Of all the crazy comments about the current Michael Jackson claims..this from Louis Theroux has to be the most gormless & idiotic.



I declare my prejudice here: I've hate Theroux's films and always found him incredibly creepy.

His logic here is bizarre but we are now in an Era where a Cardinal can be convicted of abusing 2 boys on absolutely Zilch evidence while a mass of contradictory evidence proved it could not have happened...guilty of abusing two boys on the word on one man while the other said he was never ever abused in the Catholic Church or anywhere else and never ever mentioned Pell's name to anyone in regards to such matters.. (If Pell's appeal is not successful then I say Justice is basically kaput)

While 8 bodies were found buried in Fred West's basement and more under his patio in another house and West was never tried..Michael Jackson was accused, charged and tried for child abuse and found Not Guilty.

Ironically his 2 current accusers gave evidence that Jackson had not abused them at that trial. If they lied at that trial then apart for perjury which only carries 4 year sentence in California it's far worse than that- they colluded and allowed a child abuser to continue which makes them as guilty as him.

Mind you, no-one else has come forward which is odd...as odd as in the Pell case..when Jackson is accused of grooming while Pell's actions are the complete opposite of what every convicted Catholic priest has done..ie : grooming vulnerable boys or girls over a period of time.

It's claimed Pell's crime was opportunist..he chose to abuse 2 choir boys who had been in a service with him earlier..a choir who had many of their parents there it that church.. boys who may have immediately run out screaming from the Vestry and grabbed their fathers..fathers who may have been a bulky builder or even the local cop.. Very strange.

I reckon Louis Theroux is doing an Oprah Winfrey and doth protest too much..Oprah was one of Jackson's greatest promoters (thank God dear Elizabeth Taylor his closest friend is not around) and Theroux has made films on Jimmy Savile and Michael Jackson which in the light of recent claims..show Theroux to be either dense or completely out of the loop.
I also think society is basically fucked.

## For the record : one of Oprah Winfrey's other great promotions and a man she swore by..John Of God has now been indicted on numerous rape charges.

hedda wrote:If Pell's appeal is not successful then I say Justice is basically kaput

boys who may have immediately run out screaming from the Vestry and grabbed their fathers..fathers who may have been a bulky builder or even the local cop

I have no idea whether Pell is guilty, or not - and neither have you. So your kaput comment is intriguing.

Numerous other cases have shown that child victims are reluctant to share their molestations - often for years.

Whether through shame, bewilderment or embarrassment. Offenders have been well aware of this.

However, as justice dictates, Pell has the right of appeal; his victims (no longer 'alleged') weren't given any such hearing/forum.

Sentencing will take place, though, next week.

Barney wrote:
hedda wrote:If Pell's appeal is not successful then I say Justice is basically kaput

boys who may have immediately run out screaming from the Vestry and grabbed their fathers..fathers who may have been a bulky builder or even the local cop

I have no idea whether Pell is guilty, or not - and neither have you. So your kaput comment is intriguing.

Numerous other cases have shown that child victims are reluctant to share their molestations - often for years.

Whether through shame, bewilderment or embarrassment. Offenders have been well aware of this.

However, as justice dictates, Pell has the right of appeal; his victims (no longer 'alleged') weren't given any such hearing/forum.

Sentencing will take place, though, next week.




You are right. Some victims are reluctant to speak about abuse for a very long time.
Others will scream shout, fight, and tell everyone about it.

If someone is described as having abused dozens, or even hundreds of people, sometimes in full view, it makes me suspicious, because wouldn't some of them turn out to be the fighting sort?

(I am aware that in many cases children spoke up later and were ignored, sadly)

Barney you sure are barmy sometimes. You're just trotting out feminist tautological reasoning, they rig the game so that they can never be proven wrong. Someone says they weren't abused the feminists claim "they are too afraid to admit it". Someone says they enjoyed their abuse the feminists claim "It's stockholm syndrome! It will ruin their lives in mysterious ways" etc etc. It's like when I used to argue with Christians back when they existed a couple of decades ago they'd always argue "God works in mysterious ways", yeah well, whatever.

