PELL

[Litespeed]

Bruce,

 

How in hell would I be able to seek the prosecution of someone, when I am not a victim of him nor a officer of the law nor prosecutor?

 

Once again you have used a strawman argument to cover for the views that you have displayed in this thread.

 

You have gone from saying such crimes were perfectly acceptable in some societies to saying it is really the fault of society. Then blaming it on celibacy and many times blaming the victim.

 

Now you imply because he hasn't got previous convictions he might be innocent as he has no "form".

 

He has form and has been subject to other complaints and they could not be taken to full trial as the person was so damaged they would not be able to fully partake in a trial, and they would have been mincemeat in the attack by the defence. Another case they died, so no trial.

 

Your implications would mean a murderer might be innocent even when convicted because he has not been found to have killed before!

 

Now you make out it is up to me to get justice for other cases!

 

How about you man up and accept your views on the subject.

 

 

[robinsm]

Feels strange for me to be accused of siding with a bishop, what with me being a follower of Dawkins and a lapsed Anglican.

 

Here's where I stand: I would have found Pell guilty. My punishment would have included less jail time and more financial restitution to the victims. I would have awarded them $100,000 each, to be paid for by Pell.

 

And I would have recognised that nasty community attitudes, like we have seen displayed here, were in a small way to blame for the suicide of one boy. There have been societies where the outrage and consequent shame would have been a lot less.

 

A contributing factor is clearly the requirement for celibacy in the job that Pell did. This is a barbaric idea.

 

Right now, Pell is the underdog and I admit to feeling sorry for his plight, as I feel sorry for those poor choir-boys. My mind will change if he wins his next appeal and becomes legally innocent. I will still think him guilty but will stop feeling sorry for him.

 

Sorry mate but paedo is paedo.   Lock the bas...d up and throw away the key.   Its not about him, its about his victims, 1 is too many.  In his position he should have lead by excample, not joined the rotten pigs at the trough.   He chose the celebate life, his choice so he has to live with it.   Filth is filth.   His victims received a life sentence, so should he.   I dont loose sleep at night when these perverts in positions of power get caught.   I dont feel the least bit sorry for him.   I feel for his victims and all   those others abused by those in positions of power, church, school or other.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Litespeed, the forum software has changed and I have not worked out how to split a quoted post, so pls bear with me as I improvise..

 

From your earlier post:

 

"He has been convicted, twice, that makes him guilty, period. Until a high court decides otherwise he is guilty. That is the legal standing.

 

Please do not equate the wired in comment of a paedophile and that of homosexuals.

 

That is, even if unintended, offensive to homosexuals. And should never, ever be in the same sentence. There is no correlation with a persons gender preference sexually and this abhorrent crime.

 

Women can also be paedophiles."

 

Firstly, I agree he has been convicted - only once and that has been upheld at his first course of appeal. He now has a second course of appeal, to which they will apply for leave (permission). Until the high court refuse leave to appeal or have heard the appeal and the majority dismiss the appeal, my point is that although currently convicted, it may be reversed.. for whatever reason and until it is a definite conviction, I will refrain from disparaging him. Remember may convicted criminals have had successful appeals on sunstantive rather than technical grounds because of various reasons. In fact there has been the odd case where supposed criminals have been locked up for many years and then found there was a sunstantive failure of the case against them which has exonerated them.

 

I can see why homosexuals may be offended by my previous post and I apologise unreservedly. However, if homosexuals are offended and have read my post, I hope it would be because it woudl appear my post casts them in the same light as paedophiles. Well, it is not meant to.. it is meant to highlight that until recently homosexuals have been institutionally persecuted and they have been subjected to ridiculous attempts at treatment by those of feeble minds.. They are accepted and now even have the legal right to marry (also not so long ago). I was simply saying that a Paedophile seems to be hard wired to be sexually attracted to children. So rather than apologise to homosexuals (of which I am gender neutral and understand women can be homosexual and women can also be paedophiles - not meaning that a homosexual woman is a paedophile...

