Right Is Right,
Harris may well have been having "a bit of fun" but that doesn't make it right.
I have dealt with hundreds of perverts, rock spiders and pedophiliac killers in my police life and this bloke fits the profile of a sick weirdo if I have ever seen one.

Well, Is Mise, if you can’t even find the questions to which I have referred you, then it makes me wonder how well you have read or comprehended my posts and my overall views on this thread.

I would suggest that you are in no position to make the assertion that I am in a deep hole here.

The questions are again:

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?

continued

Is Mise, I’ll also save you the trouble of reading my posts in order to understand my position. I’ll outline it, yet again…

I have suggested that there are other POSSIBLE interpretations to what the court, jury and judge have come up with. Upon reading Judge Sweeney’s sentencing remarks, a number of things appeared to warrant questioning and hence some debate on this thread.

Rather than pulling out a couple of things in isolation, I outlined all the things that I thought could be a little bit problematic and which warranted a closer look, which is the right holistic approach to take.

I particularly question the magnitude of the prison sentence, let alone any prison sentence for Count 2, and the length of the sentence for Count 1, and the veracity of girls’ Victim Impact Statements or the judge’s assertion that is “sure” that they are accurate accounts. This I particularly question in relation to complainant ‘C’.

I do not have an issue with the length of the sentence that Harris has received, given that it really amounts to the equivalent of three of the charges brought against him, after considering that the judge declared several of the prison periods to be concurrent with others, and then declared that Harris was required to only spend half of the allotted penalty actually in prison.

That’s it in a nutshell.

So, these simple and totally proper points have raised a great deal of debate, including agreement from some, disagreement and sensible debate from some decent people such as R0bert and Paul, and an intense blast of internet bullying from three respondents who have shown themselves to be of particularly poor character

Ludwig,

".... and an intense blast of internet bullying from three respondents who have shown themselves to be of particularly poor character."

I put it to you that nothing posted by those "who disagree with your stance" from the likes of Pericles or Poirot or Is Mise have approached this childish and belligerent response from "you".

Exhibit 1:

"Once you gain a true perspective of my position from reading only my posts, you will then find that I haven’t dug myself into a hole at all, but rather, the little lowlife band of three have heaped a great mountain of their excrement upon me, which they have pulled out of their stinky little backsides, and which is completely independent of their brains (unless their brains are up their bums, which seems like a distinct possibility)."

I would be too embarrassed to come back to a forum in a hurry if I had posted anything approaching that rancid and puerile diatribe.

You, Ludwig, are the bully here...and you have been doing it up and down this thread whenever your POSSIBILITIES have been rejected.

The internet has a long memory, Ludwig. In this case, it doesn't need to be particularly long to expose your shape-shifting for what it is - pure revisionism. You found yourself defending the indefensible, so you needed to pretend that you are arguing for something that is defensible.

You started with an outright defense of Rolf Harris' behaviour, beginning with "the worst of it was a bit of groping", and reaching a climax with "Just think about that in relation to all manner of other offences. Littering. Speeding. Stealing..."

When this met some level of revulsion from your fellow posters, you tried to convince everyone that "hey, I'm only saying that everyone should carefully consider these POSSIBILITIES", which has now fully morphed into "I have suggested that there are other POSSIBLE interpretations to what the court, jury and judge have come up with".

Can you not see how this effort at dissembling and sophistry can be seen as offensive? Particularly when you accompany it with diatribes against those who remember why you started this thread in the first place: to defend the actions of a convicted paedophile, who also seemed to believe that what he was doing was just "a bit of groping"

Take heed of the fate of Monty Python's Black Knight in that sketch I excerpted for you. He was left armless, legless and bleeding.

Still talking up a storm of complete rubbish.

Ludwig,

Q. 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?

A. Absolutely impossible.

Q. Would it have even been possible?

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

A. No and no,

"I particularly question the magnitude of the prison sentence,....

I do not have an issue with the length of the sentence that Harris has received,...."

Make up your mind.