Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
http://eepurl.com/dAv6sX You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page and at my Economics in Two Lessons page
John Quiggin 
Dettol. Ahhh that’s better.
3d interactive molecule.
http://www.3dchem.com/3dmolecule.asp?ID=15
Drat. We need something much stronger than dettol. DDT (Molecule of the Month for August 1997)Banned Insecticide
http://www.3dchem.com/ddt.asp
“ATO whistleblower faces six life sentences, roughly the same as Ivan Milat
“There’s something radically wrong with a society that allows mass murderer James Gargasoulas to be eligible for parole in 46 years, locks up serial killer Ivan Milat for 181 years and then has an Australian Taxation Office employee facing 161 years in prison for blowing the whistle on a poor culture inside one of our most powerful agencies.
Richard Boyle has been charged with 66 offences including telephone tapping and recording of conversations without the consent of all parties and making a record of protected information, in some cases passing that information to a third party.:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/ato-whistleblower-faces-six-life-sentences-roughly-the-same-as-ivan-milat-20190226-p510d2.html
Must. Gernerate. Content. Not. Consume.
Drat. We need something much stronger than dettol. DDT (Molecule of the Month for August 1997)Banned Insecticide
http://www.3dchem.com/ddt.asp
“ATO whistleblower faces six life sentences, roughly the same as Ivan Milat
“There’s something radically wrong with a society that allows mass murderer James Gargasoulas to be eligible for parole in 46 years, locks up serial killer Ivan Milat for 181 years and then has an Australian Taxation Office employee facing 161 years in prison for blowing the whistle on a poor culture inside one of our most powerful agencies.
Richard Boyle has been charged with 66 offences including telephone tapping and recording of conversations without the consent of all parties and making a record of protected information, in some cases passing that information to a third party.”
https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/ato-whistleblower-faces-six-life-sentences-roughly-the-same-as-ivan-milat-20190226-p510d2.html
Must. Generate. Content. Not. Consume!
Updated Feb 26, 2019. Minister of Foreign Affairs Senator Marise Payne now focused on securing of “No Extradition Guarantee” to allow Julian Assange to address Breach of Bail matter.
https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too-late/u/24222698
nottrampis:
You were not at the trial and you were not in the jury room, so you are clearly being untruthful when you claim the jury disregarded something you believe to be a fact.
The Father Brennan article you cite is clearly nonsense. Brennan says Pell could not expose his member given the design of garments he was allegedly wearing but then says the garment would allow hand access to the pocket. As the pocket is immediately adjacent to the member for Ballsy Scrub, Brennan’s claim is absurd.
There are sexual abuse of children complaints about Pell dating back to 1961, when Pell was still a seminarian. The complainant at that time was another choir boy. A church orchestrated inquiry, in 2002, was unable to make a definitive ruling on that complaint. A third party with no obvious axe to grind saw Pell flaunting himself before little boys in a toilet at a public beach. The there are the swimming pool, cinema etc etc etc complaints which were not pressed by the prosecution *not* because they were untrue but because prosecutors thought they could not make out a case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Either a dozen or so folk are lying about what George Pell did to them or what they saw him do to others or George Pell himself is lying. I know who I choose to believe.
“There are sexual abuse of children complaints about Pell dating back to 1961, when Pell was still a seminarian”
These were the “Big George” allegations.
Hugo , it is fantasticc to know that you know everything I read.
I will wait for the appeals. The court of appeals will rule that either the Jury got it right or wrong.
nottrampis ,
what you “read” is completely irrelevant.
You were not in the jury room and jury room deliberations are not open to the public or recorded let alone made publicly available. Accordingly, you are not being truthful when you claim to know that the jury “disregarded” something you believe to be an important fact.
The reason the disagreement about Pell won’t end has nothing to with “witch hunts”. It is because Pell is such a polarising figure, largely due to his political opinions and allegiances, that his enemies and allies alike appear to be all too prone to allowing their views about his politics to form their opinions about his guilt or innocence. I strongly suspect that, were Pell not such a polarising figure, not only would there be less crowing at his conviction, but hardly anyone (let alone high profile Catholic jurists like Brennan and Craven) would bother to question the verdict. How many supporters do newly convicted paedophiles usually have, regardless of the nature of the evidence?
