There is a movie out now called Spotlight with Michael Keaton which records the press' battle against the Catholic Church in Boston America. The film is based on fact and highlights how a Catholic Cardinal suppressed the truth about sexual abuse in his church. It reminded me so much of how Cardinal George Pell here has been allowed to escape responsibility over what I believe is entrenched cover ups in the Catholic Church here under his stewardship. The Royal Commission into sexual abuse has requested his presence here after he did the bolt to the Vatican just when things were getting very shaky indeed for him here. Now he refuses to come back and face the heat. A 'letter' has been tendered by his doctor saying he is too ill to return and give evidence. Anyone smell a cover up still in train. You don't have to be Dick Tracy to work this one out. It is an outrage, an absolute outrage and a kick in the face of all the victims, particularly children, of sexual abuse whilst members of the Catholic Church in Australia. If the Pope has any balls at all he will demand Pell return to face the music.

He's had plenty of warning that they wanted to have him attend, and he put it off as long as possible... and now, at the last minute we get the "too sick to attend" note from a doctor.

Not good enough.

;D ;D ;D

This is a good one.

He can't make the trip back to Australia because he's too sick .... riiiiiight.

Remember this arse'ole?

Christopher Skase

Yes indeed.

We should hire Mossad to kidnap him and smuggle him back here like they did with Adolf Eichmann ... sitting him down on a vibrator with a long lasting Lithium Ion battery all the way here.

It was interesting to hear the ex GG Hollingworth the other day, he admitted his failings openly regarding how he handled the child abuse when he was Archbishop of Bisbane C of E. He apologised profusely to the victims and did not try in any way to dodge the facts.

Then we have this ass hole Pell running and hiding behind his doctor.

Make him come out by ship if necessary!

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

It was interesting to hear the ex GG Hollingworth the other day, he admitted his failings openly regarding how he handled the child abuse when he was Archbishop of Bisbane C of E. He apologised profusely to the victims and did not try in any way to dodge the facts. Then we have this ass hole Pell running and hiding behind his doctor. Make him come out by ship if necessary!

Or send a Hit Squad after him composed of adult victims who were abused as children.

Use his own crucifix as an anal dildo before his execution.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 2:43pm: It was interesting to hear the ex GG Hollingworth the other day, he admitted his failings openly regarding how he handled the child abuse when he was Archbishop of Bisbane C of E. He apologised profusely to the victims and did not try in any way to dodge the facts. Then we have this ass hole Pell running and hiding behind his doctor. Make him come out by ship if necessary! Or send a Hit Squad after him composed of adult victims who were abused as children. Use his own crucifix as an anal dildo before his execution.

That may be going a tad too far Herb!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Some deviants think that anal rape is best way to deal with people, even before any crime has been proven.

Sick :-?

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 2:47pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 2:43pm: It was interesting to hear the ex GG Hollingworth the other day, he admitted his failings openly regarding how he handled the child abuse when he was Archbishop of Bisbane C of E. He apologised profusely to the victims and did not try in any way to dodge the facts. Then we have this ass hole Pell running and hiding behind his doctor. Make him come out by ship if necessary! Or send a Hit Squad after him composed of adult victims who were abused as children. Use his own crucifix as an anal dildo before his execution. That may be going a tad too far Herb!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Spoil sport.

shame on the Pope working a sick man..

its a shocker alright I doubt many Catholics will be proud of him....

he made mistakes people I believe do forgive mistakes eventually.....how ever this is more than a mistake.......he is knowingly covering up his past and the churches past.....he doesnt want to face it or those it affected so badly...

shame on him........I doubt his god is proud of him either.

cods wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

shame on the Pope working a sick man.. its a shocker alright I doubt many Catholics will be proud of him.... he made mistakes people I believe do forgive mistakes eventually.....how ever this is more than a mistake.......he is knowingly covering up his past and the churches past.....he doesnt want to face it or those it affected so badly... shame on him........I doubt his god is proud of him either.

