Cardinal Pell honorary role with Richmond - Is this the last straw?

[TigerImposter]

1. Dean Laidley is an example of Police corruption? Are you serious? Please explain....

2. Definition of Peaodophilia
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child/

So Richard Neville telling a story that he once had sex with a presumably willing and post pubescent 14 year old girl...please explain how that meets the definition of peaodophilia.... carnal knowledge of a minor yes, peaodophilia, NO. And according to you he is presumed guilty of being a peaodophile, and anyone who didn’t want to incorrectly label him as one is presumed guilty of being a peaodophile sympathiser. And you don’t even seem to know what a peaodophile is. You are a generational talent in being wrong.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/DHS.3106.002.0154.pdf

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Not sure what your point is.
That's common knowledge, plus it was in 93' as axillary bishop under Little.
'73-'83 is what I'm talking about from the RC findings.

The campaigner knew, and supported him. That's the whole ******* point, innit?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/DHS.3106.002.0154.pdf

With respect TI, what you have posted doesn’t logically follow from the conversation you are contributing to.

1. tigerisland labels Richard Neville a peadophile and accuses people who fail to label him a peadophile as peadophile sympathisers as part of him trying to somehow demonstrate the ABC supported peadophile behaviour(not that this directly related to the Pell issue, but anyway....)
2. I didn’t have a clue what he was talking about so googled it. Richard Neville apparently once related a story on Radio National that he had sex with a presumably post-pubescent and willing 14 year old girl in England in the 1960’s - free love hippy era. I could find no other reference of any other admission or accusation of him being a peadophile.
3. I provide the commonly accepted definition of peadophilia, which DOES NOT include the situation I believe Neville was describing.
4. You disagree and post a definition of child sexual abuse which would include what Neville was describing.

The problem with that is tigerisland never said Neville was guilty of child sexual abuse by a definition like that, he said he was a self confessed peadophile. Neville was not a self confessed peadophile and your post does not in any way strengthen tiger island’s claim that he is.

Given this is the conversation you weighed into, it is fair to ask you where you stand on this. Was tigerisland right to label Richard Neville a peadophile and anyone who failed to denounce him as one a peadophile sympathiser? Do you consider that has any part in a discussion where the peadophiles being discussed are raping 10 year old boys and things of that ilk?

 

[TigerImposter]

With respect TI, what you have posted doesn’t logically follow from the conversation you are contributing to.

1. tigerisland labels Richard Neville a peadophile and accuses people who fail to label him a peadophile as peadophile sympathisers as part of him trying to somehow demonstrate the ABC supported peadophile behaviour(not that this directly related to the Pell issue, but anyway....)
2. I didn’t have a clue what he was talking about so googled it. Richard Neville apparently once related a story on Radio National that he had sex with a presumably post-pubescent and willing 14 year old girl in England in the 1960’s - free love hippy era. I could find no other reference of any other admission or accusation of him being a peadophile.
3. I provide the commonly accepted definition of peadophilia, which DOES NOT include the situation I believe Neville was describing.
4. You disagree and post a definition of child sexual abuse which would include what neville was describing.

The problem with that is tigerisland never said Neville was guilty of child sexual abuse by a definition like that, he said he was a self confessed peadophile. Neville was not a self confessed peadophile and your post does not in any way strengthen tiger island’s claim that he is.

Given this is the conversation you weighed into, it is fair to ask you where you stand on this. Was tigerisland right to label Richard Neville a peadophile and anyone who failed to denounce him as one a peadophile sympathiser? Do you consider that has any part in a discussion where the peadophiles being discussed are raping 10 year old boys and things of that ilk?

Anyone taking advantage of a minor is a form of child Sexual abuse and your logic she was a consensual and willing candidate bc of the the Hippy era is appalling and contradicts what we’re discussing here and what I posted to you by the RC.
You’re playing on words now so you can get your point against Pell across and then contradict your points by saying it was OK for Neville to hop in bed with a 14yo due to the 60s era. Yet the same crime today would probably lead to a jail term.
Points 2 and 3 on page 1 of my post clearly explain child sexual abuse and exploitation .
I responded to you as you seemed naive on the true definitions when you put up some dictionary meaning of paedophilia. I informed you on the legal definition outlined by the RC.