As to the presumption of innocence, as Pell has now been found guilty this no longer applies. Yes, it is possible that his conviction will be overturned on appeal, but until that occurs the law says he is guilty.
The conviction rate for child sex assault charges (at least in NSW) is 60%:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/16/abuse-inquiry-reforms-would-put-more-paedophiles-in-jail-experts-say
Thus, given the decisions of prosecutors and magistrates to proceed with charges (on the basis of evidence to which we are often not privy), we should neither be particularly surprised nor unsurprised to see prosecution result in a guilty verdict.
I don’t think the mere fact that Pell is politically aligned can explain the tenacity of his apologists. When Luke Foley was accused by ABC journalist Ashleigh Raper of sexually assaulting her (a less serious accusation than those faced by Pell, but also not one tested in court), he did not have political allies arguing about how implausibly brazen it would be for a politician to grope a journalist, of all people, when surrounded by potential witnesses.
A more plausible explanation is that we are headed down the US route, where political affiliation has little effect on how Democrats view allegations of sexual assault but is a determining factor for many Republicans.
Rather than the charges against Pell being a consequence of Left dislike of his Right Conservative politics claims the charges were baseless and politically motivated look like a consequence of his defenders liking his Right Conservative Politics. Profoundly insulting to the judge, the jury, the police investigators to presume they have all been incompetent and biased in the carrying out of their duties – as well as hurtfully slanderous of the victims. I don’t believe such charges would have proceeded to court or gotten a conviction if they were baseless.
@Ken
There are three possibilities.
1. It’s a conspiracy against Pell because of his politics orchestrated by the ABC and Fairfax. This theory has been ventilated in recent days in the Murdoch papers.
2. Pell is the victim of community anger against the Catholic Church for acts of, covering up of, and bastardry to the victims of, sexual abuse by priests. This is the lightning rod theory.
3. Pell did it.
The jury said # 3 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Hugo you may not be able to read what was sai however I can. Unlucky
Smithy I would advise you to read the reasons for the appeal.
There is another reason.
You are mostly being supply side and reactionary. Completely understandable at this time.
Victims -60k + approx 60% of and by The church, ,many unkown dead or still psychologically blind.
Tax em. Legislate genered leaders not able or deregister church. Seize assests to pay for all this not allow myriad legal tax structures. We’ve said all this before.
smith9 has It down pat in “3. Pell did it. The jury said # 3 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
And thanks
Ken Fabian: “as well as hurtfully slanderous of the victims”.
These family violence initiatives apply to abuse at time of complaints when police first attend alleged victim or alledged perpetrator. Any better suggestions welcome.
My simple one perception re stigma of reporting – culture. Fund police more and provide them with trained trauma violence health workers with police directly at time of first call out. Less stigma – taser gun body armour wearing cops not conducive to eliciting complaint, – better social evidence, direct to service support.
And;
the ACT government set a new precedent in Australia when it introduced an annual $30 domestic violence levy on all households.[67] .
…”considering a similar measure in Victoria. In 2011, Victoria Police launched its enhanced Family Violence Service Delivery Model and established specialist family violence teams across the state, mostly in high-demand locations.”
Correction “Legislate gendered leaders not able in organisation or deregister church / organisation. “
Nottrampis
Are you on Pell’s legal team? I ask because you seem to have some inside information. The appeal has not been filed yet, so only those on the inside know what it is going to be in it.
You need to listen better. It was on the radio yesterday. The appeal is on three points. all the journos know it
All the opinion generators are spouting forth without one critical element – they haven’t heard or read the testimony of the complainant.
The jury did, and they found Pell guilty.
Good luck with the appeal.
@Luke Elford
You may well be right. In my previous comment I was endeavouring to be even-handed, considering that there probably are anti-Catholics who were predisposed to believe in Pell’s guilt independently of evidence (although I have not personally come across that view expressed in commentary). However, as Pell has been convicted in a jury trial it is eminently reasonable to suppose that he is guilty, regardless of one’s ideological views. But it is difficult to imagine figures like Craven attacking the verdict had Pell not been an ideological and religious ally.
Interesting
however I am on the evangelical side and would consider Pell close to a heretic and I might note Brennan is not a catholic theological ally
Nottrampis, you are embarrassing yourself. You were not at the trial. You do not have access to transcripts of the trial. You were not in the jury room. You cannot possibly know what happened in the jury room.
