Ongoing religious scandals

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Personal testimony is evidence - the best kind, in fact. But it's generally desirable to have evidence from one than one witness, and corroborative evidence froms secondary sources of at least some of the prosecution case. All this was lacking here.

From my understanding there was also written testimony from the second abuse victim who has since died of a heroin overdose. So not a witness that can be cross examined, but evidence from a second source nonetheless.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

Penetrative sex where the child did not willingly take part at that. So it seems as Pell's lawyer has tacitly admitted to rape of a minor there, as opposed to statutory rape. Pretty bizarre, all things considered.

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

It was a plea of mitigation at the sentencing stage, where his client's guilt is taken as read i.e. the defence stops arguing he didn't do it, but that he's not a bad guy really and the things he did weren't so bad ...

4068ac1elhodqr

"no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case"

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0228/1033432-george-pell-robert-richter/

The only time can imagine using the phrase 'plain vanilla' is when ordering an ice-cream,
you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

recedite

I believe the term refers to harmless brown envelopes.
Mind you, "brown envelope sexual penetration" doesn't sound much better.
I'll leave it to the lawyers.

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

No doubt they could, but they didn't appoint Robert Richter and would probably suggest they had no part in funding Pell's defense.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I agree.
And even though you evaded saying whether you think Pell did it or not... in fairness I wouldn't try to call it either.

I didn't mean to evade anything. As Teresa May would say, let me be clear:

- I think Pell did it.

- I have explained why I think Pell did it - mainly, that I am relying on information from, and judgments made by, other people.

- I think my reliance on these things is rational and justified in a way that rejecting or dismissing them would not be.

- I acknowledge that I could nevertheless be wrong in thinking that Pell did it.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

No. This is a bit technical. The position is:

1. Pell has been convicted. He now has to be sentenced. Before he is sentenced, he is entitled to make submissions about what sentence is appropriate.

2. Pell maintains his innocence, and will appeal.

3. The problem is that the sentencing phase happens before the appeal phase. And this presents Pell with a dilemma. The sentencing will alway proceed on the basis that the conviction is correct. (Because the conviction stands unless and until its reversed on appeal; the sentencing judge must treat the jury's verdict as correct. It is irrelevant that Pell is appealing it.) If a convict simply asserts his innocence in the sentencing phase, that is to his disadvantage, since it indicates that he is unrepentant, in denial, hasn't faced up to his offending, etc., all of which are factors that would tend to increase the sentence. Plus, it might prevent him from raising other points that might be relevant to sentencing (I was affected by mental illness, I was seduced, I believed him to be over 16, whatever.)

4. Convicts need to be able to maintain their innocence, and to appeal their convictions, and it would be unfair and oppressive to punish them for doing so.

5. So the convention has been established that at the sentencing phase you can start out by saying "My client maintains his innocence and will be appealing on that basis. But, noting that and putting it to one side, I have submissions to make on what would be the appropriate sentence for this crime if, in fact, the conviction were correct. In making those submissions I do not concede that the conviction is correct, but that's a question for another court on another day." And you then go ahead and make your submissions on a basis that presumes the correctness of they jury's verdict. And it's accepted that, in doing so, you're not conceding the correctness of the verdict.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

From my understanding there was also written testimony from the second abuse victim who has since died of a heroin overdose. So not a witness that can be cross examined, but evidence from a second source nonetheless.

I may be mistaken about this, but there was evidence that the second victim, when asked, denied that the abuse ever took place.

If that's so then, yes, there was hearsay evidence from the second victim, but it wasn't evidence which supported the prosecution case.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I may be mistaken about this, but there was evidence that the second victim, when asked, denied that the abuse ever took place.

If that's so then, yes, there was hearsay evidence from the second victim, but it wasn't evidence which supported the prosecution case.

Seems right, searching around, I haven't seen any direct evidence from the second victim, though there was a lengthy article in the Guardian on it yesterday and it is also apparently the subject of a now award winning book.

