He makes Jackie Chiles look like Ninian Stephen

Back in September, Professor Ben Matthews – a former top legal adviser to the anti-Catholic Royal Commission (and an ABC-published expert) – judged the likelihood of an appeal being granted to Cardinal George Pell.

Is Cardinal Pell’s application to appeal in the High Court likely to succeed?

The High Court does not lightly give leave to appeal …

Statistically, what are Cardinal Pell’s chances?

Not that great. Annual reports show most special leave applications are denied …

A scan of recent applications for special leave to appeal based on the unreasonable verdict argument in child sexual offences show they are nearly always dismissed … with very rare exceptions …

On balance, it is probably unlikely the High Court will grant an appeal …

The first basis for granting leave — a question of legal principle requiring resolution — is not clearly evident here …

What might Cardinal Pell’s defence team argue?

They may focus on the second basis for leave: the interests of justice …

Such arguments will likely meet robust opposition …

The High Court is highly unlikely to grant leave …

What a goofball. We should at least be grateful for this excellent demonstration of how wishful thinking has been the basis for pseudo-legal argumentation in the Pell case from the very start.

UPDATES:

The Guardian, 24 August: Cardinal George Pell’s failed appeal and why his chances in the high court are slim.

The founder of O’Brien Solicitors and criminal defence lawyer Peter O’Brien, who practises in NSW, says those relying on Weinberg’s dissent for the case to be heard in the high court may be disappointed…

“Very rarely will the high court descend into matters associated with facts of a case. If I had a client in this situation, I would be advising them that their chances of high court success are very slim.”

The Canberra Times, 23 August: High Court of Australia should leave George Pell alone.

George Pell will be doing very well if he succeeds in getting the High Court to grant him leave to appeal after the Victorian Court of Appeal threw out his appeal against his conviction for child sex offences.

This entry was posted in Politics, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to He makes Jackie Chiles look like Ninian Stephen

  1. stackja

    Get Pell was the plan.
    The rest was made up as time passed.

  2. Iampeter

    The Royal Commission was not “anti-Catholic.” You’re just playing identity politics again.

    What a goofball. We should at least be grateful for this excellent demonstration of how wishful thinking has been the basis for pseudo-legal argumentation in the Pell case from the very start.

    Mirror, mirror on the wall…

  3. JC

    Sinclair

    Is there any reason to keep imploder as a commenter? He’s absolutely useless.

  4. Leigh Lowe

    Given that Mathews had previously published an opinion that the granting of appeals in such cases is extremely rare, it follows that he must now conclude that the HC granted this rare leave to appeal because they think, prima facie, that it has a very strong chance of success.

  5. Pyrmonter

    Subtle point, but the HC hasn’t given special leave, it has referred the special leave application to the Full Court to be heard as an appeal. The court could well reject the special leave application as well as the appeal. To the best of my knowledge this is uncommon. The consequence of referral is the same as granting special leave, but the implication appears to be that the two judges who heard the special leave application weren’t satisfied there was error sufficient to warrant special leave.

    These pages are dynamic, so things may change but, at the time of writing it’s worth comparing the Guardian’s reporting: straight, factual and largely free from editorial, even from an avowedly ‘progressive’, secular website with that of the ABC website, which is pressing the angle of the ‘victims advocates’, people for whom the procedures of law seems to be an impediment to justice. I don’t agree with the Doomlord and Chris Berg’s proposal to transfer the ABC to its staff, but one of their points – that its coverage is tendentious – is well illustrated by this sort of thing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/13/george-pell-high-court-appeal-cardinal-granted-final-appeal-against-child-sexual-abuse-conviction

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-13/george-pells-child-sex-abuse-appeal-bid-high-court-ruling/11695564

    It’s a wonder some of these ‘advocates’ haven’t been put up on contempt.

  6. kaysee

    The High Court does not lightly give leave to appeal …

    The anti-Catholic club were able to influence the majority of the Vic Appeals panel and got the decision they wanted. Repeat: George Pell Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Get verdict: George Pell Guilty. No legal analysis required. Trial by ABC and friends.
     
    Repeat:

    The High Court is highly unlikely to grant leave. The High Court is highly unlikely to grant leave. The High Court is highly unlikely to grant leave.

    Get verdict: …… whoops.
    The ABC and friends headquarters campaign room is right now discussing what went wrong and the strategy for the next phase of Get Pell.

