Current Trial Pell retains honorary role at the Tigers

[Power Raid]

Brendan Gale and Peggy O'Neal seem like decent people, but hiding behind the innocent until proven guilty statement, which I think they gave as their excuse in July 2017 as to why Cardinal Pell remains as a Vice Patron at Richmond FC doesn't hold with the evidence that came out from the Royal Commission into the Institutionalised Responses to Child Abuse.

Victims of child sexual abuse have reason to feel disappointed by George Pell's testimony so far at the Royal Commission, writes Cathy Humphreys.

"It was a sad story and not of much interest to me."

There are moments in Cardinal George Pell's testimony when you realise that he is telling the truth.

Victims and their families who were devastated by rape and sexual abuse by priests and brothers would also look for a personal apology for his lack of intervention to stop and prevent the abuse. He was there. Either through ignorance, or a blind eye, or actively choosing to ignore the rumours circulating about his sexually abusing brothers, he failed to act. Many would also look to him to apologise on behalf of the institution of the Church for its failings towards vulnerable children. He is, after all, Australia's most prominent priest.

Here is another statement of "truth" that we have heard from George Pell:

"I think that the faults overwhelmingly have been personal faults, personal failures rather than structures."

This is a devastating statement. In Pell's view, a few rogue priests and brothers are the problem. The poverty of this analysis is extraordinary. However, it represents a convenient truth for Pell. It means that no change is required in the structures of support, training and supervision of brothers and priests.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-02/humphreys-george-pell-and-the-power-of-indifference/7213120

I sat with Cardinal Pell in first class from Singapore to London. He's your typical MD type who has never made a mistake in his life.

 

[Brett C]

Everyone else seems to be.

His only comment has ever been along the lines of "I had no idea what was going on". And that seems to have been accepted.

That’s called the James Hird defence I believe.

 

[BlueE]

I sat with Cardinal Pell in first class from Singapore to London. He's your typical MD type who has never made a mistake in his life.

MD?

Was this in the days before he was too sick to travel?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The Catholics you mean? Should ask donkey chop about that he sends his kids to a catholic school who if not kicking up to the big man certainly would be asking for donations from the flock in one way or another. See I agree with you, you can’t seperate the Catholic Church from what’s happened re institutional child abuse. But you implying that the average Catholic parishoner is by some measure complicit with what’s going on because of their donations and contributions to the church - well I think that’s a bit much.

No , they are just funding his defence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That’s the what but you said “reason”? What’s the reason?

Why would you want this man representing your club?
The want is the reason.

Keep on trolling , if you think George should not be a patron of your club say so. If you do , say so
Stop your pretence of debate.

 

[Sir_Loin]

What is your stand on this issue???
Your like a the Monty Python argument shop.

State your point!

He shouldn’t be patron. Thought that was pretty clear. One thing you jokers don’t get about RFC is that the joint is run by lawyers. As much as I can’t stand the bloke there’s a reason the club have said they will wait until the legal process takes its course. There’s a distinction between what Pell and the Catholic Church have done and the way RFC is handling the situation.

 

[owen87]

He shouldn’t be patron. Thought that was pretty clear. One thing you jokers don’t get about RFC is that the joint is run by lawyers. As much as I can’t stand the bloke there’s a reason the club have said they will wait until the legal process takes its course. There’s a distinction between what Pell and the Catholic Church have done and the way RFC is handling the situation.

Ideally they’d be able to quietly talk to Pell about stepping down due to <insert dubious but believeable impact on health>.

I think there’s certainly an element of concern about legal repercussions from any actions RFC was to take regarding formally removing Pell.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Ideally they’d be able to quietly talk to Pell about stepping down due to <insert dubious but believeable impact on health>.

I think there’s certainly an element of concern about legal repercussions from any actions RFC was to take regarding formally removing Pell.

Bingo

 

[BlueE]

He shouldn’t be patron. Thought that was pretty clear. One thing you jokers don’t get about RFC is that the joint is run by lawyers. As much as I can’t stand the bloke there’s a reason the club have said they will wait until the legal process takes its course. There’s a distinction between what Pell and the Catholic Church have done and the way RFC is handling the situation.

Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer

He shouldn't be patron and the lawyers running the club have made a mistake.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer

He shouldn't be patron and the lawyers running the club have made a mistake.

