The Pell Prequel

Sir Ken blows the police whistle

BECAUSE he appeared there on a Friday, before a weekend awash with Boris, what he said is yet to resonate. The testimony given by Sir Ken Jones last week at the Lawyer X Royal Commission has implications that go beyond the Nicola Gobbo scandal. The ex-deputy commissioner of Victoria Police accused its highest ranking officers of crimes, “unethical” behaviour and “toxic” malice. Senior officers had a “strong culture of loyalty” to the chief commissioner, Sir Ken told the Commission, but “not to the law.” That attitude led to the “illegal” use of Ms Gobbo to inform on her clients and constituted an “industrial subversion of the criminal justice process,” he said. The Office of Police Integrity (OPI) – tasked as a corruption watchdog – was in “lockstep” with VicPol leaders. In other words, it looked the other way. Less a watchdog than a castrated poodle.

At the time, the commissioner was Simon Overland and the assistant director of the OPI was none other than Graham Ashton. Honest cop on the beat – and one of the most honoured of his generation (Fulbright Scholar, UCLA associate professor, Queen’s Medal, knighthood) – Sir Ken was forced out in 2011 on suspicion of leaking to the media. Infamously, his phone was tapped during the heated stand-off – which arose over Mr Overland manipulating crime statistics to assist the Brumby Labor government prior to the 2010 state election. In 2014, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission found the Overland leaking claims to be baseless nonsense. The fear Sir Ken inspired was apparently limitless. He testified on Friday that he was made aware of a plan by the OPI to “illegally burgle his home and interfere with his computer.”

Mr Ashton gave evidence to the Royal Commission earlier last week. Asked about his failure to rein in criminal police conduct, he said using Ms Gobbo was “sanctioned” by higher-ups. (The Nuremberg defence). He was also grilled about why he stopped making diary notes for two years during which Gobbo-sourced intelligence was being exploited in relation to two murder investigations. He denied under oath that he was following advice proffered by Mr Overland to keep records of the operation beyond subpoena.

Documents released in April showed that both men, Messrs Overland and Ashton – who oversaw Ms Gobbo’s spying between 2005 and 2009 – believed she was mentally ill but persisted anyway. Alternatively, they wanted suspicions of mental illness in the record for insurance purposes. (Note what was being filed and what wasn’t). Nor did they seek legal advice about using her, it being easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Whether Hopper’s aphorism proves true only time and the Royal Commissioner’s findings will tell.

An ever-lengthening rap sheet

By 2013, Simon Overland had fallen on his sword, Sir Ken’s vindication was a year away and Graham Ashton was now Deputy Commissioner. The media and political drumbeat against child sexual abusers in the Catholic Church was becoming louder as the echoes of the final shots in the Melbourne gangland killings faded away. Peter O’Callaghan QC, in charge of the Catholic Church’s Melbourne-based complaints system, was excoriating Mr Ashton for the false testimony he had given to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into sex abuse in late 2012. Described as a “withering takedown” by John Ferguson in The Australian – the newspaper that obtained a transcript of O’Callaghan’s rebuttal – it left in tatters VicPol’s allegations about Church failure to report abuse to police and the number of suicides attributable to it.

This was a humiliation for Mr Ashton whose reputation had suffered an unrelated blow a few years earlier when the Overland-ordered pursuit of former police union secretary Paul Mullett and assistant commissioner Noel Ashby crashed and burned. Mr Ashton played a lead role in the hunt – seen as yet another paranoid vendetta. A pattern was discernible by now in the way Victoria Police dealt with critics.

With help from the ABC – whose loathing of the Church was newly consonant with VicPol’s own fury – the ultimate prize became the man behind Peter O’Callaghan: Cardinal George Pell. Other clerics had been tried and jailed but a line-up of unknown geriatric perverts wasn’t sating a ravenous hunger for a suitably thrilling denouement to the Gillard Royal Commission. There were no accusations against the Cardinal but that was no problem for Victoria Police. They were willing to burglarise the home of a knight. Setting up a cardinal was no big deal. They had the means, the motive and the opportunity. And they had form.

Update (or bridge for sale): Overland insists he wasn’t made aware Gobbo was giving up client information.

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

111 Responses to The Pell Prequel

  1. Lysander

    Fuck me. How did I miss that!

  2. Iampeter

    What does any of this have to do with Pell? He was the subject of quite a few police investigations before one finally stuck. Also the subject of absurd Catholic Church “investigations” too.

    The media and political drumbeat against child sexual abusers in the Catholic Church was becoming louder as the echoes of the final shots in the Melbourne gangland killings faded away.

    Yea. It was all just a media beat-up. Those darn atheists!
    Totally no issue with the Catholic Church and children…

  3. C.L.

    What does any of this have to do with Pell?

    LOL.

  4. stackja

    Victoria police used Lawyer X.
    Victoria police seem to have questions to answer.
    The ‘evidence’ provided by Victoria police used to ‘convict’ GP.

  5. Ivan Denisovich

    With help from the ABC – whose loathing of the Church was newly consonant with VicPol’s own fury – the ultimate prize became the man behind Peter O’Callaghan: Cardinal George Pell

    Latest from Hendo on Milligan and her publisher:

    Cardinal was scheduled for publication on 1 July 2017. There were rumours at the time that George Pell was likely to be charged by Victoria Police for historical child sexual abuse. It so happened that MUP brought forward the publication of Cardinal to 15 May 2017. In other words, MUP brought out Cardinal six weeks earlier than planned. This seems inconsistent with Louise Milligan’s position – as reported by Louise Adler – that she did not want Cardinal to be published before any legal proceedings with respect to George Pell were concluded……….

    Ms Adler’s claim that MUP published Cardinal shortly “before legal proceedings began” against Pell is also misleading. Six weeks is not a short period for a heavily promoted book which received wide-scale media publicity – especially on the ABC.

    The publication of Cardinal shortly before legal proceedings were commenced against George Pell was prejudicial to the prospect of a fair trial – since Victoria is the only mainland Australian state not to have the option of trial by judge alone in high profile cases. It’s difficult to see how some jurors would not have experienced unconscious bias in view of the anti-Pell media pile-on which took place in the period leading up to the trial………

    Ms Milligan asserts that to be permitted an informed opinion on the Pell case you have to have spoken to both complainants and read “all the transcript”. But Louise Milligan herself has not met her own requirements. She never spoke to “R”. Also, contrary to her claim, Ms Milligan has not read all of the transcript of the Pell trials since most of the transcript has not been released. Likewise the transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court re the charges against Pell has not been released.

    As to Milligan’s attempt to downplay Justice Weinberg’s qualifications as a criminal jurist – the facts are as follows as provided by a Melbourne-based lawyer who reads MWD. Mark Weinberg topped his year at the Monash Law School and at Oxford University (winning the Vinerian Scholarship). Weinberg went to the Victorian Bar where he became a top QC specialising in criminal law. He took up the position of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution before being appointed to the Federal Court and then to the Court of Appeal of the Victorian Supreme Court. Yet Louise Milligan believes Justice Weinberg has defects as a judge in criminal law cases.

    https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/issue-481/

  6. Boambee John

    The fear Sir Ken inspired was apparently limitless. He testified on Friday that he was made aware of a plan by the OPI to “illegally burgle his home and interfere with his computer.”

    m0nty is perpetually obsessed with “Watergate”.

