I wrote:

>> But we do need to consider other possibilities. <<

Poirot replied:

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

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#193960

That says it all really. Poirot was completely intolerant of me even daring to question anything regarding the judge’s sentencing remarks. All the shrillness and nastiness and he-said – she-said bunkum on this thread stems directly from that incredibly poor and just plain WRONG basic premise, from her and a couple of others.

I say again; OF COURSE it was fair and reasonable to question such things.

This happens all the time with court proceedings. Indeed one could argue that it is a fundamental part of the legal process, and that our whole legal system would be in very dangerous territory if a jury’s or judge’s findings and reasonings and scale of sentencing were beyond scrutiny.

Poirot needs to consider how much of her stance is emotive and based on intense dislike of me simply because I have dared to question the judge and how much of it is rational and in line with a sensible debate on this subject.

And I would call on her to reconsider her statement above ( << No we don’t…>>) and to surely renounce it, and agree with Is Mise that it IS entirely proper to question a judge’s findings.

In this particular case, that meant looking at the details and explaining what I thought could POSSIBLY be problematic with them and perhaps be interpreted differently in terms of the seriousness of Harris’ misdemeanours…… possibly………... and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Ludwig,

"Poirot needs to consider how much of her stance is emotive and based on intense dislike of me....'

I don't dislike you, Ludwig. My impression is that you're acting a little unusually on this thread, in that you appear to be regarding my (and others) disagreement with your reasoning as some kind of "personal attack".

You also appear to be tarring me with a brush you have reserved for the poster here who did attack you while he appeared to be supporting me. I didn't do that - the other poster did. I didn't ask him to do that. It had nothing to do with me.

You wrote:

" But we do need to consider other possibilities."

I replied:

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

What I was saying was that "we" don't "need" or have to do anything of the sort - if we are satisfied with the evidence, the verdict and the sentence.

Fair enough, if you're not satisfied, then go for it. But don't get all huffy and outraged because other posters don't concur.

"...... Poirot was completely intolerant of me even daring to question anything regarding the judge’s sentencing remarks. All the shrillness and nastiness and he-said – she-said bunkum on this thread stems directly from that incredibly poor and just plain WRONG basic premise, from her and a couple of others."

Don't blame me because you can't handle it when fellow posters disagree with you. This is an opinion forum. We debate issues...and frankly I've seldom seen such a puerile tantrum, ongoing and unreasonable, as the one you continue to throw on this thread.

Your memory is letting you down again, Ludwig.

>>I should have made it patently clear that never since the judge released his sentencing remarks on 4 July, two days after I started this thread, have I said that it was just a bit of groping, etc (as far as I can recall).<<

On 10th July, almost a week after the judge's remarks were published, you observed...

>>In short, I often feel as though the sort of things he did are just par for the course. Many young women, in many cultures around the world including ours, must have similar and much worse experiences.<<

Just-a-bit-of-groping type experiences, you mean?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192477

On the subject of where Harris "groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times", you observed...

>>He should have received NO penalty at all for such a non-issue<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192479

And then there's this one:

>>...the sorts of things that he has done are really just as common as dishwater, and are very meek in the greater scheme of things<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192483

Just-a-bit-of-groping meek, I suppose?

Ludwig, I haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to prove here. But even you cannot change the past.

You said what you said. A number of people read what you said, and drew the conclusion that you are the sort of person who thinks groping young girls is just a bit of a lark. No amount of attempts at revisionism on your part is going to change that view.

But the worst, in my opinion, is when you couple that view with the idea that it is all the girl's fault anyway...

>>So how did he take her pants down and put his head right in her crotch if she wasn’t willing to let him do it? It does not compute.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#192480

Also written a week after the judge's sentencing narrative.

>>Those who lambast me so strongly on this thread do indeed uphold the most glaring and basic of contradictions in logic<<

I don't think so. They simply read what you write.

Put it this way, Ludwig.

If you have changed your mind on the nature and severity of Rolf Harris' crimes, then that is to be applauded.

But if you have, then you cannot keep rabbiting on about the nature and severity of the sentencing.

Ahh Poirot, it seems like you might be calming down a bit at last, and perhaps realising that my approach to this issue is not as bad as you have been making out.

<< I don't dislike you, Ludwig. >>

Well I’d like to believe that, but it seems to sit at stark odds with your behaviour towards me on this thread.

I’ve got to admit: you’ve become very hard to like, especially after resoundly rejecting my offer to set our differences aside and debate the issue in a cool, calm and non-personally-attacking manner.

I tried on that occasion to recover the good relationship that I have enjoyed with you on OLO for some years.

<< …frankly I've seldom seen such a puerile tantrum, ongoing and unreasonable… >>

Fascinating comments. I’d say a similar thing about you, and put your comments fairly and squarely in the realms of utter hypocrisy.

<< This is an opinion forum. We debate issues… >>

Haaahahaa. YES it is!

So then, shall we do it?

Lets start off with this point, as it seems to me to be the single most glaring oddity in the whole Harris affair…

Six months imprisonment for simply squeezing a girls left buttock. A number of squeezes in quick succession, but all part of one grope lasting only couple of seconds in total duration, as I understand it.

Do you honestly think that this is fair and reasonable? Even if you do, can you not see the POSSIBILITY that it could be considered a grossly over-the-top penalty and that court got it wrong on this occasion?

Can you not consider the possibility that such an action should not have been brought forward as a charge at all, given its incredibly minor nature?

Can you not envisage the very bringing of this charge, and IMHO the enormous penalty imposed, as a clear sign that the authorities were out to get Harris with everything that they could possibly throw at him, and to maximise the impact on him?

Ludwig,

"Ahh Poirot, it seems like you might be calming down a bit at last, and perhaps realising that my approach to this issue is not as bad as you have been making out.

<< I don't dislike you, Ludwig. >>

Well I’d like to believe that, but it seems to sit at stark odds with your behaviour towards me on this thread...."

Etc....

Okay, Luddy...

When I said I thought you were acting "unusually" on this thread....I was being polite and toning it down.

I think you are acting in a very strange and unbalanced manner on this thread...and I'm wondering if you have other issues we're not aware of.

That's the truth of what I'm thinking.

And you can bang on about the buttock grope till the cows come home...It was a disturbing act - and one which was tried in conjunction with many other grossly disgusting acts.

It was illegal.

Harris knew it was illegal..but decided to do it anyway.

You're the person who keeps popping up abusing fellow posters who you've debated with for yonks. I haven't addressed you in the same manner at all.

Cough up Poirot's abusive remarks to you, Ludwig.

You won't - because they don't exist.