Jump to content
Parley

What a witch hunt on George Pell.

Recommended Posts

That was down to Frank Little. Pell did try to get Little to remove Shearson and was continually overridden.

 

When Pell took over from Little as Archbishop he immediately removed Shearson.

 

Also you cannot state today's standard of reporting when talking about historical events.

 

Pell did what he was able to do within the power he had.

 

Much like an officer at Auschwitz is answerable to the Camp Commandant and bears no responsibility for what happened there. Simply obeying orders.


Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Pell did not have power to sack the priest.

 

Just like Johndoe might have wanted to get someone sacked in the army for bullying but not have the power to do it.

 

Is this difficult to understand that more senior people in an organisation can exercise more power and veto what someone want to do ?

 

I'm struggling to understand why you don't understand this.

 

I presume you blame all the TV presenters at the BBC for not removing Jimmy Savile from his post too.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all. Pell did not have power to sack the priest.

 

Just like Johndoe might have wanted to get someone sacked in the army for bullying but not have the power to do it.

 

Is this difficult to understand that more senior people in an organisation can exercise more power and veto what someone want to do ?

 

I'm struggling to understand why you don't understand this.

 

I presume you blame all the TV presenters at the BBC for not removing Jimmy Savile from his post too.

 

 

 

............he had the power to sweep it into the open....!

.............but instead chose to lift the protective rug of the church and sweep it under....

...............and not only that stood on top of it.....knowing what was underneath....

..................I couldn't ......didnt know.......all appalling excuses.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all. Pell did not have power to sack the priest.

 

Just like Johndoe might have wanted to get someone sacked in the army for bullying but not have the power to do it.

 

Is this difficult to understand that more senior people in an organisation can exercise more power and veto what someone want to do ?

 

I'm struggling to understand why you don't understand this.

 

I presume you blame all the TV presenters at the BBC for not removing Jimmy Savile from his post too.

 

Personally I could not remain working for a boss or an organisation which condoned child abuse by one of my subordinates. Clearly you and Pell can.


Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was down to Frank Little. Pell did try to get Little to remove Shearson and was continually overridden.

 

When Pell took over from Little as Archbishop he immediately removed Shearson.

 

Also you cannot state today's standard of reporting when talking about historical events.

 

Pell did what he was able to do within the power he had.

 

You continue to defend the indefensible and completely ignore the fact that Pell only removed him once the press got hold of the story and that prior to that, he tolerated him. As for doing what he could within the power that he had, you again ignore my earlier post that "Catholic power" wasn't required for him to act. He could have "got out of the kitchen" and acted as any conscientious concerned citizen would/could do, but no, he much rather preferred hanging onto his position and protecting the authority that gave him that position.


See my art here: https://kevindickinsonfineartphot.smugmug.com/

Copies free to PIO members. PM me for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I watched Cardinal Pell giving his testimony I thought he was a dreadful man, complicit in the worst of crimes. Having watched him I have changed my mind about him somewhat. I think he was so protective of his beloved church he was quite blind to the pain and suffering going on amongst his parishioners- it was not something he had experience of and he chose to follow the church, not the individuals. He now sees that he has done a great wrong by his sin of omission and he admits this. Nothing is black and white- he is a complex and intelligent individual, not my sort of person at all but what right do I have to judge him, I have never been a member of his church and don't really 'get' the way any of the heirachy think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, but no thanks, They both make me heave.

 

Well I think you lose the right to cast judgement if you won't listen to the man speak.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I think you lose the right to cast judgement if you won't listen to the man speak.

 

I've heard all I want to hear from his appalling "speak" at the commission thank you.

 

Despite his own admission that he failed to act, it seems that you still can't get the thought into your head that the man put his "cloth" before the suffering of others. One has to wonder why?


See my art here: https://kevindickinsonfineartphot.smugmug.com/

Copies free to PIO members. PM me for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it.

 

I have to say that it is inconceivable to me that he was not complicit in many cover ups but that he would have done so at the time because he felt then, and to some extent now, that his first duty is to the Catholic Church. He was clearly perceived as a 'fixer' and by that I mean one who is given tough assignments and will act in the best interests of the Church by concealing or limiting damage. Though he is at least as concerned with himself now.


Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I watched it.

