George Pell: Guilty of child sexual assault

The world can now know that a little over 20 years ago, in Pell’s first months as archbishop of Melbourne, this scourge of sex was forcing choirboys to suck his penis.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/brutal-and-dogmatic-george-pell-waged-war-on-sex-even-as-he-abused-children

JG ” should be thanked ” @yeah okay

____

This ” verdict shows the shocking and perverted arrogance ” @l seem to recall a lot of `inHouse` pedo-defending yomm, Do you?

____

@but of course We DO all remember all the LimitedNews and ipa Trolls springing to pells defense ; Don`t we folks?

Thanks Joolya

____

Primates nicking fruit from the talking snakes enchanted orchard sends the skyfairy into a fluttering rage for centuries. But pedos in fancy dress molesting children on an industrial scale. Hey! No Problem!

I am not up on the whole case but I read on another site that Pell was convicted on the testimony of the accuser. Furthermore his testimony in the current case was not heard in court but via a recorded testimony. There was no other evidence. Is this correct?

I am sure that child abuse has occurred by Priests but the conviction in the current case does seem strange. If my points are correct it means anybody can be convicted by the testimony of an accuser with no other evidence

No evidence. No fingerprints. No DNA evidence. No eye witness testimony. Just he said she said. And the jury convicted. WE are in a sorry state.

It should be stated that the current ALP leader has been accused of a serious crime committed in the 1980’s but the Victorian police dropped the case because there was not enough evidence to bring the case to court. Just he said she said evidence.

>>>>>>>>>Robert Richter, described one of Pell’s offences as a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.<<<<<<<<<<<<

There has to be something wrong with that statement surely? Good reason not to trust the media. But this from Toms link

<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

Reasonable analysis is just that.

Juries have never been wrong?

Robert Richter, described one of Pell’s offences as a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.

I knew there had to be something wrong with that statement. I read elsewhere that the defense cannot question the courts decision or something like that. It is not an admission that Pell committed any crime

Wrong TB

Apparently Pells defense lawyer is not allowed to question the courts decision. Use your brains. There is no way a defense lawyer would say something like what he said unless there was good reason. Apparently Richter has to play along with the court. Yes and what is “vanilla sex”

You really don’t seem to understand the plea hearung process TB.

It happens following a guilty verdict

TB, you say –  “I just quote the law …”

Really? So…which one of your texts is this statement from?

“And anyone who thinks Pell’s guilt should be defended are an accessory to the crime after the fact …”

Just leaving this here, for Defenders of the Faith

“And anyone who thinks Pell’s guilt should be defended are an accessory to the crime after the fact …”

Based on that stupid comment Lindy Chamberlain’s supporters would have been jailed

Spare us the Bush Lawyers

Based on that stupid comment Lindy Chamberlain’s supporters would have been jailed

And Craig Thomsons? 🙂

If TB was on the jury, he would have put aside all the preconceptions about “catlicks” and their culpability.

But TB, do you seriously think quoting the criminal code addresses your comment – “And anyone who thinks Pell’s guilt should be defended are an accessory to the crime after the fact …”

What a sanctimonious fuckwit

I wonder if his releasing the information is why the second trial didn’t go ahead?

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/02/lawyer-greg-craven-on-the-media-abcfairfax-victoria-police-and-cardinal-pell.html#comments

If TB was on duty, Pell would have been crazy to have allowed him, wouldn’t he?

Which is why it was so irresponsible for idiots like michael smith to broadcast the news.

Which he is now complaining about news being broadcast, hypocritical fuckwit

How many challenges are available?

I’m sure Craig Thomson could tell you

I’ll just leave this here

https://badblood.blog/candle-lighting-the-catholic-response-to-the-pell-conviction/

Really TB, all I’ve done is wuestion your own statements. Thecone about being an accessory to the crime is particularly odd and I’m not surprised that you’re trying to avoid justifying it.

fyi, this is the story of the two people the leading lights of the liberal party and their fellow travelers in murdochs stables are calling liars

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/28/the-kid-and-the-choirboy-the-harrowing-story-of-george-pells-victims?CMP=share_btn_tw

Quite the opposite it seems

If you ignore the actions of the current gummint, then, same same since compulsory voting was introduced.

