Daniel Andrews had plenty to say last year

Today

Last year:

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said Cardinal George Pell had received a fair trial and questioned media commentators who said the jury had made an error in its decision.

“The notion that if you don’t like a verdict, you can just say they got it wrong, that’s not how ours system works,” the Premier said.

“What’s happened here … is that a victim has been believed. And that’s thrown a whole lot of people into absolute disarray,” he told ABC Melbourne’s Jon Faine.

Turns out it wasn’t just the media questioning whether the jury got it wrong. Today the High Court ruled 7 – 0 that the jury got it wrong.

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

90 Responses to Daniel Andrews had plenty to say last year

  1. George

    No comment is good – now he can continue to pursue L platers taking driving lessons with more vigour. Or perhaps re-define the bonking restrictions on which he back-flipped. So many more choices …

  2. The Hunchback’s statement was clearly a ‘comment’. And everyone knows what he means.

  3. pete m

    So he believes Shorten’s accuser and will direct his commish to now act differently

    Bloody hypocrit

  4. Real Deal

    It must have taken a while for Andrews to type that tweet. In between swallowing gallons of his own bile that kept rising in his throat.

  5. iain russell

    What is it with Victorians and their continued reelection of this foetid, foecal turd?

  6. Graham

    Victorians have the worst Premier and the worst Police Commissioner in Australia – and it appears the stupidest electorate or the feeblest opposition in the country.

  7. notafan

    St Patrick’s in Ballarat will of course hasten to reinstate all honours to their greatest alumni.

  8. BM

    I make no comment about the maliciousness, malfeasance and the staggering incompetence of the current Victorian Premier, the Victorian Police Commissioner or the Victorian Court of Appeal.

    But I have a message for George Pell and every other victim or survivor of the abuse of government power.

    I see you.

    I hear you.

    I believe you.

  9. Cynic of Ayr

    “The notion that if you don’t like a verdict, you can just say they got it wrong, that’s not how ours system works,” the Premier said.
    Got a very loose grasp of the Justice system, hasn’t he?
    “I believe you.”
    Got a very loose grasp of the mindset of his own politics, hasn’t he?
    Bit of a dilemma. Which to believe? The Appeals Court, or the High Court. Ah, the problems with being Premier and shooting your mouth off!
    The Left on the Appeals Court decision:
    “Great! Justice has been served. Isn’t Justice just the bee’s knees!”
    The Left on the HC decision:
    “All Judges are pedophile assholes, and should be killed outright.”

  10. candy

    This has come as a great shock to Daniel Andrews. I am sure he had a little speech ready if the HC had not acquitted Cardinal Pell.

    He truly hates conservatives and wanted to see George Pell die in jail, as one of his dreams, being a committed socialist/communist that he is.

  11. areff

    What is it with Victorians and their continued reelection of this foetid, foecal turd?

    After the SFLibs blew the last state election, John Pesutto, at that stage tipped to be the next opposition leader, was on the ABC watching his blue ribbon seat taken by Labor. Asked how the SFLibs could come back from the wilderness, he replied something along these lines:

    “We need to be more proactive about green energy, domestic violence, sexism etc etc”

    In other words, why vote for us when Labor does it better? And Victorians didn’t!

  12. Lee

    Andrews is clearly implying he disagrees with the High Court.
    With that sort of “always believing the (alleged) victim” mindset I would hate to have this Richard Cranium on a jury deciding my fate.
    It’s bad enough he is the premier of my state.

  13. Ian

    Andrews also disgracefully condemned Tony Abbott for visiting his friend in jail.

  14. Mother Lode

    I wonder why he refers to victims and survivors – are their survivors who weren’t victims?

  15. Mother Lode

    Also he says he sees, hears and believes the victims. How does he know which ones to believe? Or does he just believe anyone who says ‘victim’?

  16. Eddystone

    But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of chil sex abuse.

    I see you.

    I hear you.

    I believe you.

    Bullshit.

  17. candy

    Also he says he sees, hears and believes the victims. How does he know which ones to believe?\

    Well, he did not believe the “victim” of Bill Shorten.

  18. Old Lefty

    An ‘odd’ statement for a premier to make, as Jeremy Gans tactfully put it, about a case that is exceptionally controversial and has exposed divisions within and between the courts.

