I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

Get Fucked CE

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

Get Fucked CE

and end up like you? no thanks.

I agree with Tau.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

You prefer “trial my media”?
That’s the worst sort of trial.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

This is just your opinion. It was a surprise that he he was convicted in the first place, and having that verdict overturned on appeal seemed inevitable.

I imagine strings were pulled to get him to the high court in the first place and who knows if the good old boys club applied pressure

THe technically could have have been interputed this way or that way

28 PISS WEAK JUDGES

The high Court can BURN

Bubblecar said:

I agree with Tau.

LOL. spitey spitey.

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

You prefer “trial my media”?
That’s the worst sort of trial.

who is that addressed to? me. if so, how the fuck did you get that conclusion?

Tau.Neutrino said:

THe technically could have have been interputed this way or that way

28 PISS WEAK JUDGES

The high Court can BURN

He’s still a righteous c even if not guilty he ignored victims in regards to other priests.

Cymek said:

I imagine strings were pulled to get him to the high court in the first place and who knows if the good old boys club applied pressure

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/07/george-pells-supporters-will-rage-but-will-rome-join-in-david-marr

I think there are two questions:

1. Was there sufficient doubt to over-rule the jury’s decision that there was no reasonable doubt?

2. If so, is the established requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt really the best criterion for guilt or not in all cases. In particular, is it appropriate for cases where people in positions of power are charged with offences against children?

I have a reasonable doubt that anyone here has sufficient knowledge of the detailed evidence to answer question 1.

On the other hand, I think question 2 is worth discussing.

At the moment, in my opinion the answer is, I don’t know.

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

ChrispenEvan said:

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

sings:

Always look on the bright side of life,
…

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think there are two questions:

1. Was there sufficient doubt to over-rule the jury’s decision that there was no reasonable doubt?

2. If so, is the established requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt really the best criterion for guilt or not in all cases. In particular, is it appropriate for cases where people in positions of power are charged with offences against children?

I have a reasonable doubt that anyone here has sufficient knowledge of the detailed evidence to answer question 1.

On the other hand, I think question 2 is worth discussing.

At the moment, in my opinion the answer is, I don’t know.

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

If you have nothing to offer except expletives, why not go and find something else to do?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

sings:

Always look on the bright side of life,
…

i prefer

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

>But they have done what the jury and the Victorian court of appeal did not do: they have trusted absolutely the evidence of Pell’s master of ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli. This church official said he was with the archbishop at all times that morning, first on the steps of the cathedral farewelling the faithful and then in the sacristy helping him unrobe.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/07/george-pells-supporters-will-rage-but-will-rome-join-in-david-marr

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

white people have done some pretty horrendous things in their history….etc etc.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think there are two questions:

1. Was there sufficient doubt to over-rule the jury’s decision that there was no reasonable doubt?

2. If so, is the established requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt really the best criterion for guilt or not in all cases. In particular, is it appropriate for cases where people in positions of power are charged with offences against children?

I have a reasonable doubt that anyone here has sufficient knowledge of the detailed evidence to answer question 1.

On the other hand, I think question 2 is worth discussing.

At the moment, in my opinion the answer is, I don’t know.

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

if you called a wrongful conviction a false positive, you’ll notice a fair system, fair procedure, has mechanism to lower the incidence of false positives, as in beyond a reasonable doubt

of course reasonable doubt is exploitable

but, you’ll notice most behavior controls exist in the informal field anyway, including adverse attention for example, loss of credibility, alienation from resources etc

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

If you have nothing to offer except expletives, why not go and find something else to do?

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

LOL. No fucking idea how it even works and is pontificating on how they got it wrong.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-07/george-pell-high-court-of-australia-full-judgment-summary/12128468
The central question in the case was whether it was open to the jury to find George Pell guilty, or whether the jury should have had a reasonable doubt after hearing the evidence.

The prosecution relied entirely on the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

That was upheld by the Victorian Court of Appeal, which described him as a witness of truth.

The defence relied on evidence from people who worked in and around the cathedral, whose evidence suggested the opportunity for the alleged offences was unlikely.

This included then-archbishop Pell’s practice of standing on the steps outside the cathedral after mass, the tradition that he would never be alone while robed, and the hive of activity in the area near where the alleged offences were said to have happened.

Indeed, in the original trial the defence had described the evidence as showing the alleged offences were impossible.

But by the time the case reached the High Court the language had softened to improbable.
Witness vs ‘opportunity evidence’

Cardinal Pell’s lawyer set out a cogent case to explain why the jury and the Court of Appeal should have found that the “opportunity evidence’” suggested there should be reasonable doubt about his guilt.

On Tuesday the High Court agreed.

In its ruling, it took aim at the Appeal Court judgment, saying the majority had made a subjective assessment of the truthfulness of the alleged victim.

“ drove their analysis of the consistency and cogency of his evidence,” the High Court judgement said.

The High Court said that was at the expense of defence evidence which suggested there could be reasonable doubt about his account.

“The analysis failed to engage with whether, against this body of evidence, it was reasonably possible that A’s account was not correct, such that there was a reasonable doubt about the applicant’s guilt,” the court said.

