Protecting George Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
'the organisation which has a history of protecting paedos'

That is true of the Catholic Church without doubt. Wanting to hold one person responsible is what is in question here. We all know the width of the problem exposed by the Royal Commission & the litigation that followed, with in the last week a ex head mistress extradited to answer the case against her in a court of law.
Click to expand...

The Royal Commission found that he knew about historic abuse. He also founded the Melbourne Response and was found guilty by a jury of his peers, so I don't know how you could think he's not in it up to his neck. What more do you need to say that the man shouldn't be at the head of any organisation, let alone a spiritual one?

If he was on the Crown board, they'd be in even more trouble.

There's not a non-catholic organisation in the world which would let such a person be on their board, let alone one which has tens of thousands of school children under its care. And it's allowed to go on because the followers are conditioned from birth that the church is infallible. George Pell could assault a boy on Flinders Street on camera and Bruce would be saying it was taken out of context or "what about the Anglicans"
 
Christopher Buttersnip said:
You make a good point. Psychological research is clear on this, you can't talk conspiracy theorists out of their views. When you fact-check people who act on poor information you only entrench their beliefs. Still, watching Bruce squirm has its benefits.
Click to expand...

The thread is called "Protecting George Pell" without Bruce it would just be another filthy paedo/paedo defender who isn't allowed back in polite society, only welcome at Catholic and LNP get-togethers.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Yeah but she wasn’t well researched now was she? She got so so much wrong. Who was her source? Was it the infamous Smith? Ask her and watch yourself get blocked real quick.
Click to expand...
um!

She was awarded the Melbourne Press Club’s Gold Quill Award this year, the highest prize in Victorian journalism, for her work on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse and Cardinal George Pell.
Click to expand...

how someone can be so wrong so often is mind boggling. surely there's a psychology researcher who is prepared the take on the case of the delusional bruce. might require a team.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mick F said:
Instead of denigrating and slandering all and sundry, submit an article to the Australian. Write a book. Bolt has made a motza, there is an audience out there beyond 8/10 people on BF.
Click to expand...

This thread would have died long ago. But you keep responding. It’s just so so important to you and the others that no defence be made of Pell. He’s the only important one. To you. Get Pell. Why?

He wasn’t guilty. You must know that now. So so many accusations. All of them false. Why? A Royal Commission that made “findings” comprising Judge Coate. Remember her? She’s the one who couldn’t fault Dan Andrews. Not biased at all!

Why is it so important to get the Catholic bloke? Why is it so important thatsome anonymous fruitloop on a footy forum be answered at every turn?

Look inwards my friend. And ask yourself why.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
She got so much wrong. Who was her source?
Click to expand...
BruceFromBalnarring said:
This thread would have died long ago. But you keep responding. It’s just so so important to you and the others that no defence be made of Pell. He’s the only important one. To you. Get Pell. Why?

He wasn’t guilty. You must know that now. So so many accusations. All of them false. Why? A Royal Commission that made “findings” comprising Judge Coate. Remember her? She’s the one who couldn’t fault Dan Andrews. Not biased at all!

Why is it so important to get the Catholic bloke? Why is it so important thatsome anonymous fruitloop on a footy forum be answered at every turn?

Look inwards my friend. And ask yourself why.
Click to expand...

Your go-to response when you're shown to be clueless is to discredit people who have records of achievement and intellects whose shoes a forum dweller like you is not fit to polish. Justice Coate has a long and impressive record in jurisprudence and was one of six royal commissioners who comprised The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. All six found that Pell was aware of child abuse and did nothing. That was after hearings that went for years and included thousands of witnesses. As if that wasn't sufficient, Pell acknowledged being told of the child abuse in the church and - by his admission - took no action.

Only someone delusional would say Pell wasn't aware of the child sexual abuse so pervasive in the church.

As another person who you discredited has written:

I am wondering, George, how you really feel now that the redacted sections of the original report have been made so public. Your brief statement simply announced that you were “surprised by some of the views” of the Royal Commission and that its “views” were not supported by the evidence.