Also an interesting article on a possible retrial in the conversation here. Like yourself, I'd tend to go with the jury on this one and would wonder what a retrial could achieve? Cynically, I'd expect it to take place and be a political football, i.e. with the legal system on one side keen to uphold the verdict and use a retrial to illustrate that they got it right in the first instance, and the church faithful on the other trying to clean a rather unpleasant stain on their character. I suspect if Pell got a retry and was acquitted it would potentially do far more damage to the church than if a retrial never happened.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Seems right, searching around, I haven't seen any direct evidence from the second victim, though there was a lengthy article in the Guardian on it yesterday and it is also apparently the subject of a now award winning book.

Also an interesting article on a possible retrial in the conversation here. Like yourself, I'd tend to go with the jury on this one and would wonder what a retrial could achieve? Cynically, I'd expect it to take place and be a political football, i.e. with the legal system on one side keen to uphold the verdict and use a retrial to illustrate that they got it right in the first instance, and the church faithful on the other trying to clean a rather unpleasant stain on their character. I suspect if Pell got a retry and was acquitted it would potentially do far more damage to the church than if a retrial never happened.

As far as I can see, the main ground for appeal is going to be "the prosecution's case was simply not strong enough". If the appeal succeeds on that ground, the charges will be dismissed; there will be no retrial. The prosecution doesn't get to try again and again until they get it right.

However, if the appeal succeeds on other grounds - defence evidence was wrongly excluded, the judge misdirected the jury, etc - then the conviction is reversed, Pell is released on bail and the prosecution can run another trial to see if, in a properly-run trial withouth whatever error has been identified, Pell can be convicted.

But they might well choose not to run another trial, and simply to drop the charges. They've already run two trials on these charges; to have a third trial on the same set of charges would be most unusual. And they only succeeded in this trial by the skin of their teeth; in another trial, with some error prejudicing the defence corrected, presumably it would a bit more difficult to get a conviction, and that might tip the balance to acquittal. And, of course, the supression orders having been lifted and the coverage of both these charges and the swimming pool charges having been extensive and somewhat sensational, there'd be an issue about whether Pell could now get a fair trial. If the prosecution did opt to go again, his legal team's first move would be a court application for a ruling that a fair trial was not going to be possible.

So all those factors militate against him being tried again.

As against that, there'd be strong political and public interest arguments for saying that he should be tried again, if only because a final resolution of such charges is highly desirable and because, y'know, this isn't just an isolated case; it's a senior church figure accused of child sex offences at a time when institutional church complicity in, or at least studied inadvertance of, child sex offences is a matter of major public concern.

All in all, I think the odds are against him succeeding in a appeal but, if he does succeed, I think the odds are against him facing a third trial. But I wouldn't be staking large amounts of money on either of those predictions.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. This is a bit technical. The position is:

1. Pell has been convicted. He now has to be sentenced. Before he is sentenced, he is entitled to make submissions about what sentence is appropriate.

2. Pell maintains his innocence, and will appeal.

3. The problem is that the sentencing phase happens before the appeal phase. And this presents Pell with a dilemma. The sentencing will alway proceed on the basis that the conviction is correct. (Because the conviction stands unless and until its reversed on appeal; the sentencing judge must treat the jury's verdict as correct. It is irrelevant that Pell is appealing it.) If a convict simply asserts his innocence in the sentencing phase, that is to his disadvantage, since it indicates that he is unrepentant, in denial, hasn't faced up to his offending, etc., all of which are factors that would tend to increase the sentence. Plus, it might prevent him from raising other points that might be relevant to sentencing (I was affected by mental illness, I was seduced, I believed him to be over 16, whatever.)

4. Convicts need to be able to maintain their innocence, and to appeal their convictions, and it would be unfair and oppressive to punish them for doing so.