I was in an all-male boarding school for 4 years ... and thank god there was no one buggering us kids - but I lived for 4 years in exactly the sort of ambience where these horrors happened to other kids who were my age. That's why I can feel for them perhaps more so than adults who never experienced what it was like to be among a captive group of boys in that sort of quasi-prison environment.

They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

cods wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:04pm: shame on the Pope working a sick man.. its a shocker alright I doubt many Catholics will be proud of him.... he made mistakes people I believe do forgive mistakes eventually.....how ever this is more than a mistake.......he is knowingly covering up his past and the churches past.....he doesnt want to face it or those it affected so badly... shame on him........I doubt his god is proud of him either. I was in an all-male boarding school for 4 years ... and thank god there was no one buggering us kids - but I lived for 4 years in exactly the sort of ambience where these horrors happened to other kids who were my age. That's why I can feel for them perhaps more so than adults who never experienced what it was like to be among a captive group of boys in that sort of quasi-prison environment.

you would have been very lucky herb.... as its not just the Catholic school...or environment that was involved....to me it steals a childhood.. something that can never ev er be replaced...its evil and should be treated as such.....but still it isnt...those who are found guilty are never really punished...I think our laws are a joke in that regard...and these guys know it..in fact the worse you are the better you are looked after......I think at least 25 years....with no parole..

maybe swimming with crocodiles... ::) ::)

just a thought

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link.

he wouldnt have to look in anyones eyes would he.

and he has offered to do that.

Pay ISIS to kidnap him and put him in a snuff movie.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link.

Bit short on commonsense there.

If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner.

His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner.

If that were the case, they'd already have instituted proceedings for his arrest and extradition.  I'm pretty sure he's not about to make some sort of damning confession in the Commission's Witness Box.

GordyL wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Pay ISIS to kidnap him and put him in a snuff movie.

Butt first dress him up as a Yazidi sex slave ...

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:27pm:

If that were the case, they'd already have instituted proceedings for his arrest and extradition.  I'm pretty sure he's not about to make some sort of damning confession in the Commission's Witness Box.

Some smart questioning could see him painting himself into a corner.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:27pm: If that were the case, they'd already have instituted proceedings for his arrest and extradition.  I'm pretty sure he's not about to make some sort of damning confession in the Commission's Witness Box. Some smart questioning could see him painting himself into a corner.

Does that include making a confession?

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner.

Pell can give his evidence by video link but
he needs to accept responsibility for all those kids who had their arses reamed out by depraved priests.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:31pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:27pm: If that were the case, they'd already have instituted proceedings for his arrest and extradition.  I'm pretty sure he's not about to make some sort of damning confession in the Commission's Witness Box. Some smart questioning could see him painting himself into a corner. Does that include making a confession?

Ultimately yes, but his lawyer would negotiate a deal for leniency if Pell would agree to spill the beans big time on the whole sordid affair of 'Christian' (sic) priests using choir boys as sex toys.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:37pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner. Pell can give his evidence by video link but he needs to accept responsibility for all those kids who had their arses reamed out by depraved priests.

He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner. Pell can give his evidence by video link but he needs to accept responsibility for all those kids who had their arses reamed out by depraved priests. He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility.

But he moved depraved priests on to other locations
instead of calling the police &
they continued their activities.

He's intelligent & must have known it was wrong to do that.

I find him guilty of assisting pedophiles
& sentence him to death by hanging.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:

He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility.

he needs to face his victims face to face.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner. Pell can give his evidence by video link but he needs to accept responsibility for all those kids who had their arses reamed out by depraved priests. He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. But he move depraved priests on to other locations instead of calling the police & they continued their activities. He's intelligent & must have known it was wrong to do that. I find him guilty of assisting pedophiles & sentence him to death by hanging.

Will you provide the gallows and be the Hangman as well, Sir Bobby?

