George Pell and the Ladies of the Left

The next time you hear some strident feminist sounding off about glass ceilings and the supposed exclusion of women from decision-making, think of the case of George Pell. No connection? Oh yes there is. Gender quotas were not only filled but arguably exceeded by the volume of female participation in the long and sorry saga of Pell’s persecution.

All that blather you still hear on places like Radio National about men being in charge of everything and women chained to the sink is no longer true, if ever it was. Very powerful, high-achieving women had a big say in cooking up the case against Pell and in putting him away. Their involvement shows that the notion of male domination in the professions is a straw – I suppose we should say – person, set up by feminists to foster the myth that women are “oppressed” (by white conservatives males like Pell, presumably; as paid-up members of the Left, feminists would naturally believe that).

Let’s see, who shall we start with? Well, Louise Milligan of the ABC hurled herself into the fray very early on. As a reporter, she has more opportunity than most people to air her views, courtesy of your tax dollars. But not content with that, she wrote a book as well (on the taxpayer’s time?) telling the world how guilty Pell was, or more accurately, how guilty she had decided he was, since her literary effort appeared some time before any accusations against Pell had been made in court.

Then there was the woman who published the book, Louise Adler. She used the once respected imprint of Melbourne University Press to disseminate Louise’s anthology of vicious tittle-tattle, which conceivably did its bit to prejudice the minds of any potential jurors who read it. It might be noted that Adler’s other name is Mrs Max Gillies. She is married to the comedian emeritus of the elderly Dismissal-fixated Left, once a virtual fixture on the ABC – where else? – for his unflattering impersonations of Sir John Kerr and John Howard, two of the most noir of the elderly Left’s bêtes noires. Perhaps he has added George Pell to his repertoire, using Louise’s book as a source, if Mrs Gillies brought him home a copy.

Next in line chronologically is Belinda Wallington. She is the magistrate (indeed, the Supervising Magistrate for Sexual Offences at the Magistrates Court of Victoria) who sorted out the original charges against Pell, chucking out the flimsiest and sending him for trial on the others, which it now turns out were not much less flimsy. There is a photograph (below) of Belinda and Louise together in May 2017, when they took part in a cosy ABC natter-in called The Conversation Hour, with the topic “George Pell allegations and Law Week”. There is, of course, no known photograph of the Wallington with Pell.

As we know, the first trial was a washout and a second trial was held, which led to Pell’s conviction. This gave another of our ABC ladies, Leigh Sales, a thrill of joy. Introducing her programme she announced in ringing tones, categorically and as though she was the bearer of great good news (which indeed it was to people like her), “George Pell is a convicted paedophile.” Leigh was clearly untroubled by any of the doubts as to the justice of the conviction, doubts that more than a year later would lead the High Court to overturn it.

Our fifth influential female is Chief Justice of Victoria Anne Ferguson. She it was who presided over the Appeal Court that turned down Pell’s appeal against his conviction, an action for which the Victorian court was reproached by the High Court in no uncertain terms. Ferguson and a male judge were two-to-one in this against a third judge (male) whose dissenting judgment anticipated much that the High Court had to say.

Ferguson was appointed to her post as Chief Justice of Victoria by the Labor government of Daniel Andrews, which seems to have decided that substantial experience of the criminal law was not necessary for the post and that a former commercial solicitor would do as well. Andrews, one imagines, is not been best pleased by Pell’s acquittal, given that he thought it was “shameful” for Tony Abbott even to visit Pell in prison. Has he never read Matthew 25:36?

Andrews issued a statement after the acquittal that pointedly ignored the judgment and assured all “victims” of child abuse, and by implication Pell’s accuser, that he “believed” them. Apart from the fact that you can’t believe Pell, as the High Court does, and believe his accuser at the same time, Andrews hasn’t heard, and probably never will, what most of those other “survivors” have to say, so how can he “believe” it?