5. So the convention has been established that at the sentencing phase you can start out by saying "My client maintains his innocence and will be appealing on that basis. But, noting that and putting it to one side, I have submissions to make on what would be the appropriate sentence for this crime if, in fact, the conviction were correct. In making those submissions I do not concede that the conviction is correct, but that's a question for another court on another day." And you then go ahead and make your submissions on a basis that presumes the correctness of they jury's verdict. And it's accepted that, in doing so, you're not conceding the correctness of the verdict.

Thank you for the excellent explanation

SaifUllah

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

The only time can imagine using the phrase 'plain vanilla' is when ordering an ice-cream,
you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

There will be never ending scandals with the catholic church - a disgusting organisation through and through.
They should be just banned from society

4068ac1elhodqr

SaifUllah wrote: »

There will be never ending scandals with the catholic church - a disgusting organisation through and through.
They should be just banned from society

Kinda, but you can say the same for many other cults, from the Scouts to Scientology, Masons and so on. Many religions are much worse (FGM isn't exactly pretty, nor wholesome is it now).

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

It needs more than a couple of band-aids at this stage. It needs a full detailed exposed examination, clean outs, and constant monitoring if it is ever to recover.

Hotblack Desiato

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Kinda, but you can say the same for many other cults, from the Scouts to Scientology, Masons and so on. Many religions are much worse (FGM isn't exactly pretty, nor wholesome is it now).

I don't know of any religion which mandates female genital mutilation, but I know of two major ones which mandate male genital mutilation...

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

Oh yeah, blame it all on communists or Satan :rolleyes:

Or maybe, just maybe, some people are nasty bastards and see that joining an organisation which had practically unlimited power and placed the protection of the organisation above literally everything else, would be a really good move if they wanted to have access to loads of kids to abuse with impunity.

Meanwhile, many other nasty bastards put the progression of their career and 'avoiding scandal' as their priority and were prepared to overlook and/or cover up the abuse of children to further their own ends.

It needs more than a couple of band-aids at this stage. It needs a full detailed exposed examination, clean outs, and constant monitoring if it is ever to recover.

All of the current hierarchy are tainted, right up to Francis. They knew bad things were happening and at best said nothing, at worst covered up or took part themselves. They are all complicit. Any person of morals and integrity would have left long ago.

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

Recent decades? Maybe read up a bit on the crusades, the massacre of the Cathars (i.e. Catholics slaughtering other Christians for minor differences in beliefs), the inquisition etc.... Abuse of power by the RCC has been going on for rather more than a couple of decades, some would suggest since its inception. Catholicism has a long history of violently suppressing any would be competition.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't know of any religion which mandates female genital mutilation, but I know of two major ones which mandate male genital mutilation...

Only know of one other, again also an un-natural and unpleasent activity.

'Mandate' is a bit strong, encouragement and expectancy however is realistic. Just take a look at the uk, hundreds of thousands of cases.

Also circumcision whilst unfotunate, can hardly be held in the same regard, or classification of severity as 'mutilation' of the female genitals can it? It rarely results in severe mental trauma or physical hospitalisation for a start.

FGM is outlawed* in Ireland, yet it happens. Alot.
(*Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All of the current hierarchy are tainted, right up to Francis.

Are you saying every single person in the RCC, so generalise much?
Surely there must be at least one or two good souls out there.

Tacklebox

smacl wrote: »

Recent decades? Maybe read up a bit on the crusades, the massacre of the Cathars (i.e. Catholics slaughtering other Christians for minor differences in beliefs), the inquisition etc.... Abuse of power by the RCC has been going on for rather more than a couple of decades, some would suggest since its inception. Catholicism has a long history of violently suppressing any would be competition.

Paganism is on the rise in some areas.
They practically wiped out paganism, supposedly we were snakes.

I recon they had something to do with all that ancient literature which was mysteriously burnt in some building years ago.

Supposedly there was records of the past which we'll never know about, all gone up in flames.

Hotblack Desiato

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Only know of one other, again also an un-natural and unpleasent activity.

