<< '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'? >>

Cossomby, you apparently haven’t read the judge’s sentencing remarks.

See his comments; ‘about a minute’ and ‘up to a minute’ in regards to ‘C’:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-full-statement-from-the-judge-who-sentenced-rolf-harris-to-jail-20140704-3bee0.html

Read all of his comments relating to ‘C’. I’d be interested to know what you think.

My thoughts are that following the holiday in 1978 on which ‘C’ accompanied the Harris’s, this girl put herself in situations where Harris could touch her. She could so very easily have not done this if she had really been repulsed by his actions.

Harris touched her when she was right next to his daughter while she was sleeping. Surely he wouldn’t have done that if he’d thought there was any chance of her doing anything other than very quietly going along with his short and gentle actions.

He then continued to see her right up to the age of 29.

Harris has said that this whole episode was one of mutual understanding.

continued

I would suggest that the worst offence here happened on the holiday in 1978 when Harris first touched this girl. But the judge said that despite believing ‘C’s account of indecent assaults having occurred then, he was not penalising Harris for it.

My supposition is that his physical contacts with this girl after that time were based on the understanding that she was amenable to it. If this is the case, then there is a very big mitigating factor involved here.

He was still in the wrong to do it, but it should basically have been seen as a very minor offence. And Count 9, which occurred when ‘C’ was19 should not be considered to be an offence at all.

Cossomby, your last post could be quite right regarding a young girl being touched by an old man. But please consider the possibility that what I am saying in relation to ‘C’, and hence to charges 3 to 9, could be right… and that some or all of these offences would not have occurred if this girl had really been repulsed by it and had consequently not put herself in the situation where they could occur…. and that her account of the serious consequences of Harris’ actions on her life are very much open to doubt.

Harris got 8 years worth of jail time for offences 3 to 9, reduced to 3 years 6 months as 4 of the 7 charges were deemed to be concurrent…. and then arguably reduced to 1 year 9 months, as he is required to spend half of his sentence in prison.

But even at 1 year 9 months, the sentence would surely be way over the top if what I have said here regarding his ‘relationship’ with ‘C’ is true.

And I would suggest that it was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt in court to not be true.

Now Ludwig is resorting to outright lies regarding what he has, and hasn't said.

Lie#1 = Ludwig wrote, "I have NOT tried to justify Harris's actions".

Well,here's what Ludwig HAS written ...
"If the other party (a little girl) is actually letting him do it, then there is a VERY BIG mitigating factor".
"She (a little girl)kept putting herself in situations where those encounters could happen".
"So how could she (censored) and (censored)if she wasn't willing to let him do it?".
"I often feel as though the sort of things Harris did are just par for the course".

Those were the words that Ludwig himself used.

Lie#2 = "I have said numerous times that I agree with the prison penalty". Well, the following words were written by Ludwig ....

"I think Harris has been very badly done by here".
"Most reasonable people would see it (the prison sentence) as severe".
"You've surely got to consider there to be a reasonable probability that Harris has been too harshly dealt with".
"The defendant (Harris) has been considerably over penalised".
"The penalties for some of the offences should be considerably lighter than those imposed".
"Harris got 9 months imprisonment for that, well I think that is just outrageous".
"I would think that is not something to send someone to prison over".

People, Ludwig is playing word games with you. in one post he says one thing, and then in another post he'll totally contradict himself. He's done that dozens of times in this topic. He'll try to do anything, in order to become the "winner" (in his own mind).

Ludwig has not been debating. He's been LECTURING, and he will never change his neanderthal sexual attitudes after reading what the decent people here write. He's a lost cause. It's pointless presenting an opposing viewpoint to Ludwig, he's just incapable of listening. He lives in a black and white world within his own mind.

Ludwig, thanks for the response to my last posting << I get the feeling that you (Paul1405) 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.>>
I must admit I'M SURE (and I'm not saying NOT SURE) Harris is not the worse case of pedophilia every recorded, so he got 5 years 9 months. I have never condemned the sentence as being anything but correct. In my view the judge did a very good job of meeting society's expectations.
So if my stand was "hardline" then I would be calling for Harris blood, I'm not.
Lester1 and Right Is Right, you guys are obviously out to gee up the debate, very funny. I see through you two, in some circles its called flaming but I think your funny, If your not, then boy I'M SURE (and I'm not saying NOT SURE) you guys have problems, then I'd ask, what institution for the criminally insane are you in?
Jay123 , good job of pointing out Ludwig inconsistencies, such can only be interpreted as irrational thinking on Ludwig's part, which lends nothing to any sort of rational debate on the subject.

So then Paul, how about rationally debating my comments regarding ‘C’.

Or my comments regarding various other aspects that I have mentioned.

And if you think there is something irrational about my comments, point them out and allow me to address them, rather than making the silly mistake of just simply branding me as irrational.

Let’s see which things that Jay has mentioned that you actually do think I have contradicted myself over and can’t very easily answer.

I mean; you will have realised that Jay is just out to ‘get’ Ludwig at all costs. He has done the same thing on other threads on completely different subjects and with other posters. He is not going to be concerned about presenting things way out of context, as is very easy to do with simple quotes. It might behove you to have a look at the user index and some of the posts of his previous incarnation as Nhoj.

It is incredible that you can point to potential flamers on my side of the debate without seeing that this person who you keep agreeing with is a classic troll and flamer, and the most irrational and hate-filled poster that OLO has ever seen.

So, if a more rational and intelligent person such as yourself was to present things that you think I have contradicted myself over, then I might see some point in addressing them.

Oh and thanks for this:

<< I must admit I'M SURE (and I'm not saying NOT SURE) >>

and

<< If your not, then boy I'M SURE (and I'm not saying NOT SURE) >>

I take it from this that you do understand what I have said about the judge’s use of ‘I’m sure’, and that you don’t disagree that it sounds a tad odd and suspicious and of poor legal terminology in his sentencing remarks.

"The real victim here is Rolf."
said by Lester1,

Indeed, and the victim of self inflicted wounds.