I have confidence that the finding of Mr Justice Nigel Sweeney in the case were both measured, and only determined after careful consideration of all the evidence by his honour.
Your attempt to add mitigation to Harris's action is in my opinion unrealistic. This by you sums up your general attitude to what the judge said <<Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.>>

My only question is; Do you drink down at Individuals local pub? Where the men are men, and the kiddies are there for their pleasure, whilst the gals look on.

i have seen bum smaking live on tv
i have seen ballbag busting on tv

my wife was raped before i met her
it took me three decade to realise every time 'we made love'
for her it was like being raped again/so yeah rape stinks

but humans are touchy feely//and this is way post defacto
point being in the sceme of things no invasion was occasioned
and te jury clearly used info from other cases to arrive at a judgment

the point being we know it wll be appealed/and cleaned up on appeal
if fonding is a crime/its on the exreem limits of criminality[legaly speaking]/however wrong repugnant physicly

but next time its clear he needs rape them/its te same jail time
in fact its way more than rapists get

loo its clear from our reactions/w dont come from huggy feely families
in fact our famiy goe to great lengths to avoid any contact at all[its lie we are priests AND TOUCHING EACH OTHER IS SICK

NOW LUDwIG MAY COME FROM ONE WHERE ThEY HAVE CLOSENESs
damm faking caps/THE NEW GUY is just too intrested in luddy/his writing style seems familiour/footballers do it even basket ballers do it/and net ballers do it too/its clear you lot never been in a change room

but let we forget/the topic is rolf harraS
not LUDWIG

Ludwig,

Regarding "C" - and your attempts to shift partial responsibility onto her for Harris's crimes.

Here you have contorted your reasoning grotesquely to defend Harris's actions.

Pedophiles rely on the shock, fear, shame and muteness of their victims for the continuation of their perversions. So although Harris was a fifty year-old man and "C" was fifteen and traumatised, we have you intimating that because she wasn't quick-witted enough to cut him short in under a minute or brave enough to shout the house down...that she was giving him "tacit approval" to indecently assault her.

You also intimate that because she continued to visit the Harris house that she was perhaps inviting his attentions. You don't know how powerless she felt to avoid such an outcome. It took her years and a bout of alcoholism before she could even bring herself to tell her family.

So instead of analysing "C", I hope you don't mind if I analyse you.

It seems to me that you, Ludwig, are taking Harris's fall from grace "personally". You don't seem to be able to digest the fact that your hero has been found guilty of these crimes. If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots.

But because it's "nice guy" Rolf whom you always looked up to, you feel a big chunk of your invested "self" has been trashed significantly.
That's why you're going to such ridiculous lengths to diminish the actions of Harris - and to transfer responsibility, at least partly, to anyone else including his victims and the judiciary.

Your, lament, Ludwig, appears to have less to do with the actualities of the case, and more to do with a facade torn asunder exposing the sordid underbelly of all-round nice guy, Rolf.

Thanks Poirot for having a closer look at my critique of the judge’s sentencing remarks.

Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

Do you really think nine months in jail is warranted for such an action?

"Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

Surely you don’t think that the six months jail time he got for simply squeezing this girls left buttock is appropriate.

It is a matter of appropriate penalties, and should NOT be a matter of utter condemnation for lower-end-of-the-scale actions, as seems to be the mindset of the likes of Jay.

Two seminal moments happened to me at school, which killed my respect for two people that I had held in the highest regard and left me totally bewildered, angry and very wary of all authoritiy figures, if not all people. Years later I very strongly wanted to get back at both of them.

Firstly, I was bullied a fair bit at school. On one occasion I was bullied and there was a bit of a scuffle. The deputy head master just happened by right at that moment. He was completely disinterested in the details or who was in the wrong, even though he would have known that the other kid was a bully and I was most likely the victim on that occasion. It wouldn’t have been hard for him to have sorted that out. But he just couldn’t be bothered. He just caned us both. The bully didn’t think anything of being caned yet again. But that was the one and only caning that I ever got, for having done absolutely nothing wrong. Caning was the top punishment. Only the really bad kids got caned for doing really bad things. Well, that was what we had been led to believe.

continued