Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Pell returns to Roam

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default Pell returns to Roam

    Cardinal George Pell will return to Rome on Monday for the first time since 2017 when he was accused of child sexual abuse charges.
    A spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Sydney confirmed Cardinal Pell will fly out of Sydney on Monday, but the purpose and duration of the visit is not known.
    see

    I can just see the welcoming committee, choirboys standing with mouths agog.

    Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 30-09-20 at 06:26 AM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RogerTheDoger For This Useful Post:

    gulliver (30-09-20),Keith (30-09-20)



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Premium Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    3,907
    Thanks
    1,166
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 674 Posts
    Rep Power
    651
    Reputation
    20905

    Default

    Maybe he is going back to help clean out Cardinal Angelo Becciu and others like him that like money compare to there faiths.
    Not responsible for any post written after the 28/10/2014. My pet hate, Corrupt Politicians, Corrupt Legal System + a legal system Australia wide that does not allow you to sue a Solicitor or Barrister for Professional Negligence (as Stated by the Law Society and prominent Lawyers) and Corrupt Cops. Not necessarily in this order. Please Note Lawyers are PROTECTED SPECIES IN THIS COUNTRY, PROTECTED FROM THEIR F..K UPS

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr 672A For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (30-09-20),OSIRUS (30-09-20)

  • #3
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,496
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 1,575 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    719
    Reputation
    27688

    Default

    Roger. I presume you meant in the heading that Pell is returning to "Rome", not "Roam". In any event, given that his conviction was quashed and he was acquitted It is very unwise for you to make that sort of comment publicly.

  • The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    enf (30-09-20),george65 (02-10-20),hinekadon (01-10-20),lsemmens (01-10-20),Mr 672A (02-10-20),OSIRUS (01-10-20),Tiny (30-09-20)

  • #4
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    No, it was intentional, a play on words.

  • #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,065
    Thanks
    2,586
    Thanked 1,275 Times in 722 Posts
    Rep Power
    653
    Reputation
    22923

    Default

    the news reports all said that he was returning to manage the Vaticans financial matters. dont know how true that is but i bet the Vatican would have a lot of money stashed all over the world , and Pell might have the banking passwords...

  • #6
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    66
    Posts
    15,149
    Thanks
    13,778
    Thanked 24,933 Times in 7,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    9539
    Reputation
    443869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VroomVroom View Post
    the news reports all said that he was returning to manage the Vaticans financial matters. dont know how true that is but i bet the Vatican would have a lot of money stashed all over the world , and Pell might have the banking passwords...
    Hahahaha.....well, it would make sense wouldn't it. Good way to ensure support and not get thrown under the bus....
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #7
    Premium Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    3,907
    Thanks
    1,166
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 674 Posts
    Rep Power
    651
    Reputation
    20905

    Default

    Did anyone see last night, that WOMAN have a SPRAY about Pell and insulting him and I think it was in the airport somewhere at Rome or somewhere in Italy. what a BITCH!!! It show you some people are nothing but ZEALOTS.
    Not responsible for any post written after the 28/10/2014. My pet hate, Corrupt Politicians, Corrupt Legal System + a legal system Australia wide that does not allow you to sue a Solicitor or Barrister for Professional Negligence (as Stated by the Law Society and prominent Lawyers) and Corrupt Cops. Not necessarily in this order. Please Note Lawyers are PROTECTED SPECIES IN THIS COUNTRY, PROTECTED FROM THEIR F..K UPS

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr 672A For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (02-10-20),OSIRUS (03-10-20)

  • #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,251
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 1,855 Times in 894 Posts
    Rep Power
    839
    Reputation
    36674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr 672A View Post
    It show you some people are nothing but ZEALOTS.
    It shows that no matter if you are proven innocent or not, Mud always sticks and peoples reputations are always tainted.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to george65 For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (03-10-20),Mr 672A (06-10-20)

  • #9
    Senior Member
    bob_m_54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks
    944
    Thanked 968 Times in 600 Posts
    Rep Power
    514
    Reputation
    16518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    It shows that no matter if you are proven innocent or not, Mud always sticks and peoples reputations are always tainted.
    Is that a polite term for it? LOL

  • #10
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    if you are proven innocent or not
    No one is ever proven innocent, they are only found guilty or not guilty, and can be found not guilty if there is not sufficient evidence for a safe conviction.

    ​Think about the guy over in Perth who was found guilty of murdering two young women, but not guilty of murdering the third, because there was insufficient evidence.

  • #11
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    66
    Posts
    15,149
    Thanks
    13,778
    Thanked 24,933 Times in 7,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    9539
    Reputation
    443869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    No one is ever proven innocent, they are only found guilty or not guilty, and can be found not guilty if there is not sufficient evidence for a safe conviction.

    ​Think about the guy over in Perth who was found guilty of murdering two young women, but not guilty of murdering the third, because there was insufficient evidence.
    And? Not guilty is not guilty. Add to that the overwhelming weight of legal opinion that he wouldn't have even been charged in any state other than Dancommistan, what crime is he guilty of?