I have just read another thing that if true is amazing. Apparently the victim was not cross examined under oath in the courtroom. His testimony was given by television.

So according to the blogs there was no evidence, no eye witness testimony, no DNA evidence. no finger prints that the victim was in the room. And now his testimony was not allowed to be cross examined by the defence.

So it is just one mans word against another

Something stinks in Victoria

This is Pells police interview. Does not sound like a guilty man. It is important because I am sure Priest sexual abuse does occur but not with this man. Sounds like he is paying for the sins of others. And it could mean that priests who did commit crimes will go unpunished

It’s interesting that most of those pronouncing a guilty mans innocence were the same ones declaring an innocent womans guilt a few years back, even after a 20 year old trial, and a current witch hunt, cleared her

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/the-inconsistencies-of-george-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Perhaps the jury heard some compelling evidence and testimony that was sufficient to find Pell guilty?”

The jury in the first trial heard the same evidence and they could not convict 10 to 2 (I think it was). Except I understand the victim’s evidence was “live” and was cross examined. In this trial not so.

… and the conjecture about the Pell verdict certainly isn’t limited to catlicks and conservatives .

I happened to be speaking to a reasonably well informed & connected legal aid solicitor who I know. They were surprised with the verdict. But they also had some observations about the defense strategy, which in hindsight wasn’t too sensational.

Tb

I read your link but feel asleep half way down. The guy seems to be saying what I have been saying

First paragraph said this

“In the hundreds of cases Pell’s defence barrister Robert Richter has led, he has called the defendant to the stand only a handful of times. Things are slowly changing, but it is still rare for this to occur in abuse cases.”

So Richter did what he normally does.

I liked the second paragraph. Richter was not saying Pell was guilty re vanilla sex. Richter cannot say the jury were fools and the judge was an idiot after the judgement was ruled. The court made its ruling so Richter was trying to get the sentence reduced by saying yes what Pell did was bad but not as bad as people think. It was not an admission of guilt

From TB’s link

It has been rumoured that the jurors in the mistrial were split 10-to-two in favour of Pell. Is this right?
This is an unverified rumour with no credible source. There have been plenty of other rumours about the split in the mistrial, including that it was more even. The weight of the split makes no difference. The law requires a unanimous or 11-to-one verdict, and anything else results in a mistrial. The chief judge is not told of the split and he made it clear he did not want to know. Any juror who reveals the split breaks the law.

Yet blot etal have been holding up to 10-2 split like means something, when, all it means, if true, is someone else has broken the law, and he is encouraging it by relaying it.

Richter was not saying Pell was guilty re vanilla sex.

You wonder why a thread dedicated to this case hasn’t discussed this already ………………… wait.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/man-sparks-debate-after-charging-obese-plane-passenger-180-for-taking-up-his-seat-space/news-story/432594710d89abdb93c91917ec95fa17

Personally, I think fat people should ppay up if their fatness spills over into someone else’s seat. You get one seat per ticket, not one and a third because you’re fat!

And people should be weighed with their luggage, excess baggage fees should apply when the total is over a limit, maybe 100kgs.

If you’re fat, take less luggage.

I’m far less likely to ask for a second round of desserts or cheese.

But you make up for that with the extra few bottles of shiraz!

Quite frankly l`m enjoying the ” plain vanilla child penetrating ” defenders have stepped so publicly into quicksand of their own making.

___

Global cooling ; read it

Somebody seems to be a catlick and seems to be obsessed with tb`s opinion of catlicks, even tho the main game is a high ranked catlick pedofile in a dress is just convicted. Maybe our little catlick could understand that while the skyfairy continually lets its followers roam the neighborhoods of the world disrespecting other citizens spaces ; or fcuking about with kids in the dark corners and back rooms of skyfairy club ; then you really can`t blame citizens for having a low opinion of catlicks and skyfairy.

The other thing that bugs me on a flight is when people talk to me!* So Awesomeness usually goes unnoticed unless you speak, so save some cash and don’t say anything!!