    I’d like to be a fly on the wall when Andrews next meets Judd. Does the ‘you have failed me for the last time, Admiral’ scene from Star Wars come to mind?

  19. Aynsley Kellow

    Nor just the jury for it wrong – so, too, did a majority of the Court of Appeal, including the Chief Justice. And the error was a simple one that dozens of commentators pointed out and all seven High Court Justices saw: because it could not be proved that the habits and traditions normally followed could not be proven to have been followed on the days in question, a credible complainant was believed.

    This was to reverse the burden of proof – a fundamental error. This highlights the danger of prosecutions for alleged transgressions so far in the past. The prosecution case could not even specify the precise date on which one offence actually occurred. What honest person could swear that something definitely happened on a specific date 20 years in the past?

    I have little time for the Catholic Church. Its authority structure combined with the vow of celibacy is, in my view, a toxic mix. That said, this was clearly a case of a prominent individual being taken as a cipher for the whole institution. The Victorian legal system has disgraced itself, as has the ABC.

  20. Old Lefty

    The Dandy Months (aka the Victorian Liberals) are indeed hopeless. But the performance of Judd and Cain (now elevated to the bench) at the OPP over the Red Shirts affair was so appalling that even the Victorian Opposition woke up for five minutes.

  21. Old Lefty

    Sorry – Dandy Nongs. Autocorrect strikes again.

  22. What is it with Victorians and their continued reelection of this foetid, foecal turd?

    It’s because we don’t have an opposition worth spitting on. Jeff Kennett was the last true Liberal in Victoristan. I can thankfully vote National and have vented my anger and disappointment numerous times to my member (who is respectable), but there’s little that he can do.

    The metropolitan area, where it really counts, is devoid of anyone that would remotely fit in a Menzies government. They simply have no spine, no motivation and no idea what to do. They couldn’t organise a piss-up in a pub. We will have a Labor/Greens government for a long time to come.

  23. H B Bear

    Entirely predictable response from The Hunchback of Spring St.

    Pity any ordinary Victoriastani thrown upon its “justice system”.

  24. vlad

    But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse.

    What about for the false accusers a la Carl Beech? What’s Hitlerina’s message for them?

  25. H B Bear

    The Hunchback must think he is still at the Royal Commission where the Rules of Evidence don’t apply and the taxpayer’s chequebook is always open.

  26. WDYSIA

    Thanks for skewering the slimy bastard, Sinclair.

    The Daniel Andrews school of leadership.
    https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/leadership/ten-words-changed-layne-beachley-life/

  27. The “I believe you” comment is what got us to this miscarriage of justice in the first place.

    The correct view is all such allegations will be investigated and if there is the evidence then will be prosecuted based on the evidence.

    A blanket “I believe you” is not how justice should be done. You are basically saying to any accused I don’t believe you.

  28. Rob MW

    But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of chil sex abuse.

    I see you.

    I hear you.

    I believe you.

    And there it is right there. The leader of the State of Victoria corrupting the State’s jury pool before the production of evidence or the commencement of due process.

  29. Tim Neilson

    because it could not be proved that the habits and traditions normally followed could not be proven to have been followed on the days in question, a credible complainant was believed.

    That was one flabbergasting aspect of the Ferguson/Maxwell judgement:
    basically, because people are so used to seeing the sun rise in the east they mightn’t recall the day when it rose in the west.

  30. rickw

    Daniel’s is a disgrace.

    I have spoken to Labor party members about him, the vast majority, being decent people, find him to be a complete embarrassment, unworthy of their party.

  31. Bear Necessities

    How would the 2 Appeals Court judges, who rejected the appeal, feel today? Pretty small considering their judgement was overturned 7-0 in the High Court. They can’t point to any support for their verdicts. In a normal world these persons should be sacked or would voluntarily stand down. That won’t happen though.

  32. Fisky

    This is a fairly representative Andrews supporter

    Clementine Ford Woman zombie
    @clementine_ford
    ·
    4h
    George Pell is a child abuser, a sexual predator and a life ruiner. Apart from the children he personally harmed, he oversaw the harm of countless others. If there’s a hell, he can rot in it. I don’t care what the High Court and his high profile p-do defending friends say.