 

I have to say that it is inconceivable to me that he was not complicit in many cover ups but that he would have done so at the time because he felt then, and to some extent now, that his first duty is to the Catholic Church. He was clearly perceived as a 'fixer' and by that I mean one who is given tough assignments and will act in the best interests of the Church by concealing or limiting damage. Though he is at least as concerned with himself now.

 

There is no evidence of that.

You apparantly think he is lying. I think he is telling the truth.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no evidence of that.

You apparantly think he is lying. I think he is telling the truth.

 

He could not even deny that he knew about certain allegations about Searson for instance (though he denies that he was aware of his past activities or sexual abuse) but came up with no plausible explanation why he tolerated Searson remaining, he just blamed Little. That alone is bad enough but the common thread with a string of child abusers makes his explanations implausible.

 

Watching that performance and based on the lack of plausibility of his answers I am utterly convinced he was lying.

 

But even the most generous interpretation that you can make would have to lead you to a conclusion that he was an incompetent fool. He certainly does not come across as an incompetent fool to me.


Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His only incompetence is to think that it could all be swept under the carpet and that the commission, and anyone of sound mind, would think that his "don't remembers" are not lies.


See my art here: https://kevindickinsonfineartphot.smugmug.com/

Copies free to PIO members. PM me for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no evidence of that.

You apparantly think he is lying. I think he is telling the truth.

 

 

 

You still a fan of Rolf Harris and Jimmy savile?


Nearly there! Don't drop the ball now guys! Vaccines are weeks away. Stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no comparison.

George Pell has never been charged with any crime.

 

That is a disgraceful comparison to make.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The old witchhunt hang 'em high syndrome is clearly alive and well here.

 

It's always a shame when there is more pity for someone who protects the perpetrators than there is for the innocent victims


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If George Pell were not a witch, he wouldn't need hunting.

 

Or am I missing something?


Feb 2010 Prospective Marriage Visa | Nov 2010 Temporary Partner Visa | Nov 2012 Permanent Partner Visa | Jan 2015 Australian Citizenship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If George Pell were not a witch, he wouldn't need hunting.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Why should today be any different ?


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The old witchhunt hang 'em high syndrome is clearly alive and well here.

 

Nope...............just a tried and trusted jury (non victims with no axe to grind, other than myself) reacting to the evidence, and in particular, the defendants credibility and what appears a total lack of empathy for the victims, as opposed to his concern for his churches reputation.

 

Those who fail to act on a crime, or suspicion of a crime, should be deemed, or, perhaps, may so be in law (without me researching) by anyone of a sound mind, to be complicit in that crime. By his own admission, " I had heard rumours" that alone, considering how strong those "rumours" were, should have been enough for anyone, with empathy for the victim, to have prompted action...........................unless of course....................the empathy/sympathy/understanding of/similarity to, the perpetrator directed his action, or lack of action.

 

I should be honest and say that as a survivor of sexual abuse, that I am biased, due to............... (ask anyone who's been abused as a child)...................my gut instinct based on something (intangible) that you recognise in a potential abuiser, once you have been abused, and not only do I recognise a "cover up" but I also sense the reasons for that cover up. Pell, as my gut tells me, is more than just someone who "failed to act"........................time will tell.....................hopefully...............unless of course, that too is swept under the carpet


See my art here: https://kevindickinsonfineartphot.smugmug.com/

Copies free to PIO members. PM me for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all gone 'Pell' shaped ... and the cardinal's minority fanclub evidently have only petty defenses of this church leader... "How dare anyone have the gall to challenge and harrass this innocent saint" ... cries of "Its a witchunt" .... and "Inquisition!!" ... how ironic it is ....

Edited by gee13

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty until proven innocent is the way many people think.

It was the same with Lindy Chamberlain.

 

Because a terrible thing happened there is a need to string someone up regardless if whether there is any proof of wrongdoing.

 

It is understandable but narrow minded.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guilty until proven innocent is the way many people think.

It was the same with Lindy Chamberlain.

 

Because a terrible thing happened there is a need to string someone up regardless if whether there is any proof of wrongdoing.

 

It is understandable but narrow minded.

So you agree tony Blackburn is an innocent man.


Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guilty until proven innocent is the way many people think.

It was the same with Lindy Chamberlain.

 

Because a terrible thing happened there is a need to string someone up regardless if whether there is any proof of wrongdoing.

 

It is understandable but narrow minded.

oh the irony!


My Brain Hurts!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×