Two fleas flee:

I know that OLO and it’s followers are Queensland centric, but you Queenslanders don’t know ho lucky you are do you!
Wouldn’t you just love to have a bunch of alleged criminals running your State as polished as the NSW politicians?
At least old Jo had some vision for his State, which he loved more than himself.

Dan.

"Alleged" is the keyword. No proof yet. But, if you listen to the Lefties commenting on the new premier, the worst crime is to be Catholic and have six kids.

ttbn, "alleged" may well turn into "proven" very shortly. There is no doubt that Loverboy used his position (horizontal) to curry favour with Gladys. The end result is the Wagga Wagga Pigeon Club now has a loft that resembles the Taj Mahal.

NSW has a long history of corruption. You may think I only bucket on the conservatives because I am biased in favour of the socialists, to a degree that's true.

Let me tell you this; In my days in Sydney I spent many years close to State Politics and I knew a lot of people. I know of two Labor state MP's that were "paid off" during the Obeid days, there may well have been others, there probably was. The Sunday morning coffee get togethers, the office meetings to discuss up coming business, particularly Sydney property developments, corruption was systemic in those days. When the sh!t hit the fan, these guys were never prosecuted they escaped due to lack of evidence or lack of interest. Obeid could not have done what he did without a whole network of corrupt politicians, from local, state and federal levels, from both sides of politics. I stoped giving Labor a preference long before Obeid stuck his grubby hand into things. A good Labor mate of 30 years, a 2IC in the party organisation, when I would ask about something/someone he would say "He's been well looked after." or "that's going through without problems". He would say that not to big note himself, but rather at the time these guys thought they were untouchable, and probably were.

Is there a Law that doesn't allow non-lawyers to become senior politicians ? I mean, just about every high ranker is a lawyer. Going by past performances wouldn't many think it's high time to give better & more competent people a go ?

It's not because many politicians are lawyers; it's because of their nature. Anyone wanting to be a politician is a potential self-serving bully. It is only voters who can hold them to account, and Australian voters are not up to to the task.

A Victorian teacher has launched a Supreme Court challenge against the state's dictator's no-vax-no-job edict.

That's one Victorian still with a backbone.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, the one that jailed an innocent Catholic Archbishop, is part of Victoriastan's problem.

Sorry, Dan. Off topic, but relevant to crooked politicians everywhere.

An innocent Catholic Archbishop?

Cardinal Pell case is a complex one. In 2018 a jury unanimously
found Cardinal Pell guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of
FIVE child sexual offences.

This standard of proof is high, but does not require
absolute proof. The jury believed the complainant and
rejected Pell's defence. Pell won in the High Court on
a legal technicality. He was not found innocent.

The High Court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

Foxy,

Sometimes you spout utter bollocks, Pell was found not guilty (innocent) unanimously by all 7 high court judges precisely because the "evidence" against Pell did not in any way meet the standards needed for a conviction.

The duty of the judge at the trial is not to just rubber stamp jury decisions but to advise the jury of the soundness of any evidence and if necessary overturn erroneous jury decisions. The High court decision was a severe slap in the face for the delinquent Victorian judges.

shadow minister,

Cardinal Pell got off on a technicality. The High Court
judges went according to the letter of the law whereas
the earlier jury believed the complainant and rejected Pell's
defence. In any case we have already argued this matter in
the past. I have no wish to continue to argue with you.

Foxy,

Lack of evidence is not just a technicality it is a fundamental flaw.

The trial judge did not follow the letter of the law if his judgement was so thoroughly trashed. This nitwit should be censured or disbarred.

If people could be convicted solely on the verbal evidence of one involved witness base on the eloquence of that witness alone there would be dozens of innocent people convicted.

Shorten was let off with more solid evidence against him.

shadow minister,

Cardinal Pell had a fair run. He had the best lawyer
that money could buy. He had the support of the Church
and the Vatican. And yet a jury found him guilty.

Perhaps because not only the five sexual abuse cases, but over
26 others which were not put on trial because the victims
had died, et cetera. On the law of averages - his innocence
is questionable to say the least. There's too much needing
answers to give him an all clear. Yet the High Court did
so - so there it is.

I guess his guilt or innocence is
something that we may never really know. You believe he's
innocent. I don't. Lets leave it at that.

Hi Foxy,

Have you not noticed, shonkyminister has a soft spot for paedophiles, he's always talking about them on the forum.

No Pauliar I don't have a soft spot for greens.

Foxy,

Legally Pell is innocent. Without credible evidence, his guilt is just conjecture.

shadow minister,

26 plus accusations. Pell's record speaks for itself.
It's more than conjecture.

SM.

There is no point in arguing with idiots. There will always be people who who think that their opinions are superior to those of the courts, and that their wacko emotions are better than the findings of 7 High Court judges. Although they did agree with the spectacularly wrong Victorian Supreme Court. Funny, that.

