Religion Pell Guilty!

[Colonial]

You didn’t show that earlier. You keep saying that, but your link didn’t show it.

Yes it did and there's plenty more to prove it. Just type in Google and even see the video interview

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

I attended St.Alipius Christian Brothers School, Ballarat, in the 70's, General. I know what went on. Do me a favour and don't respond to him any more. Believe me, he is a waste of space.

Yep. I think your right.

Disgusting individual.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[ShanDog]

No, the survivors of sexual abuse have every right to be here and - given their circumstances - should be given considerable leeway by the mods with their posting.

It's the awful people baiting them, like you and BruceFromBalnarring, who should be forced away from the thread. But too late, the pair of you have achieved your objective, you've hounded two of them out of here.

Very few people - limited to sociopaths and outright trolls - don't have a great deal of sympathy towards those who have been sexually abused and most people react with visceral anger and sadness at the thought. Have a look through this thread - 50+ pages of righteous anger at the conviction of Pell, and who can blame them? He's been found guilty in a court and deserves every bit of the rage. So as morally repugnant as a few posts have been, it's important to maintain perspective. The stories people have shared about the abuse they experienced is overwhelmingly met with support, and no doubt has helped taken power back for them and - importantly - could be helping an untold number of people reading but not posting. The negative (to put it lightly) responses of the few should not be catastrophised and IMO it's good to know who the assholes are out in the open. Pity them.

Most would be aware I err on the side of allowing free speech, even if it's offensive. I know not all will agree and I genuinely understand the other side of the argument. There are tools on this website that let those who don't want to deal with them to block people. It's an imperfect solution but an option.

 

[darklake]

Very few people - limited to sociopaths and outright trolls - don't have a great deal of sympathy towards those who have been sexually abused and most people react with visceral anger and sadness at the thought. Have a look through this thread - 50+ pages of righteous anger at the conviction of Pell, and who can blame them? He's been found guilty in a court and deserves every bit of the rage. So as morally repugnant as a few posts have been, it's important to maintain perspective. The stories people have shared about the abuse they experienced is overwhelmingly met with support, and no doubt has helped taken power back for them and - importantly - could be helping an untold number of people reading but not posting. The negative (to put it lightly) responses of the few should not be catastrophised and IMO it's good to know who the assholes are out in the open. Pity them.

Most would be aware I err on the side of allowing free speech, even if it's offensive. I know not all will agree and I genuinely understand the other side of the argument. There are tools on this website that let those who don't want to deal with them to block people. It's an imperfect solution but an option.

So you threatened bans and thread locks.. but, in fact, you intend to do nothing.
Right.

 

[AM]

Pretty much!

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I do. As Pell has said. He understood he had got into some “ homosexual trouble” and it was none of his concern. Pell was only at one of the meetings it was discussed.

I found it odd that the counsel assisting at the RC seemed to be of the view that homosexuality should have caused Pell to turn his mind to potential pedophilia.

Pell as you mentioned was the episcopal vicar. He was the episcopal vicar for education.

A year after that appointment he’s living in a house with Ridsdale.

He’s on the College of Consultors that advised bishop Mulkearns. Pell of course says to RC that Mulkearns withheld information.

RC heard in late 70s they then discussed moving Ridsdale from Edenhope. They decide to move him to Elsternwick. His access to young children is restricted. Why?

He’s then moved to Mortlake soon after that. Pell is then in meeting that decides “it’s necessary to remove him from Mortlake”.

To say he didn’t know anything is pure fantasy.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

There's saying you are surprised by the conviction based on publicly available knowledge of the evidence against him; and there's saying you know he's innocent and asserting the victim is lying.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Pretty much!

Can’t agree. He’s virtually saying just accept things without questioning. We’d still be staring at cave walls. Juries have mad mistakes before (not saying this one has) and will continue to do so.

 

[ShanDog]

So you threatened bans and thread locks.. but, in fact, you intend to do nothing.
Right.

Yep, that's 100% an accurate summary of what I said...

 

[Del191229]

Not yet. But I’ll certainly be tipping in some for the appeal.

Why exactly does one of the wealthier organisations on Earth have its hand out on this one?

 

[Del191229]

I know the crime as alleged is impossible. Pell is innocent.

But when we ask you how you know, you admit that you can't "know".

You BELIEVE Pell is innocent.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Can’t agree. He’s virtually saying just accept things without questioning. We’d still be staring at cave walls. Juries have mad mistakes before (not saying this one has) and will continue to do so.

Juries are susceptible to making mistakes on the basis of prejudice or social norms of their time. For example in colonial times in Australia it was impossible to get a jury to convict a white man of crimes against blacks because of the innate racism of the time. Now skip forward to the Pell case and the main argument seems to be that juries are now somehow prejudiced against Catholic clergy: "he's a Catholic priest so he must be guilty".

I don't think that is likely. There has been a change in attitude from automatically treating them with reverence to just treating them like anyone else. There are some who still cling to the old view of automatic reverence, and I think their protest is more about the removal of this status than things going completely the other way. Seems to me the main complaint is "you can't treat a bishop like an ordinary person and allow ordinary people to judge him", otherwise it would undermine the authority of the Church. The whole Church hierarchy relies on reverential authority.

