Del191229
He bangs the drums
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Posts
- 33,006
- Reaction score
- 83,152
yes, yes you do:
George Pell wins High Court appeal against child sex abuse convictions
I really don't.
But nice to see you lining up with kiddy fiddlers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

yes, yes you do:
George Pell wins High Court appeal against child sex abuse convictions
For a journalist you have a terrible ability to comprehend.I really don't.
But nice to see you lining up with kiddy fiddlers.
Side note, I wonder how many how court cases have been postponed due to CoVid and why this one had to go ahead as planned.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
In some circles they're referred to a "chomos" (child molesters).I really don't.
But nice to see you lining up with kiddy fiddlers.
There is a simple solution to this - legalise heroin and replace the methadone program with a heroin one.
Most junkies in Melbourne are dancingoniceheads.
Bullshit.
Anyone that has spent time in a church that equates to more than the odd wedding/funeral knows that there was reasonable doubt.
Growing up in a catholic home in WA I have very good reason to have zero time for Pell, but it has nothing to with raping of children. On this occasion Pell was judged by media, those out there that want to bring down the catholic church. The lack of unbiased reporting has been disgusting.
When Pell was found guilty a lot of people on here said, he's been found guilty there for he's a child rapist. Well know he's been acquitted so you cant call him a rapist. It works both ways.
Nice theory. One things for sure, he’s an arrogant campaigner. Reminds me a lot of Tef.I was surprised he was convicted.
I dunno but just assumed the only reason he rose so high in the Catholic Church was because he knew all about the rampant child rape but wasn't part of it.
He had a massive network of informants back in the 80s, and used them to further his career, he was in Ballarat, edited the diocese newspaper and would have been privy to plenty of gossip and rumours. I dunno if living with Risdale proves anything but it's hard to think he didn't know something about what was going on. Plenty of others did.
I think he knew it was rampant and used that information to rise as high as he did - to one of the most powerful people in the Vatican - by identifying the child abusers and then offering them protection in return for support or promotion.
It's just my pet theory. I've thought that since the 90s. I think the guy is a skunk. No surprise he played for Richmond but couldn't play seniors.
If he were blackmailing priests the church would’ve had him knocked..I was surprised he was convicted.
I dunno but just assumed the only reason he rose so high in the Catholic Church was because he knew all about the rampant child rape but wasn't part of it.
He had a massive network of informants back in the 80s, and used them to further his career, he was in Ballarat, edited the diocese newspaper and would have been privy to plenty of gossip and rumours. I dunno if living with Risdale proves anything but it's hard to think he didn't know something about what was going on. Plenty of others did.
I think he knew it was rampant and used that information to rise as high as he did - to one of the most powerful people in the Vatican - by identifying the child abusers and then offering them protection in return for support or promotion.
It's just my pet theory. I've thought that since the 90s. I think the guy is a skunk. No surprise he played for Richmond but couldn't play seniors.
In all honesty tho I think you are right. I'd have to see the transcript but if there is actually doubt about the physical possibility of it happening then surely he can't be convicted. As much as I don't like the campaigner.My major gripe with our legal system is the cost and accessibility of competent legal representation and the courts themselves and the time it takes, it is an archaic system that needs modernisation. The High Court has to worry about the precedence of allowing case law to go through the system which binds future judgements. If they had allowed a conviction basically requiring the defendant to prove their innocence then the fundamental nature of our laws would change.
I still have a high level of suspicion that he is guilty of the crime, and possibly others, however, you would be mortified if someone brought a charge against you or a loved one and was sent to prison for a long period of time based on that level of evidence, which was basically the account of the accuser.
To me, it is not possible to be free of reasonable doubt on that alone. That would be asking the jury to try and determine who is lying and a jury doesn't have the ability to do so. There was far more compelling evidence against Daw, I think you need to take the emotion out of the science of how these mechanisms work, we were happy for a jury to disregard an eyewitness' account because we wanted Daw to be innocent. Pell is guilty of a lot of shit, we know what the church did to avoid prosecutions of priests, and a lot of people I think want him to pay and don't really care how or why it happens.
People weren't lambasting the corruption of the courts when Daw got off a rape charge, and footballers have dodged more bullets in the police/court system than the average punter can dream of. We have to take our natural bias off when we look at the nuts and bolts of something as emotionally driven as this.
If he were blackmailing priests the church would’ve had him knocked..
In my experience, in those sort of arrangements both parties hands have to be dirty.Not necessarily.
He could be supportive of people in expectation of getting their support in return.
Yeah, there is that, and that was kind of how I saw those charges he faced in Melbourne. There were lots of rumours about priests that I heard but never about him.In my experience, in those sort of arrangements both parties hands have to be dirty.
there’s has to be a level of trust that one can’t lag on the other because he is also guilty.
Junkie means heroin addict.Most junkies in Melbourne are iceheads.
In all honesty tho I think you are right. I'd have to see the transcript but if there is actually doubt about the physical possibility of it happening then surely he can't be convicted. As much as I don't like the campaigner.
But in Majs case the accused said in court that he r*ped someone else and that someone else flat out denied it. That would have destroyed her credibility as a witness.
The guy is a disgusting human being. I hope he rots in hell. He knew what was happening and kept quiet. Used the ‘rules’ around the church confessional to not report anything. Only a 100% complete ignorant moron would not have realised that you are surrounded by vile, sub human pieces of shit like Risdale. There is a special place in hell reserved for pedophiles and their ‘supporters’. As for the Vatican spokesperson smugly calling for justice for all those wrongly convicted of crimes well go fu** yourself.