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

Boris doesn’t believe there’s been any systematic institutional cover-up of Catholic sex crimes – the Royal Commission and umpteen other investigations are just spreading “conspiracy theories.”

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

sings:

Always look on the bright side of life,
…

i prefer

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

That does seem to suit your mood this morning rather better.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

What happens to the victims claims now though it is assumed they lied or were mistaken
You’d really be putting yourself on the line if you were lying to get compensation or punish Pell for some other reason

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

Boris doesn’t believe there’s been any systematic institutional cover-up of Catholic sex crimes – the Royal Commission and umpteen other investigations are just spreading “conspiracy theories.”

I don’t think Boris actually said that at all.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

If you have nothing to offer except expletives, why not go and find something else to do?

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

What happens to the victims claims now though it is assumed they lied or were mistaken
You’d really be putting yourself on the line if you were lying to get compensation or punish Pell for some other reason

Pray tell. Are there other cases pending or will new accusations arise?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

>But they have done what the jury and the Victorian court of appeal did not do: they have trusted absolutely the evidence of Pell’s master of ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli. This church official said he was with the archbishop at all times that morning, first on the steps of the cathedral farewelling the faithful and then in the sacristy helping him unrobe.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/07/george-pells-supporters-will-rage-but-will-rome-join-in-david-marr

Well I suppose David Marr probably knows the law of Australia better than I do, but on the face of it, that sound like absolute crap.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sings:

Always look on the bright side of life,
…

i prefer

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

That does seem to suit your mood this morning rather better.

ahhhh i’m fine, just get sick of the bullshit and conspiracies because people hate religion. seems all reason goes out the window. probably be accused of being a closet believer or somesuch.

Cardinal Pell is a paedophile according to the Jury decision.

The High court released a paedophile .!

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you think they did believe him?

Under the current rules to support a guilty verdict they would have to believe that he must be lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

What happens to the victims claims now though it is assumed they lied or were mistaken
You’d really be putting yourself on the line if you were lying to get compensation or punish Pell for some other reason

Pray tell. Are there other cases pending or will new accusations arise?

Have no idea

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just to repeat

fucking conspiracy theories. jesus christ.

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

Boris doesn’t believe there’s been any systematic institutional cover-up of Catholic sex crimes – the Royal Commission and umpteen other investigations are just spreading “conspiracy theories.”

now you have to lie to support your bullshit.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

If you have nothing to offer except expletives, why not go and find something else to do?

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

LOL, go fuck yourself. or are you too drunk as usual?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cardinal Pell is a paedophile according to the Jury decision.

The High court released a paedophile .!

We will need to see a lot more evidence from more underaged children at the tiime to be even able to use that word in relation to George Pell.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i prefer

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

That does seem to suit your mood this morning rather better.

ahhhh i’m fine, just get sick of the bullshit and conspiracies because people hate religion. seems all reason goes out the window. probably be accused of being a closet believer or somesuch.

Go and read the Royal Commission that spent years investigating the institutional cover-up of sex crimes in the Catholic Church. In Australia, much of that cover-up was organised by one Georgie Pell (known to several of his child victims as “Big George”).

thing is pell hasn’t been found innocent.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

The Catholic church have done some bad things in their history protecting a priest accused of child sex offences is probably nothing to them.
They care about wealth and power

Boris doesn’t believe there’s been any systematic institutional cover-up of Catholic sex crimes – the Royal Commission and umpteen other investigations are just spreading “conspiracy theories.”

I don’t think Boris actually said that at all.

It’s not some weird nutter conspiracy but something quite likely to occur.
Covering up for people in positions of power for sex crimes happens all the time.
Look at those actors in Hollywood bought down in the past few years

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That does seem to suit your mood this morning rather better.

ahhhh i’m fine, just get sick of the bullshit and conspiracies because people hate religion. seems all reason goes out the window. probably be accused of being a closet believer or somesuch.

Go and read the Royal Commission that spent years investigating the institutional cover-up of sex crimes in the Catholic Church. In Australia, much of that cover-up was organised by one Georgie Pell (known to several of his child victims as “Big George”).

Yes we know and he has been through the courts on those as well.

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

ChrispenEvan said:

thing is pell hasn’t been found innocent.

This is correct.
The prosecution has been found wanting, is all.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

LOL, go fuck yourself. or are you too drunk as usual?

Go and kiss your portrait of Her Majesty The Queen :)

And on that note, I’ll apologise to Tau for failing to ignore Boris in this thread.

And now I’m going to enjoy a fine lunch.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think there are two questions:

1. Was there sufficient doubt to over-rule the jury’s decision that there was no reasonable doubt?

2. If so, is the established requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt really the best criterion for guilt or not in all cases. In particular, is it appropriate for cases where people in positions of power are charged with offences against children?

I have a reasonable doubt that anyone here has sufficient knowledge of the detailed evidence to answer question 1.

On the other hand, I think question 2 is worth discussing.

At the moment, in my opinion the answer is, I don’t know.

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

thing is pell hasn’t been found innocent.

This is correct.
The prosecution has been found wanting, is all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cardinal Pell is a paedophile according to the Jury decision.

The High court released a paedophile .!

They have also released numerous murderers and rapists.

That’s the way it works.

If there is a “reasonable doubt” the accused goes free.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

yep.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cardinal Pell is a paedophile according to the Jury decision.