I have no problem with you having that opinion. I’ll trust the lawyers over some bush BF legal “expert”.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He shouldn’t be patron. Thought that was pretty clear. One thing you jokers don’t get about RFC is that the joint is run by lawyers. As much as I can’t stand the bloke there’s a reason the club have said they will wait until the legal process takes its course. There’s a distinction between what Pell and the Catholic Church have done and the way RFC is handling the situation.

Cheers, I got it. We can move forward.
I truly am trying to understand the back story to this. My interest is more about the church legals and what input they may have had in this more so than any RFC inaction.
Right now I understand RFC not doing anything, any action they take could imply guilt.
I struggle to understand why prior to the current allegations they did not take action, he has been in the role 20 years.
Has there been any suggestion of RFC being put under duress not to do anything from external bodies? I realise this is something that would be done back of house. Has anyone alluded to this in public?
I would have thought Vlad and Gil having quiet words with RFC would have given them the impetus to act.
AFL are harsh on anything that MAY tarnish the brand, with that in mind I wonder what has played out.
I would be horrified to find RFC have been under duress not to act. If it is the case it would be a very difficult situation to extricate from and for RFC but to wait for a guilty judgement from the courts.
The other option is RFC just sat on their hands for years but that does not make sense to me. AFL and the clubs right people off quickly if necessary or warranted.
This is what leaves me with lots of questions.

My anger is at Pell, I don't think he is worthy person.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Cheers, I got it. We can move forward.
I truly am trying to understand the back story to this. My interest is more about the church legals and what input they may have had in this more so than any RFC inaction.
Right now I understand RFC not doing anything, any action they take could imply guilt.
I struggle to understand why prior to the current allegations they did not take action, he has been in the role 20 years.
Has there been any suggestion of RFC being put under duress not to do anything from external bodies? I realise this is something that would be done back of house. Has anyone alluded to this in public?
I would have thought Vlad and Gil having quiet words with RFC would have given them the impetus to act.
AFL are harsh on anything that MAY tarnish the brand, with that in mind I wonder what has played out.
I would be horrified to find RFC have been under duress not to act. If it is the case it would be a very difficult situation to extricate from and for RFC but to wait for a guilty judgement from the courts.
The other option is RFC just sat on their hands for years but that does not make sense to me. AFL and the clubs right people off quickly if necessary or warranted.
This is what leaves me with lots of questions.

My anger is at Pell, I don't think he is worthy person.

You need to get the chronology right. RFC sat on their hands for years about what? Are you saying 20 years ago they should have known what the royal commission has uncovered?

 

[Slartibartfast]

You need to get the chronology right. RFC sat on their hands for years about what? Are you saying 20 years ago they should have known what the royal commission has uncovered?

You need to do some reading of the links added to this thread.
For twenty Years George has been brow beating victims. He headed up the churches response which was nothing more than an effort to silence sexual abuse victims at which he was very successful.
He treated the victims in a purely buisness like manner trying to minimise fallout for the church. Shuffling priests from parish to parish.
There was nothing holistic or caring about his efforts, quite the contrary.
He was a hard nosed prick who took no survivors.
This has been documented and reported on for decades.

I cannot believe you are are citing the Royal commission as the source of his woes. Shows your lack of understanding of these issues.
You don't need the RC report or current allegations to dismiss Pell as one of the worst public figures this country has seen.
Just think about it, this is a man who traumatised sexual abuse victims further for the sake of his churches reputation.
All the while he was RFC s patron.
I see you don't want to discuss RFC connection to Pell and how strange that RFC persisted with this relationship.
As you said you don't want Pell as your patron hiw can you simply disqualify RFC of any responsibility for maintaining the relationship.
Why has RFC done this?

 

[Sir_Loin]

You need to do some reading of the links added to this thread.
For twenty Years George has been brow beating victims. He headed up the churches response which was nothing more than an effort to silence sexual abuse victims at which he was very successful.
He treated the victims in a purely buisness like manner trying to minimise fallout for the church. Shuffling priests from parish to parish.
There was nothing holistic or caring about his efforts, quite the contrary.
He was a hard nosed prick who took no survivors.
This has been documented and reported on for decades.

I cannot believe you are are citing the Royal commission as the source of his woes. Shows your lack of understanding of these issues.
You don't need the RC report or current allegations to dismiss Pell as one of the worst public figures this country has seen.
Just think about it, this is a man who traumatised sexual abuse victims further for the sake of his churches reputation.
All the while he was RFC s patron.
I see you don't want to discuss RFC connection to Pell and how strange that RFC persisted with this relationship.
As you said you don't want Pell as your patron hiw can you simply disqualify RFC of any responsibility for maintaining the relationship.
Why has RFC done this?