  7. Pyrmonter

    @ Iamp

    Indeed, it is hard to characterise the commission as ‘anti catholic’ when it managed to find problems among peoples of more than one faith, as well as among the various protestant churches. But for a certain sort of Cat that doesn’t matter, the adherents of such bodies being, at least, heretics.

  8. Rob MW

    If the HCA doesn’t fix up the emotionally charged and corrupted rules of evidence used by prosecutors in cases only involving historical hearsay without any physical evidence whatsoever then our system of justice will fail rendering our court system nothing more than the preverbal despotic kangaroo court.

    Our jails will fill up very quickly if this type of non-physical or even non-circumstantial evidentiary prosecutions are allowed to flourish unchallenged.

  9. notafan

    Pyrmonter

    do you have a link to the HC decision

    would like to read from horse’s mouth please

    I would have thought if they were having difficulties with the written arguments they would have sought oral arguments?

  10. notafan

    Pymonter

    with comments like the one made by Felicity Hampel recently why would anyone think otherwise?

    Do a strawpoll on say, who has heard of the abuses by institutions operated by the Fairbridge trust for example

  11. notafan

    The judge hit out at a personal reference provided for Schembri which was written on the letterhead of a Catholic school.

    She said it was “inappropriate” considering the “well documented poor behaviour of the Catholic church” in relation to child sex abuse.

    I’m considering making a formal protest about it, it’s just wrong,” she said.

  12. Old Lefty

    There is no doubt that the Commission have disproportionate attention to the Catholic Church – which suited Gillard as a way for smearing Abbott.

    What really damns the Royal Commission is its refusal to spend one tenth of one second on state schools which, if anyone cares to look, have a pretty poor record as well, and its refusal to conduct more than a tiny handful of town, stage-managed hearings into government welfare bureaucracies and the institutions they ran (e.g. the dreadful government orphanage in Ballarat). Or into the media and entertainment industries etc etc.

  13. Pyrmonter

    @ nota

    Sorry, not at present, though not for want of trying. In the post above, I’ve assumed the Graun has its facts straight. The High Court website seems inaccessible at present, though I’ll try later. I don’t think there will be anything more than the order.

  14. notafan

    Yes well excuse me if I don’t trust the guardian

  15. notafan

    sorry Pymonter that came across as harsh

    my ire was directed at the guardian

    don’t know what they guard but it isn’t the truth

  16. Jo Smyth

    Have noticed that the Australian doesn’t allow comments on George Pell articles. Could that be because they are disturbed at the amount of support he seems to get in the comments and worse than that, the amount of reasoned argument put forward as to why holes can be punched in the evidence against him.

  17. C.L.

    Gerard Henderson has demonstrated in great detail that the Commission was indeed anti-Catholic – insofar as it deliberately overstated, by statistical legerdemain, the extent of abuse vis-a-vis other churches. It was also obsessed with Cardinal Pell.

  18. sabena

    The High Court last week allowed an appeal in Fennell v the Queen which involved the same issue(whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt) and quashed the conviction and enter a verdict of acquittal.

  19. I think this is just another indication of so-called experts hoping that something they believe in will happen. But this is not surprising, all manner of experts, notably of the Leftist persuasion, are being proven wrong all the time. However, that doesn’t stop them from hoping and providing failed opinions and advice.

  20. jupes

    Subtle point, but the HC hasn’t given special leave, it has referred the special leave application to the Full Court to be heard as an appeal. The court could well reject the special leave application as well as the appeal. To the best of my knowledge this is uncommon. The consequence of referral is the same as granting special leave, but the implication appears to be that the two judges who heard the special leave application weren’t satisfied there was error sufficient to warrant special leave.

    Only lawyers could come up with something this convoluted and stupid.

  21. Percy Popinjay

    Our jails will fill up very quickly if this type of non-physical or even non-circumstantial evidentiary prosecutions are allowed to flourish unchallenged.

    A terrifying thought, especially if you currently exist in the stinking hellhole cesspit that is Victoriastan.

    As was pointed out here a while back, you can now basically end up in gaol in that shithole on the basis of someone accusing you of any criminal act, without any corroborating evidence being supplied to support the allegation of wrongdoing.

  22. a happy little debunker

    Percy Popinjay @ 12:14 pm
    Unfortunately the mantra of ‘believing the victim’ means that people can be found guilty based simply on an allegation.
    This mantra, whilst modernised, is a recycling of the ‘victims’ claims about Salem Witches – it’s proponents would be more than happy to burn you at the stake – if you survived their ordeal by water.