    The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Would you have it otherwise?
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (02-10-20),lsemmens (03-10-20),OSIRUS (03-10-20)

  • #12
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    And? Not guilty is not guilty.
    True, but George said he was found innocent, he was not, his conviction was set aside. He was found to be Not Guilty. There is a difference.

    Not Guilty means there was insufficient evidence to prove Guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Guilt can be proved, Innocence cannot.

    When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty.WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY"?

    In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.
    WHAT IS INNOCENT?

    When you've been charged of a crime, you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. By the end of a criminal trial, you will either be declared "guilty" or "not guilty." Technically, the court never declares someone "innocent" because it is not necessary to prove actual innocence in order to be acquitted. The prosecution's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Going the extra step of proving actual innocence is not required in order to avoid conviction.
    In some cases, evidence will arise that proves actual innocence; programs like The Actual Innocence Claim Policy and Protocol in Missouri endeavor to minimize false convictions by providing evidence that proves innocence. However, it still remains a part of our country's justice system that you do not need to be proven innocent in order to be declared "not guilty."
    WHAT IS "NOT GUILTY"?

    As mentioned before, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." This clause means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it.
    Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred.
    Being found "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict.
    WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY" MEANS

    In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt.
    Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 02-10-20 at 05:23 PM.

  • #13
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    66
    Posts
    15,149
    Thanks
    13,778
    Thanked 24,933 Times in 7,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    9539
    Reputation
    443869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    .........................

    Guilt can be proved, Innocence cannot.
    Crap. If you are accused of committing a crime in Perth and you were in Victoria at the time, you are not guilty. Innocence IS proven.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    george65 (03-10-20),lsemmens (03-10-20)

  • #14
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Crap. If you are accused of committing a crime in Perth and you were in Victoria at the time, you are not guilty. Innocence IS proven.
    You are missing the point, in law you can only be found Guilty or Not Guilty, there is no such finding as Innocent.

  • #15
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,496
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 1,575 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    719
    Reputation
    27688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    True, but George said he was found innocent, he was not, his conviction was set aside. He was found to be Not Guilty. There is a difference.

    Not Guilty means there was insufficient evidence to prove Guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Guilt can be proved, Innocence cannot.
    Not guilty or innocent, the law of defamation applies just the same. In the unlikely but not impossible event that Pell became aware of your comments in this thread and was so inclined, I doubt he would have any difficulty in extracting some money from you. In fact, there are few more defamatory comments you could make. You would be wise to show a little more discretion, both for your own sake and for the sake of the board.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (03-10-20),OSIRUS (03-10-20)

  • #16
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    Not guilty or innocent, the law of defamation applies just the same.
    It in no way defames a person to say they were found Not Guilty, there is no such finding in law as a finding of Innocence.

    Please feel free to forward a link to George Pell, I'm sure his lawyer will agree with me.

    We all enjoy the presumption of Innocence if charged with anything, the trial is all about finding where a person is Guilty or Not Guilty, as I said before there is no such finding as Innocence in law.

  • #17
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,496
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 1,575 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    719
    Reputation
    27688

    Default

    Oh dear Roger. Your ignorance is truly astounding. Defamation in this case would be a civil action for damages to reputation. It is what is called a tort, a civil wrong. In fact, it is the only tort where someone can recover damages without proving their loss, since a man's reputation is presumed to be valuable. What did your first post in this thread imply with its open-mouthed choir boys? What imputation or imputations does it convey to an ordinary reasonable reader?

    As for forwarding your post to Pell? He likely would not bother with you in any event. Also, I wouldn't wish being sued on my worst enemy. And even if I was inclined to throw you under the bus, I would not want to see Austech dragged into the proceedings. Please try to exercise a little common sense in the future.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    george65 (03-10-20),lsemmens (03-10-20),OSIRUS (03-10-20)

  • #18
    Junior Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 235 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Reputation
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    Oh dear Roger. Please try to exercise a little common sense in the future.
    Oh dear DB44, please retract your head.

  • #19
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,496
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 1,575 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    719
    Reputation
    27688

    Default


  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    george65 (03-10-20),lsemmens (03-10-20),OSIRUS (03-10-20)

  • #20
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    66
    Posts
    15,149
    Thanks
    13,778
    Thanked 24,933 Times in 7,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    9539
    Reputation
    443869

    Default

    Well, well, well......fancy this...........



    Sacked cardinal ‘used Vatican funds to bribe witnesses in Pell trial’
    Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, 72 ,left, is suspected of wiring the cash to recipients in Australia who helped to ensure hostile testimony in the abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell. Pictures: AFP
    Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, 72 ,left, is suspected of wiring the cash to recipients in Australia who helped to ensure hostile testimony in the abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell. Pictures: AFP

    By Tom Kington
    The Times
    2 hours ago October 5, 2020

    A senior Catholic cardinal has been accused of using €700,000 ($1.14m) of Vatican funds to bribe witnesses to secure a sex abuse conviction against a rival.

