Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sainteric said:
Don't be so sure of that I reckon he still thinks he's done a great job for the mother church, now he is a martyr. The current archbishop and his cronies won't dispute that view.
Click to expand...
Catholics are only considered to be martyred if they die defending their faith. Now, I'll just say here that I'm diametrically oppposed to the death penalty. However,...
 
Gavin Excell said:
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
Click to expand...
It isn’t his view I have issue with it is how he expresses it; that said posting about it probably treads close to posting about moderation etc
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Crankyhawk said:
It isn’t his view I have issue with it is how he expresses it; that said posting about it probably treads close to posting about moderation etc
Click to expand...
Yeah but hes not winding up people for the sake of it.

Bruce genuinely feels theres a potential miscarriage of justice here. Its not as if hes Robinson Crusoe this position either.

Clearly an emotive subject and mods in a no win position.
 
Gavin Excell said:
Sorry this question may have been asked previously but when is the appeal hearing?
Click to expand...
Don't think a date has been set yet. Although the grounds of appeal are known, not even sure the necessary written case has been submitted.
 
Last edited:
Gavin Excell said:
Yeah but hes not winding up people for the sake of it.

Bruce genuinely feels theres a potential miscarriage of justice here. Its not as if hes Robinson Crusoe this position either.

Clearly an emotive subject and mods in a no win position.
Click to expand...

It's clear that Bruce is convinced of Pell's innocents which is fine however he has not explained why he is so certain without hearing the eidence.
 
To those here suffering PTSD.

Firstly, you have my sympathy and respect.

I am someone who suffers from severe phobias and OCD, and a milder trauma (if there is such a thing as mild trauma) from drunken violence visited upon me as a child. I don't pretend to understand your situation, but perhaps I have a better idea than those who are mentally healthy.

I originally avoided all triggers, but eventually started exposing myself to them gradually, with the supervision of mental health professionals. At one point I was triggered by the mere mention of alcohol, but I understood that I could not change society to the point that such things were never mentioned.

Without intending to sound harsh, I never understood people who willingly embraced online triggers when they are not ready. One can easily close their browser or turn off their device at any time.

I understand that you may wish to get a message out to the public, but that can be achieved without lingering around for the aftermath. And, unfortunately, a footy forum in the corner of the internet is not a medium with which to enact substantial change.

Not trying to be a campaigner, perhaps you can respond to this and educate me and others on your methods, and how we can help.
 
Gavin Excell said:
Yeah but hes not winding up people for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
Don't be a dick Gav. If you had read mosts of his posts you would understand some survivors have been clearly offended by his choice of words. On top of that, he has called some of them fakes. It is clear they are not. The pissant has said enough.
 
Bombermania said:
It's clear that Bruce is convinced of Pell's innocents which is fine however he has not explained why he is so certain without hearing the eidence.
Click to expand...

I’ll try to explain mathematically.

The odds of Pell not greeting the parishioners after Mass are something like one in fifty. Let’s call it 1 in 20. 5%.

The odds of his minder not staying by his side are close to nil. But let’s say he had a bad case of gastro. 1 in 100. But let’s say 1 in 20.

The odds of the sacristy door being left open without the sacristan present. Almost nil but let’s again say 1 in 20.

Those three very unlikely circumstances had to occur together to create the circumstances for the allegation in the first place.

That on its own, being very generous with the odds is 1 in 10,000.

The traffic through the sacristy immediately after Mass is constant. Altar servers are nearby. Assistant priests are going in and out with chalices and plates, the collectors are going in and out and counting cash.

Now imagine you’ve had half a dozen cans and you’re told there is a booze bus on your way home. Even the most reckless doesn’t drive knowing there’s a 1 in 3 chance they’ll be tested.

In this case the chances of someone walking in are 100%. But let’s be generous and say it’s only 75%.

What sort of dumb reckless idiot would play those odds? Let’s accept Pell is a pedo (some dickhead will quote that line with a smartarse comment). He’s not dumb. If he were a pedo he’d be a sneaky calculating one, not a dumb reckless one.

And that is why the crime as alleged is impossible. Or at least so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

And I didn’t touch on the physical difficulty of managing the robes with one hand whilst performing various other forms of abuse with the other.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

gordo2016 said:
Don't be a dick Gav. If you had read mosts of his posts you would understand some survivors have been clearly offended by his choice of words. On top of that, he has called some of them fakes. It is clear they are not. The pissant has said enough.
Click to expand...

I haven’t called anyone a fake. I expressed surprise that a victim would use the language about me that was used.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I’ll try to explain mathematically.

The odds of Pell not greeting the parishioners after Mass are something like one in fifty. Let’s call it 1 in 20. 5%.

The odds of his minder not staying by his side are close to nil. But let’s say he had a bad case of gastro. 1 in 100. But let’s say 1 in 20.

The odds of the sacristy door being left open without the sacristan present. Almost nil but let’s again say 1 in 20.

Those three very unlikely circumstances had to occur together to create the circumstances for the allegation in the first place.

That on its own, being very generous with the odds is 1 in 10,000.

The traffic through the sacristy immediately after Mass is constant. Altar servers are nearby. Assistant priests are going in and out with chalices and plates, the collectors are going in and out and counting cash.

Now imagine you’ve had half a dozen cans and you’re told there is a booze bus on your way home. Even the most reckless doesn’t drive knowing there’s a 1 in 3 chance they’ll be tested.

In this case the chances of someone walking in are 100%. But let’s be generous and say it’s only 75%.

What sort of dumb reckless idiot would play those odds? Let’s accept Pell is a pedo (some dickhead will quote that line with a smartarse comment). He’s not dumb. If he were a pedo he’d be a sneaky calculating one, not a dumb reckless one.

And that is why the crime as alleged is impossible. Or at least so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

And I didn’t touch on the physical difficulty of managing the robes with one hand whilst performing various other forms of abuse with the other.
Click to expand...
Improbable does not equal impossible.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It’s not like this is a once off allegation about Pell. There have been allegations made in the past, as long ago as 2002, pertaining to crimes committed in 1961. Further accusations about crimes in the 70s and 90s. Finally a conviction.

Is it all just one big conspiracy, BruceFromBalnarring?
 
yodellinhank said:
We are talking about a crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

We’ll see. I’ve just tried to explain, for about the fifth time, just why I think it’s impossible. I shouldn’t say impossible. So improbable as to be considered, for the purposes of criminal justice, impossible.

But I’m the arseh*le. Because the anonymous complainant was “compelling”. And complainants/victims/survivors never lie. Well it so happens that they do. In family law and criminal law. They do. Not most of them, but some of them. Their claims should be treated seriously, far more seriously than they have in the past, but they should not simply be believed.

And police should not be opening investigations into potential abusers in the absence of complaints of abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Osho
    • Like
USA Daniel Penny Not Guilty
Replies
4
Views
705
Osho
Osho

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom