C. L. : Too good to check

There was an interesting report in The Australian yesterday about two women of irreproachable standing whose testimony was sidelined by Victoria Police during its investigation of George Pell. Inexplicably, the women were not called by the defence. Jean Cornish and Lil Sinozic are not run-of-the-mill observers or blow-ins. Church office-holders and former senior school teachers with a hawkish concern for the safety of children, they were arguably the most authoritative eye-witnesses of all. Like everyone else who was at St Patrick’s Cathedral, they dismiss the claims against Cardinal Pell as impossible nonsense. By now the revelation is not surprising.

At the committal hearing for the case in March 2018, Detective Christopher Reed admitted he didn’t bother taking statements from “nuns, choir members and other church officials which he told the court were favourable to Cardinal Pell.” He also failed to obtain the exact dates the Cardinal presided at mass in 1996. Asked why, under cross-examination by Robert Richter QC, Reed admitted that he executed a warrant at the wrong address. “I didn’t know where the archives were,” he said. It is a concern when a detective in a case of this magnitude doesn’t have the skillset of a Dominoes delivery driver. Surprisingly, Reed and Detective Superintendent Paul Sheridan managed to find their way to Rome to interview Cardinal Pell.

From the start, VicPol’s decisions about whose statements to heed, whose to avoid, who to pursue and who to disregard have been peculiar; some would say suspicious. Remember “the swimmers”? They were the public prosecutor’s B Team. If the “choirboys” failed, the swimmers would be beckoned forth from the red-brick shed of times gone by to regale a second jury with tales of surreptitiously brushed buttocks and sneakily squeezed privates beneath warm waves of sun-drenched, chlorine-flavoured play contemporaneous with the last Shah of Iran. There were, of course, no corroborating witnesses for this malarkey but there were many exculpatory witnesses. Alas for the pool accusers, their case was thrown out by County Court chief judge Peter Kidd in February.

Having hoisted them aloft to make a splash, the ABC (also known as the Keli Lane channel) subsequently abandoned the swimmers. Both video and transcript of its bizarre special on their accusations have been deleted. That’s understandable. As well as actionable, the 7.30 Report episode is embarrassing. The transcript can still be found online, however. If the men were so credible that they merited the combined power and treasuries of the ABC and Victoria Police, why were recollections of “repeated abuse by a female relief teacher” and a “vicious teacher who made him masturbate and perform oral sex” not pursued? Robert Richter asked police if they scorned these allegations (at the high end of seriousness) because officers were only interested in ‘getting’ Pell. “Detective Superintendent Sheridan rejected the assertion, telling the court there could have been a viable explanation.” But he didn’t say, and apparently didn’t know, what it was.

One of three possibilities logically follows: one, the supposed culprits are dead. Two: that Victoria Police allowed two hard-core child rapists to remain unsought so as not to imperil their manic Pell operation. A public failure to find or successfully charge “female relief teacher” and “vicious teacher” would have been fatal to the more banal charges against the Cardinal. Or three: that police concluded the accusations against the mystery teachers were either false or indemonstrable but charged Pell using the complainant duo’s other ‘evidence’ anyway. Whether the latter two scenarios would be justiciable as perversions of the course of justice is for legal officials in Victoria to determine. I’m sure they’ll be all over it any day now.

Were it a leftist beloved of leftists and not Cardinal Pell in solitary confinement – I should say, being tortured in solitary confinement (cf. the UN Special Rapporteur and the ABC, 2014) – the calls for a royal commission would be frenzied and incessant.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to C. L. : Too good to check

  1. JC

    Why didn’t Pell’s team call these two women though?

  2. pbw

    I think that all of the defence witnesses were actually called by the prosecution, so that, according to some arcane rules of examination, they could be cross-examined by the defence. This was by arrangement between the defence and prosecution.

  3. pete m

    Pbw, defence asked dpp to call a witness which was refused and it was submitted at trial and appeal this should be held against them.

  4. FelixKruell

    Inexplicably, the women were not called by the defence.

    We can therefore conclude that either Pell’s defence was rubbish, or the evidence of these two women isn’t as strong as is being made out by the Australian.

    So which is it, CL?

  5. Old Lefty

    I’ve posted some research on the dramatis personae from the Victorian justice system (I use the terms advisedly) on the open forum thread at 3.14, 3.21 and 3.25.

    And as for the ABC, still no reporting on senior NSW DOCS officer Frank Valentine, or on the major strike force investigating the Stalinist comrades from the NSW Teachers Federation, or on Carl Beech, etc, etc.

    Even when, mirabile dictu, the Victorian courts convicted a state school teacher for offences against 38 minors, the judge clapped a suppression order not just on the identity of the victims but on the names of the state schools where he taught. Double standards, anyone? Non-government schools never get such consideration. By the way, Reynolds got a head sentence of twelve years – twice Pell’s sentence for 19 times as many victims.

  6. Nob

    Is it possible that Richter is more practised at getting guilty people found “not guilty” than ensuring innocent people don’t get found guilty?

  7. PK

    ABC lind seems to have been deleted?

  8. C.L.

    ABC link has a redundant quotation mark at the end of the URL.
    Just backspace it away.

  9. Exit Stage Right

    What a stitch up when your own team doesn’t go in to bat for you.
    Was Cardinal Pell using Legal Aid?

  10. DaveR

    Either a stitch up or just a very poorly run defence that got blindsided by the dpp.

  11. Jannie

    Its strange times, and the law seems to be a weapon in the hands of social justice warriors. The children of the revolution are the establishment. There is no nice way to challenge and change that.

  12. Old School Conservative

    Was anyone aware of these two women and their evidence before they went public recently?

    I assume they were in the group not interviewed by VicPlod because so much in favour of Pell had already been gathered.

  13. Dr Fred Lenin

    Jannie , the law is an instrument of the globalists,look a Blairs. Supreme court in the UK a bunch of globalist lefties . For hundreds of years the top law lords were in the house of lords and it worked ,like all lefties Blair fixed something that wasnt broken ,and as usual stuffed it up .

  14. Delcon

    FelixKruell
    #3173445, posted on October 2, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    Inexplicably, the women were not called by the defence.

    We can therefore conclude that either Pell’s defence was rubbish, or the evidence of these two women isn’t as strong as is being made out by the Australian.

    So which is it, CL?

    This:

    Nob
    #3173459, posted on October 2, 2019 at 7:15 pm

    Is it possible that Richter is more practised at getting guilty people found “not guilty” than ensuring innocent people don’t get found guilty?

    Richter’s tactic was not to say anything, and just attack the prosecution case.
    A perfectly logical tactic which should, by right, have worked.
    But juries are not logical creatures.

    I am ashamed to admit that when I first heard that Cardinal Pell was found guilty, the fact that he did not speak in his own defence convinced me momentarily that he was guilty.
    (Only later I saw how ridiculous the allegations were.)

  15. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘We can therefore conclude that either Pell’s defence was rubbish, or the evidence of these two women isn’t as strong as is being made out by the Australian.

    ‘So which is it, CL?’

    Neither, Felix, you dimwit. We can certainly conclude, however, that the ‘investigation’ was deeply flawed from the start, began with a predetermined result in mind (the massive no-no in these things) and that ulterior motives were at play.

  16. Jannie

    Yeah Fred the uk Supreme Court has outed itself and more or less declared that it can interpret unwritten law and will determine the correct political procedures. The loss of legitimacy of the Parliament and the Law goes hand in hand. There is no nice way for the people to challenge and change this.

  17. Nob

    Richter’s tactic was not to say anything, and just attack the prosecution case.
    A perfectly logical tactic which should, by right, have worked.
    But juries are not logical creatures.

    But you expect an experienced successful lawyer to know this, right?

    To a punter like me, silence by the accused never looks good.
    It’s like he dunnit and you can’t trust him not to give himself away.
    And juries are probably at least as dumb as I am.

  18. None

    The first jury didn’t think Pell was guilty. And it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence.

  19. None

    Why didn’t Pell’s team call these two women though?

    Because Portelli testified and also testified they women were there. Remember ten in the jury did not need these women to find Pell was not guilty,

  20. Nob

    None
    #3173785, posted on October 3, 2019 at 3:54 am
    The first jury didn’t think Pell was guilty. And it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence.

    I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer.

    I don’t see any value in being Correct but losing the case.

  21. notafan

    This demanding that the accused speak and claiming it is pivotal is a rubbish.

    A trial should never be about whether you think the accused or the accuser tells a better story or has some sort of Colgate ring of truthfulness.

    That is all completely subjective.

    Innocent people on trial and facing gaol can make terrible witnesses.

    To convict a person of a serious crime there ought to corroborative evidence.

    That is all.

  22. Nob

    Nota,

    I’m not demanding anything but I’m interested in why not having Pell speak is such a good tactic.

    It’s subjective, as you say, and I would expect a jury to look at things subjectively, as evidently the prosecution did.

    In addition to the correct legal and logical approach, I would expect a brilliant lawyer to have some tactical awareness in how to handle juries.

  23. Nob

    as evidently the prosecution did.

    To be clear, I mean the prosecution evidently expected the jury to look at things subjectively.

  24. Iampeter

    From the start, VicPol’s decisions about whose statements to heed, whose to avoid, who to pursue and who to disregard have been peculiar; some would say suspicious.

    No honest person would say this. It’s the other way around.
    This isn’t some random investigation pulled from nowhere, it’s just the last in a long line of accusations that were serious enough for police to be involved with regards to Pell.
    This investigation just went further than the others.
    You’re behaving like serious accusations of sexual abuse against members of the Catholic Church is the conspiracy.
    Like these are some kind of absurdities that should be dismissed, when you know full well that many old allegations are hard to make stick, due to numerous factors like less processes at the time, lack of timely forensic evidence, etc, etc.

    There were, of course, no corroborating witnesses for this malarkey but there were many exculpatory witnesses.

    Nor are they required, as covered in previous threads. This is not evidence of corruption, but just how these cases work for everyone. Whether we agree with it or not.

    Speaking of, I’m sure you’re aware that there was even one investigation in the early 2000’s of Pell, by the Church itself, using a retired judge no less, about one of the many accusations.
    In any case, I didn’t know that someone accused of crimes against children could be “investigated” by the organization he works for and outside our legal system. An “independent inquiry” if you will. Now maybe this is totally legit, but as someone who is very interested in making sure there is no corruption here, I’m sure you’re going to post about stuff like this any day now…

  25. notafan

    Richter ‘won’ the first trial with a 10 to 2 hung jury.

    At the second trial the jury did not see the accuser being cross examined live but only a video from the first trial.

    And don’t forget the media has been touting Cardinal Pell as a walking talking pophile on stilts for years

    Convince me that that didn’t make a difference.

    ID expect a reasonable person to look at all the evidence not just ignore the bits they don’t like say; all the witnesses who were in the cathedral that day who by inference were/are all practising Catholics.

  26. notafan

    Organisations investigate matters for themselves all the time.

    So what?

    I noticed that particular accuser never raised his head again.

    And nothing stopped the police from doing a parallel investigation of that matter.

    You may not have noticed that the Catholic Church has yet to defrock Cardinal Pell and will do her own investigation as to whether he is guilty of this particular accusation.

  27. “Neither, Felix, you dimwit” Haha! I love conclusions that are drawn as the only possible solution “12 +12 = 24, therefore the sum of two numbers must equal 24”

  28. Delcon

    I noticed that particular accuser never raised his head again.

    Why is the accuser hiding behind a lawyer at all, and who is paying for his lawyer?
    Follow the money.

  29. Iampeter

    Were it a leftist beloved of leftists and not Cardinal Pell in solitary confinement – I should say, being tortured in solitary confinement (cf. the UN Special Rapporteur and the ABC, 2014) – the calls for a royal commission would be frenzied and incessant.

    Also this is what this is actually all about. Suggesting the Catholic church, an ancient collectivist and authoritarian organization, is not also left wing, is typical of the general confusion about politics we see today. Especially among the hapless conservatives.
    So in other words, you don’t care the about the truth of the trial, but are fighting a political battle instead. A political battle in which you don’t realize that you are on the side of the left because of no real understanding of politics.
    So, not only are you not being honest, but you’re not even doing what you’re trying to do correctly.
    SMH.

  30. Iampeter

    Organisations investigate matters for themselves all the time.

    So what?

    About matters that should be referred to police?
    Isn’t that a “cover up?”

    Again, I could be wrong about all that, but it’s not a “so what” question.
    Unlike most of the ones C.L. and you are raising…

  31. Up The Workers!

    So what was the testimony that Jean Cornish and Lil Sinozic never got to give to Dodgy Dan’s Pell stitch-up?

    Does anybody know?

    Labor’s anonymous “Jizzy Smellitt” who, like his sole corroborating witness, the dead guy, never even turned up for the second trial, very credibly postulated that Cardinal Pell’s penis was capable of stretching the whole 340 feet distance from the Cathedral steps at the opposite end of the massive building, all the way up the aisle past the departing parishioners and into the open and heavily-trafficked sacristy where he miraculously molested these choirboys (who had no business being there) without anybody seeing or suspecting a thing.

    In addition, while simultaneously talking to the departing parishioners whilst being accompanied the whole time by Monsignor Portelli, outside on the steps at the opposite end of the Cathedral building and molesting the two choirboys in the sacristy 340 feet away, it seems that the industrious George Pell managed to miraculously change the Cathedral white altar-wine (the only variety the Cathedral stocked in those days) into red wine.

    While such remarkable theatrics were not entirely unknown at weddings in Cana, Galilee, some 2,000 years ago, this is the only known instance of such a miraculous occurrence ever happening in downtown East Melbourne, Mogadishu-by-the-Yarra.

    Dodgy Dan’s grotesquely incompetent “Get Pell Squad” certainly excelled themselves in the ‘Carl Beeching’ of Cardinal Pell. It was the sort of stitch-up that would do Joe Stalin proud.

    Now, if there is any justice in the world, those responsible for this disgraceful travesty should soon swap residential addresses with him.

    Quite apart from anything else, how many 12 to 13 year olds do you know who have a taste for altar wine?

    I tried the stuff once when I was about that age, and it totally put me off drinking wine for at least the next 30 years. Vile stuff. I thought it must have been part of a penance that priests undertook, though I could imagine no sin bad enough to merit a penance as dire as that one.

  32. BrettW

    I remember the police conference where they said they had multiple “victims” and multiple charges although not specified at that time.

    The swimming pool case was a joke in terms of the evidence and nature of what was alleged to have occurred. It was in a public swimming pool with other people around.

    The cathedral case is a travesty from start to finish.

    Good post CL.

  33. PB

    I doubt Richter is incompetent, so why did he run such a surprisingly poor defence? You’d almost think he wanted to lose the case.

  34. Crossie

    You may not have noticed that the Catholic Church has yet to defrock Cardinal Pell and will do her own investigation as to whether he is guilty of this particular accusation.

    I’m sure the investigation happened long ago and that’s why we have the description of the layout of the church and the routine activities after Mass which show that what the accuser insists happened couldn’t have happened.

  35. Crossie

    B
    #3173865, posted on October 3, 2019 at 8:21 am
    I doubt Richter is incompetent, so why did he run such a surprisingly poor defence? You’d almost think he wanted to lose the case.

    Social pressure? Didn’t want to be ostracised for winning an unpopular case? An off day? Maybe all of these.

  36. FelixKruell

    Delcon:

    Richter’s tactic was not to say anything, and just attack the prosecution case.
    A perfectly logical tactic which should, by right, have worked.
    But juries are not logical creatures.

    No, his tactic involved calling witnesses, including Portelli. So why didn’t he call two more?

  37. FelixKruell

    Knuckle:

    Neither, Felix, you dimwit.

    But why?

    The investigation is irrelevant at this stage – it’s about what happened in the court room. Richter could have called these women, even if they were ignored by the police investigation.

  38. FelixKruell

    Jay:

    Haha! I love conclusions that are drawn as the only possible solution

    This would be the time when you provide us with this elusive third solution…

  39. Delcon

    I doubt Richter is incompetent, so why did he run such a surprisingly poor defence? You’d almost think he wanted to lose the case.

    Richter’s decision not to call Pell to the stand may have been the fatal error in this sorry affair.
    Why did he decide that?
    Main reason IMO is that he is used to dealing with criminals (as in, people who are 100% guilty of the charges against them). Therefore, his tactic, based on his clientèle, would be to do his best to question the prosecution’s case, and putting his own client on the stand is very risky with *guilty* clients.
    Another, secondary, reason was that Pell comes across, according to some, as aloof, and Richter thought this may antagonize the jury. Anyway, the first reason is certainly the main reason for his decision IMO.

  40. Hugh

    IamP:
    “Suggesting the Catholic church, an ancient collectivist and authoritarian organization, is not also left wing, is typical of the general confusion about politics we see today.”

    The Catholic Church is not “collectivist” in any secular political sense. On the contrary, she has from the very beginning championed the reality of the free will of the individual and its crucial role in a person’s ultimate destiny, and the doctrine that no innocent individual can have their right to life suppressed for the sake of “the common good.”

    I concede, though, that the Church is authoritarian. She absolutely insists with the force of a Stalin, for example, that no innocent humans may be deliberately killed, even the unborn … nay, not even unborn Down’s Syndrome children or girls, black people, Jews or (hypothetical) people with ‘gay’ DNA, etc. She will not tolerate departure from the view that marriage can only exist between a real man and a real woman. She also holds without demur that, for example theft and sex outside marriage are gravely immoral. Horror of horrors! Worse: she stomps her stentorian foot and barks in Hitlerian notes that we should do our best ourselves to look after our poor and vulnerable neighbours. Is there no end? Despite the non-binding rants of our current wacky leftist Pope (if he is Pope … the jury seems to be reconsidering that), she still teaches that the death penalty for society-wrecking thugs can be a morally legitimate option, and that equally society-wrecking beliefs such as Catharism (including euthanasia) and communism should be suppressed. “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist” declared Pope Pius XI. Oh dear, what kind of a monster has grown up in our midst?

    I’ll grant there are a lot of lefties in the Church, including the current Pope and a huge swathe of the clergy. They are desperately confused, and if you talk to them for more than five minutes, as I have, you find most of them are totally ignorant as to the true beliefs of the Church they profess to identify with. But the Left from its very origins has been intrinsically opposed to the Catholic Church. One explanation for that is that, while the Left is spawned from Satan, the Church has another Origin.

  41. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘Quite apart from anything else, how many 12 to 13 year olds do you know who have a taste for altar wine?’

    All of them. Including me.

    They’ll give it a belt out of curiosity, if nothing else.

  42. Cynic of Ayr

    The blaring evidence of all this is that people of high office, can no longer be trusted explicitly, to be honest and true.
    This applies to many, many professions today.
    Some Doctors can be just as silly and downright stupid as anyone else. The AMA members.
    (As an aside, I said to a Specialist Doctor I visited when he said he’d see me in a year. I said possibly, as I’ve never seen so many intelligent people act so stupidly. He said, “Just because you’re intelligent, doesn’t mean you’re smart!”)
    Some Journalists can be the same, but add in absolute liars and cheats. Almost all newspapers and TV channels. No sample is necessary. Take your pick from a field of hundreds.
    Some Lawyers and Judges colour their actions and decisions with their own ideology. Murphy. Gillard.
    Some Lawyers turn out to be thieves. Dempsey. Baxter.
    There is no way that the two Judges who rejected Pell’s appeal, honestly and judiciously applied themselves to the task. One did, and his decision was so far and away from the others, that no further proof of the other two’s corruptness and/or incompetence is required.
    Some Police Officers prove to be corrupt and thieves. Herbert. Lewis.
    Some Politicians turn out to be liars, thieves and ideological morons. Again, take your pick from a field of hundreds.
    Some CEO’s regard themselves as being worth 10 million dollars a year. No, they are not.
    Some Teachers, once revered, are nothing but liars to our children, teaching them left ideology, but no right ideology.
    The Labor Party once regarded as the Workers Party, existing only for the benefit and well being of the basic worker class. No longer. The Party exists soley for the benefit and well being of the Party apparatchiks. Shorten. Gillard. (Keating, but not Hawke, could well be a lonely exception in modern times.)
    Once upon a time, practically all these people were regarded as the cream of the people. No more. Sad.
    In the U.S. Trump is scaring the bejeezus out of the same types there.
    Where is our Trump? Morrison? That’s laughable! And he is the only fucking contender.

  43. Iampeter

    So every person and organisation is corrupt except for actually corrupt people and organisations like Trump and the Catholic Church?

  44. Delcon

    The closest thing to Trump we had was probably Bernardi.
    The thing is that apparently here as in America, you can only change the system from within it.
    Before Trump radically transformed the politics of the world for the better, he won the Republican nomination.
    Maybe our Trump, whomever it may be, can only come from the Liberals.
    Otherwise, we just have to wait for the right small party.
    I’d say not Pauline Hanson, even though she is probably the closest thing to Trump we have at the moment.
    But I doubt that she is our Trump. Trump is, I’d say, more intelligent than her.
    We need someone smart as Trump, but who does not play by the “Canberra Bubble” rule book.

  45. LOL, Inspector C.L.ouseau is on the case.

    Keep on defending a convicted rock spider, very Catholic of you.

  46. Infidel Tiger

    The closest thing to Trump we had was probably Bernardi

    Hell no.

    Bernardi is a personality free zone with contemptuous economic policies that the vast majority of Australians reject.

    Low energy grifter.

    If John singleton ran for PM we would get near.

  47. None

    I’m so glad that none of you are defence lawyers. Can you imagine if Pell took the stand the sort of questioning the prosecution would have tried? Have you or do you ever think about sex
    Do you ever think about boys you know do have night emissions. For goodness sakes Richter was right not to put him on the stand.

  48. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘The investigation is irrelevant at this stage – it’s about what happened in the court room. Richter could have called these women, even if they were ignored by the police investigation.’

    No, no and yes if you wanted a box of cats roaming free unnecessarily.

    The fact – fact, as given in evidence by the ‘detective’ – that two witnesses who feature prominently in another witness (Portelli)’s statement, and who were present in the vicinity at the time of the alleged offence, and who didn’t have a vested interest either way is a critical fault in the investigation.

    Investigators are compelled – not should, MUST – to provide exculpatory evidence in their briefs. They didn’t, and the bloke responsible for not doing it said in the box he didn’t bother because there were too many people saying the same thing, so they picked a handful and left the rest. Now, if I’m on trial for my liberty – or in the elderly Cardinal’s case, my life – I’d really really want the people whose evidence suggested I didn’t do what I was charged with spoken to. It’s an incompetent, shit investigation completed by so-called professionals who should have transferred themselves to traffic work when the brief took three goes to get past the OPP’s office.

    And yes, Richter could have called them. After a jury-less argument in front of the judge about the probative value of their evidence. But here’s thing, and this goes for Pell giving evidence as well – they don’t just get to stand up, make a speech and sit down again. They get to be cross-examined by the prosecution, and as long they’ve got valid questions to ask it takes as long as they like. Days.

    And for people unused to a court environment they’ll find themselves turned inside out during the cross-examination. Richter QC knew this, and weighed up the value of their probable confusion in the box against relying on the solid grounds he already had. And which the first jury recognised, and for reasons already covered at length the second jury didn’t get to see.

    And finally, Pell shouldn’t have given evidence because shouldn’t have had to. He doesn’t have to convince anyone of anything, let alone his innocence. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt – not on the balance of probabilities – that Pell was guilty.

    And like it or not, you can’t reach that standard with no witnesses, no forensics, no corroboration and the passage of decades.

  49. Knuckle Dragger

    Frigging typos.

    Apologies, people.

  50. None

    You also have to remember that Richter did not do anything unusual. Not a single one of his accused ever take the Stand and the only one that did more or less insisted. Furthermore that is completely common across the board that the accused in criminal trials don’t testify. You have to get your head out of those stupid television American legal dramas.

  51. Knuckle Dragger

    I see the fantasy football season is over.

    The fat midget never Trump oompa-loompas are out.

  52. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    And like it or not, you can’t reach that standard with no witnesses, no forensics, no corroboration and the passage of decades.

    Interesting post, KD, thank you.

  53. Roger

    And like it or not, you can’t reach that standard with no witnesses, no forensics, no corroboration and the passage of decades.

    Justices Ferguson & Maxwell beg to differ.

    Apparently they could imagine the offences taking place.

  54. Knuckle Dragger

    Justices Ferguson and Maxwell have little if any experience with the criminal law, and as such should never have been appointed to the Appellate Courts.

    Weinberg J, on the other hand, and who not only dissented but took the other two commercial and tax law punters to school, is vastly experienced in this field of endeavour and knows what he’s on about.

    ‘Imagine’ is the operative word.

  55. Knuckle Dragger

    Also, the criminal arena is the only legal field where the burden of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Every other branch, including those familiar to Ferguson and Maxwell, is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

    That is, that the accused is more likely than not than to have committed the offence.

    And in this case, Ferguson and Maxwell both made their determinations based on the story of a single person who had 30 years to get his story right. And have his statement amended several times at the behest of the ‘investigators’ to make it fit better.

    And to further Their Honours’ misunderstanding of the criminal law they reversed the onus of proof, and took the view that Pell didn’t prove his innocence. Which Weinberg smashed the bejesus out of.

    In short, Ferguson and Maxwell went with ‘cool story bro’.

  56. None

    Weinberg was definitely the only one awake during the appeal. I remember at one point him and Stuart Walker got into a short discussion on the law of evidence. It seemed that the laws had only recently changed in Victoria and it represented as Weinberg pointed out a cultural change and one which he thought that the Victorian legals had not yet accustomed themselves to while he noted that those in New South Wales had had 10 years or so experience.
    The Victorian legal system is absolute bullshit. A combination of really bad laws which reverse the onus of Proof in some cases and extremely bad judges mostly coules with ideological bents. Let’s not go to the Victorian Police. Pell is not the first innocent person to find themselves in this absolute Kafkaesque nightmare.

  57. Delcon

    None
    #3173955, posted on October 3, 2019 at 10:00 am

    You also have to remember that Richter did not do anything unusual. Not a single one of his accused ever take the Stand and the only one that did more or less insisted. Furthermore that is completely common across the board that the accused in criminal trials don’t testify. You have to get your head out of those stupid television American legal dramas.

    Sorry, but when you deal with juries, you deal with lay men and women who do not go by legal procedural processes. You deal with fallible humans, who are eventually motivated by emotions, and have very little experience in the complexities of evidence laws or, for that matter, in the most basic principle of them all: “every person is innocent until proven otherwise”. In their minds they ask themselves, “why would Vic Police and the ABC already more or less announce Pell’s guilt if he was innocent?”
    (As we know, by the way, the answer is: because both are Leftist scum.)
    When dealing with juries, some good psychology is in place. Treat juries as stupid little kids, and you can’t go wrong. That is my conclusion based on some real life cases I watched on the news and on real crime TV shows.

  58. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘That is my conclusion based on some real life cases I watched on the news and on real crime TV shows.’

    And there we have it.

  59. Roger

    Justices Ferguson and Maxwell have little if any experience with the criminal law, and as such should never have been appointed to the Appellate Courts.

    Rob Hulls?

  60. Roger

    Sorry, but when you deal with juries, you deal with lay men and women who do not go by legal procedural processes.

    That’s why judges give them instructions, Delcon.

  61. dover_beach

    As KD says above, the decision not to interview these two women by the police is unforgivable.

  62. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Sorry, but when you deal with juries, you deal with lay men and women who do not go by legal procedural processes.

    I remember an article in the U.K. media that claimed that, of your average British jury of “twelve good men and true”, two would be barely able to read and write, and a further two would be incapable of understanding anything beyond the most basic of evidence.

  63. Farmer Gez

    The Keli Lane Chanel.
    I remember watching the exposé from super lady sleuths with my wife. She naturally started out with the premise that a mother wouldn’t do that.
    I said bullshit every five minutes as the idiocies piled up. My wife admitted defeat by the end of the program and declared the whole show a waste of taxpayer money.