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:48pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:29pm: They don't need his physical presence to question him.  Can be done by video link. Bit short on commonsense there. If he becomes indictable for having knowingly cooperated with his silence in the child buggery by priests known to him, then you don't want him to do a runner. Pell can give his evidence by video link but he needs to accept responsibility for all those kids who had their arses reamed out by depraved priests. He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. But he moved depraved priests on to other locations instead of calling the police & they continued their activities. He's intelligent & must have known it was wrong to do that. I find him guilty of assisting pedophiles & sentence him to death by hanging. Will you provide the gallows and be the Hangman as well, Sir Bobby?

The Federal Govt. must provide the hangman & gallows.

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face.

I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia?

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face.

Yes - alone in a boxing ring with gloves off.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:50pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face. I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia?

why don't you ask his victims?

I'm sure bobby will be along soon to answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:50pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face. I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia?

Is this Aussies new court RC case to argue his superior legal knowledge against everyone else on?

many blessings


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MbsLfZYbY8I/hqdefault.jpg

as you witness the final days of darkness

upon this world as many continue to awaken unto these revelations

and so be it as these dark ones are exposed

namaste

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:50pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face. I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia? why don't you ask his victims? I'm sure bobby will be along soon to answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Federal Govt. must make retrospective laws to allow
those who assisted pedophiles to be hanged at
a gallows set up outside parliament in Canberra.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:50pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face. I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia? why don't you ask his victims? I'm sure bobby will be along soon to answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D The Federal Govt. must make retrospective laws to allow those who assisted pedophiles to be hanged at a gallows set up outside parliament in Canberra.

many blessings sir bobby

do you mean the pyramid in canberra ?

http://www.danyabanya.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Parliament_House_Canberra_Dusk_Panorama-600x322.jpg

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

many blessings https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MbsLfZYbY8I/hqdefault.jpg as you witness the final days of darkness upon this world as many continue to awaken unto these revelations and so be it as these dark ones are exposed namaste

Dear master Light,

it seems that only when Jesus returns will those such as Pell
face justice.

Bring on the End Times.

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

many blessings sir bobby do you mean the pyramid in canberra ? http://www.danyabanya.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Parliament_House_Canberra_Dusk_Panorama-600x322.jpg namaste

Yes

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets.

It's been done before!
The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!!
The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!! 

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!

Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything.

Of course he's guilty - he failed to inform the police
when he found out about pedophiles.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything.

And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then?

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then?

It does not have power to do that either.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either.

refer it to the police d1ckwad .... why must you be so anal all the time?

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either.

Really?

Royal commission refers Kathy Jackson, Cesar Melhem to prosecutors!

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either. refer it to the police d1ckwad .... why must you be so anal all the time?

So being accurate is being 'anal.'  Okay.  I'll keep being anal.

The Police can move/not move and do/not do whatever they like notwithstanding whatever the RC finds.

I remind you that after the Cole Commission which made adverse findings against various individuals, not one prosecution was launched, and obviously, not one conviction recorded.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either. Really? Royal commission refers Kathy Jackson, Cesar Melhem to prosecutors!

Since when did prosecutors become synonymous with courts?

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either. Really? Royal commission refers Kathy Jackson, Cesar Melhem to prosecutors! Since when did prosecutors become synonymous with courts?

Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far?

Quote:

Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far?

Sure, but they are not courts or the court system either.

So far you have learned a couple of things you did not know before.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:25pm: His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets. It's been done before! The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!! The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!  Found guilty by whom/what?  The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything. And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then? It does not have power to do that either.

Oh & IF the RC's didn't have the power to send people to the courts, then why set up the RC?

Quote:

Oh & IF the RC's didn't have the power to send people to the courts, then why set up the RC?

Bloody good question.  Fact is, they do not have power to send people anywhere.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Quote: Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far? Sure, but they are not courts or the court system either. So far you have learned a couple of things you did not know before.

"In his final report released on Wednesday, Commissioner Dyson Heydon referred Ms Jackson, the former national secretary of the Health Services Union, to prosecutors for possible charges over obtaining property and financial advantage by deception."