 

But rather than retract my statement, I will expand it.. .paedophiles are like all of us and are hard wired in terms of sexualtiy. For example, male to female transexuals (to whome one cannot necessarily equite to homosexuality) apparently have been observed to have smaller lobe of some sort in the brain than men; the particular lobe being generally smaller in women. Here is an article that I started reading which also ascribes homosexuality to brain composition: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8

 

It also applies to heterosexuals.. There are members of the opposite sex one is naturally attracted to while others one steers clear of (and quite a few on is indifferent to). It is how hetersosexuals are wired. There are fellas I know who like skinny girls and nothing else; those that like voluptuous (and bigger), etc. We are hard wired in that respect and I doubt we could ever change it.

 

next bit fromyour post@

 

"To be a paedophile is a choice that they act on, it is not inherent in their makeup biologically. Even if they may have a preference, it is something they are fully aware of as immoral and illegal. It is no more baked in at birth than raping an adult of any sex. We don't accept that rapists have no choice but to act on their impulses, because they are born that way.

 

To rape is the ultimate of violence against a person whether a child or adult. It is a crime of at best sociopathy but often psychopathy, they just happen to choose the most vulnerable which are children."

 

To be a paedophile is not a choice in exactly the same way to be a heterosexual isn't. The definiton of a paedophile from the Collins dictionary (the Macquarie dictionary is through a paywall) is: "an abnormal condition in which an adult has a sexual desire for children".  It is not raping a child.. it is (simply or complexly - of that is a word) having a sexual attraction to children. I think, actually, that is in itself not a crime - I could be wrong. There are probably millions of paedophiles in the world, many of whom can contain their urges and are decent human beings (that is a guess). In the same way, I am attracted to a particular type of woman. There is one such woman who I work closely with.. I can't deny, I would absolutely love to have one night with her.. however, I control any urge I have and don't rape her at my first or every opportunity. Rape is a crime as much of violence and control as it is sexually (although, I would hazard to guess it is more sex in the case of paedophiles).

 

I have to disagree with you and saybeing a paedophile is not a choice and is as baked in as any other sexuality.. Let me be clear... I am not condoning someone who acts on it at all.. But, unfortuantely, there is evidence to suggest it (see below). I agree with you that raping is a choice.. And although the urges may be instatiable, one of reasonable (and evem slightly impaired) faculties knows it is wrong and in today's society one knows they can get all manner of support (again, see below) to manage it all.

 

Next bit:

 

" As far as sentencing goes, you fail to see the other important reason why we goal criminals and that is the requirement of deterrence for the rest of society. It ensures others know it will be punished if they do the same. That has always been a fundamental part of the criminal justice system."

 

You are quite right - I should have called that out iunder protecting the public - for if you deter the offender frm recommitting the crime or others from committing the crime, you are protecting the public. The Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act - I think 1998 of NSW is as a result if a Law Society report into sentencing to stop reoffending.. BTW, I think it is accepted that jail has more or less faield as a deterrent and turns out more crims than it takes in.

 

Next bit (BTW - through this copy and pasting I think I have worked out how to split a quote - Ian - the other software was much easer):

 

"As far as ability to be rehabilitated, it is possible but only when it is for a person that truly accepts the ramifications of their actions and has genuine remorse. In cases like these that is generally when the age difference is not great- ie a older teen and a younger person who was consenting but because of the legal requirement to be 16 years and older, and therefore unable to legally consent. That used to be called statutory rape.

 

That is not relevant in this case at all and in particular because Pell was in a position of power over the child. No amount of perceived consent is any possible mitigating factor in such cases of inherent power imbalance. Not that any consent was given anyway."

 

For Paedophillia, I disagree.. This article provides some insight: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/conditions/pedophilia.