George Pell is innocent, and a free man. End of Story.

If you’re ever on trial for anything, just hope that Foxy is not on the jury.

Is Mise,

How many people are there on a jury?
One person won't make that much of a difference
surely? But Thank You for the compliment.

Cardinal Pell is a free man - as for his innocence
or guilt? That's between him and his Confessor.

What being called an idiot actually means - "I can't
find a good argument to counter yours, so I'll just
insult you instead."

Foxy,

All these "accusations" came from one person that had his lawyers warmed up for a lucrative lawsuit. That this "victim" didn't have any supporting witness or a shred of corroborating evidence is hugely damning for the trial judge.

This is "MeToo' all over again. The victim must be believed and the accused is automatically guilty.

Foxy's opinion is based on emotion not fact.

shadow minister,

As you yourself said - Cardinal Pell is LEGALLY
innocent!

Foxy,
You obviously do not understand the concept of jury trials, one juror (where a unanimous verdict is required) can abort the process and require a new trial.

In Pell's case a jury in 2018 unanimously found Pell
guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of five child sexual
offences.

cont'd ...

There were 26 other accusations which by anyone's
standards is quite an abnormally high record.
In any case - the man was found to be "legally"
cleared - so now as I stated earlier it's a
matter between him and his confessor.

Foxy,
Only accusations, not even charges?
Charges can be meaningless too, I well remember a lawyer friend who was defending a thief who had been caught with stolen goods a few hundred yards from the house that he’d broken into.
The police, just to make sure, also charged him with possession of a pistol.

In Court my friend was going to plead for mercy as his client was as guilty as they get, however probably through an oversight the pistol charge was included.
When the pistol was produced and tendered-as evidence the Judge asked my friend if he wished to examine it.
Suddenly deciding to do a “Perry Mason”, he said “No, Your Honour, that pistol’s been in Court so many times I can describe it from here.”
The Judge picked up the exhibit, scowelled, and, slamming the pistol onto the bench, said “Case dismissed” and to the Prosecutor and the detectives, “I’ll see you three in my chambers”.
Get the message?

Is Mise,

Pell's past record speaks for itself.
But as I keep repeating - he has been
found to be "legally" innocent.

Foxy,

All people found innocent in our Courts are legally innocent; didn’t you know that?

Is Mise,

Cardinal Pell was not found innocent.
You should know that.

Foxy, since you have evidence of guilt, I think it only fair that you have him charged so that justice is served.If you have no evidence then stop the deformation of Pell.

Josephus,

I did not raise the topic of Cardinal Pell in this
discussion. And as I keep stating his innocence
or guilt is now between him and his Confessor.
If you object to discussing the case - stop raising
the topic. I have no further wish to comment on it.

Foxy,

His innocence has been confirmed by the high court.

Shorten's innocence has not.

Victoria in the record books again with nearly 2000 cases of covid under the corrupt bubonic Dan.

Foxy,
No wish to comment, but you said that he was legally innocent, you can’t deny that.

shadow minister,

Warren E. Burger - American lawyer and jurist
who served as the 15th Chief Justice of the US
put it quite well:

"Guilt or innocence becomes irrelevant in the
criminal trials as we flounder in a morass of artificial
rules poorly conceived and often impossible to apply."

Is Mise,

It was shadow minister who said that Pell was legally
innocent.

Indy and Foxy,

Shonky would love Pell, he's right up his ALLEY! When this guy uses the world legal, you know its only the ravings of a lunatic.

shonkyminister,

All the disease and deaths from the Gladys virus, are down to the corrupt NSW EX Premier Big Nose and her incomperdent UN Healthy Minister The Hazzard. Over 500 dead and tens of thousands infected. She should have spent less time in the cot with Loverboy Daryl, and more time on the real job.

Foxy,
See your post of 11:24 this morn.

Dan Andrews is also "legally" innocent of rape.

but not a multitude of Coalition members, like `Cry Baby' Porter, 'Bonking' Barney, 'Get Your Rocks Off' Johnsen and that little toerag Bruce Lehrmann, to name but a few.

Shadow Minister,

Tempted as I am I shall not stoop to your level of
attack. The fact remains that Cardinal Pell won in
the High Court on a legal technicality. The High Court
appeal did NOT ask whether Pell committed the offences.

It asked whether the two majority judges in the
Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell's earlier
appeal made an error about the nature of the correct
legal principles or their application.

Once again - Pell has won on a legal technicality BUT
he will continue to be assailed by multiple lawsuits.

n contrast the complainant has been believed by a jury,
by a majority judgement, and by a substantial body of
public opinion.

You can continue to argue Pell's case. I have said all
I have to say on this subject.

Enjoy your day.