David Marr eviscerates Pell in the Guardian
“ Pell will be in one of the prisons where Victoria houses paedophiles. He will know so many of the faces, so many priests and brothers who have done what he continues to deny having done himself. What reunions there will be.
For the first time since they shared the St Alipius presbytery at Ballarat in the 1970s, George Pell will be back under the same roof as the worst of the worst. He and Gerald Ridsdale will have so much to catch up on.“
The Father Frank Brennan defence of Pell, published in “The Australian” and “Eureka Street”, is disingenuous nonsense. Brennan should be ashamed of himself.
Hugo – he hears from the big guy in clouds it seems.
Again nottrampis “however I am on the evangelical side ” outs themself – gender neutral – as a scary talker in touges. Do you know scomo? Am I reading into your comment framed by exodus?
I will definitely skim past you nottrampis unless I am wrong about evengels as I have direct and perjurous facts of the largest evangls in this country.
See “Just blinded by the light… ”
https://johnquiggin.com/2019/02/28/queensland-a-service-economy/#comment-205756
Many blogs will accept you with ooen arms.
Hugo unlike you I can read what was said and anything else.
KT2 sorry you are way off beam. You are confusing evangelicals with pentecostals. It is a bit like saying a Keynesian is a believer in classical economics.
I love doing a civic duty. go to the Guardian and learn all about what the appeal is about and its likelihood of success.
Very funny (not) Homer.
All these opinions (ie unreasonableness) are from those who have not heard the evidence from the complainant. The jury did and found Pell guilty. The judge felt sick at the proceedings.
Regardless of that, for an appeal to be successful it has to be on a point of law – appeals are restricted to errors of process and will not re try the case.
There seems to be a body of people who are willing to accept that ‘boys will be boys’ and it’s all a part of life’s adventures. These people seem to have no regard for the grieving parents and family of the victims of these criminal acts.
I wasn’t being funny. clearly most people here are not good at either research nor reading.
We now have Guardian and SMH pieces ( they have senior barristers) saying an appeal looks good.
We have another piece from the Guardian saying this case was Richters to lose in other words it should not have been very hard to win.
Rog you seemed not to have read well at all.
There is only one major piece of evidence, and it was made available to the court only. Richter was able to question and possibly demolish this critical piece of evidence. However, nothing that Richter did or said was sufficient to convince the jury of Pells innocence.
The only way that Pell would be freed would be to pile on sufficient political pressure to sway the appeal judge.
“in other words it should not have been very hard to win.”
This may have been true, on the facts. But the only decision maker on the facts is the jury. The appeal can only succeed if the judge made an error of law.
“We now have Guardian and SMH pieces ( they have senior barristers) saying an appeal looks good”
Pure clickbait. Unless they’ve read the court transcript and know everything the judge said and did, their opinion in this particular case is as authoritative as Frank on the bus.
I think Pell will be acquitted on appeal. The case against him was thin and guilt was not established “beyond reasonable doubt”. I don’t know about the performance of Richter – it is difficult to see how he should have lost this one but the jury may (contrary to the judge’s advice) have been swayed by the unending witch-hunt against Pell and the feeling that Pell, even if innocent on this account, is an unpleasant guy who didn’t run the ‘pedos out of town and should cop it.
it is bad form to not respect the legal system and I know it and plead guilty myself. But this conviction is too bizarre to escape criticism. A reflection on the media – especially the ABC, on social media and on book publishers: If you don’t cool it and respect the “presumption of innocence” principle you will prejudice your own objectives of seeking justice.
Smithy ,
They talked to legal experts.
The case against him was thin and guilt was not established “beyond reasonable doubt”.
How could you know this unless you were in the court to observe the case? Pell’s victim was cross-examined for days by Richter, who is the best in the business (apparently),
All of this breathless predicting about what the appeal court will do, by people whose knowledge of criminal law and court process comes from watching late night Law & Order repeats on Foxtel, is preposterous.
“They talked to legal experts.”
Who are experts in general about criminal law, but have no special knowledge of this case.
I have a horrible feeling that Pell will win on appeal, not because the verdict is wrong but because the rules that apply to ordinary people and the rules that apply to someone in Pell’s position are not the same.