 

It basically says the best way to control the urges is through Cogntitive Based Therapy (CBT) and similar techniques - however, this only manages things, it does not treat (rather than rehabilitate) things. The article does not offer any clear way that suggests it can be "cured". Also, I disagree with your general assertion that one has to have genuine remorse. I have reviewed the case of a woman suffering severe post-natal depression who killed her baby. She was found not guilty as she was criminally (and temporarily) insane - under UK law a much higher bar to prove than psychiatrically - and she had been receiving treatment and as I recall went on to have a second baby and clinicalluy dealt with any poste-natal issues. However, as far as I could tell from the reports, she was never remorseful. She accepted she had a problem and wanted to deal with it. But that was it.. depression is a psyhicatric problem.. the evidence seems to be paedophillia is no more a psychiatric problem than any other form of sexuality.. for those where the urges become too much, the management of it becomes an issue.

 

I am not sure of what the point is of statutory rape.. The question of consent hasn't come up in my post nor as far as I could tell from the judgement I have read so far, in the evidence or consideration of the court.

 

A bit more: "I would be extremely surprised if the case is heard and even more so if he is successful on appeal. The jury found the victim a entirely credible witness. The appeal judges were not in the court so their ability to judge his credibility is very limited. The appeal of the jury's verdict is rare unless fundamental issues of fairness made the judgement unsound. This normally relates to mistakes by a judge not jury. No criticism of the judge was found warranted.

 

I would think the personal views and bias rather than legal ones led to the other justice dissenting in his judgement. Credibility is a subjective issue. The other Justices had no such concerns and were unequivocal in their view the victim was credible and truthful. The other grounds for appeal were thrown out by all three."

 

I would be surprised if it didn't go to appeal. When the court report of the appeal starts with the words akin to "folks, bear in mind, this is not the trial of a whole institution; but that of a single person, of which no inference of that instirution should be drawn" (that is my paraphrase), then I think it immediately smacks of public interest. And that immediately gets the attention of the high court.. And with a dissenting judgement on an appeal where the only basis was reasonableness of the decision (verdict) based on the evidence provided being wholly (as opposed to holy) circumstantial  - come on.. this is stuff the appelate bench of the High court live for..

 

BTW, one of the major reasons the two judges dismissed the appeal was on the credibility of the complainant (main witness for the prosecution.

 

The appelate judges can only go on the court report of the trial court (in cases where the trial occured in the county or supreme court of the first intance). This gives them an "unbiased" view of the evidence provided; not tainted by body language, innuendo of inflection, etc.. which to me, means less accurate than seeing or hearing it - taken. The appeal to the Supreme court is based on ther easonableness of the Jury's verdict - so as rare as it may be - it is the case in this case. I am not sure if the appeal to the high court can include the other factors rejected by the Supreme court (the pacman video and something else I can't quite recall).

 

You are entitled to think what you like re the dissenting judgement, but you should probably read it as he quotes some evidence which does seem to be contradictory and therefore, in his mind (and he appears to be a seasoned legal mind) introduces reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, a circumstantial case, in the end, requires personal judgement whether you decide guilt or innocence (er.. not guitly).

 

The grounds for appeal based on the trial judge's action were dismissed..

 

Last bit

 

"This is not a case that can win on a minor technicality.

 

Until proven otherwise he is guilty under the law and deserves no compassion or leniency merely because his legal team will not accept the verdict.

 

If Pell had been remorseful and plead guilty at the first opportunity, then he would have deserved a similar sentence. He did not and should be there for a very long time."

 

If it is thrown out in a technicality, then the conviction with be the Aussie equivalen of unsound and a new trial can be ordered (if the state can be bothered - but it does give them more time to find more evidence).

 

I have not suggested, at this stage, he should be shown any more compassion or leniency than if no appeal was announced to be lodged. However, I am not going to personally disparage him unitl he has accepted the verdict or it is accepted on his behalf (i.e. he has used up his avenues of appeal).

 

If he honestly believes he is not guilty.. or that the case cannot be proved, then he should be availed the right to enter such a plea and exhaust the avenues of appeal he has.. this is a right under Australian law that thankfully is not clouded by prejudices we may have.

 

Fair warning: I have my prejudices as we all do.. I don't necessarily support Pell or think he is innocent.. that doesn't mean I think he isn't innocent, either.. But, I subsribe to the rule of law, accepting it is for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools, and give very person their rights to defend themselves - not matter how henious the crime nor the background they come from.

 

Oh yeah - the reson why paedophillia may be hard wired int his case may be a good thing is that if it is not treatable, to protect from the public would be incarceration for the rest of his life (as I pointed out in my previous post).. However, the pshchologytoday article I quoted, interesting, suggested that recidivism of sexual offenders os far less than those of other types of offenders.. which means once caught out they are less likely to reoffend..  So, maybe Brice us right (except, I think, if his appeal is disomissed, the Catholic Chirch should be sued by the victims or their decesased estates as being vicariously liable  - more cance of getting a decent sium from them than Pell)

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Apols for the typos - the old software gave me more time/attempts at fixing things..

 

JA

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Times were different "back then" - children were creatures to do with as adults saw fit.

 

The Catholics may have been particularly bad in the treatment of children, however it is clear that ALL institutions who cater for the voiceless,  religious & state, have been willfully negligent in this area and continue to do so with the handicapped and elderly.

 

I went to boarding school in N Ireland (Ulster)  - As with all institutions in that blighted community, heavy on religious indoctrination/discrimination.  From the age of 8, I was flogged with a cain (up to 10 strokes/beating, blood would occasionally stick my underpants to my bum) on a weekly basis. It only stopped , when I became physically large enough to defend myself, at about 15/16 . Who did the caning? Teachers and later in my secondary school, student Prefects. In my early teens I had my front teeth smashed by a teacher. The schools cooks had a talent for turning perfectly good food into excrement - None of this so much as raised a parental eyebrow - "Teacher must know best, I was probably lying/exaggerating and anyhow I must have done something to need chastising in this way". This was accepted/normal, back then. Authority was not questioned. Brutal hardly covers it.  It amazes me that I and my peers not only survived but most went on to have professional careers and lead apparently normal family lives (that is the few I know of).

 

A small number of our teachers had (on reflection) serious mental problems . I only recall one who had quite the peedaphil habit for giving out sweets - the deal was he had to place them in our trouser pockets.  I & my mates, never thought that much about it, until very much later in life - such is innocents taken advantage of.

 

My experience turned me into a confirmed atheist. I respect an individual's personal beliefs but have a horror of institutionalised religion of any/all type. Its influence on Australian Governments is scarry. The rise & rise of, Government sponsored, religiously affiliated schools/clubs/hospitals/etc, could easily lead us down the Ulster path - you doubt this? Australia was divided along sectarian lines, as late as the 1960's, it could easily come back,  all it would take would be something like a serious world economic recession to see religiose tribalism raise its ugly head.

 

Society still has this crazy notion that clergy/priests and their organisations, are above/outside the law. If the law even acts at all, they are treated much more leniently. They get massive tax breaks no matter how wealthy they are. It does not seem to matter how badly they behave, they still comand some sort of "moral authority"  - what is the matter with us??

 

We even have political leaders who subscribe to variose forms of mumbo jumbo - who voted for them??

 

What of the Jewish peedaphil headmistress, Malka Leifer, late of Melbourne? Spirited out of the country by the Synagog elders (have they faced prosecution??) and now defended by the Israeli legal system - crazy but illustrates how, even now, the authorities close ranks.

 

Pell is GUILTY - no doubt in my mind, as are all the other institutional leaders (dealing with children) of that era. They looked the other way/covered up/hid the truth, even when not perpetrators themselves. It astonishes me that religious institutions still have their congregations but thats blind faith for you.

 

Considering the so called "sanctity of the confessional" - this has no justification other than the misuse of power by the clergy - remember knowledge is power . You have the "goods' on someone you can manipulate them. There is no moral justification for any person keeping criminal behavior secret - send all who practise this to jail for a good stretch & then expel them back to the Vatican.

 

Love a good rant!

 

 

[Litespeed]

Scangriffin,

 

I feel for you mate, A whole generation at least has suffered this abuse and the government seems happy to push away any responsibility nor ensure the churches etc pay.

 

The Royal commission was hobbled and the LNP made damn sure the compo was minimal and damaging to even apply for.

