Friendly advice, Ludwig.

When at the bottom of deep hole, stop digging.

Your credibility is zero. Your values are appalling. Your arguments are, frankly, staggering. Your empathy is non-existent (except when it comes to the fate of a dirty old man getting his just deserts). Your willingness to blame the victim is distasteful in the extreme. And your ability to uncover excuses for inexcusable acts is, frankly, very disturbing.

The natural assumption, I'm afraid, is that you would apply the same standards and "logic" to your own behaviour.

So, tell us. Would you?

"So, tell us. Would you?"

Pericles, I can't stop myself thinking that could read:

"So, tell us. Did you?"

I wrote:

<< 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… >>

You said:

<< Gawd! >>

Gawd what, Poirot?

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

Did you actually read my post…. or just very cursorily scan over it?

<< 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.... >>

Unbelievable is right. As you seem incapable of not doing; you have again projected this to a ludicrous extent:

<< …the girl's inability to scream the house down when he first took liberties with her… >>

You have no idea if this was the case, nor anything like it, and yet you assert it in absolute terms.

In the very same sentence that you make this incredibly polarised and unbalanced statement, you are having a go at me for not thinking in a neutral and balanced manner!

Gawd!!

.

Go suck an egg Pericles (and hopefully choke on it) (:>)

Hey Ludwig, I give you a chance to defend yourself, and what do I get?

>>Go suck an egg Pericles (and hopefully choke on it) (:>)<<

It is quite illuminating that you chose a kindergarten insult rather than actually answer the question.

But it was clearly an oversight, so I'll give you another shot at it.

The natural assumption, I'm afraid, is that you would apply the same standards and "logic" [with which you have supported Rolf Harris] to your own behaviour.

So, tell us. Would you?

Ludwig,

"Gawd what, Poirot?"

That was in reply particularly to this portion of your odious sentence:

"....nothing more than opportunistically and quickly touch a few girls (perhaps many girls), in an inappropriate manner…

Let me put it this way....it is obvious to me what you think of Rolf's conviction and sentence.

That's your prerogative.

My critique at this stage of the thread proceedings is your constant bleating that you have treated this issue in a neutral fashion.

You have not.

You have been persistently and blatantly biased in your defence Harris's actions - often going to silly extremes of confected logic to make your point.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I take issue with your "pretence" of neutrality on the issue.

Ludwig, I was careful to read Mr Justice Sweeney's remarks as published in the Harris case, in fact several times, during the course of our debate. I do not claim a great legal mind, but I do feel I am at least of average intelligence, so capable of formulating an opinion on the matter. There was nothing in Justice Sweeney's remarks that I thought I should take exception with.
<<Someone who just thinks the absolute worst and takes what the jury and judge have declared as gospel?>> I did say Harris is not the worse pedophile ever brought before a courts, and he was treated as such.
Its not a matter of taking what the judge and jury said as gospel, I was satisfied they had acted correctly, given the evidence as presented.
Harris was given a substantial discount on the maximum possible sentence, I consider the judge acted correctly by giving Harris that substantial sentencing discount. You seem to think Harris did little wrong and has been badly treated, I did not see his actions as trivial, to the extent you see them as trivial, I do not agree with you, and to say;
<< 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>> If there had been injury, physical force, deprivation of liberty and rape. I would expect Harris would be now doing substantially more time in prison than 5 years and 9 months!
This puts you well out of step with the general community attitude, and by saying that, you are simply an apologist for Harris, and by extension others of his ilk. Many on here are rightly finding your line of argument offensive. End of story. But you have the right to hold the views you do.