(* Which is probably understandable because I’m also Awesome)

What a fabulous record

Coalition doubles all government debt since Federation in just under six years

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/coalition-doubles-all-government-debt-since-federation-in-just-under-six-years/

In Julia Gillard’s last full financial year, 2012-13, total debt taken on was just $23.4 billion. This was set to fall steadily thereafter. Before the 2013 election, the heads of Treasury and Finance projected the budget to be in surplus in 2015-16, with debt to peak that year before declining.

By April 2017, the Turnbull Government had doubled the debt Labor took under six years to accumulate – through the worst global recession in 80 years – $213.2 billion.

The appeal will be interesting and if the jury contained a couple with your (fairly commonly held) views TB, there would have been an anti catlick orientation

Been busy here I see … pretty time poor myself … 

I’m mainly alternating between the surf and the cafe that overlooks the surf.

Unfortunately today I’m in the city. But back to the coast on Wednesday! Every day is a Saturday and every night is a Friday night!

your local [insert choice here] is full of them.

Maybe I’m just getting old (and grumpier) 😦

WOW! Brilliant article and well written … by the wife of an abuse victim …

It’s quite horrifying the propaganda being sprouted, to protect a convicted pedophile

A nice take down of bolt and his desperate attempts to protect a pedophile

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/04/andrew-bolt-please-stop-implying-that-you-know-all-the-facts-about-george-pell

It’s a sad state of affairs when the nations largest media company employs a convicted racist to help protect a convicted pedophile, but that’s Australia, 2019

Obviously agree with you

Doesn’t everybody here? 🙂

BTW only you and Wally (I’m Not A Catholic but ..) objected to catliks …

I’ve always said that I think it is unsatisfactory to ridicule the sincerely held spiritual beliefs of people. But that’s often what you default to TB. So no need to get all techy when this is pointed out.

I don’t “ridicule” organised religions … 

You must use a different definition of “ridicule ” to me

TB, I don’t recall that I’ve ever defended organised religion. I’ve objected to the ridicle of it.

I’ve also pointed out that generalisations about people of a faith, or religion is bigotry

oh, did someone mention recession?

Australia’s economy continued to slow in the December quarter. And without population growth, the economy went backwards.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-economy-q4-gdp-2019-3

You might just get what you wish for.

Thank god for all those immigrants streaming in on dodgy visas

‘There are none so blind that cannot see, TR …’

Agreed. The current unemployment rate is lower than any time under hawke/keating. all labor govts trash the budget. The coalition has not been able to fix the budget mess Rudd/swan created but they were our only hope. We are doomed if Labor gets back in

an hour/week as a definition of employment has been used in Australia since 1966. it is an international definition used in all Oecd countries

net debt was approx minus $40b in 2007 ie less than zero and was approx. $210B in 2013. Increase of $250B under Rudd/SWan. Approx $350B now. increase of $140B under coalition

Spending cuts will get the budget back into surplus. But the traitorous ALP and their evil supporters block any attempt to get the budget back into surplus

I think there is plenty of efficiency available in the public sector for budget savings, I’m not attracted to tax increases.

That’s a lefty copout in my view.

I think there is plenty of efficiency available in the public sector for budget savings,

You’ve been saying that for years. Since then, Labor applied numerous ‘efficiency dividends. Then the libs cut them further, without any consioderations

We now have a system that is under resourced, and barely able to cope with demand.

And you think it’s “lefty copout”?

Yes, I have been making that point about public sector efficiency for years.

The inefficiency isn’t the fault of the teachers, nurses etc in the system. The problem is the way the public sector is structured. It is top heavy with non value adding administration .

Public organisations are overburdened with shared responsibilities and support services that don’t exist in the private sector.

Public sector management seem incapable of working with lean administration and default to cutting direct services when implementing budget reductions.

I think if you compare similar organisations you’ll get the picture.

Compare the (pro rata) size of the HR or Finance departments in the ABC to a private media organisation or the size of amnin in a private hospital to a public one.

Yes. Part of the problem are the public sector regulations, and that’s often due to political arse covering.

The system is inefficient and the senior management of the public service and the political structures appear to be incapable of dealing with it.

