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 > General Discussion > Pell: Disgraceful Decision

Pell: Disgraceful Decision

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. 60
  9. All
Pell was doomed by the ABC and other Left media because he was/is a social and political conservative. They hate the Catholic church, and they wanted to nail high-ranking priests. Because of the sensationalism and hatred displayed by the media, he was never going to get a fair trial. Hopefully an appeal will reveal the absurdity of a conviction based on mere accusations and zero evidence
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 9:19:58 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
Pell's political views had nothing to do with it. He was found guilty because a jury believed the witness.

The accusations did seem far fetched, but the court process left the jury in no doubt. They heard a lot more about it than we did.

I'm not going to comment further until after I've seen 4 Corners next Monday.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:26:30 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
I must say from the onset that I am not Catholic, was made to attend C of E Sunday school as a child and I have nothing but contempt for 'kiddy fiddlers'.

I have read all I can find about this case and for the life of me I cannot see how Pell could be found guilty. I fact I am at a loss to see how it ever got to court. I have yet to see one shread of evidence by the prosecution.

The whole case is simply one persons word against another. No evidence was put, only allegations. How can a case be built on that?

Until now I thought that it was up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

This case sets a precedent in that a person can be found guilty in a court of law by accusations alone. A man can be found guilty of rape by false accusations of a woman he dated many years ago, without any supporting evidence. My cleaning lady could be found guilty of theft on my accusations alone, again no evidence provided. We are now all vulnerable to guilt by accusations alone in our courts.

Australia must be the laughing stock in the democratic world.
Posted by HenryL, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:33:51 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
Moral: don't upset the alphabet crowd.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:43:40 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
A Suppression order had kept Cardinal Pell's
convictions out of the media to ensure a
fair trial. Reporters sat in court for
months forbidden from reporting a word -
unable to publish a word of what they heard
and saw.

The Court had ruled that the interests of justice
were paramount.

The Suppression order has finally been lifted
but -
there's the Appeals process to follow.

Much is being discussed about this very sad and
shocking case and will undoubtedly continue to
be discussed for many years. One thing should
however be made clear - this was a trial of
Cardinal Pell for performing abominable acts.
This was not a trial of the Catholic Church.

It was up to the prosecution to prove its case.
In the end the jury's view was crystal clear.
The verdict was unanimous - Guilty!

I guess it's up to whether we believe in the
jury system.

In his succinct but powerful closing comments
the Defense Lawyer asked the jury to consider
how would the complainant have known the layout
of the priest's sacristy, and that there were wooden
panels, a storage cupboard, a kitchenette and
sacramental wine in there?

It was not a place where choirboys were allowed to
enter. Yet the complainant was able to describe the
room in detail. We might ask ourselves how would he
know that unless he was there?

How does he know about the concealed alcove area without
actually being there? How does he know its a storage
kitchenette kind of thing and there being a wood-
panelled area if he's not been in there? How does the
complainant know that that was where the wine was kept?

The jurors were asked to consider the overall impression
the complainant left on them. Did he strike them as an
honest witness? Was he someone inventing things or was
he simply someone telling it how it was and is. A
person genuinely recounting events experienced as a 13
year old through the eyes of a 34 year old?

It appears that the jury believed the testimony of the
claimant.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:54:56 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
I left the Catholic church decades ago. I think much of their doctrine is herectical. Much of my family are still Catholics. The first thought that came to my mind when found guilty was Lindy Chamberlain. It is almost impossible to see how the accussations against Pell were beyond reasonable doubt. Just look at the lying leftist media and swamp that has been caught out time and time again in America recently. Our own abc is among the lying leftist media swamp. It was impssoible for Pell to receive a fair unbiased trial after decades of lies, accusations and slurs many of them proven false and often pushed by the abc and other catholic hating media. Again I could not care less about the Catholic church. I do care about truth and justice.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:19:47 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
I am so religious that I didn't even get married in a church, & have never set foot in a catholic church. In fact I am close to despising the catholic system in particular, but this is even more disgusting.

I very much doubt this, or any such rape case, if it is more than a few months before it is reported.

The way our law now is, any clown/life failure can get some attention simply by claiming someone of some person of public interest raped them in some dim dark distant time.

What a pile of garbage.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:35:20 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
Strange how, if this info is true did the defense not demonstrate it in court.

Both Bolt and Devine point out the attack is meant to have happened after Mass, when Pell would usually have spent time speaking to worshippers and that it happened in the sacristy, which is a busy room that someone could have walked into.

They also note Pell was normally accompanied everywhere he went by the master of ceremonies, Monsignor Charles Portelli. Their views echo an article written by Father Frank Brennan who also pointed out his concerns with some of the evidence presented.

“Anyone familiar with the conduct of a solemn Cathedral Mass with full choir would find it most unlikely that a bishop would, without grave reason, leave a recessional procession and retreat to the sacristy unaccompanied,” he wrote in Eureka Street.

He also noted that the priest’s garments could not have been pushed aside in the way described and it was “impossible to produce an erect penis through a seamless alb”.

An alb is a long robe which is worn with a belt called a cincture. It doesn’t have any zippers or buttons but has small slits on the side to allow access to trouser pockets underneath. It is worn underneath an ornate vestment called a chasuble.

“The complainant’s initial claim to police was that Pell had parted his vestments, but an alb cannot be parted; it is like a seamless dress,” Father Brennan wrote.

“Later the complainant said that Pell moved the vestments to the side. An alb secured with a cincture cannot be moved to the side.

“The police never inspected the vestments during their investigations, nor did the prosecution show that the vestments could be parted or moved to the side as the complainant had alleged.”

Father Brenann said the idea that the offences were committed right after Mass by a fully robbed archbishop in the sacristy with an open door and in full view of the corridor “seemed incredible to my mind”.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/why-the-complainant-in-george-pells-trial-was-so-compelling/news-story/c2737320de6619d82f101973eb02e96f
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:40:03 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
Oh come on people, when the bloke's own defense lawyer talks about the offending only as a 'plain vanilla sexual penetration case' any consideration of whether or not he did it must surely go out the window.

This is not someone protesting his innocence through his lawyer but rather one seeking to excuse the act as a minor transgression.

Not rocket science.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:26:31 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
Foxy,
The trial is now over, so why is not the accuser's statement available verbatim? Plus what he told the police. The accuser did not give any evidence at the trial, his statement to the first trial was accepted and as far as I know he was not cross examined.

The fact is that there were no third party witnesses or other evidence presented by the prosecution, yet a guilty verdict was given. We must question how this is possible and it speaks poorly of our legal system when guilt can be found without evidence.

That should be of concern to all. It is one thing to be worried about the welfare of possible victims but quite another if an innocent man is hung.
Posted by HenryL, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:30:58 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
It's not about the Catholic church or Pell himself; it's not about how horrible child abuse or paedophilia is. It's about JUSTICE. If an appeal does not right this massive breach of justice, then Australia is not a very good place anymore. None of us will be able to rest easy. HenryL has summed up the evidence issue, and the necessity of the prosecution proving guilt. No other accused person has ever been subjected to trial by media, police incompetence, and the hatred of nasty activists like Pell has been in my lifetime.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:31:01 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
Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

"Moral: don't upset the alphabet crowd."

The moral must surely be leave our kids alone. And further why are you trying to defend a convicted pedophile? Is your hatred of the left so pervasive that this is what you are reduced to?

Shame.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:31:57 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
However, I am somewhat confused by the defense lawyer's 'vanilla' sex comment , as mentioned by SR. That IS going to take some explaining.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:35:56 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
John Ellis, Sydney lawyer and the survivor of a
priest's sexual abuse stated -

"Pell will be judged by history. Has he lived
honourably and compassionately.
Has he been merciful and humble. Has any life breathed
easier because of his conduct as a priest, archbishop,
cardinal or senior Vatican bureaucrat? Did his war on
victims and survivors of abuse make the Church better or
has George Pell been one of the Catholic Church's own
worst enemies? "

http://www.smh.com.au/national/history-will-judge-george-pell-the-cardinal-who-sought-to-crush-me-20190227-p510ma.html

Father Brennan, Jesuit priest and lawyer told Leigh Sales
on the 7.30 Report:

"Nevertheless, 12 decent, conscientious Australian
citizens off the street listening to the evidence
of the victim and listening to everything that was
outlined including the improbabilities say we are
absolutely convinced that Cardinal Pell did something
dreadful to this young man and his companion.
That leaves us with a Leadership which in terms of
public credibility has been absolutely shattered."

He also stated that the jury was convinced that
this had happened and that he accepted the verdict.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 12:54:26 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
Foxy

it has always fascinated me why you stay in an organisation that you seem to despise and are willing to think the worse of. I understand that neither you or I can really say Pell was guilty or innocent but what I don't understand is that you have been a willing paticipant to bag the Catholic church at every opportunity. What keeps you there?
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 1:23:16 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
I'm open to different opinions, but it gets to the pathetic stage where one Lefty waits for the ABC (Four Corners) to tell him what his opinion is, and the other one parrots off what other people think, including the ABC and the Left press, as she usually does. The very organisations who ensured that Pell was never going to get a fair trial. Thanks everyone else for using your own brains, including SR, who reminded me of the bizarre comment made by one of the best defence lawyers in the country. With a defense lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor! Perhaps it's time he retired.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:02:41 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
'"Pell will be judged by history.'

Sorry Foxy Pell will be judged by God like every other human being. History will be read through bias eyes and narratives or rewritten.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:14:00 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
runner,

I believe in the faith. What I criticise is the flawed
institution. I support the good that
the Church does. What I criticise is the failure
of the Church to deal with so many man made
laws that it has the power to change. The failure of
the Church to deal with the sexual abuse of children
effectively has done immeasurable damage to victims.
The cover-ups, the protection of abusive clergy and
the refusal to admit egregious mistakes are
unjustified.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:14:32 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
Foxy,

"In his succinct but powerful closing comments
the Defense Lawyer asked the jury to consider
how would the complainant have known the layout
of the priest's sacristy, and that there were wooden
panels, a storage cupboard, a kitchenette and
sacramental wine in there?"

That is a perfect example of misleading information, I've been in literally hundreds of Catholic Churchs around the world and never saw one in which the Sacristy was not frequented by altar boys, teachers, parents and anybody else who wanted to see the priest when he was in there, not to mention the cleaning staff and the devoted ladies who usually look after arranging the flowers.

Then there are all the weddings when those immediately concerned retire to the sacristy to finalize the paperwork.

The Sacristy is not 'the holy of holies'.
My answer to the lawyer would be because the witness walked in there and had a look.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:14:50 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
cont'd ...

runner,

Thank You for asking me your question.

Personally I am still optimistic that Catholicism
in Australia will survive, as it always has.
But to achieve that Catholics will require genuine
leadership and a willingness to confront both the
difficulties and the opportunities that the Church
faces. My feelings is that we are uniquely placed in
Australia to be able to do precisely that - despite
the latest damage to people's trust and to the
reputation of the Church.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:25:11 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
Tim Flannery who has often made pathically flawed climate predictions once said of why he thought Lindy Chamberlain was guilty

'Her religion was one factor. The Chamberlains were Seventh-day Adventists and media reports of the strange practices of their "cult" (as we were led to think of it) included inferences of child sacrifice that did not strike me as beyond belief. At the time I was one of many Australian scientists fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom, and fundamentalist beliefs were seen as the enemy.'

To his credit he has apologised for getting it wrong. Maybe one day he will apologise also for his failed predictions. I suspect Pell's 'religion' really influenced the jury more than facts.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 2:30:39 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
Is Mise,

You may have been in many churches around the
world (so have I) - and yes, the sacristy
is usually a hive of activity. However -
St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne has two
sacristies. There is a general sacristy and then a
priest's sacristy that is off-limits and a
complainant would not be able to describe it in such
detail, (certainly not a choirboy) unless he'd been
in there.

Anyway, be that as it may, ultimately it all came down
to whether the jury accepted Pell's complainant
testimony - beyond a reasonable doubt. After two and
a half days of watching and listening to the evidence,
they did.

The guilty verdict made the complainant a victim and
Australia's most powerful Catholic a convicted child
sex offender.

His lawyers have lodged an appeal against the conviction and
it will be months before an outcome is known. But it will
not stop Pell from being sentenced next week and in the
meantime it is likely he will await his fate from a jail
cell.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 3:09:35 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
I'm reminded by an article in Quadrant that both George Pell and Philip Wilson (another one convicted on dodgy, if not non-existent, evidence) were first to instigate action against paedophilia, despite the refusal of the then top man to do anything. Pope John Paul decreed the abuse scandal to be a “communist plot". How strange that two men now declared to be criminals stood up to the Pope on the matter.

James Franklin, the author of the Quadrant article, says of the 'evidence’ against Pell, there is “little of it”; and it “It consists just in the complainant’s account”. Franklin also points out that in the first trial, the jury voted 10-2 for an ACQUITTAL.

Franklin also says that our faith in trial by jury is “naive”. Personally, my skin crawls at the idea of being judged by some of the people I know who have done jury duty.

Something else I'm uncomfortable with is that Pell has to await his appeal in jail.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:35:36 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
'Personally, my skin crawls at the idea of being judged by some of the people I know who have done jury duty.;

yep you are guilty ttbn because you don't believe in man made gw and you say homosexuality is a perversion. Just ask the abc who really have done a pretty good job of covering their own deviants.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:42:24 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
Thanks Foxy and Steele,

As always the forums usual suspects will trumpet their utter disgust for paedophiles, BUT quickly condemn the victim, and the media when the perpetrator is "one of their own", as is the case with Archy Pell. All it tells me is this mob are more accepting of filth, providing its their own filth, that they are of opposing political philosophy. Do you believe if it was some lefty notable, and not the conservative Pell on the rack that they would be so contemptuous of the verdict.

The Pope held some pious talk fest of a couple of hundred old men in Rome last week on the subject of "Paedophiles in the Church". By the Churches own admission there must have been at least a dozen kiddy fiddlers wearing the purple or red funny caps. And they are the ones who are going to fix the problem, what a joke.!
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 28 February 2019 5:28:15 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
Dear Paul,

It's all very sad really. Catholicism is in my blood.
The faith is very dear to me. I would expect a
practicing Christian to demonstrate empathy for
victims of abuse - well ahead of any concern about
legal cases, costs and consequences. I would expect a
member of the clergy to want to protect the vulnerable,
to be attuned to signs of distress, to investigate as
to the cause(s) and to act.

In 1996 Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" which offered
inadequate support for victims. Then as Archbishop in Sydney
in 2001 he managed the Church's response but again -
fighting every step of the way. The following year he stood
aside as he was accused of molesting a former altar boy
at a camp in 1961. Apparently the molestation charges
against him began way back - when he was just a Seminarian.
He also protected his mate - Ridsdale - the notorious
pedophile and even accompanied him to Court so the man
would get a lower sentence. Then in 2012 Julia Gillard
ordered the Royal Commission - Pell promised full
co-operation. We know the results of that promise.

For any-one still in doubt about this man - I would recommend
getting hold of a copy of the book - "Cardinal: The Rise and
Fall of George Pell." by Louise Milligan.

This book is now finally available across Australia and
worldwide after court suppression orders required the book
to be withheld from sale until the judicial processes were
complete. I know I tried to get a hold of it ages ago -
and was told - nope, we can't sell it due to legal bans.

In the book the author pieces together decades of
disturbing activities and cover ups by Australia's
most powerful Catholic Leader who became Vatican
Treasurer and adviser to Pope Francis.

Worth a read - if you want the full picture.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 7:01:39 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
'All it tells me is this mob are more accepting of filth, providing its their own filth, that they are of opposing political philosophy.'

coming from a Greens supporter! psss! save us your hypocrisy Paul.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 7:13:12 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
Foxy,

"My answer to the lawyer would be because the witness walked in there and had a look."

As I said, invited or not.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 February 2019 7:36:14 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
The boy was 13 years so was old enough to be able to reject any advances, and if it happened, where was his parents that it took 20 years to come to court?

What is the current financial payout to the victims? I think it is now a good time to accuse if you are in for the money. I was physically abused by Catholic nuns when I was six. Anyone one know if nuns can be charged with physical abuse? What is the payout for nuns?
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 28 February 2019 8:40:14 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
Identity politics gone mad. From what I heard George Pell was made out to have the moral depravity of the hillbillies from Deliverance. Shocked and saddened by this decision.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 28 February 2019 9:15:53 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
Foxy,
From reading your posts, I gather that you hold George Pell in such disdain that you care not if he gets a fair trial and you do not care if his trial sets a precedent relative to persons being convicted by allegations and not by reasonable evidence. Such a precedent would affect all Victorians, if not all Australians

I hope a future appeal will be upheld and the case dismissed or new trial ordered for the benefit of us all. The current situation is that Pell was convicted without any evidence presented. Soley on statement by his accuser.

In my opinion that is simply not good enough. I certainly want to see proven abusers pay dearly for their crimes, but it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case I expect the appeal to be upheld.

It is not the first time a court has wrongly convicted someone. I suggest the cases of Lindy Chamberlain and Pauline Hanson are good examples
Posted by HenryL, Thursday, 28 February 2019 9:17:53 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
HenryL.,

Cardinal Pell received a fair trial. 12 decent and
conscientious Australian citizens off the street
listening to the evidence of the victim and
listening to everything that was outlined including
all the improbabilities were absolutely convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardinal Pell did
something dreadful to this young man and his companion.
The jury were convinced that this happened.
I accept the verdict.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 February 2019 9:39:56 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
Dear Henry,

Thank you for your comments. Well said!

This case instils horror in me and must increase any honest person's anxiety, of being thrown in prison for some crime we have not committed. Who cares about left, right or centre - it is now more likely to happen to any of us at random.

Prison is a horrendous place and it is so cruel and wrong to throw people in there. One could argue that it is necessary in order to protect society from dangerous persons when no alternatives are present, but how possibly could a 77-year old frail gentleman still be dangerous?

For this selfish desire for revenge, it is not George Pell that is punished, but the rest of society who will have that many more nightmares and anxiety-based illnesses including heart attacks and strokes as a result. The victim himself has and will suffer the most for being unable to forgive for over 20 years.

---

Dear Josephus,

«The boy was 13 years so was old enough to be able to reject any advances, and if it happened, where was his parents that it took 20 years to come to court?»

Neither you or I, nor anyone else in this forum, I believe, would have told our parents under the circumstances, since they would then also find out that we committed the great crime of desecrating the blood-of-Christ.

By failing to forgive Pell and going after him even over 20 years later, the victim sabotaged his own life and ability to forgive himself. The other victim even lost his life as a result. What a pity.

---

Dear Foxy,

«it is likely he will await his fate from a jail cell.»

We may not know Pell's fate, but Pell himself does already and need not await the verdict of some human court.
He knows what he actually did or did not do in his life and that like the rest of us, he will have to account for it all in the final judgement before God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 February 2019 9:57:01 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
'Cardinal Pell received a fair trial. 12 decent and
conscientious Australian citizens off the street'

amazing how you could know that Foxy. So the previous jury were not. You write some pretty dumb things. I was once on a jury for a similar charge. The jury was not what I describe 12 conscientious Australian citizens.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:21:48 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
Foxy knows that Pell had a fair trial. She knows that the jury men and women were “decent and
conscientious Australian citizens”.

Piffle! She knows nothing of the kind. The jury listened to what the complainant had to say, and chose to believe it; 'evidence’ was not involved.

No decent person would say that justice has been served in this case.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:28:51 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
Yuyutsu,

"Neither you or I, nor anyone else in this forum, I believe, would have told our parents under the circumstances, since they would then also find out that we committed the great crime of desecrating the blood-of-Christ".

What are you on about?

How could anyone get to the consecrated wine other than the Priest and the Communicants?"
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:39:51 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
Dear Is Mise,

«How could anyone get to the consecrated wine other than the Priest and the Communicants?"»

According to the testimony in court: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

"The former choirboy said they “were being naughty kids having a look around” when they came across a bottle of altar wine and started having a few swigs.

But soon, Pell appeared in the doorway, alone and dressed in his archbishop’s robes."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:01:24 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
Yuyutsu Quote "dressed in his archbishop’s robes." Then consider what I posted about the robes and something does not add up, BUT why did the defense not raise that issue?

Also with the amount of sexual abuse cases involving priests lately, I would put money on some of the 12 having a closed mind rather than looking for beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:58:58 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
Foxy, it’s no surprise the boy knew the layout of the sacristy. In an interview, the mother of the second boy, now deceased, said that her son had told her that the two boys used to go and play in that room.
So, naturally he could describe it.
Posted by Big Nana, Friday, 1 March 2019 12:26:32 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
The forums hard right paedophilia apologists, and we have several here, are looking for any excuse, any out, they can find for Paedophile Pell, bush lawyers the lot. Not one apologists sat in the court room, listing to the detailed evidence as it was presented.

Josephus used the old line of the apologists, blamed the victim, or the parents of the victim, but oh no don't put blame on the perpetrator, he's one of our own. Josephus your're big on hell, how about we let Pell rot there!

Pell got a fair trial, and he was found guilty by 12 good citizens. That's good enough for me.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:34:47 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
Paul, So Pell's first trial was not a fair trial as the jury were not convinced he was guilty. So in your opinion a person must be tried until a guilty verdict is arrived at. That is why we are concerned a fair trial it was not. It was a show trial against the Catholic hierarchy.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 1 March 2019 6:41:05 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
Nor were they convinced he was innocent! Put whatever spin you want on it. At the moment the grub stands convicted. If circumstance change and he was to walk away a free man in the future so be it, but that's in the future, and no one knows the future.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:09:42 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
Dear Big Nana,

Pell has a history of child abuse going
way back - to the days when he was a
Seminarian. It wasn't just one
witness who has come forward -
there were many who are no longer around.

The fact remains the jurors found the man
guilty. They believed the complainant in
this case. I believe in the jury system.
It may not be perfect - but it's all we've got.
Lets wait and see what his appeal will do. We
need to go through the legal process.

Philip S.,

Regarding your claims about the Cardinal's
robes - they do have slits that allow access to
the trouser pockets. Pell's lawyer confirmed that.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:26:00 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
Seminarian
Foxy,
that word's a little close to the subject :-)
Posted by individual, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:52:43 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
It may not be perfect - but it's all we've got.
Foxy,
Yet they expect us to be perfect !
Posted by individual, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:56:31 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
Yuyutsu,

Bottled altar wine is just wine, it is not consecrated until the Consecration in the Mass, after that it is consumed by the Priest and the Communicants (if Communion is in both forms, rather rare in Catholicism in Australia), any that is not used is locked in the Tabernacle on the altar. As it is the practice in Australia to consecrate only sufficient for the priest then rarely is any consecrated wine on the premises.

As an altar boy, I swigged my fair share of altar wine and it wasn't a particularly good drop.
When I was molested (in a mild way) I told my father (as written earlier) and he knew full well that altar boys had a taste of the wine as did the priest.

"Neither you or I, nor anyone else in this forum, I believe, would have told our parents under the circumstances, since they would then also find out that we committed the great crime of desecrating the blood-of-Christ"

There was no desecration so your supposition is invalid.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:20:47 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
Foxy,

Have a look at Yuyutsu's link, seems that the sacristy was 'a hive of activity' after mass and that Pell was not using the Archbishops Sanctuary.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:41:46 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
“Pell has a history of child abuse going way back”

Where is the evidence for that claim, Little Miss Libel? 'Witnesses' 'coming forward'? What do you call a witness? Someone who actually saw Pell committing acts that you allege? A victim of of these alleged acts? Or just someone who makes up stories that can be neither proved or disproved? Hearsay, in other words.

If you were anybody other than an anonymous trouble-maker cackling away at a keyboard, you would find yourself in court, Foxy, answering for your wild, unsubstantiated accusations. The delight that you and Paul 1405 are getting out of this gross miscarriage of justice is palpable. It's a good chance for embittered, disappointed losers to vent their rage at someone far above them.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:46:17 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
I'm not au faix with priests' rainments, so I'll leave any discussion of that clothing to the experts here who claim familiarity. But here are a few words from an unnamed Catholic priest who probably does have some idea:

“The flimsy case against Pell rests on the absurd idea that, while wearing a cope, over an alb, tied with a cincture, over a cassock, over street clothes, he sexually assaulted two choirboys, during High Mass, while leaving the door open. If that defies logic, this is not about logic.”

