That's your problem Ludwig, right there...

>>I don’t see my position so much as defending Harris. It is more a case trying to put it in context.<<

As the perceptive Rabbie Burns once said, "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion".

Your personal "foolish notion" in this case is that by making so many statements in defence of the indefensible, you associated yourself with the acts themselves. Retrospectively attempting to justify such a stance by claiming that you were merely "interpreting" the judgment simply does not wash, I'm afraid.

I doubt very much whether you are a closet paedophile, Ludwig, or even an active one for that matter. But it is a better image all round to join the majority who view Rolf Harris' actions as deserving of every punishment society can deliver (up to and including being in a cell with a twenty-stone tattooed father-of-a-teenage daughter), than to continue to protest that "the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.".

<< I can not accept the lines of argument that says, others are doing the same thing and getting away with it, or some other crime is just as bad and people got away with that. Those lines of argument are irrelevant to the matter at hand and no court rightly will accept that kind of defense. >>

Paul, they are not relevant to the actual proceedings in a court case such as that of Harris. But they are very much worthwhile mentioning in order to put Harris’ actions into context with all the things that can impact on children.

I think that there is a great deal of very narrow thinking going on on this thread. There is a huge need for a bit of perspective.

Unfortunately though, my exploring of this wider perspective just gets nothing but condemnation from some.

<< …you have come across on this as a defender of Harris's action, and by default the actions of pedophiles per-se, and that has got you a fair amount of condemnation from others, including me. >>

<< You may have only wanted to "liven" the debate with your posts, and you have achieved that, but in doing so you present yourself extremely badly. >>

So Paul, how could anyone have explored the things that I have explored here without you and most others in the debate thinking like this about me?

Would it have even been possible?

Or would you have preferred that all the things I have raised remained unspoken… and the very narrow perspective of this whole issue upheld?

This is a very important point.

I think I have raised issues in a totally proper manner, and constantly reasserted that we should all be considering them as POSSIBILITIES only.

<< At the time it was legal and to an extent socially accepted so there is no legal recourse against those who used it as an opportunity to abuse. >>

Robert, I think you might find that the caning I received was not legal. There has always been a responsibility of care on those in positions to use corporal punishment, and if it could be shown that they totally misused it, as with the caning of an innocent child who was the victim of bullying, then that person would have broken the law, surely.

I say ‘surely’, which effectively means that all logic indicates that this would be the case, but I am not absolutely sure that it actually is or ever was.

<< Harris actions were not legal nor generally socially acceptable and something can be done about it. >>

Yes…. But….. He did it very openly, gained a reputation for it….. and was allowed to continue doing it.

It makes no sense to me that his actions could now be deemed to be so utterly disgusting, while for all the years that he was doing this stuff, it never got him into trouble, at all, whatsoever.

You can’t explain this away by simply saying that all the girls he touched felt completely powerless to even mention it to their mothers or anyone else who could have done something about it, if they’d felt it serious enough to warrant it. Surely if he had gained a reputation for doing things that people felt were beyond the pale, then someone would have acted strongly in accordance, somewhere along the line of all those years.

<< The concept of a first offence having some bearing in the consequences in Harrris case seems like a nonsence… >>

Ok, I respect your views on that point.

So, what about count 2? Six months prison time for simply squeezing a girl’s buttock?

You still don't get it, do you Ludwig.

>>So, what about count 2? Six months prison time for simply squeezing a girl’s buttock?<<

When you're in a hole, it is generally best to stop digging. If you genuinely wanted to go "exploring of this wider perspective", there are ways to do so that do not involve the exculpation of a dirty old man who systematically groped and fingered young children.

Ludwig,

When it comes to this crime and crime in general, it is important that the law makers and the judiciary are seen to be applying those standards that the community expects. You have a view, which is perceived as seeing some acts of pedophilia as being a minor misdemeanor, rather than a criminal offence.
The mistake I believe you are making is to base your whole arguement on a one liner eg. <<So, what about count 2? Six months prison time for simply squeezing a girl’s buttock?>> The case and the evidence was far more complex than that. That is why I rely on the judgement being correct.

If the case was nothing more than this;

Witness; "Your Honour, he squeezed my buttocks"
Judge; "Did you?"
Plaintiff; "No!"
Judge; "Guilty, 9 months jail!"

If that was all it was, and it wasn't, then yes a very shabby case, but no it was far more complex that that simplistic bit above. the judge applied far more complexity than that, coming up with the correct outcome.
You have every right to explore pedophilia in the context of how it is treated by society. I agree it is something that has be be kept in prospective, just like any offence should be. That is why Harris was treated in the particular way he was. The penalty is somewhat arbitrary, but having said that the judge just didn't pluck a figure out of the air an apply it to Harris. There was a massive amount of consideration given before imposing the penalty. Correct procedure has be followed and to argue otherwise is simply wrong. but keep trying if you want.

Ludwig,

"Yes…. But….. He did it very openly, gained a reputation for it….. and was allowed to continue doing it."

I think that line of reasoning applies to his adult victims - and even then he usually groped when the opportunity arose that he and his victim were alone.

I'm sure he went to considerable measures to mask his groping of young girls. Can you imagine him "openly" feeling them up?

And remember, according to him "They were all making it up"

The fact that it took so long for him to be brought to justice is complex, and much of that rests on his fame and reputation. Pericles posted an article where his victim even wrote to the Queen when Rolf was doing her portrait...but nothing happened because of the impenetrable fortress of Harris's reputation as a nice guy.

So he wasn't touching up young girls "openly". His was a case of a sly hand under the skirt, down the top or whichever method presented itself as the opportunities arose...that's not "openly" - that's feeling up young girls on the sly.

If he had have been abusing young girls "openly", he would been arrested and charged much quicker.