The High court released a paedophile .!

They have also released numerous murderers and rapists.

That’s the way it works.

If there is a “reasonable doubt” the accused goes free.

i think feelings should be taken into account.

;-)

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

My own opinion is that Pell is probably guilty. Just not beyond reasonable doubt. I certainly wouldn’t let my kids (if I had any) near him.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

My own opinion is that Pell is probably guilty. Just not beyond reasonable doubt. I certainly wouldn’t let my kids (if I had any) near him.

yep.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

My own opinion is that Pell is probably guilty. Just not beyond reasonable doubt. I certainly wouldn’t let my kids (if I had any) near him.

Bit late now anyway. He’d probably need viagra.

I think it’s good that we have a High Court of sober individuals with decades of experience in jurisprudence and not some wastrel sitting on the floor with a keyboard pulling on a bong to decide these things.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

For the second point – it has to be. Otherwise it will be used maliciously against innocent people.

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

+1

Peak Warming Man said:

I think it’s good that we have a High Court of sober individuals with decades of experience in jurisprudence and not some wastrel sitting on the floor with a keyboard pulling on a bong to decide these things.

pfffft BigJudge shill PWM.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In which case the decision of the high court should be supported, unless we have good evidence that they did not follow the established procedures.

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

Well there is certainly reasonable doubt that he is a liar.

It is for instance quite possible that all he said is an accurate description of what actually happened.

Or maybe those events happened, but the perpetrator was someone else.

Or similar events happened somewhere else, either with Pell or someone else.

Or some other traumatic event in his life has been translated into an event that never happened.

Or maybe he is a liar and want to get back at Pell for the other stuff he did and failed to do.

All those look like reasonable possibilities (not knowing the evidence in detail).

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

I’m accepting the High Court’s decision. It was always going to work out this way. It doesn’t need a conspiracy to understand the HC’s thinking. The simple question was is the uncorroborated evidence of the victim enough to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is no. This does not make the victim a liar, there is just not enough evidence to remove that element of doubt.

I don’t thiink the victim is a liar.

Well there is certainly reasonable doubt that he is a liar.

It is for instance quite possible that all he said is an accurate description of what actually happened.

Or maybe those events happened, but the perpetrator was someone else.

Or similar events happened somewhere else, either with Pell or someone else.

Or some other traumatic event in his life has been translated into an event that never happened.

Or maybe he is a liar and want to get back at Pell for the other stuff he did and failed to do.

All those look like reasonable possibilities (not knowing the evidence in detail).

OK. I’ll change that to ‘all victims’ in that whilst I acknowledge that some may not be recounting exactly what happened. There will be many who do.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

They are NOT the same or even similar.

>The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Bergoglio knew he couldn’t afford to abandon Pell. He’d appointed him chief money launderer for the syndicate – Pell doubtless has all kinds of dirt on them.

So I can easily envisage a quiet communication from the Vatican to the Oz government, instructing them that Pell must walk free.

A word in the judges’ ears from the appropriate government agency, a discreet offer of appropriate gratuity for their trouble, and their “learned opinion” quickly became a foregone conclusion.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

Will they text people living in Pell’s suburb that there is a paedophile in the area to to keep watch!

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now the Vatican has its “pedo” Back.

Nothings really changed has it.

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

you are incorrect.. not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are child sex offenders… it’s terminology that makes an important distinction. If you really believe your statement above you are saying it from a place of little understanding to the motivations and actions of both types of people, and little knowledge of legal processes. I will say again, a person cannot be charged with being a paedophile.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

You have a dictionary?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Will they text people living in Pell’s suburb that there is a paedophile in the area to to keep watch!

Will they text people living in Pell’s suburb that there is a child sex offender in the area to to keep watch!

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

I have asked you before, but I’ll ask again.. can you please use at least correct terminology when talking about legal issues.. the accused is charged with child sex offences.. therefore, if found guilty they are a (child) sex offender… the term paedophile is a diagnostic term outlined in the DSM- V and not something anyone can be charged with.

you are using the term to incite emotions.. and the law is free from emotions.

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

motivation, method and outcome.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

You have a dictionary?

It does injustice do a person sexual attracted to children realises it’s in appropriate and takes active steps to avoid carrying out those desires.
Child sex offenders are convicted criminals and having free will carry out the acts not caring

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I find the two are so closely interlinked to might as well be the same.

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

motivation, method and outcome.

Both criminal both involving children, both involving adults, both with bad sexual intentions.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

motivation, method and outcome.

Both criminal both involving children, both involving adults, both with bad sexual intentions.

again, you cannot be charged with being a paedophile… the criminal offence is a sex offender against children..

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

what’s the difference between

a child sex offender touching a child indecently

or

a paedophile touching a child indecently ?

You have a dictionary?

It does injustice do a person sexual attracted to children realises it’s in appropriate and takes active steps to avoid carrying out those desires.
Child sex offenders are convicted criminals and having free will carry out the acts not caring

In regards to what I said I wonder what sort of obligations by law a therapist would have if you talked to them about it wanted help and weren’t convicted of such offences
You’ve not done anything wrong so confidentiality should prevail

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

motivation, method and outcome.