 

[Grrr]

Anyone taking advantage of a minor is a form of child Sexual abuse and your logic she was a consensual and willing candidate bc of the the Hippy era is appalling and contradicts what we’re discussing here and what I posted to you by the RC.
You’re playing on words now so you can get your point against Pell across and then contradict your points by saying it was OK for Neville to hop in bed with a 14yo due to the 60s era. Yet the same crime today would probably lead to a jail term.
Points 2 and 3 on page 1 of my post clearly explain child sexual abuse and exploitation .
I responded to you as you seemed naive on the true definitions when you put up some dictionary meaning of paedophilia. I informed you on the legal definition outlined by the RC.

Ask a rock star in the 60-70's if they had sex with someone under 16 in their heyday and most would probably say yes. Some girls under 16 certainly look and act like young women and don't advertise their birthdates. It was pretty heady times back when Neville was around, things have tightened up considerably regarding awareness of that sort of thing, which is obviously a good thing, but it is a broad brush to accredit all such behaviour as peaodophilia. Is every 14-16 year old that gets pregnant therefore is a victim of peaodophilia.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Anyone taking advantage of a minor is a form of child abuse and your logic she was a consensual and willing candidate bc of the the Hippy era is appalling and contradicts what we’re discussing here and what I posted to you by the RC.
You’re playing on words now so you can get your point against Pell across and then contradict your points by saying it was OK for Neville to hop in bed with a 14yo due to the 60s era. Yet the same crime today would probably lead to a jail term.
Points 2 and 3 on page 1 of my post clearly explain child abuse and exploitation .
I responded to you as you seemed naive on the true definitions when you put up some dictionary meaning of paedophilia. I informed you on the legal definition outlined by the RC.

You seem now to be going further down the wrong track you started on....so let me deal with your points one by one so that you won’t confuse people as to my position.

"Anyone taking advantage of a minor is a form of child abuse and your logic she was a consensual and willing candidate bc of the the Hippy era is appalling and contradicts what we’re discussing here and what I posted to you by the RC."

The first part of this sentence I wholeheartedly agree with. After that you are completely misrepresenting my position. I never used the word ‘consensual.’ The reason I did not use that term is that consent is a legal term and the law recognises that no person below the age of 16 can give legal consent to having sex with an older person. I was not seeking to excuse or support Neville’s behaviour, I posted earlier in the thread that I think carnal knowledge of a minor is properly dealt with by loss of liberty. The hippy era reference was mine but I was trying to demonstrate the context in which Neville would have been putting the story. I was not trying to say this meant I support carnal knowledge of a minor in this context - or any other. I was seeking to demonstrate the clear difference between what Neville admitted to and peadophilia, the label which tigerisland had given it.

"You’re playing on words now so you can get your point against Pell across and then contradict your points by saying it was OK for Neville to hop in bed with a 14yo due to the 60s era. Yet the same crime today would probably lead to a jail term."

This is no play on words by me. tigerisland was the one misleading people by labelling Neville a peadophile, which on this thread would leave it open for others to think that Neville was somehow in favour of raping 10 year old boys etc. I was merely clearing that up.

"Points 2 and 3 on page 1 of my post clearly explain child abuse and exploitation .
I responded to you as you seemed naive on the true definitions when you put up some dictionary meaning of paedophilia. I informed you on the legal definition outlined by the RC."

What you posted was a definition of child sexual abuse. This is a distinguishable from peadophilia, though of course all peadophilia is child sexual abuse and some child sexual abuse is peadophilia. Can you not see that?

To be clear I will repeat something I posted earlier in the thread. Carnal knowledge by an adult man of a willing 14 year girl is wrong and should rightly be punished by loss of liberty. But that is a million miles from raping pre pubescent boys(or girls for that matter) which I(and I have no doubt many others) believe should be punishable by life imprisonment at the very least.