Islam and Judaism, you should know that.

Also circumcision whilst unfotunate, can hardly be held in the same regard, or classification of severity as 'mutilation' of the female genitals can it? It rarely results in severe mental trauma or physical hospitalisation for a start.

It's still loss of sensile tissue without consent and diminishes sexual pleasure.
In rare cases it leads to loss of the penis. In not quite as rare cases, a herpetic mohel has caused life-threatening infection. There is no justification for it save a book of fairytales from thousands of years ago. It is barbaric to cut any part of a child off without medical necessity.

Are you saying every single person in the RCC, so generalise much?
Surely there must be at least one or two good souls out there.

If I wanted to say "every single person in the RCC" then that is what I would have written.
I wrote "hierarchy" i.e. from bishops upwards.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I wrote "hierarchy" i.e. from bishops upwards.
Are the congregation not part of the church?

Fine, all Biships and upwards, a ban though isn't that a bit dramatic, certainly they all need to go under a lie detection machine, that would be more practical.

Worringly, you still seem to be holding circumcision (while unpleasent) in the same ballpark as FGM.

One's illegal for a start, and truely horrendous, the other I agree just stupid, but hardly evokes PTSD.

The worrying thing about FGM is that it's illegal in Ireland, but it still occurs and no ones ever been charged for it afaik, even after presenting at A&E.

Take a look at England, back in 2016 - more than 9,000 attendances to the NHS involved the identification or treatment of female genital mutilation. There are other regional/localised reports of the doubling of cases 17-18.

So the RCC has issues, clearly. But so too have many if not all cults, equal or worse.

Hotblack Desiato

Ban??

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

The worrying thing about FGM is that it's illegal in Ireland, but it still occurs and no ones ever been charged for it afaik, even after presenting at A&E.

Not so, from 2017 - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/couple-in-court-charged-with-female-genital-mutilation-1.3335361 I agree that FGM is a brutal crime and should be treated as such. The links to FGM and religion are somewhat tenuous and it pre-dates Islam in the countries where it is practiced. From Wikipedia;

Surveys have shown a widespread belief, particularly in Mali, Mauritania, Guinea and Egypt, that FGM is a religious requirement. Gruenbaum has argued that practitioners may not distinguish between religion, tradition and chastity, making it difficult to interpret the data. FGM's origins in northeastern Africa are pre-Islamic, but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion. There is no mention of it in the Quran. It is praised in a few daʻīf (weak) hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, although it is regarded as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam. In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions".

There is no mention of FGM in the Bible. Christian missionaries in Africa were among the first to object to FGM, but Christian communities in Africa do practise it. A 2013 UNICEF report identified 17 African countries in which at least 10 percent of Christian women and girls aged 15 to 49 had undergone FGM; in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts. The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia. Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM. FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Not so, from 2017 - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/couple-in-court-charged-with-female-genital-mutilation-1.3335361 I agree that FGM is a brutal crime and should be treated as such. The links to FGM and religion are somewhat tenuous and it pre-dates Islam in the countries where it is practiced. From Wikipedia;Surveys have shown a widespread belief, particularly in Mali, Mauritania, Guinea and Egypt, that FGM is a religious requirement. Gruenbaum has argued that practitioners may not distinguish between religion, tradition and chastity, making it difficult to interpret the data. FGM's origins in northeastern Africa are pre-Islamic, but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion. There is no mention of it in the Quran.It is praised in a few daʻīf (weak) hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, although it is regarded as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam. In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions".
There is no mention of FGM in the Bible. Christian missionaries in Africa were among the first to object to FGM, but Christian communities in Africa do practise it. A 2013 UNICEF report identified 17 African countries in which at least 10 percent of Christian women and girls aged 15 to 49 had undergone FGM; in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts. The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia. Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM. FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali.