  33. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    John Pesutto, at that stage tipped to be the next opposition leader, was on the ALPBC watching his blue ribbon seat taken by Labor. Asked how the SFLibs could come back from the wilderness, he replied something along these lines:

    “We need to be more proactive about condemning ourselves to electoral oblivion”

  34. Lee

    Daniel Andrews proves yet again he is very unfit for the position of premier.
    For someone who presided over the “red shirts affair” it is vomit inducing for him to comment on justice and the law, and show disrespect for the HC decision.

  35. Rob MW

    “We need to be more proactive about condemning ourselves to electoral oblivion”

    So I suppose they’re not hiring the Ruby Princess for a weekender for the party faithful then ?

  36. If it looks like a Turd it probably is a Turd ……… I give you our man , in Victoriastan , Dan Andrews’ ….,. Douchebag of the Universe !

  37. Goanna

    George came back.

    He saw, he heard.

    He conquered.

  38. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Clementine Ford Woman zombie
    @clementine_ford
    ·
    4h
    George Pell is a child abuser, a sexual predator and a life ruiner. Apart from the children he personally harmed, he oversaw the harm of countless others. If there’s a hell, he can rot in it. I don’t care what the High Court and his high profile p-do defending friends say.

    if it was me I would sue her as off. that is now serious defamation

  39. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    bloody autocorrect. ass!

  40. Beachcomber

    Greg Craven just gave a brilliant interview on the ABC. He had some incisive things to say about the appalling conduct of the ABC and VikPol in the persecution of Cardinal Pell. The ABC wymynses communard interviewing him desperately tried to shut him up by talking over the top of him.

  41. Old Lefty

    If Andrews had a shred of integrity, this appalling travesty of a prosecution would be added to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission investigating VicPol over the Gobbo affair, and there would be separate inquires into the DPP and judiciary. None of these will happen, of course.

    And it’s a golden opportunity for ScoMo to launch a Royal Commission into the ABC – preferably conduiny Dyson Heydon.

  42. Old Lefty

    … conducted by Dyson Heydon.

  43. I have a message for every single victim of Socialism:

    I can’t see you

    I can’t hear you

    Because you were murdered by Daniel Andrews favourite ideology

  44. nfw

    And what about every false accuser Danny? How do you know ’til it’s been proved Danny?

  45. I’ll bet that the MSM will keep giving air time to all the ‘victims’ that Pell abused. It’ll be like the stolen generations.

  46. Ivan Denisovich


    Greg Craven just gave a brilliant interview on the ABC. He had some incisive things to say about the appalling conduct of the ABC and VikPol in the persecution of Cardinal Pell. The ABC wymynses communard interviewing him desperately tried to shut him up by talking over the top of him.

    George Weigel:

    Justice, finally.
    It is imperative for the future of the Australian criminal justice system, and indeed for the future of Australian democracy, that a serious examination of conscience followed by a serious public reckoning take place.

    The unanimous decision by Australia’s High Court to quash a guilty verdict and enter a verdict of “acquitted” in the case of Pell vs. The Queen reverses both the incomprehensible trial conviction of Cardinal George Pell on a charge of “historic sexual abuse” and the equally baffling decision to uphold that false verdict by two of the three members of an appellate court in the State of Victoria last August. The High Court’s decision frees an innocent man from the unjust imprisonment to which he has been subjected, restores him to his family and friends, and enables him to resume his important work in and for the Catholic Church. The decision also begins the process of rebuilding international confidence in Australia’s criminal justice system, which has been badly damaged by the Pell case—although there is much more remedial work to be done on that front, especially in the State of Victoria, Ground Zero of the Pell witch hunt that raged for years and that culminated in this tawdry affair.

    Close students of Pell vs. The Queen have known for some time that this case ought never have been brought to trial. The police investigation leading to allegations against the cardinal was conducted in a dubious, indeed sleazy, fashion. The magistrate at the committal hearing (the equivalent of a grand jury proceeding ) was under intense pressure to bring to trial a set of charges she knew were very weak. When the case was tried, the Crown prosecutors produced no evidence that the alleged crimes had ever been committed, basing their argument solely on the testimony of the complainant—testimony that was inconsistent over time and that has subsequently been shown to have been deeply flawed. There was no corroborating physical evidence and there were no witnesses to corroborate the charges. To the contrary: those directly involved in Melbourne’s cathedral at the time of the alleged offenses (some twenty years ago) insisted under oath and during cross-examination that it was impossible for events to have unfolded as the complainant alleged—neither the time-frame used by the prosecution to describe the alleged abuse nor the complainant’s description of the layout of the cathedral sacristy (where the crimes were said to have been committed) made any sense. This extensive testimony in the cardinal’s defense was never seriously dented by the prosecution. Moreover, the sheer impossibility that what was alleged to have happened actually happened was subsequently confirmed by objective observers and commentators, including those who held no previous brief for Cardinal Pell (and one who had been a severe critic).