I repeat also that tigerisland had no business introducing this into the thread the way he did, seeking only to slur and confuse people into thinking the ABC and others support peadophilia.

Are you now saying that the terms ‘child sexual abuse’ and ‘peadophilia’ are one and the same thing, totally interchangeable in all circumstances? That is what all of your posts in this passage seem to be indicating....

 

[TigerImposter]

Ask a rock star in the 60-70's if they had sex with someone under 16 in their heyday and most would probably say yes. Some girls under 16 certainly look and act like young women and don't advertise their birthdates. It was pretty heady times back when Neville was around, things have tightened up considerably regarding awareness of that sort of thing, which is obviously a good thing, but it is a broad brush to accredit all such behaviour as peaodophilia. Is every 14-16 year old that gets pregnant therefore is a victim of peaodophilia.

Seriously you have the wrong outlook on the law. Consider your 14 yo daughter drugged out and/ or drunk waking up the next morning with her innocence removed.

 

[TigerImposter]

You seem now to be going further down the wrong track you started on....so let me deal with your points one by one so that you won’t confuse people as to my position.

"Anyone taking advantage of a minor is a form of child abuse and your logic she was a consensual and willing candidate bc of the the Hippy era is appalling and contradicts what we’re discussing here and what I posted to you by the RC."

The first part of this sentence I wholeheartedly agree with. After that you are completely misrepresenting my position. I never used the word ‘consensual.’ The reason I did not use that term is that consent is a legal term and the law recognises that no person below the age of 16 can give legal consent to having sex with an older person. I was not seeking to excuse or support Neville’s behaviour, I posted earlier in the thread that I think carnal knowledge of a minor is properly dealt with by loss of liberty. The hippy era reference was mine but I was trying to demonstrate the context in which Neville would have been putting the story. I was not trying to say this meant I support carnal knowledge of a minor in this context - or any other. I was seeking to demonstrate the clear difference between what Neville admitted to and peadophilia, the label which tigerisland had given it.

"You’re playing on words now so you can get your point against Pell across and then contradict your points by saying it was OK for Neville to hop in bed with a 14yo due to the 60s era. Yet the same crime today would probably lead to a jail term."

This is no play on words by me. tigerisland was the one misleading people by labelling Neville a peadophile, which on this thread would leave it open for others to think that Neville was somehow in favour of raping 10 year old boys etc. I was merely clearing that up.

"Points 2 and 3 on page 1 of my post clearly explain child abuse and exploitation .
I responded to you as you seemed naive on the true definitions when you put up some dictionary meaning of paedophilia. I informed you on the legal definition outlined by the RC."

What you posted was a definition of child sexual abuse. This is a distinguishable from peadophilia, though of course all peadophilia is child sexual abuse and some child sexual abuse is peadophilia. Can you not see that?

To be clear I will repeat something I posted earlier in the thread. Carnal knowledge by an adult man of a willing 14 year girl is wrong and should rightly be punished by loss of liberty. But that is a million miles from raping pre pubescent boys(or girls for that matter) which I(and I have no doubt many others) believe should be punishable by life imprisonment at the very least.

I repeat also that tigerisland had no business introducing this into the thread the way he did, seeking only to slur and confuse people into thinking the ABC and others support peadophilia.

Are you now saying that the terms ‘child sexual abuse’ and ‘peadophilia’ are one and the same thing, totally interchangeable in all circumstances? That is what all of your posts in this passage seem to be indicating....

Until all this happens to the next 14yo girl. I’m sorry the two are both sexual criminal acts and a blight on the people committing them. I still cannot understand your logic on two criminal acts conducted on minors which both lead to jail sentences if proven guilty.
Im moving on from this argument as we obviously have different morals and opinions regarding these crimes.

 

[Grrr]

Seriously you have the wrong outlook on the law. Consider your 14 yo daughter drugged out and/ or drunk waking up the next morning with her innocence removed.