  23. Val Majkus

    from the Oz Tessa Ackerman

    To explain the High Court’s decision more clearly: George Pell has been granted another lifeline in his bid to clear his name with the full bench of the High Court to hear his appeal arguments.

    On Wednesday morning in Canberra, two High Court judges referred Pell’s application for leave to appeal and the substantive case to the Court’s full bench for a hearing.

    “In this application, Justice Edelman and I order that the application for special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria given and made on 21 August 2019 be referred to a Full Court of this Court for argument as on an appeal,” Justice Michelle Gordon said.

    “The parties will be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking that hearing.”

  24. notafan

    argument as on an appeal

    in other words

    as though special leave were granted

  25. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter
    #3210509, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:50 am
    The Royal Commission was not “anti-Catholic.” You’re just playing identity politics again.

    The historic abuses perpetrated by certain Catholic clerics definitely needed to be investigated thoroughly, but they were historic in that they occurred years ago. I have no doubt that many claims of abuse are accurate, but all of them must be resolved by evidence, testimony and the elimination of reasonable doubt.

    The view that the Royal Commission was anti-Catholic might be supported by evidence of any bias towards looking at Catholic Church abuses versus abuses by staff of other institutions, and then considering how many of those abuses have actually been resolved through the legal processes. Gerard Henderson’s view is that all the cases of child sexual abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church are all historical and those that have reached the courts have been legally resolved. The Pell case has another chapter or two to go it seems, as Justice Weinberg, an actual expert in criminal jurisprudence, stated in his dissenting opinion that the decision against Pell was unsafe.

    You may well be right that any claims of anti-Catholic bias in the Royal Commission is an unreasonable claim (though maybe not, as currencylad has addressed that issue already I see). If your intent is to tar currencylad as a leftist by saying “identity politics”, you have failed miserably a) because it seems C.L. has good reason to say so, and b) identity politics isn’t the sole domain of the left.

  26. Val Majkus

    sorry, carrying from that Akerman article

    In that hearing the High Court can reject the Cardinal’s special leave to appeal application or grant him leave to appeal.

    If the court grants Pell leave to appeal, it will then determine whether his appeal case stands up.

    The court could grant leave to appeal but then reject that ground of appeal.

    If the court hears the appeal and grants an appeal on one or more grounds, there are three potential outcomes.

    The court can order a retrial.

    The court can order an acquittal.

    The court can send the case back to the Victorian Court of Appeal for consideration

    haven’t had much to do with High Court leave to appeals but sounds right

  27. Pyrmonter

    @ CL

    You’ll have to excuse me then when I suggest that beneath his sometimes mainstream exterior, Henderson sometimes reveals the heart of a sectarian, keen to lighten the burden of condemnation on Roman Catholicism by ‘tu quoque’ arguments regarding other denominations and the secular authorities.

    None of the churches or religious organisations – whether Witnesses, Hebrews, Protestants or Roman Catholic – has a perfect record, though almost all of them had institutions that were well run, as well as others that harboured monsters – whether that’s the RC Ballaarat Diocese or CEBS in the Anglican church.

    Like many others on the Cat, I thought the RC something of a witch-hunt when it was began; its outcome, sadly, suggests that in some quarters there were ‘witches’, in the form of those who failed to do frankly obvious things in the face of substantial evidence of wrong-going, on which thoughtful churchmen and -women should reflect. That is a deserved black mark on the reputation of all the organisations: one that can’t easily be removed or ignored.

  28. notafan

    Val is that all at the same time simultaneously?

    In February or now

  29. Percy Popinjay

    In the meantime, Pell languishes in prison.

    For how much longer will these disgusting useless legal parasites drag out this seemingly interminable farce?

  30. C.L.

    There is no “identity politics” at work in my support for Pell.
    I have always publicly loathed clerical child molesters, no matter their rank.
    Only a few have been falsely imprisoned.

    The Royal Commission gave the public to understand the Catholic Church was statistically the worst child abuse offender in the country (and among churches).

    This was a black lie.

  31. Iampeter

    Gerard Henderson has demonstrated in great detail that the Commission was indeed anti-Catholic – insofar as it deliberately overstated, by statistical legerdemain, the extent of abuse vis-a-vis other churches. It was also obsessed with Cardinal Pell.