Well Aussie, as far as I am concerned, it seems that the RC IS referring to the Prosecutors AND they will then decide IF the issue/s go to court, so as far I can see the RC's have the power to send people to the courts.
Alright, its via the prosecutors, but if the RC didn't refer it, then the Prosecutors may not have actioned it, so it certainly has the appearance that the RC's do have the power!

Quote:

"In his final report released on Wednesday, Commissioner Dyson Heydon referred Ms Jackson, the former national secretary of the Health Services Union, to prosecutors for possible charges over obtaining property and financial advantage by deception." Well Aussie, as far as I am concerned, it seems that the RC IS referring to the Prosecutors AND they will then decide IF the issue/s go to court, so as far I can see the RC's have the power to send people to the courts. Alright, its via the prosecutors, but if the RC didn't refer it, then the Prosecutors may not have actioned it, so it certainly has the appearance that the RC's do have the power!

Prosecutors (in this context....Police) do not need to wait for a RC to ask them to do anything.  They are not bound by anything a Royal Commission says, finds or does.  In fact, they cannot even use what a person has said in the RC's witness box as evidence of anything against that person in any subsequent proceedings.  (There is a practical way around that, but that's technically irrelevant.)

Ultimately all the RC has a power to do is prepare a Report for the Government which has commissioned it.  That Report may list adverse findings against people and may make recommendations of referral to appropriate regulatory authourities, not limited to Police, but neither Governmnent not those authorities (including the Police) can be bound by the RC to do anything at all.

They almost always are (I will exclude the RC into Institutional Child Sex Abuse) and mostly always will be political witch hunts set up by Government to inflict as much damage on their political opponents as is possible.

Poor old Kathy Jackson, ey.  Hoisted on her own petard, Abbott and Pyne's heroine became unintended and inconvenient collateral damage.

I have no idea whether this had any impact, but it was only after I (and anyone with a legal background would have done) put professional pressure on Stoljar and the RC that they were forced to expose her after their obvious initial kid glove treatment of her when it was blindingly obvious she had arm up to her elbow in the cookie jar.

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

(Bugger it.  I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone.  Take 2.  I'm gonna do it in point form this time.)

1.  Semantics.  Yeas.  The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

2.  Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

(What was lost pushing buttons was more expansive, but that'll do.  Can't be arsed trying to repeat it.)

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference). (Bugger it.  I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone.  Take 2.  I'm gonna do it in point form this time.) 1.  Semantics.  Yeas.  The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics.


Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

2.  Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't).

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:18pm: boxy wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference). (Bugger it.  I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone.  Take 2.  I'm gonna do it in point form this time.) 1.  Semantics.  Yeas.  The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance. You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics. Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:18pm: 2.  Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings. That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't).

You've been here for about 120 posts, and already, out comes the personal abuse. 

So, it only applies like I said it applies.  But you had to be pettily semantic.

Can you tell me when anything coming out of a RC has ended up with a conviction?  (I'm not asserting it has never happened.  I do assert it never happened after the Cole Commission.  Not even a charge laid.)

Well, let’s see -
1) A Royal Commission is commissioned to investigate a particular issue or set of issues.
2) It takes evidence, from various witnesses.
3) If it deems it necessary, the RC will advise Prosecutors, that certain issues should be looked at.
4) If the Prosecutors agree, they may subsequently take court action.

That certainly sounds like the RC has a role within the legal system, even if the final outcomes may be flawed.

That said, IF George Pell gives evidence via Video link & -
1) the RC  comes to the conclusion he should be referred to the Prosecutor.
2) the Prosecutor agrees that George should be brought to court.
3) But, IF George is still at the Vatican, then it has all been for nothing!
4) This process of hiding culprits in the Vatican has happened before, as is confirmed in the Spotlight movie!

Oh & Gday Aussie?

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:39pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:18pm: boxy wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference). (Bugger it.  I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone.  Take 2.  I'm gonna do it in point form this time.) 1.  Semantics.  Yeas.  The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance. You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics. Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:18pm: 2.  Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings. That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't). You've been here for about 120 posts, and already, out comes the personal abuse.