Another priest who has worn a robe or two himself, also offers this:

“A bishop wearing cope over an alb, tied in with a cincture, over a cassock, cannot sexually abuse anyone. This is surreal.”
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 9:02:54 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
Dear Is Mise,

Thank you for your explanation about sacramental wine.
I stand corrected.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 March 2019 9:39:07 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
Yuyutsu,

That's OK, see my post in Articles in reply to you on the same subject, I'll bet the 2014 Brother John May Reserve Release Shiraz at $110 a bottle doesn't get used up in Masses, nor even in masses.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 10:06:31 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
One of Foxy's mantras over the years is to judge not. Well the hypocrisy is so clear to see. She is in the mould of the lying feminist who accused Kavannaugh. All about sides and ideology not truth and justice.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 March 2019 10:32:48 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
I don't understand these personal attacks on me.
I take no "delight"as some claim in this very, very,
sad controversy. Nor am I venting any "rage."
The ones doing the venting are others. The claims
against Cardinal Pell are on the record. There have
been multiple accusations going back to the 1960s.
These cases were dropped due to victims dieing.
Not due to findings of innocence. Here is a timeline
link that gives the dates:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/rise-fall-george-pell-timeline

More details are given in the book I cited earlier.

My husband was educated at a very well known Catholic
school. He was an altar boy throughout his childhood
and is familiar with the robes the clergy wear.
Also, while studying Architecture and Town Planning
at Melbourne University he did a thesis on St. Patrick's
Cathedral in Melbourne. He was given access to all the
inner spaces and structure.

He also has first hand knowledge from fellow students who
had been sexually abused by their School Principal. The
Principal's "favourite" lad put his father's shot gun to
his chin and blew his head off. That Principal was moved
to another school to continue his work.

Many Catholics still strongly believe in our faith but
trust is going to have to be built from the ground up
by bishops and priests before their pronouncements on
morality will be taken seriously again.

runner,

It wasn't me who judged the Cardinal. It was a jury of
12 Australian citizens who found him guilty - despite
all the "ïmprobabilities"presented to them. They believed
the complainant.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 11:13:37 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
Paul,
You mentioned "detailed evidence". That is exactly what I have been and still am looking for. Except for the accusers statement all has been disclosed. So why has not the accusers statement been made available?

I have no truck with Pell. If I see any evidence that shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt I will change stance immediately and advocate maximum penalty. I am one who advocates capital punishment for heinous crimes.

But I believe guilt has to be proven. In this case there is no proof, it is simply one persons word against another. I have yet to see anything to indicate it should have gone to trial and lack of evidence by the prosecution should result in acquittal.

Maybe the defense did not take it seriously enough and, thought lack of evidence, took it too easy. If that is the case they were wrong.

A precedent has now been set for all Victorians to be convicted by the courts on accusations alone.
Posted by HenryL, Friday, 1 March 2019 11:45:33 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
Foxy doesn't “understand these personal attacks” on her. Well, there are no 'personal attacks' involved in the acts of other posters responding to her often ludicrous and uninformed comments. So obviously convinced of her own infallibility and superior knowledge of every known subject is Foxy, it is natural for her to think that it is her interlocutors who must be at fault. A large ego can be such a bother if you intend to mingle, online or in real life, with other human beings. At least copping a serve on the internet is far safer and preferable to some of the results we see in real life when differences of opinion occur. On OLO, we can all air our views in comfort and safety. That should be enough for anyone, in this increasingly nasty and violent world.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 11:50:03 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
As a matter of interest in robes 'evidence',the police never inspected the vestments during their investigations, nor did the prosecution show that the vestments could be parted or moved to the side as the complainant had alleged.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 12:41:01 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
According to ttbn it seems that there were no "personal"
attacks involved to my "ludicrous and uninformed"
comments and that apparently - I am so convinced of my own
infallibility (he knows me so well) and my superior
knowledge of every known subject that in his opinion it is
natural for me to think that my "interlocutors" (?) must
be at fault. See I always knew he was a fan!

Wow!

He then goes on to analyse - that it's my large ego
that's a bother for my mingling online or in real life.
Funny, I've never had a problem - most people usually
warm to me.

Anyway folks, we certainly can learn a great deal on this
Forum as you can see. Gotta love posting here! He's being
so nice - but then that's his moniker - ttbn - or try to be
nice. Suits him so beautifully - don't you think?

Now back to the topic...

As far as the sad controversy regarding the Cardinal is
concerned what now needs to be asked is - was the
verdict unreasonable? Did the jury really deliver a verdict
that was not supported by the evidence?

These are questions for the Appeal Court. We can only hope
that the complainant can find some peace and is able to
get on with his life which ever way the Appeal goes.

If the appeal succeeds it sends an incredibly damaging
message to survivors who may be thinking about coming
forward in future cases. If it fails we can only trust that
Cardinal Pell, heading for prison won't be an unwitting
victim of a wounded nation in search of a scapegoat.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 1:41:15 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
Pell should employ this mob of rabid right apologists as his defence team. They are such experts on everything from how he couldn't get his dongger out of his trousers, to the layout of his play room.
I don't care for none of that, all I know is at the here and now, George Pell is a convicted paedophile, and the forum has a bunch of paedophile apologists on board trying to find an out for the Catholic grub. Go for it lads!

cont
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 2:28:57 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
cont

Hi Foxy,

Do not be concerned, you do in fact offer the voice of reason on this. The apologists will attack you for doing that because through your presentation of the truth, not their concocted nonsense, you show them up for what they are, a paedophiles apologists fan club.

Often these Catholic paedophiles felt so in control that they would commit their vile act in the present of 30 others. One example, and I was in a class of 12 year old boys in 1965, but not a victim. A Catholic teaching "Brother", would on some pretext send a boy to the back of the room, his victim. After a while he would order the class to do written work, heads down, eyes to the front. Then he would proceed to the back of the class, where he would then fondle the boy with one hand, whilst masturbating himself with the other. How do I know this, the victim would tell a mate later what took place in the class room. What eventually happened was this brother became so "hot" for even the Catholics, a parent, not a victims parents, but a mates, complained to the head, that they moved the predictor to another school, where he would have carried on his vile deeds. The Lads will say I made this story up for dramatic effect, I don't care if they do. I was going to give my mates real name here, but thought better of it. He died of a drug overdose in the early 1970's, aged 20. Did the paedophile brother cause his life to spin out of control, only to see him die at an early age, I can't say, but it didn't help that's for sure.

The stories of Catholic paedophiles are as varied as the number of paedophiles themselves, nothing is beyond what they can do, and are still doing today in more than half of the Catholic world. I personally know of four "brothers" who were paedophiles, and none as far as I know ever paid for their crimes.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 2:39:47 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
Give it a rest, Paul. If the appeal is dismissed you can indulge your self-righteousness to your heart's content. If it is upheld you can pretend the trial never happened.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 1 March 2019 3:15:48 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
Paul,

Didn't you tell your parents what was going on?

If not, why not?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 4:19:07 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
fester, was I addressing YOU, so give it a rest, and I'll post what I like, is this YOUR forum?

//Shocked and saddened by this decision.// shocked that one of your heroes has been brought down, saddened that he will do time.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 4:22:26 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
Hi Issy, a good question, what goes around in adolescence boys heads aged 12 in 1965, is far different to what's in the head of a 65 year old in 2019. In those days "brothers" were seen as extremely powerful figures in ones life, to be revered. The term paedophile was not known to us. As for parents, I suspect my mother, a practising Catholic, if in some way I had the courage to tell her, would not have believed that of a "brother". It would be more or less "go on with you, such nonsense, you say some silly things". My Father, although not a Catholic, would be far more difficult to tell, he would most likely be of the opinion "That kids old man should get up there and knock that bastards head off." and that would be the end of it for him, he always knew, so he said many times, the Catholics were no bloody good.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 4:52:20 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
Dear Paul,

There are so many horrific stories that my husband
can also tell from the Catholic school that he
attended. Whatever the outcome of the appeal -if
this trial achieves nothing else - hopefully
it will have shown a light on the dark
recesses of the Church - which hopefully will
result in changes being made.

Frankly I can understand how difficult it is for believers
to fully accept the possibility of what could be true.
I think that no one would really deny that the sexual abuse
of children is horrendous and intolerable and that the
failure of the Church to deal with it effectively has done
immeasurable damage to victims. As I've stated previously,
the cover-ups, the protection of abusive clergy and the
refusal to admit egregious mistakes are unjustifiable.

I don't think that we have even begun to calculate the
damage these crimes have done to people's trust and to the
reputation of the Church.

All we can do now is wait for the results of the Appeal
Court. Either way - those that believe in our legal
process will have to accept the decision of the Court.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:10:08 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
cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

I forgot to add - Thank You for your kind words.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:13:24 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
probably the only crime worse than rape is to convict an innocent man. The only crime worse than Paedophille is to convict an innocent man. In America the Democrats and have shown they are happy to do that for political purposes.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:26:41 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
runner,

The Appeal Court will decide the guilt and
innocence of Cardinal Pell. And those of us
who believe in the legal process will accept the
results. It will be in the best interests of
the survivors, of the Cardinal, of the Roman
Catholic Church, and of the wider Australian
Society that this saga is finally laid to
rest.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:41:17 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
runner, Got that above in before me.

Juries have come to the wrong verdict on a fare few occasions, some have had people sentenced to death only later to find the person was innocent.

I previously posted about the robes, also in the same article this was stated "“Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him,” Father Brennan acknowledged in his article.

“The jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.”"

** Also the two kids allegedly were in the sacristy where they were swigging sacramental wine. That statement alone has them committing three crimes trespass, theft, and underage drinking. **
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:42:43 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 Brennan interview on the 7.30 Report did nothing for Pell's case. Pell chose not to give evidence in his own defence, which was his right. Pell's defence barrister spent a whole day cross examining the accuser, before the jury, obviously unable to break the prosecutions case in their eyes.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 March 2019 6:31:01 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
Paul,

You inferred that anyone questioning the verdict was an apologist for paedophiles, so yes you were addressing me. The legal process is not complete. Your bile and bravado will change nothing, but it will reflect on you.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 1 March 2019 6:43:03 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
“ most people usually
warm to me.” (Foxy).

Now there is a MASSIVE ego.

Moving onto to someone else who would find it hard to buy a hat big enough, but much more interesting, Milo Yiannopoulos believes that the charges against George Pell were so easy to make because there is “almost nothing” the public (and jurors?) won't believe about Catholics and priests in particular. And Milo, having written a book called 'Diabolical: How Pope Francis Has Betrayed Clerical Abuse Victims Like Me – and Why He Has To Go”, knows a thing or two about the matter in hand.

Milo's research revealed to him that there are almost no depths to which the “progressive Catholic hierarchy” will not sink to to damage its political enemies. George Pell was one of those enemies of the “lavender mafia” of powerful “left-wing gay bishops” in Rome. He acknowledges that Pell “championed” the problem of child abuse long before Rome took the problem seriously. He believes that Pell's guilt is 'astonishingly unlikely”, but that juries “don't need much persuasion that Catholic priests are no good”.

Pell was hated by the bishops after he was called in to clear up the “multi-million dollar corruption” in the church. When he was interviewed by Australian police, and after he returned to Australia to defend himself against the sex abuse charges, his financial investigation and reforms stalled, and “sinister forces” controlling the Catholic church “seized the reins again”.

Coincidence? MY claims that there have been warnings from within the Catholic church for years that Cardinal Pell was going to be “stitched up”.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:01:03 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
Paul,

As I said earlier, I was molested by a Brother as were others, and we told our fathers who took appropriate action, that was around 1945.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 7:45:50 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
I remember the Public School Doctor fondling us when I was about 10 to determine our testicles had properly formed. Is that worthy of child molesting, as he also did it to all the boys in my class. Because I can still remember this embarrassing moment it has affected me.

We need to now put in place private shower cubicles in public swimming pools. As men of all ages expose themselves in the open showers. A child might be offended by the sight of an adults genitals in the shower next to him. He could claim the person next to him indecently exposed his genitals toward him in an open shower.

In child molestation cases we are told that the child is always to be believed. However the accuser is no longer a child in this case and can manipulate evidence.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:39:30 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 Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on evil or on goodness but it does represent a significant western tradition that should be valued. Those that abuse children are everywhere sometimes the abusers are even women- think "Munchausen syndrome by proxy"- it often comes down to abuse of power- the overthrow of Pell may be just part of this power struggle. That's why objectivity in law is important- but as they say the first tragedy in war is the truth- there is the propaganda and there is the real reason. We need to protect ourselves and our traditions for our survival.
Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:55:12 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
Paedophiles prey on both boys and girls, why are the homosexual paedophiles never identified as such'

It seems to be that young boys are the preferred victims of these homosexual predators.

As Pell has been found guilty of same-sex activity with minors why is he not categorized as homosexual?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 March 2019 9:28:04 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
ttbn,

More insults.

Saying about me - "Now there is a MASSIVE ego."

Why do you keep following me around and dissecting
my every word - if, as you've stated so many times
I don't matter to you - then, as far as my EGO is concerned
skip the "E" and let it "GO."
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 March 2019 10:07:01 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
Foxy,

Well, you do have a massive ego. Anyone who claims that other people 'warm to them’ suffers from a huge overdose of self regard. Apart from immediate family and perhaps a few longtime friends, people don't have a clue what others think of them. And it doesn't matter.

However, as your are clearly unable to deal with criticism, and are used to getting away with being a know-all, I will do my best to to ignore you. I certainly don't want to cause you any more problems than you already have
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 March 2019 10:40:45 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
Issy, I am interested in what was "appropriate action" in 1945?

Of course any appeal by Pell has to have grounds, simply I didn't like the verdict isn't good enough in itself.

“There was a fundamental irregularity in the trial process, because the accused was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel as required,” the appeal, filed by Pell’s barrister, Robert Richter QC, reads.

It is one of three grounds for his appeal that were filed on 21 February.

Pell also takes aim at the reliance of the jury on only one victim’s evidence.

“The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, because on the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged exculpatory evidence from more than 20 crown witnesses, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the complainant alone,”

It seem Pell's appeal is based on technical grounds and not on the direct evidence.

Josephus, as you desperately try to find an 'out' for Pell, all you are doing is digging yourself into a bigger hole as a paedophile apologists.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 March 2019 5:48:05 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
Paul,

"Issy, I am interested in what was "appropriate action" in 1945?"

Go back and read my posts.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 2 March 2019 7:11:46 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
What is it issy, some cryptic answer, I can't be bothered. I don't read every post anyway.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 March 2019 7:42:26 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
Present two groups of people with essentially the same evidence. One group decides unanimously that the evidence proves the guilt of the accused. The other group decides 10-2 the exact opposite.

It’s difficult to see how this shows other than that the evidence wasn’t comPELLing. In the end the case resolved to a popularity contest between two people telling two very different stories neither of which were, nor could be, supported by any other evidence.

Pell lost that popularity contest. It seems clear that he was seen as a proxy for the Catholic Church which has become, for a variety of reasons, severely discredited within society and particularly with certain groups within society.

That a man can have his liberty withdrawn based solely on the accusations of another who happens to be or claims to be a member of a more favoured group is highly problematic. Our civilisation has been based on presumption of innocence and our judicial system, developed over the past millennium, was designed to ensure that the presumption of innocence was protected.

Gaoling someone because they are a member or a leader of a disfavoured group is fraught with ill-omens for the society. That the decision may be overturned on appeal is cold-comfort. What has happened to Pell forebodes ill-winds for justice in this society into the future.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 2 March 2019 8:04:15 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,

You were the one who made the statement that
it was " my large ego" that was a bother for
me mingling online or in real life. I merely
responded that I've never had that problem.
That in my experience people warm to me.

You again continued with the insult - "Now
there is a MASSIVE ego." No, that has nothing
to do with ego - it's what I have experienced.

It seems that it's you who has a MASSIVE problem
not me. I get the fact that you don't like me -
and I'm fine with that. But I won't stay silent
when you rant on and say things that simply are not true.
I would appreciate your keeping your word
and ignoring me in the future.
That would be great!
I shall try to do the same with you - unless you again
overstep the line. Stick with kindred spirits on this
forum - if you can find any.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 2 March 2019 9:32:23 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
mhaze,

Apparently the jury found that the evidence
compelling. According to The Guardian newspaper
jurors were given very strong directions
by the chief judge about factors to consider. Jurors
were told it was not enough to believe the complainant,
or to think that Cardinal Pell committed the abuse.

Jurors were told they had to believe the abusing
happened beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it was not
safe to convict and they must find Cardinal Pell not guilty.

They were also told repeatedly and on multiple days they
were not to make Cardinal Pell a scapegoat for the
Catholic Church and its failures to children.

They were warned almost daily against doing their own research
into Cardinal Pell or talking about the case, and were told
they could go to jail if they did so.

These were not points made in passing. They were drilled into
jurors by the chief judge.

As for being convicted on the evidence of one person and
whether or not this is fair? The Guardian explains that there
were 14 witnesses called by prosecutors. But, there was only
one first hand witness who gave evidence - the complainant.
A large part of the prosecution's case necessarily hinged on
his testimony. It's explained that this is not at all
unusual in sexual abuse trials which are known as "word -on-
word" cases.

It's explained that it used to be that the law could not give
weight to a single complainant's evidence unless there was
also a witness who said the victim told them about the
abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing the
victim was distressed immediately after the attack. This may
be according to The Guardian why Cardinal Pell's lawyer
Richter made so much of the fact that the victim did not
speak out until he was an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to
victims - so evidence requirements have now changed.
There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not
speak about their abuse until decades later.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 2 March 2019 11:01:21 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
Paul,

"What is it issy, some cryptic answer, I can't be bothered. I don't read every post anyway"

and I can't be bothered repeating myself for your lazy benefit.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 2 March 2019 11:39:38 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
Is Mise,
Be prepared for another sex abuse crisis for the RC church as now apparently nuns and other lay women are speaking out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-16/catholic-church-headed-for-another-sex-abuse-scandal-nunstoo/10817270

Apparently there is now a group called 'Voices of Faith' made up of catholic women.

I saw one statement that vastly many more victims than was uncovered by the child sex abuse scandal
Posted by HenryL, Saturday, 2 March 2019 11:43:11 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
cont'd ...

mhaze,

The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down
to the complainant's word.

To ensure trials are still fair legislation now requires
the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance
any unfairness against the defence of complainant when it
comes to word-on-word cases.

Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the defendant
may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant cannot specify
the time of the alleged offence) and is at significant forensic
disadvantage due to the passage of time. They are told it is
up to prosecutors to prove guilt, not up to the defence to
prove innocence.

They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims to
forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to report only
as an adult.

The jurors in the Pell case were given clear, repeated
directions along these lines.

Finally those who argue about the robes Pell wore during
the offending should be made aware that the robes
were brought into court and tendered as an exhibit.

The jurors were able to examine and hold these robes in
their jury room during deliberations.

Monsignor Charles Portelli demonstrated to jurors how the
cincture was tied around the waist. It was pointed out that
having a cincture around the waist did not restrict
movement from the waist down. The jurors saw the robes,
were able to hold them and heard all the evidence from
both parties as to their manoeuvrability.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 2 March 2019 12:22:04 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
The Elizabethan protestants would have been delighted with the bringing down of Cardinal Pell. They would have burnt him at the stake, as would many modern-day Australians, given the glee and the mouth-foaming mania that Pell’s dodgy conviction has brought on. What a great opportunity it has been for the Marxists, Leftists and progressives to channel all their hatred of Catholicism (their greatest enemy) into a single, high profile Catholic. Australia is still a little too civilised for them to hunt down and destroy random Catholics as Robert Cecil’s secret service did for Queen Elizabeth 1.

But it seems that an open season is in the offing: nuns now having the spotlight turned on them. How long before it’s Catholic school kids, local simple parishioners, and what about those choirboys, drunk on communion wine. And, why not that tax-avoiding St. Vincent de Paul mob, and other Catholic charities?

Still, it will take pressure off the Jews for the time being. The maniacs who are preoccupied with Pell at the moment hate all non-Islamic religions
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 2 March 2019 1:44:00 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
It matters not who the protagonists are nor how much direction the Judge gives the Jurors when there is no evidence, then there is doubt and the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the accused.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 2 March 2019 1:51:31 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
Paul,
No doubt you will be dancing in the street at the prospect of further claims of sexual abuse to bring ill repute on the RC church. You will hide that glee in false concern for any victims. Such hypocrisy!
Posted by HenryL, Saturday, 2 March 2019 3:10:57 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
Allegations from Cardinal Pell's past have continued
to surface over the decades. Finally in 2017 he was
charged with historic sex offences against multiple
complainants which lead to last year's conviction.

The most important issue now is not just reforming areas
of the church relating to allegations of child sexual
abuse but increasing transparency across the entire
institution. People want the leaders to speak frankly
about the problems and the desire to get greater
transparency within church structures.

As for what happens to Cardinal Pell now? The
Appeal Court shall decide. After all Cardinal
Pell did say:

"It's all gossip until it's proven in a court."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 2 March 2019 3:20:12 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
From what I'm reading at the moment it is the pope who should have been in the dock. He has done nothing about child abuse. When asked why, the weasel said "Who am I to judge?". He is from a part of the world where communists have an 'enormous influence' on the Catholic church, and Francis certainly leans a long way to the left. And he has welcomed back into the fold priests expelled for child abuse by his predecessor, Pope Benedict, who resigned in anguish at the state of the Vatican.

The communists see the Catholic church as the force behind Western democracy more than another other institution. The future might see Francis as the last pope following his wrecking of the church.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 2 March 2019 8:26:11 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
Yes yes Foxy, all of what you say is true or at least arguable.

But the fact remains that these 12 people were ultimately tasked with deciding between two competing stories with no other evidence which allowed them to weigh one against the other.

Only three people knew what happened on the day in question. One of them went to his grave asserting nothing had happened. Yet a man is in gaol having been found guilty of molesting a man who said he wasn’t molested.
Another says nothing happened. A third says multiple assaults happened.
How to choose between these stories? Generally there’ll be some other corroborative evidence that gives weight to one over the other. But this time there was none.

The jury had the options of deciding to believe the claimed victim, believe the accused or decide that they could discern ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ between them. That they chose to believe the claimed victim based solely on his story is a miscarriage of justice, or at least of the justice that this society used to believe in.

These people came into the jury room with all the baggage of a life lived. We all carry with us prejudices based on what we’ve learnt or been told. The unrelenting attacks on the church over the past 2 decades have affected societal attitudes to the clergy. That comes into the jury room.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 March 2019 7:09:09 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
/cont

It’s all very well for the judge to admonish the jury to leave those prejudices out of their considerations, but it’s easier said than done. I recently visited Sydney and saw signs around challenging people to “unsee this” ie having seen or heard it, you can’t simply choose to not see or hear it. It’s interesting that the judge was confident that the jury could achieve this unseeing but not confident that they could recognise that a map of the church showing where everyone approximately was during the alleged incident was merely a representation. This will be part of the appeal.

In the end, a man is in gaol based solely on the assertions of another man. The jury decided they preferred to believe one over the other. Pell’s legal team decided that he wouldn’t testify because he didn’t need to prove his innocence and that the prosecution needed to prove his guilt. In this they were legally right and in the past it was correct. But they failed to see the new paradigm because Pell was already guilty in the eyes of an unrelenting media and anti-Christian social campaign. Pell needed to prove his innocence and failed to do so. That he shouldn’t have been required to do so is by-the-by.

This is a very significant change in our justice system. That it’ll probably be reversed on appeal only partial mitigates the disaster that has befallen our society.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 March 2019 7:09:43 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
George Weigel, writing in 'First Things’ refers to the “perverse verdict” in the Pell case, and asks if anyone else has noted the fact that the Cardinal “did not have to return to his native Australia to face trial”. As the holder of a Vatican diplomatic passport, he could stayed put if he was guilty. He would have been untouchable but, knowing he was innocent, he returned home to clear his name.

