Paedo Pell thrown back into clink

It’s not often that the people get their revenge in this god forsaken land but today they did, at News:

George Pell has lost his bid for freedom with his appeal against child sex convictions dismissed in court this morning.

By a majority of two to one, Victoria’s Supreme Court dismissed the appeal ordering Pell to “return to prison”.

“He will continue to serve his sentence of six years imprisonment,” Chief Justice Anne Ferguson said.

“He will remain eligible to apply for parole after he has served three years and eight months of the sentence.”

Cheers were heard from inside the courtroom and outside as dozens of supporters watching the appeal on the livestream heard the three judges slap down Pell’s appeal.


David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. “He will remain eligible to apply for parole after he has served three years and eight months of the sentence.” – he deserves life behind bars (with hard labour) just for the cover up he provided for all those others that did same.
    Now we can officially launch the guilty scale from 1 – Pell.

    • I like the hard labour thing.

      I don’t see why it’s against human rights to sentence someone to make 30 tonnes of 35mm gravel with appropriate manual tools like a sledgehammer from a rock face.

  2. Scomo and co are screwing kids every day. I hope they go to jail some day as well. Maybe when they are in their twilight years.

    • Yeah, but we had a saying in the old country: ‘unlike many other things, you can never return a beating or a fscking’

      • Have you met any young people?

        Have you noticed how most of them have been raped in relation to housing, job opportunities and lifestyle? Who do you think did that?

        Johnny Howard was one of the first to stick his little pecker in…he was a little embarrassed by it, I think. His successors did it with greater and greater abandon and relish… until we get to this bloke, who is absolutely shameless about it.

      • bigpadaricoMEMBER

        Yes, I do know rather a lot of young people and I am young enough to have been ripped off by the baby boomers. I also know quite a few people who were raped as kids. It is not even remotely the same thing. Please don’t draw that equivalence.

      • Well, there is actually quite a difficult moral question involved in comparing the penetration (plain vanilla or otherwise) of a FEW children and the financial rogering of MILLIONS of children. I don’t purport to adjudicate that one. Amounts of suffering aren’t additive, nor do they lend themselves easily to ordinal arrangement (cardinal numbers might more easily be assigned. Cardinal Pell’s cardinal number (of rapes) seems to be 2….. haw haw haw.)

        From a culpability perspective, though, I deem that the financial rogering of millions should be punishable at least as heavily as the vanilla rogering of two.

        So there.

      • bigpadaricoMEMBER

        Yes, I understand the basics of welfare economics. I’m just asking you to please stop insulting rape survivors by calling something that isn’t rape, “rape”. And also to stop making jokes about rape.

      • Look. Despite what you might mean when you say or hear the word “rape”, the term has a broader meaning. See, for instance, here for a non-obscure example:

        So I maintain that the LibNat government, which Scomo is leading is brutally raping kids.

        If that offends your sensibilities for your personal reasons, I’m sorry. It offends my sensibilities too, but for different reasons.

      • bigpadaricoMEMBER

        Not a great example @peachy. It seems possible that the book’s title includes “rape” because it is about “more than 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers.. systematically raped, tortured, and murdered.” I doubt this is meant to be read as ‘subjected to neo-conservative economic policies’.

  3. Six years for buggering children has already made a farce of the legal system. The maggot should have got life.

    • Yep, now what about all the other cvnts? Surely this sets a precedence, so line ’em up, sentence them and they can all live out their worthless lives together thinking that their God will save them at the end.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        I rather think that the Courts decision is evidence that there may, after all, be a God, more probably a Goddess.

  4. Now to tax or confiscate the Catholic Church of Australia’s vast property portfolio to pay restitutions for the victims?

      • @bigpadaricio. There is such a thing as we laugh, so that we shall not cry. It was, I believe, Willy the Shake said that (although I paraphrase, due to ignorance of the precise original). I really don’t think there is a place here for your over-correct sermonising about use of humor and linguistic devices by others to find their way through issues. I personally don’t detect any instances of commenting in this thread which maliciously diminish the seriousness of the issues.

      • bigpadaricoMEMBER

        @Arthur. Please go out into the street and ask 10 random people if it is OK to joke about rape. Then ask 10 people if Scomo’s economic policies make him a rapist. I look forward to hearing your report.

      • @Big Pad.
        I expect that, if I phrased the question this way…
        Q1: Is there ever a time when a joke about rape can reveal a hidden truth about the human condition?
        Q2: If you think ScoMo’s policies hurt and disadvantage the young, can you understand how they might be rhetorically compared to a rape of those young?
        I would be prepared to gamble that the resulting opinions would go my way

      • bigpadaricoMEMBER

        @arthur I take your point, but that suggestion is a rather poor representation of the relevant context. Why don’t you just start a few conversations with: “So George Pell’s appeal got overturned. Well Bugger Me”. And then a few with “ScoMo is a child rapist who should be locked up”. Skip all the philosophising and justification and just road test what was actually said in the way it was said. See how that goes.

