My 'fiddlers's' should be 'fiddlers'. With apologies that I only correct the worst mistakes.

<< Ludwig, I concur with what R0bert has said. I agree with Poirot, that you have not been a neutral thinker on this subject at all. >>

That’s amazing Paul. So what would refer to as neutral thinking on this issue?

Someone who just thinks the absolute worst and takes what the jury and judge have declared as gospel?

Someone who just completely rejects all of the various things that I have raised?

Someone who is happy to see a person DESTROYED, who has done nothing more than opportunistically and quickly touch a few girls (perhaps many girls), in an inappropriate manner… but with no injury, no physical force or deprivation of liberty, no rape…

...and all of which was one-off instances, except regarding one girl with whom he had numerous contacts and who continued to see him for many years after her childhood, which suggests very strongly that right from the start of those contacts that she was ‘at peace’ with it.

And apart from this episode, his actions were all conducted out in the open, to the extent that he gained a reputation as ‘The Octopus’, where there was ample opportunity for lots of people to make strong objections, and if they had he would presumably have ceased and desisted from those sort of activities.

Commentators readily acknowledge that he wasn’t the only ‘octopus’ by any means.

We know that much worse activities were happening in that era. A la: Savile. And we know of very much more serious pedophilic activity, conducted by high-profile people, in a highly organised manner.

There is no hint of Harris having been involved in this sort of organised crime.

continued

There is plenty of scope for the victim impact statements of one or more of Harris’ victims being exaggerated if not beat up out of all proportion.

The punishments for counts 1 & 2 seem way out of all proportion, and count 9 seems as though it should not have been deemed to be an offence at all.

There are all manner of other things that can affect children profoundly, such as my two personal examples: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192566

These sorts of things are at least as irresponsible as Harris’ actions and yet practically nobody thinks anything of them. And even if the perpetrators were to get hauled up for repeatedly undertaking this sort of thing hundreds of times, they wouldn’t cop penalties anywhere near what Harris has copped.

Paul, THIS is neutral and balancing thinking.

To consider all of this stuff is to take a balanced approach. Failing to consider it is highly biased and unbalanced thinking. Considering all of this and then coming to the same conclusion that you reached before considering any of it is surely highly unbalanced thinking.

Ludwig's latest defence of a man who was found guilty of indecently assaulting underage females:

"Someone who is happy to see a person DESTROYED, who has done nothing more than opportunistically and quickly touch a few girls (perhaps many girls), in an inappropriate manner… but with no injury, no physical force or deprivation of liberty, no rape… "

Gawd!

Ludwig,

Regarding "C"...Harris did much much more "than opportunistically and quickly touch a few girls (perhaps many girls), in an inappropriate manner…"

But, I forgot....you've surmised "in your neutral and balanced" manner that poor old Rolf was not entirely to blame for that. He was apparently aided and abetted by the girl's inability to scream the house down when he first took liberties with her.

Unbelievable....

Well of course someone who thinks like you would find the way I think unbelievable, Poirot.

And straight back atcha on that one!