Weigel is a friend of George Pell, but it's a damn good question; one I have asked myself many times but haven't put to the hyena pack.

George Pell trusted Australia and Australian justice; he was wrong to do so.

Pell was first accused of sexual abuse after he became Archbishop of Sydney. He stood down - and was completely cleared of the charges.

Since then, there have been unfounded rumours, innuendo and anti-Catholic filth from the usual subjects and the unconscionable media. A “Niagara of calumnies (has been) poured over Cardinal Pell from both political and media circles”,until now, when the hyenas are picking over Pell's bones.

The justice system that Cardinal Pell trusted has let him down. He, as well as all reasonable Australians will never trust it again.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 3 March 2019 8:42:05 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
mhaze,

This case can be argued in many ways. However the
jury was given specific directions over and over
again, they inspected the robes,
they listened to the complainant, heard all the
improbabilites, and they decided according to the legislation
in place for sexual abuse trials - which are known
as "word-on-word" cases. The court of Appeal will now make
the final decision. It is very rare that ab Appeal Court
overrules that of a jury decision - but we shall have to
wait and see.

As for Cardinal Pell returning to Australia to face the
charges - he didn't in the first case - he was declared
by his doctors to be to ill to travel. However, the
Vatican may have influenced him to later make the trip
for the reputation of the Church. It can also be argued
that a man of Cardinal Pell's standing may also have
been convinced that he was above the law or alternatively
as his own lawyer pointed out in his "vanilla" statement -
so what's the big deal here - no serious damage was done.
Cardinal Pell after all did tell the Royal Commission
that sexual abuse cases were "not of much interest
to him"when he was asked why he defended and protected
his mate - the notorious pedophile -Ridsdale.
Cardinal Pell is now a convicted pedophile. Perhaps
sexual abuse cases should have been öf "interest""to him.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 March 2019 10:44:44 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
mhaze,

Here's a link that lists some of the allegations about
Cardinal Pell's behaviour that have followed him for years:

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/allegations-about-george-pells-behaviour-have-followed-him-for-years/news-story/7fe9b7b0742e08fa8a31c9d8e35d9634

There's much more in the book "Cardinal..." by Louise Milligan.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 March 2019 3:28:24 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
Foxy,

and that's all that they are, allegations.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 3 March 2019 5:25:19 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
Is Mise,
You are right, Foxy appears to have made her mind up and condemned Pell well prior to this trial as she has referred to previous allegations and appears to think they should have some bearing on the outcome here. Well they do not and nor should they.

I keep coming back to the accuser's statement which has not been released. Does it contain information that makes Pell guilty? Louise Milligan indicated it makes the accuser believable. What does it contain that it has to be kept secret? The jury took 2 1/2 days to decide on the verdict so it has to be contentious.

Then at the first trial the jury could not agree on whatever it was
Posted by HenryL, Sunday, 3 March 2019 7:22:26 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
Foxy,

"Here's a link that lists some of the allegations about
Cardinal Pell's behaviour that have followed him for years"

Yes Foxy, you are making my case for me. Pell wasn't found guilty because the evidence was compelling, he was found guilty because a hostile media doing the work of a hostile anti-Christian lobby convinced enough people that there must be a fire where there's smoke. Lots of allegations that couldn't be proved or even processed by a bias police force convinced enough people that he was guilty of something. You seem to be confirming that.

"It is very rare that ab Appeal Court
overrules that of a jury decision"

But not rare enough for your liking I'd wager...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/former-catholic-archbishop-philip-wilson-wins-appeal-has-conviction-overturned-20181206-p50knr.html
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 March 2019 9:14:43 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
mhaze,

Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson's case is
different from that of Cardinal Pell in so
many ways. Archbishop was not convicted as a
pedophile. He was accused for concealing child
sex abuse done by another priest. And this charge
was hard to prove. The offending priest had been
charged with other child sex abuse crimes and he was
convicted before dying in jail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/philip-wilson-sex-abuse-conviction-overturned/10595040
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 March 2019 9:41:33 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
cont'd ...

Cardinal Pell was found guilty because a jury
of 12 having listened to the very strong
directions by the chief judge, having listened to
the 14 witnesses called by prosecutors, having
heard one first hand witness who gave evidence -
which is apparently the procedure followed in
"word-on-word"sexual
abuse trials, having had all the improbabilities
pointed out to them, and having inspected the
Cardinal's robes, unanimously convicted the
Cardinal. The evidence that was presented to them
they found to be compelling to come to this
conclusion.

What the results of the Cardinal's Appeal will be
neither you nor I have any way of knowing. So wagering
on this issue would be a waste of both our time.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 March 2019 9:53:49 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
Hey, fellas. There is no point in arguing with a termagant.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 3 March 2019 10:28:58 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
Guys I don't want to go off topic but as usual, I've been following this one and the usual suspects come out spouting words of wisdom that can only be believed by them.
The argument that a jury of 12 convicted him, is little to no comfort to us, as it has already been said, judging by the details of the trial, this has been one heck of a judicial stuff-up.
And as has been mentioned, NO I do not have faith in the people to make the right decision.
Why should anyone?
What makes the 'people' so smart as to have the intellect to make a judgement call based on reason and common sense, when I have observed all my life, a clear lack of these elements in Australia.
I don't particularly care for what he is being charged with, but so as to put balance back in the discussion, I believe there have been other religious or general institutions that have been found guilty of the same thing as Pell was charged with.
Now it will come as no surprise to my detractors, but I don't particularly care about the so called victim.
Big deal, what a wimp, he should be grateful, he grew up a little more because of such incidents.
He got his 'rocks off', so what.
Imagine for a moment if he/they had been forced to have sex with a nun?
You do-goody types have no idea, we would wearing a beaming smile for days.
The moral of these stories is GROW UP!
We are facilitating a world of pansies.
If what I have read about the evidence, or lack of it, and the way the trial was conducted, all I have come away with, is questions.
And as such, I begin to explore the world of conspiracy's.
As much as some people live in fairy land, bad things are the norm out there.
Imagine if such people were on this jury?
How did it go from 10/2 to acquit, to guilty?
Judging by previous jury verdicts, I thought this one was conspicuously quick.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:35:55 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
//and that's all that they are, allegations.//

Not so Issy, the 1997 allegation, has gone from being an allegation to a proven fact in a properly constituted court of law.

//Big deal, what a wimp, he (the victim) should be grateful, he (the victim) grew up a little more because of such incidents. He (Pell) got his 'rocks off', so what.//

What a perverted mind we have here, another PAEDOPHILE APOLOGIST.

You would never want your son near this sort of person, he might want to grow them up in his own peculiar way!
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 March 2019 3:43:45 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
Dear Paul,

There's no point in arguing with reprobates.

Watch "Four Corners" tonight on Pell.
It will be a real eye-opener.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 9:17:14 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
“ … usual suspects come out spouting words of wisdom that can only be believed by them”.

They live in an echo chamber. Some of them actually get to sit on juries: now there's a really scary thought! Just imagine being up before the beak, especially if you are a Christian or worse, a Catholic, knowing that there could be a Foxy or a Paul on the jury, all fired up by Four Corners or Q&A, to put you away. George Pell is the victim of people just like our two leading SJWs.

The termagant is looking forward to Four Corners tonight so that she get even more second-hand bile to belt out as soon as it's finished, and on and on and ….. it will go for the rest of the week. Her bigotry is beautifully expressed in her assuredness that the program will be a “real eye opener”. Has she read the script? Even if it doesn't live up to her bloodthirsty expectations, she will have her own interpretation of it.

The 'Dear Pauls’ and 'Dear Foxys’ will fill the ether with hatred. My advice is to ignore them; they will eventually exhaust themselves.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:03:34 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
If ever there was a good case for judge-only trials by choice, this sorry business is it.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:07:01 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
Dear ALTRAV,

You write;

“Big deal, what a wimp, he should be grateful, he grew up a little more because of such incidents. He got his 'rocks off', so what” .... “ You do-goody types have no idea, we would wearing a beaming smile for days.”

I had no idea you were a supporter of the Australian Man/Boy Love Association (AMBLA). You are using similar arguments to them, have about the same amount of front, and have about as much regard for the victims as they do. I think you might be reading from one of their cue cards.

Look this might be a norm in your culture but it isn't here, rather we rightly regard it as highly offensive.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:15:23 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
Oh sure, Four Corners, the Bastian of balanced, un-biased reporting.
Here is an example of 'head in the sand', reasoning.
What is wrong with you people, you follow the piper who best plays YOUR tune.
Is that how it works?
I am curious as to what actual physical violence was unleashed on this kid, that it took so long for him to report it.
Come on, I might go overboard in my attempt to bring the discussion back into focus, but I do absolutely not condone the destruction of an old man some many decades later, about NOTHING.
I am disgusted at this new revelation using the word 'historic'.
Why is it so many things have a 'use by date', such as the statute of limitations, but no when it is convenient for some one to gain from some 'historic' event, it's suddenly OK to dredge all this filth out of the swamp, for no good reason.
All these people like Crosby, Rolf Harris and so on, what was there to gain by jailing them, so many years after the 'alleged' events.
And yes in particular those of you who never grew up and are quick to judge and comment on such matters, you have your skeletons too so stop acting so pious and virtuous it's not working, those of us who have been exposed to these things know about them, not you.
So if you don't mind because of your ignorance on this topic, you would do yourself a favour and refrain from commenting or giving an opinion.
I read all the new topics as they appear, sooner or later, and you don't see me sticking my nose in talking as if an authority on all or any topic, as you do.
As someone who has experienced and seen much of the world as I have, I can safely say I take precedence on commenting over you do-gooders, because of your lackings.
I can say being a man, based on the evidence I find it hard to believe the accusations, not saying there is not some truth in them.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:35:12 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
Paul,

"... has gone from being an allegation to a proven fact in a properly constituted court of law"

Subject to appeal, and one cannot see how the appeal will not be upheld, going on the "evidence" so far presented to the public.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 4 March 2019 11:03:19 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
Steely, keep up lad.
My reference to getting his rocks off was purely anecdotal, you are welcome to make of what you will.
The other pho-par was your integration of two separate accounts, ie; the reference to 'beaming smiles', refer to the result of a young boy having been 'taken advantage of' by a nun, or any older woman for that matter.
Again, if you live in fairy land or with your head in the sand or are un-aware of the 'real world' that surrounds you, you will not be aware of these facts. And if this is so, why are you people commenting on them?
Judging by your flawed emotional and intellectual states, you have shown again and again a lack of knowledge about the real world, or at least the world you interact with out side of your homes and minds.
You call what these people have done, 'disgusting'.
I call what the system has done to the accused, 'disgusting'.
This word 'historic', is just another fabrication by those who do not have a hold on reality and have influenced those who seek to benefit from these unrealistic demands.
So much for a 'fair go' and reason and common sense.
Again Aussies prove to be well below par in the maturity stakes.
Tell you what, keep voting for the queers and the abo's and let's see how well we're doing in another 40 or 50 years time.
Morons one and all, at least I know who and what I'm talking about.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 11:22:38 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
TERMAGANT, Love it!
Never heard the word before, so grateful to those who brought it to our attention and repeated it thereafter.
I can't believe how accurately it describes certain people.
Thank you for enlightening us all with such a well suited word.
Carry on.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 11:37:19 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
One question I had was about the first trial which delivered a mistrial because an 11 to 1 or better verdict could not be reached.

Various right wing commentators claim it was 10 to 2 for an acquittal. Others have said it was a 6 – 6 split. However I'm not sure how they would have known unless one of the jury members broke the law and revealed it.

In fact even the judge did not know the tally and warned them “Whatever took place in that jury room must stay there.”

Obviously there were tensions as at least 5 of the jurors were in tears when their verdict was delivered. However I would be extremely hesitant to trust anyone claiming to know the first jury's tally.

Among the jurors for the second trial was a church pastor who given the verdict was unanimous also believed Pell was guilty. That is good enough for me even if an appeal court decides against the verdict on the grounds on unreasonableness.

Dear ALTRAV,

Since you have not denied membership of AMBLA then I will take it as a given.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 4 March 2019 11:57:58 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
Foxy, SR, et al,

There are two aspects of this trial, there is the crime itself, and then there is the outcome of the trial based on the evidence.

As an atheist from a protestant background I have no love for the Catholic Church or Pell especially given his involvement in protecting the Church from the consequences of the abuse of children, and I believe that if he committed the crimes, then he richly deserves to die in jail. However, the other aspect is whether the verdict is justified based on the evidence.

Given that the evidence appears to be based entirely on the testimony of a single individual with no other witnesses, and the general rule that one person's word is not consider sufficient for a criminal conviction, the lack of any corroborating evidence of any kind in this case would appear to indicate a significant risk of the judgement being overturned.

That the judge excluded evidence from the defence is another weakness.

Another danger is that if the verdict is overturned, Pell can sue the state for wrongful imprisonment, and given his position he will get $ms.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 March 2019 12:44:38 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
Dear Shadow Minister,

Have you by any chance read the powerful open letter written
to Andrew Bolt by Ballarat victim's wife. She explains
things much better than I ever could. Try reading it for
yourself if you can. I've hit a paywall when I tried accessing
it for a second time. She argues the case and answers all
the arguments being made - point by point. It's really worth
a read:

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5934280/ballarat-victims-wife-pens-powerful-letter-to-andrew-bolt/?cs=13390
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:05:53 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
Dear Steele and Paul,

The following link gives us another insight into
what victims and their families go through:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-no-longer-rule-our-world-the-message-from-pell-accuser-s-sister-to-powerful-cardinal-supporters-20190301-p51121.html
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:25:04 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
Foxy,

All forced sexual conduct leaves life long scars and suffering, however, the repulsiveness of a crime does not abrogate from the simple fact that there needs to be sufficient proof to convict.

One only has to refer to a recent case where a woman made a complaint to the police about being raped many years before, and because of the lack of witnesses or corroborating evidence, the case was not even taken to court on the basis of an inability to convict.

Your lack of sympathy for the victim here would appear to be based more on the accused being Bill Shorten, rather than George Pell.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:32:46 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
In Quadrant Online today, Peter Smith (referring to the Pell case) suggests that “there is a sad lack of understanding among some of the system of justice based on English Common Law”. He is, of course, talking about ‘reasonable doubt’.

If a person accuses another of an offence years ago, there are three scenarios: the accusation is true; the accuser is a liar and it never happened, or the accuser firmly believes that the offence did happen, but it really didn't.

An independent observer (or juror) would have “no way of discerning the truth beyond reasonable doubt”.

Without corroborating evidence, with reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction. It's really quite simple. Unfortunately, some of the public, the media and those unfortunate enough to have been forced into jury duty are also 'simple’.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:44:36 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
Dear Shadow Minister,

You know that I don't even like Mr
Shorten - and would definitely not make any excuses
for him - ever. The claim as I recall was thoroughly and
rigourously investigated by police, as was entirely
proper, and Mr Shorten co-operated fully. Mr Shorten
answered all the questions asked of him. He left the
police to do their job. With the end result being
that - The office of Public Prosecutions
dropped all charges. Mr Shorten was never put on trial.

Cardinal Pell on the other hand was put on trial
- where a jury found the Cardinal
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury were given very
strong directions by the Chief judge about factors to
consider. Jurors were told it was not enough to
believe the complainant, or to think that Cardinal Pell
committed the abuse.

Jurors were told they had to believe the abusing
happened beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it was not
safe to convict and they must find Cardinal Pell not
guilty.

They were also told repeatedly and on
multiple days that they were not to make Cardinal
Pell a scapegoat for the Catholic Church and its failures
to children. The jury made their decision. - They found the
Cardinal - Guilty.

The case rests for the time being until the Appeal.
Cardinal Pell is now a convicted pedophile. What matters
is what will happen next. Neither your opinion, nor
mine matters very much in the general scheme of things.
We shall have to wait and see what the final results
will be.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 3:03:15 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
Dear Ttbn,

«the system of justice based on English Common Law»

Is justice a system? Is justice man-made?

If Justice is a real thing, be it natural or divine, then why can't humans simply accept their limitations and inability to create it? Why not just leave it to be resolved by nature or by God as the case may be?

We live in a violent, blood-thirsty society, for which seeing others suffer is a form of entertainment.

In the past, in Rome, this was openly acknowledged as people flocked to the stadium to watch gladiators killing each other and being killed by animals. They were 'simple' then, primitive if you like, so they did not feel ashamed or uncomfortable about their sadism and lacked the English veneer described as "Justice" that now sort-of-covers people's raw cruelty.

Incarceration in prisons is a particularly cruel thing to inflict on others. While the physical pain is usually less than in "traditional" tortures, the emotional, mental and spiritual anguish is much greater and stretches on for years (rather than usually only minutes). Still our society not only favours it and enjoys watching the court-dramas on its screens, but is even happy to pay for it (quite dearly in terms of budget).

People should at least own their urges and be honest about them rather than use such pretexts as "retribution". Attempting to punish an offender does no good whatsoever for their victims.

Just because you are English does not mean that you are better than other traditions that are openly violent, such as the Roman, Chinese, Japanese, the Incas and recently the Islamic-State.

«those unfortunate enough to have been forced into jury duty»

Indeed, yet another form of barbaric incarceration, this time against completely innocent victims, without even this miserable excuses of revenge or evidence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 4 March 2019 3:04:07 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
Thank you Foxy,

The credibility of 'Beat Up' Bolt and the Lovely Ms Devine is Zero, with a capital "Z".

I read Clare Linane's open letter to Bolt, and while reading, there was something I personally witnessed, and mentioned earlier; //At St Patricks College, boys were physically punished at the back of the classroom then molested while the rest of the class faced forward.// My experience as a child witness was such, but at a different school.

The guilt of the perpetrators is bad enough. The culpability of the Catholic Church covering paedophilia up is sicking. We are shocked with the exposure of these horrendous crimes in our Western societies like Australia, but in most of the Catholic world, this crime against children continues, and the Church does nothing!
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 March 2019 3:55:38 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
Yuyutsu,

Natural justice certainly exists, but people are too far removed from the old virtues these days, and man-made justice has to to fill the gaps - not all that well.

With reference to your comments on ancient Rome and the bloodlust satisfied at the Colosseum, I believe we are almost back to that now. 'Bread and circuses’ kept the mob under control, and that's pretty much what we are being offered by politicians and elites now. The miserable creatures hounding Pell are hell-bent on vengeance which is definitely not theirs.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 4 March 2019 4:18:42 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
Dear Paul,

The Sydney Morning Herald published the results of
a survey on Saturday 2 March 2019 which asked:

Do you think the guilty verdict for George Pell on
child abuse charges was right?

71% said - yes

7% said - no

22% were unsure.

The Pellophiles have been outvoted!
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 5:33:21 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
cont'd ...

Don't forget to watch "Four Corners" tonight
at 8.30pm. Should be interesting.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 5:35:24 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
Foxy Quote "Do you think the guilty verdict for George Pell on
child abuse charges was right?

71% said - yes

7% said - no

22% were unsure.

The Pellophiles have been outvoted!"

** The only thing your survey shows is that 78% of people are willing to make a decision based on MSM reports, at least there were 22% that had the brains to not make a judgement.

The shows that there is a high likely hood he had no chance of getting a fair trial. **

You thought you were being smart by putting it here, even you final comment "The Pellophiles have been outvoted!" shows how you thought you were smarter than others, problem is it backfired.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 4 March 2019 5:41:41 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
Follow the money.

Man to sue Cardinal George Pell for alleged sex abuse

A man who says he was molested by George Pell when he was a boy in the 1970s will file a lawsuit against the disgraced cardinal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne, the Herald Sun reports.

The suit to be lodged on Monday names Pell, the trustees of Nazareth House, (formerly St Joseph’s), the State of Victoria and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

The 50-year-old man was a resident in St Joseph’s Boys Home in Ballarat from February 1974 to 1978 and says he was abused by Pell during that period.

He was a complainant against Pell in a second trial over allegations Pell indecently assaulted boys in Ballarat in the 1970s. The case was abandoned by prosecutors after a court deemed vital evidence inadmissible; with the man saying he was devastated by the decision.

“It took a lot of courage and soul searching to be prepared to tell my story, accusing one of the most senior Catholics in the world of serious criminal offences, and eventually I was ready to have my day in court,” he told the Herald Sun.

“But when I was told they had withdrawn the case I felt empty, and that an injustice had occurred.”

http://au.news.yahoo.com/man-sue-cardinal-george-pell-alleged-sex-abuse-212822347.html
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 4 March 2019 5:45:10 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
How quick are the 'know it all' brigade to comment and accuse?
This whole debacle about Pell has been a Yes, No game from the start.
All you 'know it all' types, have NO IDEA as to the truth, not the facts, surrounding this case.
In case you need a 'real life' catch up lesson, truth and facts are two different words, with two different meanings.
DUH!
By speaking your straw man minds you've only given us a further insight into your do goody mindsets.
As for the 'victim', what a joke the guy's a flake, actually expecting to get sympathy for NOTHING.
As I have already said, I don't care about little pansy precious diddums like this guy.
Did he get punched, physically abused, broken bones, anything?
No what a gutless wimp, you do gooders can go and you know what, see what you have facilitated.
This kind of disease is directly down to you lot and your pansy arse push to turn men into neuters.
Well here's one of them.
The first trial was clear that there was no case to answer to, but NO you pathetic lot decided that that wasn't fair because a pansy did not get his way.
Now we don't know the truth about all this, but after reading about this wimpy little snivelling spoilt brat with a petulant and must get his way at all costs attitude, I hope it was all true and Pell gets off.
Those of you promoting this goody two shoes mantra, don't want to be told that this sort of thing is what you end up with when you try to stop men from being men, even if they act like arseholes, that is the way certain people are wired, so stop trying to play God, instead preach that the boys should grow up strong and fight back if the situation calls for it, and not turn the other cheek and get the bejesus kicked out of them.
Oh and Steely, the reason I did not join AMBLA is because I saw your name of the membership list.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 8:32:07 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
Hi Foxy and Steele,

'Four Corner' was well worth the watch tonight.

//to stop men from being men, even if they act like arseholes//

This bloke has to be the biggest imbecile posting on this forum, bar none. He's got no idea about anything, but claims to be the fountain of knowledge, what a twit!
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:06:01 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
Philip S.,

Nothing is to be gained here by insisting on
who's right or wrong in their opinions. We
are all entitled to our own views - whatever
they may be. However unless we were in the
Court - during the entire process
we have no way of knowing why the jury
made the decision it did. I can only imagine
that they took their duties very seriously
and that it would not have been an easy decision
to make. They found Cardinal Pell guilty of all
charges beyond reasonable doubt.

You can question that decision - that's up to you.
I trust our judicial system and I fully accept
the jury's decision. There's nothing more to
say. You're entitled to continue arguing - but
you will be arguing by yourself.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:14:20 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
Paul you are not one to give opinions or make disparaging comments about ANYONE.
I read your comments as if a comedy of errors or a fictional novel, both you and little miss you know who, are not in a position to critique ANYONE.
If you had the slightest idea of what was going on in the real world you would implode, with you and your mates attitude towards life in general.
You and your lot are like petulant two year olds.
How many times do you guys have to be told to STAY ON TOPIC?
When you go off topic, it;s not to challenge or rebut anything I have said, but to waste everyones time bagging me.
I'll say it again, I don't care what you have to say or any of your comments about me.
If I was being attacked by intelligent, informed, mature people, I might actually read what they had to say, because I would be confident that their comments were informative and offered additional or other perspectives and information to the topic, and not this supercilious attitude we are having to endure ad nauseum from you and your mates.
You and your lot obviously have issues with 'real' people.
I suggest you look around and see the 'real' world, it's all around you.
Until then do us all a big favour and stop wasting everyones time.
By all means keep giving your valuable opinions, but direct them at your followers.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:30:56 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
Foxy so eloquently put quote "unless we were in the Court - during the entire process we have no way of knowing why the jury made the decision it did."