    Pell vs. The Queen was also prosecuted in a way that raised grave doubts about the commitment of the Victoria authorities to such elementary tenets of Anglosphere criminal law as the presumption of innocence and the duty of the state to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this regard, Justice Mark Weinberg, the dissenting judge in last summer’s appellate case, made a crucial jurisprudential point while eviscerating his colleagues’ decision to uphold Cardinal Pell’s conviction in August 2019: By making the complainant’s credibility the crux of the matter, both the prosecution and Weinberg’s colleagues on the appellate panel rendered it impossible for any defense to be mounted. Under this credibility criterion, no evidence of an actual crime was required, nor was any corroboration of the charges; what counted was that the complainant seemed sincere. But this was not serious judicial reasoning according to centuries of the common law tradition. It was an exercise in sentiment, even sentimentality, and it had no business being the decisive factor in convicting a man of a vile crime and depriving him of his reputation and his freedom.

    (Had the High Court upheld a conviction on these grounds, there would have been the most serious doubt that any Catholic cleric, or indeed anyone, charged with sexual abuse by a “credible” complainant could receive a fair trial in Australia. For by this credibility criterion, any defendant is prima facie condemned as guilty.)

    As Justice Weinberg’s extraordinary, 200+ page dissent was digested by jurists and veteran legal practitioners in Australia, and as the lifting of a press blackout on coverage of the Pell trial exposed the thinness of the prosecution case, a rising tide of concern among thoughtful people, convinced that a grave injustice had been done, could be felt—even at a distance of thousands of miles from Melbourne. That concern may have been reflected in the decision by the High Court, Australia’s supreme judicial body, to accept a further appeal (which need not have been granted). Similar concerns were evident in the sharp grilling of the Crown’s chief prosecutor when the High Court heard the cardinal’s appeal in March 2020. That two-day exercise made it plain, again, that the Crown had no case that would meet the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the jury in the cardinal’s second trial (held because of a hung jury at his first trial) returned an unsafe and indeed insupportable verdict; and that the two judges of the Victoria Supreme Court who upheld the conviction (one of whom had no criminal law experience whatsoever) made grave errors of the sort that their colleague, Justice Weinberg, identified in his dissent.

    The High Court’s decision to acquit Cardinal Pell and free him is thus both just and welcome. The question of how any of this could have happened in the first place remains to be adjudicated, however. And it is imperative for the future of the Australian criminal justice system, and indeed for the future of Australian democracy, that a serious examination of conscience followed by a serious public reckoning take place.

    As I have written before, the vicious public atmosphere surrounding Cardinal Pell, especially in his native State of Victoria, was analogous to the poisonous atmosphere that surrounded the Dreyfus Affair in late-nineteenth century France. In 1894, raw politics and ancient score-settling, corrupt officials, a rabid media, and gross religious prejudice combined to cashier an innocent French army officer of Jewish heritage, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, for treason, after which he was condemned to the hell of Devil’s Island. The Melbourne Assessment Prison and Her Majesty’s Prison Barwon, the two facilities in which George Pell has been incarcerated, are not Devil’s Island, to be sure. But many of the same factors that led to the false conviction of Alfred Dreyfus were at play in the putrid public atmosphere of the State of Victoria during the past four years of the Pell witchhunt. The Victoria police, already under scrutiny for incompetence and corruption, conducted a fishing expedition that sought “evidence” for crimes that no one had previously alleged to have been committed; and by some accounts, the police saw the persecution of George Pell as a useful way to deflect attention from their own (to put it gently) problems. With a few honorable exceptions, the local and national press bayed for Cardinal Pell’s blood. Someone paid for the professionally printed anti-Pell placards carried by the mob that surrounded the courthouse where the trials were conducted. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—a taxpayer-funded public institution—engaged in the crudest anti-Catholic propaganda and broadcast a stream of defamations of Cardinal Pell’s character (most recently in a series coinciding with the deliberations of the High Court).

