The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Pell haters are all at See > Comments

The Pell haters are all at See : Comments

By Paul Collits, published 6/10/2020

George Pell is seldom out of the news, even when he is simply taking a pretty uneventful plane ride. His latest flight has taken a dramatic turn.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
There is renewed talk, following the removal of Cardinal Becciu, that a good deal of Vatican money was used to frame Cardinal Pell for crimes he did not commit. A million dollars sent to Australia has been mentioned. Cardinal Pell has always been hated and feared because he is smart, honest, capable and he adheres to the Gospels and Catholic teaching, unlike his detractors within the Church and outside it.

"Many thought that it was actually Australia's system of justice that was on trial". Well Victoria's certainly was, and still is, along with its dictatorial Premier, who has never accepted the High Court verdict.

The George Pell story has certainly been one in the eye for the horrible Left and its non-stop attacks, not just on Christianity and Catholicism, but on all Western values and common decency.

The "noble cause sanctimony" and "ideological blindness", and "group think" and "hubris" Cardinal George has been, and still is, subjected to by Leftist scum in Australia, would be enough to make most 79 year olds want to spend their remaining days anywhere but here. But, given what we hear about Cardinals in Rome, and the weakest, Leftiest Pope in our time, is George Pell safe in the Vatican?

It's good to have Paul Collits contributing to Online Opinion.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 9:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cardinal Pell was found not guilty of any offence. End of. So let's move on.

He's now one of the Pope's right-hand men. I wouldn't be surprised if he and the Pope work very closely and very well together on cleaning up the Vatican's finances.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 9:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes, anyone who wants to see truth and justice is labelled a hater!

Pell was not actually exonerated by his day before the high court, but rather, had his conviction quashed!

To claim otherwise is a dishonest representation of verifiable facts.
Fact. He was found guilty by a jury.
Fact. And that conviction was upheld on appeal.
Fact. his conviction was quashed, not repealed!

And he will face final justice and held to account for all his sins, whatever they may be? After all, he is human.

He tried very hard to avoid his day in court, claiming he had a heart condition and was too sick to travel! Since then he has flown to Australia and now back to the Vatican. Ah, modern medicine! Ain't it miraculous?

As for the claim of a serious fraud. A Man/bookeepr as honest and truthful as Pell would never ever countenance such action. Let alone condone it or be complicit in fraud.

Let's hope all the facts are revealed, the guilty face justice and the innocent set free by the truth!

Someday we will embrace new, unbeatable sace age lie detection and a man who is clearly innocent will never be convicted.

Pell was convicted by the opinions of jurors, and three Judges. And by an archaic system that has changed little for centuries! And where justice seems to be reserved for those with the deepest pockets?
Alan B
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 6 October 2020 11:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
why wouldn't they hate Pell. He has shown how corrupt the Andrews Government and his judicial system in Victoria is. Those activist judges should of been sacked long ago. They have proven to be a disgrace.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 12:26:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Marr, the abc, the Guardian, smh any apologies for smearing, reporting fake news and having an innocent man gaoled for over a year. What a disgusting bunch!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 12:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

You are letting your pseudo-intellectualism run riot in a rational world.

Question we all need to ask is Why did Judge Mark Weinstein dissent in George Pell's Victorian appeal?

I think we are all aware of the ramifications that his decision to dissent had on Pell's further attempts of appeal in the High Court.

For example, we all know that the jury was stacked in the trial of Joh Bjelke-Petersen when a dyed-in-the-wool Joh supporter was put in purposively to sit on the jury.

We all know that these things go on. What is is that we call these things? I know! They're called injustices against society.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 12:41:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS

In my last line above I meant to say: "They're called injustices against society by the State."
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 1:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same jail time was served by Pauline Hanson, set up by Scumbag Howard and the shining light Abbott on behalf of theLiberal Party, for a crime she did not commit: How soon we forget!

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 8:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
diver dan,

I say "Down with the lowlife scumbags of the world!"
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 8:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor:

"The second explanation is ideological blindness. It is what I have elsewhere argued is the path dependent, ideology-driven compulsion to believe and say stupid things because your belief system and world view demand that you believe and say things that might conform to the ideology but which simply don't pass the smell test."

"This drives many of the bizarre and easily disproven climate alarmist claims."

Why bring the Climate Change debate into an otherwise fine informative article?

Your unsubstantiated dismissal of the climate change science - of the measured and recorded impacts on the Polar Ice-caps, and on glaciers, and in sea-level rise and changes in oceanic currents and temperatures, with incursion of invasive species previously unrecorded in many oceanic sectors, and changes in world weather patterns generating more, and more intense, storms and floods and droughts and devastating bushfires - is of course without substantiation, because there is no legitimate substantiated proof for such a dismissal available.