As I said, it is a good thing that things have changed, but not every girl who has sex when they are young, especially in those days was drugged up and taken advantage of. Half the blokes were just a few years older, and not necessarily smarter. Today there is a good deal more awareness especially with young men what is legal/acceptable and not, which of course is a good thing.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Seriously you have the wrong outlook on the law. Consider your 14 yo daughter drugged out and/ or drunk waking up the next morning with her innocence removed.

Until all this happens to the next 14yo girl. I’m sorry the two are both sexual criminal acts and a blight on the people committing them. I still cannot understand your logic on two criminal acts conducted on minors which both lead to jail sentences if proven guilty.
Im moving on from this argument as we obviously have different morals and opinions regarding these crimes.

Agree TI.I can't separate the 2.Sex with a CHILD under 16 or peadophilia .Both belong in the same vile box and both should punished accordingly.

 

[Grrr]

Agree TI.I can't separate the 2.Sex with a CHILD under 16 or peadophilia .Both belong in the same vile box and both should punished accordingly.

I know girls who had sex at 15, willingly. Some had children a year or so later and have become great mothers with blokes just a few years older than them and are still married. Were those blokes peodo's then. There is a massive difference between praying on children and young people having sex. How many people have lost their virginity before they were 16.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I know girls who had sex at 15, willingly. Some had children a year or so later and have become great mothers with blokes just a few years older than them and are still married. Were those blokes peodo's then. There is a massive difference between praying on children and young people having sex. How many people have lost their virginity before they were 16.

Ok,I concede that there maybe circumstances that young luv gets the better of some but crossing a very fine line IMO.However not for one minute would i not hesitate calling someone out if what i view as taking advantage of someone under the age.There is a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed.

 

[Grrr]

Ok,I concede that there maybe circumstances that young luv gets the better of some but crossing a very fine line IMO.However not for one minute would i not hesitate calling someone out if what i view as taking advantage of someone under the age.There is a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed.

Of course, nor I.

 

[Not Important]

as i've posted before, the club has made the call on the cardinal and it's the right one.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Until all this happens to the next 14yo girl. I’m sorry the two are both sexual criminal acts and a blight on the people committing them. I still cannot understand your logic on two criminal acts conducted on minors which both lead to jail sentences if proven guilty.
Im moving on from this argument as we obviously have different morals and opinions regarding these crimes.

You are just being foolish now. You are arguing against points nothing to do with the ones I am making and misrepresenting my position in order to do so. There is nobody here, least of all me, saying it is ok for a grown man to have sex with a 14yo girl, so that has been created by you and you alone. If you think I said something that amounts to that, show the quote that led you to believe that so people can judge fairly rather than being swayed by your mistaken posts. I have never believed that and stated so very clearly earlier in the thread.

If you can’t understand my logic in saying that what Neville did is not peadophilia, you have serious comprehension problems.

Peadophilia relates to pre-pubescent children, and I showed a dictionary definition to support this. As far as I have ever known, when the term is used that is what it is commonly understood to mean. So sex with a post pubescent child under the age of consent, wrong though it is, is not defined as peadophilia. I did not introduce this rubbish to the thread, your running mate tigerisland did.

And well may you run from the exchange now, you have not covered yourself in glory.

Taking your argument to the extreme to illustrate the point clearly....you and others here may not think it is worse for a man to repeatedly anally rape a baby than to have sex with with a girl who is 15 years 364 days of age who was willing and whom he may have believed was over the age of consent....but forgive me if I do. I am grateful the law can see the difference between degrees of crimes like this even if you cannot.

 

[GN272]

Mods - can we close this down - the club has removed his honorary role which is unlikely to be re-instated and further discussions are becoming circular arguments.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Mods - can we close this down - the club has removed his honorary role which is unlikely to be re-instated and further discussions are becoming circular arguments.

Get lost. These discussions became topical again after the unredacted findings of the RC were released a few days ago. If you have no interest, don’t come to the thread trying to close down those of us who do have an interest.

Who do you think you are?

