Why are most here not accepting the judgement of the High Court?

Just accept his innocence and be grateful that an innocent man is free. 

I suppose that would make all 7 judges on the High Court molesters too.  In fact anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a child molester.  And a racist, misogynistic, homophobe.  Name calling is for intelligent , enlightened people like yourself.

Surely the longest bow ever drawn on 442.

But if you want to play that stupid game.  Based on your vehement defence of Pell you're evidently a child molester.  I mean one doesn't have to specifically state something for the meaning to be implied.  No need to hide your perversions behind weasel words.

Its clear from your views that you’re a non football misogynist and abliest.  One doesnt have specifically state something in order for the meaning to be implied.  No need to hide your bigotry behind weasel words.

Never said they weren't Rus.  No need to project.

So says the guy who hates non football female and disabled athletes and doesnt think they are entitled to equal pay.  A true bigot you are.

Pretty sure Pell doesn't hate women.

You and Pell have a lot in common rusty.

-PB

I guess when you lose the legal battle there’s always poorly written attempts at satire to fall back on.

Nailed most of the talking points. Sadly, it missed the opportunity to suggest every single school, government and church "could have done more" and therefore are just as guilty as Pell. 
Oh and the good things he did, like set up a fund for compensation where far more money was spent on trying not to pay victims than what ended up getting paid to them.

https://theshovel.com.au/2020/05/07/andrew-bolt-george-pell-expected-to-know-that-paedophilia-inappropriate/

Andrew Bolt furiously penning think piece about how George Pell couldn’t possibly be expected to know that paedophilia was inappropriate
By The Shovel on May 7, 2020

News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt was today putting the finishing touches to an opinion piece which will argue that people as busy and important as George Pell can’t possibly be expected to know the finer details of every single law and regulation.

Following the Royal Commission’s finding that George Pell knew about sexual abuse in the church but didn’t report it, Bolt began furiously penning a think piece for tomorrow’s papers. An early draft of the piece supposedly read:

“He was busy. He had an important job. He had a church to run. How can he possibly have been expected to be across every rule and regulation? Every fashionable opinion and point of view? How was he to know whether the legal age of consent was six or sixteen? He’s a Cardinal, not a lawyer.

But here again we have yet another example of the liberal left claiming that George Pell – one of the most important men of the Catholic Church – should not be attending to his duties, but rather swotting up on the minutia of government legislation, as if he’s some kind of professor of law.

‘This is illegal, this is not. You can have sex with this person, but you can’t have sex with that person.’ And on it goes. Please. It’s not his place to become an expert in the finer points of Australian law.

Even if he had known that sexually assaulting children was some sort of breach of protocol, does that mean he was obliged to report it? Do you report every transgression of the law you see? Every jaywalker, every cyclist without a helmet? Of course not.

Let’s call this what it is – an un-Christian attack on a Christian man”.

Or maybe you just need to accept you have a prejudice against the man which has affected your ability to analyse the facts and make sound judgements.

If I'm accept willing to accept the High Court decision with Pell I think you need to accept that it's highly likely Pell attempted to cover up or ignore allegations of sexual abuse by others in the church. 

You like to paint this all this as some evil leftist plot to destroy the pillar of western culture that the Catholic Church. But news flash Rusty: This is nothing new.

Mcjules still bitter that he was exposed as a bitter fool with an irrational hatred of religion willing to shit on principles of justice in order to take down a high ranking Catholic, with not one fuck given as to the truth of the matter.

Of course someone abhorrent enough to laugh at the suffering of sexual abuse survivors would see this as no big deal.  🙄

Royal Commissions aren’t wardens of absolute truth.  They are, much like the Victorian court of appeals, subject to interpretation and sometimes bias.  

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/07/george-pell-cardinal-was-aware-of-children-being-sexually-abused-royal-commission-report-reveals

Sadly none of this is shocking. What a monster.

https://chaser.com.au/national/abc-announces-it-will-punish-reporters-who-criticised-pell-by-moving-them-to-another-parish/

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has today apologised to the Catholic church over their reporting of the fact that one of their most senior members had been convicted of molesting children, admitting they should have been more like the Church and just ignored such claims and covered them up.