Both criminal both involving children, both involving adults, both with bad sexual intentions.

again, you cannot be charged with being a paedophile… the criminal offence is a sex offender against children..

WA classifies it under the age of 12 and between the ages of 12 and 15 and depending on what occurred modifies the charge

All right there is some doubt, Ill take back burning down the high court.

Im still going with the feeling that the judges swayed towards the establishment.

but Id like to see the decision of 20 million people not 28 people.

He probably still be in jail.

People who hate the Catholic church have bias but so do supporters who believe its a sacrosanct institution that can do no wrong and those against it are evil

another thing that people forget is that criminal offences are against the state, not the victims.

A victim does not have any input into the proceedings. Victim impact statements are more for the victims to ‘have a say’ but rarely do they have an effect on the outcome or sentencing.. how do you apply a sentence to someone’s pain? (the short answer is that you can’t because you are then saying that one persons pain is worth more, or less, than another).

Similarly, a victim cannot say ‘don’t prosecute someone’ even if they wanted to. They can ‘not testify’, but that won’t stop the proceedings.

Cymek said:

People who hate the Catholic church have bias but so do supporters who believe its a sacrosanct institution that can do no wrong and those against it are evil

I think most religions have damaged humanity, Catholics, Christians and Islamists.

others like Buddhism haven’t there seems to be more laid back not so pushy.

Arts said:

another thing that people forget is that criminal offences are against the state, not the victims.

A victim does not have any input into the proceedings. Victim impact statements are more for the victims to ‘have a say’ but rarely do they have an effect on the outcome or sentencing.. how do you apply a sentence to someone’s pain? (the short answer is that you can’t because you are then saying that one persons pain is worth more, or less, than another).

Similarly, a victim cannot say ‘don’t prosecute someone’ even if they wanted to. They can ‘not testify’, but that won’t stop the proceedings.

Yes they become a hostile witness then

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

People who hate the Catholic church have bias but so do supporters who believe its a sacrosanct institution that can do no wrong and those against it are evil

I think most religions have damaged humanity, Catholics, Christians and Islamists.

others like Buddhism haven’t there seems to be more laid back not so pushy.

When faith overrides reason it gives justification to do just about anything

I guess the take home from that is that these sorts of appeals are not against the victim, not saying that the victim lied or isn’t a victim, but that the process wasn’t applied correctly.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

People who hate the Catholic church have bias but so do supporters who believe its a sacrosanct institution that can do no wrong and those against it are evil

I think most religions have damaged humanity, Catholics, Christians and Islamists.

others like Buddhism haven’t there seems to be more laid back not so pushy.

https://www.lionsroar.com/what-does-buddhism-have-to-do-with-the-ethnic-cleansing-in-myanmar/

Without having anything much to add to the discussion, I reckon it’s important to say there’s a lot of friction around the standard of proof (‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’) in sexual assault cases, as there are in other proceedings where only two people (the accused attacker, and claimed victim) could possibly know the truth – Which is why ‘On the balance of probabilities’ is used.

The expert opinion is very strongly on the ‘balance of probabilities’ side for sexual assault cases.

Bubblecar said:

Essentially the judges chose to believe Pell’s fellow gangster – in this case his servant Charlie Portelli – rather than believe the victim.

Portelli provided “Big George” with an alibi, claiming that he was with his boss at all times that morning.

It’s extremely well-known that these Catholic bigwigs and their minions will always cover for each other and are happy to lie through their teeth at the drop of a rosary.

So why did the judges believe the Mob rather than the victim? The Vatican octopus has tentacles everywhere, we may never know the whole story.

Like seven ((7)) high court judges. Plus 23 ((23)) witnesses for the defense.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

If you have nothing to offer except expletives, why not go and find something else to do?

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

Rule 303 said:

Without having anything much to add to the discussion, I reckon it’s important to say there’s a lot of friction around the standard of proof (‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’) in sexual assault cases, as there are in other proceedings where only two people (the accused attacker, and claimed victim) could possibly know the truth – Which is why ‘On the balance of probabilities’ is used.

The expert opinion is very strongly on the ‘balance of probabilities’ side for sexual assault cases.

With these sorts of cases you have a rich powerful authority with bottomless pockets and influence whose not above bullying victims into keeping quiet.
Trust seems to be gone

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

If you have nothing to offer except conspiracy theories, why not go and find something else to do?

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Plus religion is based on made up nonsense claimed as the truth with no proof so how can you take it seriously.
It’s a means to manipulate people and make money

Cymek said:

Rule 303 said:

Without having anything much to add to the discussion, I reckon it’s important to say there’s a lot of friction around the standard of proof (‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’) in sexual assault cases, as there are in other proceedings where only two people (the accused attacker, and claimed victim) could possibly know the truth – Which is why ‘On the balance of probabilities’ is used.

The expert opinion is very strongly on the ‘balance of probabilities’ side for sexual assault cases.

With these sorts of cases you have a rich powerful authority with bottomless pockets and influence whose not above bullying victims into keeping quiet.
Trust seems to be gone

I recall reading an article by a retiring Supreme Court judge, who said the jury system gets it wrong about 25% of the time.

It’s a pretty good argument against capital punishment….