If Pell was a homeless Aboriginal guy without proper legal representation, the case would barely make the news and no one would care enough to question the verdict.
always good to talk to people who have not read what they should have. Very Catallaxy in fact.
I guess the other thing is IF Pell knew he was guilty why come back to Australia and face trial. He could have easily cobbled up any excuse and stayed in Vatican city
You continue to embarrass yourself, nottrampis. You say you listened to something on the radio and read something in The Gurdian and SMH. Whoop-de-doo, so have I. None of that makes you (or I) an expert on the case.
Need I remind you that the victim in this case was on the witness stand for more than a day and it was a closed court session. None of the luvvies pontificating on this case heard the victim give evidence or be cross-examined by $50,000 a day counsel, Robert Richter QC.
Obviously the jury considered the victim an impressive witness.
This even more embarrassing:
Do you seriously think the Vatican, in its current state of weakness, would willingly harbour a high profile pedophile with a cobbled up excuse? The whole world would turn against the Church if it tried that stunt. I can see now why the folk at Catallaxy labelled you a “pet rock”.
You continue to embarrass yourself, nottrampis. You say you listened to something on the radio and read something in The Gurdian and SMH. Whoop-de-doo, so have I. None of that makes you (or I) an expert on the case.
The fallout from privatisation of government assets can have far reaching deleterious especially when they are interrelated. The “freeing up” of the grain market to private companies and the floating of the old AWB, now Graincorp, together with the floating of the transport division of Qld Rail. now Aurizon, has resulted in most of the grains and pulses from the Darling Downs being transported by road, largely to the Port of Brisbane. The result is the clogging of the Warrego Highway with B double bulk grain and container trucks. An increasing percentage of these commodities are exported in containers. Of course both bulk grain and containers are prime candidates for rail transport. The speed at which this has occurred and the lack of planning is bewildering. Of course market forces are all for the common good.
Read “deleterious effects”
Well Hugo plainly you simply cannot read.
The plaintiff did not give evidence at the second trial. The Jury watched a video of evidence given at the first trail.
Oh dear,
The Vatican would not know. Pell could have said his age and therefore health meant he could not take the flight.
It is the Skase excuse.
I can srr why you are enamoured with Catallaxy.
I guess the other thing is IF Pell knew he was guilty why come back to Australia and face trial.
Why indeed? Who knows how the mind of the sociopath works? Richter told the jury Pell would have to have been mad to have done what he did where he did it when he did it. Maye he was. Maybe he still is.
You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, nottrampis. I never said the victim had to appear or be cross examined yet again at the second trial.
You further embarrass yourself by calling the victim the “plaintiff”.
of course not Hugo
you said thus
Need I remind you that the victim in this case was on the witness stand for more than a day and it was a closed court session.
Oh dear Very Catallaxian.
you sure your not Mark Hill?
Harry, you said that the Pell would be acquitted because “..guilt was not established “beyond reasonable doubt”.”
But the jury were unanimous in their verdict and therefore it is for you to establish such a reasonable doubt exists.
I think Richter is getting off scott free.
You have a plaintiff who changes his testimony.
You have an Archbishop dressed in such absurd clothing he cannot go to the toilet let along have oral sex performed on him
You have no-one who have been involved in in mass with Pell having any recollection of him not being part of the mass ‘party’ and going elsewhere on his own after mass.
Finally you have Pell in an open door having the deed done when there are lots of people who would go past said door.
Richter certainly was not paid on performance
Michael Leahy, a former Catholic priest who gave evidence at the Royal Commission on child abuse, has already answered one of the falsehoods being spread by nottrampis:
Also note the jury were given a sample of the type of garments George Pell was wearing on the day so they could examine them for themselves in the jury room and make up their own mind. Obviously the jury formed the opinion that the garments were no obstacle to Pell shoving his member down the throat of little boys.
****www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/truth-and-justice-after-the-pell-verdict
nottrampis: “You have no-one who have been involved in in mass with Pell having any recollection of him not being part of the mass ‘party’ and goi,ng elsewhere on his own after mass.”
Actually it’s the reverse. Out of the 20 defense witnesses called, none of them could account for Pell’s whereabouts after the mass.