“We’re very sorry to Cardinal Pell, and anyone who was hurt by our reporting of the facts of his case after they were released publicly,” explained the ABC via an official statement on their website. “We would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to News Corporation who have very rightly lambasted us for reporting on the conviction after the court suppression order expired. We clearly should have been more like them and respectfully not besmirched Pell’s image by simply running multiple front page stories alluding to the trial while it was still ongoing.”

Asked how they would be paying reparations for the damage they have done to Pell’s previously untainted image, the ABC say they will be doling out the harshest possible punishment to those who overstepped the line – by moving those reporters to a slightly different location and then continuing to allow them to do the thing they got in trouble for. “We think this is the best and most appropriate response given the circumstances,” explained the ABC, “and we’re sure the Church will agree.”

The facts dont matter.  People decided long before that Pell was guilty, not because he allegedly raped some altar boys, but because he is a high ranking official of the Catholic Church.  They decided that the cornerstone of western justice, namely innocent until proven guilty, no longer applied to Catholics in high positions and they have fanned a fake narrative that the church is full of paedophile priests and every accusation must be believed regardless of its merits.

The left are a disease and a biggest threat we face to democracy in modern times.  We are seeing continued trend of leftists across western democracies trying to subvert democracy in order to instill their socialist ideological agenda.  The fake Russia investigation, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, attempts to revoke Brexit, these are just some examples of the mainstream left defalcating on western ideals because free speech and democracy have failed as useful tools.  Its only the beginning too.

Some people will rejoice some will be angry over this.However here are a few issues surrounding the case.

1. One of the boys who died always said it never happened.

2. The accuser was a junkie for many years.

3. Pell's minders at the church said he was always out the front of the church when the offending was meant to be taking place.

4. If the complaint was to be believed at the time of offending Pell, was wearing heavy robes. There was argument over if it was possible to move them.

5. The offending was taking place in an area where any one could walk in on. Yet no one come forward to say anything happened.

6. The defense had many many witness saying the alleged offending was not possible. While the DPP relied on the complaint only.

To me there is at least some reasonable doubt and the HC did the right thing. Plus remember all the Justices agreed.

he involved himself all the way through, even with his latest statements.

the justice system has set out very clear legal principles behind such notions as "beyond reasonable doubt".

These criteria were broken by the initial judgment, this violating the Human right of Cardinal Pell who was illegally incarcerated for 404 days.

He should seek compensation.

Involving Daniel Andrews in the matter at all sounds pretty tinfoil hat material to me, TBH.

No human decision can be made without bias. Maybe when some AI takes over we can pass the impossible criteria you set out in your argument, but for now you're stuck with us humans.

Curtailing society's free speech with a suppression order is the best that the defence could ask for, and even then I could argue that it does more harm than good.

And why did they make a judgment without adhering to fundamental legal principles?

That's a very vague accusation.

They proceeded because of the public outrage and trial by media as well as the anti religious sentiment sweeping social media and twitter.

Daniel Andrews did it for political point scoring, votes, and virtue signalling.

The problem however is that a man was jailed unfairly.

I warned all of you how was going to be let off and found innocent but many here were just politicizing it and spewing hatred and vitriol. If this is how society has become, we are all in BIG trouble.

It’s the prosecutions job to build the case and I’m not sure why they proceeded without closing the gaps. The prosecution has all the information available to it and chose a certain course of action to present their case in the best possible light. 

After all the vitriol.

Answer me this, how the hell was that Jury able to maintain any detachment and non bias?

And why did they make a judgment without adhering to fundamental legal principles?

But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact.

The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout.

The ammount of outrage and political interference from the Andrews Government and the politicization of this case was beyond ludicrous.

Even under the best of circumstances, there was no way the cardinal would get a fair trial.

Even the ABC-TV 2 days before a decision would be delivered by The Federal High Court came up with massive stories about new allegations which were not new at all. These allegations were looked into by the Police who decided they didn't have enough to pursue Cardinal Pell over. This was a clear attempt to muddy the waters once again.

Again, I must reiterate. No one wants a sexual criminal to get away with these disgusting crimes. If the Cardinal committed such crimes, he sould be in jail. However, I am not convinced he committed these crimes at all.