    Here, in his home state, perpetrated by a government which he shows every sign of supporting, is our very own set of “plumbers”, operating in the Office of Police Integrity.

    Tell us, m0nty, will the cover up finish the Liars Party? Will Andrews have to resign? What will happen?

  7. steve

    Do not forget the charges dropped against Gillard and Shorten

  8. Up The Workers!

    The “Office of Police Integrity”?

    I seem to recall that when the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the “Office of Police Integrity” was frisked in February 2018 to check his own integrity, it was found that he was utterly bereft of any integrity whatsoever, and was subsequently booted from Labor’s Farce Command.

    A pity that his was the only backside that wore the indelible imprint of the boot, as I feel certain that he had at least as much integrity as several who remained there to this very day, which is none at all.

    That’s a common thing in the maladministration of Dodgy Dan’s A.L.P. Misgovernment.

  9. rickw

    How can anyone argue that Police having guns ISN’T a problem and The Public having guns IS a problem?

    This is what the whole 2A is about, Government readily can become corrupt and it’s instruments even more so. VikPol is a case in point. How could you trust them with anything more than water pistols?

    There is an interesting FOI request to be made on Vikpol: “Have any of the 700 semi-automatic M4’s they procured been converted to select fire operation?”

    I think they’re such a corrupt pack of bastards that they will have imported them as semi’s to avoid to much attention and then converted them to select fire (full auto capability) by changing out the trigger group. This would be entirely be in keeping with their organisational culture.

  10. Victoria must be broken into smaller states with new police, justice and court officials having no prior experience.

    It cannot stand and the entire police, justice and court system is beyond repair.

  11. excoriating Mr Ashton for the false testimony he had given to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into sex abuse in late 2012

    Why isn’t he in gaol already?

    Can Police Commissioners commit perjury?

  12. stackja

    Simon Overland fronts royal commission

    They never met but Simon Overland and Nicola Gobbo were connected by a shared desire to jail gangland figures. And while Overland may not know the details of Gobbo’s informing, he still has plenty to say.
    Patrick Carlyon, Herald Sun
    Subscriber only

    December 16, 2019 2:52pm

    No, he was unaware whose Gobbo client list was when she was selling out her clients. But he said was concerned from the start – for both her and the police force – that she was an informer.

    Yes, he pursued an exit strategy for Gobbo’s informing within months of her registration as 3838 in 2005, because he believed there was no such thing as a “long-term” informer. They generally ended up dead or living under a new name and identity.

    Yes, Gobbo’s informing against her clients should have been revealed to those clients during the disclosure processes of the court system. Overland assumed his investigators would take care of that legal requirement.

  13. Professor Fred Lenin

    The alp governments made a dogs breakfast out of Vicpol when they stopped making coppers commissioner . First that sheila from Sydney ,then that aparatchik from Canberra both alp stooges promoted well above their abilities but willing to do the psrties bidding. The Victorian Police hasnt been much good since it was renamed Vicpol and became a creature of the alp .

  14. Megan

    Several letters in today’s HS expressing disbelief at the ” We didn’t keep a diary” defence. Former Assistant Commissioner Ray Shuey made the point that diaries were a necessity to ensure ‘ integrity, accountability, responsibility and accurate memory recall.” He continued by claiming it set a poor example for young recruits, detectives and officers. Nothing at all about how it destroys the trust of the general public and shows those in charge are useless at a minimum and corrupt at worst. At least 3 different people at various events at the weekend made statements to the effect that our current police force in DanGangLand is useless. What a failure and what a farce.

  15. Old Lefty

    Ashton’s false testimony to the parliamentary inquiry about the Catholic Church was in effect his application for the commissioner’s job, which Comrade Andrews, head of the most anti-Christian government in Australia’s history, was only too pleased to grant.

    Notice also Ashton’s email exchange with his media adviser about the potential for the Pell case to get the Gobbo scandal off the front pages.

  16. Matthew

    Where was Christine Nixon through this, she was the chief commissioner after all?

  17. iamok

    Overland cropped up as a Council CEO some time ago and I thought wtf. Then I just put it down to the same old public service leftist mentality that sees them keep hiring and supporting their own irrespective of merit. In Councils this has gone on for years when incompetent, conflicted and corrupt Councillors and CEOs just keep bobbing up somewhere else.

  18. C.L.

    Overland cropped up as a Council CEO some time ago and I thought wtf.

    He was sacked last week. By a child mayor.

    Former police chief Simon Overland sacked by Whittlesea Council ahead of Lawyer X appearance.

    The Andrews government will appoint a monitor to examine governance and operations at a Melbourne council, after its councillors, who include Australia’s youngest ever mayor, sacked its CEO, former Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland…

    On Tuesday night 23-year-old mayor Emilia Sterjova — who last month became the youngest person elected mayor of an Australian council — closed a council meeting to the public in order to discuss an “urgent and confidential item”.

    Ms Sterjova issued a statement on Wednesday afternoon, saying the City of Whittlesea had “resolved to terminate the contract of its Chief Executive Officer, Simon Overland, effective immediately,” at the meeting.

  19. Porter

    Thank you for this excellent summary, C.L. The refusal to keep written records or a diary is a known tactic in senior and executive ranks across many services and industries. While occasionally it is deployed to bypass onerous documentation for a small and insignificant matter, it is most often deployed when there are questionable or unethical motivations for an action. In those cases, it is also called “mate’s rates”, “covering your arse” or similar. If questioned, one can then reply, “I can’t recall”, “I meet lots of people, I don’t remember all their names“, and so on. Such tactics in a police force, used by the most senior police officers, signify nothing other than corruption in my view, just as they do everywhere else they are deployed.

    I agree with Frank. Victoria needs to be wiped out and started again.

  20. Porter

    Victoria’s local government watchdog had spent months investigating Whittlesea council over claims of bullying and workplace safety before councillors sensationally sacked their chief executive Simon Overland on Tuesday night.

    The Local Government Inspectorate had urged the state government to closely monitor the council, in Melbourne’s north, writing to Local Government Minister Adem Somyurek several days ago.

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/simon-overland-sacked-as-chief-executive-of-whittlesea-council-20191211-p53itr.html

  21. dover_beach

    Just extraordinary. To think this scum and lees aided and abetted the criminal prosecution of an innocent man boils the blood and cries out for vengence.

  22. Old Lefty

    If Wonderland’s memory is as bad as he says it is, how did he find his way to work?

  23. Iampeter

    So…the police are out to “get Pell?”
    The same organization that allowed the Catholic Church to setup their own “response unit” to thousands of child abuse allegations, with thousands of perpetrators and let Pell head it up?

