|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2019 15:15:50 GMT 10
When he's not trolling, he's spamming.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 27, 2019 18:36:02 GMT 10
So … the third-ranking dress-wearing priest bullshiter from the world's biggest paedophile ring, the roman catholic church, has been convicted of kid-fucking and is now languishing in the slammer awaiting sentencing for his sicko crimes. I wonder if the spotlight will now move up to the highest-ranking dress-wearing con-artist within that organisation?
Oh, how the mighty fall, eh?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2019 21:18:03 GMT 10
KTJ loves to repeat himself
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 13, 2019 12:30:14 GMT 10
So ... now it can be said ...
Both John Howard and Tony Abbott are supporters of a “convicted” and “sentenced to jail” kidfucker.
Kinda says a lot about their morals, eh?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 13, 2019 13:39:11 GMT 10
Grandstanding on two boards now is it KTJ?
How 'bout we put KTJs spamming into a barbershop quartet ditty
You gotta cut a little Paste a little If you wanna grandstand a little That's the story of That's the glory of Trolling ... with Kay Tee Jaaaay ....
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 13, 2019 17:51:25 GMT 10
Bad day to be one of those roman catholics, eh?
I'll forgive you lashing out because of that.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 13, 2019 18:24:17 GMT 10
I reckon now its time to turn the magnifying-glass on the former Hitler Youth member, Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. He has this really shifty look about him. I reckon he looks like a paedophile.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 13, 2019 19:20:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 15, 2019 10:24:55 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 15, 2019 12:00:01 GMT 10
Spams two boards with the same post. You have some sort of spam quota KTJ?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 15, 2019 12:13:51 GMT 10
I didn't start the two threads about the same topic.
All I'm doing is covering both bases (which were started by other people).
Perhaps you could persuade Jody to merge the two threads?
Then there would be no need to cover both bases.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 1, 2019 12:09:18 GMT 10
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/01/the-george-pell-story-is-a-long-way-from-ending-even-if-he-wins-his-appealHis appeal is scheduled to be heard in the Court of Appeal this coming Wednesday so it will dominate the news. Now before the religion bashing trolls jump in with their god-bashing, faith-trashing hate mail and hate speech, let me make a couple of points of my own: 1. Spare a thought for the victims of clerical child abuse. Not just in the Australian state of Victoria but around the world because the sordid story will be aired all over again and this case gets reported around the world. He was found guilty by a jury in a criminal trial and sentenced by a Supreme Court judge. Nothing will ever bring full and permanent closure to the victims of abuse but that verdict and sentence would have helped. Pell is exercising his right to appeal his guilty verdict and I’m not suggesting he doesn’t have that right. But it comes at a cost. 2. I agree with David Marr that however it pans out in the Court of Appeal, the loser will appeal to the High Court of Australia so it won’t stop at Wednesday’s proceedings. I don’t know what to think of this process. If Pell is really Innocent then not only is he entitled to appeal, he ought to appeal. On the other hand if he’s guilty and his appeal is based on a lie then I hope they increase his sentence and that he dies in jail. 3. But as is appropriate on the Religion Board, the main consideration for Christians and for people of faith generally is the profound crisis of faith and morals that the Pell case highlights. I’m thinking of Luke 17:2 and Matthew 18:6.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 19, 2019 15:05:26 GMT 10
George Pell and the meaning of ‘reasonable doubt’George Pell's verdict will stand or fall this week on the question of reasonable doubt. But what exactly does that mean in this case?DAVID WARD AUG 19, 2019 www.crikey.com.au/2019/08/19/george-pell-appeal-reasonable-doubt/ George Pell’s appeal against his conviction of child sexual assault turns on one question that resists examination and another that must survive it. What is a reasonable doubt? Was it reasonable for the jury that convicted him not to have it? Two days of courtroom submissions in early June left us little the wiser on the first question. The ensuing analysis was more intent on exploring the narrative possibilities than the basis for them. On Wednesday we’ll learn whether the jury’s guilty verdict is affirmed or set aside. Either way, the reasons provided will offer an overdue insight into the uncertain latitudes of reasonable doubt. The High Court authority to which the Victorian Court of Appeal must defer is 25 years old and not overly expansive: “A reasonable doubt experienced by the court is a doubt which a reasonable jury ought to have experienced”. The court must examine the evidence afresh and decide for itself whether it proves the charges to the required standard. