Ludwig,

Yes,it's obvious that I have way to much time on my hands - or why else would I continue to bother with this thread - and your, shall we say, "interesting" views in defence of Harris's perversions.

You appear to believ that the terms "brief" and "opportunistic" = minor.

Brief and opportunistic, of course, describes perfectly Harris's penchant for ambushing young girls with his wandering hands as he interacted with them as part of the fun and games of being the celebrity, Rolf Harris.

It takes a real big man to use his exalted position for abusing such access.

Remember of story of the 8 year-old waiting for his autograph?

(of course, if Ludwig had his way, that's the sort of action which would attract a hand-parking fine)

I do find it fascinating how the further down you've dug your hole on this subject...and the tattier has become your OLO reputation - that your swagger has actually increased!

As is usually the case when folk attempt to defend the indefensible....

Reports coming out of London. Seems Rolf has committed 'hurry curry', impaled himself on his 'wobble board' while wobbling away to the tune of 'Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport' I always knew that was the way dear old Rolf wanted to go.

Still, getting it wrong I (along with everyone else) see, Ludwig...

"Like I said Is Mise - misdemeanours. Also officially criminal acts. But nonetheless: misdemeanours. Minor criminal acts if you like."

Harris was convicted of arrestable offences, the legal distinctions between felonies and misdemeanours being not applicable in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Act_1967

Further, as you have repeatedly been told, the judgements DID take into account BOTH the lesser sentencing guidelines applicable at the time of the offences as well as the 'scale' of the offences of which he was found guilty.

The shallowness of your opinions is contrasted by the depth of the hole you keep digging by regurgitating them... I've checked and your antipode is in the North Atlantic off Mauritania so let us know when you hit water.

Now I need to go and wash off my shame at contributing to your desire to obtain the longest general thread on OLO.

WmTrevor With the 579th post you have hit the 'nail' (read Ludwig) on the head. The facts as you state them have been pointed out to Ludwig over and over again. At the end of the day they didn't hang the "B" they gave him 5 years and 9 months. End of story. Ludwig's attitude is basically Rolf did not commit a crime, criminal or otherwise, its all a big mistake by society, Rolf was simply having a bit of playful fun with the kiddies as he was prone to do from time to time, and we should accept that. In fact its nothing to do with justice, all society wanted was to crucify a tall poppy Rolf, because of his fame and fortune. Nothing could be further from the truth. Granted there has been plenty of media coverage, and that is to be expected, given the high profile of the accused. Imagine the media if say the Queen of England was caught shop lifting, likewise it would be no ordinary case.
On aspect which I would like opinion on is; when the rich and famous are found guilty of a crime in general they nearly always plea they should get a lesser sentence because they have lost more in fame and fortune and prestige than ordinary people because of their position in society. In a nut shell higher they are the harder they fall. its an argument I for one don't accept. All are equal under the law.

Paul,

All are not equal under the law, if one is rich then certain bits of law breaking are but trifles.

One example, a poor person who commits X may be given the option of time or a fine. The poor person cannot pay the fine so does time and as a consequence loses his job.
A rich person who commits the same and is given the same options pays the fine and keeps his job.

Is Mise, that certainly applies to general fines, like a parking fine of $104. A far greater impact on a pensioner than a billionaire.

Take this case for example;

<<Jodhi Meares (James Packer ex-wife) was on her sixth driving suspension on the night she rolled her Range Rover while more than three times the legal blood ­alcohol limit.>>

Seemed to be a straight forward case, Meares pleaded guilty, the full weight of the law should be applied.

Meares got off for high range drink driving with an $1100 fine and a 12-month disqualification period — a third of the automatic sentence of three years, after her lawyer argued Ms Meares had suffered enough with her marriage to Packer.
She got an extremely light sentence