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

As I said before, you’re an ignorant and naive idiot. And a waste of space in this thread.

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

You have an instinctive need to back the bad guys.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

If only had the Catholic Church supported homosexuals, Car would have been appeased.

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

You have an instinctive need to back the bad guys.

It has nothing to do with backing the bad guy, it is about whether they did, or not do the thing of which they have been charged. Even bad guys can be innocent.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

To be fair the Catholic Church authority can’t be trusted

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Judges are just lawyers in fancier dress than usual, working for the highest bidder. You trust lawyers?

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Perhaps but what does it say when people believe the Catholic church would use its influence to alter a high court decision.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think it is that, something far deeper. Some here would have been the first to recommend burning the witches and then joyfully attend every public execution. You would think there would be a little reasoning here rather than lets kill the bastard, because I have a gut feeling or simply because I hate the church.

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Perhaps

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Judges are just lawyers in fancier dress than usual, working for the highest bidder. You trust lawyers?

They might not be perfect, but if you have a better system to stop complete lawlessness, then pray do tell.

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Some of it is they set a precedence for protecting priests who sexually assaulted children and bullying the victims and past behaviour is often an indication of future behaviour so they aren’t trusted by people who aren’t members of the church.

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Perhaps but what does it say when people believe the Catholic church would use its influence to alter a high court decision.

There are SEVEN high court judges, who ALL came to the same conclusion.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

That is NOT what he is accused. If you don’t think a unanimous high court cannot reach a fair decision, then god help us all.

Judges are just lawyers in fancier dress than usual, working for the highest bidder. You trust lawyers?

They might not be perfect, but if you have a better system to stop complete lawlessness, then pray do tell.

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Judges are just lawyers in fancier dress than usual, working for the highest bidder. You trust lawyers?

They might not be perfect, but if you have a better system to stop complete lawlessness, then pray do tell.

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

They might not be perfect, but if you have a better system to stop complete lawlessness, then pray do tell.

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Fair point, its strange then they went for a jury and not trial by judge

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Fair point, its strange then they went for a jury and not trial by judge

Well it would certainly help the prosecution, so maybe they requested it.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Fair point, its strange then they went for a jury and not trial by judge

Well it would certainly help the prosecution, so maybe they requested it.

I thought that was the defences decision not sure though

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

They might not be perfect, but if you have a better system to stop complete lawlessness, then pray do tell.

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Pell was fiercely defenced by the Murdoch press, who own most Australian news outlets.

Murdoch himself is a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, bestowed on him by the Vatican for instructing his papers to follow a policy of defending the Church, while savagely attacking its victims.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Fair point, its strange then they went for a jury and not trial by judge

Well it would certainly help the prosecution, so maybe they requested it.

I thought that was the defences decision not sure though

Don’t know, but maybe worth finding out.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

The same resources and money dedicated to both prosecution and defence so its an even playing field.
You can have a prosecutor with a large caseload and limited time going up against a lawyer and their team paid for by someone with a lot of money

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Pell was fiercely defenced by the Murdoch press, who own most Australian news outlets.

Murdoch himself is a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, bestowed on him by the Vatican for instructing his papers to follow a policy of defending the Church, while savagely attacking its victims.

Well had you been viewing the other media including radio and television, especially by the ABC, they all thought he was ripe for hanging.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Then you can also have a very strong media lead “get Pell” mentality. Uninformed public opinion is not the way to run a justice system.

Pell was fiercely defenced by the Murdoch press, who own most Australian news outlets.

Murdoch himself is a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, bestowed on him by the Vatican for instructing his papers to follow a policy of defending the Church, while savagely attacking its victims.

Well had you been viewing the other media including radio and television, especially by the ABC, they all thought he was ripe for hanging.

ABC journalists conducted an excellent in-depth investigation into Pell and his doings. Thoroughly researched and thoroughly reasonable.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Well it would certainly help the prosecution, so maybe they requested it.

I thought that was the defences decision not sure though

Don’t know, but maybe worth finding out.

Think strategy, you want to end highest on acquittal.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Pell was fiercely defenced by the Murdoch press, who own most Australian news outlets.

Murdoch himself is a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, bestowed on him by the Vatican for instructing his papers to follow a policy of defending the Church, while savagely attacking its victims.

Well had you been viewing the other media including radio and television, especially by the ABC, they all thought he was ripe for hanging.

ABC journalists conducted an excellent in-depth investigation into Pell and his doings. Thoroughly researched and thoroughly reasonable.

That might depend if you were Pell or one of his persecutors. I’m sure the ABC also did one on the Dingo got my baby case too.

Predictable

Ian said:

Predictable

As has been said elsewhere, he’s quite welcome to depart for Italy now.

Via a cruise ship, perhaps.

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Predictable

As has been said elsewhere, he’s quite welcome to depart for Italy now.

Via a cruise ship, perhaps.

Or a plane, full of returning corona patients

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Predictable

As has been said elsewhere, he’s quite welcome to depart for Italy now.

Via a cruise ship, perhaps.

Or a plane, full of returning corona patients

:)

all those judges can go with him.

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Stupid hypocritical system.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Stupid hypocritical system.

I’m not happy!

Establishment over justice !!!