It is this perverse willingness to accept any and every abuse allegation made by anyone, anywhere, whether motivated by truth, vindictiveness or vengeance, that has led not only to the legal shambles deplored by the High Court, but to the growth, aided and abetted by sinister lawyers posing as compassionate champions of the “hurt” and the “damaged”, of a bloated child-abuse industry which has yielded a harvest of destroyed careers among the wrongfully accused to set against the numbers of genuinely abused for whom it has obtained justice and compensation.

Although supposedly a Roman Catholic, Andrews comes across as viscerally anti-Pell – the two positions seem not to be irreconcilable, such is the power of Pell’s conservatism, religious and secular, to excite hysteria and loathing in the ranks of the Left. Only Tony Abbott seems to possess this weird, almost shamanic, capacity to the same degree.

Back to our catalogue of inquisitorial females, so let’s not overlook eminent jurist Kerri Judd, Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions and another Andrews appointment. Kerri was resolutely opposed to Pell’s appeal being upheld by the High Court and informed the bench that the best thing to do was to send him back to Victoria for another of those trials they do so well there. The court declined to accept this sage advice, which it described as “specious”.

Our national broadcaster seemed to delude itself that it constituted an alternative branch of the law vis-à-vis Pell, one that could influence the mind of the High Court through one of its mendacious “investigations” of the sort it made a fool of itself with when it tried to convict President Trump of colluding with Russia. The reporter behind that, Sarah Ferguson (“I’ve spent my professional life understanding power and trying to give succour to the weak when abused by power,” as she sanctimoniously informed an ABC in-house puff) presented three programs on child abuse by Catholic clergy, full of recycled “revelations”. It is perfectly possible that the ABC calculated that this would persuade the court to weigh very carefully the consequences in adverse public opinion, whipped up partly by itself, of any decision to acquit Pell. If so, it would only show how hubristic the ABC is. Certainly, Sarah’s programs were timed to coincide with the High Court’s deliberations, and either rain on the parade if Pell were cleared or give one last slam to the prison door if he were not.

The ABC is always crying poor but spent vast sums sending Sarah around the world to put her nasty snipes together, a vindictive squandering of taxpayers’ money that makes reform of the ABC even more urgent.

I haven’t touched on the female lawyers and “victims’ advocates” who gathered around the scaffold in the hope of seeing Pell’s head roll. Consider instead some of the many women who took his part – three female justices among the unanimous seven-to-zero of the High Court bench, the nuns who gave him hospitality on his first night of freedom, the female journalists such as Rita Panahi, Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine who stood up for him and maintained his innocence when the pack was baying for his blood. It’s non-feminists who’ll be proud of them.

Christopher Akehurst is a journalist who was worked in London and Italy. His chief interests are Italian language and Australian church architecture, for the latter of which he has a website at heretoday.blog

35 thoughts on “George Pell and the Ladies of the Left

  • jt says:

    As a non-feminist myself I am proud of the women who stood up for justice and stood up for Pell. I am also proud of you, Christopher Akehurst, for writing such a great, honest article. I personally would rather see an honest man in a position of authority than one of these women. They continue to push good men out of jobs they have rightfully earned…why? I don’t think they even know what true feminism is. There are so many interpretations of feminism now that one faces descrimination from saying you are a feminist or that you are a non-feminist. Even men face this same descrimination. To me they are no different to the people who argue just for the sake of arguement…they don’t believe in anything so will therefore argue in belief of everything.

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    I am very fortunate in that I am married to an as yet uncanonised saint. She despises modern feminism as a once noble and brave movement utterly corrupted by fanatical leftist women hell bent on destroying their society like Marxists everywhere. They’re winning.

