rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, it just seems too much like a hit on the Catholic Church, the scapegoat being a Cardinal the ultimate prize. I didn’t know in order to convict someone you could just make criminal allegations about them and be really convincing about it, and that other evidence or lack of didn’t matter. Anyway no one really know for sure if he did it or not, either you hate the church and believe he did or you don’t and believe he’s possibly innocent. Hate the church? I'm catholic. And he is guilty and most of us Catholics belive he is. Bullshit you’re Catholic. When was the last time you confessed? Fucking pretender lol Two weeks ago actually. Went to confess when I went to church . Also why are you trying to defend a convicted pedophiles? Most Catholics know he is guilty or are u doing the Andrew bolt defence because you're so beholden to your rightie ideals that you cant comprehend that he is guilty I said he may be guilty. You have to remember, one of the appeal judges found in favour of Pell. Is he an Andrew Bolt style rightie as well? I have a problem with convicting people on the basis of testimony alone. All people lie, including those 30 somethings with children and respectable jobs. Sometimes they wear suits and sites as well, and are clean shaven, and speak eloquently. Also the circumstances around the alleged rape didn’t add up. Most pedo’s groom their victims, apparently we’re to believe that straight after giving mass Pell suddenly got his horns on and decided to rape some young boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Literally no surprises in this thread  -PB
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
This trial & appeal goes over the situations extremely thoroughly & considering the lawyers that the Archbishop can afford to hire I doubt much was missed by both sides.
This conspiracy bullshit is fucking embarassing, legal process has spoken & spoken in detail.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis trial & appeal goes over the situations extremely thoroughly & considering the lawyers that the Archbishop can afford to hire I doubt much was missed by both sides. This conspiracy bullshit is fucking embarassing, legal process has spoken & spoken in detail. Arch bishop down south on 3AW claiming it was a case of mistaken identity rofl. Fuck me. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThis trial & appeal goes over the situations extremely thoroughly & considering the lawyers that the Archbishop can afford to hire I doubt much was missed by both sides. This conspiracy bullshit is fucking embarassing, legal process has spoken & spoken in detail. Arch bishop down south on 3AW claiming it was a case of mistaken identity rofl. Fuck me. -PB Fuck me . The church does shoot itself in the foot.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis trial & appeal goes over the situations extremely thoroughly & considering the lawyers that the Archbishop can afford to hire I doubt much was missed by both sides. This conspiracy bullshit is fucking embarassing, legal process has spoken & spoken in detail. 1 of the 3 appeal judges believed Pell and rejected the testimony of the accuser. Perhaps a different judge might have found in favour of Pell. Despite all the legal processes and jargon and 300 page reports and prestigious silks, at the end of the day it’s a throw of the dice. The legal system ain’t perfect is all in saying, neither are people, including judges.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThis trial & appeal goes over the situations extremely thoroughly & considering the lawyers that the Archbishop can afford to hire I doubt much was missed by both sides. This conspiracy bullshit is fucking embarassing, legal process has spoken & spoken in detail. 1 of the 3 appeal judges believed Pell and rejected the testimony of the accuser. Perhaps a different judge might have found in favour of Pell. Despite all the legal processes and jargon and 300 page reports and prestigious silks, at the end of the day it’s a throw of the dice. The legal system ain’t perfect is all in saying, neither are people, including judges. LOL -PB
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too"
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" I agree. Rusty I'm not a devote Catho anymore due to the countless wrongs that have occurred over decades and that the religion still is in the dark ages FFS and TBH your counter regards Pell that 1 of 3 judges just means he's out voted anyway - majority rules just as a jury conviction. Besides, IMO guilty or not he's having to cop it just as Jesus did way way way back then but not for our sins but for the SINS his fellow dirty priests have got away with for sososo long and that he surely has covered up as well. I hope his next appeal is squashed as well and may he rot in there where he belongs !
