Protecting George Pell

[Kwality]

suggests this case should never have been brough

dont agree with your conclusion on the Appeal.

 

[Stax on the mill]

dont agree with your conclusion on the Appeal.

That’s ok. I respect your right to have a different opinion. At least you couch your posts in a reasoned, courteous manner, as distinct from some of the abusive, hysterical, agenda driven LWNJ’s.

 

[Donakebab]

Another gutless lefty. So surprising.

Have an opinion Julia. You once led the country and chose a bunch of laws we follow.

She's speaking as the chair of Beyond Blue you dense ****ing rock.

 

[Corpuscles]

You seem to have read the wrong question.

Hey Chief

Are you a sociopath?

 

[HairyO]

Hey Chief

Are you a sociopath?

He has certainly thrown caution to the wind. Gone are the days of worrying about being sued for running a website filled with libel.

 

[sherb]

She's speaking as the chair of Beyond Blue you dense ******* rock.

Yeah, that seemed to have flown right over his head........

 

[Navyblues09]

I feel on this case, justice has been done. There was clearly enough reasonable doubt for Pell to be found not guilty in this case.

What annoys me is Daniel Andrews and the media portraying this as a slap in the face for all sexual abuse victims, that finding Pell not guilty of this case is saying no one should speak up. Its not, it's simply saying in this case, there was no clear evidence.

Was this brought up as a chance to make Pell pay for other alleged crimes? Was it a chance for a big name to be brought to justice for what the church has done? It definitely felt that way.

Yes there has been countless victims of abuse, especially by the church, but this case was flimsy at best. Pell is likely guilty of covering up and maybe even of abuse himself, but you can't convict someone of another crime just because you feel he deserves it, that's not how the legal system is supposed to work.

Luckily in this situation the High Court has done what the Victorian legal system wouldn't do, uphold the law.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

They just have an objection to child sexual abuse.

Fancy that.

Well see the thing is, there was no child sexual abuse. At least not by Pell at the Cathedral in December 1996.

So you would think those who have an objection to child sexual abuse would be relieved to have learned that.

It would appear, however, that you and your mates are angry that Pell didn’t commit child sexual abuse against those boys in December 1996.

Which is kind of weird.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Given you dont know who wrote it? Its not about Pell?




1 + 1 says the answer to your question is NO.

Written by a guy who has a history of attacking Daniel Andrews. Opinion piece that would be more appropriate to use as toilet paper than toilet paper itself. Why do you bother subscribing to such trash?

 

[Chief]

It would be nice to think that having experienced the wrong end of the justice system, Pell might devote whatever time he has left to lend his not inconsiderable voice to prison reform. Another won't hold my brief scenario though.

It's not like Jesus would have turned his mind to that sort of thing, is it?

 

[Chief]

Well see the thing is, there was no child sexual abuse. At least not by Pell at the Cathedral in December 1996.

Yes there was.

 

[Chief]

Hey Chief

Are you a sociopath?

Nope. Is Pell?

 

[Corpuscles]

Yes there was.

Wot?

... and you withheld this valuable evidence to the police, and to the court ?
You paedo enabler you!

 

[sherb]

Well see the thing is, there was no child sexual abuse. At least not by Pell at the Cathedral in December 1996.

So you would think those who have an objection to child sexual abuse would be relieved to have learned that.

It would appear, however, that you and your mates are angry that Pell didn’t commit child sexual abuse against those boys in December 1996.

Which is kind of weird.

According to the witness, there was sexual abuse.

But due to your devotion to Pell (which seems rather unhealthy), he must be a liar.

I'm not the slightest bit angry, it's pretty weak of you to assume that.

Who are "my mates" by the way?

Overall, the above is a pretty piss poor post on your part.

Mind you, I recall our Lindy Chamberlain discussion, so I am hardly surprised.

 

[Chief]

Wot?

... and you withheld this valuable evidence to the police, and to the court ?
You paedo enabler you!

We all know he's a fiddler. No sense pretending that a court ruling changes reality.

 

[Corpuscles]

Nope. Is Pell?

It is the same one line silly question.!
Seeking supportive un evidenced opinion to flame and stir up shit.

If you think Pell is , then state why and provide evidence and fact!

 

[Pessimistic]

Sounds like a sentence was negotiated, except that wouldn't have been acceptable in a high profile case.

Pell serves sentence, gets released says 'nothing to see here'

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's not like Jesus would have turned his mind to that sort of thing, is it?

More ignorance. Are you people unaware that the Catholic Church, including when led by Pell, were at the forefront of prison reform activism?

You could always try a stint in one of North Korea’s camps.

 

[Chief]

It is the same one line silly question.!
Seeking supportive un evidenced opinion to flame and stir up shit.

If you think Pell is , then state why and provide evidence and fact!

His openly admitted puzzlement at the idea he should spend any effort thinking about whether his fellow paedos are doing their paedo thing with kids under the Church's care.

 

[Chief]

More ignorance. Are you people unaware that the Catholic Church, including when led by Pell, were at the forefront of prison reform activism?

To get softer sentences for their paedo mates?

 

[Caesar]

What annoys me is Daniel Andrews and the media portraying this as a slap in the face for all sexual abuse victims, that finding Pell not guilty of this case is saying no one should speak up.

That is not my interpretation of their statements.

These sort of verdicts are hard for victims of historical sexual abuse, because it reinforces what they are always told - the very real fact that it is often near-impossible to secure a conviction against their abusers. It is good to remind them at this time that a negative verdict reflects the high burden of proof and does not mean society sees them as a liar.

That is not an implicit criticism of the law, it’s just showing compassion. Servants of the court understand that better than anyone.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

We all know he's a fiddler. No sense pretending that a court ruling changes reality.

7-0 zip High Court decision says otherwise. As sad at it makes you that the boys weren’t r*ped. Well, they weren’t.

 

[Corpuscles]

No sense pretending that a court ruling changes reality.

That is exactly why he has been acquitted. Insufficient evidence and fact, its just your ill informed "feeling" it has no place your prejudice and bias which you often condemn others for promoting.

He might be? So take that (your) evidence to the police IMMEDIATELY!


Nice to be back on BF for a while ( self absence not your crony biased mods) , how long before you crack it and decide I can't ask exactly the same questions of you?

Luvz ya work!

 

[Gough]

7-0 zip High Court decision says otherwise. As sad at it makes you that the boys weren’t r*ped. Well, they weren’t.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty too.

 

[Chief]

That is exactly why he has been acquitted. Insufficient evidence and fact, its just your ill informed "feeling" it has no place your prejudice and bias which you often condemn others for promoting.

He might be? So take that (your) evidence to the police IMMEDIATELY!


Nice to be back on BF for a while ( self absence not your crony biased mods) , how long before you crack it and decide I can't ask exactly the same questions of you?

Luvz ya work!

Are you a paedophile? Or you just like protecting them? I need to know who to keep my kids away from.