** If that is the case why did you post that stupid survey result, guarantee none of the people who participated were in the court.
Then you come out with this quote "The Pellophiles have been outvoted!"
implying you were right all the time and the survey proves it.

Quote "I trust our judicial system" By that if he appeals and the decision is reversed you will come here and admit you were hasty in your judgement.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 2:14:56 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
Foxy,

Again you are missing the point. WRT Shorten, the only evidence against him was the word of his victim. Whether he was guilty or not, it simply wasn't enough proof for a conviction. In the case of Pell, again decades later, there was not a single shred of corroborating evidence. No witness, no DNA, no history of similar behaviour simply the word of the victim. Apparently, for you it depends by whom one is raped before one deserves sympathy.

Whether or not Pell is guilty, the case against him is weak. That the first trial ended in a hung jury is evidence of how weak. It would not be the first time a jury's verdict is overturned.

Personally, I believe that he is most probably guilty, however, that is my opinion only.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 4:37:48 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
Live in hope lads, there is nothing that can happen "tomorrow" in any court of appeal that will save Pell's pathetic reputation. Pell has been well and truly judged in the court of public opinion, the verdict is guilty as charged. The rock spider will go to the grave known far and wide as a paedophile.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 5:16:21 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
Paul, so with such conviction and confidence we now know you must be another of Pells 'victims'.
You speak of his guilt with such emotion and authority that one can only assume that you were either there or subject to one of his many alleged sexual advances or interludes.
Your attitude to vilification and condemnation of someone you know NOTHING about says more about you than him.
Your negative attitude about the man is so strong and well in excess of any reasonable persons stance, one can only draw the conclusion that either your attempting to look as if you are an authority on this case or you are a material witness.
If so, I urge you to contact the relevant authorities, post haste, as your testimony is the missing link that will justify your hatred for someone or something that we know you know nothing about.
And so then, here we have the proof that whether he is guilty or not, it doesn't matter because, as I have said before, of supercilious people like you and your running mates.
It's attitudes and thinking like you lot that is disgusting, to convict someone only on others say so is not the work of healthy mature people, and neither is the vilification of someone simply because he has been found guilty by 12 equally wanting morons.
As I recall of the many stuff ups this country and it's wonderful people have engaged in was Lindy Chamberlain, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh that's right the judicial system in this country is the best in the world including the 12 idiots who we are expected to put our trust and our lives in their hands.
Paul it is now official, to name just two, you and Foxy both have sycophant tendencies, amongst other unresolved issues, with Foxy continually writing chapter and verse on 'the world according to Foxy', and then both of you ganging up on people because they show you up for being failed ideologues and pushing your failed principals and opinions.
Well at least I've got you sussed
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:21:19 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
23 pages for an irrelevant religious hanger-on & hardly any contributions on other threads concerning this Nation's well-being !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:26:47 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
Philip,

You have caught out the termagant again. Well done. That's what happens when people rabbit on, non-stop, with the aim of shutting other people up. They forget what they have said on previous occasions and put their feet into their mouths.

Nothing about the sainted Four Corners yet. Another thing the termagant thought was going to prove her ravings correct. It went from 'eye opening’, before it was even broadcast, to merely 'interesting’ yesterday evening. Like more than two thirds of Australians, I don't watch Marxist ABC propaganda. Nor do I read dumbarse MSM loaded so-called surveys.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:50:50 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
The case against Pell as shown on "Four Corners,"
last night was strong. It wasn't only just one
complainant's word - but so many others, so many
incidents that had occurred in this man's past
and present. It was horrendous.

I also watched "Q and A" last night - and again
it was frightening what we heard. I stand by
our jury and judicial system - regardless of the
personal insults that continue against me.
They say more about the people hurling those insults
than they do about me.

Still I have to smile - as
the comedian Rick Gervais said on "60 Minutes,"
on Sunday night - when asked if his critics
upset him - he laughed - why would some poor
creature talking out of a garbage bin - have any
relevance to me - or be able to affect me in any
way - those poor sods can only blabber - they have
nothing else.

And they will continue to blabber.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 9:19:16 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
Dear Paul,

No matter what happens -
Cardinal Pell's reputation has been
thrashed. He will go down in history
as a convicted pedophile.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 9:25:29 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
Foxy,

"No matter what happens -
Cardinal Pell's reputation has been
thrashed. He will go down in history
as a convicted [homosexual] pedophile [paedophile]."

Fixed it for you.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 9:33:14 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
So, now it's the number of complainants that counts. The witch-hunters of OLO have passed judgement; the main stream media has passed judgement; now 'more than one' person, again without evidence, has claimed to be a victim of George Pell. The witch hunter in chief declares that: " I stand by our jury and judicial system despite personal insults that continue against me".

According to Foxy the rest of us shouldn't comment because we weren't in the court at the time of the verdict, but she, who was also not in the court (just like the rest of us) can comment and declare Pell guilty. Now, with claims from people she doesn't know from a bar of soap (on ABC) she is even more convinced of the man's guilt.

How can anyone that smugly arrogant not expect the odd 'personal insult'. Of course, as someone " talking out of a garbage bin", I probably shouldn't be questioning her Ladyship. And, of course, there is no need for Pell's barrister to appeal.

Foxy's vehemence conjures up images of women sitting around the guillotine, knitting and hissing, in revolutionary Paris.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:53:47 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
Dear Is Mise,

Homosexual? How on earth do you know? It is all about access and and power unless there were an equal number choir girls for Pell to catch, to block their escape and shove their faces into his crotch it is pretty hard to make any assumptions. Remember this was 'vanilla sex'.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:58:31 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
Foxy,

"The case against Pell as shown on "Four Corners,"
last night was strong. It wasn't only just one
complainant's word"

Perhaps you would like to detail what other evidence there was in the case against Pell that was actually admissible in court?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:05:37 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, I must admit, if what I witnessed on 60 minutes was touted as being 'compelling' and promoted as making the case against Pell, I was left with more questions than answers.
I was expecting an 'in depth' assessment of the allegations, with interviews of actual irrefutable evidence or some new material witness or something which left no doubts as to his guilt.
Now I and others can only speculate, and even accuse him of being guilty of these allegations, BUT, I did not see or hear ANYTHING on 60 minutes that made the prosecutions case.
All I saw and heard was very emotional interviews with people which amounted to here-say and not actual irrefutable evidence.
I came away feeling that 60 minutes had pieced together an emotional presentation for the sake of ratings by appealing to people's emotions and not their minds.
Interviewing people who thought this or thought that, like the guy who walked in on Pell talking to some kids, in the shower room.
They were naked with Pell having only his towel over his shoulder. Now I can see how he can draw assumptions as to what may have been going on, but it tells us more about HIS state of mind than Pells.
If that's all it takes to convict someone in this country, then heaven help us all.
Next we'll be charged with rape by even talking to a woman.
I don't deny the 'information' NOT evidence, so far is telling a story.
BUT, if the judicial process we have witnessed is anything to go by, then as far as I am concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that our wonderful judicial system, that some of you love so much, has stuffed up again.
As punishment to all those who believe, naively in our system of law and it's processes, I hope he gets off, for whatever reason, a technicality, lack of actual and material proof, who cares, I find it would be a perfect slap in the face for those who speak as though they are an authority on EVERYTHING.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:28:59 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
Foxy Quote "He will go down in history as a convicted pedophile."

If the appeal is successful and you call him that enjoy your day in court for defamation.

Also if he is guilty on the uncorroborated evidence of one person your mate Shorten should therefore watch his back. Only difference is Shorten has the Victoria police money can buy or politically appoint.
The female had more than one but police could not find them.

Kathy Sherriff accuses Bill Shorten of raping her after a young Labor Party function. When police presented their brief of evidence to the Office of Public Prosecution, the OPP determined there was "no reasonable prospect of conviction" against Shorten. In its view the matter boiled down to her word against his.

The Pell guilty verdict proves that juries are capable of convicting on the word of one complainant.

The OPP's position that "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" against Shorten must now be reviewed
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:57:23 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
Woman who accuses Opposition Leader Bill Shorten of rape says police failed her
David Hurley, Herald Sun
October 1, 2014 9:05pm


A WOMAN who claims she was raped by federal Labor leader Bill Shorten has accused Victoria Police of failing to investigate properly because of his position of power.

Earlier this year, authorities decided not to press charges against Mr Shorten because prosecutors felt that “there was no reasonable prospect of conviction”.

The woman, Kathy, asked that her surname not be published, but agreed to be photographed.

Interviewed by the Herald Sun in Queensland, she said the trauma of what she says happened to her had been exacerbated by what she sees as an inadequate police investigation.

“I had three main witnesses ... I gave them the phone number of one, her maiden and married names, told them she lived in Melbourne.

“The police told me they couldn’t find her,” Kathy said.

“But they went to all of Bill’s friends,’’ she said.

Mr Shorten’s press secretary Ryan Liddell last night referred to Mr Shorten’s statement in August: “The claim has now been thoroughly and rigorously investigated by police, as is entirely proper.’’

Mr Shorten said then: “I fully co-operated to clear my name. And that is what I have done ... The police have now concluded the investigation. The decision speaks for itself.”

A Victoria Police spokesman said the force was satisfied that the matter had been “fully investigated”.
CON"T
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:59:07 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
Con't
Kathy told the Herald Sun she felt let down and devastated by how police had handled the matter.

“With another witness, the police tried to say she was influenced by the media, which doesn’t make any sense.

“I don’t think I had a hope in hell with the police because of who he is,” Kathy said.

“If Bill was just a regular guy I think it would have been different. The police would have had a load of evidence to do something.

“I left it in the hands of the police, and they did nothing.”

Kathy, now 44, alleges Mr Shorten raped her at a Labor youth conference in Portarlington in the winter of 1986, when she was just 16.

The community nurse completed a 19-page police statement with detectives from Victoria Police’s sexual offences squad last October 23.

“The police rang me up in April and told me they had called Bill in for questioning.

“They then said the case was closed and that they weren’t going to reopen it,” Kathy said.

“They said I would not be able to get access to any of the evidence. They said I could apply through Freedom of Information but I wouldn’t get it.

“I never really had a leg to stand on. They have tried to bully me,” she said.

“ I have got rights, and they are trying to take away my rights. People are treating me like a nutcase.

“It doesn’t mean I’m stupid or I’m fabricating things.”

Kathy had a rapid rise in Young Labor when elected to the rural policy committee.

She became a delegate for party state and national conferences in 1986.

Soon after joining Labor she says she came to know Mr Shorten — himself a rising star in the party.

After he travelled to Wodonga to meet local members, Kathy says she began speaking to him on the phone regularly about party and policy issues.

Kathy says she and her sister went to Portarlington for the youth Labor conference during the winter of 1986.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:00:41 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
I found this Guardian article written by the wife of one of the Church's many victims very compelling so to speak.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/04/andrew-bolt-please-stop-implying-that-you-know-all-the-facts-about-george-pell

In it she with a fair degree of dignity addresses Andrew Bolt's claims of “overwhelming evidence” that Pell's conviction was unjust.

Several points worth repeating.

Regarding the other child involved had denying being abused when his mother rightly suspected he had;

“I asked my own husband about this. Although Brother Edward Dowlan had molested and raped him in 1974, when his parents asked him in 1975 if anything had happened to him, his response was to vehemently deny it. He states, “You deny it because you don’t want them to feel guilty. You don’t want them to carry the guilt of having sent you to this wonderful school, within their wonderful Church….only for you to be abused. So you just deny it, to protect them”.”

And when talking about the time lapse between the abuse and reporting it;

“Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse Final Report (2017) found that the average time it took for men to disclose was 25.7 years. The surviving choirboy disclosed 19 years after his abuse – earlier than average. The other choirboy died 18 years after his abuse, so was also well inside the average.”

For all those who keep saying without collaborating evidence from another witness then a conviction should not have been delivered. You realise that Pell's one time room mate Ridsdale who has been convicted of abusing literally hundreds of children in his care would not have been jailed if your standard of proof was accepted by the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ridsdale

The victims had a right to put their case and have it believed if it is compelling. They were in Ridsdale's case and now he is rightly behind bars. Why isn't Pell's victim being afforded the same by certain posters here?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:04:44 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
Dear Philip S,

Are you really so thick that you would write something like this?

“If the appeal is successful and you call him that enjoy your day in court for defamation. Also if he is guilty on the uncorroborated evidence of one person your mate Shorten should therefore watch his back. Only difference is Shorten has the Victoria police money can buy or politically appoint.”

Pell is currently a convicted abuser so Foxy can go hell for leather.

You on the other hand have accused Shorten of bribery and Victorian police as corrupt. Mate I would be far more concerned about ending up in court if I was you. Perhaps you might want to ask the moderator to remove your post.

Idiot.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:12:29 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
I'm confused now. Pell is found guilty on someone's say-so. Shorten has charges dropped against him because they are based on nothing more than someone's say-so. And a woman at that. Whatever happened to Metoo# ?

Surely there was much more presented in court against Pell in secret ? Maybe the person who tried to bring charges of rape against Shorten recanted ? Clearly, the two cases are like chalk and cheese.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:20:08 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
SteeleRedux Quote "Are you really so thick that you would write something like this?"

** Obviously not as thick as you for not understanding my statement, helps if you read the first five words 'If the appeal is successful' **

In future please activate brain before applying fingers to keyboard, so as not to put foot in mouth.

You know the other person has lost when they have to resort to calling people "Idiot."
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:33:45 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
Steely, where does it say on OLO that YOU know anything about anything.
The points being made are reasonable, irrespective of your opinions.
I can speak with authority on the subject and YES the police are corrupt as are the politicians, as are the union leaders, now c'mon, debunk those statements.
What gets my goat is that I know that you agree but pride and petulance stop you from admitting it.
The weak link in your argument is to believe a scum sucking politician.
Your stance proves there are aliens walking amongst us, you are one.
If you want to challenge comments made that your precious sensitivities are ruffled, then do so with pragmatism and conviction, not with sarcasm and innuendo.
I state that if Pell can get 'crucified' (pun intended) by a 'kangaroo court' and a very flawed legal system, then Shorten should have suffered the same fate as anyone else you simpletons deem 'disgusting'.
As for going 'hell for leather', mate, Foxy, like yourself and the rest of your virtuous lot, because you are all so perfect, can and you know what, because if you are so stupid and blind as to defend the police, and the judiciary, I feel sorry for you all.
You have NO idea what really goes on in 'the system'.
You people are the epitome of mushrooms, 'kept in dark, and fed sh!t'.
May God have pity on your souls.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:45:04 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
ALTRAV,

Thanks for that. I didn't watch Four Corners, but the lack of talk about evidence just follows the same theme because there is probably no evidence; nothing to substantiate the hearsay. I certainly have not seen any report of corroborating evidence in any media. If there has been any, I have missed it. There is certainly nothing remotely evidential from the witch-hunters here. There is no evidence of his 'historical' paedophilia either; the accusations were investigated and dismissed because of lack of evidence.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 1:28:51 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
Regarding reporting times for instances of abuse, in the case of me and my mates, we told our parents almost immediately (certainly within two days) and our fathers had taken action within a week and the relevant Church authorities acted immediately after questioning the offending Brother.

We knew that what was done was wrong so reported it, our word was accepted, after comparing each child's version of events, and then acted upon.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 2:24:09 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
"He will go down in history as a convicted paedophile."

Being a paedophile (or having any other sexual desires) is not a criminal offence in Australia, so Pell could not have been convicted for it.

Rather, he was convicted for the sexual abuse of two boys, yet the court never determined his motivation, if indeed he committed the said acts, and there can be quite a few possible motivations, other than sexual attraction, for doing the same.

Vengeance for example, against the boys' trespassing and wine-theft is also quite a likely motive, which I consider much worse and more harmful than sexual attraction. Or perhaps Pell had an urgent urge to relieve himself sexually after the mass, for which he rushed into the sacristy but unexpectedly found the boys in the way: not justified either, obviously, but possible. Some adults may even do so for money (like prostitutes who do not reject underage clients) and though relatively rare, there are also cases when an adult is blackmailed by a child into sexual activities: children are not always such innocent angels, these two certainly were not.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 2:25:24 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
Is Mise,

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members
of the same sex or gender. Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder in which an adult experiences an exclusive
sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality
is based on sex. Pedophilia is based on age.
Cardinal Pell was convicted of pedophilia.

Senator Kristina Keneally on Monday night's emotional
episode of "Q&A" stated:

"Anyone who is passing comment on the jury verdict unless
they were in the room every day and heard everything the
jury heard, and had access to all the information the
jury had, they're actually doing a great disservice.
They're doing a disservice to our democratic jury system
and I am quite surprised and distressed that people like
John Howard and Tony Abbott but particularly John Howard
are running the type of commentary and providing support
publicly for Cardinal Pell following his conviction."

"I think it's disrespectful of the jury verdict. I also
would reflect it's quite disrespectful of victims."

She then pointed out that the main reason victims often
fail to come forward is because they don't think they're
going to be believed. The convicted pedophile - Ridsdale
would have continued sexually abusing children had his
victims not been believed. We've had a legal process. Due
process. A trial. A jury has rendered a decision.

And as the Senator said - now we have people out there
creating doubt on that decision because they say they know
this man and they don't believe he could have done it.
They make the claims there was no evidence - how do they
know what was presented to the jury - they were not there
and the suppression order by Pell's lawyers was very telling.

We should all have faith in the integrity of our legal
system. Of course the Cardinal has a right to lodge his
appeal and we can believe it will be treated appropriately.
But the disregard that is being shown to the jury and the
disrespect that is being shown to victims by this public
commentary is quite extraordinary.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 2:28:11 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
Dear Philip S,

No mate it is your comprehension skills which are so evidently bereft.

Trying attempted to intimidate Foxy by flagging legal ramifications.

The point was made that right now Foxy could go for it. I did not refer to post a successful appeal. So at this moment Bill Shorten has been told there is not a case to answer and you are directly libelling him. That puts you far more in the frame than Foxy would ever be.

I still sit in awe of the stupidity of the statement.

Dear ALTRAV,

Mate taking this personally is hardly advancing the debate is it.

Look at this cacophony from you;

'As for going 'hell for leather', mate, Foxy, like YOUrself and the rest of YOUr virtuous lot, because YOU are all so perfect, can and YOU know what, because if YOU are so stupid and blind as to defend the police, and the judiciary, I feel sorry for YOU all. YOU have NO idea what really goes on in 'the system'. YOU people are the epitome of mushrooms, 'kept in dark, and fed sh!t'.'

You, your, yourself, but mostly 'you' repeated over and over again. It comes off as the blatherings of a narcissist.

Care to try again?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 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
Steely, you are surprised I have made it personal.
I don't need to 'try again' or change anything, my comments were in response to what amounts to, continual mental torture.
I can't stand being patronised, or anyone else, for that matter.
I detest those who preach perfection, as though they are the keepers of the moral codes, and we are the imperfect sinners.
The reason Foxy cops a lot of flack, as does Paul, is because they preach to people as if from a pulpit.
OK, I'll give you an example.
She speaks so lovingly about the courts, the police, the whole system, even the jury, as if they are all saints and we have to respect them, and as if she is intimately familiar with all these different groups.
Whether anyone believes me or not, I AM familiar with all these groups, and it frustrates me to have to read these grossly mis-leading messages she promotes.
No one should have to compromise on the truth just to satisfy the ego's and naive beliefs of others.
And so it is that I come out with some outrageous comments at times, it is simply to counter the childish, naive ones I read continually from the same suspects again and again.
My reference to YOU was because you came out batting for the 'dark side', and in so doing put you in the same camp, aligning yourself with those I speak of.
Flowery comments are only useful to the aged and the very, very young.
So as none of us are mentally or socially challenged, I would suggest that preaching from the pulpit be dis-allowed.
Comments like that maggot on Q&A made about respecting this or that.
That type of language is the very stuff I am sick of.
All those mentioned do not automatically get respected just because she and Foxy say so, they have to EARN their respect.
These institutions have a long way to go before they can be respected, regardless of what any do-gooders want to believe.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 4:26:26 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
Dear Steele,

I have been reading Richard Cooke's article in The
Guardian. You can read -
if you've got the stomach for it: I barely made it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/the-inconsistencies-of-george-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

Cooke tells us that "...the law is complex and an appeals process
is still to take place. But Pell's defenders have not decided
on his guiltlessness after a careful review of the evidence.
They don't know what the evidence is. They have not sat on the
trial or reviewed its transcripts. It seems that they did not -
and this is damning - even take the time or have the
inclination to read unsuppressed media reports before weighing
in."

Cooke tells us that "Apparently these crimes are unthinkable.
How could a man of such seniority and such faith commit
such acts?" "Why would he act so publicly and so
spontaneously? Why had his victims taken so long to come
forward?"

Cooke asks - "Where have these people been? Did these past decades
of institutional child abuse never happen? Were they looking
away the whole time? Has everything we learned painfully
about the damage it does and its shame been unlearned?"

He tells us that "of all the implausible excuses available
surely "But how could a priest do this? must rank close to
the top."

He points out that "when this is the response even to a
conviction you know why victims fear they will be
disbelieved and discredited - that fear is correct,
warranted and will be made stronger than ever before by this
disgrace."

Cooke refers to the "tens of thousands of case files.
How many more are needed?"

He goes on to describe some of the incidents which are
horrific.

He talks about the priests "who molested children not only
in public but in front of their own family members,
sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while
wearing vestments not only orally but anally as well.
That same untieable cincture had been used to bind the
hands of a 16 years old boy who was then raped so
viciously he needed corrective surgery."

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 5:36:29 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
cont'd ...

Dear Steele,

Cooke continues by telling us that "Opportunistic priests
have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but
on school excursions in public toilets... they have
molested every daughter in a five-daughter family."

Cooke then asks us - "So what about Cardinal Pell's
case is implausible or even unusual?"

He answers, "For anyone willing to look it's almost
humdrum once compared to the vast prolific compendium of
international crime his institution has compiled."

Cooke ends on a pessimistic note, Ünthinkable?
What his defenders mean is - they cannot bear thinking
about it."
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 5:43:05 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
Foxy,

"Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members
of the same sex or gender. Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder in which an adult experiences an exclusive
sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality
is based on sex. Pedophilia is based on age."

Gosh, and here was me thinking that Pell had been charged with sexual offences against boys, people of the same sex as himself, I thought that that was homosexuality; can't there be homosexual paedophiles?

Interesting that you think that Pell has been found guilty of a psychiatric disorder?
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 6:46:48 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
Hi Foxy, I found the comments by KKK on Q&A to be at the heart of the matter. BTW Kristina Keneally is a practising Catholic. On 'Four Corners' the observation by the gentleman from the surf club of Pell standing stark naked purposely exposing himself to three young boys in the change room, not being involved directly as a Pell victim his statement was most interesting and believable.

Hi Steele don't bother with the trumped up know-it-all fascists, he is totally ignorant, knows nothing. What sort of mind believes buggering of young boys by a paedophile adult is a way of turning those boys into men, its a learning experience the kiddies, they should appreciate it, and for the perpetrator it a case of self satisfaction, a bit of "getting his rocks off". what kind of mind believes that, a trumped up know-it-all fascists, that's who.

Hi Issy, being rather coy about your 1945 experience. The policy of the Catholic Church would have been to move the paedophile to other fertile ground, where he could carry on as before. Were the police involved, I bet not!

Pell's number one lawyer has quit the team.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 7:37:23 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
Paul,

"Hi Issy, being rather coy about your 1945 experience. The policy of the Catholic Church would have been to move the paedophile to other fertile ground, where he could carry on as before. Were the police involved, I bet not!"

Not being coy at all, I told what happened as it happened.
The Brother was not moved on to greener fields but left the Order shortly after being caught out.
He married, had a family and died a model citizen and the police were not involved, we were working-class Irish and no one told the police anything, ever.

