Ludwig,

"<< If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots. >>

Careful, you wouldn’t have a clue about that. You set yourself up to be knocked down with statements like that. Maybe you would remember a thread I started on Bill Henson. And I was also very close to starting one on Robert Hughes. "

Okay, well that indicates to moi that you apparently have a problem with those of renown being accused or convicted of sex crimes against minors.

Have you ever thought of starting a thread whenever the average Joe Bloggs has been convicted of a sex crime?

Regarding "C"....irrespective of the fact that you are attempting to pin partial responsibility onto a 15 year-old who was abused by 50 year-old Harris...

How does that excuse the choice he made to indecesntly assault this young girl?

I mean tell me how that even partially exonerates Harris?

Harris of his own volition and free will, knowing that it is a crime to sexually touch a minor, decides that he is going to sexually touch a minor....not just once but many times in the most intimate of ways.

So disregarding you theory of "C"'s behaviour tantamount to "asking for it" (which I find repugnant in the extreme) - explain to me how a man indulging in a criminal act of his own free will is mitigated in any way of his crime?

Paul1405 you said on the previous page, "Ludwig you are doing your best to act as an apologist for Harris".

Paul, it is FAR more serious and insidious than that. Yes, Ludwig is an apologist for Harris, but he goes MUCH further by detailing specific acts of pedophilia and then saying it's not really all that serious and/or he attacks the child victims and 'their' actions. Ludwig is blatantly and insidiously defending pedophilia itself.

Pedophiles, and their supporters, are not grubby little men in raincoats hanging around schools and instantly visible. Pedophiles and their supporters are your pleasant dads, your compassionate priests, your caring teachers, your funny entertainers, your grandfathers, your uncles, your sons .... and your nice, reasonable, lovely men who write on forums.

By engaging with Ludwig directly, you will NEVER change him. He feels empowered by your attention to his pedophilia support, and his dismissal of the victims of pedophilia.

Please be aware Ludwig is not merely supporting Harris, he is...and this is vital to realise .... supporting the actual pedophile actions themselves by attempting (unsuccessfully) to diminish the actual pedophilia itself and to diminish the victims.

As I said before, Ludwig and people like Ludwig will only change if they seek medical/psychiatric assistance. I doubt Ludwig will ever do that, as he clearly lacks insight into his affliction.

Discuss the subject yes, but by directly engaging with Ludwig on the specific points he raises only makes him feel empowered.

I would like to back up the point made by WmTrevor.

I feel there would have been some implications for the length of Harris' sentence from the impact it has on the victims but the judge would have given far more weight to the lack of admission, contrition and empathy for the victims shown by Harris, I mean the guy even sang Jake the Peg in the witness box for crying out loud and had denied even being in that town.

Referring to my earlier scenario of a 39 year old twice lifting an 8 year old's dress to touch her vagina if that person had pleaded guilty, been a first time offender, given evidence of emotion imbalance due to illness or deep stress of some kind, shown convincing remorse for his actions, committed to getting the appropriate treatment and offered heartfelt apologies to his victim and her family I may have countenanced a lesser sentence that that given to Harris. Since none of these were offered in his case then what he got was entirely appropriate.

<< Okay, well that indicates to moi that you apparently have a problem with those of renown being accused or convicted of sex crimes against minors. >>

Poirot, you could choose to take that negative view of it, or you could take the view that this indicates that I do have a considerably broader interest in the whole subject than just regarding Rolf Harris, and that I have given it a lot of thought over a lot of years.

See, if I may be so bold; you do go straight to the negative state, and very strongly so (mind you, only about 1% as much as Jay! [reincarnated Nhoj?] who must by now be a considerable embarrassment to your side of this debate!)

It indicates to me Poirot that you are not going to see anything I write in anything other than a very negative manner.

And therein lies one of the big reasons why I am so interested in this whole subject:

Someone does something wrong (and Harris has clearly done that), and then there are many people who just jump straight to the worst possible interpretation, and just cannot be pulled back from it no matter what more moderate people might say about it. Courts and judges get swayed by this. Over-the-top findings can be made by a jury and over-the-top punishment enforced by a judge.

I am not saying that this is definitely the case with Harris, but I am saying that there is a very real possibility of it being so.

continued

<< Regarding "C"....irrespective of the fact that you are attempting to pin partial responsibility onto a 15 year-old who was abused by 50 year-old Harris... How does that excuse the choice he made to indecesntly assault this young girl? >>

I doesn’t.

Again Poirot, I am offering a different less severe perspective, not an exoneration of Harris.

<< I mean tell me how that even partially exonerates Harris? >>

It is certainly grounds for some mitigation. Firstly, all those episodes of genital contact, certainly beyond the first one or two, would not have happened if the girl had been really repulsed by it and had thus not put herself in the position where they could happen.

Sorry but that seems to be the case, in a very straightforward manner. And what’s with her continuation of contact with Harris, for many years up to the age of 29, if she was so repulsed by his actions?

I see a really quite blatant disconnect here, again based entirely on the judge’s sentencing remarks. Please Poirot, consider this very closely.

Again… and I feel the need to say this repeatedly…. you and the judge might be right, but please consider the possibility that my interpretation could be correct or that something in between yours and mine is closest to the truth.

There ARE potential mitigating circumstances here. This does not mean that Harris wasn’t very wrong, but it does mean that the magnitude of the offences could be considerably less than what you think.

continued

<< Harris of his own volition and free will, knowing that it is a crime to sexually touch a minor, decides that he is going to sexually touch a minor....not just once but many times in the most intimate of ways. >>

Yes. But that is far from the full story. It is not just totally black and white.

<< So disregarding you theory of "C"'s behaviour tantamount to "asking for it" (which I find repugnant in the extreme) >>

Why do you find this so repugnant? Why are you so closed-minded as to not think that this is a very real possibility?

Please reread the sentencing remarks, and particularly consider how all the repeated episodes of Harris’ contact with ‘C’ could happen… and continue for about a minute each time before she apparently very gently pushed him away.

<< …explain to me how a man indulging in a criminal act of his own free will is mitigated in any way of his crime? >>

If the other party is actually letting him do it, then there is a very big mitigating factor.

And here I go again saying that you might be right, but please consider the possibility that I am right – that ‘C’ did indeed allow him to do it. If this was so, it wouldn’t exonerate Harris, but it surely would be considerable mitigating circumstances.