3 key things from the link; African country, Koran, Asylum seeker.
No need for all the rest of the esoteric bullcrap.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

3 key things from the link; African country, Koran, Asylum seeker.
No need for all the rest of the esoteric bullcrap.

Other than your ongoing antipathy towards asylum seekers and Muslims, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

recedite

Well, one interesting aspect of that case is that there is no mention of a custodial sentence, and moreover, instead of being deported, they were told NOT to leave the country.

I think we can say their application for asylum can now be considered successfully proven.


The message goes out to the billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa etc... "Come to our country with your backward religion and your barbaric practices. We'll be so appalled that we will tell you to stay."

12.Even when the parents have been in the country of asylum for some time, a well-founded fear on behalf of the child or because of the parent’s own opposition to FGM can arise upon the birth of a daughter post-flight. The fact that the applicant did not demonstrate this conviction or opinion in the country of origin, nor act upon it, does not itself mean that a fear of persecution is unfounded, as the issue would not necessarily have arisen until then. The birth of a daughter may, in these circumstances, give rise to a sur place claim.37 If it is held that the opposition or fear of FGM is a mere artifice for the purpose of creating grounds for asserting a fear of persecution,a stringent evaluation of the well-foundedness of the fear is warranted. In the event that the claim is found to be self-serving, but the claimant nonetheless has a well-founded fear of persecution, international protection is required.

Them's the rules.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

The message goes out to the billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa etc... "Come to our country with your backward religion and your barbaric practices. We'll be so appalled that we will tell you to stay."

I didn't realise billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa took the Irish Times, I daresay the editor will be chuffed. :rolleyes:

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Well, one (.............)d that we will tell you to stay."


Them's the rules.

You can really feel the hate and fear in that kind of post.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I didn't realise billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa took the Irish Times, I daresay the editor will be chuffed. :rolleyes:

There is really no need for you to use the sarcasm emoji; your favourite posting style is well known by now.
Internet, NGO advisors and migrant advice websites.

Smartphones. These are ubiquitous nowadays, even in Africa.

Especially in Africa actually, because they rarely have landlines available.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

You can really feel the hate and fear in that kind of post.

You must have your face very close to the screen.
Any response to the actual substance of the post?

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

You must have your face very close to the screen.
Any response to the actual substance of the post?

.........to the fear, hate, stereotyping and so on? It's fairly contemptible.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

There is really no need for you to use the sarcasm emoji; your favourite posting style is well known by now.
Internet, NGO advisors and migrant advice websites.

Smartphones. These are ubiquitous nowadays, even in Africa.

Especially in Africa actually, because they rarely have landlines available.

Not really though. According to the latest Pew report Majorities in sub-Saharan Africa own mobile phones, but smartphone adoption is modest. Your "billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents" don't rank among them by and large as smart phone ownership in Africa among the poorer and less well educated parts of the population is considerably lower. You may also want to revisit your notion of billions there, given the total population of Africa currently stands at 1.3 billion, with 173 million smart phone users across all of Africa and the Middle East. Hardly ubiquitous by any stretch of the imagination.

In terms of being critical of posting styles can I suggest you do some sanity checks on the veracity of your own posts prior to hitting the submit button because even a cursory check shows the content to be way off the mark. While I understand the sentiment of never letting the truth interfere with a good story, I'd suggest you've got the wrong audience for that approach here.

4068ac1elhodqr

smacl wrote: »

Not really though. According to the latest Pew report Majorities in sub-Saharan Africa own mobile phones, but smartphone adoption is modest. Your "billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents" don't rank among them by and large as smart phone ownership in Africa among the poorer and less well educated parts of the population is considerably lower. You may also want to revisit your notion of billions there, given the total population of Africa currently stands at 1.3 billion, with 173 million smart phone users across all of Africa and the Middle East. Hardly ubiquitous by any stretch of the imagination.

Not to worry Pew also reports that many could be on their way to Europe.