  64. The Sheriff

    The Victorian legal system is thoroughly corrupt. Nobody can expect a fair trial in that cesspit leftist state anymore and anyone who isn’t a leftard should start considering which jurisdictions they can go to which will not allow them to be extradited back to Daniel Andrews’ shithole.

  65. Iampeter

    Low energy grifter.

    Yea! Why can’t he be a high energy grifter like Trump, et al?
    Politics!

    The Victorian legal system is thoroughly corrupt.

    Yea! Why can’t it be more like the Catholic Church?

  66. JC

    Peter, I see the psychiatric center where you reside handed out internet gadgets late today. Does this mean gadget lock own is much later this evening?

    You recently told us the times were 8 to 4.

  67. notafan

    No the church is waiting til the appeal process to be completed.

  68. Cold-Hands

    The grauniad link can be found via the Wayback Machine.

    I’ll go look for the ABC links now.

  69. Cold-Hands

    The first ABC Link: “Detective Christopher Reed admitted he didn’t bother taking statements from “nuns, choir members and other church officials which he told the court were favourable to Cardinal Pell.”” has also been archived.

  70. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3173831, posted on October 3, 2019 at 7:07 am

    Organisations investigate matters for themselves all the time.

    So what?

    About matters that should be referred to police?
    Isn’t that a “cover up?”

    Well, if the police investigate investigative incompetence or malfeasance, is that a cover up; or simply a few retards trying to fuck a doorknob?

  71. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Detective Christopher Reed admitted he didn’t bother taking statements from “nuns, choir members and other church officials which he told the court were favourable to Cardinal Pell

    What a monumentally incompetent, malicious dickhead.

    No one in their right mind ought to employ him ever again.

  72. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Farmer Gez
    #3174058, posted on October 3, 2019 at 12:27 pm

    The Keli Lane Chanel.
    I remember watching the exposé from super lady sleuths with my wife. She naturally started out with the premise that a mother wouldn’t do that.
    I said bullshit every five minutes as the idiocies piled up. My wife admitted defeat by the end of the program and declared the whole show a waste of taxpayer money.

    LEL

    Wahmen’s inutition.

    Like how Kenan Basic HAD to be guilty, amirite?

  73. Cold-Hands

    The ABC link: “Robert Richter asked police if they scorned these allegations (at the high end of seriousness) because officers were only interested in ‘getting’ Pell.” is also at the Wayback Machine.

  74. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    None
    #3173984, posted on October 3, 2019 at 10:46 am

    Weinberg was definitely the only one awake during the appeal. I remember at one point him and Stuart Walker got into a short discussion on the law of evidence. It seemed that the laws had only recently changed in Victoria and it represented as Weinberg pointed out a cultural change and one which he thought that the Victorian legals had not yet accustomed themselves to while he noted that those in New South Wales had had 10 years or so experience.
    The Victorian legal system is absolute bullshit. A combination of really bad laws which reverse the onus of Proof in some cases and extremely bad judges mostly coules with ideological bents. Let’s not go to the Victorian Police. Pell is not the first innocent person to find themselves in this absolute Kafkaesque nightmare.

    Well said None.

  75. Cold-Hands

    The 7:30 Report “swimmers segment” is also available, both video & transcript. The video is very slow to start but seems complete.

  76. C.L.

    There seems to be some confusion about the links.
    My fault. A stray quotation mark was accidentally posted at the end of each the URLs.
    I’m not talking about the “deleted” link. That really is unavailable – and has been for quite a while.

  77. Sinclair Davidson

    I have fixed the links (Note – one of the links goes to a page not found site, that is CLs point).

    As an aside – the very first time I ever saw CL commenting online – at Blair’s place IIRC – he had made a coding error. 🙂 (Sorry CL – this brings back happy memories for me). Very rare event these days.

  78. Cold-Hands

    So the only archived link that is necessary is the 7:30 report one.

  79. C.L.

    Cheers, C-H. Sorry for the unnecessary goose chase.

  80. Iampeter

    Wow Hugh, what a great troll post.
    I love the attention to detail.
    For example, stupidly conceding the authoritarianism of the church while trying to sarcastically dismiss it.
    The glaring contradiction in suggesting those who view people as mere meat and cattle wouldn’t exterminate them.
    The typical historical ignorance of calling pro-choice “hitlerian” because conservatives are also historically illiterate and don’t know Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-abortion. Which makes sense because they view humans as a means to an end anyway. It was also one of the reasons conservatives and the Catholic Church at the time overwhelmingly supported them too.

    Not to mention the gross misuse of language, words having no meaning to foolish leftists like today’s conservatives and I’d say you’ve struck gold.

    Your post perfectly captures the total ignorance, self-contradictions and even outright support of evil, of all too many of today’s clueless conservatives.

    Good job.

  81. Warwick

    CL, I have been very appreciative of the work you have put into analyzing the Pell case. Thanks for your efforts. Let’s pray for a just outcome at the High Court.

  82. dover_beach

    view people as mere meat

    This is the position of almost every atheist, including IamMengele.

  83. Hugh

    Well, I guess it’s troll vs imp.

    The glaring contradiction in suggesting those who view people as mere meat and cattle wouldn’t exterminate them.

    Have no idea what you’re on about there, sorry. The Church totally opposes materialists deny the existence of the soul. But you must know that, so I’m at a loss as to what you are referring.

    “The typical historical ignorance of calling pro-choice “hitlerian””

    … nup, didn’t do that. But FWIW, Hitler wanted to eliminate just about everyone who was defective in some way or another and his take on abortion and infanticide was this:

    ” Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses”

    In other words, Hitler was against abortion only for what he classified as “healthy” children. Plus, he was very enthusiastic about eliminating all “lives unworthy of life.” The Catholic Church is far more authoritarian, and in Hitler’s words “insane”: No children whatsoever may be aborted. (nd no born innocents may be directly killed, either.

    As for Catholics supporting Hitler, well, there’s the Papal Encyclical of Pius XI “Mit brennender sorge” smuggled into Germany and read from all pulpits on Palm Sunday, 1937, causing Gestapo raids on all Catholic churches the next day, and an intensified attack by the Nazis on the Church. And the distinct lack of support from Catholics (v. Protestants) for the Nazis in the elections of 1932. But why spoil a good story with the facts?

    And as for the Church being authoritarian, I stand by that. I’m not against authority, properly constituted, even though I’d be regarded as a reckless libertarian by my acquaintances. As Paul Johnson says at the beginning of his bio of Pope John Paul II: “The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is a divine autocracy …” Jesus Christ is Her head, and mine. So yes, very authoritarian … no murder, no theft, worship God, love thy neighbour as thyself etc … no ifs, no buts.

  84. dover_beach

    The typical historical ignorance of calling pro-choice “hitlerian” because conservatives are also historically illiterate and don’t know Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-abortion.

    No, no, the Nazis were neither pro- nor anti-abortion per se. They were opposed to ‘Aryan’ mothers killing their children but only so long as they weren’t disabled in some manner, if they were they wholeheartedly supported the killing of these children, either in utero or post partum, very much like today’s pro-aborts. Further, they wholeheartedly approved of abortion for non-‘Aryans’. You would no this if you’d ever read a book. Do you even know what they look like?

  85. dover_beach

    Have no idea what you’re on about there, sorry.

    Hugh, IamMengele believes that opposing abortion means treating the mother as mere cattle. He’s never explained why the obligation of the mother never to harm her child treats the mother as mere cattle. I’d say it’s a piece of rhetoric his lifted from somewhere.

  86. Iampeter

    Have no idea what you’re on about there, sorry. The Church totally opposes materialists deny the existence of the soul. But you must know that, so I’m at a loss as to what you are referring.

    I’m referring to the comparison of the “unborn” with “human life,” which is used as the question begging and politically illiterate basis for banning abortion, put forward by religious conservatives.
    If you view mindless tissue that hasn’t even been born yet as the equivalent of a human being, then you don’t think very much of human beings. We’re all just so much grass for you to mow. So there’s no reason for you to oppose extermination camps.

    In other words, Hitler was against abortion only for what he classified as “healthy” children.

    Hitler and the Nazi’s were against ALL abortions. They worked extensively to increase the laws in this area. This is separate and in addition to them also being eugenicists. There’s no contradiction there for the same reason as those who could ban abortion could support extermination camps. These people don’t value of individual human life with rights.
    On the flip side, the pro-choice position is not a pro-eugenics position. Forcing someone to have an abortion is just as much a rights violations as forcing someone to carry to term.

    And the distinct lack of support from Catholics (v. Protestants) for the Nazis in the elections of 1932. But why spoil a good story with the facts?

    ALL Christian movements overwhelmingly supported the Nazi’s. They liked their anti-abortion and anti-homosexual positions. Not to mention that the altruistic teachings of Christianity helped lead to these kind of authoritarian regimes in the first place. Not to mention the source of antisemitism coming from Christian teachings in the first place. Not to mention Hitler creating satellite states like Slovakia and Croatia, which were setup as Catholic Theocracy’s.
    No trivial minority, that didn’t take religion as seriously as Nazi supporters, is going to change these facts, despite the very good efforts by the Church to white wash yet another atrocious chapter in their history.

    And as for the Church being authoritarian, I stand by that.

    I know you do. I’m just pointing out that like most non-serious Christians, mis-integrated thinkers and religious conservatives today, you haven’t taken your beliefs through to their logical outcome and yet have the gall to project that very same outcome onto those offering the actual answers to life’s questions, thereby creating what’s going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  87. Hugh

    “If you view mindless tissue that hasn’t even been born yet as the equivalent of a human being, then you don’t think very much of human beings.”