Haven’t read them. Assuming there contemporaneous reports of wrong doing spanning the last 20 years and greater? Lets assume yes.

You seem to think RFC had some sort of crystal ball or some super-human insight to understand what was happening and what would be uncovered in the royal commission. I had NFI what he was up to, did you? It’s very easy for you to apply 20/20 hindsight when in all probability the club had no idea this was happening and his involvement in it until recently.

You keep coming back to this idea you have that RFC has known for 20 years what the RC found and uncovered as it relates to Pell.Prove it.

 

[Donkey Chop]

Haven’t read them. Assuming there contemporaneous reports of wrong doing spanning the last 20 years and greater? Lets assume yes.

You seem to think RFC had some sort of crystal ball or some super-human insight to understand what was happening and what would be uncovered in the royal commission. I had NFI what he was up to, did you? It’s very easy for you to apply 20/20 hindsight when in all probability the club had no idea this was happening and his involvement in it until recently.

You keep coming back to this idea you have that RFC has known for 20 years what the RC found and uncovered as it relates to Pell.Prove it.

His main role with the church is the accountant. He’s most likely responsible for the Church putting all their money and assets behind legal brick walls which make it almost impossible for the Catholic Church’s victims to access, even when awarded compensation.

The guy is a total piece of s**t. The Catholic Church is worth billions and yet they are not paying what the Royal commission declared necessary, not even the waterd down version of what the commonwealth decided was appropriate. Guess who the top bean counter in the Catholic Church is?

On the final day of the Royal commission into child abuse in Australian institutions, this wasn’t just a commission into the Catholic Church, it was into all organisations that involved the care of children, the YMCA, the Scouts, Sporting organisations, Jewish communities, etc. The commission found that over 60% of victims were from the Catholic Church.

Ground zero was Ballarat. Richmond Should’ve separated ties then.

That’s without even getting into the amount of victims that came forward with allegations of reporting sexual abuse to Pell, with Pell to just turn his back on them.

Richmond should have let him go after the Royal commission

 

[Sir_Loin]

His main role with the church is the accountant. He’s most likely responsible for the Church putting all their money and assets behind legal brick walls which make it almost impossible for the Catholic Church’s victims to access, even when awarded compensation.

The guy is a total piece of s**t. The Catholic Church is worth billions and yet they are not paying what the Royal commission declared necessary, not even the waterd down version of what the commonwealth decided was appropriate. Guess who the top bean counter in the Catholic Church is?

On the final day of the Royal commission into child abuse in Australian institutions, this wasn’t just a commission into the Catholic Church, it was into all organisations that involved the care of children, the YMCA, the Scouts, Sporting organisations, Jewish communities, etc. The commission found that over 60% of victims were from the Catholic Church.

Ground zero was Ballarat. Richmond Should’ve separated ties then.

That’s without even getting into the amount of victims that came forward with allegations of reporting sexual abuse to Pell, with Pell to just turn his back on them.

Richmond should have let him go after the Royal commission

You don’t get it mate. Love your passion and I get where you’re coming from on most things when it comes to Pell and the RC. But you don’t have an appreciation for how prejudicial to the trial it could be for RFC to make such a public act. It would be like signalling to the wider community that we think he’s guilty. The last thing anyone wants is for that to influence a trial.

You might not agree with it, I don’t like it but I think RFC are taking the appropriate and responsible steps at this stage.

 

[BlueE]

But since the start of the Cardinal Pell's testimony to the RC in around Feb 2016 the lawyers running the RFC had no excuse not to listen to the lawyers at the RC

Haven’t read them. Assuming there contemporaneous reports of wrong doing spanning the last 20 years and greater? Lets assume yes.

You seem to think RFC had some sort of crystal ball or some super-human insight to understand what was happening and what would be uncovered in the royal commission. I had NFI what he was up to, did you? It’s very easy for you to apply 20/20 hindsight when in all probability the club had no idea this was happening and his involvement in it until recently.

You keep coming back to this idea you have that RFC has known for 20 years what the RC found and uncovered as it relates to Pell.Prove it.

Could say, prove they didn’t. There has been more than enough evidence accepted by the Royal Commission for the bunch of lawyers running the RFC to have acted on. They have known since Pell started giving his testimony on his response to the child abuse reported to him, about a year ago.