The fundamental point in my opinion is really no one cares about being touched up by some priest. It doesn't cause any lasting harm, claiming it does is just silly. If it was wanted then it shouldn't even be a crime end of, and if it wasn't wanted then we need a lot more proportionality. Sentencing is way over the top even if Pell is definitely guilty. However, on all accounts the evidence points to him not being guilty, and certainly insufficient evidence for any sane legal system to convict.

holocaust21 wrote:
Barney you sure are barmy sometimes. You're just trotting out feminist tautological reasoning, they rig the game so that they can never be proven wrong. Someone says they weren't abused the feminists claim "they are too afraid to admit it". Someone says they enjoyed their abuse the feminists claim "It's stockholm syndrome! It will ruin their lives in mysterious ways" etc etc. It's like when I used to argue with Christians back when they existed a couple of decades ago they'd always argue "God works in mysterious ways", yeah well, whatever.

The fundamental point in my opinion is really no one cares about being touched up by some priest. It doesn't cause any lasting harm, claiming it does is just silly. If it was wanted then it shouldn't even be a crime end of, and if it wasn't wanted then we need a lot more proportionality. Sentencing is way over the top even if Pell is definitely guilty. However, on all accounts the evidence points to him not being guilty, and certainly insufficient evidence for any sane legal system to convict.

I cant imagine many people reading this will think that Barney is the barmy one!

I cant imagine many people reading this will think that Barney is the barmy one!

You must agree, though, that sexual predators will think Barney is the barmy one, no? And so then, it follows that, as more men wake up to the realisation that they themselves are sexual predators in the making (which will happen as feminism progresses) then all men will eventually realise that Barney is barmy and I am the voice of reason and light!

Barney wrote:
hedda wrote:If Pell's appeal is not successful then I say Justice is basically kaput

boys who may have immediately run out screaming from the Vestry and grabbed their fathers..fathers who may have been a bulky builder or even the local cop

I have no idea whether Pell is guilty, or not - and neither have you. So your kaput comment is intriguing.

Numerous other cases have shown that child victims are reluctant to share their molestations - often for years.

Whether through shame, bewilderment or embarrassment. Offenders have been well aware of this.

However, as justice dictates, Pell has the right of appeal; his victims (no longer 'alleged') weren't given any such hearing/forum.

Sentencing will take place, though, next week.




not sure how you or I or society can deduce how victims or alleged victims have acted or have acted now or in the past as it's a sort of subjective type of argument that is based on claims made by a few people who speak only for themselves and not the millions of victims of crime in the world today.

I put this flawed claim in the basket of falsehoods along with the very dangerous and nasty one : victims of child abuse, rape etc have their lives ruined.

This is a mantra saying to vulnerable people that : "if you are unfortunate to be raped next year, then your life is over and finished"

Of course all these navel gazing Western claims of how victims act is proved to be utter bullshit if you ever venture further than say, the UK and into the wide-world where people are people too and as an example, let's say a convention I went to 20 years ago were many "Comfort Women" were attending .

These were women who were forced into prostitution by the Japaneses during WW2 and were raped repeatedly every day and 100s of times. But they got on with their lives after the war ended -in the majority of cases- married, had families, children, grandchildren and the few I met were feisty and positive in a calm Asian way and merely wanted Japan to firstly acknowledge what had happened and apologize which is what they got.

The current British mantra of how "victims" act is just a little too pat and seemingly is like it's from the Victim's Guide on How To Behave and defies most Psychiatrist's studies that say one-off traumatic incidents do not generally destroy people as we are made of sterner stuff on the whole and the mind has it's coping mechanisms for survival...such as when you are in terrible pain and get relief it's very difficult to later remember that pain.

Of course Sex In The UK (and US & Oz, NZ) has always been a dramatic and dirty thing so it has it's own special rules so that when someone is groped at a train station as an actress claimed , by a passerby, her life is ROONED but when someone is in a terrible car accident and perhaps made a permanent invalid of course they just have to get on with it and the vast public culdn't really give a stuff about them.

As for "how victim's act"..we now have people pontificating on how Pell's alleged second victim conducted his life even though he denied he'd ever been abused..but fanatics insist they can see into the mind of a Dead Man and proclaim that when he said "I wasn't abused" he actually meant " I was abused".

