Well if you folks can’t admit to yourselves that Poirot was getting way out of line by projecting things that I had said to the end of the spectrum and asserting that my views were much stronger than what I was very carefully explaining them to be, then you’re not be being honest with yourselves.

And if you can’t admit to yourselves that there is a very real possibility, as there is in many many court cases, of things being somewhat different to what the judge and jury have declared them to be, then you are not thinking in a balanced manner.

I’m sure that at least R0bert and Paul can see this perfectly clearly. Then if they want to uphold their condemnation of Harris after having considered everything that I have put forward, then so be it. I respect that.

But Poirot’s stance is just extraordinary.

I remind people that there are others who think like I do about this whole subject and who have said so on this thread. For example, the post from Bec: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192493

On 11 July I wrote:

"Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978: Surely you don’t think that the six months jail time he got for simply squeezing this girls left buttock is appropriate. Surely that was utterly out of all proportion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192566

If the jury can find him guilty of this charge, and the judge can then declare it something warranting a prison sentence, then alarm bells ring for me about this whole process, and the very real POSSIBILITY that Harris has been too harshly dealt with overall.

You are lacking some credibility on this, Ludwig.

>>What a silly post, from one who is clearly not interested in the subject at hand enough to actually be involved in the debate.<<

As it happens, for reasons that I choose not to go into, I have followed every development in the case through the medium of someone who attended not only every day of the trial, but also the pre-trial hearings on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence. This has allowed me to compare this direct feedback with the mish-mash of contorted views that arrive through the press and TV reports.

The reason I have not been involved in the "debate" is simply because there is nothing to debate. There was a trial. He was found guilty by a unanimous jury on all twelve charges. He was given a sentence at the lower end of the spectrum by a judge who took into account the effect of incarceration on an old person, as well as the victim impact statements. Every argument was weighed by the judge, clearly and in detail. Justice was not only done, but patently seen to be done.

The only way you can "debate" any of this is to a) minimize the impact of his actions on the victims, b) blame the victims for leading him on, and c) claim that there's nothing particularly wrong with an older man sticking his fingers into an under-age girl's vagina.

Given your approach to all three of these, I consider my reference to your self-professed lifestyle highly relevant.

To all the people who don't agree with Ludwig's defence of the pedophilia of Harris:

Now Ludwig has just said that if you don't agree with "his" views, you're a dishonest person.

Ludwig also just said if you don't agree with "his" views, you are not a balanced person.

Time for bed fellos. That is your own bed.

Well, well...I haven't been to OLO to comment for a couple of days...

Ludwig,

"Well if you folks can’t admit to yourselves that Poirot was getting way out of line by projecting things that I had said to the end of the spectrum and asserting that my views were much stronger than what I was very carefully explaining them to be, then you’re not be being honest with yourselves."

As I said earlier, why are you making such a song and dance because I called you out on your faux neutrality...when it's clear that you are "projecting" exactly the same to the judge with his "I'm sure" comments?

The judge says one thing and you surmise that he meant the opposite...and you banged on about it as if you had found the smoking gun. Your assertion, of course, was entirely based on your own Rolf bias and had no foundation at all.

Are you out of line in that case?

(At least my suppositions are backed up the evidence of your own posts on this thread - not fantasy like yours on the judge)

"But Poirot’s stance is just extraordinary."

Nup..not even close.

What's extraordinary is that you have made around 75 posts on this thread...and all of them have been an attempt to mitigate or excuse Harris's abusive actions.

That's extraordinary!

For some odd reason, you appear to believe that your mitigations, excuses and blame shifts make sense...and you are baffled that "we" don't buy your logic.

You see we think that a grown man who knows that it is illegal to sexually interfere with young girls - should not interfere sexually with young girls.

It's simple really.

There is "no excuse" for a sane grown man to indulge in actions he "knows" are illegal.

I have no idea why you are going to such lengths to sound so biased and foolish.

(Btw, most entertaining watching you attempt to paint Poirot as "so much worse" than everyone else who has disagreed with you here. Interesting tactic - which apparently didn't work)

chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 26 July 2014 12:45:29 AM, "There are highly organised pedophile rings operating in Australia. Whenever we got close to a high profile public figure or a very wealthy one in a 'kiddie crime' investigation there was always some impediment to the successful court closure of the crime"

I reckon and I hope I am wrong because the great majority of police are dedicated and earnest in the enforcement of laws, that Rolf Harris might have continued to avoid prosecution in Australia.

Police must be eyeing with suspicion those who have been trying to scuttle Operation Yewtree (and similar investigations in Oz), which would have kiddie fiddlers's weak at the knees.

What would be better would be for senior public bureaucrats (you know the departments) and politicians to look very carefully at those who have been lobbying to knobble Operation Yewtree, its investigators and sponsors.