King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Anonymous wrote:[/b]
[quote]https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/01/cardinal-george-pell-stand-trial-historical-sexual-offence-charges

This story shows the problem with the whole approach to sexual abuse. Someone is named as an 'abuser'. A load of complainants come forward, some with ridiculous complaints and an unconvincing manner. But some are more intelligent and more convincing.  A minority of the latter cases go forward so it looks to the jury that all the accusers are credible individuals.  If they could hear all the others who were making allegations as well they might be more sceptical about the whole thing.

Of course, Pell might be guilty but I do think that juries must be able to assess properly whether a case is just a lot of people trying to jump on the bandwagon to get compo. Juries should get the whole process of how the police/media gathered together allegations and know what all the allegations are, even the ones that were not proceeded with.  And also they should know that the fact that a witness sounds convincing in court does not indicate guilt.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: where blind Catholic hatred leads to
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Jo	hedda wrote: neither.. B...M.. (very Irish). Ah, hadn't heard the name but after a guess at the first name I think I've found her.
Barney	False allegations against an individual are vile. Proven child, admitted and abhorrent sexual abuse against children - is so much worse. Some were babies, abused by priests. OK, move on - if you must.
JK2006	Anonymous has given you my answer Barney. Now can we move on, please? You'll enjoy the wonderful Jimmy and Asia saga - for more entertaining than another frock dropping bishop.
Anonymous	www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/...xual-offence-charges This story shows the problem with the whole approach to sexual abuse. Someone is named as an 'abuser'. A load of complainants come forward, some with ridiculous complaints and an unconvincing manner. But some are more intelligent and more convincing. A minority of the latter cases go forward so it looks to the jury that all the accusers are credible individuals. If they could hear all the others who were making allegations as well they might be more sceptical about the whole thing. Of course, Pell might be guilty but I do think that juries must be able to assess properly whether a case is just a lot of people trying to jump on the bandwagon to get compo. Juries should get the whole process of how the police/media gathered together allegations and know what all the allegations are, even the ones that were not proceeded with. And also they should know that the fact that a witness sounds convincing in court does not indicate guilt.
Barney	JK2006 wrote: we don't deny there was widespread abuse amongst all religions and everywhere else - from scouts to sports coaches Perhaps there was. But not in the league of the RCC - now (at last) admitted by its leader - and proven by courts in several jurisdictions, worldwide. Illustrated also by the magnitude (and there will be more) of compensation payments in - just as an example - Boston. So far - virtually all of the c200 Catholic dioceses in the US have paid compensation to sex abuse victims, by clergy. It happens everywhere - with no comparible evidence - doesn't wash..