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard of proof, that much we know. Beyond that, its meaning is still somewhere on the spectrum between self-evident and inescapably subjective. Justice Chris Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal and one of the judges who will decide Pell’s fate, spoke to the blurred contours of the task during the hearing. “It’s the very inscrutability of the verdict that is its most striking feature,” he said, contemplating the task of getting inside the jury’s mind. “We have to give reasons. They don’t.” Even before the appeal it was difficult to understand how a jury could have been sufficiently doubt-free to convict. The uncorroborated evidence of a single witness usually isn’t enough to ground a conviction. In this case the improbability of the offending was supported by about 20 witnesses at the trial and remarked upon by two of the judges during the appeal. Those witnesses placed Pell in locations that would have made it very difficult for him to commit the crimes at the specified times. It would have required a number of church officials and functionaries to coincidentally depart from their normal practices and for Melbourne’s (then) newly-appointed archbishop to push the extremities of risk-taking. A dry recounting of the case details does little to dispel the reasonable doubts. The victim’s account changed during the investigation and again under cross-examination at trial. The case put to the jury by the Crown differed again from the victim’s final evidence. The abuse was only reported after the second victim died of a drug overdose in 2014, having denied being abused. The dates of the offending were also subject to variation — at least one other date was proffered and then withdrawn. Inconsistencies in a victim’s recollection of sexual abuse are no longer regarded as inherently adverse to the victim’s credibility. There is general acceptance of forensic authority that the passage of time — in this case, 22 years — can affect a victim’s recollection of detail without rendering the memory inaccurate or unreliable. Nor is denial unusual in victims of abuse. But these belated acknowledgements go some way to negating a disadvantage rather than conferring an advantage. They don’t lower the standard of proof or shift the onus of establishing it. That Pell was advised against taking the stand probably reflected a realistic concern that he would not make a particularly sympathetic witness. That the victim was plainly a most convincing witness suggests the renowned demolition tactics of Pell’s trial QC, Robert Richter, backfired badly. Richter said the victim was a “fantasist” and his story an impossibility. The witness held up. The question for the court is whether that is enough to overcome the significant improbabilities and high standard of proof. A remark ventured by Justice Mark Weinberg on the first day of the appeal may prove instructive. “It’s unfortunate in some ways that the case was pitched at the level of impossibility”, the judge said. “The risk of running it that way is that the jury, faced with competing arguments, answers the wrong question. It answers the question: was it possible?” We don’t know whether the jury applied the standard of proof correctly because juries don’t give reasons. We do know the victim’s testimony was given by closed-circuit television away from the court, and the first jury couldn’t reach a verdict. We know the second jury watched a recording of the same evidence and the appeal court judges watched the same recording. So the proper deference an appeal court owes to the jury is diminished. Should the judgment go Pell’s way, it won’t be a victory for arcane legal logic over common justice. It will simply mean the high standard of proof that still applies was not met in this exceptional case. It will portend a great deal more if the trial verdict holds because it will vindicate the high value placed on the first-hand testimony of victims. The two other grounds of the appeal are not likely to have occupied the court for long. The verdict will stand or fall on the question of reasonable doubt. “Each of us has had very wide experience of the circumstances that can give rise to a doubt,” said Justice Maxwell, presumably in reference to his two colleagues. There is every reason to believe they’ll get it right.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 23, 2019 6:34:41 GMT 10
Curious how it's always that people want God to stop other people's sinful acts, just not their own.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 23, 2019 10:00:34 GMT 10
Curious how it's always that people want God to stop other people's sinful acts, just not their own. What about your god's evil, sinful acts? Jealousy, anger, wanting to torture & burn humans for eternity, etc. Wouldn't you say your god is a nasty, sadistic narcissist? Just as well it's only a delusion in human minds, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 23, 2019 11:46:41 GMT 10
Curious how it's always that people want God to stop other people's sinful acts, just not their own. What about your god's evil, sinful acts? Jealousy, anger, wanting to torture & burn humans for eternity, etc. Wouldn't you say your god is a nasty, sadistic narcissist? Just as well it's only a delusion in human minds, eh? You are wrong. The wages of sin was/is death. We chose that. Hell is the consequence. It's as much about 'punishment', as gravity is, for choosing to step off a tall building. God didn't send us to Hell, we did. Narcissism is thinking that you are 'good' enough to not need a saviour. God gave you an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 23, 2019 11:59:05 GMT 10
Hell is an evil concept dreamed up by religionists to scare people into believing their god is a real god and not some delusion in human beings' minds.