“Views”. A man in the street has views. Your mother had views. A social or political commentator expresses views. Any Tom, Dick or George can have views on any number of issues. The royal commissioners did not report their views – they made findings. The bad news is that the royal commissioners who were commissioned by Her Majesty to hear the witnesses, examine the documents, to analyse and assess the evidence have made disparaging findings about your integrity, your truthfulness, your character – albeit on the balance of probabilities.
Click to expand...

That would be lawyer Chris Geraghty, a priest attached to the Sydney Archdiocese for about 15 years who has a doctoral degree in theology from Sydney and a master's degree from Paris. Who has lectured in theology to students for the priesthood in the Theological Institute of Sydney. And was counsel assisting the Chelmsford Royal Commission and a judge for some 10 years. And who is the author of three books.

Then there's Milligan who won the most prestigious journalistic award for her investigative work relating to The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Voted by her peers. Your response is to sloganise.

And the Foster's who had two daughters raped, one committed suicide because the pain was too much to bear. They went to see Pell for help and the father said Pell displayed "A sociopathic lack of empathy". You know the Foster's, the very people you heartlessly put down by saying "Spare me the Foster's" in this thread.

I'm over your bile, sloganising, and bad mouthing people way above your capacity. I've only ever put one person on "Ignore". You're the second. Goodbye!
 
AM said:
Your go-to response when you're shown to be clueless is to discredit people who have records of achievement and intellects whose shoes a forum dweller like you is not fit to polish. Justice Coate has a long and impressive record in jurisprudence and was one of six royal commissioners who comprised The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. All six found that Pell was aware of child abuse and did nothing. That was after hearings that went for years and included thousands of witnesses. As if that wasn't sufficient, Pell acknowledged being told of the child abuse in the church and - by his admission - took no action.

Only someone delusional would say Pell wasn't aware of the child sexual abuse so pervasive in the church.

As another person who you discredited has written:



That would be lawyer Chris Geraghty, a priest attached to the Sydney Archdiocese for about 15 years who has a doctoral degree in theology from Sydney and a master's degree from Paris. Who has lectured in theology to students for the priesthood in the Theological Institute of Sydney. And was counsel assisting the Chelmsford Royal Commission and a judge for some 10 years. And who is the author of three books.

Then there's Milligan who won the most prestigious journalistic award for her investigative work relating to The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Voted by her peers. Your response is to sloganise.

And the Foster's who had two daughters raped, one committed suicide because the pain was too much to bear. They went to see Pell for help and the father said Pell displayed "A sociopathic lack of empathy". You know the Foster's, the very people you heartlessly put down by saying "Spare me the Foster's" in this thread.

I'm over your bile, sloganising, and bad mouthing people way above your capacity. I've only ever put one person on "Ignore". You're the second. Goodbye!
Click to expand...

Chris Geraghty denigrates himself. As a judge he damn well knows that there can be no “finding” of “innocence” by an appellate court. Because such a thing would undermine the foundation of our criminal justice system that is the presumption of innocence. He, as a former judge, is a disgrace to say such a thing.

Anyway, keep enjoying your “unfamiliarity” with sexual predators in your own organisation.
 
Yet another award for good investigative journalism goes to Milligan. A book Balnarring will never read as his credo is never let the facts spoil the spread of misinformation and disparagement. All in support of his knight in shinning armour. Bolt and Balnarring fighting as one.

f1amsS.md.jpg


www.smh.com.au

Who’d want to be a witness when it just means more trauma?

Louise Milligan’s book about the adversarial nature of the courts is lucid and moving.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
 
Milligan is at best an airhead who became a naive pawn of a disgraceful political conspiracy. At best. That the literary luvvies throw awards at her changes nothing. She got everything wrong in her book and her 4 Corners hit pieces. Everything. She’s an embarrassment who runs away whenever challenged.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Milligan is at best an airhead who became a naive pawn of a disgraceful political conspiracy. At best. That the literary luvvies throw awards at her changes nothing. She got everything wrong in her book and her 4 Corners hit pieces. Everything. She’s an embarrassment who runs away whenever challenged.
Click to expand...
I know her personally, she’s none of that.
 
