Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
cynic said:
Let's not pretend anything about what does and does not happen!

If I were to accuse you of molesting me as a child, would you not want stronger evidence than merely my say so, before being sentenced to gaol, registered as a sex offender for life, publicly vilified etcetera?
Click to expand...
What simplistic rubbish you sprout Cynic. I don't know you from Adam. You don't know me. We have no relationship in any way. Taking you at face value in what universe would anyway take such an accusation seriously ?
______________________________________________
There are really strong legal processes for testing peoples accusations. How about respecting the process that has been undertaken in George Pells case to ensure his million dollar defense had every opportunity to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror.

And in the end the jury believed the victim (as well as his friend ho went off the rails and died as a result of the abuse)
 
Perhaps this story sums up the situation.

Pell thought the boys would never tell. One did - and millions believe
Send via Email
The child abuse royal commission and its revelations about the extent of the Catholic Church's crimes against children formed the shock and grief stage of our response to this global tragedy. The conviction and sentencing of disgraced cardinal George Pell for child sex crimes has brought forth the anger.

As the ugliness of crimes by church figures, the cover-ups, and the damage done was revealed over five years of the royal commission, people were numbed. There were tears, but the magnitude of what had occurred and the horrifying culpability of the church required time to come to terms with after the commission's final report in December, 2017.

.... Royal commission chair Justice Peter McClellan summed up well why institutional child sexual abuse continued for so long in this country, in one of his final speeches before the final report was made public. Police in Sydney and Melbourne had an “understanding ... for many years” about protecting church figures accused of child sex allegations, Justice McClellan said.

This “understanding” reflected a broader view that the community would suffer if its “pillars” were exposed as criminals, so that "assumed stability of society was seen to be more important than the protection of the child or justice for children through the prosecution of offenders”, he said.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/pell-20190313-p513ya.html
 
Value Collector said:
The fact is many Christian groups do follow dogma that harms children both directly and indirectly.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding what are agreed to be heinous transgressions:

1/ what are these dogmas that harm children?

2/ which Christian groups practice such dogmas?
 
basilio said:
What simplistic rubbish you sprout Cynic. I don't know you from Adam. You don't know me. We have no relationship in any way. Taking you at face value in what universe would anyway take such an accusation seriously ?
Click to expand...
What universe, you ask! This universe, apparently!
______________________________________________
There are really strong legal processes for testing peoples accusations. How about respecting the process that has been undertaken in George Pells case to ensure his million dollar defense had every opportunity to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror.

And in the end the jury believed the victim (as well as his friend ho went off the rails and died as a result of the abuse)
Click to expand...
That seems to be the problem!

The jury was faced with a situation where it was the plaintiff's word against the defendant'.

It would appear that the jury chose to believe the plaintiff and disbelieve the defendant.

Apart from their conflicting testimonies, what evidence was presented?

It is my understanding that the now deceased friend, had, whilst alive, denied that the abuse, alleged by his friend, had ever taken place!
 
basilio said:
So you reckon it's simple Cynic ? Anyone can just make an accusation against the third most powerful Catholic in the world and get it accepted by the police, the DPP, a committal court and a unanimous 12 person jury with just a persons word?
Click to expand...

Nothing is simple.

Pell may well have done what he was convicted of, I have my doubts but the jury didn't, so he's now it gaol.

I don't think "real" pedophiles ever give up. It's like a sickness they can't get over. A couple of events in an otherwise "blameless" life (as the judge said) doesn't add up to the villain that he's portrayed to be in my view. I think he's very arrogant with not a lot of respect for humble mortals but that doesn't make him a monster in my opinion.

If he is being punished for covering up for others, then that is a different matter for which he should be charged.
 
Darc Knight said:
???

Have you read the Bible? Particularly the New Testament? Anything other than the Bible is NOT the word of God. Love, benevolence, self sacrifice for your fellow man. That's why they have nothing, are supposed to pursue nothing except the path of Jesus.

Stuff it if I could do it. I've seen true Christians die very young, used and abused. Sacrificing their life for others.
Click to expand...

Dude there is like 10,000 brands of Christians, all believeing different things, and I don’t think any of them would accept you as an authority on what is and isn’t “Christian”

The Bible is a big book of multiple choice, that can be interpreted in many ways, and again I doubt many of the 10,000+ brands of Christians would accept you as an authority on its correct interpretation.

For example “Christians” have killed there children by denying medical treatment or trying to beat badness out of them eg spare the rod spoil the child etc
 
Value Collector said:
Dude there is like 10,000 brands of Christians, all believeing different things, and I don’t think any of them would accept you as an authority on what is and isn’t “Christian”

The Bible is a big book of multiple choice, that can be interpreted in many ways, and again I doubt many of the 10,000+ brands of Christians would accept you as an authority on its correct interpretation.

