Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson has been found guilty of concealing child sex abuse during the 1970s in the NSW Hunter region.
Magistrate Robert Stone handed down the verdict in Newcastle Local Court on Tuesday following a magistrate-only trial.
The clergyman is the most senior Catholic official in the world to be charged and convicted of the offence. SBS News
It can only be a very minor penalty as it is a Magistrates court...but the cracks are starting to gape large. This Archbishop chose the Magistrate option as going to District Court opened up the possibility of substantial jail time. Magistrates are limited in the ability to sentence. With this pious crim convicted the gates are open to pursue them all...a mass exodus to the vatican? Interesting to see a chart of recent priestly movements to countries without extradition treaties....if anyone can get one...
Not been reported much in the mainstream media as seems to be the norm for recent high profile cases.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
His lawyers tried to claim that he wasn't fit to stand trial because of Alzheimer's, but apparently he's still fit to be the archbishop of a major city.
@ Algebe
Yes I read that and the other legal ploys they attempted, but that the Magistrate threw out. Interesting to see what the sentence will be and how soon he is whisked away to the Vatican,,,,
well documented vatican SOP - gather pedophiles from around the world, promote them, and turn them loose on the streets of Rome. I don't understand why the Romans aren't rioting.
Old Man
There are times I'm proud to be Newcastle born and bred - not to mention a current resident - and this is one of those times.
There are a lot of things I'd like to give Ms Julia Gillard a piece of my mind about, too, for good or ill- this is one of the goods. Is she hadn't ordered the Royal Commission Into Institutional Child Abuse, none of this would be happening.
Pell must be shaking in his shoes. If Australian law doesn't get him as a perpetrator, it's just shown more than willing to go him and his ilk as a enabler. And what happens in Newwy is a pretty good reflection of the rest of the country- that's why it's the test ground for so many things and has been for god knows how long. It's also why it WASN'T the test ground for the Indue's grubby little Cashless Welfare Card, I suspect.
Why does cashless welfare cards have to be grubby?
They sound perfectly reasonable and moral.
Off the top of my head because it would stigmatize people who were poorcthrough no fault of their own. It mightcalsi discorouge people in desperate need from seeking help, this has happened in the past.
It's important to protect the welfare system from abuse, but this must always be balanced against it's primary function as a safety net for those who need help.
Your problem is your using selection bias to focus on only one type of claimant and using the worst negative stereotype. It's simply wrong to assume that everyone can work their way out of poverty without help.
I haven't mentioned any bias, end user or stereotypes.
You are imagining things.
Do you identity any groups that might benefit from such a card?
@TermDog
Re: "Do you identity any groups that might benefit from such a card?"
Not from where I'm sitting in a country that employs the nasty fucking things in a HIGHLY discriminatory and stigmatising fashion, though it IS highly profitable for the private corporations who issue and monitor the cards- corporations with strong links to the governing Coalition, surprise! surprise!
There's nothing quite like crony capitalism, is there?
Who do you think would benefit from them and why, TermDog?
Regarding the "who", what hard statistics are you basing that conclusion on, and regarding the "why", is there anything else that would need to be done? Any programs that would need to be in place to ensure success? And are these programs actually in existence?
I think a likely target group would be intergenerational welfare recipients and possibly groups that have proven issues managing money and people that are are alcoholics or drug addicts. These groups could be tested for.
The cards in the trial may not be the answer but the groups mentioned as examples need to be financially managed so that their welfare is spent on welfare.
I see no moral problem that welfare money be spent on welfare and not booze, cigarettes, drugs or gambling while children go hungry.
I think most normal people would agree.
@TermDog
You've given me an opinion. I asked you for hard data - statistics- proving your conclusion, remember? Support your argument with evidence, please. What percentage of welfare recipients are alcoholics? What percentage are drug addicts? What is "intergenerational welfare", what are its causes? What percentage of welfare recipients are "intergenerational"? What percentage of welfare recipients "can't manage their money" and how much money are we talking about? What percentage of that money goes towards putting a roof over their family's head? What percentage goes towards other necessary costs of living? What percentage of welfare recipients are in paid employment?
Your pedantry to avoid any questions you see as a challenge to your ideology is tedious.
I posted questions and then offered some obvious target groups, none of which is a claim that needs to be supported by data.
If a welfare recipient spends their welfare money on drugs instead of food for their children then I think they should have their welfare money financially managed so it goes to welfare.
That does not require statistical evidence. Wouldn't matter if it was one person or a million the position would not change, do you even logic?
@TermDog
Re: " Your pedantry to avoid any questions..."
Asking for evidence to support a claim isn't pedantry, it's how intellectual debate is conducted. You made the claim that the Australian Cashless Welfare Card and drug testing welfare recipients was a good idea. I asked you to support that claim. You failed to do so and opted to repeat the claim instead.
Re: " ... you see as a challenge to your ideology is tedious."
"My ideology" says the man who spruiks right wing claims all over the shop with nary a fact or figure to support them. *rolls eyes*
Re: " I posted questions and then offered some obvious target groups, none of which is a claim that needs to be supported by data."
Wait. What?! You reserve the right to impose punitive restrictions on the lives of millions of people and you think you don't need data to support it? WTF? You can't be serious! Incidentally, your use of the term "target groups" reveals more about you than you realise.
I believe you described yourself as a libertarian somewhere in the forum, so let's look at the cost of cashless welfare and drug testing recipients, shall we? We must be saving millions!
* The cost of the Cashless Welfare Card trial in Australia was $18.9 million in May 2017, or about $10,000 per participant. By December 2017, it had blown out to $25 million- about $13,500 per participant. The welfare recipients receive $14,000 per annum, so we're blowing almost the same amount again to give it to them on a card instead of cash. What value for money!
'People are being compulsory included because there is an assumption that they engage in problematic behaviours, such as the over-consumption of alcohol, gambling, or the use of illegal drugs. But this is not the reality for most people.
Being put on the card has made people’s lives harder because limiting cash restricts people’s ability to undertake day-to-day activities to help their family’s wellbeing. This includes getting second-hand goods, paying for transport, and buying gifts.
This hardship is reflected in the final evaluation of the trial, in which 32% said their lives were worse since being on the card (only 23% said their lives were better).
Further, 48% of participants reported that the card does not help them look after their children better.'
So. The cashless welfare card is costing the public shitloads rather than saving money, while fucking up people's lives, bigtime. What a bargain!
Re: " If a welfare recipient spends their welfare money on drugs instead of food for their children then I think they should have their welfare money financially managed so it goes to welfare."
* Only two countries currently drug test welfare recipients:
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients in the US
The US drug testing only applies to a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
'TANF is mostly used by single-income families, and mostly single mothers, according to Victoria Palacio, a research assistant at the Centre for Law and Social Policy in Washington DC.
"The number of positive tests are so few that for some states it's in the 10s," Victoria told Hack.
My main criticism is it's spending money in an inefficient way. They could spend more money to serve more people."
TANF applicants are screened by different mechanisms - in some states a caseworker will ask questions, in others it's a 15-minute psychological questionnaire.
Even among the tiny minority of those who are judged to be potential drug users, very few test positive for drugs. This suggests that either the screening process is picking the wrong people to test, or that people on welfare don't do that many drugs.
The end result is the same - the state sets out to save money by stopping drug users accessing welfare, but spends thousands for every drug user it discovers.
According to recent research, the welfare drug testing programs across the 10 states cost almost a million dollars to uncover 321 positive tests.
North Carolina: 8,000 on welfare. 150 tested and 21 positive = 14 per cent hit rate
Mississippi: 12,000 on welfare. 175 tested and 10 positive = 6 per cent hit rate
Missouri: 31,000 on welfare. 293 tested and 38 positive = 13 per cent hit rate
There are similar rates in the other states. In Oklahoma, 1,328 were tested and 10 per cent (138) tested positive. The exercise cost US$230,000 - about US$1600 per person.
"They're not reducing the caseloads because so few people test positive," Victoria told Hack.
"Most of the time the states lose money because of these programs.
"They don't save money at all. They're extremely expensive."
Despite their high cost, welfare drug testing programs are popping up in new states across the US. The proponents argue they save money, identify and help people struggling with substance abuse, and ensure welfare money isn't subsidising an illegal act. But critics point out there's little evidence this is the best way to use resources, and the programs are really just there to appear 'tough on drugs'.
Victoria Palacio, the Washington DC drug policy researcher, says often the people who test positive don't get the promised follow-up treatment.
"The language around these programs is about helping people and reducing drug dependency - oftentimes that ends up not being the case," she said.
It definitely stigmatises the population."
Ross Bell, executive director of the NZ Drug Foundation, has a similar theory.
"These kinds of policies play into those incorrect stereotypes about the kinds of people who are receiving government welfare," he said.
"It's cynical politics."
New Zealand's Drug Testing Program
The NZ government doesn't do any drug testing - it simply subsidises the pre-employment drug testing done by employers. Only companies in certain industries (such as fisheries, horticulture, transport and forestry) have to test for drugs. If you fail a couple of tests within 30 days, the government starts cutting your benefit, because you're judged not 'work-ready'.
But if you tell the government you're going to fail the test and you have a drug problem, you can be referred to professional help and your benefit won't be cut.
"It's very different to the model being proposed in Australia," Ross Bell said.
Is NZ's working?
As in the US, the NZ trial has had trouble finding the 'drug welfare cheats'.
From mid 2014 to the end of 2016, about 112,000 people were drug tested, and 531 tested positive - a hit rate of less than 0.5 per cent.
"I don't think that's a sign of success," Ross said.'
Well, strike me pink and call me lucky! Drug testing costs the public money rather than saving it, too! What a shock! And the numbers of drug welfare cheats are so fucking small we can't even justify them that way! Wow! The overwhelming majority of welfare recipients aren't drug addicts after all! Who'd a thunk it?
Re: "Wouldn't matter if it was one person or a million the position would not change, do you even logic?"
Ah fuck it! You can lead a right winger to info, but you can't make him think!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/02/cashless-welfare-...
https://theconversation.com/as-costs-mount-the-government-should-abandon...
http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/cashless-debit-card-t...
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/which-countries-do-welfare-d...
@ Sushi
"Oh no, logic! Data! Percentages..what shall I do? ?..Oh I know *clicks on TV*" thank god for fox and murdochrity news". As a right wing corrupter of public finance I say we continue the bribes to our corporate donors and useless tests that generate millions for our Pharma donors. There I feel so much better now. "
Away with your figures, I have my generalisations!
@ Terminal Dogma
Do you identity any groups that might benefit from such a card?
Yep, Liberal/ National (conservative) party donors that run (without public tender) contracted government financial services like err, hold on...oh, wait...Cashless Welfare cards...now there's a thing....they benefit by some millions....The name of the company is Indue and it is a major conservative (Liberal Party ) donor....as it is owned more or less by the party.
Apparentty we do not need a a Federal Corruption Commission it was announced today by...oh yes...the Lieberal Party...
"I haven't mentioned any bias, end user or stereotypes."
Why would you mention your own bias? You have stereotyped people on welfare in pejorative terms many times?
"Do you identity any groups that might benefit from such a card?"
No. I already said such a card would stigmatise people unnecessarily just because they were poor and needed help.