None of his victims ever took to drugs, beat their wives or went weird.
Through the Old Boys Union we all kept in touch and had regular reunions so I know what happened to all of those who came in contact with this Brother, he was known among the cognoscenti as "Old Slobber Lips", even though his period of depredation was very short.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:04:14 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
Thankfully Issy, the consequences in your case were not long lasting, and that's a good thing.
However in many, many, cases the outcome has been far less satisfactory, with so victims suffering long term negative effects.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:14:00 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
When the same act brings two very different results, we must look at the contributing factors.

One lights a match and it causes a major catastrophic fire.
Another lights a match, but it falls on a rock or is extinguished even before it reaches the ground, then nothing happens.

When the seeds of evil find no fertile ground, they do not sprout!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:45:17 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
SteeleRedux Quote "Trying attempted to intimidate Foxy by flagging legal ramifications."

And "The point was made that right now Foxy could go for it. I did not refer to post a successful appeal. So at this moment Bill Shorten has been told there is not a case to answer and you are directly libelling him. That puts you far more in the frame than Foxy would ever be."

** Are you seriously stupid enough to stand by you last post, if so please seek help. **
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:46:31 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
I have now realised what I find so annoying about a particular group.
When they have nothing of any real substance to contribute or counter, they say the obvious, over and over.
They are good at overplaying the virtue card.
If something is bad, they will blow it up out of all reasonable proportion and say it's much worse than what it really is, so as to make it appear they have some new insight and they are more adept at conveying the message than anyone else.
They are a fraud, if they were being honest they would keep their narratives within a range the general population use, and not try to make themselves sound superior to those not on side.
Like the last posting from one such person.
Was it necessary to link a quote from some random person, as if they had some new evidence which would somehow confirm the court ruling.
The court has spoken, he is found guilty, what kind of person keeps putting someone down after they have been found guilty of the charges and then keeps hounding them further into the ground.
It is a very sick person who keeps punching someone in the face well after they are dead.
We are all told that Pell is unwell, or he's got a problem, so the story goes, I don't know, do any of you know?
We believe the story because of the charges, but we haven't heard the last of this yet.
Watch this space.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:28:42 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
You amaze me ALTRAV, on this thread you are calling for sympathy for Pell, on other treads you call for violence, even death for politicians. BTW you show no sympathy for the victims of paedophiles, jut the oppersite, telling them to get over it etc.
As an Itite, you are most likely a Catholic, so you want to protect your own, understandable.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 6:38:19 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
Paul, I'm not religious as my previous posts will confirm, in fact my stance on the topic is that if someone has to pray or rely on a fictional character for guidance, they are less of a person for doing so.
If ever I was confronted with the question, 'if I didn't believe in anything then who or what did I believe in'?
The answer would bring a smile to my face every time.
MYSELF, is the correct answer.
A child may seek guidance and comfort from a parent or an older and more mature person, but an adult must believe in themselves, not to worship themselves, the concept is alien to me anyway, but to manage their lives and ensure they honour their responsibility to their family and to themselves.
As to my indifference towards those who get 'played' with, (I am loathed to call them 'victims'), I don't care about them because I consider what happened to them to be of no consequence, or to me it fits in the 'so what, big deal' category.
I have been fiddled with too, you don't see me going around wanting to lynch up 80 odd year old men.
No because I practice common sense and reason.
I was not hurt, in fact quite the opposite, so I would rather be played with than endure the disgusting display of ignorance children of my day put me through.
Now those encounters I came away bloodied and bruised, so if you want to compare the difference between someone 'getting my rocks off' and belting the sh!t out of me, gee, hang on a minute, let me think, this is a real hard one, of course, even as a boy, I would choose the former.
As one other commentor has mentioned, they gathered each other up over time and got on with their lives as if nothing happened, and you know what, NOTHING did happen.
The ones complaining aren't men, (those who were played with), they have emotional issues, where-as the 'kiddy fiddlers have mental or psychological issues, they really need help, not jail.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 7:25:56 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
Dear Paul,

Richard Cooke in the link I gave earlier asked
the question "What happens when the Australian
Establishment lines up behind a convicted
paedophile?"

He goes on to explain that "supporting a convicted
paedophile is morally wrong and was an
uncontroversial statement in Australia a few days
ago. It is no longer and that change really is a
tectonic one that has shifted the grounds of debate
so far it is hard for some to know where to stand.
It is a shift that began immediately after Cardinal
George Pell's conviction on child sexual abuse
charges were announced."

As Cooke says, "Pell's defenders cannot be shamed.
A man has been found guilty of orally raping two
13 year old boys and now people are willing to protect
him."

Cooke points out that "Ray Hadley is almost alone among
conservatives in backing the verdict reached by the jury
or at least respecting it. "
"I think it would have been more prudent to allow justice to
take its course before a public exhibition of their
support for a now-convicted paedophile, he said."

Ït's impossible to put ourselves in the position of the jury
because they're the only ones who heard that evidence."

Richard Cooke tells us that the "law is complex and an
appeals process is still to take place. But Pell's
defenders have not decided his guiltlessness after a
careful review of the evidence. They don't know what the
evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or reviewed
its transcripts. It seems that they did not - and this is
damning - even take the time or have the inclination to
read unsuppressed media reports before weighing in."

John Howard gave Cardinal George Pell a character reference
for the court hearing and he stated that the conviction did
not alter his opinion of the Cardinal.

Howard had as Cooke points out the option
of saying nothing or waiting for more information but Howard
especially did not take it. Instead it seems that Pell's
position, his politics overruled everything.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 11:05:10 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
cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

I stated earlier that I have faith in the integrity
of our legal system. I believe that the Cardinal
has a right to lodge his appeal and I believe it
will be treated appropriately. But the disregard
that is being shown to the jury and the disrespect
that is being shown to victims by this public
commentary is quite extraordinary. This is the
reason I feel obliged to correct the strawman
arguments and disinformation.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 11:10:30 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
Dear Philip S,

You petulantly wrote;

** Are you seriously stupid enough to stand by you last post, if so please seek help. **

Lol.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 11:40:55 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
For the record; Pell's QC lawyer has not quit his support of Pell. He stated that he was so angry that an innocent man could be found guilty. That he had done his best to make his case for this innocent man, that he felt that another lawyer needed to take it further. He heard the facts and felt that a guilty verdict by a jury was wrong.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 2:22:39 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
Hi Foxy,

I like you respect the juries decision, as I respect the actions of Judge Kidd in fastidiously ensuring Pell got a fair trial. At this point in time Pell is guilty and is behind bars awaiting sentencing next week. With the maximum penalty being 50 years, I think it is incumbent on the judge to apply a custodial sentence, if for no other reason than satisfying community expectations for these sorts of crimes.
Then Pell has the avenue of appeal, which could go anyway.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 2:53:55 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
Dear Paul,

Chrissie Foster appearing on the 7.30 Report with Leigh Sales
was heart-wrenching:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/chrissie-foster-on-the-conversation-of-george-pell/10851846

I remember well the difficulties that she and her husband
(who died in 2017)
had with Pell. It was shameful what those people were put through
over what was done to their daughters.

Francis Sullivan former leader of the Catholic Church's
response to the child sex abuse Royal Commission -
and former chief executive of the Truth, Justice, and
Healing Council said that the "Melbourne Response"
(set up by Pell) was a front - and every possible obstacle
was put in their way. Sullivan said it should be discontinued,
torn down. And that the days of the Church investigating
itself should end.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 3:23:23 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
Dear Paul,

«I think it is incumbent on the judge to apply a custodial sentence, if for no other reason than satisfying community expectations for these sorts of crimes.»

Fine with me because I anyway am not invested in being counted as part of the "community".

Who exactly would this "community" consist of? How does one become admitted to it? Is it a requisite to be loud and cruel?

The only dishonest claim would be to simultaneously consider me as part of this "community" AND say that this community wants (and is even willing to pay dearly for) to incarcerate old and no-longer harmful people as punishment for things they might have done decades ago.

For the record, I harbour no expectations of the kind whatsoever. Prison is an horrendous place and wanting people to be locked up in there is pure sadism. Nobody should ever be thrown in jail unless they pose an imminent danger to others and absolutely no other solution is available.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 3:58:13 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
Yuyutsu,

We've had a legal process. Due process. A trial.
A jury has rendered a decision. An appeal has been
lodged on behalf of the Cardinal. And we shall have
to wait and see what the result will be. Whether
the Cardinal stays in jail or is set free is a
decision that is going to be made by the Appeals
Court. It is something over which none of us
have any control.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 4:20:24 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
Dear Foxy,

I am quite aware, nor is it news for me, that none of us has any control over what the state does.

Nevertheless, we [still?] have these pages where we can express our views and declare our moral position, even as we know that nothing would be done about it.

And so I did, stating that nobody ought to be thrown in jail, neither the guilty nor the innocent, neither before an appeal nor after.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 4:29:39 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
Yuyutsu,

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way
of doing what's right."
(Isaac Asimov).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 5:20:05 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
Foxy "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."

** The problem is who determines what is right. **

** Different people sometimes a different view of what is morally correct. **
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 5:27:59 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
Corrected
** Different people sometimes have a different view of what is morally correct. **
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 5:29:14 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
What I find fascinating and surprising is the rising amount of support for Pell, as is being slowly spreading, according to those so called informed journo's and academics, some of which even Foxy has quoted.
I believe the moral of the the story is reasonable doubt, with a touch of forgiveness.
Then you add what I can only imagine is, over-reaction on the part of the accuser, when comparing the alleged acts to a test of seriousness and relativity.
Was this act so severe as to be treated with such over-reaction.
Is it because the 'boy' in question, has now decided to come forth and ruin an old man's life, only to promote his justification as 'his' life was ruined by this man and this act.
As those of us who have been in this same position, (pun intended) can attest, it meant nothing at the time to many and in some cases I can say with experience, came away with smiles as big as houses.
So what is different when we are told one person goes all sobby and allegedly suffers somehow, and another simply 'pulls up their pants' (pun intended) and gets on with life as if it was just another experience in his life, as one commentor has explained, and good for him.
He is the other end of the line from this snivelling little twat who decided to make use of his psychosis.
In case you don't know the true meaning of the word, look it up, it's very possible from what is known so far about this guy, that this is best case scenario, describing him and his justification for this witch hunt.
And so this might go a little way to understanding why there is this rising public sympathy and support for Pell.
Foxy, stop going on about your love and faith in the judiciary, juries, and so on.
Your wasting your breath, and stop repeating the obvious, as if we don't know what has happened to Pell, by going over and over again and again, jees, enough, we know it all by now.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 7:33:36 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
ALTRAV, how about you stop going on as the number one paedophiles apologists. Your nonsense is making you a laughing stock, what's new there. Do you believe by denigrating the victim you bolster the standing of the perpetrator. //the rising amount of support for Pell// only among the rabid right and the paedophile apologists like yourself.

Just for interest if you believe it was okay for Pell, was it also okay for Pell's mate Gerald Ridsdale who was convinced of the sexual assault of 65 children, the youngest aged four.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 8:34:24 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
Jury trials also have a checkered history and have been banned in several countries after high-profile wrongful convictions or acquittals, especially involving high-profile figures.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 9:16:49 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
Dear Philip S,

You write;

"** Different people sometimes have a different view of what is morally correct. **"

Yes indeed. Some of us feel the act of physically molesting children is deeply morally repugnant and the act of defending those who have been convicted in a court of law of having committed that crime as morally bereft.

And there are those who don't.

I'm going to go with the former I'm afraid.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 6 March 2019 9:31:44 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
Steely, sorry mate the position of OLO's resident person/s who keep quoting the obvious, is already taken by Foxy and Paul, so you might have to share the ad-nauseam podium with them as they are also known for repeatedly quoting the obvious.
Paul, at least I am making people laugh.
By comparison you and your team are making people sick by repeatedly quoting the obvious.
We know you guys live in a very small bubble and you don't get out much so your opinions are so very narrow and so few, it explains your continual exaggeration and over-reach on the facts.
Your attempts at virtue shaming are in fact shameful on your part.
I at least attempt to give reasons and explanations of other views and angles.
What do you lot do?
You offer NOTHING, only boorish compliant rubbish about how you have this sick and pathetic faith in the system.
I will keep hounding you till you show some semblance of reason and common sense, and stop spouting the obvious from your soap box pulpit, in the corner of the local kindergarten.
I know you guys don't bother reading my posts, which is OK, because they are intended for the rest of the OLO commentors, as they actually understand the words, and their meaning, which I might add are a very good fit for the 'preachers'.
So please keep on not reading my comments, that way I can have real and intelligent conversations with the others with open minds and a grip on reality.
OH yeah, and just to put the finishing touches on your beloved legal system and juries and so on,I leave you with just one of the many big stuff ups this moronic country and it's moronic people, like yourselves can be so proud of: THE CHAMBERLAINS!
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 7 March 2019 1:08:00 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
What's that ALTRAV, the Chamberlain case is proof the jury system don't work? By extrapolation it proves Pell is innocent. Your cohorts on this, the other forums ratty old men who are also apologists for Pell, have not gone to the same extent as you have in justifying paedophilia as a man building experience.

I see you brushed the Gerald Ridsdale case aside, I don't expect you would answer that question, a bit to hot even for you. Just for clarity when you // with experience, came away with smiles as big as houses.// What side of the fence were you on?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 March 2019 7:28:23 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
Paul, the Chamberlains were convicted because of the jury's view of their religion. Supposedly involving child sacrifice as you believe of Abraham. I was nursed by Lindy Chamberlain for two weeks and knew of her love for her family, who visited her in the Hospital grounds while on duty. The case is not based in accusations of paedophilia but in association with a celebrant religion with many paedophile priests in the jury's mind.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 7 March 2019 7:40:48 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
Glad to see you are inside the jury's mind in these cases Josephus, I would hate to think it was all a figment of your imagination. Or maybe its just a god thing. As you were not privy to the evidence, nor to the juries deliberations how can you possibly know what you are saying has substance.

Some years ago I did jury duty, sitting for three months on a very serious case at the Downing Centre in Sydney. I like the eleven others took my responsibility most seriously. Superficially, from the one percent that was being reported in the papers, the accused did appeared to be guilty. I spent a lot of time thinking about the evidence, and trying to see if there was the slightest doubt, could the evidence by unsound, then the only verdict possible would be not guilty
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 March 2019 10:47:43 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
Paul,

"...Just for clarity when you // with experience, came away with smiles as big as houses.// What side of the fence were you on?"

The top of a pointed pailing and probably squirming with delight!!
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 7 March 2019 10:53:39 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
Dear Paul,

The Chamberlain case is a great one to bring up.
The lack of precedent at the time played heavily
on matters of law. Thankfully it has been updated
and now new evidence on the matter of attacks by
dingos have come to light. No longer are we able
to say that dingos can't take babies. It's just
that at the time Australia was not able to believe
that a wild dog could do such a thing.

Just as in - Cardinal Pell's case there are some who
can't believe that "a man of such seniority and such
faith could commit such heinous acts." "How could
a priest do this?"

So, just as it was shown that a dingo could indeed
do what was claimed it did - we'll see what the Appeals
Court decides on the Pell case. Will they uphold the
jury conviction - only time will tell.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 12:54:14 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
Paul, unlike you, I don't invest too much time in frivolous speculations or biased vilification.
Ridsdale means nothing to me and so it is I have no opinion or comment on the topic, but to satisfy your petulant need for 'winning at all costs', I will say, if the guy was as bad as the evidence offered and there were enough real and material witnesses and 'victims', then what does your sick demented mind want me to say?
That he was a good guy, is that what you want to hear from me?
Well you are going to be sadly disappointed, because my answer is that with ALL this mountain of badness being dumped on him, he should firstly be examined for a possible psychological disorder and then proceed with the appropriate determination, whether it be jail or nut house.
Either way I would recommend he be removed from any contact with the public in general.
There will that satisfy your morbid attraction to 'kiddy fiddlers' and their antics.
Are you sure your not one yourself, and looking to learn ways to avoid getting caught, Hmmmmm?
As for 'what side of the fence was I on'?
Paul I was the one who 'got his rocks off', and believe me, as a neuter, you have no idea how wonderful it feels.
Especially for a boy with a demanding sexual interest.
So Paul I'm sorry you have never experienced the 'pleasure of the flesh', but a woman is the most pleasurable person a 'man' could ever experience in his life.
The incident I spoke of was a welcome experience for me as a pre pubescent.
My angst is with this country, it's moronic people and their moronic views and beliefs, it's moronic laws, and the list goes on and on, like you and Foxy at the best of times.
If someone writes up a title calling for all these facts I will gladly expound further.
Until then carry on with your ad-nauseam from the soap-box pulpit.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 7 March 2019 1:11:41 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
Dear Foxy,

As an atheist of lapsed Proddy background, I'm certainly ready to believe that unmarried priests, in positions of great prestige and power over gullible parishioners, especially children, would be very likely to commit all manner of perverted crimes against them. I wish Pell was guilty, that would pull him and his unctuousness down a peg or two. His friendship with (and shielding of) Ridsdale surely should cast doubts on his probity and integrity (has anybody raised this yet, as a sort of guilt-by-association in this recent case ? It would serve the bastard right, even if it was a bit irrelevant).

BUT, on the basis of the evidence presented that we know of, somebody's assertion with no back-up evidence, should surely give us pause that a full and fair verdict was arrived at. And in any appeal, is it possible that an appellate court might examine that aspect, and find it inadequate ? So 'not proven', therefore (in an Australian court) 'not guilty'. So Pell could walk free ?

Personally, I suspect that a pedophile of Pell's age and the various positions that he might have held over nearly sixty years, would have committed perhaps hundreds of similar offences, getting more devious, secret and vicious over that time. So perhaps the next time, many more people might have the courage to come forward, with - somehow - some corroborating evidence to back up their accusations.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 7 March 2019 1:17:04 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
Dear ALTRAV,

Mate your attention seeking really does get tiresome.

And you keep trotting out lines like this;

“My angst is with this country, it's moronic people and their moronic views and beliefs, it's moronic laws, and the list goes on and on, like you and Foxy at the best of times.”

This so call moronic country has a per captia ratio of Nobel Prizes which is a third higher than Italy. If we are as thick as you are trying to make out where does that leave your mob?

A less kind person might say you don't need a degree to become a mafioso, possibly Italy's most prominent export.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 7 March 2019 1:22:28 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
Hi Foxy,

I have much more faith in the jury system, than a judge sitting alone where it is appropriate. In the Pell case a jury is entirely appropriate. you would think it was a toss of a coin that decided the outcome, the way some carried on about the verdict. Should Pell manages to wriggle out of it, that's justice, and his good luck.

Do you think the pork chops here would be going on as they are if the perpetrators name was say; Gough Whitlam, and not George Pell. I put up another thread 'Good Labor Men Finally Receive Justic' about Macdonald and Maitland who have had their guilty verdicts quashed by the Appeals Court, after two years in jail. Their cases are far more advanced than Pell's. I don't see the 'Usual Suspects' jumping up and down on that discussion, in fact they are totally silent. Either they love paedophiles, or hate Labor, maybe both.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 March 2019 1:28:19 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
Dear Joe,

As for being convicted on the evidence of one person
and whether or not this is fair?

It's been explained that there were 14 witnesses
called by prosecutors. But there was only one first
hand witness who gave evidence - the complainant.

A large part of the prosecution's case necessarily hinged
on his testimony. This is not unusual in sexual abuse
trials which are known as "word on word cases."

You have to be aware surely that it used to be that the
law could not give weight to a single complainant's
evidence unless there was also a witness who said the
victim told them about the abuse at the time, or unless
there was evidence showing the victim was distressed
immediately after the attack.

This may be why Pell's lawyer Richter made so much of
the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was
an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to
victims so you need to know that evidence requirements
have changed.

There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do
not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast
majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the
complainant's word.

To ensure trials are still fair - legislation now requires
the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance
any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it
comes to word on word cases.

Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the
defendant may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant
cannot specify the time of the alleged offence) and is at
significant forensic disadvantage due to the passage of
time. They are told it is up to prosecutors to prove guilt,
not up to the defence to prove innocence.

They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims to
forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to report only
as an adult.

The jurors in the Pell case were given clear directions along
these lines.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 2:17:10 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
cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

The robes Pell wore during the offending were brought
into court and tendered as an exhibit. The jurors were able
to examine and hold these robes in their jury room
during deliberations.

Monsignor Charles Portelli demonstrated to jurors how the
cincture was tied around the waist. It was pointed out that
having a cincture around the waist did not restrict movement
from the waist down. The jurors saw the robes, were able to
hold them and heard all the evidence from both parties
as to their manoeuvrability.

Allegations from Pell's past have continued to surface over
the decades. In 2017 he was charged with historic sex offences
against multiple complainants which lead to last year's
conviction.

You can go on insisting that there was a lack of evidence
but how would you know unless you were in the room every
day, heard everything the jury heard, had access to all
the information the jury had. Denying the conviction is
doing a disservice to our democratic jury system
which followed the letter of the law as it currently stands
in sexual abuse cases.
You're also disrespecting the victims.
We shall have to wait and see what
the Appeals Court decides - whether it will uphold the
jury's conviction or acquit Cardinal Pell.
Only time will tell.

People want the leaders to speak frankly about the
problems and the desire to get greater transparency within
church structures.

The most important issue now is not just reforming areas
of the Church relating allegations of child sexual abuse but
increasing transparency across the entire institution.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 2:35:10 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
Foxy,

"Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder..."

Then should we not be treating paedophiles as suffers as well?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 7 March 2019 2:52:53 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
Dear Steele,

Regarding Australia?

The Economist runs a survey every year in order to mark
the most liveable countries and cities in the world.
According to these surveys - Australia and her multiple
cities make it every year on the best lists in the
world. No wonder so many people want to come here to
live.

We have stability, health-care, some of the world's best
hospitals, culture, great environment, education, and
infrastructure. Our economy is solid, we have one of the
strongest and safest currencies - and the list goes on.
And I haven't even talked about our food (and coffee), or
our theatre, arts, and films.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 3:06:44 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
Is Mise,

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/01/what-should-we-do-about-paedophiles
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 3:19:07 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
Foxy,

I read it but I don't believe it, I think that the death penalty is the only sure cure, but you seem to think that it's OK to prosecute people suffering from of a psychiatric disorder.

How is it that an Australian male having sex with a male 15 year old in a foreign country is a paedophile and charged as such but his friend, not Australian, having sex with the same 15 year old is simply a homosexual because of different ages of consent in different countries?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 7 March 2019 4:21:27 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
'"Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder..."'

I wonder how the millions who have mental health issues feel about being classified with pedophille's. Hmm!

Oh well I suppose I will be charged for hate crime by calling pedophille gross sin.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 March 2019 4:27:14 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
As a child I lived in Virgin bush country West of Coffs Harbour and dingoes frequently mauled our young live stock. They were known to hang around persons travelling alone on bush tracks. You had to carry a firearm for protection. I heard many stories of dingoes threatening adults in the bush long before the Chamberlains case. I never believed she was guilty because they do attack children.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 7 March 2019 5:08:59 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
Is Mise,

No, Cardinal Pell was convicted not because he
was suffering from a psychiatric disorder but
because he was found guilty of having sexually
abused children. It was the act that was a
crime.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 5:45:33 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
Josephus, please explain how YOU know what was inside the heads of the jurors in both the Chamberlain and Pell cases. If you can't, then you made it up, and you're the dingo.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 March 2019 5:49:56 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
Paul

this was one reason why your mate Flannery thought Chamberlain was guilty

''Her religion was one factor. The Chamberlains were Seventh-day Adventists and media reports of the strange practices of their "cult" (as we were led to think of it) included inferences of child sacrifice that did not strike me as beyond belief. At the time I was one of many Australian scientists fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom, and fundamentalist beliefs were seen as the enemy.'

sheer ignorance did not stop this professor from making a wrong judgement. Mind you he wasn't alone. And to his credit he apologised much later after the innocent woman spent time behind bars.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 March 2019 6:06:32 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
Foxy,

"Is Mise,

No, Cardinal Pell was convicted not because he
was suffering from a psychiatric disorder but
because he was found guilty of having sexually
abused children. It was the act that was a
crime."