  • Ian MacKenzie says:

    Every level of the justice system in Victoria got this wrong. The police by advertising for accusations and then “believing” someone with long-term psychological issues, without any supporting evidence at all. The DPP likewise and the Supervising Magistrate, whose appearance on TV with Louise Milligan rather gave the game away. Next the trial and Appeal Judges whose gross errors, with the honourable exception of Mark Weinberg, were exposed so clearly by the High Court. When combined with illegal behavior of the Victorian Police exposed in the Lawyer X enquiry, and the refusal of those same police to prosecute corrupt Labor politicians involved in the Red Shirts scandal, it is impossible to have any faith in the Victorian Justice system. It is interesting to see how much Daniel Andrews is involved in all this. The fish as they say, rots from the head.
    Then we have all the left-wing hangers on, who refuse to accept the High Court’s unanimous decision. As noted above, Daniel Andrew’s of course, but also the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson and Louise Milligan of course, with so much invested in their McCarthyite witch hunt funded by large amounts of tax-payer’s money. The Conversation who apparently believe that reasonable doubt is a “technicality”. The list and the lies go on and on….

  • jt says:

    Too many of them are being backed by weak men, in positions of power, that are too scared of what will happen if they don’t.

  • Biggles says:

    Let’s start a movement; ‘CLOSE THEIR ABC’. Why should the average Australian’s taxes support this vile cabal of smug self-congratulating leftists?

  • ianl says:

    > “It is perfectly possible that the ABC calculated that this would persuade the court to weigh very carefully the consequences in adverse public opinion”

    At the very least, poisoning the well either way. A quite large segment of journalists do this frequently.

  • Counsel says:

    Our national broadcaster has not always been wholly committed to the findings of juries in sexual assault cases.
    In 2015, the ABC’s Australian Story publicised the case of Josephine Greensill who had been wrongfully convicted in 2010 of the historical alleged sexual assault of two school students 30 years earlier (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-08/child-sexual-abuse-outrageous-imprisonment-must-be-investigated/6528122).
    The conviction of Mrs Greensill was a disgrace, quite on a par with that of Cardinal Pell (although without the public campaign that bedevilled the Pell proceedings). Mrs Greensill spent two years in prison before, thankfully, being freed on appeal in 2012.
    The ABC was, quite rightly, on Josephine’s side but I am not anticipating a similarly favourable Australian Story concerning the Cardinal.
    After all, in the ABC’s closed mind, guilt is not determined by what you did but who you are.

  • en passant says:

    Their ABC has run its course. We need their $Bn+ to pay off the loan sharks now at Oz is no longer just broke, but bankrupt.
    Someone will know the answer to the following: I just saw a clip of Scomo and was surprised how similar he looked to that doll in the horror movie called ….?

  • Salome says:

    When I was young it was called women’s liberation. Some of it was about equal employment opportunity (and I mean equal, not preferential), but then it was hijacked by a bunch of lesbians wanting abortion on demand (go figure). Anyway, I quickly realised that going along with it required a good deal of rage maintenance, for which, being a bit of a slob, I simply didn’t have the energy. I look back now and think, if I’d spent the past 45 years being angry, what would I look like now?

  • Richard H says:

    The Australian today has a story that exposes Ferguson CJ’s culpability as broader than we had supposed. It turns out that Maxwell P, the other appeal judge who got it so terribly wrong, is also a novice in criminal law.

    It is the chief justice who decides which judges make up the bench to hear appeals. It was she who decided that her own unqualified self should preside, and that the similarly unqualified Maxwell P should join her on the bench to outnumber the sole qualified judge on the Pell appeal, Weinberg AJA.

    Weinberg was not only qualified, he was widely regarded as the most eminent criminal lawyer in the nation. Yet when he wrote a judgment that declared Pell to be unjustly convicted, Ferguson and Maxwell perversely chose to ignore the wise words of their better (not just in knowledge of criminal law, obviously) and go their own way.