    To imagine that an unbiased jury could have been empaneled in these fevered circumstances is to imagine a great deal—and perhaps to imagine the impossible. Yet the present law in the State of Victoria did not allow the cardinal to request a bench trial by a judge alone. So what might have been imagined to be a sober legal proceeding came to bear the hallmarks of a slow-motion political assassination by judicial means.

    And it does not strain credulity to imagine that that was, all along, the intention of some of those involved in the persecution of George Pell.

    Democratic politics is a contact sport, and nowhere more so than in Australia. The frenzied public madness surrounding George Pell did not bespeak a robust democracy sustained by a vital public moral culture, however; it bespoke something more primitive and far more dangerous. Thus the High Court struck a blow for democratic decency and democratic renewal, as well as for justice, by allowing Cardinal Pell’s appeal and entering a verdict of acquittal into the record. The High Court’s decision will not change the minds of the pathological Pell-haters, whose name is legion. And it is a safe bet that further attacks on the cardinal’s character will be forthcoming. Perhaps, though, the High Court decision will embolden the Australian parliament to take another step toward democratic renewal Down Under and look into the condition of the police and the criminal justice system in the State of Victoria—and to conduct an inquiry into why the country’s government-owned public broadcasting system is permitted to engage in defamation of character on the taxpayers’ dollar.

    Throughout this ordeal, Cardinal George Pell has been a model of patience, and indeed a model of priestly character. Knowing that he is innocent, he was free even when incarcerated. And he put that time to good use—“an extended retreat,” as he called it—cheering his many friends throughout the world and intensifying an already-vigorous life of prayer, study, and writing. Now that he can, at last, celebrate the Mass again, I’ve no doubt that he will make, among his intentions, the conversion of his persecutors and the renewal of justice in the country he loves.

    As a citizen of Vatican City, Cardinal Pell did not have abandon his work in Rome to return to Australia for trial. The thought of appealing to his diplomatic immunity never occurred to him, though. For he was determined to defend his honor and that of the Australian Church, which he had led in addressing the crimes and sins of sexual abuse (and in many other ways) for years. George Pell placed his bet on the essential fairness of his countrymen. The High Court’s decision has vindicated that wager, finally. The reception of the court’s decision will tell a lot about whether the Australian media and the Australian people have learned anything from all of this.

    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/04/06/justice-finally/

  47. Speedbox

    Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)
    #3398180, posted on April 7, 2020 at 3:20 pm

    He should, but he probably won’t. But he should – if only to send a message that vile defamation is not acceptable and nobody is ‘immune’ from pursuit through the courts. Pell was pursued notwithstanding there was no evidence. Why should Ford get a free pass to defame Pell?

  48. Howard Hill

    iain russell
    #3397919, posted on April 7, 2020 at 1:14 pm

    What is it with Victorians and their continued reelection of this foetid, foecal turd?

    Because the other side of the Victorian Uniparty is full of lactating soy boys, that’s why!

  49. Fisky

    Pell should sue for defamation, not just for his own reputation but as a kind of defensive shield for future victims of the Victorian justice system who do not enjoy the same resources as him.

    The Left run on the fumes of hatred and defamation against their opponents, nowhere more so than Victoria, and this is what really took Pell through Vikpol, a compromised jury, and “incompetent” judges, all the way to jail. Every part in the machine played its part, either consciously or not. The climate of fanaticism in Victoria has been weaponised against the Left’s enemies, and this is the result of it. Take away the Left’s ability to defame, and they have no argument left.

    We can put a stop this is if we are prepared to sue lots and lots of these cretins, bankrupt them, professionally deregister them, and make it impossible for them to operate in the way they are accustomed to, so that no similar abuse of individual rights can ever take place again.

  50. Correct Fisk.

    This is bigger than Cdl. Pell.

    It is about the integrity of the justice system.

    No integrity in the process invites systemic rather than occasional tyranny.

  51. Beachcomber

    George Wiegel

    The reception of the court’s decision will tell a lot about whether the Australian media and the Australian people have learned anything from all of this.

    With regard to the media, I think we all know what the answer to that will be.

  52. GoWest

    Only children Double down instead of Apologising.