What do we call a desperate fox?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 7 March 2019 6:23:55 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
Steely, NOBODY gives a sh!t about your nobel prize winners.
Stop trying to attract attention to yourself, by trying to make a failed point.
You try to push nobel prize winners, where as I try to expose nobel LOSERS!
What you don't want to hear is that we have the highest number of nobel LOSERS per capita in the world.
Steely, you really fu&#ed up big time by comparing Australia with Italy.
Anyone want to take this one?
It's the best chance you're gonna get to rub Steely's face in it.
Step in any time, in the meantime let me enlighten you, oh moronic one.
Italy and therefore Italians have given the world most of what you and your moronic mates enjoy today, as a matter of course.
Australia on the other hand has given us, randomly listed:
Thieving, lying, vial, dishonest, deceitful politicians.
Ignorant, un-informed, mis-informed, arrogant and entitled public.
The cost of living way beyond anything reasonable.
Laws so many and so flawed, all designed for the convenience of the legal system, and putting the public at a very serious and compromised position, with the key factor of extracting money from people and absolutely no intention of curbing anything which may hurt or injure the people or compromise property, especially when it involves abo's. The people would rather watch sports than discuss the wrongs being perpetrated around them.
They would rather turn up the sports and crack another 'tinny' than actually give a sh!t about the crap going on around them.
Don't try to do something new or innovative, you'll get knocked back, where other countries, US,NZ etc. will offer you help, not here.
We are getting seriously gouged on our cars, now that they managed to shut down or piss off car making here, you would think we could start importing whatever we wanted, well the lobbyists got to piss in their Canberra mates ears and now we are facing the introduction of a 25 year old rolling date for second hand imports.
There's heaps more, but this'l do for now.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 7 March 2019 9:24:53 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
Issy, I'll bite.
What DO we call a desperate fox?
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 7 March 2019 9:27:06 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
Is Mise,

You ask 'What do we call a desperate fox?"

There's so many favourite children's fox fables.
That you may enjoy.

We can call him - Dax Jones - Dax was an average kid who
shape-shifted into a fox and became the character of the
Shapeshifter series by Ali Sparkes. Then of course we
can call him The Fantastic Mr Fox (by Roald Dahl). Then
there's the Fox in Sox by Dr Seuss - and many, many more.

I'm sure that the librarian at your local library can help
you with even more suggestions.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 March 2019 10:25:54 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
Foxy, I believe Issy's question is simple enough, and seeing as you are so well read and an authority on everything, as you continually demonstrate and repeatedly, on most topics, I believe there might be a few of us waiting with baited breath to hear your pearls of wisdom you will bestow upon us with your answer to Issy's question;
What do we call a desperate fox?
Think back now, I know you have come across the answer to this very question in the mountain of literature you have 'fingered' through during your long and exemplary career as a librarian.
The answer must relate, to the question, word for word, and not as a generalization such as you have already offered in your previous response.
Or perhaps some others would like to offer their thoughts on this question too?
Now this IS fun, a little levity for a change, Hmmmmmm?
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 7 March 2019 10:59:04 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
Dear Foxy,

«But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to victim»

It is never in the best interest of victims to make others suffer as well, including their old perpetrators. Some are ignorant of this truth, others blinded by anger, but courts should support the victims and their true interests rather then their destructive blind rage.

Haven't the victims suffered enough already?

Those who are willing to let go of their historical case and just live their lives in the present, gain peace. On the other hand, those who are holding onto and treasure their suffering, create more suffering to others and thereby ultimately to themselves in an endless vicious cycle that only makes the world a worse place.

This is not to say that the victims should forego their appropriate due compensation - and this is why, as should, civil courts always had more relaxed standards of evidence than criminal courts.

Looking somewhat deeper, beneath the limited human perspective, the term "unfair" can only apply to such potential future actions that ought to be avoided - nothing can be retrospectively unfair, nor in fact can there be any victims or coincidences: those who were sexually molested as children, were only handed back some previous karma for similar acts that they did in earlier lifetimes. The paedophile has only been the instrument for handing them this karma.

The best and healthiest approach when finding oneself at the receiving end of the stick, is to thank God for the opportunity to clear this old debt, then forget it and get on with life - this does not exclude taking timely and reasonable steps to prevent repeated abuse in the future, but not decades later when one is already an adult and can no longer be abused, nor when the perpetrator is old, frail or otherwise no longer capable of re-offending.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 March 2019 11:58:40 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
Yuyutsu, a well thought out and reasonable account of this tragic situation.
I empathise with your line of thinking, mainly because I believe that time changes everything.
But most of all I feel that the words relativity and forgiveness are major players in this particular situation.
As much as there are those with little or no understanding, tolerance, and the capacity to reason, and are quick to condemn and begin gathering rocks to throw at such people, I would consider his demeanor today.
I have been appalled at the flood of accusations dating back to when people had a better hold on reality, on what is being called 'historical' claims.
Even the tax department has a time limit on claims.
Let us not forget, I will randomly remind people, that the much loved Bill Shortarsen was accused of RAPE, and the wonderful police and justice system that some twats on OLO constantly remind us, are as pure as the driven snow, decided not to proceed with the case, because THEY thought it was not worth following up, and believed Shortarsen over the word of the girl, on the basis that it was her word against his.
This was not 40 years later either it was soon after she was raped, and so where is the justice exercised by our wonderful justice system, according to some deluded, immature, petulant commentors.
I would love to see him go free, if only to teach his detractors a lesson in humility, amongst other things.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 8 March 2019 2:06:05 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
// those who were sexually molested as children, were only handed back some previous karma for similar acts that they did in earlier lifetimes. The paedophile has only been the instrument for handing them this karma.//

Yuyutsu, what a load of crap! According to you this is gods will. Looking for a non existent justification is simply being an apologist.
You can call everything you want to justify as gods will, slavery, mass murder. Lets take it to the nth degree, by your reasoning Ivan Milat should be set free, after all he is innocent of wrong doing, he was merely the instrument of the lord. The guilty party were the seven backpackers, Ivan was simply the instrument of god dishing out some karma. You have no concept of the meaning of karma.

Then the resident forum know-it-all, backs you up with his two cents worth; //Yuyutsu, a well thought out and reasonable account of this tragic situation.// ALTRAV how can you call it tragic, its gods will, nothing tragic about it!
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 8 March 2019 6:42:45 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
Paul,

Good hammer that you have, it hits the nail on the head!!
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 March 2019 7:16:56 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
Dear ALTRAV,

Thank you for your support, but when it comes to politics I really am not interested. Prison is an horrendous place and I do not wish it on anyone, including Bill Shorten.

---

Dear Paul,

Retrospectively, everything that had already happened was God's will.
Retrospectively, everything that was inflicted on us, whether pleasant or unpleasant, was a result of our previous karma.

But as for the future, we do not know God's will, for otherwise we would not be able to exercise our own, seemingly separate, will. We also do not know how much or how little karma we personally carry from former lifetimes.

Regarding Ivan Milat, I never heard of him before and don't know about the case, but yes, any prisoner who no longer poses a danger to others should be set free. I don't know whether or not this is the case for Ivan Milat. For the backpackers he served as an instrument of God, but if (admittedly most likely, but it is not for us to judge) his individual will was also involved, then he too has acquired such karma equivalent to being killed seven times. In that case, whatever we do or not as humans, Ivan will not be able to avoid this karma, but woe unto him/her who willingly serves that karma on Ivan.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 March 2019 8:13:38 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
Yuyutsu,

You can forget all that karma and god nonsense, unless you have been living under a rock, every Australian adult would know of Ivan Milat the notorious backpacker murderer.
Nope, Ivan's not getting out anytime soon, regardless of karma or god.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 8 March 2019 9:29:41 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
Paul if you open your mind and shut your mouth once in a while, you might actually come across as someone who only appears to be a petulant know-it-all fool, instead of persisting with your negative and arrogant posture, and having those faults and failures confirmed.
I must say I actually enjoy reading excerpts and opinions of others less fortunate, diverse or experienced than myself.
It has given me valuable insights into the minds of the 'average' Australian.
So by all means keep it up, it is quite interesting to learn of a new species of homo-sapien which seems to be more attune to the neanderthal era than some of those amongst us today.
Otherwise without the 'dim team' this might be a boring exercise in futility, no sorry, it is, but only where the 'dim team' is concerned.
Ah well, se la vie.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 8 March 2019 9:30:07 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

Sounds very much like a basic Orthodox yeshiva debating point. Not permitting women in these 'centres of learning' really has a lot to answer for. However to the task at hand.

My understanding that is that the philosophy or rather tortuous religious pseudo-logic you are espousing waned after the Holocaust and for good reason. It was incompatible with any notion of a just God.

“What happened in the Shoah is above and beyond measure (l'miskpat): above and beyond suffering, above and beyond any punishment. There is no transgression that merits such punishment... and it cannot be attributed to sin." David Weiss Halivni

It deserves to wither and perish and to be recognised for what it is, a tool for Orthodox leaders to retain power for themselves.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 8 March 2019 9:38:40 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
Dear Paul,

«You can forget all that karma and god nonsense, unless you have been living under a rock.»

The danger of forgetting God and that our actions have results is truly there, thus one ought to shelter under the Rock of Ages.

«every Australian adult would know of Ivan Milat the notorious backpacker murderer.»

Apparently not, though I understand that most do. It is not a healthy practice to read about these things, it pollutes the mind and when I go through the news I skip the crime sections. There are of course those people who need to know about it, like anyone whose job-description includes crime-prevention, but the rest of us will be wise and in better health without such negative sensational news.

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

«Sounds very much like a basic Orthodox yeshiva debating point. Not permitting women in these 'centres of learning' really has a lot to answer for.»

My current spiritual guide is Hindu and a woman.

«My understanding that is that the philosophy or rather tortuous religious pseudo-logic you are espousing waned after the Holocaust and for good reason. It was incompatible with any notion of a just God.»

Understanding that the Nazis of today will become the Jews of tomorrow, can only encourage you not to become a Nazi. There is nothing we can do to change the past, but a lot we can do to change our future.

«a tool for Orthodox leaders to retain power for themselves.»

Whoever uses it this way, is a fool who themselves does not believe in what they teach.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 March 2019 10:20:54 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

Fine.

Then let's run with "My understanding that is that the philosophy or rather tortuous religious pseudo-logic you are espousing"...has delivered that most vile notion of the achhoots, predetermined before birth to remain on the lowest run of Indian society no matter how many bloody 'karma points' they accrue.

Why do you feel attracted to these aberrant takes on the world?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 8 March 2019 10:55:09 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
Dear SteeleRedux,

You mentioned the Jewish state of affairs where Orthodox leaders distort and abuse their ancient teachings of wisdom to gain power and subjugate others.

It sadly happens in every society, including the Indian.

While there is some truth in the description of castes, the idea as if one's caste is fixed upon birth is incorrect and goes against the scriptures. Since Gandhi and Indian independence, discrimination on the basis of caste has also become illegal in India.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 March 2019 11:09:32 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
Foxy,

"I'm sure that the librarian at your local library can help
you with even more suggestions."

I'm sure that she also knows how to spell "paedophile".
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 March 2019 12:48:47 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
Is Mise,

If she doesn't know how to spell it
she knows how to look it up for you. :-)
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 1:04:37 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
Is Mise,

You raised the subject of foxes in this discussion.

You might enjoy the following:

Who is this vixen that displays this charm
A golden animal who can disarm
This little beauty so rare and keen
Her golden tail soft and serene

Is she depressed - how could she be?
She's a wiley fox who's running free
She's nature's child ab0ve the rest -
A creature wild - one of the best
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 2:18:32 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
Foxy,

My librarian can spell 'paedophile', however, this is not true of all librarians.

"...A creature wild - one of the best"

Not as far as Australian native wildlife goes.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 March 2019 3:44:05 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
Is Mise,

I said that if the librarian could not spell it correctly
she knows how to look it up for you. Please don't misquote.

As for Australian wildlife? The poem was not based on fact.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 3:58:41 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
cont'd ...

It was written from the Fox's point of view.

But then I'm sure that an intelligent
and (romantic man - who's been married for so long)
like you would know, appreciate poetry - and
understand that. :-)
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 5:04:56 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
Foxy,

and I thought that you would know the librarian who can't spell 'paedophiles'.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 March 2019 5:54:23 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
Is Mise,

In my line of work I have many colleagues.
I tend to focus on their strengths.

Now lets get back to the topic - or alternatively -
start a new discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 6:02:29 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
[Deleted for abuse]
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 8 March 2019 6:35:43 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
cont'd ...

Is Mise,

BTW - there's various versions of the spelling -
depending which one you want to use - the British
or the American.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 March 2019 6:35:58 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
ALTRAV,

Recommended your post for deletion. If this is what you stoop to to get attention then so be it though married with the fact that time and time again you have expressed your distaste and disdain for 'non-compliant' women you present as an utterly distasteful person. You have a pathology that needs professional help and none of us here are qualified to give it. Go get some ASAP.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 8 March 2019 6:51:45 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
Steely, WHOA lad.
I thought I lacked the ability to engage in levity.
Mate, I took the opportunity to once more practice my hand at writing some amorous prose, seeing as how Foxy's attempt at satire was a perfect opportunity to attempt this little folly.
Don't worry, if I wanted to piss anyone off I don't waste words, you would get the message loud and clear.
Now are we clear, you can put your virtue signalling back in your pants and Foxy can take in the words I have written, which were well intentioned and well meant, with a touch of theatre.
The attempt at light hearted humour was not meant for you anyway, who the hell asked you to stick your snout in.
Piss off and go annoy someone else, I will take a verballing from Issy but not from you, you interloper you.
BTW, read it again, only this time read it with a smile, you just might see what I was attempting to do, if not, don't bother, I don't think you really want to know the truth.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 8 March 2019 7:19:30 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
Steely, now to take care of you.
You are not in a position to recommend anything.
They can scrub my comment, doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is your arrogant holier-than-thou smart arse attitude.
You don't sit in judgement over others, you have too many crosses against your name to even begin to spout your self proclaimed superiority over ANYONE.
Pull your head in and get back in line where you belong, you are nothing special, nor have you done anything special to dare to shirt-front anyone.
I will have my folly with Foxy, she will deal with me, or not, she is a strong willed, and free spirited person who does not need nosey little nancys to fight her battles.
She is more than capable of 'telling me off' if she so desires, NOT YOU.
Your whole submission is wasted on me you bafoon, haven't you been following the comments on other topics.
I am not some peoples most favourite commentor.
Do you see me crawling off into the corner crying? NO!
So don't worry oh 'nosey one canobody'.
It's obvious that this forum is too mature for you, if you hurry, I think there's one for children further along.
With your snivelling putalant attitude, I think it's a perfect fit for you.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 8 March 2019 7:40:16 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
Foxy,

As we are in Australia then the English spelling, 'paedophile' would seem to be correct, however, the US spelling, like so many of their words may actually be the pre-Revolutionary English spelling.

See, programme and program, labour and labor.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 March 2019 8:43:32 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
They American spelling of words is better than the English spelling.

The American one is usually more in sync with how the word is pronounced.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 8 March 2019 10:26:45 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 English spelling has come about by the influence of the many races the British Royals married over the years, or so I am led to believe.
The English language has German and French contamination.
Even though the English language, like most languages has their roots from Latin, but pre-dominantly Italian.
So many words are the very same spelling, and meaning, in English and Italian.
I vaguely remember as a rule of thumb that words that ended with 'ough' were influenced by German.
And then there are the ones with French influence.
But because the French derived their language mostly from Italian/latin, the words are common and some do have the typical French sound to them.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 9 March 2019 12:56:43 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
Paul1405 and SteelRedux's discussion of Indian culture with Yuyutsu was interesting on a few levels. Apparently Gandhi read the Bhagavad Gita everyday- the ideas of Shiva and Kali are also interesting.

To me it indicates that western and eastern beliefs are very different. I prefer Traditional Conservative Australian values.
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 9 March 2019 1:38:21 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
Is Mise,

Talking about the word "pedophile."

You did understand what the word meant - its a
question of communication not spelling. That's
what mattered in this case.

Talking about the English language - it's a
language concocted out of a number of languages.
Many languages are read phonetically. Have
you ever tried to read English phonetically?
It's very funny.

Besides how many people living in this country
actually speak English correctly? Even in the UK
there is a multitude of dialects and meanings of
words.

Here's the spelling as given by Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/topic/pedophilia
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 9:49:03 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
cont'd ...

Is Mise,

The Oxford English Dictionary also gives
both spellings as being correct.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 9:55:52 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
I thought the folloeing opinion piece may be of interest.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-cardinal-and-mr-anonymous/10874492

However he does not any explanation as to why the accusers statements cannot be revealed. Or why the jury did not abide by the judges directions.

Nor does he tell us when the changes to evidence came into place, as this conviction makes it clear that an accused person now does have to prove his innocence and the prosecution can get away with mere allegations.

Interesting to know when it changed from 'innocent til proven guilty' and the precedent now set. How long before the changes pertaining to evidence required creep into other aspects of criminal law.
Posted by HenryL, Saturday, 9 March 2019 10:09:02 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
Henry L,

"Interesting to know when it changed from 'innocent til proven guilty' and the precedent now set. How long before the changes pertaining to evidence required creep into other aspects of criminal law."

A long time back, persons accused of X and against whom an AVO is sought are automatically presumed guilty and the police, by law, must act accordingly.

When the then Shooters' Party managed to have one aspect of the law changed to force the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused have to prove their innocence there was an outcry, particularly from the Greens in NSW, pandemonium was predicted because of this outrageous presumption of innocence.

Foxy,

Then we're both right; contentious American spellings are usually original English'

Phonetic rendering of modern English is often close to Anglo-Saxon in which every syllable is pronounced.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 10:54:09 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
Is Mise,

And where do English language roots come from?

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

Dear Steele,

I just want to say Thank You so much for getting
involved and standing up for me. Thank You for having
my back. I am so grateful to know I have someone in
my corner on this forum ready to come to my defense.
It means a great deal. I think it will benefit others
and make people think twice about what should or
should not be tolerated.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 1:58:18 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
Dear HenryL,

You write;

“Nor does he tell us when the changes to evidence came into place, as this conviction makes it clear that an accused person now does have to prove his innocence and the prosecution can get away with mere allegations.”

You seem to be continuing conflate allegation and testimony. The latter in law, “is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.”

The testimony in this case was given over a period of three solid days and undoubtedly tested through vigorous cross examination. As such is constitutes admissible evidence and in considering this evidence the jury decided that a verdict of guilty was appropriate.

By having Pell not give evidence in his defence the legal team obviously judged it would not assist and may well have been detrimental to his case. It was their decision to let the case be decided on the evidence presented by the victim alone.

Further you have not addressed the fact that there are many abusing priests who are now in jail because of testimonies just like this one, where there has been no other corroborating evidence, and where they have been brought to account many years after the abuse took place. I ask again do you judge all these convictions as unsafe and unjust?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 March 2019 2:10:17 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
Dear Foxy,

"is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person."

I think the rules are clear and while things can get pretty willing and some (even myself) can skate on thin ice there are posts which are just well beyond the pale, especially given the history of particular authors.

I am happy to call them out when they occur.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 March 2019 2:21:58 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
Steely, and so am I, and regularly do.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 9 March 2019 2:51:41 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
SR,
You now have had two attempts to show the cases where allegations alone, like in the Pell case, were used to convict a person of child sexual abuse. The first was Ridsdale and you did not disclose he pleaded guilty. The second was Aithinson in the ACT where I pointed out that there was material evidence presented and he also had a record of child sex convictions, plus he raped the victim many times over a long period. So you have failed both times.

There may be cases where only word on word evidence was used but I have yet to see one. The Pell case is the only one I know of.

Maybe it is a good thing that such a high profile person is convicted as we now might get the changes needed to avoid further convictions, based only on accusations. This could occur whether Pell's appeal is successful or not. Allegations must be proven, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Posted by HenryL, Saturday, 9 March 2019 2:52:39 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
Foxy,

Way back from Sanskrit and other Indian origins.

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

On the lighter side and pertaining (tenuously) to the current subject,
I once was involved, on the perimeter, of a hilarious sexual assault.

The woman in front of me at the Woolworths checkout suddenly spun to face me and with a look of fury on her face, seeing that both my hands were occupied with groceries, she looked down and there was the offender, my second son, all of three years old, he had put his hand up her undergarment.
"I put my hand in de warm." he said.

Smiles all round.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 3:20:11 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
I must add that he has never been allowed to forget the incident, even though he doesn't remember it.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 3:21:49 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
Dear HenryL,

You write;

“You now have had two attempts to show the cases where allegations alone, like in the Pell case, were used to convict a person of child sexual abuse. The first was Ridsdale and you did not disclose he pleaded guilty. The second was Aithinson in the ACT where I pointed out that there was material evidence presented and he also had a record of child sex convictions, plus he raped the victim many times over a long period. So you have failed both times.”

Firstly I will admit to not seeing your reply to me but we can deal with it now.

What follows with your reaction to the Ridsdale case that in your opinion if he had kept his mouth shut then a conviction was unlikely. Perhaps this was why Pell refused to take the stand. This would apply to all cases where the abuser was able to intimidate the victim into not revealing the crime until many years later when all physical evidence had gone.

In the case of Aithinson you may be talking about the letters between the church and the mother. However they were still in a very real sense hearsay and would likely not have resulted in a conviction on their own especially as the mother had died. Remember Aithinson's defence was that he is a homosexual and thus would not have committed rape on a girl.

Cont...
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 March 2019 4:09:53 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
Cont...

The Guardian addressed “word on word” cases saying;

“It used to be that the law could not give weight to a single complainant’s evidence unless there was also a witnesses who said the victim told them about the abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing the victim was distressed immediately after the attack. This may be why Richter made so much of the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was an adult.”

“But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to victims, so evidence requirements have changed. There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word. To ensure trials are still fair, legislation now requires the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it comes to word on word cases.”

So the “vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word.” yet you are claiming Pell's is the first? Really? http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/340

Get your hand off it my friend.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 March 2019 4:10:32 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
That's interesting, so if someone can show that they were unaware that their actions were illegal, in this case, sexual assault, it is OK and even more so if it involves a child.
That's good to know.
I am reminded then of the gypsy children in Europe who are groomed or trained to do acts of deception and purloin money/wallets from unsuspecting tourists.
So you can see the funny side of your three year old son's story, yet my harmless banter of previous comments, sends you into a state of a raging lunatic.
And you dare criticise me.
Children or not, any professional will tell you, some things begin from a very young age, so by 'laughing it off', you have set a very bad precedent.
I can see how women mis-trust men, that child appears to have been in your care.
I can hear the cries of condemnation already at your total disregard for this woman.
You said nothing about chastising or correcting your son for that, albeit, act of indiscretion towards the woman, who upon seeing it was a three year old, did the only thing left open to her, which was not what she was about to do and that was to abuse you in public.
I can only imagine she was left very distraught but had the courage to put on a brave face and laugh it off.
I can tell you of most 'females', who would have taken great pleasure in yelling and screaming at you, on the spot, for not controlling your child.
You are lucky that the woman you encountered was so forgiving and did not want to be aggressive and put you in your place, in front of your child.
So be grateful for that.
I hope you later sat him down and explained to him that what he did was wrong and not to do it again, because honestly, a three year old see's you both laughing at what he did, what do think he went away thinking.
You just taught him a 'bad' thing.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 9 March 2019 4:43:45 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
HenryL.,

You should read the following link:

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

Is Mise,

Here's a link you may enjoy:

http://vilnews.com/2011-04-incredible-indian-lithuanian-relations-2
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 4:51:38 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
Dear Steele,

I've gone through the word-on-word scenario on
page 33 of this discussion for Joe (Loudmouth),
and with HenryL., in another discussion.

I can't make out what's hard about not understanding
how the legislation has changed for sexual abuse cases.
And, what the law currently is.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 5:29:20 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
cont'd ...