  • brandee says:

    Daniel Andrews might claim to believe all those claiming victimhood but he conveniently overlooks the rape claim by the woman who claimed that Bill Shorten was her rapist.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    ‘that the best thing to do was to send him back to Victoria for another of those trials they do so well there.’
    Here the derision by the defence became palpable, words to the effect ‘you mean you want the case sent back to Victoria to “have another go” [to try and get the evidence right]’
    There are a lot of very smart women about, I am married to one.
    However, particularly in Victoria,the woke dogma is very strong in many women leaders.
    It would seem that some are selected for ideology and not for critical thinking.
    The result is they actively discriminate against those who they disagree with, by failing to select or promote them, particularly through the selection of State electorate candidates and reporters on the taxpayer tab.
    This leads to a distortion in evidence gathering for books and media attacks, while gaming the taxpayer who cops the bill.
    Can we now say the jury remains out on the judicial system?
    But the blokes don’t get off lightly.
    Pell made the comment that corruption can occur in many places and drew a parallel between the Victorian Police handling of his case and the financial handling of the Vatican bank.
    The question he and no doubt, gentle reader, we, must ask,
    ‘How far up the chain of command does it go?’ in both jurisdictions.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Feminism, like Marxism, requires for its support a fabricated history of victim-hood. That in turn requires a fabricated history of powerful abusers. Anyone with the faintest interest in real history will find there few traces of the alleged systematic persecution of women by men. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Australian women in the nineteenth century (for example) regarded themselves as an oppressed class. I read Australian nineteenth century newspapers every day as part of a research project. There is no shred of evidence in them that would support the feminist narrative that has been imposed on history. Simplistic, invented histories not only serve the ideologies that they have been designed to perpetuate, they also eradicate the truth about the past. They render an admirable record shameful, and hide the faces of the actors in the great drama of real life, concealing their aspirations and achievements, defaming their character and demeaning their intelligence. This is cultural vandalism at its worst.

  • Ian MacKenzie says:

    An interesting article in the Australian today by Angela Shanahan for any wondering if there have been others affected by the “believe all victims” stupidity. Shanahan cites the case of Max Davis, Catholic Bishop of the ADF. In 2014 Davis was accused by a single individual of indecent assault in 1969 at St Benedict’s College in WA. A number of other individuals added their complaints, resulting in a total of six charges. All of the complaints swore that Davis was a Benedictine brother teaching at the college at the time of the alleged offences which ranged from December 1968 to October 1972. The police believed the accusers, and cannot have conducted even rudimentary checks because at trial it turned out that Davis was a lay teacher, not a brother (who wore the distinctive Benedictine habit), at St Benedicts and left the school in 1969. One of the accusers had never even been enrolled at St Benedicts at all. Davis was acquitted on all charges, but has since struggled to regain his reputation following the usual media pile-on before the acquittal but minimal coverage afterwards.
    The question now becomes how many have been unfairly convicted based on a combination of “believe the victim” mentality and police incompetance.

  • PT says:

    Quite right brandee. They don’t consistently use the “believe the victim”. Those allegations are roughly contemporary with the St Patrick’s allegations against Pell, and the evidence is at least as good surely. So why no prosecution? Indeed why no more that at best the most basic investigation? The difference smells of political motivation.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Ian Mac. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I wonder whether the police and the courts are trained to detect the typical syndromes and motivations that lead to false accusations in these situations? False Memory Syndrome is well known. There is – it seems to me – also a variant of Munchausen’s Syndrome operating in some child sexual abuse cases. In this variant, the sufferer seeks to be treated as a victim of abuse, developing a carefully fabricated but highly plausible history.
    Muchausen’s is an attention-seeking strategy. In coming forward to the authorities, the plausible victim of child sexual abuse steps into a world in which he has the rapt attention of police, lawyers, social workers, journalists – with the added advantages of a ready-made victim-hood ‘community’ online, and of potential compensation down the track. If the alleged perpetrator is a high profile public figure, there is the added reward of giant-killer status for the supposed victim, who is elevated from being an ordinary suburbanite to being a person of some power and importance.
    Leaving aside psychiatric syndromes altogether, there is also of course the distinct possibility that the motivation for some false accusations is simply to cause trouble.

