Considering how often he was shifted around, unfortunately yes. Apart from the bit about him being horrified by doing it.
He was probably using the confessional to brag.
Eg. you should have copped the root i pulled yesterday
The comment from our alleged Lawyer was made from a post of mine.
Some victims of paedofile priests will never go to the Police and those supporting them and caring for them who hear these stories can tell authorities but it goes nowhere without a victims sworn statement.
One of the issues Police face with investigating Pell, is that while they may believe the allegations are true, proving them without direct evidence is difficult. I have no doubt Pell is a paedofile but I doubt it will be proved in a Court to the satisfaction of a Judge.
You still haven’t answered my question whether anyone has told you directly that he/she was sexually molested by George Pell. So for the time being I’m assuming that your condemnation of Pell is based on something that someone told you he or she had been told by someone else. That might be good enough for you but it’s not good enough for me, and thankfully it’s not good enough for a court in any country other than North Korea and others like it.
And paedophile is spelt like that, with a ph, not an f. A boy with a good Catholic education like you should know better.
IiRC, Pell told the Royal Commission that there were rumours. It should have been his duty as a Prince of the Church to investigate those rumours from the outset, as compared to the long delay in setting in train a process designed to keep the findings within the competence of the archdiocese and to give a nod to the cheap lawyers trick of the Ellis defence.
Suffer the little children.
Thank you for the spelling lesson. I went to catholic schools but there was nothing good about them.
More is the pity that our legal system protects the perpetrators more than the victims. There is something to say for the alleged summary justice of regimes like North Korea and the Philippines. Though people like Pell survive like cockroaches in a holacaust.
Golly! The renowned civil libertarian and Labor stalwart Bacchusfox supports summary conviction and execution of alleged paedophiles on the basis of third-hand hearsay, and without testimony from the alleged victim! Who would have thought? And what’s your preferred method of “summary justice”? Lynching?
That’s third-hand hearsay at best, of course. You still haven’t said how many hands your so-called “knowledge” of Pell’s “offence” (and you still haven’t specified what it was) went through before it got to you.
I’d quit now if I were you, Bacchus. You’re just digging yourself further in.
The beauty of the ALP is that we are a broad Democratic Party that has diverse opinions. In some instances my views will differ greatly to Policy. You can’t have your own way all the time, but I still support the Team.
Yep I would summarily execute paedofiles, rapists and murderers, and maybe even consider the same for anyone guilty of extreme violence against others. I would be lenient for most other crimes.
I realise that your Alleged Lawyer status gives you the right to defend paedophiles, rapists and other violent criminals, under the guise that everyone deserve their day in court and presumption of innocence, but I have no pecuniary interest like an Alleged Lawyer and if some poor innocents get a bullet in the back of the head to generally eradicate human vermin then “such is life”
I also subscribe to the belief that all Men have a case to answer for the recent rape and murder in Princes Park, just as all Catholics have a degree of responsibility for the actions of Pell and his evil brethren.
We can bury our heads and cry that “not all men” are violent scum-bags, and that not all priests bigger children, but we need to call it out and raise your boys to show respect, and protect children and women, that is our job.
Thanks, Bacchus. I don’t think I need to say anything more. I rest my case.
You were going well but little bit there is irrational exuberance.
Omelettes and eggs, mate. That’s the justification.
Absolutely extreme, but rationalist.
While I have always fought hard for the rights of the individual, I do subscribe to the need for “general good”. If executing one innocent person; is part of getting rid of 999 violent murderers, rapists and kiddy-farkers, then …
Whatever we are doing now is not working; still women get raped and murdered walking home after work, children get abuse etc. Give me a sane alternative.
Yep and it is Lawyers like Robert Richter who have no conscience about what they do. Probably your pin-up idol.
that’s some next level ■■■■ right there
Logically, you would then be happy to see 999 innocents like me get topped for 1 scum bag.
Nothing logical about that, but maybe.
The benefit of more lenient sentencing is that it encourages an early guilty plea. Going to trial is tough on victims. The perpetrator accepting responsibility for the crime and its impact is often beneficial to the victim too.
Who said anything about a trial ?
Settle down Dirty Harry.