The BludgerTrack poll aggregate, updated with this week’s results from Newspoll and Essential Research, remains unimpressed with much of the recent opinion poll commentary, maintaining a slow trend back to the Coalition that appears to go back to December. The movement since last week on two-party preferred is negligible, with a weak result for the Coalition cancelling out a somewhat stronger one from Essential Research, converting into a one-seat gain for the Coalition on the seat projection. Newspoll provides new numbers for the leadership ratings trends, which are all but unchanged. Full details on the link below.
Other news:
• The Guardian reports uComms/ReachTEL polls for GetUp! conducted on Thursday found independent Zali Steggall leading Tony Abbott 57-43 in Warringah, while Labor’s Ali France led Peter Dutton 52-48 in Dickson. The poll also found majority support for the medical evacuations bill in both electorates.
• Following Julie Bishop’s retirement announcement, Andrew Burrell of The Australian reports Bishop’s hope of anointing her own successor in Curtin is likely to be scotched by her opponents, most notably Mathias Cormann. Bishop has reportedly been pushing for Erin Watson-Lynn, 33-year-old director of Asialink Diplomacy at the University of Melbourne. However, a highly fancied rival has emerged this week in Celia Hammond, who resigned on Monday as vice-chancellor at Notre Dame University. Hammond’s social conservatism is noted in a further report in The Australian today, relating a speech from 2013 in which she “railed against sex before marriage and contraception, while arguing against ‘militant feminism’”.
• A Liberal preselection vote on Saturday to choose Michael Keenan’s successor in the Perth northern suburbs seat of Stirling was won by Vince Connelly, risk management adviser at Woodside and former army officer. This was despite the wish of local party heavyweights Mathias Cormann and Peter Collier, along with Keenan himself, for the seat to go to a woman – specifically Joanne Quinn, legal counsel at Edith Cowan University. Quinn was in fact knocked out in the early rounds, together with Georgina Fraser, business development manager with a subsidiary of Kleenheat Gas, and Taryn Houghton, manager with a mental health support not-for-profit. Connelly prevailed in the final round over Michelle Sutherland, high school teacher, Bayswater councillor and wife of former state MP Michael Sutherland. His win out of an otherwise all-female field of five excited much commentary about the Liberal Party’s deficiencies in preselecting women, including my own analysis in Crikey on Monday.
• Sighs of relief could be heard from the Liberal hierarchy the following day when the preselection to replace Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins was won by Katie Allen, paediatrician and unsuccessful candidate for Prahran at the state election in November. Allen prevailed in the final round with 158 votes to 116 for a male rival, Greg Hannan, former state party vice-president and factional moderate who ran against Michael Kroger for the presidency. Excluded after the penultimate round was Zoe McKenzie, “a non-executive director of the NBN board and former chief of staff to Abbott/Turnbull government trade minister Andrew Robb”.
Burgey @ #142 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:02 am
You must have been reading a different blog to the one I have been reading over the last couple of days.
Bushfire Bill @ #141 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 10:57 am
Thank you for some independent thoughts amongst the bleating of those who give themselves the right to judge whilst there is a possibility of a successful appeal.
Whilst it is my belief that Pell has effectively aided and abetted many abusers (and there should a law ensuring that he does time for it), we have to go with the legal system, even though we at times do not get justice.
Let’s hope that the legal system gets it right, especially in this case.
Ven says:
Pivot? I’m sure he meant to say divot.
Ven @ #148 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:06 am
A pivot is what you do when you want to look like you have changed direction but really just want to end up in the same place you started.
My wife got polled by Reachtel last night:
– Voting intention
– How you voted at last three elections, has it changed?
– Most important issue
BB
All the people like Bolt Devine Howard and Abbott sticking up for Pell are the same people who preached Marriage Equality was wrong and we don’t need Safe Schools.
So yes you are right about the appeal just try not to find yourself on the same side as that mob. We can point out the hypocrisy of these people like Howard that use peodophilia as an excuse to send in the troops with the “Intervention” to paint a whole race and culture as barbaric monsters
“”But with almost half the population covered by private health insurance,!!!!!””