  • wdr says:

    My wife, a “second wave feminist”, was startled and disgusted to find the Australian Women’s Weekly getting into the anti-Pell campaign. In May 2015 it carried an article by Thomas Keneally entitled “Is George Pell an enemy of the Church?”. The article was prefaced: “As the Pope rejects George Pell’s resignation, we examine whether the Catholic Church would be better off without him.” Of Pell’s evidence to the Royal Commission Keneally noted “You could almost hear angels weeping as the Cardinal blandly gave this evidence. When my niece-in-law, Kristina Keneally, a good but not a dumb Catholic, commentating on the Sky News feed from the Commission, appeared on screen, she looked hollowed out and her face showed the shock that most believers in Australia were feeling.” And he damned Pell with such lines as “It is not a surprise that this grand apparatchik of the Church should fail to heal wounds when he gave his evidence.”

  • jt says:

    Stephen Due,
    I agree with you 100%
    In the age of social media, where everyone is competing for their 5 minutes of fame, this is the new way to stand out among the crowd. In a way it’s the perfect way to be famous…(everyone knows you, the whole world is talking about you…you will be immortalised in text, law students all over the world will be studying this case)…yet you can still go outside with absolute anonymity. I bet he’s just sorry he never got any compensation for his troubles.

  • Ian MacKenzie says:

    Stephen Due
    I’m sure you’re correct. Logically those who make accusations which cannot be true are either lying or suffering some underlying psychosis. However a properly operating justice system should weed these out, In the Pell case all four levels of the Victorian justice system failed. The fact that the police advertised for accusations and the DPP appeared on TV with the ABC’s chief anti-Pell fanatic suggests bias rather than the calm logical assessment of facts that should prevail. The initial trial nearly caught it with the hung jury, but the second trial was clearly influenced by the media pile-on, led but the appalling ABC. At the fourth, Appeal Court level there was a majority of Labor-appointed incompetents’ (based on the High Court’s analysis) with little or no experience in criminal law. I see that there are now calls for their resignations.

    In the Davis case I quoted, it was only the first two levels of the WA justice system which failed. Even the simplest checks by the police or DPP would have exposed the lies. None-the-less, although the trial exposed the truth, a lot of damage was done to Davis’s reputation by the accusations alone, in part due to the asymmetric media coverage (pile on before acquittal, minimal coverage after). His relationships with his parishioners, employer (the ADF) and government (he can’t get a working with children permit despite being acquitted) have all been negatively impacted, all due to police and DPP incompetence..

  • wdr says:

    Readers will be interested to know that Sarah Ferguson’s Episode 3 (“Goliath”) of her “Revelation” series is available again. The edited episode refers to the High Court’s verdict, but goes on to repeat its claims about Pell. This proves that the ABC is engaged in a sadistic vendetta against the cardinal that has not ended with the 7 April verdict. It should be protested against, and brought to the attention of people like Andrew Bolt and Greg Sheridan.

  • jt says:

    You can inform Andrew Bolt by emailing him at andrew.bolt@news.com.au

  • Jack Brown says:

    The Pell interview by Bolt pretty much confirms what others, on Catholic fora, have thought is behind Pell’s lack of empathy for those abused by pederasts on his watch on the one hand and support offered to Risdale for example, on the other: It is highly likely that Pell has Asperger’s Syndrome.

    Those who have not experienced coming into a relationship with such people can never appreciate how it works but a grammatical analogy is that to the Aspergic person other people are only seen as 3rd persons, singular or plural, or 2nd person plural. If they ever see you as having a closer relationship than that it is never as 2nd person singular, a significant other, i.e. tu in French. Instead they see you as the junior partner in a 1st person plural relationship, where you are seen as a child basically. Think of one’s dream state whereby one is conscious in one’s own dream but there are other characters in the dream, all being created by the dreamer’s brain but none of which have any individuality of their own nor emotions the dreamer stops to think about. With a lot of distressing experience of being subjected to Aspergic behaviours it has to be something like that. Many people would have felt like Pell was viewing them like he would a puppet, or a figure in his dream/nightmare. It would be pushing the analogy too far I suspect but many of the accusations against Pell read like a bad dream, like people used to report being examined by aliens, and I wonder if there is not some sort of link between the two at collective unconscious level.

