As others have said the actual jail sentence was on the lower side.

As for the "destruction of his image and life’s work, the revocation of awards and the removal of his artwork", well, surely that's poetic justice, given that he used his public image and standing to molest children, and got away with it for so long because of his fame.

The jail sentence was only for the specific proven charges. The disgrace is fair enough for all the rest over many decades.

His shaming is also poetic justice for the way his behaviour caused personal shame to the children involved.

There is what can been seen as rational debate, and then there is an attempt to justify Harris, and by default, the creation of an air of justification for all pedophilia. We have been subjected to the classic responses of, oh! the poor perpetrator, its all normal, besides everyone is doing it, after all he didn't do all that much, and it was the victims fault anyway, its the fault of the legal profession, the media are the guilty party, its society's fault. All awhile simply justifying the actions of a nasty "sick" person, who is now receiving long overdue justice.
Harris once held an undeserved place in society, but through the courage of his victims he has been exposed for what he is, a nasty vile human being. Harris has been brought down, and now stands condemned, and he now takes his rightful place in society, denigrated and despised, a convicted pervert who if he should die in prison, it would simply be an act of well deserved justice.
Thanks for those recent comments, Cossomby, RObort and Jay. Its been a long "debate" has it not. Good night.

Lester: "In the same recent post you rightly pointed out regarding Rolf, that offences "would surely not have occurred", "if the girl had not put herself in the position where they could occur". As we all know, if a girl places herself in a place where someone might molest her, it mitigates the offence as you also pointed out before."
Right is (not) right: "One thing my dad taught regarding females -- once a trollop always a trollop. A lot of 'em start really young. I wonder how much money they'll eventually get from selling their stories? I've read even more money grabbers are coming forward with silly claims against Mr Harris, as he's an easy target."

This is TOTAL NONSENSE! Your dad is WRONG!

These were children, coming to see an admired children's entertainer and asking for an autograph, visiting a friend's place etc.

Do you really mean that any time a child goes out of doors, goes to the shops, goes to school, goes to a public performance, asks a hero for an autograph, then if they get molested, it is their fault ... they are placing herself in a place where someone might molest them and so the molester's behaviour is mitigated? (Does this apply to theft? He left the BMW in the parking lot - it's his fault, he tempted me. To murder too?)

Actually what you are really saying is that men are so entitled that any child who goes near them even at a public event is fair game.

Or so weak that they can't control themselves. She made me do it, your honour. She - 5 years old, 7 years old, 10 years old - she's a trollop - how could I resist? It wasn't my fault - she led me on.

It's all a bit like the "honour" killing defence, or the burqua. Are men across the world so weak, so lacking in self-control, that women have to protect them from themselves?

Grow up, guys!

I will be out of email contact for the next few days. This is to advise that the lack of further postings from me does NOT indicate that I have bought the arguments (!!) by Ludwig, Lester and Right is Wrong.

I would recommend that you stand back and consider the implications of your comments justifying crime (you could probably extend the same arguments to war - the country next door was flaunting their really valuable oil fields - it's not our fault that we were tempted to invade).

And if you don't agree with my extrapolation to theft, murder and war, then ask yourselves - why is it OK to blame women and especially children (boys as well as girls) for 'leading men on' to commit crimes

'For example, Ludwig has several times here pointed out that one girl waited a whole MINUTE before she pushed Rolf away. She obviously wanted it.'

I don't buy it.

'One whole minute' - someone timed it? who had the stop watch? The girl (how old was she?) said it was one whole minute? The context? She was so shocked she froze and it felt like 'one whole minute'? A natural exaggeration - as in 'it felt like forever'?

It is totally wishful thinking on (some) men's part that young girls - children - 'want it'. They don't even know what 'it' is.

I can totally understand freezing for 'one whole minute' - or what felt like it.

First, you feel something touching you 'down there'. Then you realise it's the hand of that big old hairy man, twice/three times your size. No, it can't be! That's nice old Rolf Harris (to a 7-13 year old, Rolf Harris at 40-50 was REALLY OLD). You freeze. What to do? Is anyone watching? If I stay really still and don't say anything, maybe he'll stop. Should I yell out? How horrible! If I do, everyone will KNOW! That would be worse! I'll pretend it's not happening. So you stay still, cringing inside. It doesn't stop. You get up your courage and push him away. How horrible, that was at least a minute, it felt like forever, I didn't know what to do. Please, please, I hope no-one saw.

The LAST thing on a little girl's mind was wanting 'it'. She wanted it to stop and for no-one to notice. That's why she froze for what seemed like 'a whole minute'.

Why on earth do adult/old men think little girls want 'it' from them? Look in the mirror, guys.

<< There is what can been seen as rational debate, and then there is an attempt to justify Harris, and by default, the creation of an air of justification for all pedophilia.… >>

So Paul, how could I have presented all my perceived uncertainties about the Harris trial or all the other things about putting this whole business into perspective, in the interests of rational debate, without it being seen by you as an attempt to justify Harris?

How could I have brought all of these things up for the notification of anyone who wishes to debate the subject, without being accused of supporting him all the way?

How could we have had a meaningful rational debate on this subject if these things hadn’t been brought into the discussion?

How could I have done this without you perceiving it as some sort of justification for pedophilia?

How could there have been a rational debate if someone hadn’t taken the approach to it that I have taken?

If I hadn’t done this, there would have been no debate, right?

Everyone would have merrily continued to completely condemn Harris without even thinking at all about any of the various factors that I have raised.

R0bert said that she thinks that the process of debating these points is useful. And yet you apparently don’t at all.

I have said numerous times that I agree with the prison penalty. I have questioned some of the charges that were brought against Harris, which means that there are charges that I haven’t questioned. In other words; I have NOT tried to justify Harris’s actions.

With respect Paul, you really do see things in very black and white terms. I get the feeling that you don’t want to consider anything that might go against your hardline stance, and that you’ve made up your mind and that's the end of it.