  53. Perplexed of Brisbane

    I’m intrigued why the father of the deceased boy is pursuing Pell.
    Unless I have it wrong, wasn’t he the one that admitted to his mother that nothing happened?
    I also wonder why she has not been more forthcoming in contradicting the father.

    Anyway, I am glad that justice has been done.

    If the result had been allowed to stand, then it would be ominous for us all (especially men) if we have to stand before a court with only the testimony of an accuser as evidence.

  54. notafan

    Nice piece by George Weigel

    Thank you for sharing.

  55. C.L.

    Pell should sue for defamation, not just for his own reputation but as a kind of defensive shield for future victims of the Victorian justice system who do not enjoy the same resources as him.

    Exactly. This is not a question of turning the other cheek. Not to sue these lying scum is to leave other people vulnerable to their depredations.

  56. Lee

    Of course the usual suspects (not here) are defending the ABC.
    “It’s not a witch hunt”, the “ABC are just doing their job”, blah, blah, blah.
    Then why did they raise again, just a few days ago, old, discredited allegations, and try to claim that they were new ones?
    Anyone who doesn’t believe that the ABC doesn’t have a strident anti-Catholic bias, if not hatred for the church (I am not Catholic, by the way), has his or her ideological blinkers on.

  57. Leigh Lowe

    Hi C.L..
    I seem to remember you posted a story a while back of a failed abuse claim in the US which had remarkable similar “facts” to the Pell case.
    Do you recall?

  58. Some History

    I finally managed to get onto the internet.

    7-0 ruling
    Pell gives a dignified response
    The usual suspects’ heads are exploding
    With the c-19 restrictions, the usual gathering of ferrals baying for blood was absent.

    The last few weeks have provided a clear insight into The Hunchback and it’s not good – SNOT good.

  59. JC

    C.L.
    #3398271, posted on April 7, 2020 at 4:14 pm

    Pell should sue for defamation, not just for his own reputation but as a kind of defensive shield for future victims of the Victorian justice system who do not enjoy the same resources as him.

    Exactly. This is not a question of turning the other cheek. Not to sue these lying scum is to leave other people vulnerable to their depredations.

    He’s 78 years old and for an innocent old man to live under the pressure of being jailed for ~2/3rd of a year… Enough with the legal stuff. He just needs to leave and never look back.

  60. Perfidious Albino

    I seem to recall that 3 Federal ministers had to apologise to the Vic Supreme Court after expressing dissatisfaction with one of its findings (terrorism sentencing) to avoid contempt of court proceedings. Surely other political figures should be held to the same standard by the HCA over the Pell acquittal?

  61. mareeS

    Ivan Denisovitch, your post from Catholic World Report was illuminating.

    I was a court reporter fo more than 30 years, and I have seen some travesties in other convictions, but this was a doozy on which even the most idiot juror could not have returned a conviction.

  62. vlad

    Enough with the legal stuff. He just needs to leave and never look back.

    I agree.

  63. C.L.

    I do, LL.
    ‘Fan has posted it, I see.

  64. H B Bear

    Hunchback shows he still doesn’t get it.

    Unfit for office. Not that this makes any difference in Victoriastan.

  65. vlad

    I seem to recall that 3 Federal ministers had to apologise to the Vic Supreme Court after expressing dissatisfaction with one of its findings (terrorism sentencing) to avoid contempt of court proceedings. Surely other political figures should be held to the same standard by the HCA over the Pell acquittal?

    That was different. They were Libs. [/sarc]

  66. Professor Fred Lenin

    I thought the Victorian and SA liberals had ceased to exist,they are never mentioned in our fair and impartial media . If they do exist they must not be stuffing anything up or it ewould be headline news .
    I suppose LINOs are so like the left they dont attract attention ,what is the policy now climate holocaust crisis has been postponed for a year by the untidy nayshuns ?
    What would andrews know about anything he has been a prty aparatchik all his life ,stuck in a sheltered workshop.

  67. Ivan Denisovich

    Yes, Maree. The Greg Craven interview has now been posted on the Pell Judgement Day thread. Worth a look, if you haven’t already done so.

  68. Sinclair Davidson

    Greg Craven interview has its own thread.