The correct figure estimate is for 500m (just in Sub-Saharan Africa) to have mobiles by 2020. Irrelevant anyway, and off topic.

But worth noting there does seem to be a theme wherby some people here are 1st in to critise the RCC (as they should do where it's due), but have zero comment on any other worldy religion.

Indeed they get defensive with the very mention of FGM, hmm, why is that an agenda of sorts?

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Not to worry Pew also reports that many could be on their way to Europe.

The correct figure estimate is for 500m (just in Sub-Saharan Africa) to have mobiles by 2020. Irrelevant anyway, and off topic.

Mobile phones and smart phones aren't the same when it comes to consuming media. From memory, and I'd need to dig out a reference, the largest part of mobile phone usage in poorer countries is texting as this is currently the cheapest way to communicate.

But worth noting there does seem to be a theme wherby some people here are 1st in to critise the RCC (as they should do where it's due), but have zero comment on any other worldy religion.

Indeed they get defensive with the very mention of FGM, hmm, why is that an agenda of sorts?

If you're referring to me, perhaps you could point out where I've been defensive at the mention of FGM. FWIW I've also been plenty critical of Islam on this forum but also happen to think that Tommy Robinson and his ilk are a bunch of bigoted tossers. If you're not referring to me above, reply to the poster you are referring to.

Odhinn

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Not to worry Pew also reports that many could be on their way to Europe.

The correct figure estimate is for 500m (just in Sub-Saharan Africa) to have mobiles by 2020. Irrelevant anyway, and off topic.

But worth noting there does seem to be a theme wherby some people here are 1st in to critise the RCC (as they should do where it's due), but have zero comment on any other worldy religion.

Indeed they get defensive with the very mention of FGM, hmm, why is that an agenda of sorts?

Who, exactly?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I suggest you do some sanity checks on the veracity of your own posts prior to hitting the submit button because even a cursory check shows the content to be way off the mark. While I understand the sentiment of never letting the truth interfere with a good story, I'd suggest you've got the wrong audience for that approach here.

You might want to check your own posts, and some of the dodgy statistics you keep throwing at us. Your source gives no details, and it does not seem to differentiate between registered owners and users. Yes, people in sub-sahara Africa tend to use texts and mobile internet more than voice calls. That's to save money.

And they also tend to share phones between multiple users, or between a whole family. So one owner could easily represent 3 users.

Sub-Saharan Africa's smartphone penetration stands at 33%, significantly higher than the 15% recorded in 2014, and market analysts predict this will double by 2025.

http://www.itwebafrica.com/mobilex/320-south-africa/244990-sub-saharan-africas-smartphone-penetration-at-33

smartphone ownership on the continent totals 440 million

So how does that square with your stats? 173 million users was it?
I think I'll just go with "ubiquitous".

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You might want to check your own posts, and some of the dodgy statistics you keep throwing at us.

Sure thing, statistics seem to stack up pretty well.



From statista.com who are described in Wikipedia as follows;

Statista is an online statistics, market research and business intelligence portal. It provides access to data from market and opinion research institutions, as well as from business organizations and government institutions in English, French, German and Spanish. As one of the world’s most successful statistics databases, the platform consists over 1,500,000 statistics on over 80,000 topics from more than 18,000 sources.

My source for population of Africa being 1.3 billion is here and is contemporaneous with the mobile phone stat. I've checked it with other stats, but if you feel either of the statistics are in any way 'dodgy' as you put it, I'd be delighted to see your own references that refute them.

Looking at your reference, it would appear the ITweb article is actually just an editorial on the Pew research article from my previous post. The headline is that "Sub-Saharan Africa's smartphone penetration at 33%" but I don't see that reference or use if the term "smartphone penetration" in the original research. Perhaps you could elucidate?