AM said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
What’s the Victorian police doing about Pell AM.. since the Royal Commission says he protected pedophiles?
For what it’s worth, I think Pell was as culpable as everyone else in the 70’s. Priests were held up to be beacons of virtue beyond question. It doesn’t make it right though. I know that most of you won’t accept this and I’ll cop ridicule for this but God will decide all of our fates in the end.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lebbo73 said:
What’s the Victorian police doing about Pell AM.. since the Royal Commission says he protected pedophiles?
For what it’s worth, I think Pell was as culpable as everyone else in the 70’s. Priests were held up to be beacons of virtue beyond question. It doesn’t make it right though. I know that most of you won’t accept this and I’ll cop ridicule for this but God will decide all of our fates in the end.
Click to expand...
Put simply the laws were not in place at the time - it may come to a surprise that Mulkearns was actually charged but died prior to the filing hearing, there are a p of ongoing inquiries into Several creeps but I doubt they’ll go anywhere. Good luck with the “God” business 🧑‍💼
 
Former (until 2018) Chief Crown Prosecutor, Gavin Silbert, QC:

Much of the media coverage was uninformed and I do not restrict that comment to those who believe he should have been convicted. Both Father Brennan and Greg Craven wrote informed pieces but some of the other commentary was lacking in intellectual rigour on ” both sides”. I thought there was some appalling commentary in Quadrant. That said, I have just finished reading The Persecution of George Pell by Keith Windschuttle which is as good an analysis as one could hope to find. We lawyers are used to defending clients and interpret their acquittals as a failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I must say, that after reading this I was persuaded that not only was the standard of proof not met, but that Pell was an innocent man.
 
Saint said:
The Royal Commission found that he knew about historic abuse. He also founded the Melbourne Response and was found guilty by a jury of his peers, so I don't know how you could think he's not in it up to his neck. What more do you need to say that the man shouldn't be at the head of any organisation, let alone a spiritual one?

If he was on the Crown board, they'd be in even more trouble.

There's not a non-catholic organisation in the world which would let such a person be on their board, let alone one which has tens of thousands of school children under its care. And it's allowed to go on because the followers are conditioned from birth that the church is infallible. George Pell could assault a boy on Flinders Street on camera and Bruce would be saying it was taken out of context or "what about the Anglicans"
Click to expand...

The Royal Commission wasnt a Court & the police did not act on the Royal Commission comments (was it a finding, either way) as it had very, very often before. Doesnt make him innocent but certainly does not make him GUILTY.

Wanting to attack is what this thread has degenerated to.
 
Kwality said:
The Royal Commission wasnt a Court & the police did not act on the Royal Commission comments (was it a finding, either way) as it had very, very often before. Doesnt make him innocent but certainly does not make him GUILTY.

Wanting to attack is what this thread has degenerated to.
Click to expand...

I don't need him to be found guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. That's a higher bar than I hold for deciding if people are horrible people and shouldn't be let around children or remain the head of an organisation responsible for educating children.

A lack of specific evidence despite mountains of circumstantial evidence isn't enough for me to give somebody who oversaw (or didn't quite see because they refused to look) the mass systemic sexual abuse of children by their employees, and hid it when they did, the benefit of my doubt - of which there is very little.

If the head of an Early Learning Chain had done what George Pell had done in completely lacking oversight, they'd be out of a job. Pell, he got a promotion.

The findings are more than enough for me to know the organisation is corrupt at its core as it has been for most of its existence and even if they clean up their act for a few years, it won't be long until the paedos are back, since the Church (and other religious orgs) refuse to do anything to address it.
 
Saint said:
I don't need him to be found guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. That's a higher bar than I hold for deciding if people are horrible people and shouldn't be let around children or remain the head of an organisation responsible for educating children.

