Ludwig,

"We must absolutely NOT condemn and destroy someone who has done things at the minor end of the spectrum to just the same extent as we would for things at the other end of the spectrum."

Harris's repeated indecent assaults of "C" weren't at the minor end of the spectrum (regardless of you attempting to pin partial responsibility for them onto her).

They were calculated and ongoing indecent assaults over a number of years.

How you can continue to opine that Harris is a minor offender after being apprised of those findings, is beyond me.

So if, as you suggest, we "should" condemn things at the higher end of the spectrum (which by definition includes Harris's abuse of "C") why are you still attempting to mitigate his actions?

Poirot, his use of the term "minor" shows he just doesn't care and has scant regard for pedophilia victims. It's so sad that men like that exist, and it must be personally devastating for any pedophilia victim should they unfortunately read his writings here

The survivors of pedophilia are the real heroes, and nothing that people like Ludwig and his followers say can mitigate that fact.

Yeah, Jay...I think this is the point where I should pack up my kit bag on this one.

I still believe Ludwig is personally offended that someone he admires so greatly has been found guilty of these crimes. It's an affront to Ludwig's "ideals". Idealizing "nice guys" like Harris who, as sometimes happens, are subsequently exposed to have a dark side.

Instead of dealing with it - and admitting that public personas often mask darker private realities, he insists on contorting his argument ridiculously to defend the indefensible.

Poirot, I think it goes further than that. I think he's not just contorting the argument in order to defend Harris, I think he actually believes in those arguments, and that's a BIG difference. There are NO moral grounds for attempting to diminish pedophilia and attempting to diminish the child victims as Ludwig is trying to do. He should feel ashamed. He stands condemned for good reason.

Jay,

The interesting thing is what exactly is driving the machinations in Ludwig's head on this issue.

If we look back to his first post on this thread:

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

"It really could be, and I would strongly suggest should be, interpreted as nothing more than playful behaviour, if at times a little worrying for some young women."

It seems he's hardly moved on from the views above despite a long long thread and being privy to a whole lot more detail than he had at the time of first posting.

It's been a very odd experience debating this issue with him.

I have watched the whole of this thread with sadness as Ludwig, who as usual got it right, has been overwhelmed by what used to be rudely called, I think, wowswers. I am the same age as Rolf and my parents would not have allowed me anywhere near. His proclivities were well known.

The trouble is that standards have changed over the years and behaviour which was dealt with by a firm slap or in the case of younger children by parents taking responsibility and not letting their children out of sight, is now apparently a criminal offence.

The criminal offence is the use of physical force, anything less should be no more than a serious misdemeanor.
However the result of this "wowserish" attitude is now that a male teacher feels he cannot give a little cuddle to a 5 year old who has fallen down in the playground and is in tears.
I would suggest we have all lost far more than we have gained by the rise of prudishness and it is very sad.

Life was much more fun and adventurous and noticeably all the victims waited years to complain when immediate action would have fixed the problem instantaneously unless possibly the adventure was too exciting at the time