For example “Christians” have killed there children by denying medical treatment or trying to beat badness out of them eg spare the rod spoil the child etc
Click to expand...

You haven't got a clue. The Bible is the word of God, having been brought up by a Christian. Anything else outside the Bible is NOT.
You're just grinding an Axe.
 
SirRumpole said:
Nothing is simple.

Pell may well have done what he was convicted of, I have my doubts but the jury didn't, so he's now it gaol.

I don't think "real" pedophiles ever give up. It's like a sickness they can't get over. A couple of events in an otherwise "blameless" life (as the judge said) doesn't add up to the villain that he's portrayed to be in my view. I think he's very arrogant with not a lot of respect for humble mortals but that doesn't make him a monster in my opinion.

If he is being punished for covering up for others, then that is a different matter for which he should be charged.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a view on this. Obviously.

I suggest that the view that Cardinal Pell has only transgressed a couple of times may be misinformed.
Yes the judge said he lived an otherwise "blameless" life. He had to say that because strictly speaking Cardinal Pell has never been convicted of any other sexual offence.

On the hand there are at least two separate accusations made against Cardinal Pell. These have not resulted in criminal charges because the police/DPP didn't believe they had a sufficiently strong legal case. Which means of course no reference can be made in any trial.

In my view the Judge made quite strong observations of the way in which Cardinal Pell took control of the boys in his sacristy and a month later on in the corridor. The subtext of that, was suggesting that this was a person who was practiced at such behaviours. We may never know is there are other victims because unless they are willing to come forward, willing to make statements and be prepared to face the pressures of a trial nothing will happen.

This was a relatively unusual case in terms of child sexual abuse. The victim who came forward did not have the personal baggage that many such people have carried. His friend had broken down, become a heroin addict and died of an overdose. Around Ballarat the numbers of suicides, mental health problems and drug problems attributable to sex abuse by local religious is very marked. But these people rarely make strong and believable witnesses. But the victim who testified is reasonably intact despite ongoing anxiety. He was credible.
 
Does anyone know if the choir boy who is now deceased, provide a statement to police before he passed away?
 
You people do realise a lot of the charity work being done out there is done by Christians. Bad apples and bad behaviours of a few is giving the rest, the good ones the charitable ones, a bad name and a hard time.

@Tink you give Christians a bad name on here by your adulation of a lying, sociopathic, sexual predator, who worships money and doesn't care about the sick, the poor the less fortunate etc. The complete opposite of a Christian.

I'm not a Christian but I've sadly seen those who are, those who are too busy trying to help others to care for themselves. Those good charitable self sacrificing people don't need the grief due to a few bad apples.
 
SirRumpole said:
I don't think so. Apparently he always denied anything happened.
Click to expand...
I have read that he denied anything happening. Who did he deny that to? Because if it was, say his parents, would they not be great witnesses in Pells defence? ( I think Pell did it, but we are not being told the full story by the media).
 
Macquack said:
Does anyone know if the choir boy who is now deceased, provide a statement to police before he passed away?
Click to expand...
Macquack said:
I have read that he denied anything happening. Who did he deny that to? Because if it was, say his parents, would they not be great witnesses in Pells defence? ( I think Pell did it, but we are not being told the full story by the media).
Click to expand...
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...l/news-story/4016aac84126940efbbcb84798e6f3ec
 
Macquack said:
That article did not say he told his mother that he was not abused by Pell.
The angle of that story was that by inference, the deceased choirboy did not use the abuse at Pell's hands as an excuse to get a lesser sentence in a case against the choirboy.
Click to expand...
According to that Courier Mail article, I linked earlier, Sgt Reed testified that the mother had asked her boy, in 2001, if he had ever been "interfered with or touched up",whilst in the choir.(To which she said he'd said no.)
Furthermore, the father was told that he'd never been sexually assualted ,or mistreated, by any person.
 
bellenuit said:
That is what I read too. But the impression I got was that his mother thought he was hiding something or holding back something, rather than it being an emphatic denial.
Click to expand...

Yes, his parents said he went downhill fast at the time of the (alleged) incident but whether it had anything to do with the abuse was not known.
 
Darc Knight said:
You haven't got a clue. The Bible is the word of God, having been brought up by a Christian. Anything else outside the Bible is NOT.
You're just grinding an Axe.
Click to expand...

No, the Bible is the word of men, and is interpreted by each Christian group differently, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many different groups of Christians.

————

saying any Christian that does something bad is obviously not a Christian, Is like saying any Australian that breaks Australian Law is obviously not Australian.

Eg.in your opinion, No Australian has ever committed a crime, because the fact that they Broke Australian Law is evidence they weren’t a “TRUE” Australian to begin with.

See how silly it is to claim that any Christian that breaks biblical rules can’t be a Christian.

It’s simply the no true Scotsman fallacy, it’s an appeal to purity.
 
Top