 

[TigerImposter]

You are just being foolish now. You are arguing against points nothing to do with the ones I am making and misrepresenting my position in order to do so. There is nobody here, least of all me, saying it is ok for a grown man to have sex with a 14yo girl, so that has been created by you and you alone. If you think I said something that amounts to that, show the quote that led you to believe that so people can judge fairly rather than being swayed by your mistaken posts. I have never believed that and stated so very clearly earlier in the thread.

If you can’t understand my logic in saying that what Neville did is not peadophilia, you have serious comprehension problems.

Peadophilia relates to pre-pubescent children, and I showed a dictionary definition to support this. As far as I have ever known, when the term is used that is what it is commonly understood to mean. So sex with a post pubescent child under the age of consent, wrong though it is, is not defined as peadophilia. I did not introduce this rubbish to the thread, your running mate tigerisland did.

And well may you run from the exchange now, you have not covered yourself in glory.

Taking your argument to the extreme to illustrate the point clearly....you and others here may not think it is worse for a man to repeatedly anally rape a baby than to have sex with with a girl who is 15 years 364 days of age who was willing and whom he may have believed was over the age of consent....but forgive me if I do. I am grateful the law can see the difference between degrees of crimes like this even if you cannot.

I understand your point, but i don''t agree with it. You really lost me with the 60 Hippy movement analogy bc as if drugs aren't prevalent today. It was a poor example and not very supportive to creeps like Neville if this was the case.The fact is they're both a sexual criminal act by law and they're there to put predators away who use sneaky methods of drugs,spiking drinks, money bribes etc etc to lure their victims.

 

[Bazzar]

Mods - can we close this down - the club has removed his honorary role which is unlikely to be re-instated and further discussions are becoming circular arguments.

Why?

If you don't like it, simple, don't click on the link.

It's a reasonable, mature discussion taking place, it's only bothering those who chose to be offended.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I understand your point, but i don''t agree with it. You really lost me with the 60 Hippy movement analogy bc as if drugs aren't prevalent today. It was a poor example and not very supportive to creeps like Neville if this was the case.The fact is they're both a sexual criminal act by law and they're there to put predators away who use sneaky methods of drugs,spiking drinks, money bribes etc etc to lure their victims.

I don’t have a big problem with you pointing out the definition of child sexual abuse would include carnal knowledge of a minor who is post pubescent. But as I pointed out to you, in was a non sequitur to the conversation I was engaging in with tigerisland. I must admit I thought you would just concede that point and we would move on.

You are badly mistaken in the part of your post I have bolded above. First, when I made the reference I was not making any analogy. An analogy is an entirely different thing, but let’s look past that for the more important way you have misunderstood my post. I do not think the era or anything else justifies Neville’s behaviour if he indeed slept with a 14 year old girl as he claimed. I was merely paraphrasing where I read about it that he gave this as the context of his story, so that people can understand the meaning of Neville’s admission. He did not for instance admit to stalking, grooming, or forcing sex upon the girl or anything of that nature. At least not to my knowledge.

This is all beside the point of my initial posts about this which was to alert people to the reality around the irrelevant and deceptive claims tigerisland was making, because he was showing no signs of doing so. He was straight out wrong to claim Neville was a peadophile on the basis of Neville’s story about the 14yo girl and I have clearly demonstrated that. If you think I am wrong, then speak directly to the point I made. He was even more wrong to accuse anyone who wouldn’t follow him in this error of being a peadophile sympathiser.

This is essentially a thread about the RFC, George Pell and the Catholic Church, and peadophile priests and brothers who, amongst other heinous activities, raped pre pubescent boys. Do you honestly think incorrect claims about Richard Neville being a peadophile have any place on the thread which as much as anything is about the Church and Pell covering up the crimes of the priests and brothers?

By the way I am a bit disappointed and surprised that you have not conceded the rather obvious differences between raping pre-pubescent children and what we might call statutory rape, ie crimes of carnal knowledge of seemingly willing post-pubescent minors who are below the age of consent. Is your apparent judgement of those things having equal criminal standing real, or just created to fit your preferred narrative at this point in the conversation?

