Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on April 07, 2020, 08:18:42 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52183157
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
Sorry to disappoint you - I know how much you enjoy thinking the worst of Christians!
-
Sorry to disappoint you - I know how much you enjoy thinking the worst of Christians!
You aren't a good representative of the faith at all. >:( I DON'T think the worst of all Christians at all, that is a LIE.
As for Pell they didn't say he was innocent, they contended that reasonable doubt hadn't been taken into consideration. I wonder if the judges were of the catholic doctrine? The jury found him guilty and so did the lower appeal court.
-
You aren't a good representative of the faith at all. >:( I DON'T think the worst of all Christians at all, that is a LIE.
As for Pell they didn't say he was innocent, they contended that reasonable doubt hadn't been taken into consideration. I wonder if the judges were of the catholic doctrine? The jury found him guilty and so did the lower appeal court.
I think one has to be very careful about implying that judges should be looked on with suspicion because of their religion.
-
I think one has to be very careful about implying that judges should be looked on with suspicion because of their religion.
Would you say the same of the judges in a Islamc Court in an Islamic country?
-
Would you say the same of the judges in a Islamc Court in an Islamic country?
It isn't an Islamic country, it's a secular country and thar's what I am worried about losing.
-
It isn't an Islamic country, it's a secular country and thar's what I am worried about losing.
You did not qualify your statement in any way, shape or form, so I consider my question relevant to what you DID say!
-
You did not qualify your statement in any way, shape or form, so I consider my question relevant to what you DID say!
Whatever
-
You did not qualify your statement in any way, shape or form, so I consider my question relevant to what you DID say!
From the context it seemed obvious to me he was talking about judges in secular countries. This was confirmed by his reply to you.
-
Goddess! The sneers are almost audible, but hey ho! Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of a forum like this is it not.
-
Goddess! The sneers are almost audible, but hey ho!
Yes, keep them down will you.
Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of a forum like this is it not.
Perhaps you'd like to make a point relevant to this thread.
I see two possibilities:
1. Pell was wrongly convicted
2. The judges are incompetent or corrupt.
Note that option 1 can be further subdivided into
1a. Pell was innocent
1b. He got off on a technicality.
From what I've read about the case, my feeling is 1b is the case but I can't offer evidence to back up that feeling. I'd prefer it if 1a was true.
Clearly you think 2 is correct. Would you like to expand on that in any way?
-
Jeremy P
No, I'll take 1b thanks!
I do, however, think that, in the matter of child abuse by its priests and nuns, the Holy Catholic Church is institutionally corrupt.
-
Sorry to disappoint you - I know how much you enjoy thinking the worst of Christians!
I don't think most of us, so called, atheists have a downer on christians, like anything else that's almost unworthy of notice I generally ignore religions, but this Pell thing is more to do with the catholic hierarchy's approach with their track record of such a multiplicity of proven child abuse cases there are against them.
My objections to christians are the amount of unwarranted privileges they have managed to engineer over the years and the way they all, all religions including the christians make sure they indoctrinate pre-seven year old children with unevidenced, christian for one, nonsense.
ippy.
-
"...IS the amount...".
-
You aren't a good representative of the faith at all. >:( I DON'T think the worst of all Christians at all, that is a LIE.
As for Pell they didn't say he was innocent, they contended that reasonable doubt hadn't been taken into consideration. I wonder if the judges were of the catholic doctrine? The jury found him guilty and so did the lower appeal court.
In a very similar way to here, in Australia most of their judiciary are schooled by their equivalent of our public school system where you'll find that in most cases the christian agenda is pushed with a vengeance through all ports and the end result is that the alumni are mostly believers and then following on from that and then which part of society do you think most of the members of the judiciary are selected from, yes very much the same as here in the UK. So in turn ?
Regards, ippy.
-
In a very similar way to here, in Australia most of their judiciary are schooled by their equivalent of our public school system where you'll find that in most cases the christian agenda is pushed with a vengeance through all ports and the end result is that the alumni are mostly believers and then following on from that and then which part of society do you think most of the members of the judiciary are selected from, yes very much the same as here in the UK. So in turn ?
