SM,

"rummage through a roommate's belongings" or watch a roommate (Ridsdale) bugger a boy in your (Pell) presents, which Pell did. SM you are quite entitled to defend one of your own. Just as I have no desire to defend the grub Jonathan Doig, as far as I am concerned the bastard can rot in jail forever, regardless of the fact he was a failed Greens candidate in the seat of Cook, that has no relevance. Unlike you who sees Pell's conservatism as a reason to defend him, regardless of what he had done.

Thanks again to Banjo for explaining the difference
between justice and the law. Hopefully the day will come
when reform will happen in our justice system in this country
as far as sexual abuse cases go and
the High Court will not interfere in the decisions made
by a jury trial supported by a Court of Appeal majority vote.

Thanks again to all those who were able to remain civil despite
differences in opinions - and did not have to stoop to personal
attacks and try to lower the bar of this discussion.

It is people like you that keeps rational posters coming back.
As David Fisher says - Thank you.

A good comment on Feeble Francis comes from a German cardinal: 'The Pope is closer to climate change than he is to God'.

Isn't the Pope infallible according to the Church's
traditional and conservative teachings? And Isn't
climate change connected to God - the all ultimate
powerful and infallible Deity?

God is ultimately in control. Scripture is clear that
God is sovereign over everything (Psalm 115.3) including
the weather (Psalm 148.8).

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I wish to thank you for that excellent excerpt from Louise Milligan’s book “Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell”.

You have provided me with the answer to my question : “Did B’s death trigger A’s decision to report the purported sexual assaults to the police ?”

It certainly did.

That settles a major interrogation in my mind. I now have no hesitation in considering that Pell v The Queen highlights once more the inadequacy of our current justice procedures to deal effectively with sex crimes.

Though the general principle of the presumption of innocence may rightly be considered a sound moral basis for judging most crimes, this is not true for some of the worst in terms of severity and frequency : sex related crimes. These include rape, sexual assault, incest and paedophilia, which are permanent features of all human societies, deeply embedded in our social structures at all levels and penetrating the inner circles of the family in epidemic proportions.

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form, justice is counter-productive. It achieves exactly the opposite result than that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it. It is headed in the wrong direction.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but according to the Rape Statistics by Country 2023, Australia has the 11th highest rape rate in the world (28.6 per 100 000 citizens). By comparison, The US is 13th with a rate of 27.3 per 100 000 citizens.

In the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. Indications are that the situation is no better anywhere else in the world.

.

(Continued …)

.