Then there is the woefully inadequate redress scheme for victims called The Melbourne Response which was established by Cardinal George Pell in 1996 when he was archbishop of Melbourne. It was universally hated by victims as apologies “generally not adapted to reflect a recognition of harm done to each individual applicant.”

"The really, really sad thing is that if the church had listened to us, if they had really made it an independent process all those years ago, if George Pell had listened to us in 1996 ... much of what is recommended now would have been put in place," he said.

If they didn’t know any of this in the past 20 years they knew by Feb 2017. RFC could have acted then. But they haven’t and continue not to.

Pell has some good excuses they could use like, “I knew, but it didn’t really interest me”. “It was someone else’s problem”. “I didn’t know anything”.

I think RFC’s leaders have done a great job in building up and bringing the club together which has gone a great way to of course winning the GF last year and have support of their fans, members and staff.

But they haven’t done the right thing by keeping Pell on in his honorary Vice Patron position at RFC after the other bunch of lawyers representing the RC have given then more than enough evidence to do that.

In fact, their instutionalised response to Pell, who has been personally named as having failed to exercise proper care for children in a Melbourne parish by not acting on information of sexual misconduct by a paedophile priest abuse only shows disrespect for the Royal Commission and the victims, especially the many who personally went to Pell. Nothing strong and bold about that inaction in my opinion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...cheme-should-be-separated-from-church/8301934

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...r-young-abuse-victims-commission-told/7980336

 

[Slartibartfast]

Haven’t read them. Assuming there contemporaneous reports of wrong doing spanning the last 20 years and greater? Lets assume yes.

You seem to think RFC had some sort of crystal ball or some super-human insight to understand what was happening and what would be uncovered in the royal commission. I had NFI what he was up to, did you? It’s very easy for you to apply 20/20 hindsight when in all probability the club had no idea this was happening and his involvement in it until recently.

You keep coming back to this idea you have that RFC has known for 20 years what the RC found and uncovered as it relates to Pell.Prove it.

No crystal ball, called newspapers and electronic media. No hindsight needed, it was all discussed in public. Pell has been challenged for years on his approach to victims and perpetrators.

 

[Dan Baker]

Putting court activity aside, apart from Pell not having any convictions, being innocent, I don't know how someone residing overseas can hold an honorary role?

So the poll question is a little boolean. Not living here, so how can sit in any capacity?

 

[Dan Baker]

From a quick google it says he's had the title since 1997, and (according to Wikipedia) he was Archbishop of Melbourne from 1996 to 2001, then Sydney from 2001 to 2014.

So really, after 18 years in Australia, i'm not entirely surprised they wouldn't have removed him when he went overseas. I don't think there's anything particularly contentious about someone holding what's simply an honorary title still doing so whilst overseas. It's not as though he's an active member of the club administration that is expected to do anything.

Taking him off the role might have looked suspicious considering the timing.

As much as people have tried to paint him, he is still innocent. I'm sure if he falls foul of the law, he will no longer be honorary.

I cant see how, as the question states "official" role if its honorary, and he is overseas. He is not there.

The question implies he has committed a crime really. Meanwhile players that have committed crimes are dismissed as scallywags

 

[owen87]

Taking him off the role might have looked suspicious considering the timing.

As much as people have tried to paint him, he is still innocent. I'm sure if he falls foul of the law, he will no longer be honorary.

I cant see how, as the question states "official" role if its honorary, and he is overseas. He is not there.

The question implies he has committed a crime really. Meanwhile players that have committed crimes are dismissed as scallywags

I think Sir_Loin is on the money with this one; RFC is treading cautiously because of any legal repercussions they might incur by taking action based on things that are still in process.

I do wonder whether they've approached him behind the scenes about stepping down himself however.

 

[Dan Baker]

I think Sir_Loin is on the money with this one; RFC is treading cautiously because of any legal repercussions they might incur by taking action based on things that are still in process.

I do wonder whether they've approached him behind the scenes about stepping down himself however.

The RFC lawyers are probably waiting for a court outcome. That's what lawyers do. Lawyers don't work on the presumption of guilt.

 

[BlueE]

You have less clue than the other bloke

I don’t need to read what’s posted here. It’s offering nothing new than what I’ve read already.

