I'll just add, Ludwig, that there's a reason why groping young girls' buttocks attracts a jail sentence.

You appear to think that something akin to a parking fine is more appropriate.

Imagine if that was the case, and grown men could walk up to young girls and grope them, knowing full well that all they'd have to do in societal recompense is pop into the local court house and pay a "groping fine".?

The mind boggles....

I see you are still maintaining a stubborn reticence on the key questions put to you, Ludwig.

You know, the ones that would illuminate your personal stance on child molestation in a manner that you would vastly prefer to avoid.

Keep it up. Your silence is eloquence itself.

<< Ludwig: You continue to miss the point. >>

Sorry, what point am I missing, Cossomby?

<< It is fine to speak about these things (indeed essential, since they have been covered up for far too long). >>

Absolutely!

Not only has this sort of thing been covered up or blind-eyed for a very long time, but it all seems to be beyond critical examination, to the point where it is entirely feasible for us ordinary folks… or a significant portion of us…. to jump from knowing nothing about it to being extremely strongly condemnatory of anyone who has perpetrated such actions, without knowing or caring about the severity of those actions.

There is an incredible unwillingness to look at the detail and debate it, let alone an incredible lack of acceptance of ANY questioning or critical examination, by way of ordinary debate of the sort that OLO is based and which we all condone very openly in relation to all manner of other subjects.

It is basically the flavour of the moment to be absolutely condemning of anyone connected to this sort of activity.

This couldn’t be more evident than it is with Harris and those who have responded on this thread.

Most of these people will admit (many only under duress) that Harris’ misdemeanours were right at the light end of the spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences and yet they wish to utterly condemn him and show utter intolerance for any discussion on the matter (Or am I thinking in too much of a polarised manner here?).

The pendulum has swung from way over on one side to way over on the other side. It has yet to come to a balanced position. I’m sure it will in the fullness of time. I see myself as just being ahead of the times in that regard.

continued

I reckon some people on this thread will be eating their words in the not too distant future, when the general community view calms down a bit.

Yes, the outrage is entirely understandable when we consider the magnitude of the whole business with priests and Savile, etc. But to launch this outrage at Harris in such a totally condemnatory manner as some have done is not fair and reasonable. He, judging by the charges brought against him, is not in the same league. Not a by a very long way. And we really do need to be very careful about that.

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

Yes, there are a few opinions in amongst the heavy condemnation of me for daring to even raise the points I have raised. It should make for a very good debate / discussion…. if we could just get past the extreme lambasting of me for simply daring to bring on the debate in the first place.

<< 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). >>

As with everything else, the penalty needs to match the offence. And I really can’t see how anyone can accept six months imprisonment as being a fair and reasonable penalty for the action that was brought before the court as Count 2 against Harris.

Again I say that this penalty seems so far out of whack with the offence that it rings loud alarm bells for me. And when I put it together with several other concerns that I have with the sentencing remarks and hence the whole court proceedings, there is a very big need for it to be aired and debated…. And OLO is the right place, indeed the perfect place for it, is it not.

Ludwig,

"Most of these people will admit (many only under duress) that Harris’ misdemeanours were right at the light end of the spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences and yet they wish to utterly condemn him and show utter intolerance for any discussion on the matter..."

"The sentences that I impose are as follows:

Count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment.
Count 2: 6 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 3: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 4: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 5: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 6: 12 months imprisonment concurrent
Count 7: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 8: 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 9: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 10: 9 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 11 9 months imprisonment concurrent.
Count 12 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-full-statement-from-the-judge-who-sentenced-rolf-harris-to-jail-20140704-3bee0.html#ixzz3AzCWi99W

Counts 3 to 9 involved the grossly indecent abuse of "C"

Counts 1,2, 10, 11 and 12 relate to his serial perversions taking advantage of young girls with opportune groping and indecent touching.

Nice to know you consider the totality of these crimes "misdemeanors at the light end of the spectrum".

Also fascinated at your continued outrage at Harris being brought to justice for "all" these counts of indecency...and yet not one ounce of "outrage" at what he has done.

Are you going to address the questions put to you by Pericles?

Hold ya hosses there Poirot. I’ve still got two of your posts to respond to…

Well done. Those two posts were almost entirely directed at the debate and almost free of directly personally attacking offensive statements! ( :>)

However, your comments do nothing to allay my concerns about the six month penalty. There is only mention of a maximum penalty, no minimum is mentioned. So there was presumably plenty of scope for the judge to have imposed a much lesser sentence than he did.

<< You appear to think that something akin to a parking fine is more appropriate. >>

Well, what did I say early in this thread? $1000 fine? Yes, that would have been more appropriate.

<< Imagine if that was the case, and grown men could walk up to young girls and grope them, knowing full well that all they'd have to do in societal recompense is pop into the local court house and pay a "groping fine".?

The mind boggles.... >>

The mind boggles alright at such silly comments.

You’ve got to put it in context with all the possible offences related to pedophilia / child molestation / child touching and with everything else that people can do that might impact significantly on a child in a negative manner. When you look at the whole context, you must surely agree that if such an action can incur such a penalty, then all manner of other actions would have to incur much bigger penalties than they now do… many of which would now incur no penalty and not even be counted as offences.