Sure. But that has more to do with your idiocy, than my intolerance for such.


Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

So, it only applies like I said it applies.  But you had to be pettily semantic. Can you tell me when anything coming out of a RC has ended up with a conviction?  (I'm not asserting it has never happened.  I do assert it never happened after the Cole Commission.  Not even a charge laid.)

It has nothing to do with semantics. Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

Well, let’s see - 1) A Royal Commission is commissioned to investigate a particular issue or set of issues.

Correct.


Quote:

2) It takes evidence, from various witnesses.

Correct.


Quote:

3) If it deems it necessary, the RC will advise Prosecutors, that certain issues should be looked at.

Incorrect.  The RC reports to Government and may recommend that a relevant authority investigate, (your words are 'look at.)


Quote:

4) If the Prosecutors agree, they may subsequently take court action.

Correct.


Quote:

That certainly sounds like the RC has a role within the legal system, even if the final outcomes may be flawed.

That's not where this discussion started. 


Quote:

That said, IF George Pell gives evidence via Video link & - 1) the RC  comes to the conclusion he should be referred to the Prosecutor.

Okay, in very loose terms and to ignore the actual process.


Quote:

2) the Prosecutor agrees that George should be brought to court.

What will change if Pell gives further evidence except in the highly unlikely event he makes some sort of confession?  If the Cops (your word is 'prosecutors') reckon there already exists enough evidence to charge him, then they do not need a RC or his appearance before it to get on with it and extradition.


Quote:

3) But, IF George is still at the Vatican, then it has all been for nothing!

I'm no expert (have zero knowledge) on international extradition.  Are you asserting Australia cannot seek his extradition from the Vatican?


Quote:

4) This process of hiding culprits in the Vatican has happened before, as is confirmed in the Spotlight movie!

Forgive me if I do not regard Hollywood as a valid legal library.


Quote:

Oh & Gday Aussie?

Sure.  While I have your attention.  Is it a Rule breach to refer to anyone here as a 'jackass' as you must have just seen?

More abuse, but p_n can deal with that.


Quote:

It has nothing to do with semantics.

Oh, I see.  Yet it was you who said it was.



Quote:

Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses.

Get real boxy.  If the RC investigators have done their homework, they will already have whatever trail there is, and loaded the Counsels Assisting the RC with all that to question Pell about.  You are kidding yourself if you think he is suddenly going break out with some sort of confession or tell them what they do not already know.  (Assuming he has had competent legal advice....a given) he will already know exactly what they have in existing hard evidence.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

More abuse, but p_n can deal with that.

Good to know there is someone who can, without sooking.


Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

Quote: Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses. Get real boxy.  If the RC investigators have done their homework, they will already have whatever trail there is, and loaded the Counsels Assisting the RC with all that to question Pell about.  You are kidding yourself if you think he is suddenly going break out with some sort of confession or tell them what they do not already know.  (Assuming he has had competent legal advice....a given) he will already know exactly what they have in existing hard evidence.

That's why they want him there. It's much harder to lie to someone's face, at least for the majority of us. And they want what is inside his brain... his testimony, and to be able to tease it out of him, dependent on his... squirming.

I don't make the abuse Rules here boxy, but I am bound by them and get inexplicably banned.

If Pell is going to lie, do you really reckon he could not, looking you straight in the eye, personally?  This bloke is an educated, intelligent and articulate person of vast worldly experience, not some bed wetting teenager.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:46pm:

If Pell is going to lie, do you really reckon he could not, looking you straight in the eye, personally?  This bloke is an educated, intelligent and articulate person of vast worldly experience, not some bed wetting teenager.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the angles they've already got to come at him with, doesn't it.

We'll see (depending on the state of his death bed, I guess).

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:46pm: If Pell is going to lie, do you really reckon he could not, looking you straight in the eye, personally?  This bloke is an educated, intelligent and articulate person of vast worldly experience, not some bed wetting teenager. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the angles they've already got to come at him with, doesn't it. We'll see (depending on the state of his death bed, I guess).

