Dear Ludwig,

You wrote;

“So Steele, with respect you have overstated it somewhat by saying; ‘raising a little girl’s skirt’ and by omitting ‘over her clothing’.”

Absolute semantics and balderdash my friend. Are you seriously proposing what must be assumed to be a very lightly materialed piece of clothing would have made a substantial difference to the impact on the victim or the gravity of the offence? Do you also think that given Harris' obvious intent that had he managed to get the girl alone for a period of time that he would not have taken his actions further?

Listen mate, you obviously have ideas that are not in lock step with society. That is to some extent forgivable. Once domestic violence was tolerated and mitigations abounded whenever cases came to our attention, 'oh if it was really bad she would have left him by now', 'she gives as good as she gets', 'it's just the booze, he loves her really'. But we as a society came to recognise the brutality involved, the fear of the abused, the physical and emotional scars of the victims and via our law makers gave police and the courts the power to intervene and to prosecute.

Cont..

Cont..

There were times when the local 'old perv' was well known and kids were told to stay clear. In the military academy I attended as a young teenager the Catholic priest was well known by the boys as someone who did inappropriate things when able. Most of us wouldn't have stood for him trying it on but there were a few shy kids whom he groomed and used. Sadly in the fickleness of youth the prime emotion was one of derision toward those who fell victim. However there is no way the staff could not have been aware of this man's nature yet nothing was done to stop him.

Just as with domestic abuse society has also come to recognise that the 'old pervs' did considerable damage to vulnerable, powerless children. Damage that lasted lifetimes. We have decided that this is not to be tolerated and once again given the authorities the power to firmly act with small regard for so called mitigating circumstances against those who perpetrate sexual crimes against children. This may not have been the norm when you were growing up but it is now and it is a norm that is on the whole accepted and appreciated by most of us.

Ludwig continues to put his foot in his mouth with every post he makes. He shows that his black and white attitudes have no comprehension of pedophilia and it's impact. Ludwig is a disgrace. Does anyone know if he has children, or has access to children?

Ludwig, you took a set against the established view on pedophilia from the outset. Your very first post indicated this. Your opening was;
<< I was very dismayed when I (Ludwig) heard the news that Rolf Harris had been found guilty on all 12 charges and now faces a substantial jail term. Sorry, but this just doesn’t add up.>>
Your concerns were not based on anything the judge had to say, as he did not speak on the matter until later, long after you had made your opening post. You obviously had a bias in favor of Harris. I ask how did you initially come to the conclusion that Harris had been "hard done by" from those media reports you later derided, as sensationalism. Later you tried to justify your argument by attacking the judges findings.
Welcome back Jay and SteeleRedux, we need your incisive input into this thread.
The most "interesting" post I found was one who claimed what Harris did was basically "normal" as the posters "mates" up in his neck of the woods were doing the same thing, I found that rather strange.

I wrote:

<< …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 >>

R0bert, you presumably agree. So then, you can presumably see that there is potentially a whomping great bias out there in the general community, which could potentially exert considerable pressure on the jury to declare a guilty verdict for all charges and on the judge to issue a heavier penalty than he might otherwise do.

I am not saying that this is what happened. I’m saying that there is a possibility that it did happen.

<< By the same token there is a small number of people supportive of Harris based on broadly the same criteria. >>

Well….of course.

Based on what they’ve heard in the media, you’d expect very few people to be supporting him. You also need to bear in mind that with such a strong and emotive level of condemnation, a lot of people who support him would just be keeping their heads low. I think this is the case with every person I have spoken to. None of them are involved in online debates or such like.

<< You started this thread seemingly knowing little of the judges findings…>>

I started this thread just after the guilty verdict had been brought down and two days before the judge released his sentencing remarks which explain the details of each charge.

<< Time to accept that he has not been punished harshly… >>

I have said that I agree with the sentence.

The judge declared that the sentences for 6 of the 12 charges will be concurrent, which basically means that they amount to no sentence. He then declared that Harris spend half of the allotted sentence time in prison. This effectively means that he is being punished for about the equivalent of three of the 12 charges.

continued

So it would appear that the judge could see the minor nature of these offences, in the context of all pedophilia and molestation. And I think that there is a pretty good possibility that he could see that there was a bunch of uncertainties, and without wanting to mention them, he took them into account.

I find it interesting that he says:

< In her Victim Impact Statement ‘A’ states, which I am sure is true…>

< I make clear that I am not sentencing you in relation to what happened on that holiday, but I am sure, in the light of the jury’s verdicts, that ‘C’ gave truthful evidence as to what occurred >

< Whilst I do not sentence you in relation to what you did to ‘C’ in the decade that followed that offence, I am sure that offences against her continued until 1994.>

Why does the judge say: ‘I am sure’ three times?

This suggests to me that he is NOT actually sure…and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

(It is an interesting quirk of our language that people often say; ‘I am sure that is what happened’, when they actually mean that they think that is what happened but they aren’t absolutely sure. And if they were sure, they would simply say; ‘That is what happened’, in an emphatic manner)

How could offences continue to occur with ‘C’ once she was of legal age? How could she have been abhorred by Harris’ earlier touchings and then continue to put herself repeatedly in the situation where they could continue to happen, up to the age of 29?

Count 2 should surely not have even been taken to court. Count 9 is very likely not an offence at all. And the latter counts in the set of 3 to 8 would surely not have occurred if the girl had not put herself in a position where they could occur. She would have totally known by then what to expect. And on each occasion she gently pushed Harris away after about a minute. Why not straight away?

continued