Regards, ippy.
Pish and drivel
-
Pish and drivel
Tony Blair's wife, tried to give an easier sentence to a supposedly good christian, of course that was all in my imagination.
She was disciplined by whoever it is that disciplines judges, (cant remember who they are or what they should be referred to).
ippy
-
Tony Blair's wife, tried to give an easier sentence to a supposedly good christian, of course that was all in my imagination.
She was disciplined by whoever it is that disciplines judges, (cant remember who they are or what they should be referred to).
ippy
You have claimed the Australian judiciary is institutionally corrupt. Purely it seems on your own prejudice.
-
"...IS the amount...".
If you can't think of a relevant response "NITPICK!"
-
In a very similar way to here, in Australia most of their judiciary are schooled by their equivalent of our public school system where you'll find that in most cases the christian agenda is pushed with a vengeance through all ports and the end result is that the alumni are mostly believers and then following on from that and then which part of society do you think most of the members of the judiciary are selected from, yes very much the same as here in the UK. So in turn ?
Regards, ippy.
Having lived in Oz for several years and having appeared before the judiciary there on four occasions (fined on each occasion - three for assault while emplaoyed as a bouncer at a Kings Cross strip-joint and one for possession of an offensive weapon (a brass knuckle-duster) during the same empployment (Oh Happy Days!) I can confirm that the members of the bench in those days were very much denizens of the Oz version of the UK Upper Classes and frerquently showed the same attitudes and prejudices as their UK equivalent.
Wether this is still the case is something to which I can no longer attest however.
-
Having lived in Oz for several years and having appeared before the judiciary there on four occasions (fined on each occasion - three for assault while emplaoyed as a bouncer at a Kings Cross strip-joint and one for possession of an offensive weapon (a brass knuckle-duster) during the same empployment (Oh Happy Days!) I can confirm that the members of the bench in those days were very much denizens of the Oz version of the UK Upper Classes and frerquently showed the same attitudes and prejudices as their UK equivalent.
Wether this is still the case is something to which I can no longer attest however.
Is this relevant to a claim of institutional corruption on the basis of religion?
-
Is this relevant to a claim of institutional corruption on the basis of religion?
NO. But I found it interesting .
-
NO. But I found it interesting .
It was but anecdotes are not data.
-
Is this relevant to a claim of institutional corruption on the basis of religion?
WhereTF did I say it was?
I was merely confirming that, at least when I was there, the progression through the education system to the judiciary was very similar to that of the UK!
So, as a matter of fact, were several other things, like most political appointments - I am well aware that, over the years the situation has inexorably changed, in fact, shortly after I left Oz, a very left wing Pom ex-trades Union Leader (can't for the life of me remember his name) became Prime Minister - wasn't that a shock to the Nobs!
From the news that has reached here from Oz, mostly when something nasty happens, the UK emigrants lobby has almost totally lost any kind of grasp on any kind of political power in Oz.
I have, however, found that about the one organisation that has not lost the power it held, where I lived and worked, Kings Cross, is the Mafia or whatever it calls itself there these days. This organisations attitude to child abuse was as draconian as any I have ever heard of and their response to it was usually instant and final.
-
WhereTF did I say it was?
I was merely confirming that, at least when I was there, the progression through the education system to the judiciary was very similar to that of the UK!
So, as a matter of fact, were several other things, like most political appointments - I am well aware that, over the years the situation has inexorably changed, in fact, shortly after I left Oz, a very left wing Pom ex-trades Union Leader (can't for the life of me remember his name) became Prime Minister - wasn't that a shock to the Nobs!
From the news that has reached here from Oz, mostly when something nasty happens, the UK emigrants lobby has almost totally lost any kind of grasp on any kind of political power in Oz.
I have, however, found that about the one organisation that has not lost the power it held, where I lived and worked, Kings Cross, is the Mafia or whatever it calls itself there these days. This organisations attitude to child abuse was as draconian as any I have ever heard of and their response to it was usually instant and final.