    This is Deep State, Alex Jones levels of batshittery.

  24. C.L.

    No, the police didn’t “allow” it.
    Their permission wasn’t required. But Sir Ken Jones backed the initiative. He was overruled by Simon Overland – a veritable one-man landfill of pong.
    No, it didn’t deal with “thousands” of allegations.
    And no, Pell didn’t ‘head it up.’

    But yes, Victoria Police rigged the Pell case – just as they rigged the case against half dozen others – including their own. Everyone except the loopy now accepts this is historically undeniable.

    Well done on getting all of that wrong.

  25. DaveR

    So only a few Commissioners and Assist Commissioners interviewed in the RC so far, but already there are clear signs of corruption and worse, illegal behaviour at the highest levels. And clear suggestion that Police played Pell to move the light off themselves. The first cases of arrest and charge of former Victorian commissioners coming? Terry Lewis all over again, x10? It surprises me how many laws Victoria police can break before they realise the trouble they are in.

  26. C.L.

    Yes.

    Senior Victoria cops said Pell investigation could distract from major police scandal.

    In a 2014 email exchange, then-Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton and Charlie Morton, assistant director of media and corporate communications for the Victoria police department, discussed how to respond to a high-profile scandal which would hamper the credibility of Victoria police operations.

    In an email dated April 1, 2014, Morton advised Ashton not to make a media appearance in response to the “Lawyer X” scandal, because forthcoming announcements about Cardinal Pell could distract media and public attention.

    “The Pell stuff is coming tomorrow and will knock this way off the front page,” Morton wrote to Ashton.

    “Unless there are some serious appeals from convicted [criminals] which might get up as a result of this, then I can’t see this continuing with the same level of profile.”

    What a turd.

  27. Leigh Lowe

    Thanks C.L. at 11:20
    I saw that the other day.
    The point is the Lawyer Gobbo X story did not go away, thanks to the Herald Sun’s persistence.
    The only story big enough to swamp it was Pell and, as time went by, they needed more and more Pell to bury Gobbo.
    And what is already apparent from what is before this Royal Commission is that VikPol command have just been passive receivers of privileged information to secure convictions.
    They have actively planted (via Gobbo) false “evidence” with crooks in jail looking for a concession on their sentences. Crooks then feed “rock solid” intel to a legit copper who gets a bit interested. He then hears the same story from a similarly motivated crook in another prison. Fuck, must be right.
    Of course, there is no chance they pulled that shit on George, eh?

  28. Leigh Lowe

    The Office of Police Integrity (OPI) – tasked as a corruption watchdog – was in “lockstep” with VicPol leaders. In other words, it looked the other way. Less a watchdog than a castrated poodle.

    No.
    Worse than that.
    It became a chained pit-bull to be unleashed on anyone who questioned or challenged the Plastic FedCop triumvirate… Nixon, Overland, Ashton.

  29. Leigh Lowe

    Matthew

    #3263637, posted on December 16, 2019 at 6:59 pm

    Where was Christine Nixon through this, she was the chief commissioner after all?

    Where was Christine?
    At lunch.

  30. Leigh Lowe

    They never met but Simon Overland and Nicola Gobbo

    Yeah, nah, bullshit.
    On record as meeting at least twice.
    Later evidence might turn up more, I think.

  31. Porter

    A reminder of the Vicpols poor record-keeping
    https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/commissioner-malcolm-hyde-resigns-over-lawyer-x-scandal/10787066
    Hyde did the right thing by resigning from the commission once these revelations were publicised given he worked for the police at that time but once again that makes me ask why Dan Andrews appointed him to the RC. There is no indication whatsoever that Hyde did anything wrong but Andrews appointing an ex police commissioner to an RC on the police is like appointing Graham Ashton to monitor police integrity.

  32. Iampeter

    No, the police didn’t “allow” it.
    Their permission wasn’t required.

    Yea I know. Because their actual course of action should’ve been far more direct towards the Catholic Church.

    No, it didn’t deal with “thousands” of allegations.
    And no, Pell didn’t ‘head it up.’

    So there wasn’t thousands of cases of abuse in Australia alone? Along with almost two thousands alleged abusers?
    And wasn’t Pell lauded for organizing a response unit to this? Instead of going to the police like any normal person would’ve done?

    And the police gave their blessing, instead of taking action as they should’ve done and would’ve done if it wasn’t the Catholic Church which enjoys enormous protection still in our society?

    I don’t really understand what you think is happening here, but I don’t think it’s really connected to reality.

  33. Cassie of Sydney

    I don’t really understand what you think is happening here, but I don’t think it’s really connected to reality.

    Everything you write here is unconnected to reality. Have you taken your morning meds? Might help.

  34. Iampeter

    I’m sure if that was the case you would just point it out, Cassie.
    Instead you’re just triggered…

  35. Porter

    And wasn’t Pell lauded for organizing a response unit to this? Instead of going to the police like any normal person would’ve done?

    Most of the abuse cases occurred 30 or so years ago and often the police recommended no action. It was Pell and only Pell who took it upon himself to organise a response, the first in the world. Any compensation victims got from church scheme did not preclude them from seeking justice in the court. There was never any prohibition of going to the police. Many actually preferred to deal directly with the church and only the church. They did sign a releasing the Catholic Church from any further claims once they have accepted compensation. There is nothing untoward about that, that is perfectly normal. All this has been well known and publicized for many years now, so I can only believe, IamPeter that you are either maliciously lying or willfully ignorant. You also very much remind me of that numbers chap. I could almost believe that you are one and the same.l

    Just this year I think it was Dan Andrews decided to change the law to ban the so-called Ellis defence and and allow people who had already settled to grab las much money as they possibly can from the Catholic Church and fleece all those people who spent so many years building those churches and hey were never directly responsible for the abuse. But only collective punishment rules in Yarragrad. In any case if any of those cases are ever heard in our courts they are not new cases they are the same old cases that had been gone over several times now various judicial forums.
    Even so that’s just another tactic by Dan Andrews, the collapsed Catholic. he is still trying to run interference and create a smokescreen for his corrupt Victoria Police.

  36. Leigh Lowe

    And what is already apparent from what is before this Royal Commission is that VikPol command have not just been passive receivers of privileged information to secure convictions.

  37. Iampeter

    Most of the abuse cases occurred 30 or so years ago and often the police recommended no action.

    Yea, clearly those nasty police are really out to get those Catholics.
    Side note, I wonder how sex trafficking organizations feel about how they get treated given all this? Oh well. Shrugs.

    Any compensation victims got from church scheme did not preclude them from seeking justice in the court.

    That’s not true but it just wasn’t enforceable because nothing the Church does is enforceable. In any case, the point that keeps getting missed and the fact that it keeps getting missed is the real issue.
    If there was going to be any compensation it should’ve been via proper legal channels AND legally enforceable. Of course that would require actual investigations. The fact that this all happened with the blessing of the police is the REAL problem. No other organization would get away with what the Church got away with here.
    It puts to rest any suggestion that the police are out to get Catholics.