A lack of specific evidence despite mountains of circumstantial evidence isn't enough for me to give somebody who oversaw (or didn't quite see because they refused to look) the mass systemic sexual abuse of children by their employees, and hid it when they did, the benefit of my doubt - of which there is very little.

If the head of an Early Learning Chain had done what George Pell had done in completely lacking oversight, they'd be out of a job. Pell, he got a promotion.

The findings are more than enough for me to know the organisation is corrupt at its core as it has been for most of its existence and even if they clean up their act for a few years, it won't be long until the paedos are back, since the Church (and other religious orgs) refuse to do anything to address it.
Click to expand...
At every level this post proves you are driven not by knowledge or concern but by blind, hateful, political ignorance.

Edit: HINT: The sheer volume of objectively false claims made against Pell should give any fair minded person cause to wonder just what else might be at play here.
 
Last edited:
Saint said:
I don't need him to be found guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. That's a higher bar than I hold for deciding if people are horrible people and shouldn't be let around children or remain the head of an organisation responsible for educating children.

A lack of specific evidence despite mountains of circumstantial evidence isn't enough for me to give somebody who oversaw (or didn't quite see because they refused to look) the mass systemic sexual abuse of children by their employees, and hid it when they did, the benefit of my doubt - of which there is very little.

If the head of an Early Learning Chain had done what George Pell had done in completely lacking oversight, they'd be out of a job. Pell, he got a promotion.

The findings are more than enough for me to know the organisation is corrupt at its core as it has been for most of its existence and even if they clean up their act for a few years, it won't be long until the paedos are back, since the Church (and other religious orgs) refuse to do anything to address it.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to that point of view.
 
Saint said:
I don't need him to be found guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. That's a higher bar than I hold for deciding if people are horrible people and shouldn't be let around children or remain the head of an organisation responsible for educating children.

A lack of specific evidence despite mountains of circumstantial evidence isn't enough for me to give somebody who oversaw (or didn't quite see because they refused to look) the mass systemic sexual abuse of children by their employees, and hid it when they did, the benefit of my doubt - of which there is very little.

If the head of an Early Learning Chain had done what George Pell had done in completely lacking oversight, they'd be out of a job. Pell, he got a promotion.

The findings are more than enough for me to know the organisation is corrupt at its core as it has been for most of its existence and even if they clean up their act for a few years, it won't be long until the paedos are back, since the Church (and other religious orgs) refuse to do anything to address it.
Click to expand...
A pathetic post. Hate on religion all you want but this shows your class.
 
We have another mob that needs to be appeased, what are the inept judges who put Pell in prison doing now?
Maybe if they are too busy putting other innocent people in prison we could import a Chinese judge & get Porter locked up.
 
Poor Pellsy smelt the whiff of evil during his trial.

I wonder if he smelt the whiff of evil when his mates were running around sodomising young boys.

Or was ignorance a better bliss?
 
The Passenger said:
Poor Pellsy smelt the whiff of evil during his trial.

I wonder if he smelt the whiff of evil when his mates were running around sodomising young boys.

Or was ignorance a better bliss?
Click to expand...
There are credible claims against Pell for his conduct at the Eureka Pool which for whatever reason did not proceed to Trial. Every month for the past 5 years and before that weekly for 3 months I sat in a room with a man who was alleged to be a victim of George Pell. People can believe whatever they want, I know who I believe, it’s a lot of effort to go to just for shits and gigs and none of it fun. Interestingly all of the civil claims relating to these “alleged” events were settled by the Church without the need to go anywhere near a Court, in fact I’m told that the Church approached the Victims Lawyers wanting a quick resolution, which is the polar opposite of how they have treated the rest of us. Ponder that...
 
Thrawn said:
I personally hope St Francis of Assisi kicks your arse for your condoning of using live animal for greyhound bait training.
Click to expand...
Yes, he truly covered himself in glory in that discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top