And you have obviously fallen for that fairytale bullshit ... hook, line & sinker.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2019 9:42:34 GMT 10
Hell is an evil concept dreamed up by religionists to scare people into believing their god is a real god and not some delusion in human beings' minds. And you have obviously fallen for that fairytale bullshit ... hook, line & sinker. ...Unless it isn't
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 24, 2019 10:25:58 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2019 11:42:12 GMT 10
Arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Sooner or later you realize the pig likes it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 24, 2019 12:01:05 GMT 10
Arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Sooner or later you realize the pig likes it. [img
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 24, 2019 20:17:37 GMT 10
Arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Sooner or later you realize the pig likes it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 24, 2019 21:11:07 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 25, 2019 13:50:43 GMT 10
The Vatican tends to take the long view. It doesn’t rush things and moves in imperceptible little steps. It took until the 1990s for the Vatican to declare that it might have been a bit too harsh with Galileo when, back in the 1500s the Inquisition arrested him and took him down to the dungeons to show him the instruments of torture to encourage him to recant over his stated view that the earth revolves around the sun. Joan of Arc was burned alive as a witch back in the 1400s and they didn’t give her a saint’s gong for another 500 years. In the 1920s. Not that I necessarily approve of Joan of Arc who was probably certifiably schizophrenic with her “voices”. Who knows! These days with the right medication and therapy she might be able to live a normal life in the obscurity of her home village. She didn’t deserve to get burned at the stake. The fascist National Front in France has adopted Joan as a bit of an icon so I’m a bit dubious about Joan!
So how does all this relate to Pell? Apparently the Vatican is waiting for the judicial processes in the Pell case to play themselves out in Australia and then they intend to try the case themselves in the Vatican. This isn’t down to Pope Francis. This is the Vatican Establishment at work doing its thing. The Vatican is still a nation with whom many countries have diplomatic relations. No good sneering at the absurdity. The Papal States were a “thing” until the unification of Italy in the 1870s when they were abolished and the Papacy was physically reduced to the area of the Vatican in Rome. It was Mussolini who signed up to the deal whereby the Vatican is not legally a part of Italy. Yes I agree it’s a legitimate issue for debate but maybe on another thread. So we are where we are on the Vatican. It will try the Pell case under church law. What’s going on? Why not accept the outcome of the Australian judicial processes? I think it’s their way of stripping Pell of his cardinalship. Conceivably if Francis dies and there’s a new papal conclave to elect a new Pope and Pell is still a cardinal you’ll have the spectacle of a convicted paedophile sitting in a conclave to elect a pope. Not a good look!