    Even so that’s just another tactic by Dan Andrews, the collapsed Catholic. he is still trying to run interference and create a smokescreen for his corrupt Victoria Police.

    I don’t support that, nor do I even think anything can be done at this point. They got away with it.
    But the fact that the Catholics got away with it and that you have no problem with that, means YOU can’t complain about ANYONE being corrupt. Nor can you seriously suggest anyone is out to get the Catholics.

  38. Mother Lode

    Less a watchdog than a castrated poodle.

    I would have gone with watchdog/lapdog.

    References to poodles always seem to implicate Chrissie Pahn.

  39. Bronson

    What is peteriam on today – he’s on fire,literally rewriting history and reality in one go the person’s a legend.
    Keep going peter you’ve nearly reach peak insane!

  40. anonandon

    My limited knowledge of how the police force works includes the embedded culture of recording notes on everything – sworn and unsworn. The absence of notes is a big deal.

  41. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    What an unrelenting cavalcade of staggering incompetence and corruption. That Nixon, Overland, Ashton and Gobbo haven’t all been languishing in gaol for years defies belief.

  42. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    so I can only believe, Iampiñata that you are either maliciously lying or willfully ignorant

    He’s both, as well as being stark raving bonkers.

  43. Mother Lode

    I wonder what yawning starved emptiness Ompoida is trying to fill in his life that his laboured obfuscations and desperation to annoy people by distorting their beliefs is meant to fill?

    And if that is what is he needs then how foul must the rest of him be that harbours this urgent appetite.

    Flies don’t hover around roses and butterflies don’t pick their way through shit – nature precisely calibrates the creature to its element.

  44. Bruce

    Victoria: the “OTHER” Moonlight State?

    Then, there’s…….

  45. JC

    But the fact that the Catholics got away with it and that you have no problem with that, means YOU can’t complain about ANYONE being corrupt. Nor can you seriously suggest anyone is out to get the Catholics.

    You’re a disgusting, dried up piece of shit, Plodes. The worst leftist here.

  46. Iampeter

    What is peteriam on today – he’s on fire,literally rewriting history and reality in one go the person’s a legend.
    Keep going peter you’ve nearly reach peak insane!

    Which part is wrong? You guys always go straight to ad hominems and never have any arguments.
    In this case you’re defending the abuse of thousands of children, so it’s one of the more vile positions people at the Cat have taken, not to mention actually insane.

    Here’s the bottom line, did the Church not have thousands of victims and almost two thousand perpetrators in Australia? Did most of them not get away with it?
    If I’m wrong I definitely want to know.

    But if I’m right and you’re talking about police corruption in any way other than to suggest they should’ve gone after the Church even harder, then it’s you who has reached peak insanity.

    I don’t expect anything other than sneering idiocy and doubling down though…

  47. Leigh Lowe

    Why isn’t he in gaol already?

    Can Police Commissioners commit perjury?

    Possibly.
    This exchange from Fatty Ashton’s appearance last week:-
    Counsel Assisting : “You know of Mr [Smith]?”
    Fatty : “Yes”
    Counsel Assisting : “You know Mr [Smith] appeared here last week?”
    Fatty : “Yes”
    Counsel Assisting : “Did you see Mr [Smith’s] evidence?”
    Fatty : “No”
    Counsel Assisting : “Were you briefed on Mr [Smith’s] evidence?”
    Fatty : “No”
    Counsel Assisting : “Are you sure you weren’t briefed?”
    Fatty : “Um …. Err …. not in detail”

  48. dover_beach

    If I’m wrong I definitely want to know.

    For instance, the Melbourne Response covered allegations of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse by clergy and church personnel. It was always directed by an independent commissioner, typically a QC, and it’s jurisdiction was limited to the Archdiocese of Melbourne. So, we have three facts about which you erred. It was never headed by Pell, it’s remit was never Australia, and it involved consideration of cases beyond serious sexual abuse. We could add further instances of errors on your part, such as organisations constantly dealing with such allegations themselves and settling them where possible privately and this never precluding criminal charges. And on and on.

  49. Iampeter

    And on and on.

    If you focus on everything EXCEPT the point, then you can indeed go on and on. And DO go on and on.
    Evasion is the second most popular response here after unhinged ranting.

    Your “bottom line” is actually a ridiculous non-sequitur.
    We are trying to ascertain if the pursuit and conviction of George Pell was used by the Victorian Police as a distraction from the crimes that the Victorian police had, at least hitherto, *gotten away* with.

    No, you’re not. The attempts to suggest the Vic police are after Pell predates these allegations against the police. This just gives you a pretext to continue down this obviously false path.

    It’s obviously false, because in a situation where an organization allegedly commits child abuse on an industrial scale and allegedly covers it up so successfully that most perpetrators get away with it, is not a situation in which you can accuse the police of going after this organization unfairly. Especially since they don’t seem to have gone after them AT ALL.
    None of you are in a position to complain about police corruption. You support corruption just fine.
    That’s the point.

  50. Iampeter

    Accuse your opponents of ad hominems and then in literally the next sentence accuse your opponents of something they never did in an attempt to poison the well.

    Have you always been a pathological liar or was it a recent phenomenon?

    So you read this thread wherein I present arguments and get the usual unhinged rants and slimy evasions, and conclude I’m the pathological liar.

    Thanks for clearing up what an honest person you are. You’ve totally fooled everyone!

  51. dover_beach

    If you focus on everything EXCEPT the point,

    Are you now saying that when you alleged that Pell headed the Melbourne Response (wrong), that its jurisdiction involved Australia (wrong), and that each and every allegation it dealt with were properly criminal matters (wrong), that each of these erroneous points were not salient to your point? Further, when you alleged that no other organisation could do what it did, that is, deal with these allegations privately in an attempt to settle the matter so far as it concerns the organisation, and being wrong here as such settlements are daily settled by organisations and their employees, or between organisations and their clients, that this too was beside your point even though you said,

    If there was going to be any compensation it should’ve been via proper legal channels AND legally enforceable. Of course that would require actual investigations. The fact that this all happened with the blessing of the police is the REAL problem. No other organization would get away with what the Church got away with here.

    Aren’t agreements between lawyers using widely accepts legal forms proper legal channels? Dear oh dear. Not only are you wrong on the facts, you are also wrong as a matter of law; this is always going to happen when you neither care about the facts or the law.

  52. Porter

    If there was going to be any compensation it should’ve been via proper legal channels AND legally enforceable. Of course that would require actual investigations. The fact that this all happened with the blessing of the police is the REAL problem. No other organization would get away with what the Church got away with here.
    It puts to rest any suggestion that the police are out to get Catholics.

    No victim of child sex abuse was barred from going to the police even if they had accessed compensation through the Melbourne response. The church has absolutely no authority to impose such a sanction anyway. All applications to the Melbourne response group were investigated by an independent judge and if it was deemed likely that they had a case they were offered compensation, counselling etc. They didn’t even have to provide evidence to criminal standards. All this is very well known and cannot be disputed. I am astonished that you are so ignorant of this given that you also have access to the internet and can look up old news items, including politicians own prayers of the Melbourne response. All I can say IamPeter, is that you are either being deliberately malicious or mendacious.

