Pericles, if ever you feel like contributing something meaningful to the debate, feel free.

Meanwhile, if you feel like just throwing personal slurs without in any way addressing the debate, feel free to do that as well.

Afterall, you are a whole lot better at the latter than the former.

Poirot, you’ve got the worst case of foot-in-mouth disease that I’ve ever seen. You strongly SUPPORT my case every time you put finger to keyboard, with your incredibly polarised statements.

As I have said numerous times: you project the context of things I say to much stronger positions if not right to the end of the spectrum.

I thought that you were doing this just to boost your case against me, but it is now apparent that you just do it automatically… because that is how your brain works.

And again I say that I fear that many people thinking in a similar fashion can, perhaps inadvertently, beat a case against someone right up out of all proportion.

<< 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. >>

I remind you for the umpteenth time that all I have done is look at the whole thing in a holistic manner, raising a whole lot of things that neither you nor anyone else who strongly condemns Harris would ever have even thought of if I hadn’t mentioned them…. and I am simply suggesting that there is a POSSIBILITY that some of these things could be quite significant and could indeed mean that Harris has been harshly dealt with…. POSSIBLY.

You don’t like this do you. You don’t want to accept this at all. You want to think the worst of me. You insist on thinking the worst of me.

And yet it is a perfectly fair and reasonable… and balanced… and neutral thing for me, or anyone, to have done.

To not consider all these things, and worse: to close your eyes to them when they are brought your attention… is about as un-neutral as you can get.

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

You are the last person on the planet who should be talking about the pretence of neutrality.

Thanks Paul for a well-considered response.

I’ll just say again that I don’t have a problem with the penalty that Harris has received. So, given that, how far out step am I really?

<< This puts you well out of step with the general community attitude… >>

Are you out there talking to other people about this issue? I am and have been right from the start of the issue, long before I put up this thread. I can say that from my conversations I am not out of step with the general community attitude at all.

We all have our opinions on this, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, if ever you feel like contributing something meaningful to the debate, feel free.<<

And my opinion is that it would be a substantial contribution to the "debate", if you were to answer this question.

>>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?<<

The reason being, of course, that if you do not apply the same lax moral standards to your own behaviour, then you are being highly inconsistent (I'm being polite here) in insisting that they must apply to the conduct of Rolf Harris.

If you do in fact believe that his is conduct worthy only of a light tap over the knuckles, then we have learned something about your standards that most elegantly explain the tone of your many contributions to this thread.

So, tell us, which is it?

Ludwig, I too have spoken to friends and family members about Harris. The general feeling has been one of shock, dismay and anger. Shock finding out Rolf was not the warm and loveable guy his public persona portrayed, dismay that this had gone on for years and had not been uncovered, and anger at being let down by one who was generally admired. I did not come across any sympathy for Harris at all.
With you saying;
<<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>> I found that statement by you underscored the seriousness (that the community views) Harris's offences. I though that statement put you out of step with community attitude. The attitude I found was not one of "poor old Rolf" but rather one of "dirty old Rolf". Surprisingly two of my friends who if anyone would support Harris it would be them, well educated, very liberal mined, strong on social justice, they too had little sympathy for Harris and like me thought he had been treated fairly and with all due consideration. I actually found the reaction of men to be harsher than that of women. With my son who has a daughter of that age, identifying what Harris had done on a personal level, seeing it very much in terms of anger, my daughter-in-law on the other hqand, was far more circumspect seeing it more as a tragedy, but still without sympathy for Harris.
If Harris died tomorrow, some would rejoice, but the vast majority would simply say oh well, I think only a few would shed a tear.
From all this i will add there is no winners, only looser's, Harris is a looser, as is his family, the victims are looser's as is society in general, Harris was once seen as worthwhile, now he is not, that is a sad loss in itself.

Ludwig,

"And again I say that I fear that many people thinking in a similar fashion can, perhaps inadvertently, beat a case against someone right up out of all proportion."

Erm...I've mentioned that when Harris was first charged, his reputation and my idea of him was so entrenched that I figured there had somehow been a mistake - and that it would all be sorted out.

Thinking back now, I should have known that he wouldn't have been charged if the authorities had not had considerable evidence of his wrongdoings.

I am stating my case here resting on what I know of the evidence given at the trial. That influences my argument.

You, on the other hand, rest your argument on your own ideas of what constitutes abuse (and it appears to differ from the norm in our society). You also base your argument on doubting the motives and the meaning of words from the judge and the victims.

You are the one who is projecting all kinds of fantasy scenarios and labling them "Possibilities". I'm going on the "actualities I have gleaned from the trial.

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

You are the last person on the planet who should be talking about the pretence of neutrality."

I have not claimed "neutrality" on Harris (after apprising myself of the trial detail).

You have claimed such - and your argument derives entirely from the opposite stance.