    As to the topic of this post first some background: Sasha’s brother, Simon Baron-Cohen has hypothesized that Aspergic people have an extreme male brain, which I take to mean for Aspergic men that their has minimal in common with the typical female brain whereas there is considerable similarity between the brains of neurotypical males and females. MRI studies appear to confirm this. MRI studies also suggest that the female Aspergic brain is quite different from the neuro-typical female brain, but very similar to the neuro-typical male brain.

    In terms of how their behaviours are experience the female Aspergic person comes across as an interfering bossy domineering strong willed almost masculine “Mother-in-Law from hell” figure. Certainly that has been my experience. Katie Hopkins is a good example.

    However a good many male Aspergic people are experienced as overbearingly opinionated and patronising “Father-knows-best” figures. There is no need for them to interfere, for they just decree what is to be done, like an Alpha male chimp. Of course other more introverted Aspergic men exist and they can be experienced as childishly naive figures. They wear no mask to filter their own public behaviours.
    Pell seems to be a mixture of the two.

    The former aspect, that of an overbearingly patronising father-knows-best figure is tolerated and used by career females provided such men acknowledge who is boss, as Aspergic people do i.e. they crave structure and will defer to authority if it asserts itself. However when the coven of witches referred involved in this case detect such a figure who does not defer to them, but instead displays Alpha-male tendencies to ignore women stepping into male domains, then it was no surprise they saw Pell as someone needing to be brought down into line for reasons that again belong in the collective unconscious.

  • Lo says:

    The Andrew Bolt interview with Cardinal Pell seemed to me to show a man beginning to regain his standing in the world. Until then he had looked exhausted and timid. For me, the growing back into the role was good to see.
    I’m not sure how Asperger’s Syndrome is diagnosed, or by which specialty but I’d think an interview at least would be required.

  • jt says:

    George Pell is an incredibly academic man of 78 years old, (who happens to have a pace maker- his self control has a lot to do with his heart). He has, for the better part of his adult life, been persecuted for his religious beliefs. Just because he can control himself and defer to his logic and reasoning on matters of his beliefs and the persecussion that he has suffered I hardly think it reasonable to try and define and excuse his manner as a man afflicted with Aspergers Syndrome. George Pell is a man of very strong convictions. He simply doesn’t stand for people trying to change and upend the faith that he shares with so many other traditional Catholics. I for one would probably act the same and be called arrogant too…and I’m female.

  • jt says:

    The only one George needs to answer to is God. All of those who love George know he is innocent and has been unjustly persecuted because of his beliefs.

    Perhaps if his accuser bothered to sit down and meet him for the first time he might come clean about why he lied.

    Timothy 3:12
    Matthew 5:10

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    I have a friend with an autistic son. I’ve met him but don’t know him well enough to comment except to say that he seems to be of the introverted type. He’s certainly not an alpha male.
    However, my friend, a devout Catholic, believes that she sees in Cardinal Pell many of the characteristics of autism. My own totally unqualified opinion is that much of Pell’s former aloof demeanour is more typical of an older generation of senior military officers, or others in “command” positions. They were raised in the now allegedly old-fashioned idea that “familiarity breeds contempt”.
    As I have implied elsewhere, Pell’s position as an Archbishop imposed responsibilities that did not allow him to meet lay people’s, particularly mischief-making journalists’, ideas about how he should behave, any more than a General can always (if ever) behave as the troops wish he would.
    That he accompanied Risdale to court was interpreted by the media (and by Jack above), as “support” for Risdale whereas I, as a former Catholic, can easily understand it understand it as simple Christian pastoral kindness. Hate the sin, but love the sinner. Pell no more “supported” Risdale than Katleen Folbigg was supported by the Salvation army officer Major Joyce Harmer who accompanied her to court. Yet you never heard Major Harmer being criticised for “supporting” Folbigg.
    I believe Cardinal Pell has earned the right to be left alone.

