The Law Royal Commission into Child Abuse

[Maggie5]

The reason political parties were raised was because Keneally was the "go to Catholic" for Sky News for commentary on George Pell. She has written articles, made days worth of comments, etc etc. I don't think it's unreasonable, therefore, to have her own standards explored.

And then the focus on the real issue was lost. Convenient?

 

[Lebbo73]

You are nothing but an Catholic apologist trying to "normalise" the behavior of your church by casting, equally disgusting but irrelevant to your churches crimes, light on other equally disturbing issues you allege were committed by other unassociated institutions.
There should be investigations into any child sexual abuse wiyth the Liberal, Labor or Natonal Parties if there is even a sniff of evidence such is or was going on.
No-one is even vaguely suggesting otherwise.
You however are trying to hide the actions of your church behind your faux outrage.
You are a weak campaigner pure and simple.
No amount of evidence, real or concocted for your own convenience, of the crimes of others in any way forgives Pell and the Catholic Church for their proven atrocities.

Where is that evidence you have against Pell?

 

[Maggie5]

RC starts again today for those interested, just more examples of cover ups.
A list of priests that have been charged or are awaiting court (sadly some have died before going to court).

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/235

The list of offenders (in the 100's) is horrific and how anyone during that period could deny not knowing anything is bullshit!

 

[Maggie5]

As for no change, is there any evidence of any institutionalised abuses happening now? Any evidence of any institutionalised protection of priests abusing children now?

This article may help in answering part of your question.
The recent questioning of Pell's mate Father Walshe at the RC.
The cover ups continue.
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/386

 

[Maggie5]

Where is that evidence you have against Pell?

Be patient, all will come out in due course.

Don't crow yet, in the meantime rad the above link and the following one, might enlighten you.
http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/391

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And then the focus on the real issue was lost. Convenient?

Well I guess it depends on what you consider to be the "real issue".

What I understand it to be is a society wide tendency to protect institutions (including the Catholic Church) from embarrassment and lawsuits at the expense of the abused children.

Mitigating that society wide tendency, I think, was an underlying failure of society (including the Catholic Church) to fully appreciate both the severity and the widespread nature of the crimes in question. Without that appreciation, it seems it was a lot easier to disbelieve the allegations made by the children.

If my son came home from Kinder today and told me that a teacher or supervising parent had "touched his doodle", he wouldn't be going back to that Kinder tomorrow or ever unless I was absolutely satisfied of his safety. I am fortunate to have, thanks to history, a far greater appreciation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in society. It would be nice to say I would have done the same in 1974, but clearly many, many parents didn't and I can only assume that was because they didn't believe it.

 

[Maggie5]

Well I guess it depends on what you consider to be the "real issue".

What I understand it to be is a society wide tendency to protect institutions (including the Catholic Church) from embarrassment and lawsuits at the expense of the abused children.

Mitigating that society wide tendency, I think, was an underlying failure of society (including the Catholic Church) to fully appreciate both the severity and the widespread nature of the crimes in question. Without that appreciation, it seems it was a lot easier to disbelieve the allegations made by the children.

If my son came home from Kinder today and told me that a teacher or supervising parent had "touched his doodle", he wouldn't be going back to that Kinder tomorrow or ever unless I was absolutely satisfied of his safety. I am fortunate to have, thanks to history, a far greater appreciation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in society. It would be nice to say I would have done the same in 1974, but clearly many, many parents didn't and I can only assume that was because they didn't believe it.

At last you have it and I hope that this RC achieves it's objectives in making sure that this never happens again.

Further, that those that were involved in the offences and covering up are brought to justice, irrespective of what religion or organisation they may be.

It it can achieve both, I sincerely hope that this brings some sort of peace to the victims.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

At last you have it and I hope that this RC achieves it's objectives in making sure that this never happens again.

Further, that those that were involved in the offences and covering up are brought to justice, irrespective of what religion or organisation they may be.

It it can achieve both, I sincerely hope that this brings some sort of peace to the victims.

What do you mean "at last". My view has always been the same on this. Or are you reading something into my inclusion of the Catholic Church by name in the absence of the named inclusion of the many other institutions?

 

[HairyO]

And then the focus on the real issue was lost. Convenient?

The real issue being on what Catholic Priests were doing 40 years ago?

Isnt the real issue any institution using its power to cover up abuse? Isnt a fundamental goal to stop current abuse and ensure future abuse doesnt happen? Wouldnt an example of a political party punishing a whistleblower who outed a paedophile less than 10 years ago be a very important story to tell?

 

[Lebbo73]

Be patient, all will come out in due course.

Don't crow yet, in the meantime rad the above link and the following one, might enlighten you.
http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/391

I hope it does. No pedophile or pedophile enabler should be allowed to get away with what they did. However, Pell still hasn't been hit with this smoking gun that you seem to be sure is there!

 

[Maggie5]

I hope it does. No pedophile or pedophile enabler should be allowed to get away with what they did. However, Pell still hasn't been hit with this smoking gun that you seem to be sure is there!

You still don't get it, you think that by prefacing your post with the first sentences it covers you for the bold!

Are you aware that you have been the only poster on these boards that make me want to tell you to FO!

I think it is about time you crawled back into your hole.

 

[Maggie5]

The real issue being on what Catholic Priests were doing 40 years ago?

Isnt the real issue any institution using its power to cover up abuse? Isnt a fundamental goal to stop current abuse and ensure future abuse doesnt happen? Wouldnt an example of a political party punishing a whistleblower who outed a paedophile less than 10 years ago be a very important story to tell?

You are hilarious. Can't even by bothered replying to you in any respectful way.

