Hi Paul1405, I've just read the last Post from Ludwig where he's now trying to tell you that I am really another member on this forum. As I'm sure you're aware anyway, this is a method trolls like Ludwig often use. When they lose the debate, all they have left is tactics like "oh he's "really" that other guy who I hate". It's very funny, but sad too that Ludwig adopts such juvenile tactics, simply because he can't bring decent people over to his neanderthal sexual attitudes.

Paul, I have only one identity here "Jay123", I post under no other names and I have never before been a member.

Ludwig is just trolling and trying to discredit me. He's so juvenile. Paul, how old is he? Maybe he's younger than I thought.

Ludwig,

"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."

Give it up mate...your mitigations and excuses for Rolf Harris's actions are nauseating...more so for you now claiming the judge's words mean "exactly the opposite" from what they say.

You've now reached the stage where you're turning this thread into a circus.

Ahh Poirot, hold on to that hardline attitude. Don’t let anything corrupt it. Don’t consider any of the points I have raised. Don’t consider the possibility that the judge is actually not entirely sure of what he said he is sure of, and that those particular things that he says is sure of have not been shown to be so beyond a reasonable doubt in his courtroom!

I put it to you that this is a very important point, and certainly not something to be dismissed lightly. And if you find it ‘nauseating’, then I will have to say that you do NOT have an open mind on this issue.

It seems that no one wants to debate this particular issue. They just want to lambast me for even daring to mention it. This is very telling indeed about how unsound the basis is for a lot of people who just want to outrightly condemn Harris.

At least R0bert can see some merit in me raising all the various issues and possibilities of different interpretations and having them debated here. So why can’t you? Why do you see this as a ‘circus’ rather than a healthy debate?

This is a shocker:

<< …more so for you now claiming the judge's words mean "exactly the opposite" from what they say… >>

I am not claiming that at all. I am saying that we should all consider the possibility of him not being sure beyond a reasonable doubt about the things he refers to when he says: “I am sure…”

You’ve misrepresented me here. Come on, you’re a better debater than that!

My whole thesis is that things MIGHT be interpreted quite differently from what they have been, and that Harris MIGHT have been too harshly dealt with as a result… and that everyone should carefully consider these POSSIBILITIES. And as I keep saying: maybe it is all pretty close to right as it has been interpreted, or maybe he is actually a much worse offender than has come to light.

Poirot, Ludwig has just lectured you saying, "you do NOT have an open mind". Why did he say that? Because in disagreeing with his attitudes you find those attitudes "nauseating". This is a good example of the juvenile, black and white approach of Ludwig. For Ludwig, you can only have an open mind if you agree with him.

This proves the juvenile nature of Ludwig, and why no amount of reasoned debate with him can possibly ever sway him. Ludwig's world is a black and white, my way or the highway world.

Ludwig,

"...Don’t consider any of the points I have raised..."

I have considered them...and I conclude nearly all of them are confected nonsense.

"....Don’t consider the possibility that the judge is actually not entirely sure of what he said he is sure of..."

That one is the biggest of your confected arguments....it's resting on a big pile of "nothing".

"I put it to you that this is a very important point, and certainly not something to be dismissed lightly..."

I put it to you, M'Lud(wig)...that it is a wafty silken thread (woven by you) that leads precisely ....nowhere.

Ludwig, in his remarks to each of the 9 counts Justice Nigel Sweeney uses the most unequivocal of language, I quote;

"On Count 1 you indecently assaulted ‘A’"
"On Count 2 I have no doubt that you indecently assaulted ‘B’"
"On Count 3 you indecently assaulted ‘C’"
"On Count 4 you indecently assaulted ‘C’"
"On Count 9 you indecently assaulted ‘C’"
On Counts 5,6,7 and 8 Justice Sweeney is just as unequivocal in his assessment of Harris's actions.

I cannot for the life of me agree with you, that in some way the judge was some what uncertain about his findings. For me he was quite clear and concise, there is no room for the slightest doubt what the judge was saying when making his findings. You may want to see things differently but I am totally satisfied justice has been served.
So in no way is there any agreement on what you say, it has no basis in reality what so ever! So what should we debate?