Well by replying to a post on the thread where that claim had been challenged. I have no idea what point you are making.
-
Well by replying to a post on the thread where that claim had been challenged. I have no idea what point you are making.
In truth, why does this not surprise me?
As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.
NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.
-
In truth, why does this not surprise me?
As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.
NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.
I like you, I like your passion.
-
Having lived in Oz for several years and having appeared before the judiciary there on four occasions (fined on each occasion - three for assault while emplaoyed as a bouncer at a Kings Cross strip-joint and one for possession of an offensive weapon (a brass knuckle-duster) during the same empployment (Oh Happy Days!) I can confirm that the members of the bench in those days were very much denizens of the Oz version of the UK Upper Classes and frerquently showed the same attitudes and prejudices as their UK equivalent.
Wether this is still the case is something to which I can no longer attest however.
Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.
Regards, ippy.
-
Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.
Regards, ippy.
The plural of anecdote isn't data - where is your evidence for the Australian legal system being institutionally corrupt in general, and specifically in terms of religion?
-
In truth, why does this not surprise me?
As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.
NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.
Nice one Owl.
Regards, ippy.
-
Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.
Regards, ippy.
Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!
-
Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!
you wish 8)
-
Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!
Beg your pud Owl, I've been going in and out of my garden and just having a quick look whilst in passing my PC desk without being careful enough, obviously, apologies to Walter as well.
I'm sure you two big brave boys'll forgive me.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
you wish 8)
In your dreams, Bruv, in your dreams!
-
Beg your pud Owl, I've been going in and out of my garden and just having a quick look whilst in passing my PC desk without being careful enough, obviously, apologies to Walter as well.
I'm sure you two big brave boys'll forgive me.
Regards to all, ippy.
Forgiven!
-
Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.
Regards, ippy.
I wouldn't say the same. It strikes me as being harsher and more influenced by pubic sentiment (cue outrage), than here.
(I've seen the typo & will leave it 'becos' it amuses me.)
-
I wouldn't say the same. It strikes me as being harsher and more influenced by pubic sentiment (cue outrage), than here.
(I've seen the typo & will leave it 'becos' it amuses me.)
The Ausie judiciary, where the candidates selected from, who they are and how they acquire the job is a clone like copy of the UK's system.
Regards, ippy.
-
The Ausie judiciary, where the candidates selected from, who they are and how they acquire the job is a clone like copy of the UK's system.
Regards, ippy.
From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.
In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.
-
From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.
In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.
Any chance that either you or ippy want to give evidence that the Australian justice system is institutionally in favour of Christians of a sort? Or do you want to continue in a mutual wanking anecdote session?
-
Any chance that either you or ippy want to give evidence that the Australian justice system is institutionally in favour of Christians of a sort? Or do you want to continue in a mutual wanking anecdote session?
I thought that what I was saying was that although it probably was the case when I was out there it no longer seems to be so.
As I have absolutely no idea what "a mutual wanking anecdote session" is I cannot answer that question. You seem to have reverted to your sneering persona which I thought we had left behind us, but hey=ho leopard, spots, etc I suppose.
-
I think there is a more general point about the Australian (and our judicial) system that it is structurally tipped in favour of the defendant. Firstly, of course, that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt in such cases. But also that the defendant has several attempts at acquittal - not just the original trial, but then appeal and potentially supreme court (or equivalent). The defendant only needs to win in one of those three stages to be permanently acquitted - the prosecution needs to win in all three for the conviction to be sustained.
Now I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, but it does bias the system in favour of the defendant, but I do have some concerns in types of offence where the key is consent, where there is perhaps very little independent forensic evidence - potential such as rape, sexual abuse etc. I think it also makes it more difficult for victims to come forward if they understand that they have to be successful at three separate stages to secure justice.
-
From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.
In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.