He and his lawyers already know every angle they might come from. 

Sounds like he has nothing to fear, then.

Bring it.

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

many blessings https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MbsLfZYbY8I/hqdefault.jpg as you witness the final days of darkness upon this world as many continue to awaken unto these revelations and so be it as these dark ones are exposed namaste

as you witness the final days of darkness

boxy wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 12:07am:

Sounds like he has nothing to fear, then. Bring it.

Yeas......video link.  Get on with it.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:50pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 5:41pm: He can do that via video link as well, and I do not think he is likely to  so accept responsibility. he needs to face his victims face to face. I do 'get' that, but what does it achieve other than a photo opportunity for the schmedia? why don't you ask his victims? I'm sure bobby will be along soon to answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D The Federal Govt. must make retrospective laws to allow those who assisted pedophiles to be hanged at a gallows set up outside parliament in Canberra.

The only problem will be to find a hangman.

I think if the Govt. paid $800 for each successful hanging they should be
able to find a hangman who'll do the job -
one who could sleep well afterwards knowing he had created a better society.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

The only problem will be to find a hangman.

I'll do it.

Seems to me people do go to jail after referral from the findings of Royal Commissions

Who can forget - (Aussie?)


Quote:

Fitzgerald's report was submitted on 3 July 1989.[1] Based on the inquiry's final report,[5] a number of high-profile politicians were charged with crimes; notably Queensland Police Commissioner (Sir) Terry Lewis was charged with corruption. Bjelke-Petersen himself was charged with perjury in respect of evidence given to the inquiry. The jury in the case remained deadlocked. In 1992 it was revealed that the jury foreman, Luke Shaw, was a member of the Young Nationals and was identified with the "Friends of Joh" movement. A special prosecutor announced in 1992 there would be no retrial because Sir Joh, then aged 81, was too old. Jack Herbert had been the bagman, collecting bribes for police commissioner Terry Lewis from 1980. Lewis himself had been a bagman for former commissioner Francis Bischof.[3] Lewis was convicted (and subsequently stripped of his knighthood), while the Bjelke-Petersen trial resulted in an mistrial[6] due to a hung jury amidst allegations that the jury foreman (later revealed to be a member of the youth wing of Bjelke-Petersen's National Party[7]) had misrepresented the state of deliberations to the judge. Leisha Harvey former health minister, was charged with misappropriating of public funds as part of an investigation resulting from the findings of the inquiry. She spent one year in jail.[4] Don Lane, former transport minister, was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for falsifying expense accounts.[4] Lane's resignation resulted in the 1989 Merthyr state by-election. Brian Austin, another former health minister, was convicted of misappropriating public funds. Hinze's resignation led to the 1988 South Coast state by-election.

Or this on on referral from the CMC


Quote:

In 2006 the CMC also began an investigation into a series of loans Nuttall received from Queensland mining magnate Ken Talbot.[16] On 19 January 2007, the CMC charged Nuttall with 35 counts of corruptly receiving payments totalling almost $300,000 from Talbot between 2002 and 2005.[17][18] Nuttall was later charged with receiving a further secret commission of $60,000 in 2002 from businessman and WorkCover Queensland director Harold Shand.[19][20] Talbot and Shand were also charged over the alleged secret commissions. Nuttall was committed to stand trial in December 2008.[21] In June 2009, he pleaded not guilty to all charges before the District Court.[22] On 15 July 2009, a jury convicted him on all 36 charges, and on 17 July he was sentenced to seven years' jail with a non-parole period of two and a half years.[1][2][23]

I was referring to Federal Royal Commissions.  Fitzgerald's was called an Inquiry, and the CMC (now the CCC) is a permanent statutory 'Star Chamber.'

Fitzgerald's Inquiry was unique.  It was established by Joh B-Petersen's Government against his wishes while he was overseas.  His Deputy, Bill Gunn, got it going behind Joh's back.  It was hugely successful because the Political masters had been neutered.

