thread still here so I will continue
I love being awkward

What some of us are questioning is, is Harris a paedophile based on the evidence??????

We are not defending paedophiles, why would we?????

and for this opinion, we now become paedophiles ourselves, with absolutely no evidence at all??????????

you could say this proves the point

I agree with you there and it must be difficult getting evidence from 40/50 years ago. That's why I say they should only pursue the more serious cases.
Harris was found guilty  and that makes him a paedo and a sexual predator. Go on the trial reports as per the media and not what is posted on here.

You have reported a post which has now been deleted where I merely questioned the motives of those defending a convicted paedophile?!!!

Please tell me where I said you were one? My reference was with regards to people thinking crimes committed are ok if they were a long time ago.

You are just too thick to read what is stated and the mods are just as thick for taking the word of a cretin and deleting it without bothering to understand what is said.

Quite frankly I find your input into the whole thread insulting.

Maybe I should report you for being a paedo apologist and being as thick as mince.

Whoa! There seems to be a bit of a response after my post yesterday. Just to clarify a few things:

I certainly do not want to defend a convicted paedophile and I don’t think anyone else on here would either – I can understand though that with this being such an emotive subject, people rush to make statements to that effect.

However, throughout this trial I did find myself wondering a number of times about just how reliable people’s memories are of events that happened decades ago. I find myself in the position that the writer of the piece mentions in that I find it difficult to remember events accurately from weeks or months ago let alone decades.  Mrs Gin and I occasionally have arguments about something that was said or happened previously where one of us is eventually proven wrong and I wonder how that can be.

With that in mind, I found the article (incidentally the link to it was tweeted by Mark Davies) thought provoking at the very least. Not knowing how accurate the facts as stated were, I deliberately added the caveat at the top of my post and avoided making any further comment.