    The only thing the article from Henderson established was that he is as completely dishonest on this issue as you are. His article is basically one long winded exercise in identity politics but also includes some pretty disgusting whataboutism.

    There’s really no line when you have no principles is there?

  32. Iampeter

    Sinclair

    Is there any reason to keep imploder as a commenter? He’s absolutely useless.

    Sorry JC, don’t let me interrupt your deep political discussins. LOL!

    Also I note you are back to following me in every thread like the nut job you are. I thought we broke up? I even let you keep the cats.

  33. Iampeter

    There is no “identity politics” at work in my support for Pell.

    Then you wouldn’t call the Royal Commission “anti-Catholic.”

    The Royal Commission gave the public to understand the Catholic Church was statistically the worst child abuse offender in the country (and among churches).

    So? This is what I mean. You seem to not really be focused on the issue and are just trying to find ways to characterize Catholics as victims here. Hence, identity politics.

    Only a few have been falsely imprisoned.

    You think Pell is falsely imprisoned so it’s hard to take you seriously on this statement. You need to back it up with some facts.

  34. C.L.

    Then you wouldn’t call the Royal Commission “anti-Catholic.”

    Certainly I would.

  35. FelixKruell

    It’s not really a gotcha.

    The chances of Pell being granted leave by the High Court were slim, based on an objective review of the High Court’s previous actions.

    The High Court agreed to grant leave.

    These two things aren’t inconsistent.

  36. Cynic of Ayr

    Just another of many examples of a “Professor” being an absolute idiot.
    I despaired, once, to a rather good surgeon, “I don’t understand why so many intelligent people are so stupid.”
    His reply, “Just because they’re intelligent, doesn’t mean they’re smart.”
    And, it looks like there are absolutely thousands of these people in Democracies around the world.
    Intelligent, but as dumb as dog shit.

  37. Iampeter

    Then you wouldn’t call the Royal Commission “anti-Catholic.”
    Certainly I would.

    Right, which means you are engaging in leftist identity politics.
    You can’t see the actual issue, which is child molestation on a mass scale, you just think Catholics are victims.

  38. notafan

    No I am Peter

    the problem is making the child abuse an allegedly uniquely Catholic problem, caused by celibacy when it is in fact a societal problem where most perpetratiors are (married) relatives, or at least relatives who have not taken a vow of celibacy..
    One has to only look at all the calls to end priestly celibacy arising from the RC but you have your blinkers on, of course

  39. notafan

    from the commission itself in fact

    The report also called for the Catholic Church to make celibacy voluntary for its clergy, saying it contributed to child abuse.

    Henderson was correct in saying that proportionally abuse in other denominations, which do not have celibacy rules, was worse.

    it also ignores the nature of child abuse which is not, generally speaking I can’t have sex with an adult so I shall pursue the nearest child kind of thing

    a preference for sex with minors is in fact a sexual orientation


    Royal commission: Celibacy and confessional overhaul proposed in child sex abuse findings

  40. John A

    But later on Grauniad returns to form with this quote from the mother of victims of the now-departed KOD:

    It really is upsetting. What do we have to do to have this conviction stick?”

    Madam, you have to have evidence that goes beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot bend “the system” to suit your self-serving definition of justice.

  41. Val Majkus

    Val is that all at the same time simultaneously?

    don’t see why not; on the other hand, they could decide whether special leave should be granted, and if so, set the rest down for argument on another day

  42. Iampeter

    notafan, whether you agree with aspects of the Royal Commissions findings or not does not make it an anti-Catholic Royal Commission. I certainly disagree with much of it, form the other point of view, but I’m not even bringing that up even though I could argue it was a very much PRO-Catholic Church Royal Commission if I did. But I’m not going to play identity politics.
    Nor do any questions of whataboutism that Henderson brings up change anything either. These are not relevant points.

    Unless you don’t care about anything except playing identity politics…

  43. Suburban Boy

    Newspapers continue to run #righttoknow adverts and articles.

    But no-one in the media will tell the public the identity of the complainant in Pell’s case (and some of them are bound to know). It’s almost as if they think that some government secrets are sacrosanct, and that only they should be the ones to decide which.

    Ditto re Jarratt’s accuser, of course.

