It's really about standards, in some parts of the world his actions would not raise an eyebrow, but in our part his actions are seen as disgusting and criminal.
Harris well knew this but went ahead with fulfilling his desires and as there was no plea of mental problems then we may assume that he knew that his actions were resistible and that he did them of his own free will.
In some other parts of the world his fate would have been much harsher.

Ludwig,

"Oh well done there Poirot. You tell me what I really think. You tell me that what I’m really saying is different to what I keep repeatedly saying..."

Well Lol! to the high heavens...that one takes the cake for hypocrisy.

Might I point out that that is "exactly" what you've been doing with the judge's "I'm sure..." comments.

The judge says "I'm sure" and Ludwig sets about going up and down the thread assuring us that the judge meant no such thing.

"Sorry, but you’re way worse than I thought. Very very polarised and blinkered.

You’ve got no qualms at all about asserting things just completely off the top of your head, with no foundation, and in stark contrast to my real position and motivation, which I have very clearly elucidated and with copious explanation."

Ludwig, another thing you do is denigrate everyone else's thinking processes. You've spent the thread telling us that if we were this or if we were that then we'd obviously agree with you.

Where did you learn to debate?

You may have been "copious" in your elucidation - but that doesn't mean your conclusions are valid....or that we should be variously described by epithets like "way worse that I thought"..."polarised and blinkered" simply because we disagree.

Yes Is Mise, I agree.

That is a good perspective to put Harris’ actions in.

We should also consider the temporal scale.

If he’d been hauled up in say 1987, I wonder how he would have been treated.

I would hazard to say that it would have been much lighter.

I think the outrage over pedophile priests and Savile have greatly compounded the perceived magnitude of Harris’ actions.

There is surely something very wrong that with the passage of many years, of apparently no offending, one’s actions can become seen as much worse than what they would have at the time.

<< Ludwig, there is a substantial difference between questioning and assuming that they got it wrong and chasing every angle to try and make that case. >>

R0bert, is there?

Surely looking at ‘every angle’ is the appropriate thing to do. You’d want it all to be as holistic as possible, wouldn’t you?

The case is much better made if multiple things can be pointed out rather than just one or two in isolation.

[And again for the likes of Poirot, I say I am just pointing to how things could POSSIBLY be interpreted somewhat differently and could therefore POSSIBLY mean that Harris has been too harshly dealt with. Oh sorry, not for Poirot. Only for those whose mind isn’t completely closed]

<< Nothing about the case so far except for the time gap between the offences and the trial including your efforts over the last 66 pages has given me reason to think they got it wrong enough to make any difference. >>

‘Wrong enough’ Well at least you have an open mind to the possibility that they may have got some things somewhat wrong.

I respect your views after you have considered the various things that I have raised. This is enormously different to the approach being taken here by Poirot who has just hardened her stance and shut out any points that I raise completely.

So I thank you for your level-headedness in this discussion, R0bert.

<< From the ongoing tone of your posts on this topic you never seem to have seriously questioned your own views on the topic from april last year… >>

As I have said, I found it very difficult and I vacillated somewhat at the start. But once I started to see potential inconsistencies in the judge’s sentencing remarks, my views firmed up. And after all the points that I have considered, my views are in line with the sentiments I expressed in the opening post.

continued

<< …Lester remindes me of the back to front John… >>

Haaa hahahaa! Careful, them’s could be fatal words for Jay. His blood pressure is critically high as it is. You might have just blown the top of his head clean awff with that comment. I can just picture it now:…. pieces of cranium all over the room. But not a trace of brains to be seen anywhere!! ( :>)

Ludwig,

"[And again for the likes of Poirot, I say I am just pointing to how things could POSSIBLY be interpreted somewhat differently and could therefore POSSIBLY mean that Harris has been too harshly dealt with. Oh sorry, not for Poirot. Only for those whose mind isn’t completely closed]"

: )

Sorry, Luddy, but watching you contort your argument up and down this thread to mitigate the actions of a man who has been convicted by a jury of multiple instances of indecent assault...and then to assure us you're being "open-minded" is laughable.

You're the one with the "closed mind".

Despite all your rhetorical gymnastics...you haven't departed one iota from your original stance - even though you're now attempting to white-wash the periphery of your argument.

You've bounced all over the place in your efforts...and because I reject your reasoning, you now stoop to impugning Poirot.

You need to convince me...something you have failed to do.

That's not my fault.

If you need to stoop to impugning your opponents because they don't buy your argument...then....?