Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[Melsy]

Still no issue with the article. Marr a little to the left for your liking???
Guess you must be an Andrew Bolt Fan who is claiming Pell is innocent .

Shame you cant see your ignorance in having more concern about a writer of an article in lieu of the crimes of a convicted peodophile .

What didnt you like about my accolades of Marr?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What didnt you like about my accolades of Marr?

Wasn’t the sarcastic response that offended so much but that you seemed to ignore the fact that Pell had just been convicted of sexual abuse against kids yet you want to focus on the writer of the article without even offering any comment on the article itself.

Don’t you get it, the thread is about a peodophile named Pell not a journalist named Marr.

 

[Melsy]

Wasn’t the sarcastic response that offended so much but that you seemed to ignore the fact that Pell had just been convicted of sexual abuse against kids yet you want to focus on the writer of the article without even offering any comment on the article itself.

Don’t you get it, the thread is about a peodophile named Pell not a journalist named Marr.

Who said I ignored the Pell charges? What do you want?

Do you want me to join in on the rock throwing?

 

[Melsy]

I'm not Catholic, but those in the church I know, like real practicing are extremely happy the cancer is being cut out and welcome the cleansing.

I used to be of the thinking that charity status be tax free because many will be true non profit and it cost the taxpayer.

Now I'm of the view even if it cost the taxpayer that charity status across the board be revoked, even if it costs taxpayers, just to filter out those abusing tax free status.

It will however come at a cost to the community and the taxpayer. Some of it administration of the tax record keeping.

Charity status removed from everything. If the charity is pure, the taxpayer will return the tax to the charity because the charity will be running at a proper loss. Those abusing charity status will close.

It is pertinent now we force all those holding charity status through the audit trail to cleanse the abuse, certainly including all the churches.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Who said I ignored the Pell charges? What do you want?

Do you want me to join in on the rock throwing?

You dont have to comment at all ,but to only single out Marr without reason.

Feel free to join in the condemnation of this vile man. Does not have to be a good old fashioned stoning!

 

[Slartibartfast]

7.30 report was an excellent show, Marr was interviewed too.

Alas , Pell who had refused an interview for years which forced the show to replay a interview they got when Leigh Sales confronted him at a press conference.

Pell was a master of denial. Avoided the tough questions .
No surprise he never took the witness box to defend himself where the victim stood up to QC Richter’s intense questioning for over a day.

Watching 7.30 in iview
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/7-30

 

[Slartibartfast]

It was not just the abuse he carried out but his aggressive and defensive apporoach to victims and their families in his role as responder for the Catholic Church.
This is also discussed in the 7.30 report , link above.

Here is an article regarding one of the Foster family whose kids we’re abused and then committed suicide and died after abusing alcohol.

Cardinal Pell, Archbishop then, had absolutely no sympathy or understanding," Ms Foster told the ABC's 7.30 Report on Tuesday night.

"He was just angry and jumping down our throats, telling us to prove it in court or substantiate what we were saying and of course we had no proof because it's just our daughter's word against the pedophile.

https://www.news.com.au/national/br...y/news-story/ade4cc785d562e66b1cf14f6037e85ca

 

[Opine]

Any wonder victims felt traumatised after being interviewed by Pell in their efforts to seek compensation for sexual abuse involving the church.
He was abusing kids after the churches response had commenced.
He was not diplomatic but buisness like in his approach to victims, aggressively challenging what they said.

Look forward to hearing the churches heartfelt response too.

He does not define the church. I think the church's response will indeed be heartfelt.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He does not define the church. I think the church's response will indeed be heartfelt.

I doubt it.
The church has been stonewalling victims for decades. They have never truly acknowledged the widespread crimes happening within the church or have they responded appropriately once they were identified. Just a big business looking for the cheapest way out.
Even once guilt has been shown they made victims life a misery.
View the Fosters family response on 7.30 tonight.

 

[tryitout]

The state of the world in 2019 where this makes waves across the nation and not only Bolt defending him but people I know that would have been in the "hang him" camp are somehow turning this into a left vs right argument and calling into question the royal commission which has helped bring justice to those who never could have had it. Not to mention hopefully preventing future crimes.

The appeal will happen, on what grounds who knows. The fact he isn't already behind bars is not good enough.

 

[surfstitch]

I doubt it.
The church has been stonewalling victims for decades. They have never truly acknowledged the widespread crimes happening within the church or have they responded appropriately once they were identified. Just a big business looking for the cheapest way out.
Even once guilt has been shown they made victims life a misery.
View the Fosters family response on 7.30 tonight.

Also don't think they've implemented and of the main Royal Commission recommendations.

 

[tryitout]

Interested to see what the "sealed" part of the Royal Commission report on Pell contains now that he has been convicted, it has to come out now and could be just as damning as this conviction imo

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The state of the world in 2019 where this makes waves across the nation and not only Bolt defending him but people I know that would have been in the "hang him" camp are somehow turning this into a left vs right argument and calling into question the royal commission which has helped bring justice to those who never could have had it. Not to mention hopefully preventing future crimes.