It is reasonable to compare Nine/Fairfax with the ABC. I had a look at the organisations a while ago, there is nothing in relative size that can explain the HUGE and inefficient overhead costs of the ABC (for example)

Possibly requiring more people in television production, but no reason for exponentially more in HR, Finance etc.

The overheads are not justified, and the duplication requires more coordination (cost) and diffuses management accountability

The blurred accountability is highly inefficient abd stymies innovation.

By the hysteria it looks like ol`trainy trainy read somebody`s global cooling link (-:

____

lt is always funny to see those that defend catlick skyfairy pedofiling are also the same folk that rabidly dislike my abc and are just too dumb to change the channel if they don`t like what is on. lnstead they seem to watch it incessantly.

____

” generalisations about people of a faith, or religion ” that cannot separate skyfairy from other `spaces` and act together generally in a pre-defined, pre-approved lunacy is NOT bigotry _ it is an addiction to their brand of skyfairyDust of which they snort deeply

By the hysteria it looks like ol`trainy trainy read somebody`s global cooling link

Who, what, where, when and why are you talking about?

And consider that they’re not as inefficient as most other public sector organisations.

Hang on, I thought ‘Public services” (plural) were inefficient?

Is ABC just the worst of a bad lot?

On your say so?

Like I said yomm, perhaps some figures would be appropriate at this stage?

Or are you fighting for the title?

Yes, the public sector is inefficient but it isn’t entirely the fault of public servants.

There’s no point in asking nurses and teachers to do more. They are generally dedicated and do their best… though police are lazy, intolerant bullies.

The public service is inefficient because of the political and management culture.
——
As I said, I looked at the relative structures of the ABC and private media a while ago. It indicated that the ABC has far more non value adding overheads.

All the information is publicly available but not from a single source. So you’re welcome to do the research yourself!

It indicated that the ABC has far more non value adding overheads.

eg …………………

Of course, there are the political ineffeciancies, it’s the nature of a democracy. we could become a tyranny, simply to save on your alleged overuse of cream biscuits, but that sems extreme.

Yes, you THINK they are inefficient, but don’t supply any idea of where.

I provided examples of public services being cut below operating costs, and they still struggle on, with the expected loss of services.

why not just get a hashtag #publicservicesux and start whinging about it on a social medias site. Examples aren’t required there

ABC organisation structure is available on the web site. Data and structure re public companies is also publc

I looked at the reports a while ago, you’re welcome to do the same. Let me know what you find.

We now cross `live` to palm beach for equal stupidity ” could easily be sold off at a huge profit and the entire HQ moved ” _ lts called balance.

Let me know what you find.

I found the opposite of your conclusion 😉

Sydney City HQ is at Ultimo whichj is absolutely prime real estate.

Why would that be? Ease of access perhaps. Centrally located?

Also looks good on the books one would think. 😉

Or should they move it to Armidale?

lol wally, as another learned person said

I suppose yor solution is the largess it with more taxpayer dollars?

It’s a simple question, the ALP guarantees that it will change negative gearing to reduce demand for housing, with the intention of making housing cheaper.

Given that the price of housing is already falling, is the ALP policy such a great idea in this market?

I think it is likely to exacerbate the fall in the market.

to reduce demand for housing

I think you will find it is reduce the taxpayer subsidy of rental empires. 😉

Pretty sure the housing will be bought, but perhaps by homeowners, not landlords?

It’s a simple question, is yor solution to largess it with more taxpayer dollars?

Turns out, abbott wasn’t the worst for women. morrison has lowered the bar

“”We want everybody to do better, and we want to see the rise of women in this country to be accelerated to ensure that their overall place is maintained.””

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/scott-morrison-international-womens-day

If you reduce the attractiveness of housing as an investment, even your “economics 101” must lead you to understand that that there is an effect on demand. A reduction.

The ALP has sold this as an affordablily policy, not a revenue measure.

Making something more affordable means the cost changes, and prices are already falling.

This is what the US media are reporting today

It’s wunnerfull that our pmt can take the yanks minds away from their own pmt 😦

Dog almighty he is a DICK!

Yes, the ALP policy is to reduce pressure on housing prices, by limiting demand to an extent.