Same same with Jackosn's accusers who people claim they were somehow so mesmerized by Jackosn they didn't understand what was happening to the point that as MEN they went into court and denied they were abused.

If you cannot see how fucking dangerous this is then...all hope is lost.

It's why you use an anonymous handle on the internet as you too Barney could easily be accused. By a dead person.

holocaust21 wrote:
no one cares about being touched up by some priest

It doesn't cause any lasting harm, claiming it does is just silly

If it was wanted then it shouldn't even be a crime end of

if it wasn't wanted then we need a lot more proportionality


Quite extraordinary views, in my opinion.

In every jurisdiction, minors are protected from such abuse.

Although you think it's acceptable and 'no one cares'...

In every jurisdiction, minors are protected from such abuse.

Let me rephrase what you just said "In every jurisdiction, there exists an age of consent". This is true today, but historically ages of consent were much lower and/or practically non-existent. The age of consent in the US state of Delaware for instance used to be 7 in the 1800s. What has happened in our current era is society is being torn apart by rampant feminism. Protecting minors from abuse is what has caused our current snowflake generation. They've not had the chance to grow up as previous generations did, and so they have now grown into adults who still have the mental development of children. It's an absolute social disaster.

And Hedda put the point well that we are all made up of much sterner stuff. It's just retarded to think that being touched up once would ruin someones life. It's insane!

Barney wrote:


I have no idea whether Pell is guilty, or not - and neither have you. So your kaput comment is intriguing.

But in the George Pell case the media reports and media comments means that the key facts are available and the case is straightforward if looked at objectively. To understand why a jury is not objective, which is a mystery to me in that I can not understand why people just want "to believe", is to observe our own nature. Why is someone a catholic, a tory, a labour supporter, believes in ghosts, is a Muslim. One reason is rare indeed. A person examined the evidence to make their choice. Normally the reason is emotional persuasion, family and similar.

Now we have the unfounded view anything that moves must be catholic and if it doesn't move it must be Catholic. And if catholic then a priest and a catholic priest by reason of being a catholic priest is definitely guilty of sexual abuse of children.

But if one chooses to move away from such lunacy and examine the evidence then George Pell is innocence. Add to that no jury is ever capable of knowing a witness with a story and no corroborating evidence can know someone is telling the truth. Every day we are faced with lies and it is hard to know fact from fiction. People can be natural actors even children. It is not possible.

Interesting - you think that the jury system/legal process is flawed, and unfit for purpose.

Holocaust feels that those accused - priests, he specifically alludes to - really do nothing wrong, when abusing children.

What better procedures should be employed to look into allegations of child abuse - by clergy and others - made by alleged victims?

Or perhaps you think that, in view of the inability of juries to comprehend evidence, such allegations are best ignored.

Barney wrote:
Interesting - you think that the jury system/legal process is flawed, and unfit for purpose.

Holocaust feels that those accused - priests, he specifically alludes to - really do nothing wrong, when abusing children.

What better procedures should be employed to look into allegations of child abuse - by clergy and others - made by alleged victims?

Or perhaps you think that, in view of the inability of juries to comprehend evidence, such allegations are best ignored.




The George Pell Case highlights the inherent dangers and shortfalls in the present system. Of interest judges and the court system go to great lengths to have complete control of the minds of the jury which means that they consider that a jury is not objective. In fact, the court is often all over the show been careful what the jury hears, then when a jury makes such an obvious and emotional decision then "oh jury knows best" now elevated to a god like status. So yes the current system is flawed. In some cases improvement with added checks and balances. In others maybe a need for added tier "evidence assessors" that access the evidence and clearly put the information in a document with references to evidence sources.

Another angle is that checks and balances means that each body of the justice system is monitored to do their job. So an allegation arises against George Pell then it would be expected the police to investigate "taking all reasonable steps". That means similar to someone reporting an historical break-in some 20 years ago and have lost items of considerable value but only now found the courage to come forward. So reasonable steps is to take seriously the allegation, not to "just believe" the complainant as a police force taking reasonable steps would know that the person alleging such a complaint may as easily be the criminal and not the victim. A reasonable police force would also know unless documented evidence from the time period alleged there is a high chance of not finding any evidence to determine what party is the victim and what party is the criminal. A reasonable police would also know if the name of the person became public knowledge other opportunists would also go to the police. A good example of a police force who did investigate and took reasonable steps was a case of investigation against Jimmy Savile by the Sussex police. So in the George Pell case the difference between one police force and another. Is one did a proper job and the Australian police acted outside a reasonable police force so the downward steps commenced and terrible damage is now been done.

