George Pell is definitely Coming Home now Tim


Do you understand the analogy I was drawing between Pell and the saga now?
Simple yes or no will suffice.

Don;t want to stretch your intelligence too far.


If a single Essendon player had said "I knew that Jobe was taking TB-4. It was a sad story and wasn't of much interest to me" then your comparison would stand.

As it stands in reality, your comparison is offensive, incorrect and smacks of desperation to defend an individual who, at the very least and by his own admission, supported an environment of systematic child rape and cover ups.



My God. Of course I understood your analogy, champ. You think because I don't agree with it that I must not have understood it?

Perhaps, just maybe, it's actually an incredibly poor, simplistic analogy?


Why are you defending a man who enabled the rape of children?


He did not knowingly support child abuse. I'm not sure where you are getting this nonsense from.
Try and read beyond the headline. Its generally the stuff in smaller font underneath the big bold text.


Mods - please ban this idiot.
Why people are allowed to slander public figures before they have gone to trial is a disgrace.

At least think of the legal consequences should anyone want to take it further.


Then why were you comparing rape to the saga?


Answer the question.

Why do you support a man who enabled the rape of children?



Honestly, why are you doing this?

You don't even believe half the garbage you write. I know it's fun to be inflammatory, and get a rise out of people. Sometimes everyone likes to be a troll, I think you do it more than most but I don't judge, because we all do it sometimes.

But to do it in this thread? Such a sensitive issue, involving the repeated abuse of children? To be deliberately provocative and inflammatory, not knowing what other posters know, or may have been through, or may have had family members go through? You choose to deliberately agitate and needle people in THOSE circumstances?

Quite honestly, I wonder how you sleep at night.


I'm not.
I'm supporting due process and the presumption of innocence before guilt.

Unlike you, I have read beyond the headline and everything I've read so far suggests there is nothing in anything he has been accused of. Now the police/DPP might be privy to more information and I'm happy to hear it in a court of law and make another assessment then.


What a perverse view of the world


Perhaps because I'm not a gullible idiot.


"the suffering, of course, was real, and I very much regret that, but I had no reason to turn my mind to the extent of the evils"

"It's a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me."

β€œIt could have been the man was perpetually restless,”

β€œI’m not sure at that stage there was even a civic responsibility to report such a crime.”

All words uttered by Pell during his testimony to the Royal Commission.

Do you reckon there was due process in the Royal Commission? Where Pell admitted to knowing that rape of children was taking place? Where Pell admitted to doing nothing, nothing to stop it?

Again: Why are you supporting a man who enabled the systematic cover up and rape of children?


I'm from Ballarat. My parents grew up there, and were in the generation who were school aged when Pell was running the shop in the diocese. The stories they have to tell are absolutely astounding. Everyone their age knew what was going on, but they would receive an absolute bollocking from their parents/teachers/police/anyone older than them for daring to suggest that such respected members of the community would do such things.

So they did what they could to support and protect each other. Things such as senior students at a boarding school keeping an overnight watch on the younger students when particular priests were on duty. But kids can only do so much, y'know. And when the kids became adults with incredibly damaged views of their self-worth, morals and sexualities...well things became messy.

Alcohol as a coping device was pretty popular, as was abusing their own kids (my generation. Didn't happen to me fortunately, but I know a number who were). Quite a few kids my age lost their parents to suicide in the 90s because they still couldn't/wouldn't talk about it.

And it was still going on in the 90s. I was at a non-catholic school and use to tease those who were at the catholic schools about what supposedly went on (which I feel fking awful about these days because of the likelihood that it was heard by someone who was getting abused at the time).

When a priest retired or moved or whatever, there was often an article in the paper or a morning tea at the church or something to say goodbye. Didn't happen for all of them. Some would just abruptly be gone. Very little doubt as to why.

If due process is allowed to happen, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind Pell will go down (and hopefully all the others that aren't dead yet follow soon after). But the unfortunate reality is that his legal team will pull every fkn trick in the book (the old Skase medical report, "unfair trial"...all the cards that get played when there is no actual defense) to make sure that this doesn't happen.


There's only one poster here who deserves yet another banning.


Some of us don't need to read the headlines, or the fine print.
Some of us don't care whether he admitted to knowing about it or not.
Some of us were there.
So you can bluster about assumption of innocence all you like, it makes no difference to me.
He knew.


I think people are getting confused on what Pell's role was in Ballarat and the period of time he was there.

He was never at St Pats in Ballarat for example.


Mate, he probably suspected as did others but you can't just go on hunches. You need conclusive proof. That's how things work.

If everyone who suspected was therefore guilty of the crime itself then we would have everyone in jail.


No. There's one person here who is confused.

Pell's role in Ballarat or β– β– β– β– β– β– β–  anywhere, at any time, saw him enable the rape of children.

He knew it happenned. He didn't care. And that's the best case scenario.

His words. His admission. To a Royal Commission no less.

But keep defending him. Go on.


Well, if that were the case then there wouldn't be a Catholic Church to begin with.

What level of proof would you find acceptible in this case?