 

[gordo2016]

Why exactly does one of the wealthier organisations on Earth have its hand out on this one?

Because they will go to any lengths to protect their own, even if they are aware the accused is guilty. Just as in the case of Br.Robert Best and Brother Edward Dowlan, two freaks of the highest order, who ran rampant after continually being transferred from Ballarat to different schools in the 70's and 80's.

"Lawyers estimated that, by July 1996, the Christian Brothers Order had spent about $400,000 in defending Dowlan and Best. The costs included: 56 days in court; two Queen's Counsel; a team of barristers and solicitors; legal office staff; private investigators; and psychiatrists, psychologists and other paid experts who gave character evidence on behalf of the offenders.

Later, more money was spent on appeals."

brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/60

 

[Crankyhawk]

Mate if you’re in here just to get pissed off at terminology, I’m not sure you’re in the right place. I don’t know who you are, I’ve taken your claim at face value, I was referring to another when I said victim as should be clear. I won’t be told what language I must use.

You should be more accurate- it is not appropriate for you to state something as fact when courts have found otherwise. You can say your opinion is that they got it wrong etc but to repeatedly state as “fact” makes you arrogant and troll like

 

[Bombermania]

People saying Pell is innocent might want to think about OJ Simpson, many people were convinced beyond any doubt that he was totally innocent, nearly 30 years later does anyone think OJ was innocent besides his hardcore supporters. In that case he was essentially cleared because the defence suggested that the glove didn't fit his hand.

 

[sherb]

I know the crime as alleged is impossible. Pell is innocent.

Were you there?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Juries are susceptible to making mistakes on the basis of prejudice or social norms of their time. For example in colonial times in Australia it was impossible to get a jury to convict a white man of crimes against blacks because of the innate racism of the time. Now skip forward to the Pell case and the main argument seems to be that juries are now somehow prejudiced against Catholic clergy: "he's a Catholic priest so he must be guilty".

I don't think that is likely. There has been a change in attitude from automatically treating them with reverence to just treating them like anyone else. There are some who still cling to the old view of automatic reverence, and I think their protest is more about the removal of this status than things going completely the other way. Seems to me the main complaint is "you can't treat a bishop like an ordinary person and allow ordinary people to judge him", otherwise it would undermine the authority of the Church. The whole Church hierarchy relies on reverential authority.

Yeah definitely agree that people no long automatically treat them with reverence.

I just think juries are more prone to be influenced by what they’ve heard and read, particularly in cases were involved someone in the spotlight.

Look at the Chamberlain where a few years ago they released jury’s notes. Female jurors seemed harsher on Lindy and apparently four of the male jurors were finally swayed.

A child sex case in UK just a few years ago where a juror was eventually charged with contempt as he posted on social media that he’d always wanted to “**** up a paedo” and this was his chance. Now that’s an extreme case but I just think in high profile cases the chances of bias is greater.

For most jurors it’s their first time ever in court. Panel of judges like German system is the way to go. Then you also get rid of time consuming jury selection as well.

 

[Cooldude]

Same people cry about abortion and "murder of babies", yep let's not have abortions so the lovely priests can watch them grow up and molest them

Laughable that these churches still think they have moral authority

At this stage it is complete negligence if you let your children go to these churches

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

He actually confirmed he had known since the 70s as shown earlier.

Gotta protect the cult eh Bruce?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

You keep saying you showed it. You didn’t.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yeah definitely agree that people no long automatically treat them with reverence.

I just think juries are more prone to be influenced by what they’ve heard and read, particularly in cases were involved someone in the spotlight.

Look at the Chamberlain where a few years ago they released jury’s notes. Female jurors seemed harsher on Lindy and apparently four of the male jurors were finally swayed.

A child sex case in UK just a few years ago where a juror was eventually charged with contempt as he posted on social media that he’d always wanted to “**** up a paedo” and this was his chance. Now that’s an extreme case but I just think in high profile cases the chances of bias is greater.

For most jurors it’s their first time ever in court. Panel of judges like German system is the way to go. Then you also get rid of time consuming jury selection as well.

I can't help thinking that if it was the other way around and a judge only trial found Pell guilty then the argument would be that it was unfair and should have been given to a jury.

 

[Blue1980]

I can't help thinking that if it was the other way around and a judge only trial found Pell guilty then the argument would be that it was unfair and should have been given to a jury.

It’s basically a group of people used to getting their own way, not getting their own way and claiming it’s unfair.

 

[AM]

Can’t agree. He’s virtually saying just accept things without questioning. We’d still be staring at cave walls. Juries have mad mistakes before (not saying this one has) and will continue to do so.

That's not what he's saying. He has no issues with questioning, inquiring, examining et al. His issue is with people who were not present when the matters under consideration occurred. Nor were they present during all the proceedings - the four days when the firsthand witness gave evidence weren't open to the public anyway. Or have read the transcript - with all its deficiencies when compared to firsthand knowledge. Yet there are numpties who claim to know the findings of the jury are wrong.

People with issues and/or fundy nut jobs would be by reckoning.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Bruce should already be banned imo.

totally disagree

 

[darklake]

totally disagree

Care factor for your opinion = ****ing zero.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Care factor for your opinion = ******* zero.

fair enough

But if the site bans people because their views are different to the mainstream it does question the whole point of the forum