    There is no requirement for people to seek justice only through courts. The court system is time consuming, expensive and often traumatic and many people chose to avoid courts particularly on matters of sexual abuse. That is their call not yours.

  53. Porter

    Spurgeon, Gobbo wasn’t the only lawyer who was a snitch. So a few other lawyers should be joining them besides.

  54. max

    …… sex trafficking organizations …. No other organization would get away with what the Church got away with here.

    Hysteria, much ? You do realise that the rate of child sexual abuse among Catholic clergy was around 3%, and that nearly all of it was perpetrated by gay priests on adolescent teenagers, not children.

    You seem blinded by bigotry. No credit given to the Catholics for the way they have acknowledged this issue and taken steps to deal with it, namely excluding gays from ordination. The only religious body to have done so. You won’t find that happening in other churches.

    Child sex abuse is worse in the Uniting Church. Not sure about the Scouts. It’s certainly a lot worse in step families. Why aren’t you seething about stepfathers ?

    .

  55. Iampeter

    Fencesitter, I see responding to you is going to be pointless as you’re completely insane and just ranting irrespective of what’s said and then pretending I’m the one doing it. You’ll fit right in at the Cat.

    Are you now saying that when you alleged that Pell headed the Melbourne Response (wrong), that its jurisdiction involved Australia (wrong)

    Pell launched the Melbourne response procotol-whatever you want to call it. That’s all I’m saying. If the exact wording is not exactly to your liking it doesn’t mean I’ve said anything wrong, just that you’re dishonestly evading.

    that each and every allegation it dealt with were properly criminal matters (wrong)

    I never said they were. I’m saying they should’ve been.
    How could this possibly need clarification?

    deal with these allegations privately in an attempt to settle the matter so far as it concerns the organisation

    No one can settle allegations privately if they involve custodial sentences. They need to go to the police.

    And so on…

    NONE of those points are wrong on my part. You’re just hung-up on technicalities and require absurd clarifications.
    But even if we said I was wrong about all that, which I’m not, then so what? It still has nothing to do with the point I’m making, which you’ve continued to ignore.

    Aren’t agreements between lawyers using widely accepts legal forms proper legal channels? Dear oh dear. Not only are you wrong on the facts, you are also wrong as a matter of law; this is always going to happen when you neither care about the facts or the law.

    Yea totally. An organization can just hire it’s own judges out of retirement to preside over it’s own, thrown together “hearings” into accusations of child abuse. No problems whatsoever.
    I wonder where they’ll detain the accused if they’re found guilty?
    I guess that’s what all those courthouses and jail cells inside office buildings are for, right? Do Catholic Churches have them? I assume they do because this side-show actually happened.

    Can’t wait for your next response arguing tangential points, that you’re wrong about anyway, in order to avoid facing facts.

  56. Iampeter

    You seem blinded by bigotry.

    LOL, says the guy trying to blame pedophilia and it’s covering up on homosexuality.

    Child sex abuse is worse in the Uniting Church. Not sure about the Scouts. It’s certainly a lot worse in step families. Why aren’t you seething about stepfathers ?

    I am. You’re not. That’s what I’m saying.
    You’re trying to white wash it in the tribe you happen to belong to, engaging in classic, left wing identity politics games, as conservatives soooo love to do.
    Then turn around and accuse others of corruption. Get outta here with that.

  57. dover_beach

    Are you now saying that when you alleged that Pell headed the Melbourne Response (wrong), that its jurisdiction involved Australia (wrong)

    Pell launched the Melbourne response procotol-whatever you want to call it. That’s all I’m saying.

    No, you said he headed the Response, and that its jurisdiction was Australia-wide.

    that each and every allegation it dealt with were properly criminal matters (wrong)

    I never said they were. I’m saying they should’ve been.

    How could you know if they should have been or not without knowing what each of the allegations were? Allegations which were serious were indeed referred to VicPol contrary to Ashton’s claim.

    deal with these allegations privately in an attempt to settle the matter so far as it concerns the organisation

    No one can settle allegations privately if they involve custodial sentences. They need to go to the police.

    I said the matter between the organization and the litigant is settled, not the matter between the accused and the alleged victim.

    Yea totally. An organization can just hire it’s own judges out of retirement to preside over it’s own, thrown together “hearings” into accusations of child abuse. No problems whatsoever.

    Weinstein Co. just reached such a tentative agreement. These sorts of arrangements are par for the course.

  58. Iampeter

    No, you said he headed the Response, and that its jurisdiction was Australia-wide.

    But you know what I meant and I’ve even clarified it so why are you STILL bringing this up?

    How could you know if they should have been or not without knowing what each of the allegations were?

    Because allegations of child abuse are matters for the police.

    I said the matter between the organization and the litigant is settled, not the matter between the accused and the alleged victim.

    Great. What does that have to do with anything I’ve said? Especially since any confusion you may have had about this specific point was clarified in the post you’re responding to. Why are you STILL bring this up?

    Weinstein Co. just reached such a tentative agreement. These sorts of arrangements are par for the course.

    Yes through the legal system which is what I was advocating in this thread.
    He did not bypass the entire legal process, hire his own private judge, hold his own private hearings, etc.
    There’s no comparison between the two.

    Also, you’ve STILL ignored my actual point. You don’t even know what it is do you? But you’re going to keep arguing points that have already being settled?

    Called it.

  59. Tim Neilson

    Factually correct statement – Any compensation victims got from church scheme did not preclude them from seeking justice in the court.

    Iamashiteater’s response:

    That’s not true but it just wasn’t enforceable because nothing the Church does is enforceable.

    This is industrial strength gibberish even by Iamashiteater’s standards.

    If there was going to be any compensation it should’ve been via proper legal channels AND legally enforceable.

    There’s a thing called a “contract”. It’s legally enforceable. Look it up on the internet.

  60. Farmer Gez

    Iampeter reckons a man in his mid fifties orally raped two boys at the same time in a busy cathedral with an open door and people on duty everywhere as well.
    Throw in the man was in full regalia as a bishop and was ordinarily somewhere else at the assumed time. Uncorroborated evidence is the only kind that could convict a man in the most ludicrous scenario imaginable.
    It’s bullshit of the highest order and was made possible by newly introduced secrecy in sexual assault cases, coupled with a State law enforcement body willing to fish for victims to get their man.
    Jon Faine’s gone Iampeter, go and annoy other like minded twerps with your crap.

  61. dover_beach

    Because allegations of child abuse are matters for the police.

    The Melbourne Response did not just hear matters of child abuse, nor did anything they hear preclude criminal prosecution.

    He did not bypass the entire legal process, hire his own private judge, hold his own private hearings, etc.
    There’s no comparison between the two.

