Religion Pell Guilty!

[western royboy]

Thanks bud. This is very scary if The Age has "rehashed a clearly bogus claim to add on as a further suspicion around Pell".

I had wondered myself if litigation lawyers had a financial interest in making bogus claims and making pied piper promises to "witnesses" to provide suitable statements against Pell.

If you’re having a go at Helen Last, I have no words for you. This lady has devoted a large portion of her life to helping victims of clerical abuse initially from inside the Church and then after she realised what was really going on and how “committed” the Church was to really dealing with the problem she went outside. The lady now suffers from a sort of 3rd Party PTSD - the same affliction that many victims suffer because of the sheer volume of horrific stories of abuse that she’s heard in her role. But by all means take cheap shots at her...

 

[sideswipe]

M

MR Towards Healing all involved victims signing deeds of release - George knew what was happening overseas he saved the Church Millions - FACT

Any civil settlement will involve the party receiving compensation to release the other party from any future claims in relation to that matter - that is the very basic nature of a settlement.

Only at the time of agreeing to the compensation would an applicant have signed that settlement. Up until that point, any compensation system only added to a survivor's rights.

It is generally accepted that nothing more than a very small percentage of the 340-odd out of 351 compensation claims paid by MR would have been successful in court. With respect, I don't think your numbers stack up.

And remember, this was all set up in 1996, when no one was aware of the extent of this evil. It was widely thought that the MR would only last a few months. That was by the people appointed to it. So to claim it was all set up by Pell because he privately anticipated how bad things were (cue the comment on his knowledge), and then came up with a financial masterstroke to contain the Church's liability is, sorry, more than a step too far.

 

[western royboy]

Any civil settlement will involve the party receiving compensation to release the other party from any future claims in relation to that matter - that is the very basic nature of a settlement.

Only at the time of agreeing to the compensation would an applicant have signed that settlement. Up until that point, any compensation system only added to a survivor's rights.

It is generally accepted that nothing more than a very small percentage of the 340-odd out of 351 compensation claims paid by MR would have been successful in court. With respect, I don't think your numbers stack up.

And remember, this was all set up in 1996, when no one was aware of the extent of this evil. It was widely thought that the MR would only last a few months. That was by the people appointed to it. So to claim it was all set up by Pell because he privately anticipated how bad things were (cue the comment on his knowledge), and then came up with a financial masterstroke to contain the Church's liability is, sorry, more than a step too far.

Bullshit - you are in the river of denial - Judgement Day is coming for the Church and hopefully that will mean it ends up closer financially to where it is ethically and morally...bankrupt

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Why do you think an atheist would not fear death?

When you're dead your dead. I had no conscience prior to my life nor after. There is no infinite afterlife. Therefore no consequence because there is nothing.

 

[gordo2016]

And remember, this was all set up in 1996, when no one was aware of the extent of this evil. It was widely thought that the MR would only last a few months. That was by the people appointed to it. So to claim it was all set up by Pell because he privately anticipated how bad things were (cue the comment on his knowledge), and then came up with a financial masterstroke to contain the Church's liability is, sorry, more than a step too far.

Ha ha. No one knew of the extent of the evil in 1996, did they? I was molested every second day in 1974. George Pell lived 2 buildings down from where the crimes took place and I saw him all the time, he was often at the school. Show some respect to the survivors on here and **** off. You are clueless.

 

[sideswipe]

Why set up an entire compensation scheme unless you anticipate that a scheme will be required to meet the Church's potential obligations that could otherwise be addressed by the existing legal framework for such things?

The answer is pretty obvious.

Claiming that the compensation scheme was the Church doing victims a favour is grossly disingenuous.

The most egregious part of your post was justifying it with another claim that a very small percentage would have been successful in court.

With respect, the compensation system was set up in no small part because most of the claims would not have been successful in court.

I am in no way excusing the evil. Every one of the offenders should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Am only talking about civil matters - and the system which the prisoner Pell established.

Viewed in isolation (an impossible task) the compensation scheme has resulted in a great many people receiving something that would not have been available via the courts. If that is egregious to you, then sorry.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

When you're dead your dead. I had no conscience prior to my life nor after. There is no infinite afterlife. Therefore no consequence because there is nothing.

What about obi wan?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Strange Cat]

What about obi wan?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

He has the higher ground

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

When you're dead your dead. I had no conscience prior to my life nor after. There is no infinite afterlife. Therefore no consequence because there is nothing.

But atheist believes in just one life, so places a great deal of value on it as there’s nothing else.

They therefore value life preciously and treat others accordingly.

Consequences of killing someone is that you’ve taken so much away from someone. You don’t need religion to be moral. So are you saying you’re only good and decent so you can have an afterlife? How selfish and unchristian.

 

[sideswipe]

The Catholic Church's finances are run like the finances of any large corporation.
The tenor of what you have written so far is that the CC's compensation scheme was done out of the goodness of the CC's heart and for the benefit of victims.
It is egregious because it supposes that the victims losses from the abuse are pecuniary AND that out of the goodness of the CC's heart the CC is willing to restore victim's pecuniary losses.

Even if not a single one of the 350 victims got a cent from civil action how do you think the CC would have looked with 350 people exposing the abuses they suffered at the hands of the CC in open court?
What would the tenor of the media coverage of each of these cases been?

The Royal Commission highlighted the catharsis that many victims felt from simply getting the opportunity to tell their story.
The CC's compensation scheme by design would do the exact opposite. Take your 2 bucks and live with demons you have lived with since you were abused.
The CC was the greatest beneficiary of the CC's compensation scheme.