  69. Old Lefty

    Why am I not surprised at this gobbet of venom and bias from the person who was the media and community liaison officer for the County Court of Victoria during the Pell trial. Her name, fittingly redolent of the Soviet KGB, appeared inter alia on notices to the media over suppression orders.

    https://twitter.com/nevenaspirovska/status/1247323494494265344

  70. Robbo

    Be ashamed Daniel Andrews because you have been revealed as someone with gross double standards. The High Court of Australia has shown that the decision in the Victorian court was unsafe and that Pell has, in fact, been wrongly convicted. Instead of saying that you decided to try and walk around the finalisation of this matter with your ridiculous and unnecessary rubbish about believing anyone who claims to have been sexually assaulted. That statement of yours would not have been welcomed by Bill Shorten and several others. Can we now expect that you will apply the same standards to the claims against Shorten that you were happy to see applied to George Pell? No? What a hypocrite you are.

  71. Lee

    https://twitter.com/nevenaspirovska/status/1247323494494265344

    Never heard of her.
    But she is full of bile and vomit.
    For her sake, I hope she doesn’t choke on it.

  72. iain russell

    While I appreciate the sentiment, I find the term ‘douche bag’ as equally unfortunate a term as c***. Can we agree to use ‘turd’ as the lowest of the low? I speak as a husband with a daughter and granddaughter (one on invoice)?

  73. Roger

    That’s “committed Catholic” Daniel Andrews.

  74. notafan

    It is indeed, Roger

    Committed to abortion to birth, euthanasia, SSM and just about every thing the church opposes.

    You can see why he is so supportive of Cardinal Pell.

  75. Roger

    Committed to abortion to birth, euthanasia, SSM and just about every thing the church opposes.

    Together with that other “committed Catholic” KKK.

  76. nb

    “The notion that if you don’t like a verdict, you can just say they got it wrong, that’s not how ours system works,” the Premier said.

    Great. The I look forward to silence from andrews on this matter henceforth.

  77. NoFixedAddress

    The Hunchbacks comments are Joe Biden level creepy…..

    Hey all you victims of sexual abuse out there, guess what, I see you, I hear you, I believe you.

  78. I see you – translated, “I’ve got the videos”
    I hear you – ditto
    I believe you – “I was there”

  79. stackjao

    Dan makes it up as likes.
    MSM agrees.

  80. David Brewer

    Technically and legally there is nothing wrong with the Premier expressing his sympathy with victims of child sexual abuse in general. And however insincere and mawkish such displays appear, the public seems to expect them these days.

    It’s just that, as it happens, there was no victim of child sexual abuse in this case. The real victim was Cardinal George Pell, an innocent man falsely accused of vile acts, put through four trials, jailed for 404 days, and been made the quarry of an endless, hate-filled witch-hunt. So it would be more logical for the Premier to drizzle the treacle of his hypocrisy over the actual “survivor” of this travesty.

    But what gets me is the Premier saying he has no comment about today’s High Court decision. Why not? A 7-0 nothing verdict overturns three State court verdicts and points to multiple serious legal errors by the Victorian Court of Appeal majority. This indicates something is seriously wrong with the Victorian judiciary. What is he going to do about it? Why is the press not insisting that he say what he is going to do about it?

  81. Squirrel

    “I make no comment about today’s High Court decision”

    No need to be coy, Dan, they’re not quite so trigger-happy as some courts……

  82. Bronson

    His state judiciary and police force have just been told they’re wrong and by inference incompetent by the High Court for convicting an innocent man on the say so of one person. Yet he still says he will believe individual accursers in future cases with out question? How can anyone expect a fair trial in Victoria in these circumstances?

  83. Brian W

    Looking at the initial reaction to Cardinal Pell’s acquittal, it is obvious that he never stood a chance of receiving a fair trial before a jury drawn from the general public. Because a large number (though still very much a minority) of Catholic clergy have been guilty of heinous crimes, enemies of the Church and its teachings have seized the opportunity to vilify and slander Catholic clergy in general and Cardinal Pell in particular. This has been happening for at least 20 years.

    In such an environment, it is no surprise that many people would believe any allegation of misconduct made against Cardinal Pell, no matter how flimsy and unsubstantiated. Even now, after Justice Weinberg and the seven High Court judges have explained so clearly that his initial conviction was unjustified, there are millions of Australians who remain convinced he is guilty of acts that are not only highly implausible but completely unsupported by the evidence. This is the jury pool Cardinal Pell faced.

Comments are closed.