    “I think unborns are mindless tissue.
    Hugh thinks unborns are of equal value to born human beings.
    Therefore Hugh must think all human beings are mindless tissue.”

    How did you go in Logic 101, Imp?

  88. Iampeter

    How did you go in Logic 101, Imp?

    That IS logic 101.

  89. Iampeter

    He’s never explained why the obligation of the mother never to harm her child treats the mother as mere cattle.

    The right to an abortion doesn’t mean the right to harm your children. That’s a non-sequitur. There’s nothing to explain.
    I’m sure if conservatives had a logical political argument for why abortion should be banned you’d just use that. But then I’ve never heard conservatives make logical political arguments re ANY issue.

    This is why I refer to conservatives as the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing.

  90. Hugh

    “That IS logic 101.”

    Sorry, I HD’d in logic in my phil. hons degree, but I never came across:

    I think all Xs are Ps.
    Hugh thinks all Ps are Ys.
    Therefore Hugh thinks all Xs are Ys.

    Is that some Aristotelian syllogism I slept through?

  91. None

    Next, Lumpeter will be telling us the churches supported Hitler’s Aktion T4 euthanasia program. Lumpeter is either A grade certifiably insane or just an A grade malicious liar.

  92. Hugh

    ALL Christian movements overwhelmingly supported the Nazi’s.

    I have before me Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Liberty or Equality” (1952). Maps at p. 224 . Percentage of votes for Nazis, elections July 31 1932. Almost total alignment between areas of 85-100% Catholic and votes for Nazis of between 0 – 35%. Equal alignment of areas where Catholics were 0 to 30% and votes for Nazis 40% and over.

    “Overwhelming support” of ALL Christian movements.

    Your evidence?

  93. dover_beach

    Hitler and the Nazi’s were against ALL abortions.

    Not at all. See Abortion in the New Europe: p. 114::

    The Nazis certainly were not “pro-Choice”, but they were not “anti-abortion” either. The Nazis believed that a woman’s body belonged to the State, and the State would decide what to do with it. The Nazis did not allow abortion for healthy “Aryan” German women, but demanded and forced abortion upon women deemed “unAryan” (i.e. Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) and “Aryan” German women who were thought to be feeble-minded, or have hereditary diseases.

    Exactly what I stated above. Further, the Nazis made no move to restrict abortion for ‘Aryan’ women until the outset of the war in 1939! The chief promoter of abortion in Germany before 1933 was Dr. Rudin. He was appointed head of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene in 1933. More info can be found here.

  94. dover_beach

    Hitler and the Nazi’s were against ALL abortions.

    Not at all. See Abortion in the New Europe: p. 114::

    The Nazis certainly were not “pro-Choice”, but they were not “anti-abortion” either. The Nazis believed that a woman’s body belonged to the State, and the State would decide what to do with it. The Nazis did not allow abortion for healthy “Aryan” German women, but demanded and forced abortion upon women deemed “unAryan” (i.e. [email protected], Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) and “Aryan” German women who were thought to be feeble-minded, or have hereditary diseases.

    Exactly what I stated above. Further, the Nazis made no move to restrict abortion for ‘Aryan’ women until the outset of the war in 1939! The chief promoter of abortion in Germany before 1933 was Dr. Rudin. He was appointed head of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene in 1933. More info can be found here.

  95. Iampeter

    I think all Xs are Ps.
    Hugh thinks all Ps are Ys.
    Therefore Hugh thinks all Xs are Ys.

    It’s really simple. If you think mindless tissue that hasn’t been born yet is human beings, then you must think human beings are mindless tissue that hasn’t been born yet. In which case there’s no reason for you to oppose atrocities. You don’t value human life.
    I know this is difficult for altruists to wrap their heads around because sacrificing people for something greater than themselves is the whole point of politics for you, so you don’t even see an issue. Well, neither did the Nazi’s.

    Your evidence?

    I covered that in my post.
    The Nazi’s were a predominantly Catholic faction, that took Christian teachings seriously. The fact that Catholics had an actual Catholic Party to vote for in 1932 doesn’t change anything. All major movements agreed with the Nazi’s on the fundamentals anyway. Something like Nazi Germany couldn’t happen otherwise.

  96. dover_beach

    It’s really simple. If you think mindless tissue that hasn’t been born yet is human beings, then you must think human beings are mindless tissue that hasn’t been born yet.

    Begging the question is very strong in IamMengele.

    The Nazi’s were a predominantly Catholic faction, that took Christian teachings seriously.

    Nurse!

  97. Iampeter

    Begging the question is very strong in IamMengele.

    What I said was not begging the question.
    Begging the question would be saying something like, “abortion should be illegal because it’s murder.”

    We’ve been over this before and you don’t understand what you’re saying and yourself commit the fallacy you accuse others all the time.

  98. dover_beach

    IamMengele, you have no idea what ‘begging the question’ means. Hugh does not think that the child in utero is ‘mindless tissue’. Given that claim is in dispute, your reliance on it is textbook question begging.

    N.B. The child in utero is not even tissue because it constitutes a whole organism and not merely a part.

  99. Iampeter

    Suggesting the unborn is a “child” would be observably false, while pointing out that it is mindless tissue would be self evidently true.
    You can verify this through simple observation. There’s no argument here.
    Just like people who believe in more than one gender, there’s no discussing anything with you.

    You’ve already face-planted at the starting line.

    Not to mention the bigger issue in which you can pretend the unborn is a full grown adult if you like and it still makes no difference to the political argument. Which you can’t make because you don’t know how.

    All you do is post logical fallacies and observably false nonsense, then accuse others of what you’re doing.
    E.g.
    The unborn is a child – observably false statement
    The right to an abortion means parents can harm their children – non-sequitur
    Abortion is murder – begging the question
    Immigration should be illegal because breaking and entering is illegal – begging the question
    And so on…

    You have no logical arguments and you have no logical political arguments.

  100. dover_beach

    Suggesting the unborn is a “child” would be observably false, while pointing out that it is mindless tissue would be self evidently true.
    You can verify this through simple observation. There’s no argument here.

    Textbook question-begging. Further, something ‘self-evident’ requires no observation. But let me address your first assertion, that the unborn child is not a child, and that this is observably false. How does one ‘observe’ that the unborn child is not a child? If I observe a child born at 9 months and then observe a unborn child at 9 months but whose mother is late, I observe precisely the same thing: a child at exactly the same stage of development, simply, a child at 9 months. Therefore, your assertion is false. As to your second assertion, that the child at 9 months is mindless tissue is ‘self-evidently true’ is false because it is neither ‘mindless’ nor ‘ tissue’. It isn’t ‘mindless’ because it interacts with its surroundings, and it isn’t tissue because it is a whole organism and not merely a part.

  101. Iampeter

    Sure. You’d probably say 1=1 is question begging if you felt you disagreed with it.
    You don’t know what you’re saying.

    In any case, I’m not debating this with you. You can pretend the unborn is whatever you want it to be. It doesn’t change anything.

    I’m just pointing out you have no political arguments. That’s all.

  102. Hugh

    Imp, DB is correct. I certainly don’t hold the unborn child to be either mindless or just a piece of tissue. You appear to want to ascribe to me this view I know. But deal with it: I don’t. Not only am I a modern Thomist philosophically speaking, I’m first and foremost a Catholic.

    You don’t seem to know much about Catholic teaching, given you conflate Catholic teaching in with Nazism. So I suppose it’s not surprising that you ascribe to me, a Catholic, views about the unborn which the Church would today certainly denounce as radically at odds with much of Catholic teaching, if not outright heresy.

  103. dover_beach

    Abortion is murder – begging the question

    No. Here is the argument:
    P1: Deliberately killing an innocent human being is murder.
    P2: The child in utero is a human being
    P3: Abortion involves deliberately killing a child in utero.
    Therefore, C, abortion is murder.
    This syllogism involves no question-begging. Nowhere is C contained in any single premise. You might want to dispute a premise, say P2, but you given nothing but question-begging responses; that is, all of your responses assume, not argue, that the child in utero is not an innocent human being. You admit this by asserting “there is no argument here”. Indeed, your counterpoints are ‘argument-free zones’.

  104. struth

    Suggesting the unborn is a “child” would be observably false, while pointing out that it is mindless tissue would be self evidently true.

    FMD.

    What a Fuckwit,………………… can you believe it?
    Those vaginal cavities are just magical, no the really are.
    The mind is not even present until passing though Iampoyda’s “Magical Vaginal Cavity”

    It’s the whole MVC theory you cats are just too dumb to grasp, like your understanding of politics.

    But there is one that knows all.
    No wonder there as so many mindless fuckers about……………………………….cesarian!
    One , if not the worst, uneducated, insane trolls we’ve ever had on this site.

  105. Iampeter

    Imp, DB is correct. I certainly don’t hold the unborn child to be either mindless or just a piece of tissue. You appear to want to ascribe to me this view I know. But deal with it: I don’t.

    I’m sure you don’t.
    Most collectivists are dishonest with themselves about their own ideas to help justify their rights violations. Very few truly evil people exist who are honest with themselves.

    Later you’ll be able to say you weren’t a Nazi because you didn’t vote for them. Even though you agreed with them on everything in principle, to one degree or another.
    Hope that makes you feel better.

  106. struth

    The Nazi’s were a predominantly Catholic faction,

    Good Lord.
    Only have myself to blame.
    I scrolled back.