Either way, you brought this into the conversation to support your rather outlandish notion, that a trial for FGM in Ireland that did not lead deportation
would "send the message out to the billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa etc... "Come to our country with your backward religion and your barbaric practices. We'll be so appalled that we will tell you to stay." This is clearly specious as those Africans that do have smartphones tend to be educated, employed and not to use their phones to consume this type of media.

The intent of your argument would seem to be to peddle racist paranoia which I for one amn't buying.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

My source for population of Africa being 1.3 billion is here and is contemporaneous with the mobile phone stat. I've checked it with other stats, but if you feel either of the statistics are in any way 'dodgy'..

There are many more smartphone users in Africa than owners, so if there are 440 million owners, how can there be only 173 million users?
You tell me. Stats are always open to interpretation. I don't generally use stats to try to prove or disprove a point unless they are very specific.

Nobody is disputing the 1.3 billion. Your nitpick was that I used the letter "s" in billions. The English language convention is to use "s" when more than 1 is being referred to. Is 1.83 more than 1? You tell me.

smacl wrote: »

Either way, you brought this into the conversation to support your rather outlandish notion, that a trial for FGM in Ireland that did not lead deportation would "send the message out to the billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa etc... "Come to our country with your backward religion and your barbaric practices. We'll be so appalled that we will tell you to stay."

I'm glad you have now finished beating about the bush, and have decided to return to the point. Which you almost grasped.
I pointed out that the family have not only avoided deportation, but they have actually been ordered to stay.

I also showed you the barmy rules which they can use to show it is "unsafe" for them to return to a region where the culture is to practice FGM, which case is proved precisely because the child was assaulted (by themselves).


And also you'll note from the article that the woman made sure to announce clearly in the presence of the arresting Garda that it was not actually a full FGM (or words to that effect) which means she is unlikely to ever be convicted for performing an actual FGM.


And you'll note their address given as "South Dublin" which implicates the notorious weasel-snake Dr Ali Selim of Clonskeagh Mosque in this whole episode.

smack wrote:

"Thanks recedite for explaining this whole thing to me, I didn't cop any of it by myself"

"You're welcome".

smacl

recedite wrote: »

There are many more smartphone users in Africa than owners, so if there are 440 million owners, how can there be only 173 million users?

Wrong again, there are 440 million mobile phone subscribers, but as per the Pew report most of them are for mobile phones and not smart phones, which are primarily used for texting. Not for checking up on IT articles about FGM convictions as a possible loop-hole to avoid deportation from Ireland, should they ever find themselves here.

Nobody is disputing the 1.3 billion. Your nitpick was that I used the letter "s" in billions. The English language convention is to use "s" when more than 1 is being referred to. Is 1.83 more than 1? You tell me.

No, my issue was that you referred the population of Africa as "billions of poverty stricken, uneducated, malcontents in Africa" have previously described them as "generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic". Your arguments, in my opinion, are racist, ignorant and bigoted and deserve to be pointed out as such.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

I'm glad you have now finished beating about the bush, and have decided to return to the point. Which you almost grasped.

Any more of this kind of low-level passive aggression and you'll be carded for incivility.

smacl

I see Pell got six years at the sentencing earlier and lambasted by the judge during the process. The terms of the appeal have also been set out as follows;

His legal team is appealing on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, that Pell was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel, and that the defence was prevented from showing the jury a visual presentation - described as similar to a "Pac Man" video game - depicting the movement of priests in the cathedral on the day of the choirboys' abuse.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/no-charges-against-casey-despite-his-nieces-claims-he-sexually-abused-her-37946888.html

There was no outstanding criminal investigation or charges against the late Bishop Eamonn Casey at the time of his death despite claims by his niece that he abused her over a 10-year period, it has been claimed.

His niece Patricia Donovan gave a lengthy interview to a Sunday newspaper yesterday claiming she had been sexually abused by the late Bishop Casey from the age of five.

She said she reported this to gardan 2005.

The allegations were investigated in 2006 but the Director of Public Prosecutions ordered that no charges were to be brought on 13 sample allegations.