    Neither did the Melbourne Response. All they did was consider the likelihood of the allegations being true via an independent panel, and then provided recompense to the complainant so far as the organisation was concerned. The abuse, where serious, would then be referred to the police. So there was no bypassing of the legal process at all.

    Also, you’ve STILL ignored my actual point.

    You have no substantive point. You weasel from one claim to another, never admitting any errors, passing them off to your interlocutors, and then crying wolf.

  62. Iampeter

    Neither did the Melbourne Response.

    That comment is not about the Melbourne Response unit. Obviously. You know very well what it’s about.
    This is the usual slimy, dishonest and evasive tactics of Cat imbeciles. In this case the victims aren’t businesses being shaken down, though.

    You have no substantive point. You weasel from one claim to another, never admitting any errors, passing them off to your interlocutors, and then crying wolf.

    That’s what YOU are doing.
    My point is that people that support corrupt organizations can’t cry about corrupt organizations.
    My point is that organizations that get away with thousands of cases of child abuse, can’t claim they are being unfairly targeted by the police. If anything the opposite is true.

    But by all means keep weaseling from one claim to another to avoid dealing with this and then claim that I’m doing it. We’ve passed the unhinged rant phase and have entered the full-strength, evasion and projection phase.

  63. Tim Neilson

    Factual statement –Weinstein Co. just reached such a tentative agreement. These sorts of arrangements are par for the course.

    Iamashiteater’s response – Yes through the legal system which is what I was advocating in this thread.

    BTW your ignorance is on full display here.

    The vast and overwhelming majority of legal disputes in the civil jurisdiction do not result in Court proceedings being commenced. They settle without the Courts’ involvement.

    Anyone engaging with the Melbourne Response was at liberty to ask the police to bring criminal charges at any time, even after settling the civil claim.

    If they chose to settle their civil claim via the Response rather than going to Court that just aligns with the overwhelming majority of settlements of civil disputes in this country.

    So your demand that the catholic church and the complainants shouldn’t have been allowed to settle out of Court is just ignorant raving. If you’re railing about criminal proceedings you’re just wrong because the settlements never precluded criminal proceedings and if you’re railing about civil claims being settled out of court you’re a statist who can’t accept the very normal occurrence of people settling a dispute without government intervention.

  64. dover_beach

    That comment is not about the Melbourne Response unit.

    So when you said

    He did not bypass the entire legal process, hire his own private judge, hold his own private hearings, etc.
    There’s no comparison between the two.

    in a discussion about the Melbourne Response what else could you have been referring to?

    More evidence, again, of you weaseling about when caught either erring or lying.

  65. Iampeter

    The vast and overwhelming majority of legal disputes in the civil jurisdiction do not result in Court proceedings being commenced.

    They still follow a legal process dummy. You can’t setup your own hearings and hire your own judges.
    All of this was explained in the post you’re responding to, but you’ve STILL responded to it as if there’s anything to argue. LOL.

    So your demand that the catholic church and the complainants shouldn’t have been allowed to settle out of Court is just ignorant raving.

    That’s not my demand, I’m not making any demands. It has nothing to do with the point I’m making. It’s a side issue, dishonest twits like you have fixated on, without understanding what was said anyway, all to evade the actual point I’m making, which I’ve now repeated a few times and you continue to ignore.

  66. Iampeter

    in a discussion about the Melbourne Response what else could you have been referring to?

    You’re the only one taking about the Melbourne Response unit. That has never been what I’m talking about.
    I just spelled out what I am talking about in the post you’ve responded to.

    Everything else is just imbecile and total confusion on your part, fueled by your dishonesty.

  67. dover_beach

    You’re the only one taking about the Melbourne Response unit. That has never been what I’m talking about.

    LOL.

  68. Tim Neilson

    They still follow a legal process dummy. You can’t setup your own hearings and hire your own judges.

    This is absolutely correct!

    There’s no such thing as arbitration, ADR or any other means of mediating a dispute except going to Court!

    It’s absolutely unheard of for an organisation to set up a body to hear complaints and offer compensation. It’s never happened in the entire history of the world! And even if they did, no complainant would ever be allowed to seek redress via that process!

    You KNOW it makes sense!

  69. Iampeter

    You’re the only one taking about the Melbourne Response unit. That has never been what I’m talking about.

    LOL.

    So, like I said, you never had any counter to the main point I’ve been making even when I spelled it out for you.
    Of course my point is correct and has no counter, so this evasion is all you can do I suppose.

    Just another thread of leftists playing identity politics at Australia’s leading right wing blog.
    Also, whitewashing child abuse. Stay classy!

  70. Chris

    When are we going to the lamp-posts??

  71. Chris

    iampeter, from the point of view of a person outside this discussion, you are assuming the consequent in a seies of pieces of bad reasoning, and operating without the slightest hint of intellectual charity.
    Sad.

  72. Bruce

    “Where was Christine Nixon through this, she was the chief commissioner after all?”

    Lunch?

  73. Iampeter

    iampeter, from the point of view of a person outside this discussion, you are assuming the consequent in a seies of pieces of bad reasoning, and operating without the slightest hint of intellectual charity.
    Sad.

    Like the other twerps here, if that was the case you’d be able to demonstrate it.
    Which part of if you support a corrupt organization that got away with many crimes, you can’t really complain about corrupt organizations, or claim you’re being treated unfairly by the police, is “bad reasoning?”

    Is the answer the correct naming of the the response unit Pell launched in Melbourne? Or some other point that’s not in dispute, or even relevant?

    So glad you came along to impress me with your intellect. I am defeat!

  74. Tim Neilson

    Like the other twerps here, if that was the case you’d be able to demonstrate it.

    They have.
    Many times over.
    In spades.
    It’s all there set out above in this thread.
    It’s not their fault that you’re too stupid to be able to understand it.

  75. Iampeter

    They have.
    Many times over.
    In spades.
    It’s all there set out above in this thread.

    Yea by arguing points I’m not arguing, getting them wrong too, all in order to evade my actual point because it can’t be countered.
    It is indeed all in this thread.

    Victory!

  76. Ivan Denisovich

    You’re the only one taking about the Melbourne Response unit. That has never been what I’m talking about.

    LOL:

    Iampeter
    #3263793, posted on December 16, 2019 at 9:28 pm
    So…the police are out to “get Pell?”
    The same organization that allowed the Catholic Church to setup their own “response unit” to thousands of child abuse allegations, with thousands of perpetrators and let Pell head it up?

    Iampeter
    #3263986, posted on December 17, 2019 at 6:38 am
    No, the police didn’t “allow” it.
    Their permission wasn’t required.

    Yea I know. Because their actual course of action should’ve been far more direct towards the Catholic Church.

    No, it didn’t deal with “thousands” of allegations.
    And no, Pell didn’t ‘head it up.’

    So there wasn’t thousands of cases of abuse in Australia alone? Along with almost two thousands alleged abusers?
    And wasn’t Pell lauded for organizing a response unit to this? Instead of going to the police like any normal person would’ve done?

