Ludwig,

Earlier in this thread you attempted to mitigate the gravity of Harris's action by comparing them to similar actions (as in the case of "C") committed by Savile and Catholic priests.

Since then you've learned that Harris's actions aren't far removed from such examples at all.

I'm sure that if you were able to forensically examine the actions of convicted priests, Savile and countless other pedophiles in the same way you have done with Harris, you would be able to apply the same types of mitigation that you have done for him.

Does it occur to you that if you have to contort your argument to such an extent to remove blame or gravity from Harris's crimes, that you are barking up the wrong tree?

We have laws which reflect what is and is not acceptable conduct in our culture.

Harris violated these tenets, and has been duly convicted and punished.

"You see, you’ve totally made up your mind on this issue, based on a hard-line interpretation of all that has eventuated in the trial, and with no consideration that there is enormous scope for it all being interpreted quite differently, and not actually being anywhere near as bad as what you have come to believe."

What do you mean, Ludwig... the interpretation of all that eventuated in the trial made by the jury who were there, or the quite different interpretation presented by the defence, or the the scope of the interpretation of it being only as bad as that believed and expressed by the judge?

Let's apply the same logic of interpretation to the expressions of expiation, remorse, mitigation, explanation or apology made by Rolf Harris...

[sounds of crickets chirping]

If you find Rolf Harris appealing in the future... offer your services to his legal team.

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

He just touched the front of her pants by all accounts. Where does your ‘rubbed’ reference come from?"

Step back and have loom at what you are doing here please. You are so desperate to place better look to Harris's actions that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of in the opposite direction. Touching the front of someones pants leaves a lot of room for non sexual contact, touching the area where the vagina is located leaves very little. Was the girl wearing pants under her skirt or a pair of undies, some mixed use if the term I admit but referring to undies as pants looks like an attempt to make the actiin less than it was.

Are you so caught up in defending that you have lost track of the context of what you are actually writing? Do you really believe that touching young girls on or in the vagina is a trivial point?

I'm intrigued by the way the discussion has gone. Your determination to defend Harris and the lengths you have gone to to recast his actions illustrates the hurdles victims of sexual assault face when their assailant is a popular and trusted figure (the local priest etc). The continued refusal of those of us who like and respect you to believe that you really mean what you say is also telling, on the face of it I should be forming a similar view to the one Jay123 has formed and I'm struggling to come to grips with that. The views you ar expressing here are abhorent and I just don't want to believe you really mean them.

R0bert

That's a cheap shot, care to illustrate your point with reference to any of the current members of the Royal Family?

Yeah! The Queen of England and Prince Phil are cousins! The Queen and Prince Philip both have Queen Victoria as a great-great-grandmother. They are also related through Prince Philip's father's side. His paternal grandfather, King George I of Greece, was Queen Alexandra's brother.
Proof they are inbreeds. Except for Harry, he's okay.
p/s Charlie was related to Di.

Poirot, Catholic Priests! It was all the Altar Boys fault, have you not seen the provocative way they get about, in those frilly little dresses.

Ludwig you are doing your best to act as an apologists for Harris, and all you seem to be doing is dragging yourself down. You went as far as claiming in your own judgement, that for one offence Harris should have been slapped with a parking fine ($300), yeah for parking his grubby hand in the wrong place. You have blamed everyone associated with the case, except the perpetrator himself, Harris.
If Harris believes he has been harshly dealt with, he has the right of appeal before a different judge(s). You can't say Harris has not been given full opportunity to defend himself, he has

Paul,

Still a cheap shot, you have not illustrated one incestuous relationship within the current Royal Family and if you intended to indicate that the members of that family are in anyway physically or mentally impaired by being the product of close (but legal) relationships; then we await your examples.