Ludwig,

I've made my point perfectly clearly regarding what "you" term as a "simple buttock grope."

"So then, should every man or woman who has done such a thing be hauled into court and charged and given a similar sentence? Or is it somehow different for Harris, because this act was one of several, part of a pattern or whatever other extenuating circumstances you might like to consider?"

It was part of a pattern of behaviour that included - and was tried in conjunction with - other grossly indecent acts committed against underage girls.

No-one hauled Rolf up just on that charge alone...which appears to be the point you are attempting to make. Rolfy wasn't nabbed for a one-off grope of girls bum. You are making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself in trying to isolate "that" particular charge from the rest of his self-indulgent indecencies....indecencies for which he was found guilty in a court of law.

"You have acted very oddly on this thread, compared to what I have known you to be like in the previous four years on this forum. So intolerant of the views I have put forward. So polarised. So nasty in your implications about me! And so hypocritical."

You continue to chuck a tantrum merely because I refuse to agree with your reasoning.

That's the beginning and the end of it.

Poirot doesn't concur with Ludwig's reasoning on this so she is

1. Nasty

2. Polarised

3. Intolerant

4. Abusive

5. Hypocritical

Etc...(according to Ludwig)

What, may I ask, are you still doing on this thread if you can't stomach others holding (and sticking to) opposing views.

Not only, Jay 1 2 3, but also...

>>When Ludwig loses the debate, he abuses those he perceives to be his enemies<<

He also uses his own personal cone of silence when it comes to responding to questions that he knows will land him squarely in the proverbial.

For example I am one of a number here, still waiting on a number of replies to simple, straightforward questions that Ludwig has judiciously avoided.

One thing you may be absolutely sure of, though: he is smart enough to avoid asking which questions I am referring to...

Hi Is Mise. Thanks for your very useful contribution to this debate.

Please continue to prove my point that some things are just simply unmentionable.

Remember this? …

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?

Is Mise A. Absolutely impossible.

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.

So um, if you reckon I’m still digging, then it would seem that you have answered the second question disingenuously, and that you do indeed think that the things that I have raised should have remained unspoken, yes?

Ahh Poirot, you have addressed the debate. Good!

You wrote:

<< It was part of a pattern of behaviour that included - and was tried in conjunction with - other grossly indecent acts committed against underage girls. >>

So you are suggesting that he copped a six month jail sentence not just for that particular misdemeanour, but because it was part of a pattern?

Well, hold on, he copped substantial penalties for all the other parts of that pattern that were brought before the court. So he surely shouldn’t have copped a bigger penalty for that particular buttock grope because of any other actions.

The judge imposed six months jail time simply for that action, and that action alone…. which is surely an outrageous penalty for such a thing.

Ludwig: You continue to miss the point. It is fine to speak about these things (indeed essential, since they have been covered up for far too long). You are entitled to post your opinion on OLO.

But, so are the rest of us. And the opinion of the majority of us who have posted differs from your opinion. Tough.

I wonder if anyone saw the report from the Royal Commission on the ABC on Monday night, re the priest who abused two generations of one family? Twin brothers both abused, too ashamed to tell even each other until one discovers his son has been abused by the same man. An example of how some individuals misuse the authority of their position and status, how they 'groom' their victims (and in this case their families), how children put up with it in secret (because they think no-one will believe them, or they'll get in to trouble), how it doesn't just happen to girls (who might be accused of leading men on), ad infinitum.

It's NEVER 'only' a bit of groping (etc.), it's ALWAYS a breach of trust and adult responsibility. (And, by the way, it's against the law).

Ludwig,

Judge's sentencing remarks

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-full-statement-from-the-judge-who-sentenced-rolf-harris-to-jail-20140704-3bee0.html

"On Count 2 I have no doubt that you indecently assaulted ‘B’ in July 1978 (when she was aged 16. and you were aged 48). You did so on the day that you took part in Star Games on Jesus Green in Cambridge. You were clowning around and took advantage of the fact that she was somewhat awestruck. Again others were present. You groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times...."

"The maximum sentence....... on each of Counts 2-9 it is one of 2 year’s imprisonment....

Keeping in mind....and addressing the totally of the crimes for which Harris was found guilty during the one trial.

"With the exception of Counts 10 & 11 the equivalent offences today attract significantly higher maximum sentences. For example on Count 1 the equivalent offence today is sexual assault of a child which carries a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment and would be likely to involve a starting point of around one year’s imprisonment. On Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 & 12 the equivalent offence today is assault by penetration which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and would be likely, to involve a starting point (given the severity of the psychological damage to ‘C’) of around 8 years’ imprisonment on Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and a starting point of around 4 years’ imprisonment on Count 12."

And remembering that Rolf's defence for that one was that he was never where she said it happened...until someone produced evidence that he was.

Remember, Rolf is so hard done by, that he reckons all the witnesses were making it up.

Great guy, what!

But the most pathetic thing is Ludwig scratching around amongst the sentence fallout for some angle akin to poor old Rolf being hauled off the streets for a passing grope - a one off.

Did you read the above from the judge...the maximum sentence for such behaviour - count 2 - is two years.

And here you are, banging on about six months.