But… the market is already falling, so overlaying a falling market with further demand redution policies creates even lower demand… and uncertainty about the consequences.

yomm, they are not decreasing demand, the demand for houses will remain

If by ‘demand’, you mean something is getting cheaper (which I thought ‘free marketers’ preferred?)……. wouldn’t that just be a sign of better competition?
More people will now be vying for that property now, as those with less leveraged finances are able to bid into the market.

so overlaying a falling market with further demand redution policies creates even lower demand

by ‘falling’, I think you mean ‘failing’, at great taxpayer expense.

When housing prices are falling quite quickly, who much further does the ALP wish them to fall?

Prices have been rising way too steeply for years. The ‘correction’ has a long way to go imo.

And if ‘investors’ do their dough by leveraging themselves too far ……………… isn’t that ‘the price of business’?

(How does making something “more affordable ” differ from making it cheaper?

Maybe peruse the ALP’s actual policy(ies); progress to multi-factor modelling of said actual policy(ies), and to analysis(es) of (notional) demand(s) and supply(ies) (graph(ies) for (divers) market(s) segments) among, between, and over time(s)….vis-a-vis multivarious stated objectives; oh, and try your hand at real-world-data-driven Econometrics 101 while doing so, taking care not to become too rigid in your thinking or too tangled up in the dynamic(s) of elasticity(ies); then, maybe (re)consider why Treasury representatives took time out to refute certain LNP operatives for certain Economic 101 statements, quite possibly amounting to gross oversimplification(s) and/or misrepresentation(s) of Treasury advice(s), for rank political purposes? Or, just continue, (in)effectively, to recapitulate the (uncredited) marvel(s) of extant market-based housing ‘prices’ and/or consumer confidence and spending (in a deliberately-engineered environment of household dissaving, if Matthias, and the 2017 Budget are to be believed) to (back)form argument(s) going forward?)

property investment less attractive and more expensive.

Only one type of property investment, those who are able to access the taxpayer largess. For all others, this becomes a more viable investment, increasing demand from those players, even if it does reduce demand from taxpayer subsidised ‘private’ investors who exist purely “in a deliberately-engineered environment of household dissaving”

when they become “investment opportunities” it bastardises the real concept of the home market

Precisely. And, if our economy survives solely because of this taxpayer funded bastardization, then we are beyond hope

Does eliminating a tax deduction have an impact on demand

For the slow ones

Only one type of property investment, those who are able to access the taxpayer largess. For all others, this becomes a more viable investment, increasing demand from those players, even if it does reduce demand from taxpayer subsidised ‘private’ investors who exist purely “in a deliberately-engineered environment of household dissaving”

for the real slow ones

No.

Tge stated purpose of the ALP policy is to make housing more affordable, therefore less attractive as an investment.

Price is the consequence and all the ducking and weaving seems bizarre given that the policy seeks cheaper housing.

therefore less attractive as an investment.

Investment is only one reason for buying a house.

Replacing investors with home owners is good policy.

If anything, it will probably drive up demand, because, as somebodies link said

the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good.

is it a great idea to add to this via specific government policy?

Is it a great idea to take away Government artificially raising the price of housing?

YES!

that’s part of total demand for housing!

But not the ONLY demand

So much demand has been forced out due to high prices caused by Government funding investors

Finally you’re correct!

Reducing demand of investors is intended to stop them bidding the price up against owner occupiers.

Therefore the reduction in demand makes housing for owner occupiers cheaper more affordable

I really don’t understand why ALP supporters are so reluctant to acknowledge this.

Nobody is, you are just shifting goal posts

Demand might fluctuate in the Aggregate sense, but the number of people looking for houses will most probably remain the same, if not increase.

fyi, Aggregate demand is already falling.

so is this the time to introduce a policy with the specific objective to reduce aggregate demand and prices?

YES

because, demand will not fall, prices may, but we NEED prices to fall, and for the right reasons (not because of an artificially stimulated market)

There should be policy to fix the imbalance taxpayers are inflicting on the market. There is never a good time for that on some people’s opinion. It might be just what the market needs. Either way, it cannot continue as is