The appeal will happen, on what grounds who knows. The fact he isn't already behind bars is not good enough.

He wasn't remanded in custody awaiting sentencing? Why not?

 

[BlueE]

He wasn't remanded in custody awaiting sentencing? Why not?

He really should have been in custody since December shouldn't he? Reports said because of his age, having to have a knee operation yada yada.

However no excuse he shouldn't have been in custody yesterday. Sentencing today?

Can the thread title be changed to George Pell Guilty Cactus_ ?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

He really should have been in custody since December shouldn't he? Reports said because of his age, having to have a knee operation yada yada.

However no excuse he shouldn't have been in custody yesterday. Sentencing today?

Can the thread title be changed to George Pell Guilty Cactus_ ?

Good point. Maybe it was to help maintain the illusion of the suppression order?

Extremely serious conviction...would anyone else in Australia still be walking free? Judge got stars in his/her eyes perhaps.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Pell's team submitting 10 character references at his plea hearing.

John Howard wrote one, post conviction.
No doubt Abbott did too.

You could literally cure cancer for all i care, but if you touched kids you deserve to be hung up by the short and curlies.

 

[Slats]

 

[Slartibartfast]

Just seen above post, must realise it was futile to ask for bail.

 

[Melsy]

Ive just read one article with some scope of the event.

What I find odd is that attire is worn over clothes, so removing attire is only stripping back to clothing worn to a church. Often the door is open as there is no need really it be closed in that situation.

Then both boys were 13 and this happened. That's highschool age. With two highschool boys present, I'm surprised they didn't run outside.

A very unusual set of circumstances. 1996 too. People were wary of such matters in the clergy. Parents were cautious.

If Pell removed more than the church garb which is worn over a shirt and long pants, this should have set off alarm bells. Shirt and pants only come off back at the priests home.

Pell must have been brazen knowing full well people could walk in anytime. Acolites are normally in attendance too. I'm going to read more.

Australia's highest-ranking Catholic has been convicted of five child sex offences, committed in 1996 against the two 13-year-olds.

Chief Judge Peter Kidd has questioned what Pell was thinking when he attacked the boys.

“What I want to address is what he was thinking at the time, what motivated him and why he did this in such brazen circumstances,” he told Mr Gibson.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/co...PotJ-1Csqzsvsu9TUacVTNOMtOmdlfrBhsVBmTYq25LuU

 

[Melsy]

By rights, everyone in that room in 1996 should be fully clothed at anyone time. Only the over wear church garb is removed with long shirt and pants underneath.

Did it go beyond that? If an Arch Bishop went beyond less than being fully clothed, it should have been immediate expulsion because he should know better in 1996.

Does someone have a detailed outline of how it took place? Im struggling to find a detailed turn of events.

 

[Melsy]

If anyone went below being fully clothed in that room, he deserves to go to prison for being a stupid dickhead in 1996.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The victim stated that pell moved the robe so the opening on the side was at the front.
Not sure what was so hard to accept about that. Richter did not challenge this answer in court.

 

[tryitout]

Spot the Catholic!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ive just read one article with some scope of the event.

What I find odd is that attire is worn over clothes, so removing attire is only stripping back to clothing worn to a church. Often the door is open as there is no need really it be closed in that situation.

Then both boys were 13 and this happened. That's highschool age. With two highschool boys present, I'm surprised they didn't run outside.

A very unusual set of circumstances. 1996 too. People were wary of such matters in the clergy. Parents were cautious.

If Pell removed more than the church garb which is worn over a shirt and long pants, this should have set off alarm bells. Shirt and pants only come off back at the priests home.

Pell must have been brazen knowing full well people could walk in anytime. Acolites are normally in attendance too. I'm going to read more.

Australia's highest-ranking Catholic has been convicted of five child sex offences, committed in 1996 against the two 13-year-olds.

Chief Judge Peter Kidd has questioned what Pell was thinking when he attacked the boys.

“What I want to address is what he was thinking at the time, what motivated him and why he did this in such brazen circumstances,” he told Mr Gibson.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/co...PotJ-1Csqzsvsu9TUacVTNOMtOmdlfrBhsVBmTYq25LuU

Which article was that?

 

[Slartibartfast]

A good article about the hypocrisy of the Church and Pell in this modern age.

Christ preached empathy and inclusion. The church has highlighted what separates.

He was the man who deemed homosexual activity to be a "much greater health hazard than smoking" and suggested that, if young kids did not want to be the victims of homophobia, they should not be gay.
He counselled Catholic politicians that their "place in the life of the church" would be affected if they supported embryonic stem cell research. He opined that condoms encouraged promiscuity and, ultimately, the spread of AIDS.
How were those seeking spiritual guidance to react to this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...portunity-australian-catholic-church/10852688