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRusty just outed himself as a pedo defender. Is the judge who upheld the appeal a pedo defender as well, Probably.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" I agree. Rusty I'm not a devote Catho anymore due to the countless wrongs that have occurred over decades and that the religion still is in the dark ages FFS and TBH your counter regards Pell that 1 of 3 judges just means he's out voted anyway - majority rules just as a jury conviction. Besides, IMO guilty or not he's having to cop it just as Jesus did way way way back then but not for our sins but for the SINS his fellow dirty priests have got away with for sososo long and that he surely has covered up as well. I hope his next appeal is squashed as well and may he rot in there where he belongs ! But in our modern, sophisticated, westernised legal system we don’t punish people for the sins of others. Maybe in NK and the dark ages but not here.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. The majority would have also read the dissenting judgement and discussed with the dissenting prior to decision and weren’t convinced. I don’t think the alternative you suggest is as reasonable as you suspect. Will know more during Special Leave. Suspect the High Court would put 5 judges at that hearing.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. The majority would have also read the dissenting judgement and discussed with the dissenting prior to decision and weren’t convinced. I don’t think the alternative you suggest is as reasonable as you suspect. Will know more during Special Leave. Suspect the High Court would put 5 judges at that hearing. 1 in 3 is extremely reasonable. You dont get any more reasonable than 1 out of 3. Even 1 in 5 or 6 or 7 is reasonable. Those who try to argue that this matter is closed and there is no cause for doubt or suspicion of the verdict are just being disingenuous. You do think if the decision was reverse the anti Pell posse would just lie down and accept the decision?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. The majority would have also read the dissenting judgement and discussed with the dissenting prior to decision and weren’t convinced. I don’t think the alternative you suggest is as reasonable as you suspect. Will know more during Special Leave. Suspect the High Court would put 5 judges at that hearing. 1 in 3 is extremely reasonable. You dont get any more reasonable than 1 out of 3. Even 1 in 5 or 6 or 7 is reasonable. Those who try to argue that this matter is closed and there is no cause for doubt or suspicion of the verdict are just being disingenuous. You do think if the decision was reverse the anti Pell posse would just lie down and accept the decision? It's not closed. The avenue to appeal to the High Court remains. Until they decline special leave, it will be open for some time. As for doubt, it might exist but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. Yep, It's clearly a left-wing conspiracy
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Rusty just stop. You used to come across despite your right wing views as someone who argued the point. Now your just parroting conspiracies and far right lunacy .
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. The majority would have also read the dissenting judgement and discussed with the dissenting prior to decision and weren’t convinced. I don’t think the alternative you suggest is as reasonable as you suspect. Will know more during Special Leave. Suspect the High Court would put 5 judges at that hearing. 1 in 3 is extremely reasonable. You dont get any more reasonable than 1 out of 3. Even 1 in 5 or 6 or 7 is reasonable. Those who try to argue that this matter is closed and there is no cause for doubt or suspicion of the verdict are just being disingenuous. You do think if the decision was reverse the anti Pell posse would just lie down and accept the decision? It's not closed. The avenue to appeal to the High Court remains. Until they decline special leave, it will be open for some time. As for doubt, it might exist but not "beyond reasonable doubt". Isn't it like 30 days? -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRusty just stop. You used to come across despite your right wing views as someone who argued the point. Now your just parroting conspiracies and far right lunacy . The views I expressed are completely benign and reasonable, nothing conspiratorial about them at all. I never said Pell was a great man and should be honoured, rather I debunked lies that he aided and abetted other priests in committing paedophilia. This is just a blatant lie. If you think the media and journalists are committed to telling the truth, balanced reporting and giving people a fair hearing, you clearly don’t understand how the media works. You have to open up to the possibility that you are the lunatic.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRusty just stop. You used to come across despite your right wing views as someone who argued the point. Now your just parroting conspiracies and far right lunacy . The views I expressed are completely benign and reasonable, nothing conspiratorial about them at all. I never said Pell was a great man and should be honoured, rather I debunked lies that he aided and abetted other priests in committing paedophilia. This is just a blatant lie. If you think the media and journalists are committed to telling the truth, balanced reporting and giving people a fair hearing, you clearly don’t understand how the media works. You have to open up to the possibility that you are the lunatic. Yes . Ok . You are truly unhinged and I wont bother responding to you. Thinking theres a conspiracy from the leftist media. Really?