  107. Iampeter

    No. Here is the argument:
    P1: Deliberately killing an innocent human being is murder.
    P2: The child in utero is a human being
    P3: Abortion involves deliberately killing a child in utero.
    Therefore, C, abortion is murder.

    Now THAT is textbook question begging.

    If you’re going to make a logical argument, free from circular reasoning, you need to argue why abortion qua abortion should be illegal.
    This requires political theory to be applied, not by false analogy to something else that is already illegal.
    Illegal for reasons you don’t seem to know either. I.e. murder is not illegal just because you’ve “deliberately killed an innocent human being.” There are contexts where that could happen and it would not be murder. Like war. Like a failed surgery, like pulling the plug, hospice work, etc.

    Also, why is it a “child in utero?” Why isn’t it an adult in utero? Harder to make appeals to emotions if you’re not discussing adorable babies? That’s another logical fallacy on your part too…

  108. calli

    Dover, you are a genuine brick. And this is for you.

  109. dover_beach

    Now THAT is textbook question begging.

    No, it isn’t.

    If you’re going to make a logical argument, free from circular reasoning, you need to argue why abortion qua abortion should be illegal.

    LOL. Your use of qua is not fooling anyone.

    Illegal for reasons you don’t seem to know either. I.e. murder is not illegal just because you’ve “deliberately killed an innocent human being.” There are contexts where that could happen and it would not be murder. Like war. Like a failed surgery, like pulling the plug, hospice work, etc.

    War is covered by not being innocent, and failed surgery is covered by not being deliberate. You aren’t very clever, IamMengele.

  110. Iampeter

    No, it isn’t.

    But you literally did what I said you were going to do which is claim abortion is murder, which is begging the question LOL!

  111. Iampeter

    War is covered by not being innocent, and failed surgery is covered by not being deliberate. You aren’t very clever, IamMengele.

    Sigh.
    You’ve missed the point as always. Whether something is legal or not is not determined by whether an action is deliberate or not. That may be used to determine what specific crime has been committed and what the level of punishment should be, but it has nothing to do with determining legality.
    Legality is determined by this whole other science. You’ve probably never heard of it. It’s called “politics.”

    That’s why you can’t make a political argument for why abortion should be illegal. With no understanding of politics you have no major premise LOL!

  112. JC

    Peter

    I thought you told us the mental facility had computer lockdown on weekends. Don’t get caught!

  113. dover_beach

    But you literally did what I said you were going to do which is claim abortion is murder, which is begging the question LOL!

    No, I presented a syllogism that involved no premises that asserted ‘abortion is murder’, thus avoiding any question-begging.

    You’ve missed the point as always. Whether something is legal or not is not determined by whether an action is deliberate or not. That may be used to determine what specific crime has been committed and what the level of punishment should be, but it has nothing to do with determining legality.
    Legality is determined by this whole other science. You’ve probably never heard of it. It’s called “politics.”

    That is certainly what Göring argued at Nuremberg.

  114. Hugh

    Imp,

    tissue, organ, organism … do you know the difference? Biology 101. Now produce one textbook of embryology which states as you do, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue.

    Ah, but no … I see your next move: the authors of those embryology texts really, deep down, know that the unborn is, self-evidently, merely tissue, nothing more … it’s just that they’re collectivists, and dishonest with themselves, along with everyone else who disagrees with the Imp, such that they don’t admit it.

    Likewise, all historians really know that Catholics overwhelmingly supported Hitler, despite the results of elections in 1932 showing manifestly otherwise at a point at which Hitler had not revealed the full scope of his evil intentions of instituting a dictatorial reign of terror state throughout the land. And the Pope furiously attacking Nazism in “Mit brennender sorge” and priests such as St Maximilian Kolbe and Alfred Delp being hauled off to concentration camps for resisting the Nazi regime? Well, says Imp, if they were really resisting Nazism, then they weren’t Catholics, were they? Ha, ha! The good old “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the rescue! (Even though Kolbe was canonized a saint … all part of the cunning Machiavellian machinations of the R.C.C. They’ll go to any lengths!) And the Pope was just being dishonest with “Mit brennender sorge” and having it smuggled into Germany to be read out at every pulpit on Palm Sunday 1937 … guess what: deep down, he was a Nazi sympathizer, wink wink, like all true Catholics. So the Gestapo raids the next day on churches neatly got rid of all those priests who were trenchantly anti-Nazi and thus anti-true-Catholic, and Pius XI was smiling (secretly) at the Gestapo’s purge as a job well done, getting rid of a lot of pseudo-Catholics!

  115. notafan

    The Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration (in German Pfarrerblock, or Priesterblock) incarcerated clergy who had opposed the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. From December 1940, Berlin ordered the transfer of clerical prisoners held at other camps, and Dachau became the centre for imprisonment of clergymen. Of a total of 2,720 clerics recorded as imprisoned at Dachau some 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Roman Catholics. Among the other denominations, there were 109 Protestants, 22 Greek Orthodox, 8 Old Catholics and Mariavites and 2 Muslims. Members of the Catholic Society of Jesus (Jesuits) were the largest group among the incarcerated clergy at Dachau

    Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp

  116. Hugh

    There are contexts where that could happen and it would not be murder. Like war. Like a failed surgery, like pulling the plug, hospice work, etc.

    Oh, dear. You know, Imp, we’d all save a whole lot of time if we didn’t have to reinvent the wheel. You claim to know about Catholic teaching, but by your clumsy footing here manifest almost no acquaintance with the discussions on these issues in Catholic moral theology and ethics which have been going on for decades and often centuries. (And not to mention very perceptive contributions by non-Catholics, from Socrates/Plato and Aristotle forward.)

    You may have brilliant solutions to all moral matters contrary to the decisions of the Church and orthodox moral theologians. But if so, all I can say is that you’re being far too modest.

  117. notafan

    The Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration (in German Pfarrerblock, or Priesterblock) incarcerated clergy who had opposed the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. From December 1940, Berlin ordered the transfer of clerical prisoners held at other camps, and Dachau became the centre for imprisonment of clergymen. Of a total of 2,720 clerics recorded as imprisoned at Dachau some 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Roman Catholics. Among the other denominations, there were 109 Protestants, 22 Greek Orthodox, 8 Old Catholics and Mariavites and 2 Musl ims. Members of the Catholic Society of Jesus (Jesuits) were the largest group among the incarcerated clergy at Dachau

    Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp

  118. Megan

    I thought you told us the mental facility had computer lockdown on weekends. Don’t get caught.

    His tin-foil hat takes up the slack from midnight Friday.

  119. Iampeter

    No, I presented a syllogism that involved no premises that asserted ‘abortion is murder’, thus avoiding any question-begging.

    Oh this is another catallaxy sentence worth bookmarking. I don’t even know…
    ALL syllogisms involve premises. What did you think the “P” stands for in the P1, P2 stuff you were listing?
    Did you just copy-paste this from Google without actually reading any of the details?
    Saying “abortion is murder” is literally begging the question you nitwit. There’s no avoiding it.
    Also, we’re not debating what abortion is, but whether it should be legal.
    You literally have NOTHING straight.

    That is certainly what Göring argued at Nuremberg.

    What I’m saying is the exact opposite of what a Nazi would say. You still haven’t figured out you’re on the side of the Nazis. Both in terms of agreeing with them on specific political issues and in your irrational and collectivist approach to politics.

    We’re pretty much done here.

  120. Iampeter

    Gotta love the usual crackpots coming out of the woodwork. JC, Megan, why are you on a politics and economics blog when you know nothing about either subjects?
    Who are you kidding?

  121. JC

    We’re pretty much done here.

    Never use terms such as that one which have been used against you. It’s unoriginal and demonstrates you are a cheat.

    Hand back the computer and the other gadgets to the orderly. Now!

  122. Iampeter

    tissue, organ, organism … do you know the difference? Biology 101. Now produce one textbook of embryology which states as you do, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue.

    I don’t need any textbook to tell me what the unborn is anymore than I need a textbook to tell me there are only two genders.
    This is not some complex question of science.

    But until you figure out what it actually means to be a human being you will never be in a position to oppose any atrocity.

  123. Iampeter

    Never use terms such as that one which have been used against you. It’s unoriginal and demonstrates you are a cheat.

    You’ve never used that term against me, nor would it ever be correct if you did, you insane person.
    But you stole my terms about you logging in from a mental facility, so even here you’ve made a fool of yourself…holy moly.

  124. dover_beach

    Oh this is another catallaxy sentence worth bookmarking. I don’t even know…
    ALL syllogisms involve premises. What did you think the “P” stands for in the P1, P2 stuff you were

    LOL, I didn’t say that my syllogism involved no premises, I said it involves no premises that asserted ‘abortion is murder’. Are you that stupid? You even included that statement above yourself. Dear oh dear.

  125. dover_beach

    I don’t need any textbook

    IamMengele waves the white flag.

  126. Tel

    IamMengele waves the white flag.

    Ask him about interest rates … he’s sharp as a tack on central banking. Not quite as strong on biology.

  127. Iampeter

    LOL, I didn’t say that my syllogism involved no premises, I said it involves no premises that asserted ‘abortion is murder’.

    The “abortion is murder” is not your premise, it’s the question you’re begging with your overall argument.
    Every one of your P1 to P3 are begging the question independently of each other anyway, but trying to draw the conclusion you do is ALSO begging the question.

    Let me give you a hint: stop assuming abortion should be illegal and then working backwards. That’s how you get stuck in a circular argument. You need to start with learning what politics is about (major premise) and then applying it to specific issues like abortion (minor premise).

