Cardinal George Pell has conviction overturned

[Agnostico]

Christian clergy no .Not even Catholic clergy.

Are you sure? These people continue to serve the church despite its well documented involvement in child sex abuse
I know at least one person on this forum that views that as supporting all the crimes as they continue to support the church

But i refuse to accept a man in Pell's position knew nothing about what was going on or even  participated himself

SUNGULA... Im stunned... U must of done a bit of homework to learn a bit more about the matter and I applaud u for that
Cos you've returned with what is the most widely used argument to why Pell should be in jail. 

I was getting bored of arguing against nothing and was thinking about giving u this argument to stand on cos man, u had nothing to stand on
For the people that know the case well and hold this view there are more details within this line of reasoning they refer to supporting evidence that strengthens the position further
I won't tell ya cos ul abuse the facts probs... LoL. Take things out of context, or maybe sum it all up in one word in ur trademark style (which i hate and luv)

Of course there are numerous legal counter arguments as to why this position is unacceptable in a court but i cbf getting into that cos where talking about your opinion. 
At least it gives your opinion some foundation

[The Architect Of Fate]

Are you sure? These people continue to serve the church despite its well documented involvement in child sex abuse

Your question was do i think all christian clergy should be judged .Obviously not due to the fact not all christian denominations are part of church's that commit abuse 

I know at least one person on this forum that views that as supporting all the crimes as they continue to support the church

So? It's clear not all christians are to blame for the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church .Most definitely that church as an organization must pay for  either it's Apathy, Denial ,Incompetence etc .

SUNGULA... Im stunned... U must of done a bit of homework to learn a bit more about the matter and I applaud u for that
Cos you've returned with what is the most widely used argument to why Pell should be in jail. 

And i think it a fair argument thou i only did i little research the conclusion just seems like commonsense  . He's either complacient  or incompetent both are a form of guilt.

I was getting bored of arguing against nothing and was thinking about giving u this argument to stand on cos man, u had nothing to stand on
For the people that know the case well and hold this view there are more details within this line of reasoning they refer to supporting evidence that strengthens the position further

I don' t buy this 

I won't tell ya cos ul abuse the facts probs... LoL. Take things out of context, or maybe sum it all up in one word in ur trademark style (which i hate and luv)

And i still believe you do and will in future 

Of course there are numerous legal counter arguments as to why this position is unacceptable in a court

None i can see that would matter 

 but i cbf getting into that cos where talking about your opinion. 

My opinion is letting him go is a sham 

At least it gives your opinion some foundation

I did more then that

[Agnostico]

Of course there are numerous legal counter arguments as to why this position is unacceptable in a court

None i can see that would matter 

U have your opinion anyway, that's fine like i said
But here are the legal errors in 
"refuse to accept a man in Pell's position knew nothing about what was going on or even participated himself"

1/ It doesn't meet the presumption of innocence standard
2/ It presumes guilt
3/ It doesn't address the charges
4/ It addresses claims that he isn't charged for like "knowing about" it
Just to name a few
These things that are valid in a persons opinion.


Im not too sure of your knowledge of the justice system but but they are compulsory requirements in a court hearing
If even one of these rules aren't adhered to in a court hearing the High court will overturn it.

I was getting bored of arguing against nothing and was thinking about giving u this argument to stand on cos man, u had nothing to stand on
For the people that know the case well and hold this view there are more details within this line of reasoning they refer to supporting evidence that strengthens the position further

I don' t buy this

U don't believe. Mate like i said, i know this case inside out cos i live here. These are just some of the argument you could have raised, ok...

1/Here is a quote from George Pell "Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people"

2/ Garald Risdale pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting a total of 53 children. Pell supported him and accompanied him to court.
Pell also moved these priests around whever they asked for it

3/ And i could list another handful of these criminals who all committed these kind of acts under Pells watch while he moved them around

I can easily present your case much greater detail and reference to his career

Anyway SUNman it is what it is, the court has spoken and the man walks free... Peace

[The Architect Of Fate]

U have your opinion anyway, that's fine like i said
But here are the legal errors in 
"refuse to accept a man in Pell's position knew nothing about what was going on or even participated himself"

1/ It doesn't meet the presumption of innocence standard
2/ It presumes guilt
3/ It doesn't address the charges
4/ It addresses claims that he isn't charged for like "knowing about" it
Just to name a few
These things that are valid in a persons opinion.