  5. I was leaning towards a rejection of the appeal, but I didn’t at all expect the lawyers’ subtlety of the 2-1 split.

    Pell’s public appropriation of the suffering of Jesus was just one more twist of the knife in the many thousands of victims. His protege Comensoli, who is no better, will be beating a constant path to the visiting rooms.

    Organised religion is still smarting from the SSM poll, and they have Bad Scotty’s full support, in targeting gays, trans, and abortion rights. If Scotty strips Pell of his gong, it will purely be for marketing reasons.

  6. Why are you reporting on this story?
    MacroBusiness is Australia’s leading business and investment blog. It’s [sic] mission is to bridge the gulf between the Australian business media and reality.

  7. Justice Weinberg’s consideration seems to be far more reasonable than the majority’s, with the evidence, on face value, appearing contested, improbable and flimsy at best. That said, the judges were able to view footage of the examination of the prosecution witness, which is not available to the rest of us, and adjudged him positively. Nonetheless a further appeal seems warranted on what I can make of the merits of the case.

    • Yeah, nah. You don’t get to appeal just because you think the judges got it wrong. That’s not how appeals work.

      • No. You don’t get to appeal just because you don’t agree with the decision or you don’t like it or you personally think the judge should have believed you but they didn’t , etc etc.

        You get to appeal if there was an error of process, or the rules of evidence weren’t followed, or if the judge erred in taking a certain factor into account, or the judge wrongly advised the jury, etc etc.

        Not just because you want a second opinion.

      • In reality, you get to appeal if you have the money.
        The money will pay a lawyer to find some grounds to appeal.
        Appeals are a way for the legal system to discriminate against the poor.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        It is possible to be given a heavier sentence on Appeal i. e. the Axe attacker who had her sentence increased on appeal earlier this week.
        I hope this happens to Pell if he wants another go.

      • robert2013MEMBER

        You appeal because in your opinion, or your lawyers, that the judge made an error of law. That IS how appeals work. It is never just because you disagree. It is because you have good reason to believe the law has been incorrectly applied. Pell’s lawyers had decent arguments and felt it was was worth setting them before a judge. Not just because they didn’t “like” the judgement.

  8. So what did the one judge see differently to the other two judges?

    If I were Pell’s team, I would see this as an opportunity. Take that one judge’s opinion and amplify it – straight to the High Court!

  9. paedophile, noun, a person who is sexually attracted to children.

    It is too kind to call George Pell a paedophile. I doubt very much that he has a sexual attraction to children. He is a rapist and targeted minors in his care. Short of repeated abuse, it is about as bad as it gets. It is hard to believe that this is the totality of the matter, and should anyone else come forward against him, or it be shown that he was complicit in hiding evidence relating to child abuse and rape within the institution, I doubt he’ll live a day outside gaol before he’s dead.

    • I first heard stories about George Pell raping young children( these brothers were 6 and 8 when it started), back in 1987.
      The circumstances of how the story was related to me leaves me in no doubt as to its veracity.
      I have since heard similar stories from other patients, from friends with assaulted family members, from friends with fellow school students who were assaulted.
      These children weren’t groomed. They were available, powerless( wards of the state often) and raped because it was a routine.
      I hope George Pell is let loose in an open prison unit..
      Prisoners do not like ‘rock spiders’- many of those assaulted children to time as they get older. They are damaged beyond belief.
      They will have to keep him in lockdown to keep him safe. He does not deserve safety.

  10. One of my mates is a barrister, and he thought Pell would get off based on what he knew of the case. He’s pretty sharp and knows his stuff, so this decision is a welcome surprise.

  11. If you have a go, you will get go. Even if that involves young choirboys. How good is Straya!

  12. It’s easy to hate on lawyers but here I’d like to pause for a minute and acknowledge the majesty of the law.

  13. I don’t know if he did it or not. Personally I think he should have jail just for his handling of reported abuse cases. But I still think conviction with the evidence presented is unsafe. Genuinely surprised he lost this appeal.

  14. So, the scumbag obviously has access to unlimited funds in order to appeal to the High Court.

    Morally, and in accordance with the standpoint of Jesus, I would think that this money should be going to the victims.
    The dirty cvnt has been proven to be telling lies and proven to be guilty of his crimes beyond reasonable doubt. Twice.

    The Catholic church is an absolute disgrace. It’s merely an organised protection racket for pedophiles.

    • I have renewed respect for Bolt. Raising yourself above the parapet and staring down the screaming mob for an unpopular figure in extremely distasteful circumstances earns credit in my book. Far easier to lower ones gaze and slowly walk away.

  15. Let this blog hold this statement from me for all time:
    “Bloody good job, now throw away the key”
    Guilty as charged, do the time.
    I’ll stop now, but what a bastard to hide behind religion. Disgusting.

    • interested partyMEMBER

      He’s not hiding it through religion. It ‘is’ his religion.
      They do not worship god, but the alter-ego. I am not religious…but can easily see what they are.