Ok. Will bow out. Apologies.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[western royboy]

I wonder if Pell made pied piper promises to Risdale?
Or any of the other peddos that the CC harboured.

Who knows but the “Mulkearns Wing” of the Ararat Correctional Centre is awfully full up and in about 6 weeks another will be winging his way up the Western Highway to join them

 

[jedi mind tricks]

What about obi wan?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Never heard of her

 

[Strange Cat]

Who knows but the “Mulkearns Wing” of the Ararat Correctional Centre is awfully full up and in about 6 weeks another will be winging his way up the Western Highway to join them

There would be a simple solution to that tbh

 

[western royboy]

Jury should have been advised to try vestments on as it was clearly an issue.

The other issue was the aftermath of Sunday Mass at St Patrick's. Jury was taken to visit cathedral when it was empty of people.

Jackie Chile’s advised Richter that this wasn’t a great idea...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The Catholic Church's finances are run like the finances of any large corporation.
The tenor of what you have written so far is that the CC's compensation scheme was done out of the goodness of the CC's heart and for the benefit of victims.
It is egregious because it supposes that the victims losses from the abuse are pecuniary AND that out of the goodness of the CC's heart the CC is willing to restore victim's pecuniary losses.

Even if not a single one of the 350 victims got a cent from civil action how do you think the CC would have looked with 350 people exposing the abuses they suffered at the hands of the CC in open court?
What would the tenor of the media coverage of each of these cases been?

The Royal Commission highlighted the catharsis that many victims felt from simply getting the opportunity to tell their story.
The CC's compensation scheme by design would do the exact opposite. Take your 2 bucks and live with demons you have lived with since you were abused.
The CC was the greatest beneficiary of the CC's compensation scheme.

You clearly know absolutely nothing of the Catholic Church's redress scheme. How it was designed. What it included. How it stacked up alongside other similar type schemes. You're simply belting out tired old cliches.

 

[Demosthenes]

It is generally accepted that nothing more than a very small percentage of the 340-odd out of 351 compensation claims paid by MR would have been successful in court. With respect, I don't think your numbers stack up.

Skimming over your specious assessment of proportions, you ignore the impact of watershed cases succeeding. Not only in terms of potentially massive damages, but the reputational and legal consequences of a court delivering a finding of liability.

The MR did provide access to limited compensation for some people who would never have received redress through the courts (either from lack of evidence or an unwillingness to put themselves through a trial). But it absolutely had a significant and very successful component of financial risk minimisation - to argue otherwise is ridiculous. That is the whole point of pre-trial offers for settlement.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Skimming over your specious assessment of proportions, you ignore the impact of watershed cases succeeding. Not only in terms of potentially massive damages, but the reputational and legal consequences of a court delivering a finding of liability.

The MR did provide access to limited compensation for some people who would never have received redress through the courts (either from lack of evidence or an unwillingness to put themselves through a trial). But it absolutely had a significant and very successful component of financial risk minimisation - to argue otherwise is ridiculous. That is the whole point of pre-trial offers for settlement.

You have to understand that compensation schemes like the MR should not be placed beside common law damages schemes for comparison. One of the largest spends in the MR has been on counselling, not just lump sum compensation. Funding for counselling is not available in the common law system.

 

[Maggie5]

Funding for counselling is not available in the common law system.

I thought that medical costs are covered in most claims.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I thought that medical costs are covered in most claims.

Common law damages claims pay a lump sum that covers the lot. That's why they tend to be larger, because you can't come back for more.

 

[Maggie5]

Common law damages claims pay a lump sum that covers the lot. That's why they tend to be larger, because you can't come back for more.

Not what I asked and not what you posted, I was responding to:

Funding for counselling is not available in the common law system

 

[Demosthenes]

You have to understand that compensation schemes like the MR should not be placed beside common law damages schemes for comparison. One of the largest spends in the MR has been on counselling, not just lump sum compensation. Funding for counselling is not available in the common law system.

This is not at all relevant.

 

[sideswipe]

Skimming over your specious assessment of proportions, you ignore the impact of watershed cases succeeding. Not only in terms of potentially massive damages, but the reputational and legal consequences of a court delivering a finding of liability.

The MR did provide access to limited compensation for some people who would never have received redress through the courts (either from lack of evidence or an unwillingness to put themselves through a trial). But it absolutely had a significant and very successful component of financial risk minimisation - to argue otherwise is ridiculous. That is the whole point of pre-trial offers for settlement.

Specious - always a good word. With respect, you may be ignoring the fact that the MR did not, in and of itself, reduce the potential "impact of watershed cases" because parties were and are still able to launch court actions, outside of the compensation scheme.

If a party chose to take the easier and less onerous MR route rather than a court action, that may suggest plenty about the prospects of success in court?

To anyone offended by the above, am only responding to a comment around dollars, so let's not get all emotional and name-cally.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Not what I asked and not what you posted, I was responding to:

I don't know how I can explain this to you.

MR provided ongoing funding for counselling. The common law system does not.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This is not at all relevant.

Well it is. Because you are comparing the lump sums available with each type of scheme without including the counselling component.

 

[Maggie5]

I don't know how I can explain this to you.

MR provided ongoing funding for counselling. The common law system does not.

Wasn't there a monetary limit initially? $50k or $75K then increased later?

Nah, their initial interest was in protecting assets and reputation not helping the individuals.