Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorted said:
Just made up ****.
Click to expand...
It's the same principle as monkeys writing Shakespeare.

If you put enough Priests with alter boys and wine the outcomes are calculable.
History proves the theory.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pie eyed said:
It's the same principle as monkeys writing Shakespeare.

If you put enough Priests with alter boys and wine the outcomes are calculable.
History proves the theory.
Click to expand...

Yeah just as calculable as the number of racist ferals who support Collingwood.

It's a stupid and dangerous thing to post in the manner in which you have been.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Yeah just as calculable as the number of racist ferals who support Collingwood.

It's a stupid and dangerous thing to post in the manner in which you have been.
Click to expand...
LOL.
Seriously. Get a clue mate. This thread went south the minute he was found guilty.
To post the way some who are making excuses for the behaviour of the Churches (not only them) has been a disgrace to our country.
 
Pie eyed said:
LOL.
Seriously. Get a clue mate. This thread went south the minute he was found guilty.
To post the way some who are making excuses for the behaviour of the Churches (not only them) has been a disgrace to our country.
Click to expand...

No. You get a clue you ignorant fool.

You have it the wrong way around.

The behaviour of SOME in the Church is a disgrace not just to the Church in our country, but the world.

But if you want to be a ******* and label all priests, many of them utterly decent people, pedophiles, then prepare for that collective judgement to come back on you. It is the worst of society that wants to hang a collective for the actions of some. But that is what you are doing.

And by the way, Pell didn't commit, and couldn't have committed, the crime for which he has been found guilty.
 
General Giant said:
Can and did and was judged as guilty.

Amazing how you can keep protecting that disgusting rockspider.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He's incarcerated in Ararat so I'm not sure how I'm protecting him.

Maybe I'm typing this in my own cell and I'm 6'8" and run the show??

The jury got it wrong.

He couldn't have done it.

And he didn't.

One more month and we see whether the Court of Appeal has any courage to stand up to the ugly mob.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
He's incarcerated in Ararat so I'm not sure how I'm protecting him.

Maybe I'm typing this in my own cell and I'm 6'8" and run the show??

The jury got it wrong.

He couldn't have done it.

And he didn't.

One more month and we see whether the Court of Appeal has any courage to stand up to the ugly mob.
Click to expand...
He has been proven he has not only done it but protected other priests.

He probably will get out. High society and the right protect their own.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
General Giant said:
He has been proven he has not only done it but protected other priests.

He probably will get out. High society and the right protect their own.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bull......s**t.

He has been found guilty, sure. But I was there and it certainly was not proven.

And it certainly has not been proven that he protected other priests. Name one.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Bull......****.

He has been found guilty, sure. But I was there and it certainly was not proven.

And it certainly has not been proven that he protected other priests. Name one.
Click to expand...

Nah, proven and guilty. This will show wether we really have become a nation or still being held to ransom from old country cults.

He said himself he knew it was going on, we discussed this before and I provided links which you were blinded by.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
General Giant said:
Nah, proven and guilty. This will show wether we really have become a nation or still being held to ransom from old country cults.

He said himself he knew it was going on, we discussed this before and I provided links which you were blinded by.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You hate the church. Probably because you're one of those atheist commie types.

Knowing vaguely that priests were offending? We all knew. Specific knowledge is a different thing. I know people are offending right now. Problem is I can't say who nor who the victims are. I don't know. Does that mean I have knowledge?

And I know that you know the Pell didn't do the Cathedral thing because you're already preparing the narrative. "High Society" my arse.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
********. You hate the church. Probably because you're one of those atheist commie types.

Knowing vaguely that priests were offending? We all knew. Specific knowledge is a different thing. I know people are offending right now. Problem is I can't say who nor who the victims are. I don't know. Does that mean I have knowledge?

And I know that you know the Pell didn't do the Cathedral thing because you're already preparing the narrative. "High Society" my arse.
Click to expand...

Nah. Just not a fan of cults and how they try to control the populous with their views while protecting those who abuse children..

Your 2nd paragraph is full of s**t as always when discussing defenders of that prick.

Oh he did it. The right are up in arms defending the piece of filth.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant said:
Nah. Just not a fan of cults and how they try to control the populous with their views while protecting those who abuse children..

Your 2nd paragraph is full of **** as always when discussing defenders of that prick.

Oh he did it. The right are up in arms defending the piece of filth.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How do you know he did it?
 
General Giant said:
I believe the victims.

And with his history of turning a blind eye to pedo priests there's no "faith" in him or his character.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's no such history.

And "I believe the victims" is wilfully ignorant. That's how we get mob rule.

Maybe you should listen to the accusers, then listen to the accused and then you might come to some sort of grown up decision.

"I believe the victims" is kids' stuff. And leads to a disastrous outcome.

But hey.....it might get you laid. :thumbsu:
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
There's no such history.

And "I believe the victims" is wilfully ignorant. That's how we get mob rule.

Maybe you should listen to the accusers, then listen to the accused and then you might come to some sort of grown up decision.

"I believe the victims" is kids' stuff. And leads to a disastrous outcome.

