Miracle cure for George Pell


Miracle cure for George Pell

Author
Message
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 11:54 AM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 9:12 AM

Who's blaming the jury? The judges in the high court are by saying "it was not open to the jury to find .guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". God people talk some rubbish here.

The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal.  The Jury are laypersons.  The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse.
mcjules
mcjules
World Class
World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K, Visits: 0
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 11:27 AM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 10:09 AM

If there is any blame to be assigned, I’d say the prosecution carries a fair bit of it. 

Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned.

It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum.

Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here

mcjules
mcjules
World Class
World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K, Visits: 0
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 12:02 PM
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 11:54 AM

The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal.  The Jury are laypersons.  The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse.

Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds...

Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here

Edited
4 Years Ago by mcjules
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0
Munrubenmuz - 9 Apr 2020 11:57 AM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 9:21 AM

I'm talking to Rusty not you.

I've had very little to say about this.

I will say this now though.  The jury obviously thought he was guilty.  The judges, and I haven't followed this closely, appear to be saying there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict him.  (Could be wrong about all of that.)

So I'm not sure if that means he got off on a technicality or something else.  The facts are 12 jurors thought he was guilty.  7 judges thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict. 

Fair enough, that's the law.


Appear to be saying?  WTF?  The High Court could have not have said it any more loud and clear- SEVEN-NIL.  They could have ordered a trial-but they didn't as there was a and never could have been a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

As far as 12 jurors thinking he was guilty, a different 10 jurors thought he wasn't.

It wasn't a  "technicality". Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system.  The Victorian Courts turned that on its head by requiring Pell to prove his innocence.   What happened in the Victorian Courts was a travesty.  There was the Victorian State acting against religion, not Pell.  
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 12:02 PM

Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds...

We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check.  The jury was seen as a way to do that.

The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all.  That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what  Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves.  Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict.  Why not Dan?  Didn't like the outcome..
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0

double post
Edited
4 Years Ago by Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 11:27 AM

Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned.

It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum.

Pell didn't go free-he spent 400 days in prison when he should never have, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to say.
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Pell wasn’t “likely guilty”.  The High Court ruled that a rational jury would’ve cast doubt reasonable doubt on guilt based on the testimony of opportunity witnesses, who pointed out the difficulty and unlikelihood of committing a sexual crime in broad daylight in a public place after Mass on Sunday.  The whole case was a stitch up from go to woe, a collusion between Victorian Police, Victorian DPP, left wing media, religophobes like Mcjules and aggrieved sex assault victims seeking a scapegoat to destroy a powerful and conservative Catholic figure and damage the church.

It’s worth noting that Pell has been falsely accused of sex offences in the past which were retracted after evidence was found refuting the claims.  Fake complaints do happen and this was one that slipped through to the keeper.  What damage it has done for genuine victims of sex crimes as well, who will now fear taking their complaints to police and barristers completely incapable of distinguishing between fake and real complaints.

mcjules
mcjules
World Class
World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K, Visits: 0
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 12:16 PM
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM

We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check.  The jury was seen as a way to do that.

The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all.  That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what  Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves.  Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict.  Why not Dan?  Didn't like the outcome..

Seems like a googled answer, close but not quite right. If it was just that judges wouldnt be able to overrule juries.

As for the rest, what a bonkers take.

Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here

mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 11:27 AM

Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned.

It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum.

You said likely has and therefore leave the prospect that the man is innocent.

Therefore, the law must be applied and measured beyond all doubt otherwise innocent people go to jail.

The jury did not apply the law properly and as a result, the judgement didn't pass muster with the Federal High Court.

In addition, the evidence and testimonies had plenty of holes and inconsistencies. There were many incorrect statements. The evidence was clearly not strong enough for a conviction.

Edited
4 Years Ago by mouflonrouge
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 12:00 PM
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 11:54 AM

The Jury did not apply a guilty version beyond any doubt. There was never enough evidence to copnvict the Cardinal at all. The Jury was swept away in the vigilantism trial by media.

 Ansd this is WHY we have the Federal Courts as the final appeal thrid referee if you like and they voted unaminously 7 to 0

What trial by media lol?

It was under massive suppression.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 1:57 PM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 12:16 PM

As for the rest, what a bonkers take.

The unconscious bias in your brain that you’re not aware pof can easily explain this comment.
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC - 9 Apr 2020 2:54 PM
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 12:00 PM

What trial by media lol?

It was under massive suppression.

-PB

Oh dear
Enzo Bearzot
Enzo Bearzot
Pro
Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)Pro (4.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 1:57 PM
Enzo Bearzot - 9 Apr 2020 12:16 PM

Seems like a googled answer, close but not quite right. If it was just that judges wouldnt be able to overrule juries.

As for the rest, what a bonkers take.

Right I googled an answer just to be wrong...

As for the rest Our Dan's "No Comment" speaks volumes.
mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC - 9 Apr 2020 2:54 PM
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 12:00 PM

What trial by media lol?

It was under massive suppression.

-PB

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.

Edited
4 Years Ago by mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 4:21 PM
rusty - 9 Apr 2020 3:00 PM

It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. 

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.

paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 4:23 PM
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 4:21 PM

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.

But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact.
mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 4:25 PM
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 4:23 PM

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

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?

Burztur
Burztur
World Class
World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)World Class (9.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K, Visits: 0
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 11:27 AM

Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned.

It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum.

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. 

If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought. 

mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 6:32 PM
mcjules - 9 Apr 2020 12:04 PM

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. 

If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought. 

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.

Edited
4 Years Ago by mouflonrouge
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 4:28 PM
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 4:25 PM

After all the vitriol.

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

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.
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 6:52 PM
Burztur - 9 Apr 2020 6:32 PM

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.

Involving Daniel Andrews in the matter at all sounds pretty tinfoil hat material to me, TBH.
Edited
4 Years Ago by paladisious
mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 10:14 PM
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 4:28 PM

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.

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.

mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
paladisious - 9 Apr 2020 10:17 PM
mouflonrouge - 9 Apr 2020 6:52 PM

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

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



Edited
4 Years Ago by mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
mouflonrouge
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K, Visits: 0
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.
Edited
4 Years Ago by mouflonrouge
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
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.

Muz
Muz
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K, Visits: 0
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.”





Member since 2008.


Edited
4 Years Ago by Munrubenmuz
mcjules
mcjules
World Class
World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K, Visits: 0
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.

Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here

rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Royal Commissions aren’t wardens of absolute truth.  They are, much like the Victorian court of appeals, subject to interpretation and sometimes bias.  

Secondly there’s no smoking guns in the unredacted report, nothing to suggest the Cardinal deliberately shielded and protected paedophile priests.  The worst you can accuse him of is being incompetent, but not in a maliciously way.  Pell is probably a reflection of that particular era when sexual abuse tended to be swept under the rug rather than confronted, not just by churches but by schools, police, households and society in general.  Thats not to excuse Pell, but you probably couldnt find a politician or clergy member of that era who “couldn't have done more”.

You also have to balance what Pell didnt do with what he did do, which we rarely ever hear about because its not fashionable to talk about the “good side” of Pell, unless you want to commit career suicide.

In Mcjules mind, being a Catholic clergy is enough to be a monster, but thats no need to take a shit on our principles of justice, which should always rise above petty religaphobic antagonism.

mcjules
mcjules
World Class
World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)World Class (8.5K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K, Visits: 0
Of course someone abhorrent enough to laugh at the suffering of sexual abuse survivors would see this as no big deal.  🙄

Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here

GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search