Thanks Cossomby.

But I doubt that would have made a hoot of difference.

It would seem that the very suggestion that Harris might POSSIBLY have been more harshly dealt with than he should have been, and the mere questioning of ANYTHING in the judge’s sentencing remarks, were just completely taboo.

<< Maybe a more neutral stance? >>

This is the Online OPINION Forum…. where one is SUPPOSED to put up their opinion, rather than just introduce a subject in as neutral a manner as possible.

Don’t ALL general threads, or at least the majority, start off with someone’s opinion?

And while we are talking about OLO; people are supposed to debate things in a non-personal and non-derogatory manner. To stoop to personal slander or trying to take the discussion into personal territory, is fundamentally against the principles of this forum, is it not? And as for the constant flaming by one particular poster, who violates forum rule No 2 with every post…

Cossomby, I think that my opening post is just fine, as has been my conduct throughout this thread… in stark contrast to some.

I said:

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

Poirot you replied:

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

Wonderful! Well keep those blinkers on then.

Paul, one moment you are carefully considering what I am saying and debating it in a good and well-considered and almost friendly manner. And the next moment you are writing a complete clanger of a post, like your last one.

You have agreed that Harris’ misdemeanours were at the light end of the scale of pedophilia, molestation and child-touching.

So then, what's this about Milat, Hitler and Manson?

Very unfortunate comments.

Absolutely right, Ludwig.

>>Don’t ALL general threads, or at least the majority, start off with someone’s opinion?<<

And your opinion was that "the worst of it was a bit of groping".

And, "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."

The fact that you haven't resiled from that view one iota for the entire length of the thread, hardly indicates an open mind. In fact, you went further, on a number of occasions.

>>I often feel as though the sort of things he did are just par for the course<<

You even felt it reasonable to indulge in a bout of "blame the victim"for a while. But for me, this is the one statement of yours that says it all:

>>Complete condemnation for lower-end-of-the-spectrum offences is just terribly unbalanced. Just think about that in relation to all manner of other offences. Littering. Speeding. Stealing, etc, etc. Why should pedophilic / child-molestation / child touching offences be viewed differently to everything else in this regard?<<

To compare Rolf's disgusting behaviour to dropping a Big Mac wrapper in the street says more about your moral compass, Ludwig, than you can ever know.

Ludwig, I don't like to go page after page with grinding serious stuff, its depressing, so now and then I'll throw in some bit of flippant nonsense, tomfoolery you may call it, its only my warped sense of humor. We need a reality check, now and then otherwise we are in danger of taking ourselves far too serious. Remember there are no 'sheep stations' to be won at the end of the battle, its just a few lads having a discussion between ourselves.
I beg your forgiveness I don't mean to offend. I do believe we need to see the lighter side of things at times. Cheers my friend. As for Milat, Hitler and Manson, I liken you to a 'Don Quixote' type character, trying to argue the impossible, for what is after all an impossible cause, like the bloke who would try and argue "Mother Teresa was a Bad Woman!" Its called taking on the most unpopular causes and then trying to make a logical argument about it, in the end you just can't do it. Do you see that, no matter how good your argument is you are never going to overcome the innate prejudices within the subject. i'll give it to you, you have tried.
Now back to the discussion,

Ludwig, the community at large takes a very dim view of crimes against the most vulnerable members of the community, and children would top the list, followed by the elderly, the infirmed, the mentally retarded etc. With pedophilia being seen as the despicable crime it is, its very difficult to equate the sentence to the actions, part of the sentence is based on community expectations, the harm done to the vulnerable children, thus for Harris it was 5 years and 9 months in total, with only a very small part of that sentence being imposed for the actual physical actions, Harris did things that consenting adults do to each other every day of the week, so the actions in isolation are common place. Harris by his actions with non consenting children, and they could not consent even if they had agreed, crossed the line of no return, there is no way he will ever be able to redeem himself, no matter how long he lives, he will forever be remembered as a pedophile.
If Harris had committed, say a financial crime, ripped millions off the tax system, in time he would have been able to redeem himself in the eyes of the community, make restitution for his crime, but with this one he can't.