Imagine if the Vatican process finds him not guilty! He’ll have finished his sentence by the time the Vatican is done with trying him. Saint George Pell, patron saint of paedophiles!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 18, 2019 12:30:32 GMT 10
Pell’s defence team have lodged an application to the High Court of Australia as a last resort to have his conviction for kid rape quashed. Now Pell has every right to take this step so I offer no criticism of him for taking it. I will point to the costs incurred so far by Pell in defending himself against the charges. In his jury trial his barrister was a “silk”. What we call these days an S.C. or “Senior Counsel”. We used to call them Q.C. or “Queen’s Counsel” but dropped the monarchical reference as part of the way that these days we fudge the embarrassing fact that our head of state is a very old lady who lives in a collection of luxurious palaces in a fogbound island country off the coast of Europe. The S.C.’s name is Robert Richter and among Melbourne silks if you’re facing criminal charges and you need the best legal defence money can buy, Richter is the best. And he doesn’t come cheap! We’re talking $20 000 a day. A day! Who can afford that type of money particularly when you require his services over weeks or even months?
That was just the jury trial. After that came the appeal court. Were costs awarded against the appellant when the three Supreme Court judges rejected Pell’s appeal? I can’t recall. It would have amounted to hundreds of thousands of $$$. To this you’d have to add the legal bill Pell would have to pay to his lawyers. Big money.
Pause there for a moment with the bean counting because you have to ask who is picking up Pell’s tab. I repeat that Pell is only doing what he has the perfect right to do which is to defend himself in court and to pursue every legal avenue. My gut answer to the question “who is picking up Pell’s tab” is, of course, the Catholic Church but they strenuously deny that they are. It’s too easy to be cynical about this and scoff that “the Catholic Church would say that wouldn’t they!” and on reflection I’m inclined to believe them. Given the dire situation the Catholic Church is in as regards the scourge of paedophilia in its ranks and the egregious reluctance of the hierarchy to deal with it, the optics of the Catholic Church delving into its vast bottomless coffers to bankroll Pell’s legal case would be appalling. However Pell’s case is being funded, it’s with zero transparency. Somebody is bankrolling him but it’s being done the way Catholics and Masons have always done these things - by activating networks and calling in favours.
Now to the High Court.
Will the HC be the last port of call in the Pell case? Under Australian law, yes. After that it moves to the Vatican and a whole new Byzantine ballgame noted for its opacity and casuistry. I’ll come back to that but first let’s deal with the High Court of Australia. The HC first has to decide whether or not it will hear the Pell matter. It might well decide that it’s all been dealt with in the Victorian judicial system and that there’s no case there for the HC to deal with. On the other hand it may decide that the Pell case brings up points of law that it needs to rule on as Australia’s highest court. This is what conservatives often decry as “lawfare” but it must be so. The High Court, as the highest court in the land, has to rule on what governments are able to do and on what other courts are able to do. That’s its job. So its judgements are benchmarks. In effect more than any other court, in interpreting the nation’s constitution and judgements handed down by other courts, the High Court makes laws. In bean counter terms this is big bikkies. If you manage to get the High Court to look at your case you’re going to be up for millions of $$$. So the “networks” haven’t finished coughing up in the Pell case.
If the HC throws out the Pell appeal then Pell goes back to his jail for rock spiders. If the HC upholds the Pell appeal then yes Pell walks but not as a man vindicated. The HC rules on points of law, not fact. Personally Pell is finished. There’s no going back from what he’s gone through. But let’s assume that the HC rejects the Pell appeal. What then? It means for the Vatican that a large and smelly dead cat has landed in its lap. Pell is still a Cardinal with the entitlement to sit as a member of the very select conclave that elects a new Pope when Pope Francis shuffles off this mortal coil and at age 82 we’re not talking long term future. A convicted paedophile with a vote to elect the Pope? How will that look? So strip him of his cardinalship? Not so fast! This is the Catholic Church remember! It took them 500 years to admit that Galileo might have had a point about the earth orbiting the sun and it took 700 years for them to admit that they might have been a bit too harsh with Joan of Arc. Welcome to the Byzantine world of the Vatican and canon law. It will all be tried again. If Pell survives the next three years at the end of which he will be released on parole, he remains on parole for three years after that. So he doesn’t get to travel without the sayso of the parole board. This case will consume the rest of Pell’s life.
Don’t feel too bad about him. His victim is under sentence too, remember.
|
|