1. Doesn't need to as it's conclusion not a presumption and the only logical one 
2.No it doesn't it concludes guilt by logic 
3.It gives reasonable suspicion at best 
4.Then that's a issue of how he was charged the fact the court didn't consider this is on them 

Im not too sure of your knowledge of the justice system but but they are compulsory requirements in a court hearing
If even one of these rules aren't adhered to in a court hearing the High court will overturn it.

Then this is yet more proof of the court systems failings and it's disinterest in justice 

Anyway SUNman it is what it is, the court has spoken and the man walks free... Peace

On a legal technicality a criminal walks free

[zebo-the-fat]

Cardinal Pell 'knew of' clergy abuse, says Australian royal commission


Cardinal George Pell knew of child sexual abuse by priests in Australia as early as the 1970s but failed to take action, a landmark inquiry found.

The findings on Cardinal Pell - an ex-Vatican treasurer - come from Australia's royal commission into child sexual abuse, which ended in 2017.

Details were only revealed on Thursday. A court had previously redacted the report because the cleric was facing child abuse charges at the time.
The cardinal has denied the findings.
He said he was "surprised" by the inquiry's report, adding: "These views are not supported by evidence."
Cardinal Pell was convicted of child abuse in 2018, but last month was released from jail after Australia's top court overturned his conviction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52569092

[The Valkyrie]

Cardinal Pell 'knew of' clergy abuse, says Australian royal commission


Cardinal George Pell knew of child sexual abuse by priests in Australia as early as the 1970s but failed to take action, a landmark inquiry found.

The findings on Cardinal Pell - an ex-Vatican treasurer - come from Australia's royal commission into child sexual abuse, which ended in 2017.

Details were only revealed on Thursday. A court had previously redacted the report because the cleric was facing child abuse charges at the time.
The cardinal has denied the findings.
He said he was "surprised" by the inquiry's report, adding: "These views are not supported by evidence."
Cardinal Pell was convicted of child abuse in 2018, but last month was released from jail after Australia's top court overturned his conviction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52569092

He either knew, in which case he is complicit, or he didn't know, in which case he's inept.

How could you hold a position of power for so long and have absolutely no suspicions it was happening? Were his staff so good at keeping him in the dark?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Are you sure? These people continue to serve the church despite its well documented involvement in child sex abuse.

What a pity they don’t serve their congregants as well as they do the Church.

Boru

[Fireball]

Are you sure? These people continue to serve the church despite its well documented involvement in child sex abuse.

What a pity they don’t serve their congregants as well as they do the Church.

Boru

"Help the people, and fuck the church!" Works for me.

[Agnostico]

He either knew, in which case he is complicit, or he didn't know, in which case he's inept.

That was always the best argument against him I thought...

Victoria police will obtain a copy of the Royal Commission to investigate the claim and then lay charges if there is evidence

This all confirms the fact that our authority is inept 
If the Royal Commission is wrong then it reveals it's incompetency 
But if the Royal Commission is correct then it further reveals the incompetency of the Victoria police, investigators and prosecution

George Pell's first public allegation was in 2002. But it took the cops 10 years to establish an investigation taskforce. What took them so long
And despite their investigation all they had in the end was one allegation with the testimony of the complainant and nothing else
It was such a weak case it never should of gone to court

Victoria police, investigators and prosecutors have proven time and time again that they are corrupt and incompetent. 
Its like they've forgotten how to do the job. They've become too political, too ideological and just plain soft

[Agnostico]

He either knew, in which case he is complicit, or he didn't know, in which case he's inept.

How could you hold a position of power for so long and have absolutely no suspicions it was happening?  Were his staff so good at keeping him in the dark?

I thought the same thing but u know what I learnt, he wasn't in a position of power until well after in 1996. Another bishop actually lead Ballarat, Pell was just a priest there

But i looked into the Royal Commission details to find out who had not done their job properly. Was it Vicpol or was it the Commission findings...

It's the Commission findings. Their nothing more than ideologically driven opinions. I won't go into the details unless someone else wants to

But the Royal Commission is nothing. The court is still the higher authority. So, we have the cops investigating the commission findings.. 

If there is evidence to back the findings then the cops will charge Pell. If they don't charge Pell then we know that the Royal Commission made its findings without any evidence

Our authority is just so corrupt these days