    Italian media have reported that Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, 72, is suspected of wiring the cash to recipients in Australia who helped to ensure hostile testimony in the abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell, who was accused of molesting choir boys in Melbourne in the 1990s.

    The scandal cast a shadow yesterday over the publication of a key Vatican document calling for a more caring and sharing society and denouncing the evils of war.
    Read Next

    QLD ELECTION
    ‘No deals’ to form government: Palaszczuk
    Sarah Elks

    Before he returned to Australia in 2017 where he was tried, jailed and acquitted on appeal, Cardinal Pell, 79, served as finance minister at the Vatican, where his attempts to clean up opaque accounting were opposed by Cardinal Becciu.

    Quoting leaked documents, the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera reported at the weekend that Vatican investigators suspect that Cardinal Becciu hoped to use the money to definitively derail Cardinal Pell’s transparency program, which threatened to expose Cardinal Becciu’s allegedly corrupt management of Vatican cash.

    Cardinal Becciu issued a strongly worded denial of the reports , stating: “I categorically deny interfering in any way in the trial of Cardinal Pell.”
    Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu.
    Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu.
    READ MORE:Vatican’s mystery cash transfer|Nemesis gone, Pell flies back to Vatican

    Cardinal Becciu held an influential role in distributing and investing millions of euros of Catholic donations as the deputy secretary of state between 2011 and 2018 before Francis put him in charge of running the Holy See’s department responsible for making saints.

    He was sacked from that job and stripped of the right to elect popes by Pope Francis last month, as Vatican investigators sifted through his spending record at the secretariat of state.

    Their suspicions are focused on a multimillion investment he oversaw in a luxury property in Chelsea, London, which allegedly lost the Vatican money while making millions for consultants.
    Cardinal George Pell arrives at his Vatican apartment on September 30. He is back in Rome for the first time since he was acquitted of sexual abuse charges in Victoria. Picture: Victor Sokolowicz
    Cardinal George Pell arrives at his Vatican apartment on September 30. He is back in Rome for the first time since he was acquitted of sexual abuse charges in Victoria. Picture: Victor Sokolowicz

    He is also allegedly suspected of funnelling Vatican cash to charities and businesses run by his three brothers. He has denied all wrongdoing.

    Cardinal Becciu’s clash with Cardinal Pell came to a head in 2016 when the Australian ordered an audit of Vatican finances by an external accountancy firm. Soon after it was launched Cardinal Becciu overruled Cardinal Pell and blocked the audit.

    A year later, he was behind the ousting of the Vatican’s auditor-general, Libero Milone, who was accused of spying on officials.

    “Milone was Pell’s right-hand man and the enmity between Pell and Becciu was huge,” Massimo Franco, the author of The Enigma of Bergoglio, a new book about Francis, said.

    After 13 months in jail and his acquittal in April, Cardinal Pell returned to Rome on September 30.

    theaustralian.com.au0:29
    Cardinal Pell arrives in Vatican for possible meeting with Pope
    Cardinal George Pell has returned to Italy's capital after being exonerated of historic sexual abuse charges but his reasons for returning to Rome, and subsequently the Vatica...

    On hearing of Cardinal Becciu’s sacking, he said: “The Holy Father was elected to clean up Vatican finances. He plays a long game and is to be thanked and congratulated on recent developments.” Reacting to the comments, Cardinal Becciu said he had tried to block Cardinal Pell’s reforms, “because he had wanted to apply laws that hadn’t been promulgated yet”.

    Cardinal Becciu added that he had lost his patience when Cardinal Pell accused him of being dishonest in front of the Pope. “I couldn’t allow him to say something like that . . . from the time I was a child, I had always been taught by my parents to be honest,” he said.

    Pope Francis sought to steer the Vatican back to its core message of peaceful solidarity yesterday with the release of an encyclical document, Fratelli Tutti, which urges the world to rediscover its sense of charity as it battles Covid-19.

    “If only we might keep in mind all those elderly persons who died for lack of respirators, partly as a result of the dismantling, year after year, of healthcare systems,” he said. Releasing the e-document on the feast day of his namesake St Francis, who assisted the poor and preached peace, the Pope stated that war was never warranted, rejecting the Catholic Church’s traditional concept of a “just war”.
    Giovanni Angelo Becciu at St Peter's basilica in the Vatican.
    Giovanni Angelo Becciu at St Peter's basilica in the Vatican.

    He also accused populist leaders of “appealing to the basest and most selfish inclinations of certain sectors of the population”, while criticising “trickle-down” free-market neo-liberalism for failing to stamp out poverty.

    Questioning whether the right to private property was “absolute or inviolable”, he quoted early Christian thinkers who claimed, “if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it”.

    Francis said the coronavirus pandemic had confirmed his belief that present political and economic institutions must be reformed to address the legitimate needs of the people most harmed by the coronavirus.

    THE TIMES
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •