Pell again

@cliff-rogers said in Pell again:

@termite said in Pell again:

Started work when school ended in '59.

But finished now aren’t you?

Yep he doesn’t even mow the grass.

@tolovar said in Pell again:

@cliff-rogers said in Pell again:

@termite said in Pell again:

Started work when school ended in '59.

But finished now aren’t you?

Yep he doesn’t even mow the grass.

Haven’t had a job for just short of 14 years.

Back on topic (is that allowed?), watching the news last night and there was an army of rosary twirlers eyes closed or cast skyward with scant regard for the torture these bastards inflicted on poor kids who would then be ridiculed or intimidated if they had the audacity to report such things.

If he gets off it will be interesting to see if the police revisit some of the other allegations. Hopefully he spends the rest of his days either in court or preparing for the next case, his time in Ballarat does him no favours and the question remains as to his knowledge of the pedophile ring operated by Risdale and others

@johnc said in Pell again:

If he gets off it will be interesting to see if the police revisit some of the other allegations.

The ones for which they had insufficient evidence you mean?? 🤣

“Gets off”, implies guilt. If he wins his appeal, then he is deemed to be not guilty - he is not “getting off”, he’s just been wrongfully convicted. Like it or not, that’s the system we have. It’s not perfect, but we can’t judge a bloke’s guilt based on the Channel Ten news reporting.

Nope, I’m not a fan, and yes the coverups that were shown to have happened were appalling at best, but even if he was part of a coverup (which he may well have been) that doesn’t make the bloke guilty of other crimes.

For now, I’m happy that he’s been found guilty and locked up - if the law says otherwise, I guess I’m going to have to wish (based on Channel Ten reporting) that he’d been found guilty of other things. Were the (alleged) other things even criminal behaviour or just immoral?

Just 'cause I have a thing about innocent until proven guilty.

last edited by bitingmidge

"
Nope, I’m not a fan, and yes the coverups that were shown to have happened were appalling at best, but even if he was part of a coverup (which he may well have been) that doesn’t make the bloke guilty of other crimes.

His fucken crime was those animals he covered up for went on and ruined heaps of lives. Not a crime BS the Chinese had it right if you save a life or in this case don’t do anything about it then you are responsible for all the things that person does.
Put the arsehole in open prison to serve his time.

Agree entirely about the morals… but if being immoral was a crime, there wouldn’t be a politician (or possibly a journalist) who wasn’t in jail.

He’s currently guilty. I am not arguing with that, but if you really want to live under the Chinese system, I know where you can get some cheap flights! 😜

Not guilty just means insufficient evidence to prove guilt, its isn’t a finding of innocence. Although with the dropped charges the DPP didn’t think it had enough for a conviction. His real crime in my opinion is the offending priests he was complicent in moving around and for whom he squandered vast amounts of the churches money to keep either under the radar or out of gaol. Either way he aided and abetted child abusers funding their defences while denying the victims the comfort of the church and justice for as long as he could.

@johnc said in Pell again:

Not guilty just means insufficient evidence to prove guilt, its isn’t a finding of innocence.

No, because he is innocent unless proven otherwise - there is no such thing as a finding of innocence. The point I am trying to make, subtle though it may be, is that we either agree and abide by the law or work to have it changed. We don’t go hanging a bloke who’s been found not guilty by a court because of what we “think”.

Although with the dropped charges the DPP didn’t think it had enough for a conviction.

Correct. But why did they charge him anyway? Answer to ensure public opinion was swayed the way they wanted.

His real crime in my opinion is the offending priests he was complicent in moving around and for whom he squandered vast amounts of the churches money to keep either under the radar or out of gaol. Either way he aided and abetted child abusers funding their defences while denying the victims the comfort of the church and justice for as long as he could.

Can’t argue with that, (on the facts as presented by the media) except that it ain’t a crime… it’s just totally immoral, and I’ve never condoned supported or excused it, neither will I. The organisation is clearly completely corrupt, but then there was a bit of a kerfuffle about that a few hundred years ago in France - in that case the clean up quite possibly did (if history is to be believed) take out good guys as well, pretty much because of attitudes espoused here - when public opinion rises to replace the law, it’s not a very tidy thing in a democracry .

aiding and abetting, harboring a criminal are crimes as is hindering police.

He has done all of these.

FWIW, I believe that in Scotland, there can be a verdict of ‘Not Proven’. In other words, ‘We know you did it, but you got away with it this time, just don’t let us catch you again.’, perhaps.

@bunyip said in Pell again:

                aiding and abetting, harboring a criminal are crimes as is hindering police.

He has done all of these.

Don’t misread the tone of this - THIS IS A QUESTION NOT AN ARGUMENT! :D

If indeed he has done all of those, and if indeed the prosecution team were as bent on pinning him to the wall as it seemed, and if the press were baying for blood as they were, then the I dips my lid, the guy is a genius in the manner in which he covered his tracks.

The old adage about smoke and fire doesn’t seem to apply in this case - plenty of smoke too many mirrors perhaps?.

Where is the evidence, and given the weight of scrutiny, why couldn’t anyone find enough to lay charges?

administrators

@bitingmidge said in Pell again:

The ones for which they had insufficient evidence you mean??

No, the ones where the complainant killed themselves.

Risdale left a trail of destruction in one case he is accused of offending against almost an entire class. The suicide rate amongst his victims is very high, Pell gave the bloke a character reference and was keen to help fund Risdale’s legal fees while denying any justice to the victims. There is no point getting all excited over innocence or guilt, the Ballarat diocese was a hot bed of offending against children, there was a complicity that was repulsive as the Royal Commission flushed out, however the church wilfully destroyed records and no priest was going to say any more than they needed to. This isn’t about Pell it is about individuals holding high office and doing nothing while the lives of children trusted to their care were destroyed. Certainly the suicide of victims let a few rats out to roam for far longer than the should have. Mind you certain police officers don’t get off with clean hands nor do lay members of the church who turned their back on victims. I don’t give a rats about Pell, I wouldn’t care if he was free, I would like him to acknowledge though that what happened was wrong and rather than “the times” was a failure or the norms of the time, abuse was never accepted other than by those who seek power, and control and put their own needs first.

@dog said in Pell again:

No, the ones where the complainant killed themselves.

And was there real evidence of why that happened? Or are you just going by stuff the papers said, teensy little cherry picked snippets to give readers the impression they want them to have?

Perhaps we could save a small fortune by appointing Murdoch as Chief Justice?

You see, I have friends who came from countries where people were summarily rounded up. Where people are judged on what neighbours say of them, where the masses start to accept here-say as hard fact, and the lynch mobs come out, and I just don’t want that to happen!

@bitingmidge said in Pell again: and the lynch mobs come out, and I just don’t want that to happen!

and that is what bothers me with Hinch and his proposal to publicise pedophiles names and addresses.
They are bastards but over emotive lynch mobs are worse.

@bunyip said in Pell again:

@bitingmidge said in Pell again: and the lynch mobs come out, and I just don’t want that to happen!

and that is what bothers me with Hinch and his proposal to publicise pedophiles names and addresses.
They are bastards but over emotive lynch mobs are worse.

I reckon that’s the point, we don’t need lynch mobs, half the country are idiots, you don’t need to give them the opportunity to be even bigger idiots. I’ve read the public comments from the royal commission, there is much that hasn’t been made available to the public. While we have to look after the damage and hopefully prosecute the offenders but the prime goal should be to stop or minimise the institutional behaviour that let these offenders continuing to offend without accountability.

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.