People who are talking about "bush lawyers"
and using derogatory statements should read the following link
written by legal experts on how Pell won in the high court
on a legal technicality. it explains things intheir proper
context.

I cited this link earlier:

http://www.theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

Others have also tried to explain that these events are on
record. And are now part of this country's legal history.

Rule 101 from Foxy

tell a lie often enough and it becomes true. Not for anyone interested in truth or justice. She has learn't well from Jussie Smollet.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« I don't think that the quote I cited [“I am the good shepherd”] was intended as you interpreted it. I think it was meant to be understood in a loving manner. »
.

Yes, of course, Foxy. That is the message the anonymous author(s) of the Gospel of John intended to relay with his (their) “seven” (or was it eight?) “I am”s of Jesus :

“I am the bread of life”, “I am the light of the world”, “I am He who testifies about Myself.”, “I am the door of the sheep”, “I am the good shepherd”, “I am the resurrection and the life”, “I am the way and the truth and the life”, “I am the true vine”.

It probably seemed a good idea 2,000 years ago in the Middle East to present Jesus as “the good shepherd” and the Jews and Gentiles as sheep. But when I was a child, in the Queensland bush it seemed totally out of context.

I associated myself with the wildlife of the bush, (the lilies floating on the still waters of the silent creeks, the white cockatoos, parrots, kookaburras, goannas, snakes, dingos, kangaroos, koalas, hares and rabbits etc.,) – not with the domesticated animals on the sheep and cattle stations or the cats, horses and dogs on the wheat farms. Some of my school mates were Aboriginal kids. Where I lived, there were no shepherds, only drovers, shearers, jackaroos, and the like.

I admired them all. They all had intimate knowledge of the bush and individual talents and competences. They were all completely autonomous in their work and life in general. They had no need for a “shepherd”.

An archbishop dressed up with his pastoral staff seemed to know nothing about life in the bush. I understood the symbolical intent but, to me as a child, priests and archbishops looked more like characters in a Shakespearean historical drama, like, for example, the Bishop of Lichfield and Archbishop of York in Shakespeare's Henry IV.

Nothing to do with “the good shepherd and divine love".

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You write so beautifully and expressively.

I'm afraid that in my youth I simply accepted
what I was told. I didn't begin to question
things until much later in life.

Perhaps that's why today I'm still on my journey of
discovery.

Hi runner,

1) I'm not familiar with Jessie Smollet.

2) Citing legal experts is not
lying.

3)
The concepts of law and justice are often confused
and misinterpreted by many while the two are
connected they are not the same thing.

Finally, stop labeling people just because they're
not like you.

I'm not sure if Foxy actually read the Conversation article she linked, or just the headline which purported to show that Pell got off on a technicality.

Its true that the article makes that claim - the technicality being that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Strange how those who said we ought to respect the decision when they like the decision, now decide that respect for the law is not so important.

Anyway, I decided to skim the Bolt interview with Pell but ended up watching the whole thing as it was so comPELLing (grin). The man's dignity in adversity was/is so admirable. (How's that for grandmaster trolling?)....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OX2aUvG51I

Watching the "Revelation" series on the ABC was triple as comPELLing as Mr Bolt's predictable interview.

Legal academics have described Pell's case being acquitted
on a technicality. This has been explained in many given
articles. It highlights the role of the legal system.
The following link highlights the disparity between the
role of our legal system and that of the media.

It's worth a read:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/15/andrew-bolt-and-the-abc-did-the-reporting-on-george-pell-step-over-a-line