I think you're more than probably right about the poms Owl, just as you say but the system of going to the right schools etc etc all be it the Aussie equivalents, other than that it's virtually a carbon copy of how our system works.
Regards, ippy.
-
I think there is a more general point about the Australian (and our judicial) system that it is structurally tipped in favour of the defendant. Firstly, of course, that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt in such cases. But also that the defendant has several attempts at acquittal - not just the original trial, but then appeal and potentially supreme court (or equivalent). The defendant only needs to win in one of those three stages to be permanently acquitted - the prosecution needs to win in all three for the conviction to be sustained.
Now I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, but it does bias the system in favour of the defendant, but I do have some concerns in types of offence where the key is consent, where there is perhaps very little independent forensic evidence - potential such as rape, sexual abuse etc. I think it also makes it more difficult for victims to come forward if they understand that they have to be successful at three separate stages to secure justice.
In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".
-
In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".
Is that a lower burden of proof or just using more normal language to describe the same burden of proof?
Nonetheless that is of no consequence to my more substantive point which is that (except in exceptional cases) the defence only needs to win once to secure a permanent acquittal while the prosecution needs to win three times to secure a permanent conviction.
-
In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".
Whilst I'm sure you're right about the way the Aussie legalities differ from the UK version jp, I was only referring to how and where from the people involved in that business come from.
Regards, ippy.
-
In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".
Sorry - a quick bit of research demonstrate that to be untrue - "so that you are sure" is just another way of describing "beyond reasonable doubt" - it is not a lower burden of proof.
From:
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/what-is-a-criminal-case
'In a criminal case the burden of proof rests on the prosecution but the standard of proof is far higher so the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (meaning the magistrates or jury have to be satisfied so that they are sure of the defendant’s guilt).'
-
Is that a lower burden of proof or just using more normal language to describe the same burden of proof?
I think it is a slightly lower burden of proof or a better way for jurors to judge it. How reasonable is reasonable? In a case like Pell's where the verdict depends only on the testimony of the alleged victim, there's always a possibility that the alleged victim is not telling the truth. It's quite difficult to judge what a reasonable doubt is.
Nonetheless that is of no consequence to my more substantive point which is that (except in exceptional cases) the defence only needs to win once to secure a permanent acquittal while the prosecution needs to win three times to secure a permanent conviction.
I agree, but I think that is as it should be. Don't forget you can't appeal a decision just because you don't like it. There has to be some sort of grounds e.g. some error of process or new evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original trial.
-
I think it is a slightly lower burden of proof or a better way for jurors to judge it. How reasonable is reasonable? In a case like Pell's where the verdict depends only on the testimony of the alleged victim, there's always a possibility that the alleged victim is not telling the truth. It's quite difficult to judge what a reasonable doubt is.
I don't believe there has been a lowering in the burden of proof in criminal cases and my link suggest that there hasn't, merely a re-statement of the same burden in different, and perhaps more easily understandable, terms.
Had the burden of proof actually been lowered this would be a major change in our legal system and one that, surely would require significant consultation, and presumably an Act of Parliament - I'm not aware of any of that.
-
I thought that what I was saying was that although it probably was the case when I was out there it no longer seems to be so.
As I have absolutely no idea what "a mutual wanking anecdote session" is I cannot answer that question. You seem to have reverted to your sneering persona which I thought we had left behind us, but hey=ho leopard, spots, etc I suppose.
You know what, you're right. I misread your post in my annoyance at ippy's continued evidence free implications that the Australian judiciary is institutionally biased towards Christians bundled you in with that. So, my apologies.
I would never give up my sneering persona, nor any other of my multiple personas, as that one comes up with some of my better lines.
-
You know what, you're right. I misread your post in my annoyance at ippy's continued evidence free implications that the Australian judiciary is institutionally biased towards Christians bundled you in with that. So, my apologies.
I would never give up my sneering persona, nor any other of my multiple personas, as that one comes up with some of my better lines.
My apologies in return for how long it has taken me to acknowledge yours - shear(?) bad manners exascerbated(?) by senility I think!