    And the police gave their blessing, instead of taking action as they should’ve done and would’ve done if it wasn’t the Catholic Church which enjoys enormous protection still in our society?

    Iampeter
    #3264192, posted on December 17, 2019 at 11:07 am
    Fencesitter, I see responding to you is going to be pointless as you’re completely insane and just ranting irrespective of what’s said and then pretending I’m the one doing it. You’ll fit right in at the Cat.

    Are you now saying that when you alleged that Pell headed the Melbourne Response (wrong), that its jurisdiction involved Australia (wrong)

    Pell launched the Melbourne response procotol-whatever you want to call it. That’s all I’m saying. If the exact wording is not exactly to your liking it doesn’t mean I’ve said anything wrong, just that you’re dishonestly evading.

    Iampeter
    #3264239, posted on December 17, 2019 at 11:46 am
    No, you said he headed the Response, and that its jurisdiction was Australia-wide.

    But you know what I meant and I’ve even clarified it so why are you STILL bringing this up?

    How could you know if they should have been or not without knowing what each of the allegations were?

    Because allegations of child abuse are matters for the police.

    I said the matter between the organization and the litigant is settled, not the matter between the accused and the alleged victim.

    Great. What does that have to do with anything I’ve said? Especially since any confusion you may have had about this specific point was clarified in the post you’re responding to. Why are you STILL bring this up?

    Weinstein Co. just reached such a tentative agreement. These sorts of arrangements are par for the course.

    Yes through the legal system which is what I was advocating in this thread.
    He did not bypass the entire legal process, hire his own private judge, hold his own private hearings, etc.

  77. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    Railing against a non-government organisation and some private individuals being allowed to settle their civil disputes without government supervision.

    Even after it’s been pointed out to him that that’s the way the vast majority of civil disputes do get settled.

    I think I can guess what mental deficiency has led Iamashiteater into that absurd proposition.

    But I’m not obliged to speculate.

    If he wants to be this site’s number one cheerleader for big government statist interventionism, who am I to deny him his thrills?

  78. Iampeter

    Ivan, so are you another proper imbecile or just dishonest?

    When I say, “the same organization that allowed the Catholic Church to setup their own “response unit” to thousands of child abuse allegations, with thousands of perpetrators and let Pell head it up,” I’m saying an organization allowed to do this by police is not in a position to complain about being treated unfairly by police. I’m not talking about Pell’s response unit.

    OBVIOUSLY.

    There really is no bottom to stupidity and dishonesty at the Cat is there?

  79. JC

    Plodes wrecks another thread. Well done plodes you fucking moron.

    Hand the computer to the orderly and return to the padded cell. Now!

  80. Iampeter

    I’m not the one wrecking any threads, you raving crackpot.

  81. Mother Lode

    People,

    I don’t know why you don’t just ignore OmPoida. He is just trying to rile you up. He doesn’t care for the truth.

    If you read his tortured sophistry and reduce it to ribbons with the sharpest and most refined dialectical blade he doesn’t care.

    He won. You lost.

    He got you to focus on him which is what he wanted. The brilliant response you have fashioned just falls with a clatter to the ground.

    Not responding is defeating him.

  82. Iampeter

    If you read his tortured sophistry and reduce it to ribbons with the sharpest and most refined dialectical blade he doesn’t care.

    Hahahahahahahahaahhaha….

  83. Iampeter

    Not responding is defeating him.

    The only reason you’re responding to me is because you know I’m right.

  84. Ivan Denisovich

    Ivan, so are you another proper imbecile or just dishonest?

    When I say, “the same organization that allowed the Catholic Church to setup their own “response unit” to thousands of child abuse allegations, with thousands of perpetrators and let Pell head it up,” I’m saying an organization allowed to do this by police is not in a position to complain about being treated unfairly by police. I’m not talking about Pell’s response unit.

    LOL. Look! Over there! A unicorn! Your evasions won’t work. People can read and I’ve laid it all out for them. To repeat – you wrote:

    You’re the only one taking about the Melbourne Response unit. That has never been what I’m talking about.

    Earlier:

    So…the police are out to “get Pell?”
    The same organization that allowed the Catholic Church to setup their own “response unit” …….

    And then continued to refer to the response unit in later posts. Maybe you’re determined to shred what remaining credibility you have. That’s entirely up to you.

  85. Iampeter

    LOL. Look! Over there! A unicorn! Your evasions won’t work. People can read and I’ve laid it all out for them.

    Exactly. So what are you trying to do? What I’ve said is pretty clear. I even clarified my point in several posts. So you still going back and pretending this isn’t the case is going to fool who exactly?

    And then continued to refer to the response unit in later posts.

    Are you for real? I was responding to Dovers evasions and pointing out what my ACTUAL point was.
    My point is not about Pell’s response unit.
    Are you going to count this post as me still “continued to refer to the response unit?” Sigh. I bet you are.

    So, in conclusion you are BOTH a proper imbecile and dishonest. Thanks for clarifying.

  86. Ivan Denisovich

    And wasn’t Pell lauded for organizing a response unit to this?

    Iampeter never talking about it. LOL.

  87. Iampeter

    And wasn’t Pell lauded for organizing a response unit to this?
    Iampeter never talking about it. LOL.

    Pell’s response unit was not my point.
    This has been clarified numerous times and I’ve spelled out my actual point, which you’re ignoring.
    Just like the other geniuses here.

    This would be an example of “the sharpest and most refined dialectical blade” eh?

    Baahahahahahahhahaha.

  88. Ivan Denisovich

    Never? You did discuss it. Obviously.

  89. JC

    But the fact that the Catholics got away with it and that you have no problem with that, means YOU can’t complain about ANYONE being corrupt.

    Plodes is saying even though Pell maybe innocent, he’s copped it for the sins of others. This is coming from the Subjectivist posting comments here. This is the subjectivist wanting laws to be based on personal rights. But, sins of the father conveyed to the son.. he’s fine with that as long as it’s thems Catholics.
    I refuse to believe this dickhead wasn’t kicked around from here to Sunday at school. He deserved it.

  90. Iampeter

    Never? You did discuss it. Obviously.

    Never what? I never discussed Pell’s response unit.
    I mentioned it as part of my point about how corrupt the church is and how the police let it get away with it.
    So, the churches supporters can’t complain about corruption, nor claim the police are unfairly targeting them or something.

    Not that this needs any clarification.

    Look forward to the next response of the sharpest and most refined dialectical blade!

  91. Iampeter

    Pell’s response unit was not my point.
    Oh ok. So we should just ignore whatever you say until you’re really really sure that something is indeed one of your points.

    No, you should UNDERSTAND what the point is BEFORE you respond.
    Otherwise you just end up beclowning yourself.
    As you have done all thread, along with the other space cadets here.

  92. Porter

    Mother Lode speaks wisely. Thanks.

  93. Ivan Denisovich

    No, you did talk about it.

    I never discussed Pell’s response unit.
    I mentioned it as part of my point about how corrupt the church………

  94. Iampeter

    No, you did talk about it.

