shonkyminister

"Paul is the serial paedophile poster as he can't seem to manage to brush the convicted green paedophiles under the carpet."

As I've said on numerous occasions on this forum, when YOU, have without provocation made reference to paedophiles in the Greens, I HAVE NO TRUCK WITH SUCH PERSONS you have jack sh!t, one Jonathan Doig, a failed candidate at the 2019 federal election, got what he deserved, JAIL. The other you refer to was some person who was a failed candidate at the 2012 local government elections. I don't know that persons name, and what I was told was he had exploitative images on a computer, I was also told the case didn't proceed to a conviction as the police couldn't establish the age of those people involved.

YOU SIR, on the other hand very much get your rocks off by posting hundreds of references to paedophilia and paedophiles on this Forum. YOU recently claimed the convicted paedophile JAMES HAYWARD a sitting MP of the NATIONAL PARTY in WA, who in October 2023 was sentenced to 2 years and 9 month prison for sexually assaulting a 6 year old girl for a period of 2 year, YOU described HAYWARD'S actions as a "minor transgression" the judge didn't agree with you calling it "serious offending". You've been told by others on the forum, several times, you don't look good with this fetish of yours about paedophilia.

Its unfortunate that this web site has allowed you to vent your preoccupation with paedophilia and paedophiles for years despite its claim that it has zero tolerance for such behaviour. You bring it up unsolicited on any thread, whenever you can. Have you ever noticed even those with the same political bent as you, don't back you up, they obviously don't want to be associated with you or your fetish.

Village idiot,

I am glad that you are getting help for your fixation with the convicted green paedophiles and understand that their crimes were not minor transgressions as you claimed.

I hope you spread this message to others in your party.

shadowminister,

I understand what you are doing, you are trying to goad me into retaliation by labelling you for what you most likely are. I'm not going to do that. Then you will run off to the moderator with another of your complaints "Look sir he's calling me a name", you've done that before with a reference I made to you and the Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant, like a public school boy brat you had a bitch to the moderator,
oh boo-hoo.

Shadow Minister,

Cardinal Pell was found guilty by unanimous jury verdicts
further supported by a Court of Appeal majority of two
judges. The High Court decision undermined confidence in
our legal system especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions..

Pell got off on a legal technicality. And it left a substantial
body of public opinion totally disheartened - including the
families of victims.

As for Shorten? - no charges were laid in this single accusation.
The police found there was no case to answer.

It's a different story with Alan Jones. Which is what this
discussion is all about. Jones like Pell - has a history of
abuse allegations. Not a one of accusation.

He's faced accusations many times in the past not only in this
country but also in the UK. He's also been forced to resign
from positions of trust in several jobs. Now, more than just
one person has come forward with accusations that refuse to
die down. Hopefully in Jones's case - he will face trial
and we shall see what the courts decide.

Jones has made a career of holding others to account.
He now should be man enough to face his accusers in court.

Foxy,

Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges. The original trial Judge and the Victorian appeal court verdicts were erroneous and undermined the fundamentals of the criminal justice system.

Your claim that the police found that Shorten had no case to answer is a lie and we have been through this before. The statement from the police is that there was insufficient evidence.

"Bill Shorten — who had been subjected to a decades-old rape allegation — was told Victoria Police would not proceed with the case for lack of evidence and identified himself."

As for the case against AJ, all we have is the SMH article and rumours. Not one accuser has actually come forward. Apparently, for you actual evidence is irrelevant.

I have yet to see one word of criticism from you of the two Greens convicted of paedophilia.

"Cardinal Pell was found guilty by unanimous jury verdicts"

Verdicts. Only one found him guilty. Or is that too technical for you?

" Court of Appeal majority of two judges".

The Court of Appeal majority found that there was no legal reason to overturn the jury verdict. They made no findings on his guilt or otherwise. Or is that too technical for you?

" The High Court decision undermined confidence in our legal system "

Well it certainly upset those who seek retribution rather than justice. But for most of us, the HC decision overturned a massive Victorian miscarriage of justice.

" including the families of victims."

Again the plural. Only one person claimed victimhood.

"Pell got off on a legal technicality. "

Just some background here. Foxy was, from the get-go, anxious that Pell be punished for the crimes she was sure he'd committed. That there was no evidence for the crimes didn't worry her, just s she's not worried that there is currently no evidence of supposed Jones crimes. So when Pell was found guilty she was cock-a-hoop. Doubly so after the Court of Appeal decision. She claimed vindication and demand that all doubters recant and accept that Pell was a paedophile. So the HC decision was devastating for Foxy, proving that she not only didn't understand the evidence (or lack thereof) but didn't understand the Australian legal system. So she went searching for a salve and found some equally clueless dolt who wrote a fact free opinion piece making the claim that it he got off on a technicality. I've explained to Foxy several times why that's wrong but she just wants it to be true and that Trumps all good sense.

"As for Shorten? - no charges were laid in this single accusation."

There was no evidence against Shorten other than the accusation itself. Just as for Pell. But the accusation was from a woman. Whatever happened to "Believe all Women"? As I've said before, we have to believe all women but only when they are accusing people the left don't like