  44. The Sherriff

    You know that Felicity Hampel must be a an extreme leftist when she won’t even convert from being an SC to a QC when most barristers in Victoria (even the leftist ones) have pragmatically done so to chase the $$$

  45. notafan

    Did the RC make recommendations about priestly celibacy or not?

    is the public persception that the RC was about the Catholic Church or not?

    did Felicity Hampel make those remarks or not?

    and it is not whataboutism to say that the Catholic Church is not the sole source of child sex abuse in Australia, as so many like to pretend

  46. Iampeter

    Did the RC make recommendations about priestly celibacy or not?

    is the public persception that the RC was about the Catholic Church or not?

    did Felicity Hampel make those remarks or not?

    So?

    and it is not whataboutism to say that the Catholic Church is not the sole source of child sex abuse in Australia, as so many like to pretend

    That is absolutely whataboutism. It’s also an appalling line to take given the context.

  47. JC

    Whataboutism is a way.. a tool… for detecting hypocrisy, you asylum residing loon. You mental deficient, imploder.

  48. Pyrmonter

    @ Nota, @ JC

    The thing with Henderson is he just gets thing wrong – things he uses to support his own argument. Take this (from the piece linked above):

    Remember Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel Lolita, which celebrated the relationship between a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old nymphet? There was scant criticism when the novel and the first film version of Nabokov’s work were released.

    The problem with that is … Nabokov was actually banned as obscene for a decade: http://blog.naa.gov.au/banned/category/bannedbooks/

  49. Given the (broadly speaking) politics of a decision to grant leave to appeal, it was unlikely that 2 judges would refuse without reasons after consideration on the papers only. They probably thought ‘all of us have to take responsibility for this and we better have oral argument’.

  50. And some considerations other than the legal must have been taken into account, even if unconsciously. Application of the legal principles alone could not have dictated an answer.

  51. dover_beach

    The thing with Henderson is he just gets thing wrong

    He might but you accused him of sectarianism without any evidence, and IIRC, he’s a lapsed Catholic.

  52. A faint hope, but perhaps the High Court will tackle the issue of whether any weight should be given by a fact-finder to demeanour of a witness. Psychological research suggests ‘none’ and experienced trial lawyers such as Chester Porter would agree.

  53. Pyrmonter

    @ dover

    He’s lapsed, so I gather. But he fights the corner marked out by his patron Santamaria – social reaction and opposition to the market – with the best of the NCC-ers, right down to their disdain for the House of Windsor. His ‘evidence’ of event frequency is as dubious as that of any climate catastrophist.

  54. Then you wouldn’t call the Royal Commission “anti-Catholic.”

    Total bullshit.

    Fuck off swampy.

  55. Iampeter

    Whataboutism is a way.. a tool… for detecting hypocrisy, you asylum residing loon. You mental deficient, imploder.

    Sounds like more insults instead of arguments. I’m sure Arky will be here any moment to call for you to be moderated.
    This is a serious right wing political discussion forum and not at all home of raving, politically illiterate leftist crackpots and loons.

  56. Iampeter

    The problem with that is … Nabokov was actually banned as obscene for a decade: http://blog.naa.gov.au/banned/category/bannedbooks/

    Yep. But his response to a Royal Commission into child abuse in the Catholic Church is to ask “what about the indigenous communities?”
    Someone like this is not going to be honest about anything. Once you’ve rejected principles there’s no line you won’t cross.

  57. notafan

    Iampeter.

    You claimed that the Catholic church was not the primary target of the RC, and that media reporting has not created an indelible impression on many people that the Catholic church is synonymous with child sex abuse.

    Chanting wantaboutsim every time someone produces evidence that this is a factual statement is not an argument.

    Why don’t you go do a few laps in the #pell Twitter sewer and come back to us?

  58. iain russell

    OMHG, ‘disdain for the house of Windsor’. Just how low can a lapsee go?!

  59. dover_beach

    But he fights the corner marked out by his patron Santamaria – social reaction and opposition to the market – with the best of the NCC-ers, right down to their disdain for the House of Windsor. His ‘evidence’ of event frequency is as dubious as that of any climate catastrophist.

    These are more assertions not evidence. Further, the claim that he is fights the corner of ‘social reaction’, a term typical of progressives, and ‘opposition to the market’ is fanciful nonsense. If memory serves, he voted ‘Yes’ in the SS’M’ plebiscite.

  60. Iampeter
    #3211291, posted on November 14, 2019 at 6:30 am

    Whataboutism is a way.. a tool… for detecting hypocrisy, you asylum residing loon. You mental deficient, imploder.

    Sounds like more insults instead of arguments. I’m sure Arky will be here any moment to call for you to be moderated.
    This is a serious right wing political discussion forum and not at all home of raving, politically illiterate leftist crackpots and loons.