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 11:26am:

I was referring to Federal Royal Commissions.  Fitzgerald's was called an Inquiry, and the CMC (now the CCC) is a permanent statutory 'Star Chamber.'

The Fitzgerald Inquiry in name was a State sanctioned

Royal Commission of Inquiry

As are most Royal Commissions

Commissions of Inquiry.

Pedant.

John Smith wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 10:16am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 10:01am: The only problem will be to find a hangman. I'll do it.

How much would you charge the state for your hanging fee?

Would $800 be enough per job?

What if there were over 100 pedophiles to get rid of -
could you still do it?

Gnads wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 11:32am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:26am: I was referring to Federal Royal Commissions.  Fitzgerald's was called an Inquiry, and the CMC (now the CCC) is a permanent statutory 'Star Chamber.' The Fitzgerald Inquiry in name was a State sanctioned Royal Commission of Inquiry As are most Royal Commissions Commissions of Inquiry. Pedant.

Repeat (just for you) ~ I was referring to Federal Government Royal Commissions.

We still need a hangman -

there must be 100s of pedophiles who need to be hanged.

Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer?
A) I very much doubt it!

Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested?
A) No!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer? A) I very much doubt it! Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested? A) No!

Probably because there is no Extradition Treaty between Australia and The Vatican.

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer? A) I very much doubt it! Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested? A) No! Probably because there is no Extradition Treaty between Australia and The Vatican.

And, is that the reason, why Pell & others are now in the Vatican, "so they can't spill the beans", so to speak, on what the Vatican/Church does or doesn't do, so that these issues can be "swept under the rug", so to speak?!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer? A) I very much doubt it! Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested? A) No! Probably because there is no Extradition Treaty between Australia and The Vatican. And, is that the reason, why Pell & others are now in the Vatican, "so they can't spill the beans", so to speak, on what the Vatican/Church does or doesn't do, so that these issues can be "swept under the rug", so to speak?!

I have no idea, but I do know that all the stuff surrounding Pell was known to the Cops/RC before he left Australia to take up the job in the first place.  I doubt there is a smoking gun of any great value.

What Australian 'others' and what 'beans?'

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer? A) I very much doubt it! Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested? A) No! Probably because there is no Extradition Treaty between Australia and The Vatican.

Maybe Pell went to the Vatican for sanctuary?

He is a protected from his evil deeds -
not phoning the police when he found out about pedophiles
as any normal person would do.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Q) Would Australia request the Vatican to Extradite Pell, IF the RC found he had a case to answer? A) I very much doubt it! Q) Would the Vatican extradite Pell, IF requested? A) No! Probably because there is no Extradition Treaty between Australia and The Vatican. Maybe Pell went to the Vatican for sanctuary? He is a protected from his evil deeds - not phoning the police when he found out about pedophiles as any normal person would do.

I reckon his position is that he made the judgement call (abuse allegation likely true or perhaps false) as is/was his job.  I wonder if that was his personal choice or was he simply following Church protocols.  I suspect the latter.  That is a question the RC ought to ask him.

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

I reckon his position is that he made the judgement call (abuse allegation likely true or perhaps false) as is/was his job.  I wonder if that was his personal choice or was he simply following Church protocols.  I suspect the latter.  That is a question the RC ought to ask him.

Yes - I agree & notice that he's well enough to handle the
$trillion dollar worth of the church - all it's finances -
but is too sick to travel?

I recommend you all see the Spotlight movie, it may clarify "some" issues, But then it may raise a few more!

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 4:52pm: I reckon his position is that he made the judgement call (abuse allegation likely true or perhaps false) as is/was his job.  I wonder if that was his personal choice or was he simply following Church protocols.  I suspect the latter.  That is a question the RC ought to ask him. Yes - I agree & notice that he's well enough to handle the $trillion dollar worth of the church - all it's finances - but is too sick to travel?

