Mr Opinion,

I'd really like to hear why you singled out the Roman Catholics over all the other Catholics, especially Sydney and Melbourne Catholics, as you are so highly educated in the Arts one would suppose that you would be the last to make such a gaffe; or is your education level only a figment of your imagination?

Is Mise,

Roman Catholics, Sydney Catholics, Melbournian Catholics, Parisian Catholics, they are all Catholics to me. God bless their little hearts!

And God bless you too little Georgie Pell, even though you have been a very naughty boy. (Ooops, what's that; a message from God: God says "George, be a good boy and start playing with boys of your own age." Hmm, I wonder what he means? I'm sure George will figure it out.)

Your ongoing Left vs Right arguments to the point of stifling boredom are superfluous. It's all about politics for some of you, not man's life, not about justice. Pell is free, and rightly so. That's all that matters.

Much of the discussion in this thread and indeed in the community at large is about whether or not Pell committed the crime with which he had been charged. The High Court appeal was not tasked with determining whether Pell committed the offences. It was instead asked to determine whether The Victorian court of appeal had applied the correct legal principles. Those cracking open the champagne would be wise to keep it on ice - there is still a long way to go.

Mr 0

Being just an Arts graduate, you should stick to the skills that you have acquired and restrict yourself to flipping burgers.

Having an MBA which includes 2 years of law, I have functional understanding of the legal system and rules of evidence which your toilet paper degrees don't cover.

Judges are mandated to apply the laws of the country and the rules of evidence, and while they have some minor discretion, they are not free to deviate from the law or the rules of evidence. The morals and ethics lie in the laws and constitution the very basic requirements include the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

The moment the judges ignore this and begin to rule based on their personal ethics, you get judgements based on the whim of the judge and the outcomes are solely dependent on which judge you get.

If there is insufficient evidence, the man goes free. No debate.

Mr o [small o] does not understand law, it is beyond him. He makes this claim: "He has now been released from prison and is now free like every ex-con to return to a life in the community". O fails to understand he is guilty of defamation of an innocent man. The High Court has cleared George Pell of Guilt. So he is not an ex-con as o claims.

Mr o is small minded childish with comments like this.
" And God bless you too little Georgie Pell, even though you have been a very naughty boy. (Ooops, what's that; a message from God: God says "George, be a good boy and start playing with boys of your own age." Hmm, I wonder what he means? I'm sure George will figure it out.)"

At least SR and Paul can post credible debate, even though I do not agree with them.