What’s pathetic is the lynch mob for George Pell, just be honest and admit that the main driver of all this spite isn’t because he’s been convicted as a paedo but because he’s a high ranking Catholic church officer. If he was a Muslim/teacher/baptist this barely would’ve made the news.

Also there was no evidence, no eyewitnesses, someone told a story and the police and jury believed them, or at least really wanted to. Everyone in their hearts knows that this was a doubtful conviction but they are so consumed with hate for Pell and the Church they can’t think straight. Even if the was found innocent you would all say he got away with it. There’s no committment to the truth or facts here, just a committment to hate and destruction.

OK then.

Yep. Me thinks rusty is andrew bolt 

He was given a fair trail, with a suppression order and had the countries best criminal defence lawyer and still a balanced jury pegged him on all charges (beyond reasonable doubt).

-PB

Pretty sure I'd remember being forced to blow an old dude as a 7-8 year old.

-PB

John Howard has provided a character reference for Pell at his plea hearing. Yes he was aware of the conviction. The you can draw a direct line to the current state of politics in this country from his reign. Odious fellow.

You may not be a "bible basher" rusty but you do tend to buy into conservative discourse, which lately has depicted the whole Pell saga as part of a move by evil socialists to destroy western civilization, starting with the western pillar of Cristianity.

I never thought I'd agree with Clementine Ford but she is spot on about Andrew Bolt.

Yep. A lot of people who cant stand ford actually agree with her.  Me included. Sadly the bolts and devines  of the world jump on the this is the destruction of the church.  Nope . As a person who was born and raised catholic I'm very happy that this has happened. The church for too long have  ignored  this and victimized the victims . And this is only the beginning . The salvos . The othordox Jews.  The muslims . Et el have skeletons like these. 

I'm a leftie and I think she says some really dumb shit but I 100% agree with her on this as well.

This. He wouldn't have said what he said if Pell was a Muslim or a Hindu or any other religion really.

Rusty has stated he is a free thinker but yet  spouts the same lnp right wing bullshit we hear from the party and talkback. Dunno if he trolling or legit this full gone right wing 

A bit of both imo.

Mouflonrouge is similar but is more of a troll.

I agree with this.

This trial seems to be more of a lynching. I can't say for sure whether he is guilty or not, and if he is he deserves to be punished but the entire ramblings of the general public in social media has been disgusting. This isn't justice but vigilante ramblings.

This case has only reviewed notoriety because it's the Catholic Church. If it was an Islamic Imam, you just watch the same people brush it under the carpet saying "nothing to see here".

I am not against the conviction if he is truly guilty. I can only condemn any man that has done such vulgar sexually predatory acts against minors from a position of power and trust (whether religious or secular), but there is a lot more to this case that meets the eye.

LOL as if.

-PB

He was found guilty IN A FAIR TRIAL. Just because you didn't want him to be guilty, it doesn't mean there's an ulterior motive to this case. Pell copping shit for his crimes isn't disgusting. It's the least that he deserves. What is disgusting is that people are defending a convicted pedo and are trying to de-legitimise the jury and the legal system in general. 

Bullshit. This would have been front page news regardless of what religion the offender is from.


And how would you know that there is more to this than what meets the eye? You weren't in the jury or the courtroom. 

Juries do make mistakes in supposedly fair trials, that is simply a fact.
I have no idea if the jury made a mistake here but either way Pell is a piece of shit, you don't get to be third in the Catholic Church without being a disgusting person. If he is also a child molester then it just makes him a little bit worse.
Maybe he will cleared on appeal, lets wait and see.

That's a lot of mistakes to find an overwhelming majority lol.

-PB

Four Corners tonight will be well worth watching. Read a bit about the case and what the victims went through in the subsequent years. People that have attended hearings seem to have little doubt about the verdict.

That's not true!

If he is guilty I want him to be found guilty. If he is innocent, then naturally I want him to be found innocent.

I am not in a position to say either way because I am not privy to the evidence they have or the statements made by witnesses or have any technical knowledge of the case wahtsoever. And I would suspect that the majority of people are in the same boat.

I therefore refrain from making absolute statements. And how do we know he recieved a fair trial? There have been people throughout history that were wrongfully convicted.

What I have said is that the overwhelming public sentiment is motivated by other things such as the accused being a high ranking cleric of the Catholic Church. People, want him to be found guilty no matter what and without looking or scrutinizing ANY evidence.

I am the opposite to this and will not jump on the bandwagon with all the sheeple!

You have said that people want him to be found guilty because he’s a high ranking Catholic offical. That isn’t true. The victims had credible allegations and as a result spell was found guilty. You have raised questions over his guilt also despite the allegations were credible and Pell’s lawyer describing Pell’s offending as “Plain Vanilla sexual penetration.” If that doesn’t confirm that he’s guilty, then idk what does. source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/cardinal-pell-will-go-straight-to-jail-as-bail-application-is-withdrawn

“I am not in a position to say either way because I am not privy to the evidence they have or the statements made by witnesses or have any technical knowledge of the case wahtsoever. And I would suspect that the majority of people are in the same boat.”

You literally said that there’s more to this than what meets the eye which completely contradicts that statement.

Yes it is! It is very true!

Most people don't even know what is credible. They haven't looked into it except on a superficial level. And yet most people are polarized.

In fact I have never seen so much polarization in my life.

Child molestation has happened elsewhere as well, even in secular institutions and yet these cases are obscure. Even teachers have been caught, again these cases are obscured. But not pell. This has had more polarization than Trump himself.

Wow. Who knew you'll pop up to protect a convicted child molestor because he is a priest. Your argument is full of whataboutisms

He defended Milo when he said some pro pedo shit on JRE as well.

https://forum.insidesport.com.au/1309671/The-Australian-Politics-thread-Prime-Minister-Scott-Morrison?PageIndex=693

sub007, 

Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. 
However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal.

Isn’t he appealing the severity of the sentence and not the actual crime?

I mean Pell’s lawyer described his clients action as “plain vanilla sexual penetration.” Surely he wouldn’t have used that phrase if Pell’s was innocent.




I do agree that the Jury could be slightly biased but I still think the trial was fair and he was correctly found guilty.

Where did I do that.

I am not protecting a child molester or have any such intention of ever doing so. Your comprehension is akin to a little child.

Read my posts once again. I am all for a conviction of ANY child molester-er if they are indeed guilty. What I don't like is this lynch mob mentality. You have absolutely no clue about any evidence and you talk like a vigilante as if there is no other side or possibility of misjustice which actually does occur all the time. The polarization in this case, is been enormous!

Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims?

A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty.

People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.

To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. 

I keep seeing this get mentioned. Although it was horribly worded, it's definitely not an admission of guilt. It was said as part of the sentencing hearing which is when someone has already been found guilty of a crime (regardless of it they really did it). In such a context, all the discussion is as if the crime took place and you discuss relevant factors for how strong or weak a punishment should be based on what was said in court. So in describing Pell's actions that way, he is saying that what he was accused of was a one-off sexual assault rather than a pattern of ongoing predatory behaviour and thus hoping to get a lighter sentence. To think that this would warrant a lesser sentence is disgusting and why the lawyer later apologised, but it definitely has nothing to do with admitting guilt.