    I never discussed Pell’s response unit.
    I mentioned it as part of my point about how corrupt the church………

    Wow. You really are an imbecile huh?
    I’m clarifying this for the last time. I mentioned Pell’s response unit as an example of the many things the police let the Church get away with.
    I was not specifically discussing Pell’s response unit. Obviously.
    Dover latched onto this, claiming that Pell didn’t lead the response unit, or some other semantic nonsense, that isn’t relevant to my point, which is that it’s obviously false to claim the police are unfairly targeting the church which they allowed to get away with so much.

    This is the last time I’m clarifying the point that I’ve been making all thread to you breathtaking morons.

    There’s an old saying about not arguing with idiots because they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, so I recognize this is all my fault.

    You spastics can’t help it.

    In any case, I look forward to your ongoing non-responses for my amusement. Sperg out, retards…

  95. JC

    Plodes.

    This is an order. Hand in the computer to the orderly and go straight to your room. We’ve had enough of this insanity. The drugs just aren’t working.

  96. Lee

    You’re trying to white wash it in the tribe you happen to belong to, engaging in classic, left wing identity politics games, as conservatives soooo love to do.

    By your very own reasoning or logic, every time you label conservatives (or even slightly right-of-centre people like me) “left wing” because of some arbitrary rules you made up, you’re indulging in exactly the same “left wing identity politics” you accuse others of.

  97. Ivan Denisovich

    I mentioned Pell’s response unit as an example of the many things the police let the Church get away with.

    Thanks for confirming that you did talk about it and that your criticism of Dover for discussing it were unwarranted.

  98. Iampeter

    By your very own reasoning or logic, every time you label conservatives (or even slightly right-of-centre people like me) “left wing” because of some arbitrary rules you made up, you’re indulging in exactly the same “left wing identity politics” you accuse others of.

    No, this just means you don’t know what “identity politics” means.
    Nor am I calling you leftists because of “arbitrary rules” I made up. You don’t know anything about politics either.

    Identity politics is wanting your group to be treated differently by the law from other groups. E.g. Claiming a Christian Baker can’t be forced to bake a cake, then claiming tech companies can be forced to host content. In this case, CL and his supporters are dishonestly claiming Pell has been stitched up and there’s nothing to see here with the Catholic Church anyway, while you would be saying something very different if this issue involved, oh I don’t know, the Rotherham grooming gangs for example. No principles, no honesty, just mindless support for the tribe. That’s identity politics.

    As to why I call you leftists (politically illiterate too) is because you are collectivists, oppose individual rights and rights-protecting government and don’t really understand those concepts to begin with.

    But worse than all that is the slimy dishonesty of the posts. You people are politically illiterate leftists AND you’re so incredibly dishonest and delusional that it has to be seen to be believed.

    Like:

    Thanks for confirming that you did talk about it and that your criticism of Dover for discussing it were unwarranted.

    I never denied I talked about it, nor was I criticizing Dover for mentioning it. I was criticizing him for avoiding my point. Just like you have done.
    Obviously.

  99. Tim Neilson

    Claiming a Christian Baker can’t be forced to bake a cake, then claiming tech companies can be forced to host content.

    Looks like we may need another round of Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo – Tech Co Version

    The modus operandi is as follows:
    1. Iamashiteater usually starts by strutting on to the site and denouncing other people as “confused”, not knowing about politics etc., and proclaiming that conservatives are collectivists, leftists etc.
    2. At any point in proceedings, Iamashiteater, having started with 1., may dissolve into self pity when someone is discourteous to him.
    3. At any point, Iamashiteater may totally falsely claim that no-one has refuted his previous bullshit (or that his previous bullshit has been misrepresented), even if disproof of his claim is only a few comments back on the current thread.
    4. Specifically as regards the tech giants, Iamashiteater will falsely accuse other commenters of wanting the tech giants to be regulated like common carriers.
    5. When it is pointed out that 4 is a total lie, and that commenters are advocating precisely that tech giants NOT be treated like common carriers, especially re common carrier exemptions from defamation etc. Iamashiteater will sneeringly demand “what exemptions?” and deny that such exemptions exist.
    6. Iamashiteater is then referred to section 230 in the USA and the subordinate distributor exemptions in Australia’s uniform defamation law. Iamashiteater then dismisses those as ‘redundant”.
    7. It is then pointed out to Iamashiteater that by dismissing those as “redundant” he is declaring himself to know more about defamation law than:
    (a) the Attorneys-General, AG Departments, Parliamentary Counsel, law reform agencies, legal academics, defamation practitioners and others who took part in the defamation law reforms in Australia; and
    (b) their equivalents in the USA.
    Iamashiteater denies that that’s implicit in his claim, but gives zero justification as to how his denial can possibly be true – just retreating to unsubstantiated generalities, and protestations about how of course he’d support tech giants not getting special exemptions etc if there were any (essentially circling back to 6).
    8. Iamashiteater is asked point blank to state whether section 230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions are:
    (a) redundant – see point 7; or
    (b) not redundant – see point 5.
    Iamashiteater describes the question as a “false alternative”, throws an embarrassingly hysterical toddler tantrum and starts repeating 1 and 2.

    So, instead of wasting our time with Iamashiteater’s cycle of conceit, ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty on this issue, when he posts any of his fatuitous rubbish we can just respond by identifying the particular bullshit in that comment with the appropriate number from the list above.

  100. Lee

    No, this just means you don’t know what “identity politics” means.
    Nor am I calling you leftists because of “arbitrary rules” I made up. You don’t know anything about politics either.

    And I suppose you think you do?

    You think you know what others think?

    Talk about sneering, condescending narcissism that would put Malcolm Turnbull to shame.

  101. David

    Wow, can someone sensible make a critique of the original post please. Reading the constant barrages of bullshit between three or four twits, “Twitters” is doing my head in. David

  102. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    It is quite clear that the police did not want any delay in the Cardinal’s prosecution and the media attention that would get. So, of course, they did not bother to try to find the real cause of suicide of one of the so-called victims.

    It seems nobody wants to bring this still to the attention of the High Court judges since this whole process has become so peculiar that the whole world is following how this Australian Court system works and they just want to see only now what the High Court decides based on the information they have received so far. So, please no additional information to take into account. The world just wants to see the procedures of this Australian Justice system and what the consequences will be for their court cases in the future.

    Bad luck for Cardinal Pell is the argument now, regardless IF the boy committed suicide because of Cardinal Pell, OR the heroin, OR because of Depression of a Personality Disorder to be found in his genes. They just do not want to know any more at this stage.

  103. Ivan Denisovich

    I never denied I talked about it, nor was I criticizing Dover for mentioning it.

    Nope. Wrong.

  104. Jesus christ plodes.

    You’re tacitly defending idiotic monster and cretins like Overland and Fatty Ashton now.

    FFS, give it a rest before it looks like a statue of Priapus.

  105. Iampeter

    And I suppose you think you do?

    Yea, that’s what the rest of my post was about.

Comments are closed.