I gave the full information on page 9 of the article
thread - "The Vendetta against Cardinal Pell."
HenryL commented in that discussion as well.
Doesn't make sense. He knows about the changes in law.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 5:36:07 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
Altrav,

Wake up.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:03:53 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
Dear Foxy,

Indeed. This was also interesting from him; "he also had a record of child sex convictions, plus he raped the victim many times over a long period".

Prior convictions are admissible in sentencing but not in the trial itself. Further is really wouldn't have mattered if the girl had been raped once or over a long period if it comes down to his word against hers.

There does seem to be something else driving our HenryL.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:25:44 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
Issy, old sock, it's taken me a while to understand some of you, and I am pleased with the fact that I am now reasonably familiar with the different types of homo-sapiens out there.
I woke up to this fact many years ago, but it is only since I have been on various forums that I find such diverse yet controversial mind sets.
No Issy I have been awake for many years, only woke up to the foibles and even worse, of humans in general, a few years ago, now.
I come across as 'all things bad', but actually having been a precocious child, I have always tested the boundaries just to see what it produced.
All my life I have been an inquisitor, some who know me compare my emotional demeanor to that of Sheldon. (Big Bang)
Can't see it myself, but anyway, moving on.
So I see you took umbrage to my little observation.
I was attempting to show parallels with the submissions the other commentors have been forwarding on this topic.
Much has been said about where do these kinds of actions come from?
How do they begin or manifest themselves into these people who prey on children?
My comments were meant as just one example of 'what might be'.
Upon reading your story, I felt that you saw the lighter side of the incident, but completely missed the overarching or possibly, underlying message in all the events that happened on that fateful day at the checkout.
If you stand back and read the same posting, objectively and not subjectively with an emotional stance, you will see it is not unreasonable.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:58:14 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
Altrav,

Grow up.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 8:14:02 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
Foxy,
This thread started at the end of February. It was then, after reading a list of evidence at Pell's trial, that I learned that there was only the accuser as witness for the prosecution and deduced that Pell was convicted on accusations alone. I asked out loud "How could this be so" as the basis of our legal system is supposedly guilt has to be proven. Word on word evidence used to mean acquittal.

No one has ever stated that the rules of evidence had changed from'the prosecution must prove guilt' to 'if accused, one must prove his innocence'. The courts no longer need proof of guilt, allegations without confirmation will do. This was confirmed to me by the Guardian article. Even now nine days later, in link I posted, a professor of Law is saying that the prosecution has to prove guilt and Pell has no need to speak for himself. That is Bull. It is perfectly obvious that he was given wrong advice, he had to prove his innocence. He is a capable speaker and can speak for himself.

What I cannot understand is that all the states, certainly Victoria, has gone from 'innocent til proven guilty' to 'Guilty unless you can prove otherwise'. The unintended consequences of this dramatic change are tremendous and against everything we have stood for, for hundreds of years. Magna Carta comes to mind. Were these changes implemented 1 year ago, 5 years ago or 50 years ago? No one seems to know.

I have been advocating prosecutions for FGM for over 10 years and the police and prosecutors have said it is too hard to get a conviction. Well the Pell case shows that all they need to do is make an accusation, it is sex abuse of children, then decide on penalty.
Posted by HenryL, Saturday, 9 March 2019 8:52:44 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
Issy, 'GROW UP, GROW UP', that's the best you can do, that's all you've got?
Mate, reckon I'd get a better rebuttal from your three year old.
Now do you see that i'm right again?
I engage in a mature informed discussion, with suggestions and speculations, and what do you do?
You go and prove the point that some of you are not fit for intrigue and controversy.
All you and your running mates are good for is stating the obvious, quoting other people, and telling each other how wonderful you all are.
You never actually take in what others write if it does not help your stance or opinion.
You guys are typically Aussy, you have NO idea of what's going on around you, and if you do, you choose to ignore it as it deosn't suite you're idea of the world as you think it should be, instead of what it is.
You guys remind me of the definition of a madman;
'repeating exactly the same thing over and over, expecting a different result'.
Just thought I'd throw that in as it appears there is an expectation that labour will win the next election.
The real demonstration of seriously flawed people, is when you get dreamers who believe that govt ministers, police, the justice system and other public services, are honest and have the public interests as their sole purpose.
Unfortunately the opposite is the case, but it's easier to ignore this than to do something about it.
And so it is that you and your mates need to 'grow up', not me
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 9 March 2019 9:36:19 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
ALTRAV,

Throw up.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 March 2019 10:07:38 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
HenryL.,

I don't understand what your problem is regarding
Cardinal Pell's case. You don't seem to understand
that according to the current law - it was up
to the prosecution to prove their case - which they
apparently did as the jury found Pell guilty. The
presumption of innocence had not changed. The verdict
was arrived at by what they heard from both sides.

For me this discussion has now well and truly run its
course.

See you on the next one.

See you on the next one.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 March 2019 10:25:17 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
Foxy,
I don't wish to continue any discussion.

For me it is simple. Word on word used to mean acquittal, it obviously no longer does. Now testimony with nothing more than accusations can convict someone. No support evidence required.

It is not good enough for a court to say 'we won't release all what the accuser had to say but we believe him over the accused'. The public needs to be shown why.
Posted by HenryL, Sunday, 10 March 2019 10:09:32 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
HenryL.,

No, " word-on-word" did not used to mean acquittal.
Read the link I gave on child sexual abuse cases
in Australia. As for what was presented in the Pell case
you have no way of knowing that. Previously a gag order
was placed on the case. Now - the Appeal
still has to go through - so not everything can be
discussed.

I shall not be responding to you any further.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 March 2019 10:25:03 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
Foxy I will remind you of something you put up before.
Quote
"Dear Paul,

The Sydney Morning Herald published the results of
a survey on Saturday 2 March 2019 which asked:

Do you think the guilty verdict for George Pell on
child abuse charges was right?

71% said - yes

7% said - no

22% were unsure.

The Pellophiles have been outvoted!"

** You thought you were being smart by putting it here, even you final comment "The Pellophiles have been outvoted!" shows how you thought you were smarter than others, problem is it backfired.

The only thing your survey shows is that 78% of people are willing to make a decision based on MSM reports, at least there were 22% that had the brains to not make a judgement.

The shows that there is a high likely hood he had no chance of getting a fair trial. **
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 10 March 2019 1:27:48 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
Henry L,

"It is not good enough for a court to say 'we won't release all what the accuser had to say but we believe him over the accused'. The public needs to be shown why."

Spot on, there should be no secrecy, if the jurors can hear something then so should the rest of the community.

Secrecy leads to conspiracy theories and the Pell case is already generating a few, we only have to look at the way conspiracy has dogged the Port Arthur murders to see what secrecy generates.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 March 2019 1:31:23 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
Philip S.,

No, what those stats show is that the majority of people
have faith in our jury system and our legal process.

Is Mise,

The suppression orders were put in place to ensure
that the jurors were not influenced by the media bias and that
Cardinal Pell got a fair trial. And now the same has to remain
to ensure his appeal is heard fairly.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 March 2019 2:22:31 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
Just a quick query, I was looking at Indian men's dress not two minutes ago, and now the same add pops up on the forum; what's going on?
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 March 2019 5:11:26 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
Is Mise,

I love AAshni and Co Indian designer clothes from London.
I have some of their exotic outfits. I look up their
site often to see what's new.

Can't explain why I've always been drawn to these
clothes. Perhaps in another life...
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 March 2019 5:15:49 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
Dear HenryL and Is Mise,

Sections 290–294C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 reads in part;

“The evidence of the complainant must be held in camera unless otherwise directed by the court (s 291(1)), even if the evidence is being given via CCTV or any of the other alternative means of giving evidence in person: s 291(2). Such evidence is only to be given in open court if requested by a party, and it is either in the “special interests of justice” or the complainant consents: s 291(3). Finding the “special interests of justice” involves a limited exercise of discretion because s 291(4) specifically provides that the principle that proceedings should generally be in open or in public and/or that justice should be seen to be done etc, does not constitute the “special interests of justice” in determining whether or not the complainant should give evidence in open court. There are no decided cases yet defining the extent of this discretion.”

So I'm not sure your staunch defence of Pell, nor that of many rightwing pundits who are clamouring to protest the innocence of a convicted child abuser, nor the wide community interest in the case should mean are proper grounds to evoke the “special interests of justice” clause and have the victim's testimony exposed to the wider public.

You obviously think otherwise but are yet to make your case.

And while I dispute your claim that “word on word” use to always mean acquittal it certainly meant given the nature of the crime, convictions of abusing clergy were far more difficult that they should have been in order to have them brought to justice and for young Australia kids to be protected.

The law needed to be changed and it was through an act of parliament voted on by our elected representatives.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 10 March 2019 5:28:16 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
Steele,

Not just the law, but the way that children are accessed - any teacher knows never to be alone with a child in a classroom, certainly not with a closed door - in fact, not to get between a child and the door. Surely procedures can be devised where adults necessarily have access to children, but whereby no adult is fully alone with a child to whom he is not related, certainly not with closed doors. Any decent bloke would be aware of this, surely ?

A chaperone-type system might work, women taking it upon themselves to watch for any potentially dangerous situation ? Different change-rooms for male adults and children, at swimming pools and in spaces like cloisters and sacristies, etc. Change procedures, minimise potentially dangerous situations.

And for God's sake, let priests marry.

For all that, and all that, I'm uneasy with the notion that someone can be found guilty on someone else's assertion. That sounds like a step on the path to totalitarianism, where the word of a Stasi- or Nazi-type informer can have someone shot. And their entire family shot or jailed. [Hmmm, a bit over the top.] But surely the presumption of innocence surely has to be observed ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 March 2019 5:41:37 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
Joe,

Marriage doesn't seem to make any difference, ref Anglican and other married clergy who have also offended.

Note that not all Catholic priests are unmarried.

"During his La Repubblica interview Pope Francis said that 2% of priests are paedophiles. I have to admit that yes, about two in every 100 priests I have known or reported on have later been exposed as abusers of children, especially adolescent boys. Psychiatrists who specialise in this field estimate its prevalence at about 4% of the general population. One of the most simplistic claims about abusers in the Catholic church is that their acts are directly linked to celibacy, as if these any celibate male has repressed urges that burst out if there’s an altar boy handy. But that doesn’t account for Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, or the social workers, teachers, Anglican vicars, and fathers and uncles who have all assaulted young people. As Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, once said to me, people who want to abuse children find ways to access them. Becoming a Catholic priest was one way of gaining a position of trust and authority in the parish, in the school and in the confessional.

Yet that figure of 2%, compared to the 4% norm, remains troubling. The most convincing explanation I have ever read for this frequency among Catholic clergy is that of the German professor Klaus M Beier of the Institute of Sexology at the Berlin Charité hospital, whose research shows that people with desires for children and adolescents have known for a long time of their fantasies and impulses, and they seek out ways to control them. Celibacy ordered by a religious institution is attractive because it is imposed on them, says Beier, but that imposition makes it bound to fail, as they are not willing themselves to deal with their problem. It seems to me, then, that a paedophile is akin to an alcoholic, or any other addict. Abstinence imposed by external rules, not really wanted by yourself, will fail."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/priests-marry-catholic-church-paedophile-pope-francis
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 March 2019 6:32:36 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
Dear Is Mise;

You wrote;

“Yet that figure of 2%, compared to the 4% norm, remains troubling.”

Absolute utter bulldust!

What on earth are you taking about? We have just gone through a traumatic Royal Commission in this country trying to get to the truth of the extent of the abuse and this is what they found;

“Counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness SC said 1880 alleged perpetrators were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. Of the 1880, 32 per cent were religious brothers, 30 per cent were priests, 29 per cent were lay people and 5 per cent were sisters.”

“Of religious orders with only religious brother members, the highest proportion of alleged perpetrators were members of St John of God (40.4 per cent), the Christian Brothers (22 per cent), the Salesians of Don Bosco (21.9 per cent), Marist Brothers (20.4 per cent) and the De La Salle Brothers (13.4 per cent).”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/almost-4500-claimed-abuse-in-catholic-institutions-over-35-years-royal-commission-told-20170206-gu65mq.html

Those figures you just trotted out are an absolute affront to all those who came forward to relive deeply traumatic experiences to shine a light on how evil and predatory the clerical class have been in this country. They are many times more likely to be committing crimes against our kids than the norm and to be intimating otherwise is despicable.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 10 March 2019 7:02:58 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
Steele,

Don't confuse Australian percentages with World percentages (and there are no really reliable world percentages), anyhow the purpose of the quotation was to shew that marriage makes no difference and that some Catholic priests are married although no married Catholic priest is known to be among the offenders (but it's early days yet),
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 March 2019 7:46:53 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
Hi Steele,

I don't know what it is with the forums Usual Suspects, mostly a group of crusty old conservative male geriatrics, that they want to put themselves up as paedophile apologists. Flawed attempts at mitigation, one claimed it was a way of turning boys into men, and all the perpetrator was doing was "getting his rocks off", how nice is that. One fruitcake claimed it was punishment for the sins of a previous life. Now its some dodgy stats trying to paint paedophile clergy as being a small minority, less than societies average.

I watched in disgust as the Papal P in Rome lectured to his band of old aged henchmen about paedophilia, no doubt several were in the audience. For all what has been exposed in a handful of developed countries, like Australia, paedophilia in the big Catholic countries of the third world goes on unabated. The primary objective of the Catholic Church, despite all their pontificating, is still, to try and keep a lid on the problem wherever possible through damage control.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 10 March 2019 9:57:42 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
Paul,

"Now its some dodgy stats trying to paint paedophile clergy as being a small minority, less than societies average."

Well, what are the real stats?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 11 March 2019 7:22:52 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
Dear Is Mise,

I gave you the real stats, meticulously compiled through an extensive royal commission.

Even given the acknowledged under-reporting of this type of crime they make horrendous reading. They took a lot of brave people coming forward to give evidence and absolutely destroyed any figures like the ones you quote which came from the Catholic Church.

So why are you still giving them the slightest credence?

Dear Loudmouth,

You are still using the word assertion. He wasn't convicted on an assertion at all but rather a sworn testimony given and then rigorously cross examined over three days by one of the most high ranking defence teams in the country.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 March 2019 11:39:45 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
Steele,

Even if the 'witness' and his testimony were sworn on a stack of bibles, and he kissed the cross three times and spat, his testimony is still not much more than an assertion if it isn't backed up by something solid.

I wish it wasn't so, because it puts countless victims of pedophilia in no-win positions - after all, pedophiles are not stupid, they plan their crimes, single out the vulnerable, and try to leave no trace or commit their crimes without witnesses. Which is partly why victims don't go to the police straight away.

I hope that many, many other people have the courage to come forward and lay charges, backed up by some sort of evidence other than assertion, somehow, so that pedophiles can be prosecuted successfully and adequately.

Apart from all that, to avoid future crimes as much as possible, of course children shouldn't ever be in vulnerable situations, and most professionals, teachers, doctors, dentists, etc., (e.g. responsible parents) and maybe even priests, know that from Day One. Swimming pools should have separate adult-and-children change-rooms, etc. How hard can all that be ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 11 March 2019 12:31:07 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
Steele,

"I gave you the real stats, meticulously compiled through an extensive royal commission."

as compiled for Australia, is there any valid reason to extrapolate them to the whole world?

For what it's worth I think that 2% is a ridiculously low figure for a worldwide assessment but I don't think that it would go as high as the Australian figures.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 11 March 2019 12:52:17 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
Dear Loudmouth,

The Royal Commission report contained many recommendations including these;

46. Common law principles or rules that restrict the admission of propensity or similar fact evidence should be explicitly abolished or excluded in relation to the admissibility of tendency or coincidence evidence about the defendant in a child sexual offence prosecution.

47. Issues of concoction, collusion or contamination should not affect the admissibility of tendency or coincidence evidence about the defendant in a child sexual offence prosecution. The court should determine admissibility on the assumption that the evidence will be accepted as credible and reliable, and the impact of any evidence of concoction, collusion or contamination should be left to the jury or other fact-finder.

48. Tendency or coincidence evidence about a defendant in a child sexual offence prosecution should not be required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

49. Evidence of: a. the defendant’s prior convictions b. acts for which the defendant has been charged but not convicted (other than acts for which the defendant has been acquitted) should be admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence if it otherwise satisfies the test for admissibility of tendency or coincidence evidence about a defendant in a child sexual offence prosecution.

65.

c. Uncorroborated evidence:
Legislation should provide that the judge must not direct, warn or suggest to the jury that it is ‘dangerous or unsafe to convict’ on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant or that the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant should be ‘scrutinised with great care’.

d. Children’s evidence: Legislation should provide that: i. the judge must not direct, warn or suggest to the jury that children as a class are unreliable witnesses ii. the judge must not direct, warn or suggest to the jury that it would be ‘dangerous or unsafe to convict’ on the uncorroborated evidence of a child or that the uncorroborated evidence of a child should be ‘scrutinised with great care’ iii. the judge must not give a direction or warning about, or comment on, the reliability of a child’s evidence solely on account of the age of the child.

I support them all.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 March 2019 1:43:29 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
Well, after all those posts, nobody has changed his stance on the jailing of George Pell, and neither has the editor of Quadrant Online, quoting from Fr. Raymond J. de Souza's article for the 'National Catholic Register': "Calling Cardinal Pell’s Prosecution What It Is: Religious Persecution".

"Now that the peculiar “suppression order” in Australia has been lifted, we are free to state what has been evident for several years now. The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been a monstrous miscarriage of justice, a religious persecution carried out by prosecutorial means."

The article goes on to say:

" .... There is no shame that Cardinal Pell is in jail; the shame is sufficiently abundant to be worn by all those who put him there…"

And whole show was a "sustained and calculated strategy to corrupt the criminal-justice system toward politically motivated ends".

de Souza opines that this miscarriage wasn't a mistake. It was done with " and prosecutorial malice aforethought". He doesn't blame the jury. He does blame the "... highly trained and experienced police officers and prosecutors (who) decided that the former archbishop of Sydney was guilty even before any charges were brought whatsoever."

Pell was convicted on the testimony of a 'single witness' who presented and 'incredible' story without 'corroboration ... physical evidence .... or previous pattern of behaviour'.

The full article can be read from the editorial section of Quadrant; no paywall
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 March 2019 2:06:34 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
Issy, it easy for the Catholic church to fudge the figures on the number of paedophiles in their ranks. Firstly when counting the number include all the nuns, they have a low instance of paedophilia. Then add in all the clergy from the big third world Catholic countries both male and female, where paedophilia is not investigated at all. In that way its easy to come up with a dodge figure like 2%.
Its not rocket science, even some dumb arse priest can do it.

Steele's figures for Australia are what we need to be looking at. The number for Australian Cardinals is 100% at the moment.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 11 March 2019 3:11:13 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
Dear Is Mise,

You asked;

"is there any valid reason to extrapolate them to the whole world?"

Well why not?

Australians may have the unenviable reputation as the nationality delivering the highest ratios of pedophiles in Thailand per visas issued.

However I think you can comfortably conclude abuse is about as prevalent within the clergy in other countries.

It should be remembered that the Church's own figures showed over 15% of priests in the Sale diocese from 1950 to 2010 had credible allegations against them. Port Pirie was 14.1%, Sandhurst in Victoria was 14.7%. Given the average time of reporting is is well into the decades it is likely there are many in the more recent years who have yet to step forward inflating those numbers. But they hardly tell the true story.

The male suicide rate in Ballarat is twice that of Melbourne and many have suggested the high number of abusing clergy such as Ridsdale is one of the underlying factors. It is likely there would be many of those victims suffering mentally who take their stories with them after ending their own lives causing under-reporting.

The Royal Commission allowed people to come and tell their stories without having to go through the police channels. For many it was the first time they had told anyone. It is from them that we get the startling figures I quoted earlier.

“Of religious orders with only religious brother members, the highest proportion of alleged perpetrators were members of St John of God (40.4 per cent), the Christian Brothers (22 per cent), the Salesians of Don Bosco (21.9 per cent), Marist Brothers (20.4 per cent) and the De La Salle Brothers (13.4 per cent).”

Why is anyone contesting the incontestable? The clerical class in this country has been extremely predatory and prolific in its abuse of our young. The rights of those innumerable victims to be heard are hardly being mentioned. Rather it is the rights of a convicted child abuser which seem to exercise so many on this thread.

Something is seriously out of kilter when that happens.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 March 2019 3:37:36 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
Dear Steele,

The Royal Commission looked only at Pell's sins
of omission - his failures over the years to
protect children, to discipline priests and to
comfort the abused. They did not revisit the
allegations that as a seminarian he had abused
boys at a camp in Phillip Island. In his early
days as archbishop of Sydney Pell had to stand
aside for a few months while the church examined
claims of one of the former altar boys - the verdict
of the retired judge was:

not proven, but not dismissed.

This man has sung over the years that - no sex is sacred.
that impressed John Paul II and Benedict XVI immensely.
But Pope Francis takes a rather different view:
"Behind rigidity something always lives hidden -
in many cases a double life."

The world now knows that - a little over 20 years in
Pell's first month as archbishop of Melbourne -
this scourge of sex was forcing choirboys to suck his penis!
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 11 March 2019 3:53:29 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
Steele,

"Australians may have the unenviable reputation as the nationality delivering the highest ratios of pedophiles in Thailand per visas issued."

Is the definition of paedophiles based on Australian law or Thai law?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 11 March 2019 5:55:28 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
Another Catholic paedophile Fr. Michael Ambrose Endicott was sentenced to 18 months jail in Brisbane District Court. Last week Endicott was found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent dealing with a child. Judge Leanne Clare said Endicott "deliberately manipulated a young child under his care". This grub had been in a position of trust at as a teacher and priest at Villanova College in Brisbane. There he photographed the schoolboy nude on three occasions from 1975 to 1981. Judge Clare said the offences were premeditated, protracted and caused lasting harm to the student.

Endicott had been convicted of similar offences in 2010. However The Catholic Church allowed this rock spider to phonograph children at World Youth Day. The grub is still a priest, and despite his past conviction the church allowed him free access to children, particularly young boys.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 11 March 2019 6:42:28 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
PAUL,

Sorry, I just can't resist!!

How does one phonograph small boys?

Is that some new deviation?

Incidentally, read 'The Deviationists', a lot of hard work went into it.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 11 March 2019 6:58:46 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
Yes Issy, we can make light of the rock spiders in the Catholic Church. As ALTRAV one of paedophile apologists said, its only these guys "getting their rocks off".
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:56:13 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
Paul,

I wasn't making light of rock spiders, I was only trying to help you!!
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 11 March 2019 9:18:11 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
Thank you for the help Issy, sorry. This bloke is a bit of a weirdo, got pinged in 2010 for taking nude photos of a schoolboy. Then the Church does nothing about him, lets him go off to World Youth Day where he's seen running around taking more happy snaps of kids, presumably with their clothes on. Then he gets up to him old tricks of taking another boys photo in the nutty. Gets 18 months in the slammer. This ones cut and dry, they had the evidence, his collection of happy snaps, and he's still a priest.

How are you going wit the book?
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 5:52:04 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
Paul,

The book is fascinating, gives a very different view and I would think that the real story is a mix of the two.
I do find the book a bit heavy going in spots and his essays into fiction, whilst readable, don't do much for the overall story.

Regarding the priest, ordinarily, a priest always remains a priest although he may be forbidden to exercise the role of a priest.
See:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_clerical_state_(Catholic_Church)
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 8:29:59 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
Hi Issy;

Leo Kennedy, has put an extensive amount of references at the back, detailing official documents from the time. I know how much you like your references, you're always asking me for references. Did you get that job from the last reference I gave you? ha ha.
Let me know when you get to the part about the gang of pedophile priests rustling school boys in the Wombat Rangers in 1870, just to keep on topic.
Reading 'Classic Australian Folklore' by A.K. Macdougall at the moment, its been a good read
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 11:19:15 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
Dear Paul,

Reading the book by Louise Milligan,
"The Cardinal..." is also a real eye-opener.