But hey.....it might get you laid. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Plenty of history as shown previously.

Ignorant? No that's defending priests and high ranking officials who destroy people's lives.

I believe the victims is a new thing considering what they used to have to deal with because of the position of their attackers.

Your last line shows your character. Poor.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
[QUOTE="BruceFromBalnarring,
"I believe the victims" is kids' stuff. And leads to a disastrous outcome.

But hey.....it might get you laid. :thumbsu:[/QUOTE]

Poor, cheap, sleazy ...there it is, the underlying obsession with sex.
Who are you representative of again?
 
In the news recently "Pope Francis has issued a landmark decree making bishops directly accountable for sexual abuse or covering it up, requiring clerics to report any cases to Catholic Church superiors"

So apparently the solution to systemic abuse of children and institutional cover up is to require reporting of child sexual abuse to the organisation that perpetrated it and has a history of covering it up. It is quite disgusting that an organisation can have a rule that if they come across sexual abuse they don't have to report it to law enforcement, how is this not criminal? Someone needs to dismantle this child raping criminal organisation.

I guess now that church superiors are aware of child abuse earlier, it will make it easier to cover up and move priests before too many witnesses are accumulated. Imagine being so disconnected with right and wrong that you think this decree is moral progress.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
There's no such history.

And "I believe the victims" is wilfully ignorant. That's how we get mob rule.

Maybe you should listen to the accusers, then listen to the accused and then you might come to some sort of grown up decision.

"I believe the victims" is kids' stuff. And leads to a disastrous outcome.

But hey.....it might get you laid. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

I think the reason why it is easy to see Pell has being guilty is due to his history of supporting other known pedophiles in court and for at times being less than eager to fully support the victims. People might say but he was worried about the church's reputation, yet he was happy to support Risson in court without a worry for the church's reputation.

The best thing the catholic church can do is to oust all its pedophile priests and to fully compensation its victims, not just financially but to openly welcome them into the fold while casting out the evil doers. Not doing so is morally weak.

As I've written before, I don't think Pell was necessarily a pedo in the Risson sense but he was active in the Ballarat area at a time when many of the worst known offending occurred and from Pell's attitudes over the years and the stories told about Pell show an immature male with poor social awareness and has at least turned a blind eye to what should never have been tolerated.

Pell has been found guilty of the crime and the judge's sentence was fair and as is Pell's right there is an appeals process, at this stage I think its 50:50 as to whether it will be overturned. What people keep overlooking is that this boy withstood lengthy cross examination from one of Melbourne's finest QC's.
 
Bombermania said:
I think the reason why it is easy to see Pell has being guilty is due to his history of supporting other known pedophiles in court and for at times being less than eager to fully support the victims. People might say but he was worried about the church's reputation, yet he was happy to support Risson in court without a worry for the church's reputation.

The best thing the catholic church can do is to oust all its pedophile priests and to fully compensation its victims, not just financially but to openly welcome them into the fold while casting out the evil doers. Not doing so is morally weak.

As I've written before, I don't think Pell was necessarily a pedo in the Risson sense but he was active in the Ballarat area at a time when many of the worst known offending occurred and from Pell's attitudes over the years and the stories told about Pell show an immature male with poor social awareness and has at least turned a blind eye to what should never have been tolerated.

Pell has been found guilty of the crime and the judge's sentence was fair and as is Pell's right there is an appeals process, at this stage I think its 50:50 as to whether it will be overturned. What people keep overlooking is that this boy withstood lengthy cross examination from one of Melbourne's finest QC's.
Click to expand...

I was told by the barrister representing one of the worst Ballarat offenders that he didn't even know about the other equally bad offender in the classroom next door at the same time. This idea that everyone must have known is simply a false one. And I've done a bit of work on this and it applies across the board. What was known collectively by the boys is not necessarily the same as what is known by the adults. And to the extent that adults knew, across the board, not just in the Church but everywhere, they failed to act.

What Pell did in terms of confronting the issue fell well short of what was needed. Even Pell says that. What people refuse to acknowledge though is that it was streets ahead of what had been done previously.

What Pell knew about other offenders will never be known. What the RC established is that he was in a room once where it may have been mentioned that Ridsdale was an offender. They established that he didn't know about Searson.

The walking to Court thing.....I get the optics. But I found the drama of lawyers (and media) judging Pell for that act at the RC sickening. Firstly he did it because he was asked to. Secondly, lawyers argue in court every single day in support of various bad people. And get paid handsomely for it. Offenders get supported in various ways all the time. It's called humanity. Maybe they don't deserve to be, but our collective humanity dictates that. In another time they'd be stoned by the mob.

I don't know whether Pell exposed himself in change rooms or whether he touched up kids in a pool. I do know, though, that he didn't do the Cathedral act because he couldn't have. And anyone can see that for themselves by standing outside the Cathedral after Mass on a Sunday morning.

Oh, and my information is that the accuser actually wasn't particularly compelling as a witness, and was caught out a number of times. This was partly why Pell wasn't called to give evidence himself.

PS: I appreciate the civility of your post. It seems to be getting more rare sadly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top