-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Protecting George Pell
- Thread starter pazza
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #3,202
That’s putting it very lightly.
But that is not what I said, and you were attempting to suggest that what I posted was incorrect you freak.
- Banned
- #3,204
No. That’s how you see it. And the victims of child sexual abuse are your pawns.
I see that the High Court have emphatically thrown out a conviction brought by corrupt police for political purposes.
- Banned
- #3,206
Must agree with this a bit, aside from the obscene descriptor which really should result in a ban but won’t.
But I could have done with some numbers for the last year. It’s been quite the slog.
But worth it now.
Still makes me laugh that people who gained power by believing in an invisible god, would chastise people for questioning what they believe because it's their right to have faith, that the ability to have faith makes you superior to people who don't
Then suddenly they are caught doing crimes, and they fall back on "but but but REASONABLE DOUBT, you can't prove I did it!"
How cravenly convenient
Then suddenly they are caught doing crimes, and they fall back on "but but but REASONABLE DOUBT, you can't prove I did it!"
How cravenly convenient
sherb
Hall of Famer
You've presented yourself as quite the legal expert here, haven't you?
Yet you seem to think that this decision means that the alleged events didn't occur.
Au contraire dear Bruce, it means that the law can't prove beyond reasonable doubt they occurred.
Two completely different things.
I actually pointed this out to you in a previous post (where I quoted you) and surprise, surprise you didn't respond.
You've actually got a bit of a hide labelling others as a "dickhead" to be honest.
Let's apply beyond reasonable doubt to religious organisations as well: your faith is bogus and didn't happen if you cannot prove it beyond doubt
Then watch all religious organisations disappear and we eliminate a large part of child molestation crimes, that's how we protect the kids
Then watch all religious organisations disappear and we eliminate a large part of child molestation crimes, that's how we protect the kids
Not by 7 Justices in a High Court.
There is nothing wrong with our judicial system per se and I'd hate to think that anyone would want to get rid of the High Court.
The problem is the access to justice; one of the three pillars which an enlightened Democracy is founded upon. (the other two are access to health and education).
The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Government has stripped away much of the funding. In the middle of 2019, the Law Council of Australia said that the derailment of the case against three men accused of knocking off Pasquale Barbaro and Mehmet Yilmaz, a couple of big time gangsters, was as a direct result of the accused not being able to procure representation under the Legal Aid provision due to lack of funding.
The Law Council and the Productivity Commission have been jumping up and down for a very long time saying that Legal Aid funding is hundreds of millions of dollars short of being adequate and this is a direct threat to our democracy because not only can a "little" person, poor person, not afford to take action against the "big boys", but we also have the ludicrous situation where crimes are not being prosecuted for lack of funding. The Law Council of Australia reckons there is a minimum of a $310m a year shortfall in legal assistance funding.
As for "Aboriginal Aid", Productivity Commissioner Angela MacRae said her 2014 report said that at least $200 million a year more was needed but all the LNP have done is cut, cut, cut.
Access to justice is critical for democracy and it makes one very cynical when we see multi millionaire sports people who also get truck loads form running tax exempt "churches" and who get funded by tax exempt, rich religious organisations being able to launch multimillion dollar actions against organisations for their "right" to be bigoted pigs and crims (alleged), can get away with their crimes because of a lack of funding for legal aid.
Access to justice must not depend on one's wealth.
Chief
You are a great entrepreneur and a very good ITT specialist.
BUT A VERY DUMB /STUPID propeller head. With baggage
"Anyone with eyes" means you SAW it.
You did not.
If you want to understand the psychology then go back several days before today and READ the transcipt of the Royal Commission posted by BrucefromBalnarring ( I downloaded it but not going to link anything more than I have to, to your network.
In it you will see evidence from a Psychiatrist Phd (albeit in your terms a crooked former priest who wanted out and went to Rome for formal Raisicisment ( Pope I want out -defrock)
It will answer some partially your questions about why they do it and what might cause it. They have been aware and have actively studied it.
(Yep I know you will as a stooopid dummy, say why don't you esssplainnnn it for me!)
Fecking read it! and you will understand your stupid allegation and question.
PS Sociopathy and Socio sexual thing are discussed.
But I know you are really only interested in the clicks!
You are a nerdy w***er!
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,689
- 149,495
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Boy oh boy has it got hested in here or what. Collective chill pill needed
Can of worms opened today.
If he really did do it then a guilty man has got off on a technicality and all that testimony was for nothing. Jeopardising future complainants from coming forward with similar cases (perpetrated by the church or otherwise). All the while dragging up deeply repressed memories that’d be awfully traumatic to retell.
but, if he didn’t then we’ve witnessed someone be put behind bars in a court of public opinion.
Who bloody knows really. It seems like a man with no character or scruples got let out today but if he really didn’t do this then he’s entitled to a fair trial like everyone else.
Facts are, that in this particular case
Really don’t think we can mess with the foundation of our legal system and its adherence to ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
It also doesn’t mean it did happen either.
Can of worms opened today.
If he really did do it then a guilty man has got off on a technicality and all that testimony was for nothing. Jeopardising future complainants from coming forward with similar cases (perpetrated by the church or otherwise). All the while dragging up deeply repressed memories that’d be awfully traumatic to retell.
but, if he didn’t then we’ve witnessed someone be put behind bars in a court of public opinion.
Who bloody knows really. It seems like a man with no character or scruples got let out today but if he really didn’t do this then he’s entitled to a fair trial like everyone else.
If the evidence was conclusive enough that “we all know” then surely there’d be a strong chance of a conviction against a man not testifying holding up.
Facts are, that in this particular case
How would you propose to do that? Can’t really lower the onus of proof otherwise convictions from all walks of life will result in more innocent men and women imprisoned.
Really don’t think we can mess with the foundation of our legal system and its adherence to ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
sherb
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #3,219
Where were the altar servers? Paragraphs 110-117. High Court of Australia. Unanimous. Seems I am quite the legal expert.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,689
- 149,495
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
And also acquitted.
Does this mean he’s the first ever person to be viewed as both guilty and not guilty of a crime at the same time?
Because that is what is going on here. Many claiming today changes nothing and he’s still guilty. Others stating today vindicates him. Don’t think the law should work that way.
- Banned
- #3,221
You might be right. I wouldn’t know. But he didn’t believe in throwing his political opponents in jail on trumped up charges. Of that I’m sure.
Nothing to do with Andrews. Premiers, Prime Ministers ex or current should not comment on the deliberations or findings of the judiciary. It's called the separation of powers.
Why are you so glad that a child rapist walked free?
Hard to believe this person is a moderator when what he has posted here is sufficient for a libel lawsuit.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Again, this judgment doesn't prove that the events in question didn't happen, as much as you want it to.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Again, Lindy Chamberlain.