Your only new suggestion is 'evidence assessors' - which already exist in the CPS and police.

The independent jury's job is to assess this assessed evidence - and to form a view/verdict.

It's difficult to come up with an alternative judicial system, to one which works well - most of the time.

Barney wrote:
Your only new suggestion is 'evidence assessors' - which already exist in the CPS and police.

The independent jury's job is to assess this assessed evidence - and to form a view/verdict.

It's difficult to come up with an alternative judicial system, to one which works well - most of the time.





Here we are agreed.

I did suggest improvement in checks. It is clear when the police CPS and courts have a goal, political or otherwise they bypass their own rules and even encourage parliament to pass new laws that conflict with a fair trial like the jury can convict on one person's word only. I gather often a judge can give a fair hearing but watching the Appeals Court judges the approach points heavily to protecting their own. Also, the appeals court enforces the concept that 12 people off the street suddenly have an almost god like ability to sort the "evidence" and can tell who is lying and who is not. UK law is that an appeal can only be entertained on a point of law or new evidence not that the jury got it wrong as they are now infallible. Maybe an automatic right of appeal with a complete review and explanations then provided. I have what I call the 100 year rule that states if I was reading the details of a case one hundred years previous I would conclude exactly as the jury / judges did then even if on a rare occasion the person was innocent after all. Bottom line even though devising a better system is difficult it still needs to be done. With clear objectives what is to be achieved. Like all serious cases documented and supporting evidence clearly stated and why it is reliable and how it fits in overall. There are trials where the evidence is collected and put together well.

But I'm afraid I don't believe the system works well most of the time; I think it gets it wrong most of the time.

holocaust21 wrote:
In every jurisdiction, minors are protected from such abuse.

Let me rephrase what you just said "In every jurisdiction, there exists an age of consent". This is true today, but historically ages of consent were much lower and/or practically non-existent. The age of consent in the US state of Delaware for instance used to be 7 in the 1800s. What has happened in our current era is society is being torn apart by rampant feminism. Protecting minors from abuse is what has caused our current snowflake generation. They've not had the chance to grow up as previous generations did, and so they have now grown into adults who still have the mental development of children. It's an absolute social disaster.

And Hedda put the point well that we are all made up of much sterner stuff. It's just retarded to think that being touched up once would ruin someones life. It's insane!

But we were not talking historically. We were talking about crimes committed now. (or not?)
You cant disregard current laws just because a corrupt society once thought raping children was ok.

The vast majority of cases that come before our legal system are uncomplicated and 'run of the mill' matters.

Such a theft, fraud, burglary, common assault, traffic etc., and - in my view - the correct outcome usually emerges.

Admittedly - in the premiership (murder, rape, serious assault) - I'm not as sure.

It certainly seems that celebrities, and the famous, are seen as fair game.

JK2006 wrote:
But I'm afraid I don't believe the system works well most of the time; I think it gets it wrong most of the time.

JK I agree some time ago when considering the system it appeared no better than any country in that often real criminals are so obvious they get found out and imprisoned but when it comes down to justice and all that means well with the imprisoning of thousands of mainly men based on no reliable evidence can the UK claim to have something of value. Thus I suggest a thorough overall. The 100m used on the latest alleged abuse enquiry based on unreliable witness would of been better spend devising a better justice system for all. If they needed the information I am sure there must be many records from all the past enquires!!!!!!!!!

wjlmarsh wrote:
I suggest a thorough overall.

The 100m used on the latest alleged abuse enquiry based on unreliable witness would of been better spend devising a better justice system for all.

But, you have no idea how/what that better system should be. Only that the current one doesn't work!

Somewhat like those who pontificate that democracy doesn't work.

But are unable to think of an alternative...

Democracy doesn't work. Benign autocracy does but with limited time.