 

Parliament is still full of their enablers- just look at Scomo- his spiritual advisor heads a church that covered up abuse and no case had been charged even though plenty of evidence exists.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I thought I was the only one.

 

Thanks to all for my enlightenment. 

 

I  Can,t put words to explain my inability to talk to men, in general, and most test in life are conducted by men.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Yenn]

When you meet someone who is religious. Do not trust them. I have religious friends, but I still would not trust them in serious conditions. They will seek advice from their god about what they should do if you need their trust.

 

I know it sounds sad, but that is my take on them. When trust is not needed, they are lovely people. BUT.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

For me the question is - how do you know they are religious ? If the information has been pushed/advertised/displayed in some way, I get very uneasy. If it is something you find out quite naturally, over time, is obviously a personal matter - no problem.

 

 I am fascinated by religion &  the "faithfull" - What terrible insecurity drives them toward a doctrine that removes responsibility from the individual and gives it to some nebulous deity?

 

It seems to me that we all (psychopaths aside) have some sort of visceral need to explain why we a here? and what happens when it all goes dark ? That some accept a faith (defined as without factual foundation/proof) and abdicate responsibility for thought & action to a deity (and intermediaries/priests) is quite astonishing.

 

I have a distrust of priests of all types - what does it say about a person, that they not only claim to believe in an invisible all seeing god but that god somehow speaks through them - nutters every one!

 

Politics & religion have always been intertwined. Career politicians are indistinguishable from priests, in that they also appear to believe that they have somehow been chosen/ordained to lead the common heard -  more nutters! Weirdly we vote them in at every election, no matter their lies and cheating - what does that say about us? Politicians worship power, priests pretty much do the same, they just call it god.

 

In my world religions & their franchises (schools/hospitals/clubs/ charities/etc) would have no greater standing than Bunnings. Pay the same taxes, be subject to the same laws and penalties. AND STOP putting tax payers money into religiose franchises - it's just a recipe for future social anarchy. What of the good works/charities that many religions are involved with?  No problem - have a threshold - at the end of the financial year assess their net worth, tax at normal business rates, all capital gains & profits above the threshold - after all they are not there to accumulate wealth (as many do).

 

 

[spacesailor]

"What of the good works/charities that many religions are involved with?  No problem "

 

The good charities DON't seem as good as when touting for donations to help the fire victims.

 

but 

 

THEY ARE GOING TO KEEP MOST FOR OTHER PORPOSES, (or to get the interest off it )

 

soacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

GOD needs 50 million dollars before Monday!!! Would you deny the WILL of God??. Mix God and greed and you have a lethal combination. IF a person is a known and consistent LIAR, how are they" one with god.?"

 

       Most/all religions are about power and control.. People are SO self absorbed /ego centred they believe they are too important to just DIE . We must be here for SOME reason.. Yes  we are here because we are here, just like every other creature of the Planet and it took billions of years for it to happen. There are some weird creatures about, and we are one of them, made of the dust of the earth with perhaps a sprinkling of stardust... Nev

 

 

[phantom1959]

GOD needs 50 million dollars before Monday!!! Would you deny the WILL of God??. Mix God and greed and you have a lethal combination. IF a person is a known and consistent LIAR, how are they" one with god.?"

 

Most/all religions are about power and control.. People are SO self absorbed /ego centred they believe they are too important to just DIE . We must be here for SOME reason.. Yes we are here because we are here, just like every other creature of the Planet and it took billions of years for it to happen. There are some weird creatures about, and we are one of them, made of the dust of the earth with perhaps a sprinkling of stardust... Nev

Have a search for George Carlin and his rant on religion - it is both accurate and very funny (IMHO). This gist of it is that God is all powerful, all knowing, lives in the sky with his talking snake, has a list of things that you cannot do (commandments) and will send you to a place to burn for all eternity if you break any of his rules but, he LOVES YOU and he needs money! He just can't manage money - please send all of the money you can to the 'Charlatans' who profess his existence.