  • wdr says:

    Well said, jt. I’ve never met the cardinal, but have heard from others that in private he’s a warm guy with a great sense of humour. The amateur attempts to psychoanalyse him should stop. Videos online indicate the fine rapport he has with young Catholic men and women and that he’s a gifted teacher. I fail to detect any arrogance. The true arrogance belongs to the taxpayer-funded meant-to-be objective ABC journalists who feel they can run a seemingly interminable vicious campaign against Cardinal Pell with no accountability whatsover.

  • norsaint says:

    Great article on the diabolical ideology known as feminism. Perhaps St Paul got it right when it came to women. Dr Johnson also offered sage advice when it came to women and power.
    Victoria is a complete cot case when it comes to the law. Andrews and “Rob” Hulls have much to answer for. Hulls now masquerades as a law professor at some second rate law school, which despite its bland sounding title, is concerned with replacing Common Law with Feminist Jurisprudence. Still, the sheeple voted in Andrews and will get what they deserve, good and proper.
    PS. Hulls was Attorney General – actually he re-designated himself as Minister for Justice – (it’s OK, I’ve stopped laughing now) at a time when his wife was practicing as a “lawyer”. She gained some prominence when prosecuting some poor bloke on bogus abuse charges by hiding evidence which clearly exculpated him. He spent a couple of years in jail before the wrong was righted. Mrs Hulls got a slap over the wrist from the Vultures’ Society and carried on regardless. Needless to say, media coverage was limited. Mrs Hulls was also prominent in trying to have the racing industry shut down jumps racing. Our Bob at the time was also Racing minister. The place stinks to high heaven. From memory, Bob Hulls proses on at the “Centre of Innovative Justice”. In other words, there’s a plethora of Fergusons and Wallingtons coming down the pike.

  • wdr says:

    The ‘second wave’ feminism of the 1970s I can understand. I’m no misogynist. But what we see today is a perversion of that sensible feminism.

  • DUBBY says:

    Is the author suggesting that women are not comfortable making an objective judgment. If so, I am inclined to agree with him and I place into evidence my late mother as exhibit ‘A’.

  • bomber49 says:

    I recently again watched the movie, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (another Tarantino alternative version of history). The scene where Brad Pitt’s character walks into a hostile pride of Charles Manson’s women made me think of George Pell being savaged by irrational feminists. Sadly, for Pell, he was not able to beat the living suitcase out of their smart arse male minder as did Pitt, which silenced the group. Maybe his time will come.

  • wdr says:

    Readers may be interested in holding their noses and looking in at Louise Milligan’s latest anti-Pell comments on her Twitter page. Among those supporting her is none other than Lucy Turnbull. Milligan has also posted a photo of Cardinal Pell taken at Heathrow airport by a friend of hers who spotted him on a plane from Rome to London on the weekend that her book came out.

  • jt says:

    People like Louise Milligan and all her ignorant, petty, stupid followers will do everything in their power to fuel this mob mentality of hatred toward the Catholic Church and which ever organisation they feel doesn’t fit in with their attempt to take over the world. I’ve never seen such a destructive force as mob mentality and the scariest thing about it is they encite violence toward their target(s). There is nothing more anti-christian than that (I feel) and if anti-christian is what they are trying to achieve then they have certainly ‘taken the cake’.

  • wdr says:

    The ABC has issued a long statement to ABC Media Watch re its treatment of Cardinal Pell. It is mendacious, Orwellian.
    With a touch of irony: “… Journalists are not judges or juries. Their role is to objectively and impartially assess whether allegations are sufficiently credible to justify publication in the public interest. It is not to decide whether people are guilty of crimes. The ABC’s role is not to prosecute the case for or against Cardinal Pell and it has never done that…”

  • jt says:

    And the best joke of the week goes to….(drum roll please)…the ABC!

Leave a Reply