<< 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.>>

Thankyou Paul.

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?>>

Well that is a perplexing statement. I have clearly stated that my whole premise (I wouldn’t call it an argument) is based on looking at a whole series of things with the POSSIBILITIES of viewing them differently and thus forming a different impression of Harris where a different penalty (or no penalty for some of the charges) could POSSIBLY be more appropriate. I have tried to look at it in a holistic manner, or at least in a manner that is whole lot broader than just simple one-line single issues.

<< The case and the evidence was far more complex than that. That is why I rely on the judgement being correct. >>

The whole case was complex, but the circumstances of Count 2 weren’t at all.

Judge Sweeney said:

< With the exception of ‘C’ the offences were brief and opportunistic. >

There was nothing in the slightest bit complex about that particular issue.

Six months in prison for that offence is just simply amazing. If it had happened in the absence of the other offences, then surely no judge would have deemed that to be an appropriate penalty, not anything like it.

So, one could assume that because of Harris’ other misdemeanours, he copped a much bigger penalty for this one than he otherwise would have.

I think there is something quite disturbing about that.

<< Correct procedure has be followed and to argue otherwise is simply wrong. But keep trying if you want. >>

No it isn’t wrong at all to argue or question the process or express views contrary to what a judge, jury and rigorous court process have demonstrated. It happens all the time.

Ludwig,

"Six months in prison for that offence is just simply amazing. If it had happened in the absence of the other offences, then surely no judge would have deemed that to be an appropriate penalty, not anything like it."

But it didn't happen in isolation.

It was exposed during a trial that encompassed many instances of indecent assault of young girls.

He was found guilty of that charge.

You carry on as if it was "an isolated incident"

It wasn't.

If all he'd been had up for was the "one" opportunistic grope - then it would have been different.

But in light of the evidence shining a light on his serial groping and full-on abuse, all tried at the same trial - why are you surprised that he copped a decent penalty for one of the actions?

You appear to be fossicking around the edges of Harri's abuse field attempting to discover some angle to mitigated him.

Waffling on a about a grope being next to nothing if it had happened by itself is silly - when it was shown to be one of a series of dubious actions and abuses by Harris all within the ambit of the trial.

People, Ludwig has not budged ONE INCH. He will NEVER change. Arguing points with him is USELESS. It makes him the centre of attention, and in his immature mind it makes him feel EMPOWERED.

Ludwig has nothing but disdain for your views, unless you change those views to reflect "his" views. So, let's bring this discussion down to Ludwig's level with a comment based on the very words that Ludwig himself used when he lost control against someone who didn't share "his" views --- "Go suck an egg Ludwig and hopefully choke on it" (I have received confirmation from the moderator that such a phrase is acceptable on this forum).

People, why are you making Ludwig feel, in his own immature mind, EMPOWERED?

Ludwig is a lost cause. People like him are incapable of change. One member contacted me and informed me that Ludwig has no children. Thank goodness for that. We need to protect our children from people like Harris and his handful of supporters.

This stream of posts is becoming like a hollow tooth, one knows what will happen but....

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

Poirot, the judge makes reference to others being present while he was doing this stuff. See his comments in the sentencing remarks regarding Counts 1, 2 & 10, and other nearby with Counts 11 & 12.

I can’t see how he could really mask these actions. It was more a matter of them not being thought of as harmful and just as being a bit cheeky?? Maybe. I don’t know.

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

He wasn’t exactly doing it in a particularly closeted manner. He just simply couldn’t have gained a reputation as ‘The Octopus’ if he was acting in a highly surreptitious and masked manner. Sly, certainly, but not so sly as to not be noticed by adults some of the time ??

I think it is more a case of the comparatively very minor (but yes, still significant) nature of what he was doing which allowed him to get away with it.

Obviously we don’t know. We are both just conjecturing here. You might be totally right. But we do need to consider other possibilities.

<< Waffling on a about a grope being next to nothing if it had happened by itself is silly - when it was shown to be one of a series of dubious actions and abuses by Harris all within the ambit of the trial. >>

Poirot, six months jail time for the simple quick opportunistic squeeze of a girl’s buttock is surely outrageous in anyone’s terms.

It has surely got to make you think about what was really going on in that courtroom or in the judge’s head! It suggests to me that the mindset was one of utter condemnation of Harris for anything that they could possibly hold against him.

I’m not looking at it in isolation. I have also mentioned the nine month jail term for Count 1, which I similarly think is outrageously large, the nature of Harris’ relationship with ‘C’, which I think could very likely have been quite different to the manner in the judge described it, and the veracity of the victim’s impact statements.

In other words; I am looking at the six month penalty for Count 2 in a holistic manner.

Again I say that this is just one of quite a few things that have rung alarm bells for me.

And again I express my amazement at the incredible difference between the nature of this OLO discussion and those which I have had face to face with people in the real world. They are just poles apart.