Remember the old saying " A fool and his money are soon separated" If God needs $50 mill' let him print it and put it at the doorstep of the courts!

[Yenn]

From those ten commandments we can work out what God is like. To me it seems self centred and unsecure. just check out the first commandments, those which have no moral background.

[Mike Gearon]

God does seem a little needy. Amongst the 5,000 or so versions there’s got to be a few who are a little less self absorbed and you’d consider make friends with on Facebook.

[facthunter]

If he needs a true friend, he should get a good DOG, like the rest of us do and not threaten us with eternal Damnation for being flawed. He created US in his OWN IMAGE so fix the real problem. The more you look at it, the more ridiculous it becomes.. Mohammed BELIEVED the earth was flat, as most others did at the same time. .Just look how big the universe is. We are just a speck in there somewhere. Accept that because we can see that it's the case. We have more knowledge than they did a few tens of hundreds of years ago and that must be worth something. N ev

[Mike Gearon]

It’s all a bit difficult to fathom.

 

Even some bits of the bible need clearing up...

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual "uncleanliness" - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[skippydiesel]

Mike G - you are to be treasured above all - never mind your myopia, your perception is 20/20.

 

Question: how are you located in so many disparate places ??

[Mike Gearon]

Well, that’s a good today question....

 

I just decided to stay in Taiwan yesterday when I’m missing gum trees in a big way and then couldn’t go to work today because one of the guys kids was sniffly. Turned out the little guy is just normal little guy sick and not the virus.

 

French Island was the dream home after living in Taiwan for many years.

Taiwan is home again because of business pressures. My partner in one of the businesses had a bad health scare and I came back to help and turned out to be really helpful. Taiwan is going to be main location partly because of health care. It’s amazing and that’s proven right now with low transmission. Hopefully it’ll stay low....

Angeles Phillipines is ultralight flying and some fun expats as weekend escape from Taiwan (except for the bloody virus causing flight cancellations)

Nebraska/ South Dakota are the result of my American wife. We are selling Lincoln and building a nice shed on the Missouri River at a block of land next to Debs brother. It’ll just be South Dakota then. Go Trump...(. that’s the only downside. It’s Trump heartland)

 

It’s not something I’d recommend. Flying and thinking about flying helps.

[spacesailor]

Checked out the Angeles Flying Clus Philippines. ( online only )

looks good my son-in-law and grandson were to visit this week but all cancelled.

might give them ago myself, just to get up with those elusive Eagles. LoL

spacesailor

[Mike Gearon]

Checked out the Angeles Flying Clus Philippines. ( online only )

looks good my son-in-law and grandson were to visit this week but all cancelled.

might give them ago myself, just to get up with those elusive Eagles. LoL

spacesailor

Yes, I just received this. Maybe PM when you do go (eventually) I suggest the Clarkton for accomodation. German owned and standards are pretty good. Phillipines can have a very relaxed attitude to things like punctuality and cleanliness.

 

Same email inbox had cancelled CFA training French Island. The world really is in lockdown. Maybe except Boris’s world. UK Gov does seem to be backing away from their kill the herd thinking.

[spacesailor]

Only to be expected.

Now to check the weather pattern so as not to arrive in the monsoon season.

spacesailor

[Mike Gearon]

There was an article on Pell in The Age yesterday. “Watch your nuts” was the cry when they went to the pool and Pell was around.

 

This article is from the April 3 issue of The Age Digital Edition. To subscribe, visit The Age Newspaper Replica /> <meta name=.

ALLEGATIONS Two men reveal claims

 

Adam Cooper

 

Two men have publicly outlined allegations they were sexually abused by George Pell when they were boys in the 1970s, in a new report.

 

The ABC reported yesterday that Bernie, a 53-year-old man whose surname was withheld, told journalist Sarah Ferguson that Pell sexually abused him while in a shower. The allegations will be aired in a program that was due to be shown last night.

 

Bernie grew up in a Ballarat orphanage and, according to the report, came to look on Pell as a father figure . Pell was a priest in Ballarat at the time.

