red baron wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 12:43pm:


So what does the popes ear have to do with criminal activity in Australia?

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 6:00pm:





so you claim he is innocent of any knowledge..

really???.. how do you know that?..

not because he said so surely??>.



people crying.. god forbid this should affect his memory..

he didnt do a thing to protect his flock..

ignorance is the perfect excuse.. lets see who can I blame for that this week..

I am sure Jesus will forgive him though Pope Francis will put in a good word for him

no need to panic aussie..

red baron wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 5:04pm:


Mr Baron......I asked this of you:

Quote:


Cods, I am not one to panic in any situation.  I don't give a flying fig about Pell.  I will (and did) comment that any innocent man (not saying Pell is) is not about to falsely confess just because an alleged victim is bawling their eyes out in front of him.

Just to give you a bit more to have a go at me about........I reckon the behaviour in Rome of the victims and their feeding the schmedia is appalling.  That's not why the Public made donations so they could be there, and they seem completely unaware of their complete irrelevance to what is happening in Rome.   Now, they've lost interest in eyeballing Pell (gee....who'd a thought that was ever going to be anything other than a waste of time) and want a meeting with the Pope.  I reckon that will probably happen, and if it does....he'll wave some Holy Water over them, give them all a  'bless you,' wave them goodbye and then completely forget them.

There was a really weird comment by the Judge running the RC today.  He made a point that the parents of those abused did not want the matter dealt with by the criminal justice system.  Pell responded by saying those same parents did not want the Church to enquire either.

Then, that Judge opined that the waiver of the parents did not extinguish the duty of the Church to investigate, and he was quite right.

But, how come he is ignoring the obligation of the Coppers who also had a (higher) duty to prosecute crimes against children notwithstanding the wishes of the parents.

One expectation of the Church, and no expectation of the State Coppers.

That is raw hypocrisy within the RC.

For once we are on the same side of the fence Aussie!

Aussie your remark about degrees..well coppers have them now, before they even walk out to do a day's Policing.

However when I entered the Police it was three months training at Redfern Police Academy and then out onto the streets.

That doesn't mean I didn't learn things along the way.  I went to the Traffic Adjudication Section where I specialised in Traffic Law and the application of the law to serious accidents and driving offences.

That's where I really learned how to read and understand the finer points of Acts of Parliament and the interpretation therof.

I am disgusted at your attitude that because Police Officers don't wear wigs and have a law degree under their arms, they don't understand the Law.

Unfortunately you are like most lawyers who believe they are God's gifts. But I have seen numerous lawyers getting thousands a day and I wouldn't feed the b.stards.

Now you can answer on this post if you like where Meg Latham went wrong in the application of Section 8.2 of the I.C.A.C. Act. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about read the Margaret Cunneen post on page 2 I believe)

Seeing that you have put a fire hose on my qualifications to comment on points of law. It's not bloody rocket science, if you are well read then you can read an Act of Parliament and understand it.

This bloody myth about lawyers, struth most of the QC,s are overpaid actors in a wig and gown. There are the good ones though.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 5:54pm:



Ignored by Aussie. 

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 6:56pm:



How about the law in your state?