Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Find this topic a bit ‘triggering’ for reasons I won’t go into, so just a little browse...have to say it’s shameful to see a few Richmond blokes in this thread seemingly prepared to take support for there footy team to the most grotesque of extremes.

Shame.

Everyone in Ballarat knew what Pell is.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pell has had more than one accuser.

This one made it to court. I think the jury got it right. The question of how could Pell have done it with so many people about is a curious one. We are talking about a priest in the Catholic church, back in the day. They were doing all the time under the noses of their parishoners. That was the bloody point.
 
Echoes said:
Find this topic a bit ‘triggering’ for reasons I won’t go into, so just a little browse...have to say it’s shameful to see a few Richmond blokes in this thread seemingly prepared to take support for there footy team to the most grotesque of extremes.

Shame.

Everyone in Ballarat knew what Pell is.
Click to expand...
Got a friend from the Rat who's mum wouldn't let any of the kids near the pool if George was around because of how handsy he was with children. The ghouls here don't care. Barracking regardless.
 
He may get off on technicality, but there is no going back for him, he's done.

One priest getting off out of how many that have been caught fiddling kids around the world? At this stage, if any parents take their kids to these religious institutions, they have no complaints about what could end up happening to their children. The red flags are there loud and clear: the church is not safe for children
 
Cooldude said:
He may get off on technicality, but there is no going back for him, he's done.

One priest getting off out of how many that have been caught fiddling kids around the world? At this stage, if any parents take their kids to these religious institutions, they have no complaints about what could end up happening to their children. The red flags are there loud and clear: the church is not safe for children
Click to expand...
well that is the nature of trials in that even if perceived as not guilty they are going to live with the dynamic of a trial which will scar them for the
future.. so just by being up against a trial and a magistrate, judge etc they will be rattled for the rest of their life.. it is not a death of a person so
somehow it is not as gratifying..

but we all get the message..
 
FredLeDeux said:
It's just a matter of his personal style - a style that is, in fact, not unusual amongst appeal specialists.
It's the C/A, not a jury.
Here it's what you say that counts, not how you say it.
And he's done just fine in presenting the State's case.
As Walker did yesterday with Pell's case.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm not sure the appeals court are after theatre, in fact you would think it would be discouraged and frowned upon.
 
Theseventhhamster said:
Got a friend from the Rat who's mum wouldn't let any of the kids near the pool if George was around because of how handsy he was with children. The ghouls here don't care. Barracking regardless.
Click to expand...

The Beast of Ballarat was one name Georgie was not so affectionaly known once he left the town.

If there is a hell, he will surely roast in it.
 
You know you've backed a winner when "technically not a rock spider" is the best personal quality you can reach for.

Whatever the result here; he's still a scumbag who made a career out of bullying the victimised and vulnerable someone with all the moral authority he fraudulently claimed to have should have been standing up for.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Not wrong. 20 stories on the ABC News app. None involving Pell. Was wall to wall coverage when the news was adverse to him.

He may yet not get his conviction overturned but our unbiased taxpayer funded news outlet which has dedicated countless hours to ensuring public opinion is against Pell is suddenly silent when all who watched agree the Prosecution had a shocker.
Click to expand...
Firstly you wrote

Nothing on the National Broadcaster's website.

No mention at all.

You'd think today wasn't news.

Then I linked to an update and you shifted your ground to it wasn't listed before which was also wrong as update would indicate. My impression is you just miss stuff or don't navigate the website that well. My first port of call is "Just In"

Then you shifted to the ABC television news which didn't have it, then it did. I watched the major bulletin @ 7 and it was covered comprehensively. Attempting to bash the most trusted news organisation by covering your clear blooper is not helping your credibility here - if I may be so bold as to suggest.

That case is closed.


One of the Prosecution has had better days - as I've said. Mark Gibson was, as is usual, clear and articulate I'm told.

I thought Fred LeDeux covered that issue well in #2,910.
 
Tiger08 said:
So you interpret the words 'looking today' as 'having watched the whole trial'.. presumably.

Why you so mad bro? Relax.
Click to expand...
What I was "interpreting" was that it is "amazing he was found guilty really". Not based on the evidence during the exhaustive trial but on what you've - presumably - read about in the media relating to the two days of the appeal process.
 
Leaving aside the rest of your auto generated skilts post..

skilts said:
Still waiting for the details of your eye-witness version of the assaults in the sacristy (which didn't happen according to you), from your privileged vantage point underneath Pell's garments. You know, the incontrovertible evidence, exclusive to you alone, which proves conclusively, without question, that Pell COULDN'T POSSIBLY have raped the boys.
Click to expand...