A pity to so naively cast a verifiable smidgen of doubt over the whole of your otherwise credible offering.

Not perhaps indicative of any personal 'ideological blindness'?
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 6 October 2020 10:41:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's some victory lap, Paul. A bit more fun, at the expense of the 4444 Catholic "losers" who went to the Royal Commission. AKA, the tip of the iceberg.

But we're as divided as ever. For some, Pell is the real victim. For others, Pell is a coward who saw and heard no evil, then coined the self-serving Melbourne "response". Who carries a pro forma list of allegations against his own person.

On top of that, he joins his bestie Abbott, in openly acting out his prime allegiance to a foreign power. One word for that in our language is "traitor".
Posted by Steve S, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 9:39:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn: “Question we all need to ask is Why did Judge Mark Weinstein dissent in George Pell's Victorian appeal?”

As one would expect in an appeal case, he came to his conclusion after rigorously analysing all the evidence.

Surprisingly, there has been little discussion of a report on Victoria’s Court of Appeal by Victoria’s former chief crown prosecutor Gavin Silbert QC. published in the Australian Law Journal. The Australian of 23 July 2020 reported:

Victoria’s Court of Appeal has been rocked by a landmark legal study finding that 18 criminal judgments under its president, judge Chris Maxwell, have been overturned by the High Court.

The report … concluded that during Justice Maxwell’s reign the court had “cast off its near-perfect record”.

“The first 10 years of the Court of Appeal in its criminal jurisdiction saw its judgments affirmed on 10 occasions and reversed twice by the High Court,” Mr Silbert writes in his report

“The next 14 years (under Justice Maxwell) have seen the Court of Appeal’s judgments reversed 16 times and affirmed on six occasions, with a large number of its decisions criticised, particularly in … sentencing ...

The Silbert report covered the first 24 years of the Court of Appeal and contrasts the Maxwell court in unfavourable terms with the court under the decade-long rule of judge John Winneke from June 1995.

“The first 10 years of the court (under Justice Winneke) are notable on two counts; first, the relatively few grants of special leave by the High Court and, second, the fact that only two decisions of the Court of Appeal were reversed,” Mr Silbert finds.

“The next 14 years (under Justice Maxwell) are notable for an increase in the applications for special leave to appeal and the number of judgments reversed on appeal.”
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 11:58:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

Obviously you're happy just as long as it would lead to getting Pell off the hook.

You're like the Joh Bejelke-Petersen supporters who didn't care if a jury was stacked just as long as Joh got off the hook?

You are a machiavel as well as being a pseudo-intellectual.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 12:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The case brought against Pell was rather fanciful. If I recall correctly, none of the alleged victim's evidence was substantiated.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 1:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

I suppose you're right. Thinking that a Catholic clergyman could ever be a pedophile is rather fanciful isn't it.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 2:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Thinking that a Catholic clergyman could ever be a pedophile is rather fanciful isn't it.'

probably like thinking someone with arts degrees could ever be a pedophile is rather fanciful isn't it?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 2:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom and runner,

I assume neither of you could bring yourself to believe that it might be possible that a judge could ever be 'got at' just the same as neither of you could bring yourself to believe that a Catholic clergyman could be a pedophile.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 7 October 2020 5:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite the rantings of the local village idiot, Pell stands unconvicted of any crime.
Posted by shadowminister, Sunday, 11 October 2020 6:09:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadyminister,

I am absolutely positive that I saw in the news and on TV that Pell was found guilty and sentenced to prison for child sex abuse.

Unless I didn't see it and just imagined it. Is that what you're saying?

But I'm sure it happened ......... unless I'm going mad!

Did anyone else see it? Or was it just me?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 11 October 2020 6:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadyminister,

Look what I just found:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pells-full-sentencing,-as-issued-by-peter-kidd/10897650

It's not me, it's you!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 11 October 2020 7:12:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp Donkey,

"To overturn the jury verdict, the High Court had to be convinced a serious miscarriage of justice had taken place.

The High Court, in essence, agreed with Pell's barrister Bret Walker SC that the onus of proof appeared to have been reversed."

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

What is clear is that the original conviction was a serious miscarriage of justice due primarily to the incompetence of the Victorian judges who have had a plethora of judgements against them.

Pell's slate has effectively been wiped clean and is innocent of the charges.

I guess your ignorance on this issue is due to your universal ignorance.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 12 October 2020 8:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shadyminister,

I think we all know what happened.