 

[TigerImposter]

I don’t have a big problem with you pointing out the definition of child sexual abuse would include carnal knowledge of a minor who is post pubescent. But as I pointed out to you, in was a non sequitur to the conversation I was engaging in with tigerisland. I must admit I thought you would just concede that point and we would move on.

You are badly mistaken in the part of your post I have bolded above. First, when I made the reference I was not making any analogy. An analogy is an entirely different thing, but let’s look past that for the more important way you have misunderstood my post. I do not think the era or anything else justifies Neville’s behaviour if he indeed slept with a 14 year old girl as he claimed. I was merely paraphrasing where I read about it that he gave this as the context of his story, so that people can understand the meaning of Neville’s admission. He did not for instance admit to stalking, grooming, or forcing sex upon the girl or anything of that nature. At least not to my knowledge.

This is all beside the point of my initial posts about this which was to alert people to the reality around the irrelevant and deceptive claims tigerisland was making, because he was showing no signs of doing so. He was straight out wrong to claim Neville was a peadophile on the basis of Neville’s story about the 14yo girl and I have clearly demonstrated that. If you think I am wrong, then speak directly to the point I made. He was even more wrong to accuse anyone who wouldn’t follow him in this error of being a peadophile sympathiser.

This is essentially a thread about the RFC, George Pell and the Catholic Church, and peadophile priests and brothers who, amongst other heinous activities, raped pre pubescent boys. Do you honestly think incorrect claims about Richard Neville being a peadophile have any place on the thread which as much as anything is about the Church and Pell covering up the crimes of the priests and brothers?

By the way I am a bit disappointed and surprised that you have not conceded the rather obvious differences between raping pre-pubescent children and what we might call statutory rape, ie crimes of carnal knowledge of seemingly willing post-pubescent minors who are below the age of consent. Is your apparent judgement of those things having equal criminal standing real, or just created to fit your preferred narrative at this point in the conversation?

Don’t be disappointed as we did go off the track with Neville and the reality is you are right about what the thread was intended for,but threads tend to do this as they lose impetus. We all know that tigerisland exaggerated on Neville by labelling him a paedophile, but I can’t recall the context of his argument and couldn’t be bothered chasing it up.I do believe you maybe right with your claims, but this for the last time is not why I entered the conversation . As I said I thought you used a throwaway line in your first response, after I was clearly trying to point out the RC opinion on child sexual abuse crimes and the fact they bundle the two in discussion together. Both are different crimes relating to minors of different age brackets and impart jail sentences. I never once said the two were the same.

 

[Bazzar]

Ask a rock star in the 60-70's if they had sex with someone under 16 in their heyday and most would probably say yes. Some girls under 16 certainly look and act like young women and don't advertise their birthdates. It was pretty heady times back when Neville was around, things have tightened up considerably regarding awareness of that sort of thing, which is obviously a good thing, but it is a broad brush to accredit all such behaviour as peaodophilia. Is every 14-16 year old that gets pregnant therefore is a victim of peaodophilia.

When watching old episodes of Countdown its amazing how the singer's present themselves on stage in front of 10-16 year-olds.
No underpants and thin-tightish pants were usualy the norm.

Imagine if that happened now days, wow.
Also when I was at school "camel toes" were all the rage with secondary girls.

Got me buggered how any Aussie singers from the seventies haven't been bought up on historical charges (like Gatt) must have taken place.

 

[TigerImposter]

When watching old episodes of Countdown its amazing how the singer's present themselves on stage in front of 10-16 year-olds.
No underpants and thin-tightish pants were usualy the norm.

Imagine if that happened now days, wow.
Also when I was at school "camel toes" were all the rage with secondary girls.

Got me buggered how any Aussie singers from the seventies haven't been bought up on historical charges (like Gatt) must have taken place.

Richmond winning flags has taken me back to those days.

 

[Grrr]

Richmond winning flags has taken me back to those days.

Girls were scary back then, much better hanging out at the footy.

 

[Bazzar]

Girls were scary back then, much better hanging out at the footy.