    At this point you really should just use Google to help yourself.

    BTW, there IS actually a political argument for why abortion should be illegal. But just like with immigration, it is a LEFT WING argument.

    Once you’re done piss farting around, let me know and I’ll spell it out for you.

  128. Iampeter

    Ask him about interest rates … he’s sharp as a tack on central banking. Not quite as strong on biology.

    You’re right, tel. I’m a real dummy. Here I am on a politics and economics blog and all you guys want to do is discuss “biology.” Which you are totally not also failing at completely right out the gate at the observation-level.

    Also, have you asked JC about what inflation is?

    You guys are very smERt.

  129. dover_beach

    The “abortion is murder” is not your premise, it’s the question you’re begging with your overall argument.

    Another example of you having no idea what begging the question involves.

    Every one of your P1 to P3 are begging the question independently of each other anyway, but trying to draw the conclusion you do is ALSO begging the question.

    Sure, sure, and the classic syllogism,
    Socratres is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    is also also begging the question in first and second premise, too, and in the conclusion as well.

    You really are a clown, IamMengele.

  130. struth

    In all cases, Iamamoron, when you purposefully stop a healthy heart from beating, you kill it.
    No questions asked.
    If a 9 month pregnant woman was dying but her baby (foetus) was fine, you believe it is dead and should not be removed from the dying mother?
    If the mother died, does that mean there are now immediately two dead bodies or could you cut the baby out and find, (surprising to you and no one else on the entire planet) that the baby lives, with it’s separate D&A, it’s own little heat beating away, even without going though your MVC?

    You’re a troll, I get that, but at some point you must realise you are making our case for us, with regard to those lurking.

    You however, have been shot down in flames so many times you are worthless and just dribbling again, in your obvious defeat.

    Oh, and the sky is blue and the earth isn’t flat, and yes, you do you have two dicks.
    You can’t be that sill just playing with one.

  131. Iampeter

    Another example of you having no idea what begging the question involves.

    LOL!

    Sure, sure, and the classic syllogism,
    Socratres is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    Yea that has a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. It’s fine.
    What you did, has NO premises, has three arguments begging their own questions and a conclusion that is also begging the question.

    Sorry dover, but “classic syllogism” doesn’t mean saying random nonsense, then concluding what you were always intending to conclude anyway. That’s called “begging the question.” LOL!

  132. Hugh

    “I don’t need any textbook to tell me what the unborn is …”

    Well, great for you, Imp!

    But what I asked is, satisfied as you evidently are as to your own no-doubt brilliant self-enlightenment on these matters, can you produce an embryology textbook (or … I’ll throw it wider … some peer-reviewed embryology paper) which affirms your assertion that the unborn baby is merely tissue, rather than an arrangement of cells, tissue and organs that constitutes an organism?

    Not quite the same question, you see.

  133. dover_beach

    What you did, has NO premises, has three arguments begging their own questions and a conclusion that is also begging the question.

    In what way is the statement “Deliberately killing an innocent human being is murder” not a proposition/ premise? And, again, a premise cannot beg the question, only an argument can; namely, one in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. You seem to think that ‘begging the question’ means that a statement raises some yet unasked question. No, ‘begging the question’ does not mean that at all. Read an introductory text on logic for pity’s sake. Let me guess: I don’t need to read an textbook on logic to know…

  134. Hugh

    “But until you figure out what it actually means to be a human being you will never be in a position to oppose any atrocity.”

    To give credit where credit is due, that’s one of the few valuable things you’ve said on this thread, Imp. At least we can agree on something. Cheers. Whoops, there goes the siren for the final quarter. Back on to the field you s.o.b.

  135. Iampeter

    which affirms your assertion that the unborn baby is merely tissue, rather than an arrangement of cells, tissue and organs that constitutes an organism?

    So you’re saying it’s not merely tissue, but … merely tissue?
    What I’m saying is, human beings are much more than tissue, organs, organism, DNA and any other random variants and arrangements of these words.
    If you view people as nothing more than bags of meat, as you clearly do, as anti-abortionists clearly do, then you can’t oppose any atrocities. You don’t really value human life.

  136. dover_beach

    Let me put it even more clearly.
    Major premise: Deliberately killing an innocent human being is murder. (All men are moral)
    Minor premise: The child in utero is an innocent human being. (Socrates is a man)
    Conclusion: Deliberately killing a child in utero is murder. (Socrates is mortal)
    The middle term is ‘innocent human being’, the predicate is ‘murder’, and the subject is ‘the child in utero’ in exactly the same way that the middle term in the classic syllogism is ‘men’, the predicate is mortal, and the subject is Socrates.

    QED.

  137. struth

    What I’m saying is, human beings are much more than tissue, organs, organism, DNA and any other random variants and arrangements of these words.
    If you view people as nothing more than bags of meat, as you clearly do, as anti-abortionists clearly do, then you can’t oppose any atrocities. You don’t really value human life.

    Pompous tosh attempting to evade because it has no real argument.

    Humans are flesh and blood and so much more.
    When you kill the flesh and blood, you kill the so much more as well.

    When you kill something, whatever you call it, if it has human cells and [email protected], it is human.
    If it has a heart beat, it is a human BEING.
    Understand the word being? numb nuts?
    Now fuck off.

  138. Iampeter

    QED.

    Oh wow.

    Dover, we’re not debating whether abortion is murder or not. That’s you question begging.
    We’re debating whether abortion should be legal or not.

    OK let me define begging the question for you: it means assuming the conclusion.
    It’s a circular argument and you keep doing it by trying to suggest abortion is murder. But everything else your saying is circular too.

    To unpick it specifically with your “argument”:

    Major premise: Deliberately killing an innocent human being is murder

    No it’s not. Someone’s guilt or innocence doesn’t have anything to do with murder or not.
    You can murder guilty people.
    You could murder people unintentionally, etc.
    You’re just assuming the conclusion.
    This is not a premise.
    This is begging the question.

    Minor premise: The child in utero is an innocent human being.

    Same thing. This is not a premise. There’s no reason to assume there is even a “child” in utero. You’d need to prove that separately.
    Nor is a it a “human being” the way you mean. You’d need to prove that separately.
    Nor can something that hasn’t even achieved consciousness be innocent or guilty of anything. You’re misusing words like “guilt” and “innocence” which you don’t understand how to use correctly.

    Conclusion: Deliberately killing a child in utero is murder.

    Even if there were children in utero, whether or not killing them is murder, is not determined by anything you’ve said in any of your premises.
    Nothing about children, their location, their guilt or innocence, has anything to do with whether killing them would be murder.
    So…you guessed it…you’re begging the question.

    Like I said earlier, you have no arguments re whether abortion or ANYTHING should be legal or illegal, because that requires understanding of politics. Without this you have no major premise.
    In the absence of this you are trying to equate abortion with something that is already illegal for reasons you don’t understand, in this case murder, in order to justify making it also illegal.
    This is begging the question. But all your internal “arguments” are also equally logically invalid.

    Like I said earlier, if you had an argument for why abortion should be illegal, then you would have made it qua abortion.
    You would never need to mention murder.
    But you don’t have any such argument, nor do you realize that such an argument would be left wing.
    That requires understanding of politics.

    Now we have QED.

  139. Iampeter

    Humans are flesh and blood and so much more.
    When you kill the flesh and blood, you kill the so much more as well.

    Yea but you’re only concerned with the flesh and blood part.

    When you kill something, whatever you call it, if it has human cells and [email protected], it is human.
    If it has a heart beat, it is a human BEING.

    Right, so what’s the big deal? Humans are just DNA with beating hearts? So are chickens. So are cows.
    Given what you’ve said, there’s no reason for you to oppose killing humans.

    You’re incredibly anti-human life.

  140. struth

    We’ve always called murdering the child in utero, murder.
    We haven’t changed our view and explain clearly why it was is, and will always be murder.

    Because others want to name it something else , and make murder legal if the child, a full human being, is in utero, doesn’t change the facts .
    It’s murder, and Iampeter’s pedantics here proves they have no argument that stands up.
    Cherry picking little pedantics and claiming we need to justify why we believe what we always have done.
    Murder is a sin, and against the law, as it should be and has been in countries like Australia where our laws are based on the bible.
    Of any human being.
    It really is that simple to the sane.

  141. struth

    Different D&A than chickens, oh dumb one.

    We have different laws for different life forms.
    Funny about that, shitferbrains.

    However, humans are “beings” when there is a heart beat and that cannot be argued.
    A separate human being with separate human D&A from it’s mother and from that moment is most definitely a “being”
    Many here would argue that they are from the moment of conception.
    Personally, I feel it is a sin to kill from the moment of conception, however, once a heart is beating it cannot be denied the child is now a “being” and killing a child in utero is murder.
    It’s killing a human being.
    One who’s mother cannot control when he decides to kick and move around, etc.
    Again it really is that simple, and all of your obfuscating and diverting shows not only your ignorance but your inherent evil.

  142. Hugh

    “What I’m saying is, human beings are much more than tissue”

    Don’t distract.

    You’ve said time and again that the unborn is , self evidently, mere tissue.

    And yet you can’t quote embryologists who say that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue (or you’re maybe just holding out on us?).

    So regardless of your noble view of what human beings are, you’ve yet to supply evidence from embryologists that an unborn baby is just a lump of tissue.

  143. calli

    Struth, I think you mean DNA. The flu is affecting your typing, you poor man.

    It’s been a masterful derailing of C.L.’s evisceration of VicPol. Which means he was right on the money.