The Liberal attempt to scuttle Medicare, stage one by John Howard!.
What would they do next given half a chance?.
So what will an appeal achieve?
Option A; It will confirm all was good and proper in the previous trial (or wouldnt have made any difference). He stays in gaol.
Option B; the appeal succeeds. What then? If the appeals court finds Pell not guilty things will get ugly. If the court orders a retrial… I dont see how it could be managed to be a fair one for anyone.
In irrigation, a pivot is the centre point of a big boom that just goes round and round and round.
Bushfire Bill:
[‘…what I did discover from the Lindy Chamberlain case was that a jury’s verdict is not absolute truth.’]
Yes, sometimes juries do get it wrong, but in the vast majority of cases, they don’t… Your propensity to play the Devil’s advocate is becoming a tad repetitive. Maybe try thinking of the victim, whose evidence was accepted by twelve of his peers.
Simon² Katich® @ #158 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:13 am
Good point. Which is why we must not let this conviction get in the way of charging Pell over his other crimes – i.e. that he covered up evidence of abuse by others.
BB I agree that an insitutional proof is very different from a scientific standard of truth. Law reformists have tried to get arguments up about this in medicolegal cases, where scientific consensus can be trumped by a credible ‘expert’ for one side or the other. In areas requiring expert understanding I would not like to trust a jury, but this is not about expertise – thus jury is expressing conviction based on their human understanding of all that has been presented to them. Nonetheless Lindy Chamberlain is a salutary case.
The arguments about this wrt Pell are proxy wars involving people’s belief systems and prejudices.
People like Abbott clearly do themsleves no favours by applying an opposite standard to their ‘chums’ from what they would usually apply. For example where was the wait for a conviction let alone an appeal for Craig Thomson? Obeid and McDonald have been pilloried by all and sundry based on charges etc.
If, like Joh’s Jury these twelve people have got it wrong with Pell, it would mean a lot of suffering for one innocent person, which on the scale of child abuse related suffering is a drop in the ocean. I would be loath to crank up my crocodile tears for someone whom I do not know personally, and who has carried his power in public life in a manner I find objectionable.
So I won’t let the legal system be my arbiter of absolute truth, but I trust it enough to move on and leave Pell in a cell.
(I will feel somewhat guilty if he is later proven innocent – in the manner of Azaria’s family)
BB, you’re missing the bigger point. It can be possible to doubt pretty much any empirical assertion about the physical universe, and there are many such assertions that were once ‘undeniable’ which later proved to have been false all along. (Think ‘geocentric universe’.) So it would seem reasonable to adopt a posture of scepticism towards any assertion that wasn’t logically certain.
But that is not actually the way ‘reasonable people’ behave, or even should behave. Should I assume that, just because my office building was once closed when I arrived that morning because of a bomb threat, that I should act today as if it might be true again, and so leave for work much later than normal so as not to suffer inconvenience? Of course not! No reasonable person would think that. A reasonable person would remember it happened once, but that generally it hardly ever happens, and decides accordingly. Is it certain they are right in making this presumption? No, but what matters is they are reasonable in making it.
Generally, jury convictions are not overturned. They become, for history, the last say in that given defendant’s guilt on that charge. Do they get overturned occasionally? Yes, but not often enough for it to be unreasonable for anyone to discuss Pell now on the premise that he raped two children.
Apparently, there’s a region in the brain that makes people gluttonous. I’m off to Maccas.
Player One @ #151 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 10:09 am
Indeed. There’s been a completely uncalled for amount of hate, anger and disrespect being directed at our legal institutions, juries, and the victims of rape and molestation ever since Pell was convicted of raping and molesting children. ;P
Bushfire Bill
In the case of Lindy Chamberlain it pretty much revolved around air condition fluid being classified as blood.
In the case of Pell there are people who have lied if he is innocent. Possible but a big difference. Also a big difference in the effect it will have on the evidence. The air conditioning fluid does not care.