Hi Foxy,

With tens of thousands of paedophiles in the Catholic Church, shonkyminister has plenty to defend.

Not that old "technicality" bullshite again!

Pell was found not guilty when the court unanimously found that what he was accused of COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

The nuttiness, stupidity and hatred of couple of posters here comes directly from the ABC, in particular the slavish copying of the now thankfully retired Barry Cassidy. You can hear his very words in the posts of these two idiots.

What horrible little lives these people must be trapped in.

Foxy,

This is the first time that you have deliberately lied in a post.

The failure of the prosecution to deliver any substantial evidence is a catastrophic failure not trivial.

definition:

A technicality is a trivial or very small detail. You might consider your scuffed, unpolished shoes to be an unimportant technicality when you're dressing for a job interview.

You can use the noun technicality for any small point or detail, but it's most likely to come up in the context of a court trial or a conversation with an attorney. A legal technicality is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. For example, a robbery suspect might have his trial dismissed on a legal technicality if the arresting police officer neglected to show him a search warrant before searching his house.

shadow minister,

I am not lying or making things up. I am simply stating
facts which are available on the web. And the facts are
that the High Court appeal did NOT ask whether Pell
committed the offences.

It asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian
Court of Appeal, in discussing Pell's earlier appeal made
an error about the nature of the correct legal principles
of their application. They found that they had.

Pell won on a legal technicality - but he will continue
to be assailed by multiple lawsuits.

As I cited earlier in contrast the complainant was believed
by a jury, by a majority judgement and by a substantial
body of public opinion.

I do not wish to continue to argue this case. You can call
me a liar - but all you need to do is Google it for yourself.

Foxy,

I am well aware of the details of the case and the facts of the high court appeal, and apparently, you are not.

The High Court judgement on the quality of the evidence presented by the prosecution was so damning that essentially the quality of the evidence was so poor that it would be insufficient to meet the requirements of a civil court where the onus of proof is much lower.

It is no coincidence that the planned civil cases have evaporated. This is because any civil case against Pell is now unwinnable.

Note that this legal technicality is the only reason Shorten isn't in jail and that this case should never have come to trial.

For you to try and infer that this is a trifle is profoundly dishonest.

shadow minister,

I would love to agree with you.
But then we would both be wrong.

Foxy,

You are already wrong enough for both of us.

Perhaps you could point out the civil case against Pell or the Catholic church based on this court case?

Crickets!!

shadow minister,

http://sbs.com.au/news/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/92d697a3-e3c4-4c74-837f-9ca9807ce27b

Foxy,

Here is a real legal opinion of the case:

https://www.gnl.com.au/articles/2020/may/george-pell-case/

"The Cardinal Pell case continues a line of High Court decisions upholding a robust concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It confirms that the standard of proof needed to establish guilt is not to be lowered in order to compensate for the difficulty that police and prosecutors might face in proving events where there is significant delay in a complaint being made.

Such demeanour-based judgments (based solely on the witness’s manner and presentation) are criticised as being generally too subjective to draw rational inferences on an appeal.

The fact Cardinal Pell spent more than 400 days in prison before being acquitted could also spark renewed debates about the soundness and reliability of jury decision-making, especially in cases where the defendant is well known.

Another safeguard to jury trials that might be considered is the extent of a judge’s ability to direct a verdict of ‘not guilty’ where the evidence is unsafe to support a verdict. As the law presently stands, a trial judge can only direct a verdict of not guilty (i.e. decide that there is no case to be answered) if there is no evidence to establish the facts necessary to prove the prosecution case."

shadow minister,

The link I cited was also legal opinions from two
legal professionals on the Pell case.
Did you even bother to read it

Foxy,

Yes, I read it. However, it wasn't a legal opinion. It was a political opinion piece written by legally qualified people. There is a difference.

Essentially the high court ruled that the verbal evidence alone of a single person is insufficient to convict someone.

Imagine that your neighbour accuses you of stealing a package of his 20 years ago but has no other proof, no photos, no witnesses yet you are convicted based on his convincing a jury. If you can't see what's wrong with that then there's no convincing you.

shadow minister,

Perhaps you may begin to understand where I am
coming from if you bother to read the following
link:

http://crikey.com.au/2020/04/09/pell-right-decision-wrong-system/

Foxy,

The very foundations of the criminal justice system is that:
1 - the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
2 - that the onus of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence,
3 - the accused has the right to silence and not to incriminate himself.

I understand the frustrations with the legal system especially with regard to the difficulty in prosecuting sexual offences especially those older ones where physical evidence has disappeared. However, the proposals in the Crikey essentially undermines all these principles and while it will convict more of the guilty, it will certainly convict far more of the innocent.

In the Pell case, the possibility that witness J (who stood to gain substantially financially from Pell's conviction) could be lying was ignored by the jury leaving him in the invidious position of trying to prove his innocence, was a serious travesty of justice.