The onus of proof is on the accuser. Pell should not have needed to prove that he couldn't possibly have raped the boys, just demonstrated that it was extremely unlikely.

Can you prove conclusively, without question, that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have raped boys in the period 1996 to 1997?
 
AM said:
Firstly you wrote

Nothing on the National Broadcaster's website.

No mention at all.

You'd think today wasn't news.

Then I linked to an update and you shifted your ground to it wasn't listed before which was also wrong as update would indicate. My impression is you just miss stuff or don't navigate the website that well. My first port of call is "Just In"

Then you shifted to the ABC television news which didn't have it, then it did. I watched the major bulletin @ 7 and it was covered comprehensively. Attempting to bash the most trusted news organisation by covering your clear blooper is not helping your credibility here - if I may be so bold as to suggest.

That case is closed.


One of the Prosecution has had better days - as I've said. Mark Gibson was, as is usual, clear and articulate I'm told.

I thought Fred LeDeux covered that issue well in #2,910.
Click to expand...

Nice essay. When I first posted there was nothing on the ABC website front page. That’s why I posted that there was nothing on the ABC website front page.

That there is something now buried 20 stories deep doesn’t change that. What it does show though is that the ABC pick and choose what they give prominence to with Pell and always with the result of showing him in a poor light.

If it had been Walker rather than Boyce who had had that train wreck you can bet it would have dominated headlines.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Nice essay. When I first posted there was nothing on the ABC website front page. That’s why I posted that there was nothing on the ABC website front page.

That there is something now buried 20 stories deep doesn’t change that. What it does show though is that the ABC pick and choose what they give prominence to with Pell and always with the result of showing him in a poor light.

If it had been Walker rather than Boyce who had had that train wreck you can bet it would have dominated headlines.
Click to expand...
The appeal was within the first 10 "Top Stories" on both the ABC website and its app for the entire day.
 
FredLeDeux said:
The appeal was within the first 10 "Top Stories" on both the ABC website and its app for the entire day.
Click to expand...

Look I accept it may have been taken down temporarily for updating but when I looked, it wasn’t there. And it certainly hasn’t been given anything close to the prominence that less favourable reports on the subject have.

And this is consistent too.

EDIT: As at 6.04am 21 stories listed on the App. No mention of Pell.
 
Last edited:
skilts said:
Oh, you mean that unfailingly brave, surviving victim of Pell's vile rape, whom you have consistently and without fail, branded as a monstrous and malicious liar.

Still waiting for the details of your eye-witness version of the assaults in the sacristy (which didn't happen according to you), from your privileged vantage point underneath Pell's garments. You know, the incontrovertible evidence, exclusive to you alone, which proves conclusively, without question, that Pell COULDN'T POSSIBLY have raped the boys.

The problem with all Christian apologists, in every aspect of their lives, is the ridiculous certainty that they actually KNOW something. Lack of evidence for such a postulation is no barrier for those of your ilk. Unlike we humans who live in this world, you are petrified of the uncertainty we mere mortals embrace as an exciting aspect of lived existence,

FMD, you're even incapable of saying you BELIEVE Pell to be innocent. For you, that would leave open the possibility that you might possibly be wrong. Dangerous territory for those who are so pathetically insecure.
Click to expand...

Much earlier in this thread, I made a pretty comprehensive list of unlikely circumstances that all had to occur simultaneously for this offence to have occurred. So you’re not still waiting. I articulated why I believe it to have been impossible.

If you want to see a more articulate version of exactly that, try watching the first day of the Appeal.
 
sorted said:
Leaving aside the rest of your auto generated skilts post..

The onus of proof is on the accuser. Pell should not have needed to prove that he couldn't possibly have raped the boys, just demonstrated that it was extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Well put.

That is exactly what this appeal is about
 
skipper kelly said:
I don't trust my memory, but I thought the judges said they had no need to try on the robes as they had seen the robes, or seen a display of the robes being worn, or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

There was discussion at the end about jury trying on robes. Boyce said the robes where available to be tried on.

The point was then made (can't remember by whom) that if the jury had been ablo to try on robes then the Honors could do the same.
 
GuruJane said:
There was discussion at the end about jury trying on robes. Boyce said the robes where available to be tried on.

The point was then made (can't remember by whom) that if the jury had been ablo to try on robes then the Honors could do the same.
Click to expand...

I thought one or two of them agreed that there would be need to do so. Anyways another day of semantics ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top