I don't know whether Cossomby is male or female but that post sure sounds a lot like a page straight out of the Femminazi Manifesto.

When Ludwig wrote, "graphic description of sexual activity" in his 2nd post on page 28 (I'm not allowed to say the actual words Ludwig wrote), he then wrote, "Well hold on, I wonder how intensively cross examined "A" was over her assertion?". Good point Ludwig. They just automatically believe her. Same for all the other so called victims. They now have their 30 minutes of fame, and they'll no doubt be selling their "stories" for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's only one victim here, Rolf.

I haven't hit the 'Red X' over Lester1's remarks as vile and deeply offensive as they obviously are, especially again inferring to girls who had been 8 and 13 year olds were now only coming forward for money and fame and claiming Rolf is the victim not the girls.

The question I am posing is what should merit clicking 'Recommend for Deletion'? Sure Lester1's post is trolling and most decent people would consider it well beyond the boundaries of common decency to be making the assertions he has made but is it on the level of quoting directly from the court case?

I would argue more so but I am keen to hear what others think.

SteeleRedux,

I hit the red X whenever I feel a post has gone too far. Not so much for trolling, but usually if I deem a post to be overly offensive.

Graham doesn't always agree, but most of the times I've hit the red X he has agreed.

That's what it's there for - and Graham depends on us to indicate that a post may be out of order, as he hasn't the time to peruse and police every thread.

So because you don't ideologically approve of someone's opinion you'd consider getting it censored. Go and look at Ludwig's posts on page 28. They are still there, and rightly so. They say what I'm saying. It's called free speech. Obviously the moderator supports free speech as those Ludwig posts remain, and good on him. Yes, good on Ludwig and good on the moderator. The socialists here can't stand it when their ideology is not agreed with.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The forum has had its share of trolls trying
to attack people, derail meaningful dialog, and
control our conversations. Ignoring and not
responding to these sort of people is usually
the best strategy. That way the forum doesn't
give them any power.

The only time that I have used the Red X has been
when I felt that the posts were permeated with
comments that were vicious, unsupported, and outright
fabricated accusations. These posts have usually been
made by mean and nasty individuals who use online
anonymity to be cruel, and spread their own brand
of hate. The anonymity gives them the opportunity
to shed their veneer of decency and show their ugly sides.
They distort comments thereby "justifying" their
actions.

Entering into discussions with these people is
a waste of time and energy.
You're more likely to win an argument
with a tree than you are with a troll.

Ludwig, I'm of the view that Harris senetence is not at the high end of the scale for the offences he has been convicted of. His offences were not at the low end either, I've not researched it but would assume that would be offenses not involving contact with a child (viewing child porn etc).

I found a sentencing manual from the UK which may throw some light on sentencing http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/

That one is current and I gather Harris was sentenced based on the rules at the time the offences occurred so he may have got off lighter than similar offences committed today.

As an example based on what I interpreted to be the closest description I could find to the offence involved in reaching under the skirt and touching. Not certain its the right one BTW.
"Starting points: 2 years custody if the victim is under 13
Sentencing ranges: 1 - 4 years custody
Starting points: 12 months custody if the victim is aged 13 or over
Sentencing ranges: 26 weeks - 2 years custody"

R0bert