 

In 2018 Pell was convicted of sexually abusing two boys who were then choirboys at St Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne in the 1990s, when Pell was the Archbishop of Melbourne.

 

The disgraced cardinal, now 78, is in prison awaiting the High Court’s decision, due next Tuesday , on whether he can appeal against those convictions. Pell has denied all allegations of sexual abuse and his lawyers declined to comment on the fresh allegations yesterday.

 

In 2018, a committal hearing in Melbourne Magistrates Court heard several men allege they were sexually abused by Pell in Ballarat in the 1970s. However, magistrate Belinda Wallington eventually struck out some charges as there were insufficient grounds for Pell to be convicted.

 

Ms Wallington committed Pell to trial on some charges that he sexually abused at least two boys in a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s. But that trial never went ahead, as prosecutors withdrew those charges after the court refused to allow tendency evidence to be adduced.

 

The ABC reported that police contacted Bernie in 2016 during their investigation into Pell and that his allegations were among those to be eventually withdrawn, dismissed or dropped.

 

From Pell’s first court appearance in 2017, police alleged he sexually abused at least five boys, until he was ultimately convicted of abusing the two choirboys. One of the former choirboys died as an adult.

 

Bernie told the ABC that for years he was convinced he wouldn’t be believed if he ever reported the abuse.

 

‘‘ I would hear, ‘Pell’s become Bishop’ ,’’ he said. ‘‘‘ Pell’s become Archbishop. Pell’s become a Cardinal .’ Who’s gonna believe a little boy from a home against that conglomerate ? You know against that bloody goliath?’’

 

Peter Clarke, another man who was a boy in the orphanage, claimed Pell sexually assaulted him in the swimming pool at the boys home.

 

Mr Clarke said he and other boys would warn each other about Pell whenever they visited a public pool in Ballarat.

 

‘‘ We’d say, ‘Watch your nuts, watch your nuts’ ,’’ he said.

 

Bernie said that as a boy, he didn’t understand the implications of Pell’s conduct.

 

‘‘ It was purely for, like, his gratification ,’’ he said. ‘‘ I’ve got no doubt about that now ... it’s taken years to work out his whole conniving methodology of what he was doing but back then, as a kid, I’m oblivious to all of those facts.’’

 

The ABC reported that Bernie made a police statement about Pell in 2016 but he was unable to proceed with his allegations due to psychological pressure. He said he was now ready to tell his story.

 

‘‘ I’m not ashamed now, mate. No. It’s not my shame anymore, George have it, George it’s yours, deal with it. You have the shame, mate. I don’t want it anymore.’’

 

If you or anyone you know needs support, you can contact the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732), Lifeline 131 114, or beyondblue 1300 224 636.

 

 

Copyright © 2020 The Age

[onetrack]

Well, they let the old pedo go, on the basis of "reasonable doubt", a legal technicality. He may have his freedom, but his proven detestable actions will be a burden upon him for the rest of life.

I trust the complainants win millions in payouts against the RC Church for Pell's behaviour and attitude towards young children. I would have liked to have seen him banned from any event where children were present, like all convicted pedos.

He may have had a win against the courts of law, but in the minds of 95% of the population, he's still as guilty of pedophilia, as ever.

 

https://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

[old man emu]

I've always been doubtful of the claim that the alleged sexual assaults took place where and within the time frame that the complainants testified to. As a person who has tendered evidence in the form of photographs, plans and video recordings, I cannot agree with the Trial Judge's disallowal of evidence which, at least would cast doubt on the ability of Pell to do what was alleged in the time slot available.

 

We must remember that the proper application of justice depends on the fair application of the rules, despite how slimy a rock spider the accused is.

[nomadpete]

It's a pity that the legal system seems to have been unable to get to the bottom of what is certainly a very difficult case to prove.

 

However, how can anyone claim to be 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in a case where there are no witnesses to an alleged offence, no physical evidence, so much time has elapsed, and people tend to doubt the word of a child against a otherwise respected pillar of society?

 

I feel that the cards are stacked against a complainant. But the judicial system requires proof. Beyond all reasonable doubt', doesn't it!