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

some people have plenty resources to test the prosecution claims, exhaust them with technicalities of law

in some cases the loss of status could be monumental also, a powerful motivator

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I met Pell once, top bloke, blessed my sons

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Must be a lot of other cases that have reasonable doubt or even just doubt, but have gone on to conviction and imprisonment.

Are they going to let them free too?

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

Elvis_Rieu said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Surely you have seen films where a judge tells a jury that they must have no reasonable doubt to find someone guilty.

Do you think they were just joking?

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I met Pell once, top bloke, blessed my sons

I think he is Guilty as hell and an arsehole, further I think those judges sucked up to the entablement rather than maintain justice, it also looks like they are washing over the fact they Pell knew about all the other child sex offender priests like they condoning it.

I think the Catholic church should dismiss him as Cardinal and replace him

Sooner the better, but no doubt they will take their time about it, perhaps never thus keeping things the same like that priests who wont dob in paedophile priests

and If the Catholic church got rid of all priests who object to our laws that would be even better.

This topic is over as far as I’m concerned.

I have lost trust in our legal system.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

I think there is a good case to be made for ditching juries and reverting to a European style court system.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

I think there is a good case to be made for ditching juries and reverting to a European style court system.

You’re another innocent :)

Pell belongs in Jail.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

I’m not sure Lindy Chamberlain would agree with you.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

I think there is a good case to be made for ditching juries and reverting to a European style court system.

You’re another innocent :)

There is no perfect system. Eaxh has it’s own flaws. I think the jury system has more flaws.

Those high court judges who favoured the establishment over justice did not protect the bar, they abused it.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I think there is a good case to be made for ditching juries and reverting to a European style court system.

You’re another innocent :)

There is no perfect system. Eaxh has it’s own flaws. I think the jury system has more flaws.

Go back to the days of a good old whipping

When I met Pell I got to kiss his ring, he was quite pleased with my effort

Elvis_Rieu said:

When I met Pell I got to kiss his ring, he was quite pleased with my effort

No justice was done and looks like your condoning it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Elvis_Rieu said:

When I met Pell I got to kiss his ring, he was quite pleased with my effort

No justice was done and looks like your condoning it.

I went to Catholic schools I can thank the nuns for my S&M predilection

Elvis_Rieu said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Elvis_Rieu said:

When I met Pell I got to kiss his ring, he was quite pleased with my effort

No justice was done and looks like your condoning it.

I went to Catholic schools I can thank the nuns for my S&M predilection

Your also an idiot and a troll.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Elvis_Rieu said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

No justice was done and looks like your condoning it.

I went to Catholic schools I can thank the nuns for my S&M predilection

Your also an idiot and a troll.

I’m serious those beatings with the cane did something to me

Elvis_Rieu said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Elvis_Rieu said:

I went to Catholic schools I can thank the nuns for my S&M predilection

Your also an idiot and a troll.

I’m serious those beatings with the cane did something to me

I mean don’t you find the movie Sister Act an erotic tale, that Whoopie Goldberg, phwwwaaagggghhhh

I will read the definitions on child sex offenders and paedophiles.

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

need a light ¿

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

Are ex prisoners just supposed to camp at the jail gate? I don’t think it unreasonable that they be allowed some initial travel.

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

Nothing.

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

You’ve just crossed a state border. I hope you are going into 2 weeks lockdown.

SCIENCE said:

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

need a light ¿

He will see the light then that’s for sure.

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

I’d advise him to fuck off back to Italy and take the rest of his “church” with him.

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

Now Georgie Porjie Pudding and Pell has been spotted at a petrol station on his way to Sydney.

Firstly, the need for essential travel only, doesn’t seem to apply to him.

However, What would you say to George if you were filling up at the bowser next to his?

I’d advise him to fuck off back to Italy and take the rest of his “church” with him.

Say it in Latin for added gravitas.

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

it’s the vibe, man.

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

No, so bugger off.

ChrispenEvan said:

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

it’s the vibe, man.

CE can bugger off as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

it’s the vibe, man.

CE can bugger off as well.

LOL, how old are you?

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

Seems pejorative, but I’ll allow it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

No, so bugger off.

If I’ve got any of it wrong, please, by all means, correct me.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s the vibe, man.

CE can bugger off as well.

LOL, how old are you?

I’m going to bed.

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

btm said:

So, basically, TN, you’ve had no legal training, you don’t know the law, you don’t know what evidence was presented to the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented at the appeal, you haven’t read the judges’ decision documents, but you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

Have I got that right?

No, so bugger off.

If I’ve got any of it wrong, please, by all means, correct me.

You got the whole thing wrong.

Tau.Neutrino said:

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

No, so bugger off.

If I’ve got any of it wrong, please, by all means, correct me.

You got the whole thing wrong.

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

CE can bugger off as well.

LOL, how old are you?

I’m going to bed.

Without your supper?

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

btm said:

If I’ve got any of it wrong, please, by all means, correct me.

You got the whole thing wrong.

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

I agree with Tau.

Bubblecar said:

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You got the whole thing wrong.

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

I agree with Tau.

LOL.

Bubblecar said:

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You got the whole thing wrong.

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

I agree with Tau.

Because of…the vibe?

Bubblecar said:

btm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You got the whole thing wrong.

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

I agree with Tau.