On this blog you have seen some of the things said around BBQ’s. No longer will people say it can’t be true.
If the appeals are rejected then it is off to the High Court?
Pell’s treatment of the Foster family alone shows that he is an evil man. That he was able to rise to number three in the Roman Catholic Church shows clearly that that organisation is seriously flawed.
At the bishops and prelates meeting in the Vatican from 21 to 24 February, the pope himself admitted this, backed up by multiple first hand accounts from victims who had received no justice..
Evil people deserve punishment. I do not care one whit how it comes about and I couldn’t give a flying f*** if the RC apologists here, lining up in concert with Bolt and Devine and other ‘true believers’, disapprove. Pell richly deserves everything that has come to pass because of his systematic, deliberate and inhuman mental torture of the victims of his protected colleagues, and of those victims’ families.
The rule of law is for the wealthy to twist and use to their own advantage. It has no relevance to people of low or average means.
The whole world now sees and understands the depths of the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, as exposed in its full horror by the church itself at the Vatican meeting. This exposure was brought about by brave people standing up against evil people like George Pell. The howling against the wind of Bolt, Devine, and their PB apologist clique, with their ‘look over there’, ‘oh, the injustice’, ‘rule of law’ bleating cannot paper over the true situation. The existence of widespread evil does not excuse concentrated, institutionalised, organised, protected evil.
GG, well the mask, such as it was, is off now. You are so ashamed at yourself thanks to the points I’m making against Pedophile Pell and his defenders that all you can now say is “Go away! Leave me alone!” At least you have the guts not to have blocked me.
Victoria
You made a very telling point earlier today about your knowledge of Pells behaviour. This must be difficult for you. The arc of Justice eventually turns.
I once dined with Pell at Raheen mansion, the home of the Pratt’s. He was very very full of his importance. I came away with a feeling that the Catholic Church was not in decent or humble hands.
Michael Cohen Tells House Republicans That They Remind Him of Him
Michael Cohen is a liar. Michael Cohen is a cheat. Looking over the course of his career, it’s hard to find, as my colleague Adam Davidson has written, “an unquestionably honest dollar.” During the decade he worked for Donald Trump, he lied to and threatened people on his boss’s behalf hundreds of times. He is, as lawmakers from both parties have said, during Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee, on Wednesday, a flawed witness. None of this is in dispute.
At one point, in fact, he offered a kind of meta-commentary on the hearing—the former Trump lackey examining the conduct of the current Trump lackeys.
“I’m responsible for your silliness, because I did the same thing that you’re doing now for ten years—I protected Mr. Trump for ten years,” he said. A few moments later, he added, “Everybody’s job at the Trump Organization is to protect Mr. Trump. Every day, most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something. And that became the norm.” He turned to look at the Republicans in the room and said, “That’s exactly what’s happening right now in this country, and it’s exactly what’s happening here in government.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/michael-cohen-tells-house-republicans-that-they-remind-him-of-him
Simon² Katich®:
[‘Option B; the appeal succeeds. What then? If the appeals court finds Pell not guilty things will get ugly. If the court orders a retrial… I dont see how it could be managed to be a fair one for anyone.’]
A strong judicial direction normally solves the problem, though, in Pell’s case, that may not suffice.
a r,
Oh, “the old your words are not worthy because you disagree ploy”. I haven’t seen that one for a few minutes.
I’m not a lawyer and only know if he gets off on appeal then he’s regarded as innocent.
a r @ #165 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:21 am
I appreciate the irony in your response, but I think my point has just been made by one of the more rabid ‘haters’ here 🙁
Instant and spectacularly superficial analysis of Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress from our ABC online news:
“Trump’s former lawyer delivers cinematic testimony, but lacks credibility”
Analysis
by North America correspondent (sic) Conor Duffy and Emily Olson
If Ita Buttrose would stop the ABC from wasting our taxes on the creation of dubious narratives masquerading as “analysis” instead of spending it on journalists who stick to the investigative reporting of facts, then she’d be more than welcome. Somehow, I’m sceptical that the usual right wing “analysts” will be curtailed by Buttrose in the least. Poor fellow, our country.
