I asked Paul:

How could anyone have explored the things that I have explored here without you and most others in the debate thinking really poorly of 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?

Would anyone else care to address these questions…..

Interesting point, Ludwig.

>>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.<<

So we can infer that you do not consider OLO to be part of "the real world".

Which leads us to the question, what do you actually see as "the real world"? Presumably, it is a place where the Rolf Harrises of this world can freely grope and stick fingers into children without people raising anything more than an indulgent eyebrow - "hey, it's only old Rolfie up to his tricks again."

I suspect you may be a long way from what most of us would describe as "civilization" - a word that incorporates the concept of civility, and encompasses civilized behaviour.

I know that I may be reflecting somewhat more urban values, Ludwig, but amongst those with whom I have discussed the case face to face, there is one hundred percent agreement that not only did the dirty old man get an exceptionally fair hearing, but also that he was given a punishment vastly under-weighted against the harm and distress that he caused through his disgusting actions.

That's one hundred percent. Not one single voice, male or female, has been raised in his defence down here in the wicked city. In fact, it is only here on OLO that I find any argument that he was badly done by.

And not many of those, either.

Dear Ludwig: You ask: How could anyone have explored the things that I have explored here without you and most others in the debate thinking really poorly of me?

Very easily! Instead of your first post:

"I was very dismayed when I heard the news that Rolf Harris had been found guilty on all 12 charges and now faces a substantial jail term.
Sorry, but this just doesn’t add up. It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that. He apparently did it openly, and gained a reputation for it. Even though he was known as The Octopus as a result of this, he was generally not thought of as being a pervert or pedophile, nor anything of the sort. It really could be, and I would strongly suggest should be, interpreted as nothing more than playful behaviour, if at times a little worrying for some young women. Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus. I think Rolf has copped a very raw deal here."

Maybe a more neutral stance?

"Rolf Harris's trial is an opportunity to explore attitudes to a wide range of behaviour from outright pedophilia to what some may call just a bit of groping. Where should the line be drawn, with respect to legal action? Have attitudes changed?"

This would have encourage a balanced discussion, without your personal view (that Harris got a raw deal) becoming the topic. You might have then found it easier to accept the consensus of comments rather than feeling obliged to defend yourself to the death.

Cossomby, society can only be thankful that Ludwig is not a parent.

Ludwig,

"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.

So, you appear to be saying that it was all "in the open" and that other people were aware of his actions as he was putting his hand up the skirt of the 8 year-old....when he accosted the young girl at the hotel by putting his hand on her knickers and later when he further accosted her in the hall outside the toilet (where, presumably, she had fled after his first indulgence for sanctuary)?

Nooo....these actions were "not" in the open. They were slyly enacted while he was in the company of other adults.(Some abusers like the extra thrill of committing their abuses when in company) Can you imagine him doing it in the open! Directing others to his abuse while doing it?

He'd be arrested faster than you could say "Who's a dirty old man who thinks his fame can protect him?"

And I agree with Pericles. I haven't come across one person who has defended Harris since the detail of transgressions came out at the trial.

"You might be totally right. But we do need to consider other possibilities."

No we don't. He was fairly tried and was found guilty - and received a reasonably light sentence.

Ludwig, its time to move on, so I've got a few new topics for you to kick the discussion off with, take your pick.

IVAN MILAT IS MY KINDA GUY
ADOLF HITLER WAS A GOOD BLOKE
CHARLIE MANSON WAS JUST MISUNDERSTOOD

Like I said, you can kick the discussion off by showing your support for any of the above. LOL