Suggest you educate yourself on what prejudice means. Some your statements are gross exaggerations. Really at the end of the day all you want to do is put the club in a bad light despite them probably doing the right thing by waiting until the trial finishes.

So now your motives are clear I can see there’s no point discussing this any further with you.

Because you love links so much. Here’s a very simple explanation to help you understand

https://independentaustralia.net/li...-sub-judice-beware-of-being-in-contempt,10455

Yes I’m aware of sub judice that’s why I questioned why the moderators dropped this discussion into the Crime thread with instructions “it needs to remain a topic of discussion on the alleged crimes and not revert back to discussing the RFC.”

Thanks for the link, Pell’s got a few powerful friends, hasn’t he? So if you did read the link you'd understand it's BS that is bull shite to say sub judice applies if Richmond FC remove Pell from his Patron position at the RFC, as it may imply guilt in the upcoming trial. It's also BS to say wait a couple of years for the current trial on personal historical child abuse charges to conclude to say he's innocent or guilty before making a decision a none of this discussion related to those charges.

If there is an issue it could be in the news reporting of the decision and not the actual act of removing him!

Evidence has been public for over 5 years and the Senior Council assisting the Royal Commission into the Institutionalised Responses to Child Abuse made damning conclusions of Pell’s responses in this matter. The RC do redact some portions of reports that could be considered sub judice in the event of pending charges, so no one has seen those if in fact any exist.

I gave RFC a leave pass saying they should have been aware of the actions highlighted by the RC a year ago, the article says unless you’ve been on Mars in the last five years you would know and bartfast in the last 20 years that RFC should have been aware and asks the valid question of why haven’t they acted at any stage. I too would be interested to hear from anyone at Richmond to explain that.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Yes I’m aware of sub judice that’s why I questioned why the moderators dropped this discussion into the Crime thread with instructions “it needs to remain a topic of discussion on the alleged crimes and not revert back to discussing the RFC.”

Thanks for the link, Pell’s got a few powerful friends, hasn’t he? So if you did read the link you'd understand it's BS that is bull shite to say sub judice applies if Richmond FC remove Pell from his Patron position at the RFC, as it may imply guilt in the upcoming trial. It's also BS to say wait a couple of years for the current trial on personal historical child abuse charges to conclude to say he's innocent or guilty before making a decision a none of this discussion related to those charges.

If there is an issue it could be in the news reporting of the decision and not the actual act of removing him!

Evidence has been public for over 5 years and the Senior Council assisting the Royal Commission into the Institutionalised Responses to Child Abuse made damning conclusions of Pell’s responses in this matter. The RC do redact some portions of reports that could be considered sub judice in the event of pending charges, so no one has seen those if in fact any exist.

I gave RFC a leave pass saying they should have been aware of the actions highlighted by the RC a year ago, the article says unless you’ve been on Mars in the last five years you would know and bartfast in the last 20 years that RFC should have been aware and asks the valid question of why haven’t they acted at any stage. I too would be interested to hear from anyone at Richmond to explain that.

There’s no other words I can offer you other than to keep reading and educate yourself beyond RFC. I hope you can do that.

 

[Punt rd end]

Yes I’m aware of sub judice that’s why I questioned why the moderators dropped this discussion into the Crime thread with instructions “it needs to remain a topic of discussion on the alleged crimes and not revert back to discussing the RFC.”

Thanks for the link, Pell’s got a few powerful friends, hasn’t he? So if you did read the link you'd understand it's BS that is bull shite to say sub judice applies if Richmond FC remove Pell from his Patron position at the RFC, as it may imply guilt in the upcoming trial. It's also BS to say wait a couple of years for the current trial on personal historical child abuse charges to conclude to say he's innocent or guilty before making a decision a none of this discussion related to those charges.

If there is an issue it could be in the news reporting of the decision and not the actual act of removing him!

Evidence has been public for over 5 years and the Senior Council assisting the Royal Commission into the Institutionalised Responses to Child Abuse made damning conclusions of Pell’s responses in this matter. The RC do redact some portions of reports that could be considered sub judice in the event of pending charges, so no one has seen those if in fact any exist.

I gave RFC a leave pass saying they should have been aware of the actions highlighted by the RC a year ago, the article says unless you’ve been on Mars in the last five years you would know and bartfast in the last 20 years that RFC should have been aware and asks the valid question of why haven’t they acted at any stage. I too would be interested to hear from anyone at Richmond to explain that.

If you are so concerned about it write a letter to the club.