About everything?

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

btm said:

Well, I know you’ve had no legal training, because you’ve said so in the past.
I know you don’t know the law, from your comments last year (the year before?) about the law not being written in English therefore having no standing.
Unless you were in the jury, you don’t know what evidence was presented to them.
Unless you were actually in court for the appeal (it was held in a closed court, so you weren’t), you don’t know what evidence was presented to the judges.
You might have read the judges’ finding, but from your comments here that’s unlikely.
Your comments here indicate that you think Pell is guilty and should be in prison.

What have I got wrong?

I agree with Tau.

Because of…the vibe?

Something like a reverse Brownie points system I think. He’s got enough to add up to the badge even if he can’t be nailed down for one thing beyond reasonable doubt.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I don’t know what they did.

It has nothing to do with it.

Ultimately the High Court has the power to decide if there has been a mistake in the application of the law.

If we are expected to trust lawyers over and above members of the public, why bother with jury trials?

Just send each case straight to this or that high, supreme, right honourable etc nest of bent lawyers.

Jesus Christ, just look at yourself, some here expect a great deal more from you.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Elvis_Rieu said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Did the jury joke about it in Pell’s case.?

I met Pell once, top bloke, blessed my sons

I think he is Guilty as hell and an arsehole, further I think those judges sucked up to the entablement rather than maintain justice, it also looks like they are washing over the fact they Pell knew about all the other child sex offender priests like they condoning it.

I think the Catholic church should dismiss him as Cardinal and replace him

Sooner the better, but no doubt they will take their time about it, perhaps never thus keeping things the same like that priests who wont dob in paedophile priests

and If the Catholic church got rid of all priests who object to our laws that would be even better.

This topic is over as far as I’m concerned.

I have lost trust in our legal system.

Well that is your opinion Tau, I’m so very pleased that you are not connected with our legal system.

If you are facing a criminal trial at the district or supreme court you may have the option of applying for a judge-only trial or facing a trial by jury.

The right decision will depend on your individual circumstances and the nature of the case. It is a good idea to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible if you believe that a judge-alone trial may be more appropriate for your situation.

In cases where there is a lot of publicity, which is likely to prejudice potential jurors against you, it may be more beneficial to choose a judge-alone trial.

If you are dealing with a complex or potentially lengthy matter, a judge-alone trial may also be better as a judge will have a better understanding of the legal complexities involved.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-better-to-have-a-jury-trial-or-a-judge-alone-trial/

Summary in my opinion.

The judges in the high court are a disgrace.

1 Their decision looks like condoning the cover up of paedophile ring of priests which Pell knew of and was probably part of.

2 They swayed towards the establishment and away from justice.

3 They abused the bar and failed to protect it.

4 They let a child sex abuser back into the community.

5 They have to live with that in the history books.

Pell is a creep.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Summary in my opinion.

The judges in the high court are a disgrace.

1 Their decision looks like condoning the cover up of paedophile ring of priests which Pell knew of and was probably part of.

2 They swayed towards the establishment and away from justice.

3 They abused the bar and failed to protect it.

4 They let a child sex abuser back into the community.

5 They have to live with that in the history books.

Waste of time putting it anywhere.
If you are aware of the other accusations and evidence out there to bring him before the courrts again. Concentrate upon those. This one is an an end.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Pell is a creep.

He belongs to a creepy institution. Until the rats come out from the sinking ship, we have to wait.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Summary in my opinion.

The judges in the high court are a disgrace.

1 Their decision looks like condoning the cover up of paedophile ring of priests which Pell knew of and was probably part of.

2 They swayed towards the establishment and away from justice.

3 They abused the bar and failed to protect it.

4 They let a child sex abuser back into the community.

5 They have to live with that in the history books.

Waste of time putting it anywhere.
If you are aware of the other accusations and evidence out there to bring him before the courrts again. Concentrate upon those. This one is an an end.

Justice was not done

The End.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Summary in my opinion.

The judges in the high court are a disgrace.

1 Their decision looks like condoning the cover up of paedophile ring of priests which Pell knew of and was probably part of.

2 They swayed towards the establishment and away from justice.

3 They abused the bar and failed to protect it.

4 They let a child sex abuser back into the community.

5 They have to live with that in the history books.

Waste of time putting it anywhere.
If you are aware of the other accusations and evidence out there to bring him before the courrts again. Concentrate upon those. This one is an an end.

Fair do’s, it’s just as silly as your crap

“threat fret?
They are simply asking people like George Pell to cough up for the cover up. It is hard times as you know.”

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Summary in my opinion.

The judges in the high court are a disgrace.

1 Their decision looks like condoning the cover up of paedophile ring of priests which Pell knew of and was probably part of.

2 They swayed towards the establishment and away from justice.

3 They abused the bar and failed to protect it.

4 They let a child sex abuser back into the community.

5 They have to live with that in the history books.

Waste of time putting it anywhere.
If you are aware of the other accusations and evidence out there to bring him before the courrts again. Concentrate upon those. This one is an an end.

Fair do’s, it’s just as silly as your crap

“threat fret?
They are simply asking people like George Pell to cough up for the cover up. It is hard times as you know.”