One of the three Victorian judges dissented and it opened the door for Pell to appeal to the High Court for an acquittal and I think the High Court judges were compelled to dismiss the charges in light of the fact that one of the Victorian judges had dissented.

It's how you interpret the events that now matters and I think there is a big question mark over what took place.

Pell got off the hook but the jury is still out.

This is one for the historians and sociologists to sort out. Makes for good history and social analysis.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 October 2020 8:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Self-opinionated,

No. The jury is NOT still out. The accusations against Pell were found by the highest court in the country not to stand up. The highest court in Australia. There is no higher court to have recourse to. End of.

Move on. I don't like it any more than other lefties. But we can either keep picking at scabs, or move on. There are other issues to complain about.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Monday, 12 October 2020 9:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pseudo-mouth,

I'm a sociologist looking for the truth.

And I think there is a big question mark hanging over the events surrounding Pell's appeal and subsequent acquittal.

Like I said, leave it to the historians and sociologists to figure out.

And let all you sheep get on with your lives and complain about other issues as you put it.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 October 2020 10:03:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp donkey,

I am staggered by your level of ignorance, do you live under a rock or are you simply too dim to grasp the concepts involved. Here are some simple facts:

1 The high court (HC) is the highest court in the land and is not bound to hear any appeals or decisions of lower courts such as the Victorian supreme court whether the decision was unanimous or had a dissenting opinion. Before the HC will hear a case, the defence has to make a strong case that there was a manifest failure of law or process in the trial.

2 That all 7 of the HC judges independently came to the same conclusion that the trial was a serious miscarriage of justice and the strength of their decision casts serious doubt on the competence of the trial judge.

3 There is not a legal system in the western world that in a criminal trial will accept the uncorroborated word of one involved person as sufficient for a guilty verdict. The trial judge did just that and in doing so put the onus of proof onto the defendant.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 12 October 2020 12:26:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shadyminister,

We don't live in an ideal perfect world where everybody is honest and trustworthy.

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.

You obviously believe judges to be honest and trustworthy.

History tells me differently.

And I think there is a big question mark hanging over the events surrounding Pell's appeal and subsequent acquittal.

Like I said, leave it to the historians and sociologists to work out.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 October 2020 12:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shadyminister,

I found this bit of recent information that might be of interest to you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/former-magistrate-bob-harrap-pleads-guilty-to-charges/12495224

So you can see now why people like me have concerns.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 13 October 2020 6:59:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp donkey,

That people cannot be entirely trusted is the basis for the successful appeal. The prosecution relied entirely on the personal statement of one witness that potentially stood to gain a huge financial payout in the event of a guilty verdict yet could not produce a scrap of corroborating evidence to verify the witnesses testimony.

This level of testimony would not be accepted as sufficient for a conviction in a criminal case anywhere in the western democracies, in fact even in a civil case where the onus of proof is far less this would generally be rejected.

Finally, whenever I see someone saying "there are still questions to be answered" this means that the person saying this has run out of any real questions and is resorting to vague innuendo.

Pell has been found innocent and is now in a position to sue Victoria for gross injustice.
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 13 October 2020 9:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shadyminister,

You are missing my point.

I think there is a big question mark hanging over the events that led to Pell's acquittal and I think that we need to wait until the historians and sociologists do their research and come up with their conclusions in order to get to the truth.

That's just the way things get done.

Surely you don't think you will get to the truth by asking lawyers what they think: out of the pseudo-intellectualism and into the pseudo-intellectualism and never the truth.

Asking a lawyer what's right in life is like asking a gaol prisoner to fix a hole in the prison fence.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 13 October 2020 9:28:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp donkey,

Really? what is the question? Or is this just feeble innuendo on your part?

Perhaps the question is why the prosecution of Pell was even allowed to proceed given its legal weakness. Note that a similar case against Shorten was dropped given insufficient evidence.
Posted by shadowminister, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 2:04:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shadyminister,

Like I said, leave it to the historians and sociologists to work out.

I have a good hunch about what took place and I think the State committed an injustice against society.

So I'll be very interested to see if I'm correct.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 2:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp donkey,

This is a legal question about which historians and especially sociologists know bugger all. (you included)

An injustice against society and Pell was committed by breaking with more than 100 years of legal precedent to allow a person to be convicted with a blatantly insufficient level of evidence and essentially requiring him to prove his innocence.
Posted by shadowminister, Friday, 16 October 2020 6:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm .......... Questions arising about money from the Vatican.

Who would have suspected.

Mr Opinion - that's WHO.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 12:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swamp donkey,

Bollocks, you were all about "asking questions" about the defence. As the money was to help the prosecution it makes your argument weaker.
Posted by shadowminister, Thursday, 22 October 2020 10:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy