Tony Abott - Friend to Pedophiles

[a_unique_person]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...208-2e2zn.html

Quote:

A prominent lawyer says the case of a Catholic priest cleared of a child abuse charge but later defrocked by the Vatican should be referred to the upcoming royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse.

Prominent Sydney lawyer Chris Murphy said the case of Father John Gerard Nestor, who attended Sydney's St Patrick's Seminary with now Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in the 1980s, was an ideal subject for the royal commission which is yet to start taking its first evidence.

"It's absolutely what the Royal Commission was meant for," Mr Murphy told AAP on Friday.

Mr Nestor was a priest in the Wollongong diocese in NSW in 1991 when he was charged with the indecent assault of a 15-year-old altar boy.

Mr Abbott, who in 1997 was a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government, later provided a character reference in court for Mr Nestor, describing him as a "a beacon of humanity".

While a Wollongong magistrate found then Father Nestor guilty and sentenced him to jail, he won an appeal against the conviction in October 1997.

Lets see how the Murdoch Press investigates all the aspects of this in detail.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...208-2e2zn.html



Lets see how the Murdoch Press investigates all the aspects of this in detail.

I suspect by examining the fundaments of a gaggle of young lads. It's clearly the churchly thing to do - and again - and again - until they get it right. Up....

[a_unique_person]

Abbott is now swinging like a piece of rancid, flyblown rotting meat in the heat of a 40C day, coated in a windblown festering chancer of dusty, dried blood and a stench to make you retch at 20 metres.

[lionking]

Very interesting. Gillard haters are quick to point to 25 year old, substance-free incidents when she was a lawyer, and claim it's evidence of her unsuitability for office. Countdown to "but this means nothing" comments from Abbott huggers.

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm curious, but wasn't this priest found not guilty on appeal?
And why exactly was he defrocked? It seems we don't quite know.

A nice lot of speculation here but this seems seriously weak.

[lionking]

Yup, rationalisations commence.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

I'm curious, but wasn't this priest found not guilty on appeal?
And why exactly was he defrocked? It seems we don't quite know.

A nice lot of speculation here but this seems seriously weak.

Given the huge resources available to the Murdoch press to hunt down politicians, I expect we will get the full story in no time at all.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Given the huge resources available to the Murdoch press to hunt down politicians, I expect we will get the full story in no time at all.

The ABC and Fairfax and out of business are they?

If the priest is guilty then hopefully he is punished.
And if (and it's a very big if) Abbott is in any way implicated let's hope the truth will find its way out. Right now it simply looks like he wrote a reference on a person based on his knowledge of that person at the time.

Frankly, this makes Labor and their supporters seem just plain desperate. Sad really.

[a_unique_person]

He may not be guilty, since he only admitted to lying down with the boys with only his underwear on. I mean, normal people do that all the time with young boys, don't they. I am sure there is an entirely innocent explanation, and I am sure Abbott believed it.

[lionking]

Like you, a_u_p, I look forward to the same sort of journalistic investigation Gillard was subjected to.

[Hallo Alfie]

Labor is seriously desperate and sad if this is the best they can do.

I ask again, has the ABC and Fairfax so run out of money they can't follow these sort of allegation up themselves? The ABC news dept just picked up a lazy $10mil increase in their budget - they should have plenty (sadly though, it helps seal Fairfax's doom).

[a_unique_person]

I know, the pedophile priests are a sad sight, I can't feel sorry for them, though.

[lionking]

Abbott's radical Catholicism will catch up with him before the election.

[Hallo Alfie]

LOL. Yes, as it shows in the polls and the betting. He must be terrified of the anti catholic bigot vote.

Anyway, this might turn into a conversation when something of substance turns up - which will be never, I predict.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

LOL. Yes, as it shows in the polls and the betting. He must be terrified of the anti catholic bigot vote.

Anyway, this might turn into a conversation when something of substance turns up - which will be never, I predict.

All the substance you need is already there. As for the anti-catholic bigot vote, I'm an ex Catholic. The pedophile issue sickens me. We had one at our own church molesting altar boys when I was one. Fortunately, he didn't pick me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

The ABC and Fairfax and out of business are they?

If the priest is guilty then hopefully he is punished.

Well, Abbott is the go to guy if you want to get off sexual assault charges. Just buy the best silk, then line up plenty of mates who will lie to help get you off.

[Hallo Alfie]

The Labor party actually has (alleged) paedophiles in their ranks. Have you heard of Bernard Finnigan? He is still being paid as far as I know.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

The Labor party actually has (alleged) paedophiles in their ranks. Have you heard of Bernard Finnigan? He is still being paid as far as I know.

Well that's "alleged", so he's not in the proven club with Milton Orkopoulos, Keith Wright, Bill D'Arcy - yet.

[Hallo Alfie]

Indeed.
And what do all four of them have in common alongside their rockspiderism? That's right! They were/are all Labor politicians.

I wonder if they have Gillard's support?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Indeed.
And what do all four of them have in common alongside their rockspiderism? That's right! They were/are all Labor politicians.

I wonder if they have Gillard's support?

A rhetorical question that is about as pointless as a rhetorical question can be. Smear someone when you already know that answer is "no".


Finnegan - suspended, awaiting trial.
Milton Orkopoulos - expelled.
Keith Wright - disendorsed, expelled.
Bill D'Arcy - no longer a member of the Labor Party.

I can use Google, why can't you.

All were Labor politicians. Abbott? Currently leader of the Liberal Party.

[Hallo Alfie]

One huge difference here; Abbott is not a paedophile.

btw, how does what you said (re expelled etc) differ from what I wrote (were/are)?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

One huge difference here; Abbott is not a paedophile.

Perhaps you need to reread the topic. Abbott defended a pedophile in court, giving character evidence for him, while a minister.

Quote:

btw, how does what you said (re expelled etc) differ from what I wrote (were/are)?

None "are".

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Perhaps you need to reread the topic. Abbott defended a pedophile in court, giving character evidence for him, while a minister.

Except you were comparing proven Labor paedophiles with Tony Abbott.

The only thing Abbott did was write a reference on a man based on his knowledge of that man at the time. Have you any evidence Abbott knew he was a paedophile when he wrote that reference? If you do then you have some truly scandalous material and Abbott is in it deep. If not it is just another desperate Labor stunt.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Except you were comparing proven Labor paedophiles with Tony Abbott.

I was talking about Abbott, you brought up the issue of ex members of the ALP who were members. They aren't "Labor" Pedophiles, they were not members or were suspended awaiting trial. None are members of the Labor Party any more.

Tony Abbot is.

Quote:

The only thing Abbott did was write a reference on a man based on his knowledge of that man at the time. Have you any evidence Abbott knew he was a paedophile when he wrote that reference? If you do then you have some truly scandalous material and Abbott is in it deep.

He was charged. When Labor members were charged, no one defended them or gave them character references. They were suspended.

Quote:

If not it is just another desperate Labor stunt.

What part did the ALP play in this?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They aren't "Labor" Pedophiles,

Sure they are.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

they were not members

Yes, they were.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

or were suspended awaiting trial.

Suspended from their Labor membership?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

None are members of the Labor Party any more.

I would hope not.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Tony Abbot is.

Is what? He is not a paedophile. As far as I am aware, Labor is the only party with convicted paedophiles formerly and/or currently among their number.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

He was charged.

Abbott has been charged with nothing.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

When Labor members were charged, no one defended them or gave them character references. They were suspended.

Unlike the Labor politicians this man was cleared on appeal was he not? Is he guilty of a crime which ones exactly? Why would Abbott (or anyone else for that matter) be worried about writing a reference for an innocent man?

[lionking]

Innocent? Where are the laughing dogs......

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Sure they are.



Yes, they were.



Suspended from their Labor membership?



I would hope not.



Is what? He is not a paedophile. As far as I am aware, Labor is the only party with convicted paedophiles formerly and/or currently among their number.



Abbott has been charged with nothing.



Unlike the Labor politicians this man was cleared on appeal was he not? Is he guilty of a crime which ones exactly? Why would Abbott (or anyone else for that matter) be worried about writing a reference for an innocent man?

The Gish Gallop pissing contest. Enjoy yourself, Alfie.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Former Wollongong bishop and now Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson told AAP he was adamant there had been sufficient information for Mr Nestor to be removed from the ministry.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...skin=text-only

Nestor was convicted, I would love to know the appeal got him off. If even a Catholic Bishop thinks he was guilty, when there were serial abusers repeatedly let off by the Catholic Church, there must be something to the case. This will be referred to the Royal Commission, and Abbott is going to have to come up with a reason why he helped free a convicted pedophile.

Quote:

Mr Abbott, who in 1997 was a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government, later provided a character reference in court for Mr Nestor, describing him as a "a beacon of humanity".

A pedophile a 'beacon of humanity'. That would be about Abbott's view of the world, his Church and God are more important than 15 year old altar boys.

[Hallo Alfie]

What has this man been proven guilty of?

As I said earlier, from what I see, all that Abbott is guilty of is writing a reference for a man who was once cleared in a court of law against charges made against him.

Appalling!

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by lionking

Innocent? Where are the laughing dogs......

Just curious, what is he guilty of? How is he not innocent given he was cleared in a court of law? Or is his sin simply to be a former catholic priest?

At this point all there is is speculation and innuendo. Damning!

Good job at critical thinking by those who would try and stir this up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

What has this man been proven guilty of?

As I said earlier, from what I see, all that Abbott is guilty of is writing a reference for a man who was once cleared in a court of law against charges made against him.

Appalling!

If you believe someone who admitted to being on the floor with altar boys in his underwear was innocent. There is no argument about that.

The church has expelled him, because this is not all he has been up to. The Royal Commission should be having a good look into this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Just curious, what is he guilty of? How is he not innocent given he was cleared in a court of law? Or is his sin simply to be a former catholic priest?

He is a former Catholic Priest because he was expelled, not because of it was his choice. They have a lot more material on him than that.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

He is a former Catholic Priest because he was expelled, not because of it was his choice. They have a lot more material on him than that.

I'm not sure I understand.
He was cleared in a court of law of the charges. Right?

Was it because of those charges he was defrocked? If so, do we know this or is it mere speculation? Perhaps he was expelled for another wrongdoing - maybe he refused to kiss the Pope's ring.

[Hungry81]

I'm not an Abbot fan any more than I am a Gillard fan,but this thread could be titled labour scandalous history recruiting paedophiles and it would have the same rediculous sensationalist undertones that the current one does.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hungry81

I'm not an Abbot fan any more than I am a Gillard fan,but this thread could be titled labour scandalous history recruiting paedophiles and it would have the same rediculous sensationalist undertones that the current one does.

I deliberately included a "I hate Gillard syle rant" in there, just because that's the state of political debate in this country at the moment.

[Hallo Alfie]

Perhaps you could answer my post above AUP.

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

I'm not sure I understand.
He was cleared in a court of law of the charges. Right?

Was it because of those charges he was defrocked? If so, do we know this or is it mere speculation? Perhaps he was expelled for another wrongdoing - maybe he refused to kiss the Pope's ring.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Perhaps you could answer my post above AUP.

Gillard has been condemned non-stop when she has not been charged with anything. This pedophile priest was charged. One of his mates (Abbott) warrants censure for doing his very best to prevent his conviction.

If Gillard can be condemned for unproven and undocumented associations, Abbott can for proven and documented ones.

[Hallo Alfie]

In other words this priest is guilty of nothing and Abbott wrote a reference for a man guilty of same, i.e. NOTHING.
(I note also my valid questions remain unanswered)

If this is the best the Laborites can come up with it is no wonder they are in such trouble. It makes Abbott look even better and smacks of abject desperation. Just sad really.

End thread.

[lionking]

Nope.

Catholics are pretty good at defending pedophies. Abbott is just toeing the company line. Disgusting.

[Hallo Alfie]

Let me know when either the priest or Abbott are actually guilty of anything.