- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
An unfortunate turn of phrase. It seems you know more about his peccadilloes than you've been letting on.
The Law Royal Commission into Child Abuse
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,341
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
You unfortunately do not comprehend that it's a different issue and that Pell, the Catholic Church, the investigations into their actions over the last 40 years have no bearing in this different issue.
It is quite transparent that you're raising these other separate yet equally disturbing issues is with the express purpose of distracting and detouring from the issue of the Catholic Church's misdoings and specifically any questioning of George Pell's actions in relation to them.
George Pell was not cross examined for 4 days with the purpose of "smoke screening" the other issues you have raised. He was questioned because of his direct involvement in and responsibility for the reactions to claims made by victims.
Raise the other issues by all means , but desist from your asinine claims that the discussion of Pell's involvement in scandals he had a front row seat to when they occurred, having personal relationships with the convicted, that he had responsibility moving and in the end investigating, and was and is under investigation himself for, in the Church he now ranks 3rd highest in is a which hunt.
As the highest ranking Catholic in this country even without his history of proximity to those involved, the places they occurred and the apparent cover-up, he would be where the buck stops.
His testimony should be scrutinised in minutia.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,578
RC sitting again tonight at 6.00pm as they will be linking to interview Professor John Spencer (Law)
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jr-spencer/79
Has been interesting listening to them going over old cases and rules of evidence etc in an effort to improve the law.
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jr-spencer/79
Has been interesting listening to them going over old cases and rules of evidence etc in an effort to improve the law.
And the common thread is that cases where convictions should have been recorded were lost due to procedural "rules of fairness" - wasn't fair for the victims.
Last edited:
Pretty easy to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread
Victoria's are notoriously the worst - which is no surprise if you follow the links. Margie has her own probs at the minute
telsor
Hall of Famer
This is the case across most law though....Comes back to the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Changing that would be a pretty fundamental shift with wide ranging implications.
Affluenza,Faithluenza,Politikagenda something like that I 'spose?.
It's a mater of degree though, as is evident from the stark differences between Australian jurisdictions, let alone overseas. The sky has not fallen in as a result of the UK reforms, nor the WA situation or even NSW, which is based on exactly the same provisions as Victoria but simply interpreted differently.
The current situation in Victoria would be laughable if it weren't so serious. People who were offended against in each other's presence are being severed into separate trials. It makes for ludicrously, tragically artificial trials which are grossly unfair to the complainants and totally misleading to juries.
Accused who stand accused of offending against 20 boys can call character evidence in single complainant trials about how people trust them around boys, with no rebuttal.
Relevant evidence is being so sanitised and censored as to present grossly unreal and misleading pictures to juries.
Key legislative provisions, reflecting Parliament's intention as to how trials should be run (informed by years of research and discussion), are rendered irrelevant and meaningless by courts in Victoria.
If jurors are regarded as being so incapable of rational consideration that they need to be so mollycoddled and shielded to this extent, then there is no point having a jury system.
Last edited:
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,587
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4427242.htm
Lateline's exclusive report as a former Catholic Church co-ordinator reveals former Melbourne Archbishop George Pell prevented her from helping victims of abuse in Doveton, a parish devastated by a notorious paedophile priest.
I wonder whether she gave evidence before the RC. I can't recall her.
Lateline's exclusive report as a former Catholic Church co-ordinator reveals former Melbourne Archbishop George Pell prevented her from helping victims of abuse in Doveton, a parish devastated by a notorious paedophile priest.
I wonder whether she gave evidence before the RC. I can't recall her.
She was referred to - wasn't called to give evidence - Melb & Balkarat Case Studies could have rolled on for months
What's the go with the "Red Files"?Sounds like they might lay the blame at the feet of the people where they belong.If they see the light of day.Maybe the RC can ask Pell to sniff around the Vatican to shed some light.
Yep and suggestions one is a double agent & George tried to exploit it
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,592
Assuming the RC makes recommendations to standardise the rules of evidence across all jurisdictions, how likely is it the the states may adopt them?
Who initiates changes in the law is it normally the legal profession or the government based on public outcry e.g heavier and more consistent sentences?
Certainly a very strange situation.
- May 8, 2007
- 48,686
- 71,373
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,593
Stupid thing to say for something that is fact.
- May 8, 2007
- 48,686
- 71,373
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,595
It has nothing to do with the RC, it's about a close nit groups that's no more. It's a shame as the trip amongst other things should have been about healing, but on personal levels the opposite happened. The most prominent of the groups spokesman in the last few years will not bee seen or heard of again.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,742
- 14,947
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I've just tried a quick google, and I can't see this.
Do you have a link?
- May 8, 2007
- 48,686
- 71,373
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,597
That's because it's not on the net. personal, and its 100% true.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,742
- 14,947
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Ah.
Do you have anything that can back you up at all?
Like, even, how do you know about it?
A quick squiz at your posts in this thread show that you've been a proponent of Pell's innocence and lack of knowledge of anything. So it's hard to take your word as unbiased.
It would be a huge shift for uniform laws across the jurisdictions, such that it would be very unlikely to happen (and even if it did, as we've seen from the Uniform Evidence Act, even identical legislation can be very different in practice). However, they could certainly make recommendations on certain targets and suggest that the various jurisdictions make efforts to implement them in their own way.
There tends to be a mix of motivations from legal reform. Some definitely come from the profession, but they tend to be slow - there are too many competing interests and agendas, and governments aren't quite as motivated to implement them. Public outcry prompts much faster action, but can result in bad law (eg. the short-lived baseline sentences) or failure to act on critical issues because they aren't understood/recognised by the public (eg. joinder in Victoria).
A High Court decision may assist in a more consistent approach, but firstly they take on very few matters and secondly their decision could go any way (including one which is of no assistance to anyone; one of the few judgments in this area had every member of the bench writing their own judgment).
Last edited:
