George Pell has been re-homed now, Tim


#2147

Used to have a big signwriting business which made Corrections lot of money at Ararat Jail which was once like a hospital for the criminally insane. Before it went back to being a prison for sex offenders.


#2148

I doubt that.
He’ll go to the secco joint at Ararat I reckon.
Medium security, has walls, and is full of kuntz like him.


#2149

Maybe so but he will be looking over his shoulder for the whole time he is incarcerated. A prisoner could earn themselves a lot of wampum making an example out of Georgie. Could buy them a lot of favour both inside and out. Completely different culture.


#2150

Oh I know the culture.
Been there done that.


#2151

Corrections Victoria provided advice to the judge that Pell is classified as being at immediate serious risk, which seems to mean solitary. IIRC the judge noted that the classification may be revised in time, after which he could mix with other heavily vetted prisoners.


#2152

There used to be a caged area for carnts like him in Pentridge called the koala cage. Protected species.


#2153

Jeez, some of you blokes seem to have a bit too much “inside” knowledge… :thinking:


#2154

Apologies if this doesn’t work - I’ve never attached anything on here. Happy for any guidance.

Really interesting article by Waleed Ali (yes many believe him to be a flog) in the SMH.


#2155

He makes an interesting point when he says “We’re in an era where anger dominates our sense of morality. To be angry is to be righteous, while to temper that anger is to be somehow morally complacent, apologetic, complicit even.”
People are always angry or upset at me for tempering their outrage/whinging, especially on sensitive or pc topics that it’s fashionable to be angry about.
Not that I’m going into bat for Pell or Ali, I’m not that stupid.
But if someone is complaining and ranting about a parking fine and the a hole that wrote them a ticket, I probably can’t help but say “um, you didn’t HAVE to park there…right?”.
Deal with it.gif


#2156

I understand your point, but perhaps you do Waleed Ali an injustice by quoting only those lines.

It is a well written thoughtful piece, and I was ready to strongly disagree with the part you quoted, until I read the whole article.


#2157

I am curious as to Frank Brennan’s views on his father’s judgment as a High Court Justice in a 1994 parental child sex abuse case involving an appeal on the grounds of unreasonable jury verdict.
M.v THE QUEEN [1994] HCA 63.
That judgment , along with most of the other judgments, reveals caution in substitution of judges views for those of a jury as well as a discounting of inconsistencies in an accuser’s testimony as significant factors in arriving at a verdict.
Frank Brennan said he attended some of the Pell trial and had read most of the transcripts available to the public, as well as having indirect access to the accuser’s testimony through the arguments of counsel.
In regard to Brennan’s reference to the police not checking the vestments, he seems to have not been at the trial when the jury was given the vestments to inspect.
The appeal appears to rest on the evidence of 20 Crown witnesses supportive of the improbability of Pell being in the sacristy at that time and the improbability of some abuse because of the restrictiveness of the vestments.


#2158

Improbable, not impossible.

It’s possible the defence probably knows the difference.


#2159

Frank Brennan’s article in Eureka was mischievous I reckon. Words to the effect that the complainant ‘got all sorts of facts wrong’ when he (Brennan) didn’t hear the evidence directly seem, using his terminology, incredible to me.

His incredulity seems based around the garments, like they are some kind of impenetrable armour. Vestments reportedly have slots allowing pocket access, those pockets are what - a hand width away from you know what… ?? you could surely ‘part’ that opening if your hand can go through it, the fact that Frank notes the rest of the garb below is like a heavy skirt might then be immaterial. And if that cincture thingy is just the rope around the belly, doesn’t that just mean the only thing you’d need to do is lift the ridiculous garments like any dress, and then there’s absolutely nothing in the way? Maybe I don’t understand the gear but sounds like desperation from Brennan - if that forms a part of the appeal it’ll be interesting how that goes.

Btw if anyone’s listened to Minchin’s song again do you hear ELO’s ‘telephone line’ in the chorus, or is it just me?


#2160

What so now rock spiders don’t have any imagination. Rubbish. They have more than most men and some women. Most have plenty of 1porn experience. Oh please, restrictiveness of the vestments, if people want to have sex think about all the jokes blokes used to throw around about women and sex consensual or otherwise. Why because most men usually don’t wear dresses or long vestments? Well drag queens and cross dressers do and they have no problems. Remember all the jokes dresses over head and pants around ankles. Turned on people find a way and lets face it, you certainly don’t need to see where it is to do what ever you plan to do or where it is, most people know how to touch or guide to the appropriate bits.

Active Rock Spiders have more sex than most other people.


#2161

Good point - I get what you mean - Waleed isn’t suggesting it’s right, he’s actually saying it’s wrong, but pointing out that’s the way things have become in this age of social media and twitter. Apologies for leaving out the context.

This forum is a classic example. Generally someone will post a very one-sided argument, like EFC are no good, list 20 reasons they are no good (haven’t won a final, can’t beat crap teams, etc) and then if someone tries to add balance to the article and suggest there are also a lot of positives, then they get accused of being lid-off, happy-clappers etc.

Same deal if someone loves a player and is on their bandwagon, they generally refuse to acknowledge (or ferociously defend) any deficiencies in the player. And of course someone who doesn’t really think the player is that good will generally only respond with negatives.

Regarding The Saga, imagine if the narative went:

Statement: “Essendon may have contravened some regulations with regards to documenting the use of supplements”.
Response: “Hmmm, perhaps, without any evidence it’s a bit complicated to figure out, we can’t say for sure”

The above is hardly a story, but how many righteous headlines and decisions came from it?

It’s really just the culture of most organisations, social media, and mainstream media these days. A balanced post (or balanced journalism), it rarely get’s liked or hits or any discussion or attention - which isn’t social at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to be social and engage with others and be liked (or at least get attention), you need to march to the top of a hill, get on your high horse/soapbox and raise your banners, etc, at which point you will get plenty of attention and discussion.

And, being somewhat self aware, I must add that one thing I do like about blitz is I have seen quite a number of genuinely interesting discussions without the need for taking sides and controversy, which is why I keep coming back.


#2162

Pffft, get off the fence, you banner-waving happy-clapper.


#2163

You might be interested in the homily of Murnane , a Camberwell Dominican priest, available on Louise Milligan’s Facebook. He addresses the vestment issue from his own experience (among other things)
Brennan, who has legal expertise and who generally enjoys respect, would have had two months to polish up his article and had the capacity to get it widely disseminated ( unlike Murnane). He should have been aware of the imbalance in his article, which reads as a defender’s brief.


#2164

Don’t get on Facebook - can you reproduce or otherwise link?

Both Bolt and Brennan read like they were looking only at the defence point of view- funny about that.


#2165

Google Louise Milligan twitter - the link is there in one of her tweets of 14 March


#2166

I found it by google. Yes he (murnane) says it’s a simple matter of lifting the hem. Based on Brennan’s view a person wearing any dress would be immune to attack on their self because a dress can’t be ‘parted’! It’s so silly as to beggar belief. If the appeal is going to depend on stuff like that you’d think it has no chance…