So some Doctor says and I'm not about to gainsay the Quack.  It might be that he has some condition (he is not young after all) which precludes that at the moment.  But, nothing stops him being questioned by the RC via video link, and his Quack agrees.  He is not dodging being questioned by the RC under its normal conditions of compulsion, other than physical presence.

Let's just get on with it, and set up the link.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

I recommend you all see the Spotlight movie, it may clarify "some" issues, But then it may raise a few more!

Why?  Simply telling me to watch it is hardly convincing.  How factual is it?  Why on Earth would anyone cite a Hollywood movie as having any value beyond 'entertainment?'

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 11:46am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:32am: Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:26am: I was referring to Federal Royal Commissions.  Fitzgerald's was called an Inquiry, and the CMC (now the CCC) is a permanent statutory 'Star Chamber.' The Fitzgerald Inquiry in name was a State sanctioned Royal Commission of Inquiry As are most Royal Commissions Commissions of Inquiry. Pedant. Repeat (just for you) ~ I was referring to Federal Government Royal Commissions.

SAME SAME .... pedant

Gnads wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:46am: Gnads wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:32am: Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:26am: I was referring to Federal Royal Commissions.  Fitzgerald's was called an Inquiry, and the CMC (now the CCC) is a permanent statutory 'Star Chamber.' The Fitzgerald Inquiry in name was a State sanctioned Royal Commission of Inquiry As are most Royal Commissions Commissions of Inquiry. Pedant. Repeat (just for you) ~ I was referring to Federal Government Royal Commissions. SAME SAME .... pedant

Not when I used that term in the relevant Post.  I would not have a clue what has happened in each of the States in Australia.  I was referring to RCs established by the Federal Government.  Take it or leave it.  I don't care.

Aussie wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 4:52pm: I reckon his position is that he made the judgement call (abuse allegation likely true or perhaps false) as is/was his job.  I wonder if that was his personal choice or was he simply following Church protocols.  I suspect the latter.  That is a question the RC ought to ask him. Yes - I agree & notice that he's well enough to handle the $trillion dollar worth of the church - all it's finances - but is too sick to travel? So some Doctor says and I'm not about to gainsay the Quack.  It might be that he has some condition (he is not young after all) which precludes that at the moment.  But, nothing stops him being questioned by the RC via video link, and his Quack agrees.  He is not dodging being questioned by the RC under its normal conditions of compulsion, other than physical presence. Let's just get on with it, and set up the link.

Yes - a video link - I can't wait to hear why he didn't phone the police.

Cardinal Pell facing the music via a video link to the Royal Commission.

I'd love to see that. I'm never going to see that but I would love to see it.

The Vatican and by definition the Pope is protecting Pell from his duty to the Royal Commission.

I know that's a big call but it is fanciful to believe the Pope does not know what is going on. This Pope is a savvy Pope and he is playing high stakes Poker by making Pell unattainable.

red baron wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Cardinal Pell facing the music via a video link to the Royal Commission. I'd love to see that. I'm never going to see that but I would love to see it. The Vatican and by definition the Pope is protecting Pell from his duty to the Royal Commission. I know that's a big call but it is fanciful to believe the Pope does not know what is going on. This Pope is a savvy Pope and he is playing high stakes Poker by making Pell unattainable.

Or.......maybe the Doctor says he is unable to travel.

Aussie wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 12:27pm: Cardinal Pell facing the music via a video link to the Royal Commission. I'd love to see that. I'm never going to see that but I would love to see it. The Vatican and by definition the Pope is protecting Pell from his duty to the Royal Commission. I know that's a big call but it is fanciful to believe the Pope does not know what is going on. This Pope is a savvy Pope and he is playing high stakes Poker by making Pell unattainable. Or.......maybe the Doctor says he is unable to travel.

Gee, who'dathunk it.  The RC accepts the Medical Report, and it will be done by video link.  (Source ~ ABC News.)

The anti-Catholic lefty bedwetters must have missed the last two appearances by Pell at the RC. Did your ill thought feral baying work then?