Paul,

"<< Where I'm coming from is my trust in the (British) legal system to deliver justice. >>"

I may presume then that you don't have an Irish background?

Is Mise, the injustices of the British legal system against Irish political prisoners has been well documented. So I know where you are coming from. That was then, this is now, they were trials of a political nature, this was a trial of a criminal nature, somewhat different. There is no evidence of political interference in good old Rolf's case.

Is anyone suggesting good old Rolf was subjected to a tie me KANGAROO down COURT? There is no evidence of that!

Ludwig; you are putting yourself up as having a superior knowledge on the matter than the judge himself. I do not accept that you do. With a solid legal background, which you may have, and without sitting through the whole legal process which the judge did, how can you claim you may have a better understanding than him, I do not believe you possibly could have. I certainly don't, so I can only rely on, that the legal process has been safe. I would not be so presumptuous to claim otherwise.

<< …you are putting yourself up as having a superior knowledge on the matter than the judge himself. >>

That’s a wonky conclusion, Paul. You know it is not the case. I am just putting forward things for you and others on this thread to consider. And I bet that neither you nor anyone else had even thought of some of these factors before I mentioned them.

You have made no comment on my remarks about justice being seen to be done. I would have thought that you’d have something to say about this.

The more I think about it, the more significant it potentially appears to be in this case. I’m sure you will agree that there is a very large number of people in England and Australia who are very strongly condemning of Harris, based on what they get from the sensationalist media, who think in very black and white terms, who don’t know anything more than the broad generalities of the case and who quite frankly don’t want to know.

So it seems to me that there is a major flaw in the principle of law, if there is a need for justice to be seen to be done, by this sort of very large and loud cohort.

Indeed, one could go as far as saying that if this cohort does perceive justice to have been served, then it probably means that the defendant has been considerably over-penalised.

Paul,
"Is Mise, the injustices of the British legal system against Irish political prisoners has been well documented. So I know where you are coming from. That was then, this is now, they were trials of a political nature, this was a trial of a criminal nature, somewhat different. There is no evidence of political interference in good old Rolf's case"

The trust, if any, of the British Legal system must be based on the "then" because the "now" is too recent to have been analysed.

Ludwig, "there is a very large number of people in England and Australia who are very strongly condemning of Harris, based on what they get from the sensationalist media, who think in very black and white terms, who don’t know anything more than the broad generalities of the case and who quite frankly don’t want to know"

By the same token there is a small number of people supportive of Harris based on broadly the same criteria. You started this thread seemingly knowing little of the judges findings, despite some acknowledgement that he may not have been harshly punished you still seem to be broadly pushing that barrow. Despite the evidence that has come out you don't seem to have changed the main theme of your support for Harris over time, the following link is from April 2013 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14935#257504

Time to accept that he has not been punished harshly, that his offences were not minor compared to legal and acceptable treatment of children. Produce some evidence that the trial was flawed or drop this nonsence of supporting a creep who used his privileged position to abuse little children.

R0bert

Are you suggesting that the jury was suborned, Ludwig...

"If the fundamental dictum of ‘inncoent until proven guilty or shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ really strictly applied, I would suggest that Harris would not have been found guilty of at least charges 2 and 9, and perhaps received a much lesser sentence regarding charges 3 to 8."

Or the judge. Maybe?

Rolf Harris had expensive counsel (and a PR contract) to represent his credibility... which was found to be inadequate.

Perhaps Oktavia Dangel and Abel Hadden from Bell Pottinger could give better advice about yours in the court of public opinion?