On foot of Ms Donovan's allegations, the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton in the UK, where her uncle was serving as a hospital chaplain, sent him back to Galway diocese.

In 2005, allegations against the former bishop were reported in the media, but yesterday's interview in the 'Irish Mail on Sunday' was the first time the bishop's niece was named as his accuser.

Odhinn

It appears she wasn't the only one

Deceased Bishop Eamonn Casey faced at least three allegations of child sexual abuse before he died — with two high court cases being settled.
One of the women who have accused him was his niece, while another received a settlement under the controversial Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Ms Donovan, who lives in England, brought her allegations to police in the UK in November 2005, and later to gardai.
Limerick detectives travelled to the UK to take a statement from her in January 2006, but by August of the same year, the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that no charges be brought on 13 sample allegations.
But in the course of seeking documentation relating to her case, Ms Donovan received case notes that confirm that Bishop Casey made a Redress board settlement with a woman in 2005.

https://extra.ie/2019/03/24/news/irish-news/bishop-eamonn-casey-accused-of-rape-of-niece

eire4

The word evil can be thrown around a bit too easily at times but it certainly is very apt in this case. Casey was a truly evil man and every single person in the church who helped cover up his disgusting crimes is right there with him.

smacl

eire4 wrote: »

The word evil can be thrown around a bit too easily at times but it certainly is very apt in this case. Casey was a truly evil man and every single person in the church who helped cover up his disgusting crimes is right there with him.

I take your point, but not a huge fan of the word 'evil' as it is ambiguous and subjective. For actions such as Casey's and those who help cover them up I think morally repugnant, corrupt and criminal are more useful terms depending on context.

Hotblack Desiato

Evil is a handy way of ascribing all-too-human failings to a supposed outside agency or force.

"The divil made me do it!"

Or the pope's recent statements on child abuse within the church

Odhinn

Depressing, if unsuprising -

The Archbishop of Dublin has told of his shock at finding serial paedophile priests are unable to conclusively confirm newly-reported cases of abuse they were involved in because they had so many victims.
Dr Diarmuid Martin made the disturbing revelation in an RTE documentary detailing how the Vatican came to exert control over almost every aspect of Irish life since the foundation of the State.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priests-abused-so-many-children-they-cant-remember-names-37990081.html

Hotblack Desiato

Former President Mary McAleese, who has been studying in Rome since leaving office, reveals the astonishing attitude to abused children she still encounters in some parts of the Catholic hierarchy.

She said: "I've heard it said many times here in Rome by senior churchmen in whose company I have been that 'God chose these men, and the devil works through children'.

Fcuk sake.

Despite two decades of horrific scandals, cover-ups and revelations, the documentary concludes that the Church remains embedded in Irish life.

'Rome v Republic', RTE One, Thursday, 10.15pm.

recedite

Is that woman still studying Canon Law at the Pontifical Gregorian University?
She must have failed all her exams or else be taking a lot of time out between modules.
Its a masochistic sort of life, perpetually studying under the RCC in Rome just so she can whinge and criticise the RCC.


It would make more sense for her to study as a Buddhist monk in Tibet.
Mind you, the food, the wine, and the climate does not really compare

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Is that woman still studying Canon Law at the Pontifical Gregorian University?
She must have failed all her exams or else be taking a lot of time out between modules.
Its a masochistic sort of life, perpetually studying under the RCC in Rome just so she can whinge and criticise the RCC.


It would make more sense for her to study as a Buddhist monk in Tibet.
Mind you, the food, the wine, and the climate does not really compare

she was studying for a doctorate that she completed last year. How long did it take you to get your doctorate?

recedite

Its 8 years since she retired in 2011, so that makes her a bit of a slow learner. But I suppose she has to spend her €141K state pension on something, so it might as well be on living the high life in the Vatican.
And I suppose there is no point rushing it, if she is enjoying it.


I don't have a doctorate, sure I'm only a semi-literate.