My apologies for my mistake.

Here's the link again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-acquittal.html

Hi Foxy,

So ...... the New York Times is a higher legal authority in Australian legal affairs than the unanimous decisions of our High Court ?

Interesting point of view :)

Joe

For all his "higher education", the barely literate Chris Lewis continues to jumble up his letters: it's ttbn, Christopher, not tbbn. And, yes, I do know that you CAN extort money via the courts. I am saying it's wrong. It should not happen. Why you 'no understand da English'?

As for that other halfwit, Mr. Opinion, no, I am not "sour grapes" because I haven't been sexually assaulted and missed out on being paid for it.

These two characters are excellent examples of the failure of our education system.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The New York Times, just like a host of other
newspapers, journalists and commentators who
reported on Pell and like his supporters and
critics, and people here on OLO,
are merely expressing opinions. Opinions are
like butt holes - everyone has one. The difference
with the New York Times article is - that it
cites the opinions of legal experts and presents
facts not just opinions.

Talking about financial compensation regarding
sexual abuse victims.

It should be made quite clear that witness J in
the Pell case was not after money. He was put
through a brutal and horrendous interrogation
and very bravely did it for his friend who died.

His journey was a long one and he's relieved that
it's over. He's said that he respected and
accepted the court's decision and he thanked the
police for their work.

Witnesses who do come forward and testify are very
brave. It takes tremendous courage to do so.
Having to re-live the abuse, the stress of the
long and arduous legal process and the public
controversy - takes its toll.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, and (although I hate to say it about the NYT) more crap comes out of some butt-holes than others :)

Love,

Joe