The best they could testify to is what would ‘normally happen’.
It’s a pity the Pell argument has derailed the issue raised earlier by Magic Magee. I’d like to see a bit more discussion on that suggestion.
In the spirit of the op on Trolls – Nov. 18, 2018:-
Imho Nottrampis, in recent comments shows, highlighted by ample comments, is engaging in eisegesis; …”the opposite of exegesis (to draw out ( best example imho JQ & Ernestine) is eisegesis (to draw in), in the sense of an eisegetic commentator “importing” or “drawing in” his or her own purely subjective interpretations into the text, unsupported by the text itself.” Wikipedia.
IMHO nottrampis it seems you are being an eisegetic commentator, “fud concern troll’ and sledger.
Nottrampis says: “always good to talk to people who have not read what they should have. Very Catallaxy in fact.” See book suggestion re ‘should have’ below.
Very catallaxy is a sledge here, pure and simple as you know full well the mindset of our host and those commenters obviously known to you. “Should have” is in this case, a call to “draw in” by your own purely subjective interpretations of the text, unsupported by the text itself. The text being – full and complete knowledge of the trial evidence. Which you do not have.
Policy here: “Comments which include personal attacks on me as author of the post or on other commenters (flames)”… -eg catalaxy -… “normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.”
Nottrampis, you post Homer, on your turf, in excess of 3,000 links a year in the hope of ? yet never a fact or link here, other than your imho eisegetic comments. I understand you have a greater domain knowledge related economics yet by any stretch of the imagination on this polarising topic you stray under the bridge. Eg… “Well Hugo plainly you simply cannot read.’ … “I can srr why you are enamoured with Catallaxy”
“attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.”
The triple with alledged lie…
“The other thing disregarded by the Jury is a very peculiar catholic…”. You are stating again what a jury did. And sledging catholics in the same sentence. And now triple down… “not only did this not occur in this instance”. Wow. Hugo called you a liar I think. Hugo said “‘You were not at the trial and you were not in the jury room, so you are clearly being untruthful when you claim the jury disregarded something you believe to be a fact.”. And follow up by Hugo “complaints which were not pressed by the prosecution *not* because they were untrue but because prosecutors thought they could not make out a case beyond all reasonable doubt.” … because one *alledged* witness on a prior abandoned case died of a heroin overdose. Shame makes the needle easy nottrampis.
Please stop nottrampis? And Hugo Smith9, me, can we plese stop giving nottrampis a floor to bounce back on.
And here is the comment to cement you being eisegetic… “Smithy I would advise you to read the reasons for the appeal. There is another reason.”. Nottrampis’s exemplary comment: “You need to listen better.” … about talk radio!? Confirmation bias ad infinitum and mere hearsay. Richter may employ you – or not.
The judge would have had a field day with this one nottrampis “however I am on the evangelical side and would consider Pell close to a heretic “. Mirror and projection all at once.Disqualified.
“Hugo unlike you I can read what was said and anything else.” That is an insult. I foolishly engaged my emotion and asked for my turn for an eisegetic comment… “KT2 sorry you are way off beam. You are confusing evangelicals with pentecostals. It is a bit like saying a Keynesian is a believer in classical economics.”.
A book you may like Nottrampis in the spirit of, in your own words. .. “people who have not read what they should have”:
John Martindale says:
…”Instead evangelicals decide what God should have given us, and with this presupposition force the bible [ thread ] to be and do what it never was intended to do.”
goodreads com/book/show/ 270774.Inspiration_and_Incarnation#
I dont want to get banned and I don’t want a pile on. I do not claim unfair treatment.
But upthread Nottrampis imho you are being as JQ said in Trolls – Nov. 18, 2018 “Concern trolls: Jonathan Haidt is the leading example. Keep trying to explain how the extreme lunacy of the far right [ insert topic ] is really the fault of the left [ insert rebuttal commenter ] for pointing out the lunacy of the mainstream right [ thread ].”
See my comment at JQ Trolls: comment-page-2/#comment-199384;
“I propose a new category of troll called a Llort. Reverse troll. Here is a good example of a Llort:
“Democracy Dies in Darkness
‘Nothing on this page is real’: How lies become truth in online America’.
… “The more extreme we become, the more people believe it,” Blair replied.”