The argument that ones standing in society, ones wealth, ones community service etc should be a consideration when determining a sentence in a criminal matter is simply ridiculous.

Is it Paul?

Here are the 'matters in mitigation' that the judge listed as part of his decision on the length of the custodial sentence for Harris:

(1) With the exception of ‘C’ the offences were brief and opportunistic.

(2) The fact that you have no previous convictions and have led an upright life since 1994 - albeit it is accepted that that must be tempered by the reality, underlined in the Attorney General’s Reference (above), that you got away with your offending for years.

(3) The fact that you have a good side, that there are many people who know you who speak well of you, and that over many years you have dedicated yourself to a number of charitable causes.

(4) The fact that you are not in the best of health, as attested to in the report of Dr Fertleman, and that therefore, although capable of serving a prison sentence, it will be particularly tough on you.

(5) The fact that your wife, who you help in looking after, has various health problems, as attested to in the report of Dr Mitchell-Fox.

(6) That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family.

Paul, don’t you think that all of these are fair and reasonable things for the judge to consider and that some mitigation is indeed appropriate in relation to each of them?

<< ALL are, and should be, equal under the law. >>

Yes, but I would interpret ‘equal under the law’ as meaning that we are all entitled to expect a judge to consider all possible mitigating factors.

Beach, I do not always agree with what you post, as from our past discussions on various subjects would indicate, but in this case I find I'm in total agreement.
If raping of children is done under the guise of being a "cultural thing", which I do not believe it is, then it certainly has no place in our modern society.
How can we relate this to Harris. Possibly old Rolf could have claimed what he done was culturally acceptable in his 'Wabble Board' Tribe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNVv7zF63bQ

I think the wabble board and the words explains a lot about Rolf.

OUG, I have read and listened to your links. Amazing stuff. If it is to be believed, then pedophilia is huge and all-pervasive.

I recommend that everyone reading this thread check out these links.

It just makes me really concerned that Harris may have been targeted because he was an easy target and very significant famous person and not because of any serious pedophile activity, while those who are really doing the damage are being allowed to continue to get away with it.

Could it be that the authorities have achieved a coup here: they are now being seen by the general public as having caught a ‘major pedophile', while the truth is just the opposite – they have diverted attention away from the big players in organised pedophile rings and dealt with very small fry, who hasn’t been associated with any of this organised activity.

I don’t know. But I wouldn’t put it beyond the realms of very real possibility.

I've just discovered that on page 45 I had a post that was deleted with a sign that said, "Deleted. I warned about explicit comments".

The post consisted of a long series of Ludwig quotes, and only 1 of those Ludwig quotes was specifically explicit, yet my entire post was deleted, and I see that all the Ludwig explicit posts in this topic have been allowed to remain with their "explicit" content intact. Hmmmmm.

So I'll repeat my deleted post, minus the several Ludwig "explict" words which I've censored, in order to make this current post conform 100% to forum rules on explicit language.

The following quotes are from Ludwig himself, about Rolf Harris, and accurately show Ludwig's disgraceful attitudes in his "own" words:

"He was behaving in a manner that was acceptable and tolerable or at the worst a bit dodgy, but not to the extent of warranting police action".

"I would STRONGLY suggest it should be interpreted as playful behaviour".

"I often feel as though the sort of things he did are just par for the course".

"I would say not molestation at all, not by a long way".

"There is something very wrong in society that this can now be classed as being of a serious nature".

"The worst of it was just a little bit of groping which merely amounts to somewhat risque activity".

"She kept putting herself in situations (during her childhood) where those encounters could happen".

"If the other party (a child) is actually letting him do it then there is a very big mitigating factor".

"So how did he (censored) and (censored), if she wasn't willing to let him do it?"

THANKS/MATE..BUT ITS FUTILE[123/ROB..OR PAUL;THEY*
WOULD BELIEVE/BUT ME..AND YOU MATE..WE ARE DIRT

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/79139-the-british-establishment-paedophiles-everywhere/

The revelations about record-breaking paedophile and child procurer Jimmy Savile have exposed the former BBC ‘star entertainer’ as a purveyor of sheer evil on a scale that would challenge any imagination. Here are the cold and shocking numbers according to the police – and these are not nearly the whole story:

450 people of both sexes have made complaints about Savile involving 28 police areas throughout the country and among them are 34 alleged rapes. They spanned a period of 54 years between 1955 and 2009 when Savile was 82. The abuses happened to 23 children and young people on BBC premises and at 14 hospitals and at least one hospice. More than 70 per cent of his victims were under 18 and one as young as eight.

Metropolitan Police Commander Peter Spindler said that Savile’s crimes were ‘vast, predatory and opportunistic’ and he had effectively ‘groomed the nation.’ Sounds good, but personally, I would not trust the Met’s investigation Operation Yewtree to pursue the full truth about Savile any more than I would have trusted him to produce the school nativity.

Spindler added – ludicrously – that Savile used his celebrity to ‘hide in plain sight’. Oh, no, no, no, mate. That will not do. Savile got away with it for 54 years because he was protected by the highest levels of the paedophile-Satanist-controlled British Establishment for whom he was procuring children.

Michael Shrimpton also describes what he says happened to the abducted little girl Madeleine McCann,.. and what he says was the murder of former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.

I can’t confirm what he says about Madeleine EDIT all of his assumptions about who was behind it all, and certainly not that British Intelligence are the ‘good guys’. But it is very interesting information very much worth hearing.

Click here to listen …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8

CAREFULL TRUTH AN MAKE US SICKER

Love him or hate him I did find this piece from Russel Brand on Rolf Harris' fall from grace interesting and contemplative and so offer it here;

http://youtu.be/8-0Rb0zweS8