Just attracting his attention.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Waste of time putting it anywhere.
If you are aware of the other accusations and evidence out there to bring him before the courrts again. Concentrate upon those. This one is an an end.

Fair do’s, it’s just as silly as your crap

“threat fret?
They are simply asking people like George Pell to cough up for the cover up. It is hard times as you know.”

Just attracting his attention.

Same as I can attract yours.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Fair do’s, it’s just as silly as your crap

“threat fret?
They are simply asking people like George Pell to cough up for the cover up. It is hard times as you know.”

Just attracting his attention.

Same as I can attract yours.

Heheh, responses to individuals don’t count when you respond to every.single.bloody.post.

George Pell says inmates of Barwon jail cheered when acquittal was handed down
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/george-pell-fellow-inmates-cheered-when-acquittal-announced/12136116

3

LOL

Tau.Neutrino said:

George Pell says inmates of Barwon jail cheered when acquittal was handed down
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/george-pell-fellow-inmates-cheered-when-acquittal-announced/12136116

3

LOL

Maybe they were sick of him dropping the soap in the shower every bloody time…

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Just attracting his attention.

Same as I can attract yours.

Heheh, responses to individuals don’t count when you respond to every.single.bloody.post.

You aren’t counting, just spouting shit.

sodium pentanol

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

ahhhh here it is.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

ahhhh here it is.

and there we thought you were making a funny, some kind metaphor on it, close your eyes and it didn’t happen, that kind of thing

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

ahhhh here it is.

and there we thought you were making a funny, some kind metaphor on it, close your eyes and it didn’t happen, that kind of thing

I don’t make funnies, just ask sibeen.

:-)

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I feel that the high court has let many people down.

They have punished the victims again.

The judges swayed towards the establishment rather than justice.

Justice was not done.

I have no trust in the High Court

I believe the victims.

ahhhh here it is.

and there we thought you were making a funny, some kind metaphor on it, close your eyes and it didn’t happen, that kind of thing

Boris doesn’t respect the indignation of those who side with the victims. We are “haters”.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ahhhh here it is.

and there we thought you were making a funny, some kind metaphor on it, close your eyes and it didn’t happen, that kind of thing

Boris doesn’t respect the indignation of those who side with the victims. We are “haters”.

wibble.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

and there we thought you were making a funny, some kind metaphor on it, close your eyes and it didn’t happen, that kind of thing

Boris doesn’t respect the indignation of those who side with the victims. We are “haters”.

wibble.

No, it’s actually pretty obvious.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

Boris doesn’t respect the indignation of those who side with the victims. We are “haters”.

wibble.

No, it’s actually pretty obvious.

waffle.

Have you ever apologised or admitted any error in your life, Boris?

You’re looking like a complete cunt as things stand.

Bubblecar said:

Have you ever apologised or admitted any error in your life, Boris?

You’re looking like a complete cunt as things stand.

whatever.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

Have you ever apologised or admitted any error in your life, Boris?

You’re looking like a complete cunt as things stand.

whatever.

I take it that’s a “no”.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

Have you ever apologised or admitted any error in your life, Boris?

You’re looking like a complete cunt as things stand.

whatever.

I take it that’s a “no”.

:-)

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

Transition!!! SCIENCE is using we!!!

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

Boris is unpleasant.

I like most of the other posters :)

SCIENCE would have said:

Boris is unpleasant like most of the other posters :)

Including ourselves, just to be clear.

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE would have said:

Boris is unpleasant like most of the other posters :)

Including ourselves, just to be clear.

you’re OK just a bit obscure at times.

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE would have said:

Boris is unpleasant like most of the other posters :)

Including ourselves, just to be clear.

Speak for yourself. I’m a fundamentally nice old man, not long for this world.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE would have said:

Boris is unpleasant like most of the other posters :)

Including ourselves, just to be clear.

Speak for yourself. I’m a fundamentally nice old man, not long for this world.

well we’re not here to be nice, we’re here to find the TRUTH about COVID-19

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

in reality, the only shooting we have done is with time-reversed photons

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

sheesh that’s not what we were going for, can’t we all just shake hands and get along

we mean, we can’t, but you know what we mean

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

dv said:

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

No reason why not. And sibeen is handy when the cricket is on.

dv said:

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

He has actually said on occasion: “I don’t GAF what anyone thinks of me”. That’s Trump talk.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

He has actually said on occasion: “I don’t GAF what anyone thinks of me”. That’s Trump talk.

umm it would seem Trump cares greatly what people think of him

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

He has actually said on occasion: “I don’t GAF what anyone thinks of me”. That’s Trump talk.

umm it would seem Trump cares greatly what people think of him

True, enough to make it clear that he doesn’t GAF what they think of him.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

:)

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I’m a man who freely apologises when I’m in the wrong.

Boris is in the wrong now and then, like most of us, but never apologises. There’s a lesson there.

He has actually said on occasion: “I don’t GAF what anyone thinks of me”. That’s Trump talk.

“What others think of me is none of my business” – Eleanor Roosevelt

dv said:

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

I have never hated anyone, even people I was trying yo shoot.

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I dislike everyone equally. and hope they return the favour…

Arts said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

yo = to

can’t we all except sibeen just get along?

I dislike everyone equally. and hope they return the favour…

commie