 

[Maggie5]

What do you mean "at last". My view has always been the same on this. Or are you reading something into my inclusion of the Catholic Church by name in the absence of the named inclusion of the many other institutions?

Yes, because I and many others have tried to explain to you that it is not just about the Catholic Church, it just so happens that is the case that was currently being heard before the commission.
I have even listed the other institutions and examples of cases and they have been discussed in this thread.

 

[Present Not Past]

Yes, because I and many others have tried to explain to you that it is not just about the Catholic Church, it just so happens that is the case that was currently being heard before the commission.
I have even listed the other institutions and examples of cases and they have been discussed in this thread.

Well why aren't we discussing the latest from the RC - the endemic abuse in our social services departments? 1 in 10 children in residential care homes have been sexually abused in the last 12 months. No, we're still talking about George Pell.

 

[Maggie5]

What do you mean "at last". My view has always been the same on this. Or are you reading something into my inclusion of the Catholic Church by name in the absence of the named inclusion of the many other institutions?

The case they are currently looking into today is also very interesting as it seems that there is a suggestion that the judge in charge may have interpreted some matters to side with the defence.
It would be very disappointing if the judiciary is also complicit in this matter.

 

[Maggie5]

Well why aren't we discussing the latest from the RC - the endemic abuse in our social services departments? 1 in 10 children in residential care homes have been sexually abused in the last 12 months. No, we're still talking about George Pell.

You have just mentioned it.

You should support the RC then as it seems we have not learned much from the past and that is why it is looking into institutional abuse which residential care comes under, Who is covering it up, why has this not gotten more media? If you are in possession of information, go to the police or even the RC.

 

[western royboy]

The case they are currently looking into today is also very interesting as it seems that there is a suggestion that the judge in charge may have interpreted some matters to side with the defence.
It would be very disappointing if the judiciary is also complicit in this matter.

Court rules in this area are heavily skewed against convictions - that's what the hearings are about - whether there should be some movement in this area because clearly evidence is lacking

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yes, because I and many others have tried to explain to you that it is not just about the Catholic Church, it just so happens that is the case that was currently being heard before the commission.
I have even listed the other institutions and examples of cases and they have been discussed in this thread.

Can you point me in the direction of any other junior (at the time) player who has spent 4 days in the witness box under intense examination over what he is alleged to have known 40 years ago?

Can you point me in the direction of any other witness who has had obscene songs written about them?

Can you point me in the direction of any single witness who's peripheral (at best) knowledge has been the subject of so much media scrutiny and public derision?

Can you point me in the direction of any other single witness who's answers to the RC have been so minutely corralled so as to deliver headlines for media outlets?

Eg:

Pell: Well Mulkearns didn't furnish me with the entire story regarding Ridsdale.

RC: So you're saying he deceived you?

Pell: Well, I guess you could place that definition on it.

RC: So you're saying he lied to you?

Pell: Well I'm not sure I would use.......

RC: Deceiving is lying is it not.....

Pell: Well I suppose it is in a way.

MEDIA: PELL BLAMES OTHERS FOR LYING TO HIM.

 

[CM86]

Pell is a junior player.

okmete...

 

[Present Not Past]

You have just mentioned it.

You should support the RC then as it seems we have not learned much from the past and that is why it is looking into institutional abuse which residential care comes under, Who is covering it up, why has this not gotten more media? If you are in possession of information, go to the police or even the RC.

The story has been in the media for over 24 hours and yet it has only been mentioned in this thread once, by me, now. All that has been discussed in this thread in that time is the Catholic Church and George Pell. Is this thread really about the Royal Commission

 

[Maggie5]

The story has been in the media for over 24 hours and yet it has only been mentioned in this thread once, by me, now. All that has been discussed in this thread in that time is the Catholic Church and George Pell. Is this thread really about the Royal Commission

Well instead of , why don't you supply the link and inform us all?

 

[Maggie5]

Can you point me in the direction of any other junior (at the time) player who has spent 4 days in the witness box under intense examination over what he is alleged to have known 40 years ago?

Can you point me in the direction of any other witness who has had obscene songs written about them?

Can you point me in the direction of any single witness who's peripheral (at best) knowledge has been the subject of so much media scrutiny and public derision?

Can you point me in the direction of any other single witness who's answers to the RC have been so minutely corralled so as to deliver headlines for media outlets?

Eg:

Pell: Well Mulkearns didn't furnish me with the entire story regarding Ridsdale.

RC: So you're saying he deceived you?

Pell: Well, I guess you could place that definition on it.

RC: So you're saying he lied to you?

Pell: Well I'm not sure I would use.......

RC: Deceiving is lying is it not.....

Pell: Well I suppose it is in a way.

MEDIA: PELL BLAMES OTHERS FOR LYING TO HIM.

Well, that didn't last long, forget in not interested.!!!!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Pell is a junior player.

okmete...

He was a junior player in 1974.

 

[Present Not Past]

Well instead of , why don't you supply the link and inform us all?

Gladly.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...IIFzAA&usg=AFQjCNFxUSainO3yvIZbQ9Q41Tfx5xqe4Q

 

[Maggie5]

Court rules in this area are heavily skewed against convictions - that's what the hearings are about - whether there should be some movement in this area because clearly evidence is lacking

I think it is more than that, it appears some law regarding evidence was changed in 1995 and when the case against McGuire was heard in 2003, the defence used that and asked the judge to consider.
This was in relation to the trials being heard separately against McGuire which resulted in the one jury not hearing all the complainants.
Which was the preferred stance of the judge.

Can you imagine the impact of the jury hearing from 6-12 complainants as opposed different juries hearing only from one?