Bruce Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 As an athiest, I still feel sorry for Pell. When I was a kid in Alice Springs, there were known poofters the kids stayed away from ( or not, it was the kid's choice). I reckon that we are seeing a new puritanism and I don't like it.
facthunter Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Don't like your slant on it. The church has a lot of control in a community. The kids inform their parents and they get belted up and told not to mention that stuff again . Nev.
spacesailor Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Or the "uncle's" beat up the poofter, then had to dodge the law. spacesailor
Marty_d Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 ...And there's a difference between poofters and pedo's. Just like there's a difference between you & me, and those disgusting freaks who go to the Phillipines or Thailand to abuse little girls.
facthunter Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Anyhow since this is sub judice, I suggest we don't pursue the topic . You might add to the grounds for dismissal of the case. The defence lawyers are perusing all elements of the Net. This will be one very high powered case. Better to close the thread Ian. Nev
Marty_d Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 I think both sides will fully expect endless commentary on thousands of sites around the world, Pell is basically 3rd in command of an institution with over a billion members. Who knows whether he's guilty or not - hopefully the trial will determine this. But I will say this... with a defendant this high profile, the Vic prosecutors must be very confident with the evidence they've got before they gave the green light to lay charges. I'll watch with interest.
Bruce Posted July 1, 2017 Author Posted July 1, 2017 I agree Marty about pedos. Some of the most horrific crimes imaginable have been done against little kids. But when you have 17 year-old boys, it is still technically called pedophilia, I think. Well in the off-chance that Nev is right, I will leave this topic alone.
Yenn Posted July 2, 2017 Posted July 2, 2017 Who knows wether he's guilty or not. At the moment he is not guilty. He is innocent until proven guilty. That just shows that there can be a great difference between doing something and being guilty of doing something. Over the years we have had a lot of innocent people found guilty and incarcerated for it. we have also had a lot of "guilty" people found not guilty.
spacesailor Posted July 2, 2017 Posted July 2, 2017 He's number three!, god will look after him, you watch, the witnesses will get sick, possible amnesia, the prosecution will get leprosy, or being a merciful god, they will drop dead!. spacesailor
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now