For me, this is just another brain fart movement from left whingers who are clearly unaware of the catastrophic unintended consequences.

shadowminister,
You’ll have to forgive Foxy because she doesn’t understand, she thinks that one juror cannot make a difference in the Jury system.

shadow minister,

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
I look forward to our next disagreement.

Is Mise,

Do you know how to keep an idiot waiting?

I'll tell you tomorrow.

Foxy,

So which of the rights are you happy to sacrifice?

The assumption of innocence?
The proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
The right to silence?

Are you happy to send innocent people to prison for long periods of time?

shadow minister,

Unless we don't particularly care about delivering justice
for the legions of victims of sexual abuse amongst us -
then something has to fundamentally shift in our legal
system. Pell did not give evidence at his own trial.
His version of events has never been revealed.

All we know is what he said at a press conference rather than
under oath that the crimes never happened. If we had a system
regarding sexual abuse cases would shift from a one-sided
contest of proving guilt on a legal standard to a singular
focus on getting to the truth all parties would have the
same role. To assist the court to get to the bottom of the
matter and determine what actually happened.

If it ain't broke don't fix it?
Well it's broken.

Read the link:

http://crikey.com.au/2020/04/09/pell-right-decision-wrong-system/

Foxy,
Just tell us how the jury system works.

Is Mise,

Why"

If you don't know just Google it.

I presume you know how to Google.

Foxy,
You’re the one who doubted that one juror could make a difference, I was just wondering if you’d taken the trouble to educate yourself out of such an idiotic misunderstanding of how the jury system works.

Foxy,

If you are happy to dismantle the rights of the accused, why don't you simply adopt the Chinese system which has a 99% conviction rate.

Then you can happily imprison all accused and won't have to worry about trifles like the accuser could be lying as has happened multiple times.

shadow minister,

Ask yourself. Do you really not see any flaws in
the way our legal system deals with sexual abuse
cases?

I rest my case.

Foxy,

No, I don't. The courts treat sexual abuse cases in exactly the same way as any other and stripping the accused of basic protections to obtain an unproven conviction can easily be applied to other crimes.

With any crime, reporting it decades later makes proof nearly impossible and with the huge penalties for sexual assault there have already been many people serving long sentences that were later proven innocent.

That "victims" lie has been demonstrated frequently. The word of one person cannot be the sole evidence for any conviction.

Shadow minister,

That's where there's a misunderstanding between us.
I am not advocating for stripping any one of their
rights. On the contrary what I am asking for is to
have both sides treated equally and to be interrogated
equally to get to the truth of what happened. In sexual
abuse cases as we know - there usually aren't any witnesses
and it's onw word against the other. But only putting the
victim on trial to me is wrong. Both parties should be
questioned.

However, you don't agree with this - and see nothing wrong with
the system as it currently stands - fair enough. There's nothing
more that needs to be said. To me the system is flawed and
that's part of the reason why so few sexual abuse cases are
ever reported.

Foxy,

A criminal court case is very different to a civil case. In a criminal court, one has an imbalance between the resources of the accused and the nearly unlimited resources of the state.

You say that "I am not advocating for stripping any one of their rights" then immediately advocate stripping the defendant of the right to silence, and by interrogating him put the onus on the defendant to prove his innocence.

Clearly, you are clueless.

shadow minister,

So you think I am clueless?

And yet you are the one who is persisting to argue
with me.

That says more about you than me1

LOL.

Foxy,

Wrestling with a pig!

Seriously, if you make a statement and then contradict it in the next sentence then either you have Alzheimer's or you don't understand what you are writing.

shadow minister,

Do we need to agree about this?

shadow minister,

As for wrestling with a pig?

Nah!

Most pigs are too heavy to wrestly.
I prefer to wear it down, tire it out,
and make it more manageable.

I'd also get out of the mud. If i stay in
the pigsty the pig has the upper foot.

So with that in mind - I shan't be responding to you
any further.

Hi Foxy,

This is the same grubby hypocrite who back on the 15/8/2021 (post deleted) on the forum called a NSW Greens MP a paedophile, a family man with teenage daughters. Was there a trial, NO! did the grub have evidence NO! Pell is turd, but he's this blokes kind of turd, he loves them.

He is such a grub, he changed his nick previously after makeing the same accusation against me, to avoid future suspension.

Dear Paul,

The complainant in the case against Pell who made
the allegations said in a statement he issued that
he didn't want victims to be disheartened by the
High Court decision.

"I would like to reassure child sexual abuse survivors
that most people recognise the truth when they hear it,"
he said. "They know the truth when they look it in the
face."

Foxy,

So the jurors just "know" the truth without evidence?

Pauliar,

You are a piece of lying crap that most people scrape off their shoes. I would bet that you have spent time in Jail.