Cardinal Pell has now been sentenced to six years jail
with a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months.
He's also on the register as a pedophile.

In my opinion it was a very light sentence. Just for
the cover ups, the protection of abusive clergy,
and the refusal to admit egregious mistakes, and show
any remorse, moving abusive priests from parish
to parish thus giving them access to new victims,
fighting the claims of victims at every term,
- he deserves at least 20 years.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 12:53:59 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
Hi Foxy,

No one is above the law, no is to powerful to be prosecuted. Judge Peter Kidd was scathing of Pell in his one hour summation.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 1:11:31 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
Funny how perceptions differ, I listened to the sentencing and guessed that Pell would get five years, whereas in effect he got just over three years.
He will be out at the end of the parole period if not before as he will be a model prisoner and will be treated with kid gloves.

Will be the holiday that he needs.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 1:57:18 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
By jailing a Cardinal for these sordid crimes
Australia has demonstrated that the rule of
law runs in this country. Getting here hasn't
been easy - but we have proven that no one is
above the law. It seems that Rome may just learn
that it has lost the power to protect men like
him. In our case Pell's accuser was believed by
the police, the Victorian director of public
prosecutions and ultimately the jury.

It should be noted that the first jury did not
acquit Pell. He was not in any sense cleared by the
failure to reach a verdict. The very tight circle that
knows how the jurors voted does not include any of us.
Perhaps one day we shall.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 2:49:47 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
Those opposed to the law running it course must ask themselves is the justice system not for those you like
our country is a better place because of this sentence
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 3:03:01 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
Belly,

All that this sentence will do is harden the attitudes of conflicting sides and add to the ravings of conspiracy theorists.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 4:43:11 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
Is Mise,

This sentence will do much more than that.
It will send a message to Rome that it can
no longer protect men like him and that the
rule of law runs in this country.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 4:58:20 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
Foxy,

"This sentence will do much more than that.
It will send a message to Rome that it can
no longer protect men like him and that the
rule of law runs in this country"

You're joking. right?

What makes you think that Australia is important enough to worry the Vatican?

When did the Vatican last try to protect a man like Pell?
By all accounts, the Vatican urged him to return to Australia and face the music.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 5:31:51 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
is mise I respect your right to stand up for the Catholic Church
At my birth, solid COE I truly thought that Church was somehow Holier than others
Yes heard the they are the devil stuff
I shudder each time someone ignores the revealed history of your Church, world wide
Often Drive past a Hunter Valley Catholic Church/School, one that saw ALMOST ALL its staff charged, often convicted with much the same
How can a no longer believer say this? *I know the Church, any Church is a strong benefit to a better world*
However in defending Pell, in trying not to pay compensation world wide,your Church is self harming
Maybe it is just a trend, but less and less are entering the Church/Faith, Pell must share some blam
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 5:37:08 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
Looks like the forums bunch of rabid paedophile apologists have fallen off the pace on this one.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 7:50:52 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
Belly,

Who's standing up for the Catholic Church?

I said previously that I am in favour of executing paedophiles, isn't anyone else?
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 8:14:14 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
agree ismise and sorry if I miss spoke
The Thread Was started in defense of Pell,my mind must have drifted
That defense harms the Church
if only we listened to the kids
that did not always happen
Yesterday it did
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 March 2019 4:45:57 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
Is Mise,

The Vatican is concerned about their image and so they
should be. Child sexual abuse has done
immeasurable damage to the reputation of the church and
respect for the priesthood global is understandably at an
all time low. People are leaving the church in droves and
that hits the Vatican in the hip pocket. Hence Pell's
instructions from Pope Francis to go back to Australia
and face the music.

BTW - you told me in the article discussion about Pell -
that the jurors in Pell's first trial found him 10-2
for acquittal. In actual fact the first jury did not
acquit Pell. They could not reach a unanimous vote for
acquittal or even a 11-1 majority verdict. So you
see he was not in any sense cleared by the failure to
reach a verdict. Hence a mistrial. Just thought you
should know. Whereas in his second trial the jury
returned a unanimous verdict of guilty - which ended
with the man's conviction and sentencing.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 9:27:43 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
Foxy,

" The very tight circle that
knows how the jurors voted does not include any of us.
Perhaps one day we shall."

I was alluding to the above statement of yours which was wrong, nothing else.

Australians have an exalted opinion of their country's importance, what Australia thinks would not concern the Vatican much.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 9:56:12 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
Is Mise,

I was referring to the first trial.
My statement was not wrong.
As for what the Vatican thinks of Australia
the facts speak for themselves. It was an
Australian Cardinal who received such a
high promotion - and it was the same Australian
Cardinal who was told to return and face the
music. So opinion was important to the Vatican.
Why are you trying to down play the importance
of our country to the Vatican?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 10:29:51 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
Is Mise,

I was referring to the first trial.
My statement was not wrong.
As for what the Vatican thinks of Australia
the facts speak for themselves. It was an
Australian Cardinal who received such a
high promotion - and it was the same Australian
Cardinal who was told to return and face the
music. So opinion was important to the Vatican.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 10:29:56 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
cont'd ...

Prior to this scandal Cardinal Pell
was rumoured to be in the running as
the next Pope. Australia is hardly
unimportant in the eyes of the Vatican.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 10:32:31 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
Hi Foxy,

//Prior to this scandal Cardinal Pell was rumoured to be in the running as the next Pope.//

He was only an outside chance before this, in fact 100/1 in the betting, but now he's fives on favourite for the gig. He can run the whole Vatican show from inside Her Majesties Prison Pentridge!

BTW, What race at Flemington is he in, The Aged Geldings Handicap. If not why not?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 March 2019 11:58:06 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
Hi Issy,

//I said previously that I am in favour of executing paedophiles, isn't anyone else?//

No, but I do favour Archy Pell sharing a cell with Ivan Milat, and giving Archy control of the TV. What do you think of that?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 March 2019 12:25:04 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
Dear Paul,

I've been wondering what will happen to
Cardinal Pell after he's gone through the
legal process? I suppose it depends on whether
he wins or loses his appeal - right?

I've got to admit that I'm somewhat conflicted
by what the church should do in his case as
opposed to what the law has done. The law has punished
him according to the law. For crimes committed and that's
fair enough.

However forgiveness is a part of the church's teachings.
Can the church take everything away from
him - and kick him out totally as they've done with the
American Cardinal - where they're not even going to be
responsible for his living expenses, medical expenses,
and what happens to him now.

For a church that has always
preached forgiveness doesn't that seem rather severe?
Aren't they not practising what they preach? Surely they
could have just defrocked the man - and put him out where
he could do no harm. But to totally disown him? Does
not seem like something the Catholic church should do.

What do you think?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 12:30:18 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
foxy,

" Surely they
could have just defrocked the man - "

Before the discussion goes any further, the Catholic Church does not de-frock anyone, that's a Protestant expression.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 2:05:29 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
Is Mise,

That's a journalistic expression.

However I'm sure that you understood its meaning.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 2:32:56 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
Hi Foxy,

The Catholic Church will do whatever limits damage to the Churches "good name". Despite my sarcasm, guilty or innocent, there is no way Pell can make any kind of comeback from this. Should he get the conviction overturned a quite retirement somewhere out of the spotlight will be the order of call.

Under the rules, Australia is entitled to one active voting Cardinal, a bloke under 80 years of age. Pell's predecessor Edward Clancy retired as Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney in 2001 aged about 78, which is the paramount Church position in Australia. Pell took over as Archbishop of Sydney, but once Clancy reached the age of 80 in 2003 Pell was made a Cardinal with voting rights. No matter what in 2021 or later the Pope will create another Catholic Cardinal for Australia, probably again the Archbishop of Sydney. I think the present top dog in Australia is the conservative Anthony Fisher. Other than pontificating, Fisher has done little to deal with child sex abuse cases in his own Diocese of Sydney, more interested in slamming progressives and other political enermies along with the usual minorities he don't like in society. Like Clancy and Pell before him, not really concerned with cleaning out the filth in his own backyard.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 March 2019 2:45:32 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pell-sentencing-inside-the-court/10896292
I found the link expressed my views
I despise the man
And yes sections, far too big a section, of his Church world wide
I do that because they, still, cover up such evil, in the name of God, some surely do not believe in
My history is full of confrontations with the Catholic driven National Civic Council
It once powered the Diplomatic Labor Party, an enemy of everything Labor stands for
But yes true, I feel sorry for Pell, no man so badly beaten, in his case by his own actions, misuse of power influence, should stand alone as they near life's end
Entered this conversation only after it became clear views other than he is not guilty,its a fit up, are seen here
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 March 2019 3:05:26 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
paul.

"Other than pontificating, Fisher has done little to deal with child sex abuse cases in his own Diocese of Sydney,"

How do you know that?

Are you privy to what goes on inside the Diocese at the highest levels?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 3:07:34 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
Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

I guess the pattern of protecting the church has been
set by its record.

We shall have to wait and see what develops after
the Pell case.

Is Mise,

Give it a rest - you're beginning to look
silly.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 4:09:38 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
Ise nmise that dead horse will never run
Right now world wide, the Church is in the spotlight for acts of true evil
Even against its Nuns
Only open full on clean out can save the Church, and that seems unlikely as defenders continue to pop up
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 March 2019 5:19:39 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
Foxy,

"BTW - you told me in the article discussion about Pell -
that the jurors in Pell's first trial found him 10-2
for acquittal. In actual fact the first jury did not
acquit Pell. They could not reach a unanimous vote for
acquittal or even a 11-1 majority verdict. So you
see he was not in any sense cleared by the failure to
reach a verdict."

No one said that he was acquited but you asked how anyone knew what the jury vote was and then gave the figures.

Run and hide in your den!!
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 5:41:17 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
Dear Is Mise,

You are being thick again.

If someone hasn't been acquitted then it is perfectly reasonable to assume the vote to acquit was neither unanimous not 11-1 or else he bloody well would have been acquitted!
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 March 2019 5:45:22 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
Issy, talking tough about executing paedophiles when you know that is not going to happen, is different from looking for outs to defend the Catholic Church from accusations of inaction. You don't have to be in on the Arch Bishops Thursday night poker game to read reports of the frustration of victims, and paedophile victim support groups at the Church's lack of action, particularly regarding the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse. The man in Rome, or the man in Sydney, can moralise all they like, they can offer all the comforting platitudes to victims they wish, but until real action is taken by the Church hierarchy they are nothing but words without meaning.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 March 2019 6:09:01 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
Steele,

Are you as thick as Foxy?

No one said that he had been acquitted but Foxy asked how anyone knew that the vote was 10/2 for acquittal.

The fact that she mentioned the figure indicated that she knew and I gave her a link to a discussion of the 10/2 disagreement.

Now I'll say it again, people knew that the jury vote was 10/2 because it was publicised, it was not a secret.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 6:11:44 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
Paul,

"...but until real action is taken by the Church hierarchy they are nothing but words without meaning."

What do you suggest?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 7:03:12 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
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/vatican-is-in-shame-and-sorrow-over-abuses-in-pennsylvania
The saddest thing about this link?it could be one of tens maybe hundreds that could be posted
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 March 2019 7:05:14 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
Dear Steele,

We still don't really know how the vote was split
in the first jury. Quadrant magazine said it
was 10-2 for acquittal. But how do they know they
were not there. How does anyone know what the split was?
The complainant's testimony which convinced 12 jurors
who heard it wasn't convincing for 2 (or was it 10) who
heard it. This would be more interesting if we knew exactly
how the jury was split - but we don't. Can Quadrant mag.
be trusted? How do they know? Where did they get their
information from - what reputable site? All we do know for
certain is that it was a "hung" jury in the first trial.
And Is Mise is totally reliant on Quadrant.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 14 March 2019 7:39:20 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
Foxy,

Where did you get the figure from?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 March 2019 8:11:28 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
10/2 is simply an unsubstantiated figure thrown about by the paedophile apologists to try and give credence to some misconceived notion of Pell being innocent. The first trial is irrelevant, what matters is the second trial which found Pell guilty as charged. That's the trial that put the paedophile behind bars!

BTW Issy, in your 1945 episode why was it not reported to police? In 1945 any homosexual act was a criminal offence, and those adults failing to report such criminal matters were also libel to criminal prosecution. Even then the Catholic Church was a criminal organisation.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 March 2019 8:42:47 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
Dear Is Mise;

You wrote;

"Now I'll say it again, people knew that the jury vote was 10/2 because it was publicised, it was not a secret."

Not even the judge knew and it would have been a crime for any of the jurors to reveal the actual split, so who publicised it, and where did they get their information from, and how on earth could you possibly vouch for its accuracy?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 March 2019 9:31:08 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 Pell defenders, those protecting the Catholic Church blindly
Are In fact doing great damage to that Church
Catholic Church, by its at best, half hearted efforts to stop further offenses and admit past ones, is killing that Church
Posted by Belly, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:47:09 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
In this case I think the accused has been stitched up. Only one mans word against another, not enough to send a bloke to trial, let alone a guilty verdict. They should have found a better case with more evidence.
We will see what the appeal brings out.

Catholics only have themselves to blame as it has been going on for centuries (since 1100) and parents keep sending their kids to the same places they themselves knew it was going on. The kids openly spoke about Fatherxxxx, Brother xxxx and the cruel nuns. Did they expect a new pope to fix it.

Homosexual abuse is horrible at 15 but apparently OK at 16 as our community gave their approval of the sordid practices when they voted to accept SSM only a few months ago. Wonder how many of those now ranting gave their approval of the homosexual practices recently. I know I did not.
Posted by HenryL, Friday, 15 March 2019 9:22:56 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
Steele,

I'm not vouching for its accuracy, I was following Foxy who is apparently privy to information that no one else has.

How did she know that the vote was 10/2?

Paul,

I told you earlier, we were working-class Irish and we told the police nothing.
The matter was sorted out with a good outcome for all, including the perpetrator, who left the religious life, thereafter married, had a family and led a blameless life.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:42:29 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
Is Mise,

You gave us the 10-2 citation from "Quadrant."

I questioned it.

The Guardian explains further:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain

Scroll down to the paragraph that asks:

Ït has been rumoured that the jurors in the mistrial were
split 10 - to - two in favour of Pell. Is this right?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 March 2019 11:04:54 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
Pat Hudson has won the Bald Archy Prize -
a parody of the Archibald Prize with a phallic
themed likeness of Cardinal George Pell:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-22/cardinal-george-pell-portrait-wins-bald-archy-prize-2016/7651566
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 March 2019 12:00:47 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
Henry L your defense of Pell, then highlighting the faults of the Church is stunning
My fear is power and privilege, as it often does, will set him free
Sadly, in all those nominated centuries of child abuse, I can not believe even a Pope did not offend
Such is the world wide revelations of offending and covering it up in the Catholic Church
Posted by Belly, Friday, 15 March 2019 1:15:40 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
Issy, how about YOU give reliable evidence for YOUR claim that the first jury was split 10-2, which so happens to be the closes result to a not guilty, without not actually being so. I think like all the rest of the paedophile apologists you are using this lie to give weight to your argument.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 15 March 2019 5:24:57 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
Belly,
I would say the same no matter who the defendant was. View is based on what little evidence put forward by the prosecution, or at least known to us. If nothing further and dramatic comes out at the appeal, Pell will walk. Poor choice of case by those wanting to hang Pell.

I don't know why people have their kickers in a knot now about homosexuals and kids as it has been that way for centuries in churches. Just recently we voted to put same sex marriage on the same level as normal marriage and the whole thing was about making anal intercourse and anal licking normal in the public sense. It is not normal practice for me and an affront to my marriage, which I held in high esteem.
Posted by HenryL, Friday, 15 March 2019 8:30:10 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
Actually, the first mention (as far as I can find) was,

"James Franklin, the author of the Quadrant article, says of the 'evidence’ against Pell, there is “little of it”; and it “It consists just in the complainant’s account”. Franklin also points out that in the first trial, the jury voted 10-2 for an ACQUITTAL."

Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:35:36 PM
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 15 March 2019 10:04:08 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
Henry L voted for same sex thing in fact helped the first women work with men on roads same sex at that
Would, let me be honest, not actively seek out their company in a social way
But putting them in the same box as Pell
face as said even past Popes covered this up, may be offenders, guilty as charged
Let us see if powerful mates and influence can free Pell
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 March 2019 4:49:08 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
Issy, why should James Franklin be considered any more believable than you?
Your apologist argument is supported by this unsubstantiated erroneous claim. Please provide the original source of your assertion. I believe you are using this lie to propagate your line, and have no evidence for it.

BTW you have not named the criminals involved in the sexual assault of you in 1945. As I pointed out, in that year any homosexual act was a criminal offence, and failing to report that to police was also a criminal offence. Just shows what a criminal organisation the Catholic Church is.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 March 2019 5:42:18 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
Paul,

He shouldn't and are you now joining those of us who think that paedophilic acts against male children are carried out by homosexuals?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 16 March 2019 7:45:15 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
Issy, in the context of 1945, that was the way the law viewed such matters. Good citizens by law were required to report such criminality to police. Why did some, church people in particular, break the law of time and not report it to police? Just asking as a law abiding citizen.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 March 2019 7:51:29 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
Another thread has started in defense of Pell
May I my Christian upbringing was full on, Methodist Church when our country hamlets had noC of E
Then born again
Let no one question my then love of Christ
Right now, even if in a post above I rejected it, my faith that the Catholic Church is not evil is crumbling
Can this Church survive,I know it will not if people insist on challenging our very system of law
IF people put covering up such acts before Church reform it is dead right now
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 March 2019 11:10:47 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
Belly,
If Pell's appeal is successful it will not be because of powerful friends, it will be because of lack of solid and supportive evidence.
The prosecution has relied on only the unsubstantiated word of the accuser.

Pell haters may find other charges they can convict him with but I think he will walk away from this one. There are plenty of other priests that will be found guilty of homosexual abuse of boys.

Then we have the sexual abuse of nuns scandal to come forward.
Posted by HenryL, Sunday, 17 March 2019 8:39:39 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
Henry L tell me, are the hundreds of Catholics priests found guilty all over the world not guilty
Or just the ones who are Conservatives
RIP Catholic Church murdered by those wishing to hide crimes not reform
Suffer the little children that come unto me?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 18 March 2019 4:26:35 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
Belly,
I did not say that, the priests found guilty probably are guilty. I was speaking about this particular case.

I now see that two priests here in Aus were acquitted on appeal recently. I wonder if the prosecutors originally used the same tactic as in the pell case. That is they only had allegations from the accuser, and no supportive evidence, which was used to convict the accused.

If that is so, it is pleasing to see that appeals judges still require solid proof and not just mere allegations on which to convict.

The pity is that the victims may well have been abused but we cannot have a situation where persons are found guilty because it is easier for the prosecutors than for them to present valid evidence.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 18 March 2019 10:37:50 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
Pell if he was a Labor member not a Conservative, would be damned forever by his supporters here
Posted by Belly, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:59:02 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
Belly,
I would say exactly the same irrespective who the defendant was.

Have a look at the evidence? It does not even come close to supporting a guilty verdict. Not in our so called democracy anyway, maybe in Russia or Cuba.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 18 March 2019 4:20:40 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
HenryL.,

Why do you keep repeating the same hymn
and beating the same drum when it has been
explained quite clearly to you how the
law has changed in child abuse cases in
Australia - and what is acceptable in a
court of law regarding those cases.
It has also been explained that none of us
know what the jury heard, what was said, what
was presented to them to reach the unanimous
conviction of guilty that they reached.

Why do you defend this man - not knowing the
facts? Wait and see what the Appeal produces.
Then comment on weather it was fair or not.
For now give it a rest.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 March 2019 5:11:17 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
Dear Foxy,

«Wait and see what the Appeal produces.
Then comment on weather it was fair or not.»

Regardless of what the Appeal produces, regardless whether or not George Pell did what is claimed, some 20 years ago, it is totally cruel and unfair to throw him in jail for even one day. Either way, this is where he spends his days now so it is already unfair!

And as a result, now we all need to live with this added anxiety and tremble even more, whether we remember doing something unlawful in the past, whether we did something unlawful but do not remember it, or whether we are white as snow, because the same catastrophe that befell Cardinal Pell could happen to any of us, arbitrarily, yourself not an exception. This too is unfair!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 March 2019 10:30:39 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
IF Pell was a Labor man those defending him here would be calling for his head
Read the posts, if you do you will never again have to ask how did they get away with it
You may however ask in safety do they and those defending them, ever truly believe in God
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 3:12:07 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
20 years ago = totally cruel and unfair = jail.

News for you, 20 minutes ago, 20 days ago, 20 months ago, or 20 years ago does not diminish the seriousness of the crime. At what year does your statue of limitation cut in?

//And as a result, now we all need to live with this added anxiety and tremble even more, whether we remember doing something unlawful in the past, whether we did something unlawful but do not remember it, or whether we are white as snow, because the same catastrophe that befell Cardinal Pell could happen to any of us,//

Let us think, is there any Pell like skeletons in our cupboard? Yuyutsu, I cannot recall buggering any choirboys in the past 20 years, or ever, not in my lifetime. I see, Pell simply forgot about it. Strangely Pell did not take the stand in his own defence, after all he wanted his day in court, and got it. Maybe his legal team though cross examination would not have been to helpful for Pell's defence.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 7:13:40 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/christchurch-shootings-referenced-by-mla-confession-laws/10917960
RIP Catholic Church?
Well at least kill that part of it that is the private property of Conservative Australia
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 2:56:28 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/canberra-john-chute-marist-court-abuse-accused/10917800
Here again,evidence SOME PROTECTED offenders because they had faith the Church was better than it was/is still
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 2:58:59 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
Dear Paul,

I disagree with this whole concept as if anyone has a right to punish others. Human knowledge and understanding is limited, so we are not to play God. Justice will be carried out anyway eventually, but woe unto him who makes themselves the instrument.

But let us suppose that, right or wrong, you are still intent on punishing someone:

The cells in our body, including our brain, all change within 7 years.

So if a criminal was their BODY, then whom will you punish 7 years later? A different body! Further, some of the molecules that were part of the criminal's body during the crime, might even since, through the food-chain, became part of your own body!

You may then say, "no, it's not the body, it's that MIND which is the criminal".
Fine, unlike the body, minds and personalities do not change in a fixed time. Minds do eventually change, but it could take 7 minutes or it could take 70 years: can you see through and tell when?

So assuming a criminal is their mind, suppose they since repented, changed their mind and no longer have a criminal mind, then you would be punishing an innocent pure mind!

Still you could claim, "Actually I punish the SOUL". But can you see another's soul? can you tell for sure that it has not since left that body and been replaced by a different soul?

So as a judge (even though I disagree that you have a right to judge) you should ask: "Is the person in front of me still the one who did the crime? If I punish this person, will the criminal actually be punished?".

Now suppose the mind has not changed and remains criminal and suppose the body under its command is still capable of crime, then the question of punishment is redundant anyway: that mind being on the loose is dangerous to the public, so you may take the necessary steps to confine it in order to protect the public from harm. This is not punishment, this is self-defence and as such, legitimate.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 12:57:45 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
Over to your last paragraph:

I fully believe you that you did not bugger choirboys in your life, or in the least that you do not remember ever committing any serious crime. Yet the possibilities of being accused of a serious crime (including actions/omissions that are not actually crimes, but the state considers them to be) are far wider and innumerable to list or anticipate. Suffice for example that you made an enemy any time in your life: you could even have forgotten about it, but they didn't and one day they frame you with some criminal allegation. Who hasn't ever had an enemy, or someone jealous at them? Even saints have.

I have never buggered any choirboys either, yet my anxiety of being arrested and thrown in prison, including over something that is unknown to me or for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is real and has increased following Pell's case.

Regarding Pell not taking a stand, no priest (nor also a doctor/therapist for that matter who has confidential information about their patients) should agree to undergo cross-examination under oath because they might be asked about things they heard in confession.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 12:57:48 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
Pope may be a kiddy fiddler, he refused to defrock a cardinal
Maybe those who told me as a child the Church was evil got it right
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 4:47:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. 60
  9. All

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