  144. struth

    No Calli, My Keyboard is up the shit, and I couldn’t be arsed editing every word, inserting missed letters and the like, just to state the bleeding obvious to an arrogant upstart.

    The D&A thing, cannot be blamed on the keyboard, though.
    God knows what made me do that.

  145. dover_beach

    Dover, we’re not debating whether abortion is murder or not. That’s you question begging.
    We’re debating whether abortion should be legal or not.

    No, no, this began by you disputing the claim abortion was murder. Having lost that argument, you’re now claiming that a different question was in disputing. This pee and thimble trick might work with the dummies that physically surround you on a daily basis, but it doesn’t around here.

    No it’s not. Someone’s guilt or innocence doesn’t have anything to do with murder or not.
    You can murder guilty people.
    You could murder people unintentionally, etc.
    This is not a premise.
    This is begging the question.

    Firstly, no, you misunderstand how the term ‘innocent’ is being used in the first premise. It simply means that the person is not threatening another’s life. Therefore, the use of force in self-defence, if proportionate to the threat, does not constitute murder because the person killed is not ‘innocent’. Thirdly, you cannot murder someone unintentionally. If an outcome is unintentional, it would fall into the categories, of manslaughter, negligence, or accident. Fourthly, no, it is a premise and doesn’t ‘beg the question’ as the major premise does not assume the conclusion.

  146. dover_beach

    Same thing. This is not a premise. There’s no reason to assume there is even a “child” in utero. You’d need to prove that separately.

    Someone tell IamMengele that neither the first or second premise is being assumed. They are legitimate targets of disputation. But asserting them in an argument is not ‘begging the question’.

  147. Iampeter

    No, no, this began by you disputing the claim abortion was murder.

    From my very first post to you re this in the thread, I have said you don’t have any arguments for why abortion should be illegal. I said in a separate post that you will give me the usual “abortion is murder” in order to beg the question that it should be illegal.

    You then proceeded to do exactly that.

  148. Iampeter

    We’ve always called murdering the child in utero, murder.
    We haven’t changed our view and explain clearly why it was is, and will always be murder.

    Yes, conservatives have always called it that. Well, since 1850 when the AMA union in America worked to make it illegal. It was perfectly legal in the West before then and just as widely practiced.
    You call it that because you have no political arguments and are just trying to appeal to emotions instead.
    Murder bad! Abortion murder! Abortion bad!
    ^That’s the entire sum of your cringe-inducing, politically illiterate “arguments.”

    Murder is a sin, and against the law, as it should be and has been in countries like Australia where our laws are based on the bible.

    None of our laws are based on the bible. Arbitrary commands from on high, with no context, are only the basis for legal systems in totalitarian regimes.
    You know nothing about our culture, it’s ideas, it’s laws or how to even begin on this topic.

    Different D&A than chickens, oh dumb one.

    Yep, so if you think humans are just DNA you can’t oppose killing humans. You keep proving with each post on this that you don’t value human beings.

  149. Tom

    Iampeter, you’re evidently too stupid to hold down a job, even in the public service. That means taxpayers are paying your salary via some bumfuck university dedicated to employing unemployables (i.e., all of them), which gives you endless time to troll websites that have the temerity to exist without Big Government subsidies and therefore attract people from the real world who live outside of your bubble.

    The only reason you’re given carte blanche here is that the bloke who owns the Cat is a libertarian, which creates the illusion that everyone reads your demented leftwing rubbish.

    Former SA premier Don Dunstan once told me: “I never stop questioning my own assumptions”. Good advice.

  150. Iampeter

    Tom, the only reason you and the other raving imbeciles post here is because Sinclair has no rules. You spergs would be banned on any other forum.
    Everything you idiots post is politically illiterate and left wing. Some of it is even outright nuts.

    You have no business on a right wing blog and are here because you beyond parody clueless about this stuff.

    So get it straight.

  151. struth

    None of our laws are based on the bible.

    The first sentence of the Constitution wasn’t about Allah, you historically illiterate space cadet.

    Until recently, our country, as was the mother country and indeed all of the western world, Christian, and very much so.
    If you knew anything about law at all, you’d know the only one above the monarch is god.

    Thee was a bloke in the past by the name of Henry the eighth.

    There is the reading of the lords prayer in parliament and the fact that very Christian, extremely Christian societies democratically made laws along the lines of their Christian morality.
    How old are you? I feel like I’m talking to a brainwashed Uni student.
    Not only does the Constitution make reference to a Chistian god’s supremacy, and of that god’s roll in developing the law of the land, highly christian societies, through democracy, had laws enacted that aligned with Christian belief.

    Your commo academics brainwashing you might have you believe that it was all the work of a dreamtime servant , but alas, ’tis not the case.
    To deny western constitutions and the overwhelming proof history provided us, that ou laws originate from Christianity, such as Christian leaders crowning monarchs under a Christian god, shows us your level of stubbornness and your rage against the Christian church, which underlies all your comments.
    A church and religion you know nothing about, and due to that ignorance, your world view is really , up shit creek.

    Delusion is what you are suffering from, and this hatred has turned you into an ahistoric , embarrassing moron.

  152. struth

    In God we trust.
    They yanks most probably meant, Oprah.

    Maybe even Cressida Dick, or Bart Simpson.

  153. Iampeter

    The first sentence of the Constitution wasn’t about Allah, you historically illiterate space cadet.

    There is NO sentence in the Constitution that mentions ANY religion.
    It’s you who is the historically illiterate space cadet and that’s being polite about it.
    The only mention of religion is in the Bill of Rights, in two separate areas. One forbidding the government from making religious laws and the other forbidding religious tests of office, thereby specifically excluding religion from politics.
    Also, if you knew anything about this topic, you would know that the Founders did not come to their beliefs from any religious gibberish, but from a proper understanding of political theory. They were men of the Enlightenment, not Christianity.

    In God we trust.
    They yanks most probably meant, Oprah.

    To prove the West is Christian would require deeper understanding of both Christianity and the West than regurgitating a figure of speech and jumping to the conclusion you want. You superficial simpleton.
    And I’m not going to educate another imbecile at the Cat re the argument you should’ve been making if you knew what you were talking about in the first place.

    I’m just going to say what I already said and you’ve just confirmed anyway:

    You know nothing about our culture, it’s ideas, it’s laws or how to even begin on this topic.

  154. struth

    The only mention of religion is in the Bill of Rights,

    Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights.
    I reply to you for the sake of lurkers.
    My job here is done.

    To prove the West is Christian would require deeper understanding of both Christianity and the West than regurgitating a figure of speech and jumping to the conclusion you want.

    It requires no deep understanding of Christianity at all.
    It requires nothing but an honest read of history.

    You base an argument on a false premise that all who read this, that aren’t even Christian, can see clearly.

  155. calli

    Tom, the only reason you and the other raving imbeciles post here is because Sinclair has no rules. You spergs would be banned on any other forum.

    Yes he does

    Point 1, second para. On thread derailing.

    Sinclair is very lenient.

  156. Iampeter

    struth, the Australian constitution is an incompetent copy of the American one. It’s written by people who don’t know what they were doing. That takes you even further away from the point you were trying to make.
    Re lurkers, whose benefit do you think I’m posting for? This is advertised as a Libertarian and centre-right blog, not “insane and clueless leftists blog.” You and the other loud voices here might want to consider that. If you do any considering that is.

    calli, that’s a good point. You should raise it with those who derailed the thread. Hugh and Dover.

    You idiots can’t even white-knight correctly.

  157. calli

    You idiots can’t even white-knight correctly.

    You made an assertion “Sinclair has no rules”. I simply said, yes he does, and backed it up with evidence.

  158. notafan

    Someone losing an argument reduced to name calling all round?

    Happens all the time.

  159. Iampeter

    You made an assertion “Sinclair has no rules”. I simply said, yes he does, and backed it up with evidence.

    You have no arguments and don’t know what you’re talking about. Like the others here you have no business on a right wing political blog.
    So you’re reduced to arguing forum rules, which you know very well are never enforced, otherwise most of you wouldn’t be posting here.

    Why do you think you can’t? Which of Jesus’ teachings state this?

    That’s a pretty good description of many posters here indeed.
    You should also add, shameless projection, to the list of dishonest evasions you lot engage in to avoid facing the fact you have no arguments.

    SMH

  160. calli

    You have no arguments and don’t know what you’re talking about. Like the others here you have no business on a right wing political blog.

    So speaks the tyrant.

  161. calli

    calli, that’s a good point.

    aaaand…

    So you’re reduced to arguing forum rules,

    So which is it? A good point or a pathetic “argument”?

    I shall leave you to glory in having the last word here. I have work to do.

  162. Iampeter

    So speaks the tyrant.

    I’m just stating a fact.
    If it was wrong it would be easy to prove and wouldn’t need all the insults hurled my way.
    Something many of you also cry about when you get it thrown right back at you, LOL.

    So which is it? A good point or a pathetic “argument”?

    The latter. Obviously. When I said “good point” and directed your comment at those it should’ve been directed at, I would think it was pretty clear what I thought of it.
    Unless you’re seriously debating whether I was being literal when I said there were no rules, or think debating that changes the point of what I was saying…

    This is pretty common stuff at the cat. Threads always follow a pattern like:
    Realise you’re not very informed, get triggered, hurl insults, complain about insults used in thread, derail thread, complain thread is being derailed, claim victory having made no arguments of any kind, the inability to do so being what triggered you in the first place.

    Rinse, repeat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.