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRusty just stop. You used to come across despite your right wing views as someone who argued the point. Now your just parroting conspiracies and far right lunacy . The views I expressed are completely benign and reasonable, nothing conspiratorial about them at all. I never said Pell was a great man and should be honoured, rather I debunked lies that he aided and abetted other priests in committing paedophilia. This is just a blatant lie. If you think the media and journalists are committed to telling the truth, balanced reporting and giving people a fair hearing, you clearly don’t understand how the media works. You have to open up to the possibility that you are the lunatic. Yes . Ok . You are truly unhinged and I wont bother responding to you. Thinking theres a conspiracy from the leftist media. Really? Try debunking my arguments rather than petty ad hominems. Otherwise have no interest talking to you.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
I suggest some of the paedo ring’s supporters look up what this appeal was about.
The third judge didn’t didn’t find that Pell was innocent. It was not even his role.
It must cut close to the bone that the conservative network is a bunch of paedo enablers and apologists but it’s the reality of your overlords.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI don’t think Pell is guilty, what part of the 300 page report didn't you agree with? I’m just a skeptic of courts, judges and the justice system I spose. Especially 300 page reports. In other words, feels > reals Just like testimony Gottem I don't know if being the forums resident pedo apologist is a hill you want to die on, but you do you mate Defending the possibility of someone’s innocence on the basis of shaky testimony (as highlighted by the appeal judge) does not make one a pedo apologist. But if petty name calling is your juice you do what you mate. Nah, you're a pedo apologist because you deny established facts surrounding Pell to suit your agenda: "Left wing church hating media outlets tells us: he associated with paedos. He enabled paedos he turned a blind eye to victims he created more victims by give his mates access to other kids Children who were suicidal he would not help and a jury, police and finally judges found he was a paedo too" It’s all horseshit, there’s no evidence that he knowingly associated, given access or enabled pedos. Any allegations made concerning this were thoroughly refuted. He established the Melbourne response which paid out millions to victims, he has appeared at multiple royal commissions, he made several public statements apologising to victims and admitting to culpability of the church, so this idea that he “turned a blind eye to victims” is completely false. He has , at times, been accused of making insensitive comments and possibly lacking empathy for victims, so perhaps he is an asshole, but that would only make me, at worst, as asshole defender. He is also in the unique and unenviable position where whatever a Catholic official says and does in response to child sex abuse, short of shutting the Church down or bankrupting it with reparations, will always be regarded as inadequate and insensitive to victims. Clearly you just swallow every anti Pell soundbite that’s out there and lack the basic intellect to question the hysterical and hyperbolic media reporting that seeks that portray him as the worst human imaginable. But clearly there is no currency for anyone in mainstream media to defend him, lest you get called a pedo defender and your career in tatters, while there’s plenty of currency in joining the media pile on and piggybacking off sexual abuse victims to advance your career. I would encourage you to read the report by the dissenting appeal judge, it may open your mind to an entirely reasonable alternatively theory in this matter, but if your intellect and moral compass is the colostomy bag I suspect it is then I assume you will resort to childish name calling like ‘pedo defender’ because that’s easier work than thinking critically. The majority would have also read the dissenting judgement and discussed with the dissenting prior to decision and weren’t convinced. I don’t think the alternative you suggest is as reasonable as you suspect. Will know more during Special Leave. Suspect the High Court would put 5 judges at that hearing. 1 in 3 is extremely reasonable. You dont get any more reasonable than 1 out of 3. Even 1 in 5 or 6 or 7 is reasonable. Those who try to argue that this matter is closed and there is no cause for doubt or suspicion of the verdict are just being disingenuous. You do think if the decision was reverse the anti Pell posse would just lie down and accept the decision? It's not closed. The avenue to appeal to the High Court remains. Until they decline special leave, it will be open for some time. As for doubt, it might exist but not "beyond reasonable doubt". Isn't it like 30 days? -PB 28 days. Madness not to file an appeal for special leave.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Pell freed 😂
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah hilarious. You're despicable
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|