    This from an ignorant 22 year old grad student who is too slow to understand that Gillard set up the child sex abuse thing in defence and retaliation for investigation of the union movement.

    You stupid, arrogant prick.

  61. Iampeter

    You claimed that the Catholic church was not the primary target of the RC

    That’s not what I’m claiming. I’m claiming it is not “Anti-Catholic Church.”
    If a Royal Commission is investigating Another Company for child abuse, it is not “anti-“Another Company.
    The issue here is child abuse. But you don’t care. You’ll sacrifice all the children in the world as long as Catholics can pose as victims. Hence, identity politics.

    Chanting wantaboutsim every time someone produces evidence that this is a factual statement is not an argument.

    Pointing out your whataboutism to dismiss irrelevant points you’re trying to raise to evade dealing with the main issue, is certainly not an argument, but it is a valid debating strategy.

    On the flip side, trying to use whataboutism in place of an argument, is neither an argument NOR a valid debating strategy. It’s simply dishonesty.

  62. Gillard set up the RC to deflect about accusations against her and the unions.

    Empirically, the safest place outside your family for children is a Catholic institution.

    Other churches and community orgs. are much worse, state schools and other institutions are much, much worse.

    The state institutions were simply not investigated.

    Grow up Peter. Deranged lunatic Vivian Waller even accused Pell of a sexual assault when he was not in the country at the time.

    Did Waller apologise or move on? No, he kept on that shitshow train and kept on attacking Pell.

    Maybe you don’t understand anything at all about politics.

    The left hate Catholics because of the abortion issue. They use the very rare cases of abuse as a shield to not discuss abortion, how gruesome it is, how taxpayers fund nearly all of it or how some women get tens of abortions. 130, 000 per year in Australia. Safe, “rare” and legal.

    The complainant against Pell lied so many times along the way and repeatedly got details wrong and could not even get his story straight during two trials or a committal, after years of being able to curate his accusations – which contradict his statements adduced as evidence in court.

  63. Iampeter

    Frank, are you denying that the Catholic Church in Australia has had thousands of victims of child abuse with almost two thousand suspected perpetrators?

    Because if not, then this is not an “anti-“Catholic Royal Commission.

    But if yes, you’re sitting on the story of the century and should probably come forward with your evidence that blows this whole anti-Catholic agenda out of the water.

  64. dover_beach

    dot, when your interlocutor refuses to engage with your argument re proportions, and responds with absolute figures, you can take it to the bank they are dissembling intellectual cowards and liars of the first order. It’s also amusing that a so-called ‘anti-statist’ is completely unconcerned about child abuse inflicted and covered up by state institutions and the almost total lack of interest of the Royal Commission in such matters.

  65. dover_beach

    Yes, that is the permanent expression of those closest to you.

  66. Iampeter

    Yea it’s good to double down when beclowning yourself…

  67. dover_beach

    Yes, you demonstrate your point well again.

  68. Iampeter

    *facepalm*

    It’s OK you can have the last word. Because there are no words…

  69. Putrid

    Risdale abused many children. There might be a few hundred victims.

    I’ll give you an example.

    There was a woman in rural NSW (Urana) who made a settlement with the church over abuse she claimed to have happened over 55 years ago (at the time). The priest died 55 years ago (at the time of the settlement).

    There are not thousands of suspected abusers, you plonker. Also, counting the crimes of dead people committed in the 1950s or even in the 1930s is really padding the numbers.

    Do we want a count since Federation of gangland related murders and high level crime of the union movement, or of the ALP, let alone child abuse in state organs, or that of ALP MPs?

    Let alone similar mere accusations.

    Nor is it prudent to count all claims of abuse, like when people are out of the country at the time, we have bizarre satanic cinema abuse scenarios or people claim they were in institutions but actually were not at a certain age and year.

    Outside the family, children are safest in a Catholic organisation. This is simply a fact, as is how Gillard created this crusade to deflect against her own stench of corruption.

    Facts don’t lie Peter.

  70. B.A.Lert

    The RC was set up by old JG to humiliate Tony Abbott and force him to publicly condemn what he holds so dear. There were a few others included but not the playthings of the hard left, the Aboriginals and the treatment particularly in town camps of children raped , abused and ignored. Also the allies of the hard left the Muslims. Little girls mutelated and made child brides but none of this is enough to turn JG ‘s head.

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.