Ludwig,

You are a disingenuous little chappie these days, aren't you.....

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

I note that after many requests that you provide my so-called "nasty abusive posts" that you still refuse to provide them...the same as you won't respond to the questions put to you by Pericles.

So...in the absence of any proof of my "abusive posts" at least you now have my reference to you as "a disingenuous little chappie"...something to take home as a memento of the great big hole you have dug for yourself on this thread.

You can put it on your mantlepiece...in the spot where your credibility used to be.

I'm out.

<< I note that after many requests that you provide my so-called "nasty abusive posts" that you still refuse to provide them.. >>

You can’t help yourself can you Poirot. I explained why – I’ve had enough of being drawn into the negative he-said – she-said drivel, that doesn’t address the debate.

Why can’t you just accept that?

And in your last post, you’ve made no attempt at all to address the debate… which by the way is against OLO rule No 1.

Have I got you in a position where you can’t offer any response, regarding this:

>> …no minimum is mentioned. So there was presumably plenty of scope for the judge to have imposed a much lesser sentence than he did. <<

And surely he should have, if there is to be any reasonable correlation between the scale of an offence and the scale of punishment.

<< I'm out. >>

Haaa hahahaaa. Just as we are starting to get into a bit of nitty-gritty real debate, you’re off.

Why am I not surprised!

But I bet you’re not. I bet you’ll be back.

Oh look, there’s another Poirot post that I haven’t addressed…

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

Too right!

Not just Count 2, but all of the charges put together still amount to misdemeanors at the light end of the spectrum.

It is fascinating that you don’t see this.

Very brief gentle opportunistic touchings. No rape nor anything anywhere near it. No deprivation of liberty.

Yes, they were misdemeanours for which he has rightly been brought to account for… and for which the overall penalty is I think in the right ball park. But no, nothing of a particularly serious nature, when you look at it in context with the full gamut of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching and all other crimes and all other things that people can do that impact in a significant negative manner on children.

That's a good point you make Jay regarding comparisons, and I agree with you after reading Ludwig's 2 posts. I went back and read several other posts from him, and I'm flabbergasted that someone has such non existent empathy towards victims of pedophilia. Some men are like that, they just don't have that type of emotional intelligence, whereas it's very rare indeed for a woman to be like that.

But your point about 'comparisons' is very valid and telling.

It is fiendishly difficult to take you at face value, Ludwig.

>>...if we could just get past the extreme lambasting of me for simply daring to bring on the debate in the first place<<

The debate that you "dared" to put before us was clear, and unequivocal. I offer your opening post in evidence:

>>It seems that the worst of [Rolf Harris' actions] was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.<<

You can pretend as much as you like that you were actually concerned about the minutiae of the judge's ruling. But that was not the debate that you introduced. We all clearly recognized that you had to devise a diversionary tactic, once you realized that you may have inadvertently displayed a fondness for going the grope on young girls...

>>If the jury can find him guilty of [simply squeezing this girls left buttock], and the judge can then declare it something warranting a prison sentence, then alarm bells ring for me<<

Which was why I asked you directly, whether this is the sort of behaviour you feel comfortable with...

>>The natural assumption, I'm afraid, is that you would apply the same standards and "logic" to your own behaviour. So, tell us. Would you?<<

So far, this question has gone unanswered.

I'm sure that even you can see that leaving this on the table without a response leaves it open for anyone observing your line of reasoning to assume that yes indeed, this is the sum total of Ludwig's ethical standards. As I also tried to make clear to you in an even earlier post...

>>The only way you can "debate" any of this is to a) minimize the impact of his actions on the victims, b) blame the victims for leading him on, and c) claim that there's nothing particularly wrong with an older man sticking his fingers into an under-age girl's vagina.<<

You may carry on pretending to yourself that I am not asking these questions, Ludwig. But really, that's not particularly adult, is it..

Ludwig,

You said "Yes, they were misdemeanours for which he has rightly been brought to account for…..."

Not misdemeanours but criminal acts.

"NOUN :misdemeanour
1A minor wrongdoing:

Example: the player can expect a suspension for his latest misdemeanour"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misdemeanour