BW
[If the appeals are rejected then it is off to the High Court?]
At which time Abbott can continue to say that the process is yet to run to completion and we should await the HC. Even then, I think Abbott will say that he is troubled about the conviction etc, not the man he knows etc
P1,
It’s been absolutely vile.
One poster called me a Mortgage Broker.
I cried all the way to the Bank.
Michael A; I agree we need to live our lives as if the evidence of our prior experience and learning meaningfully informs our current understanding. If not we would not be able to form judgements about anything. I think you made the point quite well.
Remote possibility of innocence – accepted.
Likely value of arguing in Pell’s defence – rejected
GG
Why do you need Pell to be innocent?
Bushfire Bill, you are so certain you are in a position to doubt the judgement of 12 of your fellow citizens in their appraisal of the evidence presented against Pell, when they saw the evidence and you did not. I am curious how you justify such certainty.
I am not “on”the same side” as the News Corp journalists. They are spruiking Pell’s innocence, outright.
I am urging restraint in the expression of hatred, and pointing out that institutional truth is not necessarily absolute truth. Equating the two is risky, and has often been shown to be wrong.
I get the feeling that some here (a minority) are enjoying condemning Pell, condemning other posters, condemning anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Their condemnation is absolute and unforgiving, eternal.
That would be risky enough under the “Let-He-Who-Is-Without-Sin Rule”, let alone at this relatively early stage of the legal process. That many of the haters have confused Pell’s well-documented (and confessed) sins of cover-up with the present ones under legal examination leads me to think they just want to vent against the man, and the recent verdict is as good an opportunity as any other.
You can understand an outburst, a few posts back and forth, getting it off your chest and so on, but the sustained vilification and vitriol being expressed by some here, the delight they are taking in Pell’s coming punishment (assuming his appeal fails) and the viciousness of their attacks on other posters (including GG, but not limited to him) only diminishes this Board, in my opinion.
OK, so we know they hate Pell. So what’s their next trick? Where do we go from here? More hatred, day after day? How can that be a good thing, except to prove the wisdom of our ancestors in taking the workings of the law out of the hands of angry mobs throwing rotten words and rotten vegetables at criminals in the stocks, then cheering and picknicking at the gallows?
This is not to defend Pell. It’s to defend civilized behaviour. Hatred does no-one any good. Judging and condemning others can also be fraught with pitfalls.
Michael Kozoil:
‘The Nationals have confirmed former NSW minister Katrina Hodgkinson will contest the federal seat of Gilmore. Campaign launch today. #auspol’
phoenixRED re Cohen’s words.
They sound like a religious conversion. Dangerous language to throw at the Republicans?
Very fair BB
Do you mean that the prosecution would back off from a retrial?
Michael A @ #181 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:34 am
So tell us all about the evidence that you have actually seen…
Greensborough Growler @ #177 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 11:32 am
I’m afraid you are going to have to bear that particular cross alone, GG! 🙂
Puffy,
I believe in law and order. We should all allow the full process to be followed.
Regarding Pell, I’ve already said that I regard this as a weak case. But, I’m not a lawyer and simply glad that the finding will be tested to the maximum.
Oh, and what BB just said!
I promise not to call you late for cupcakes.
Personally I hope Pell rots in hell but we have legal processes to follow and they must be followed. Certainly don’t want the victim to go thru potentially another retrial if the appeal is successful.
What I would do is withdraw the tax exemption status of the Catholic Church.
Bolt and his ilk are scum of the highest order and what they are seeing is their cosy world be bought down.
Katrina has been installed in Gilmore to harvest Senate votes for the nuts, who are in big trouble with their Senate numbers.
Tom:
[‘Thank you for some independent thoughts amongst the bleating of those who give themselves the right to judge whilst there is a possibility of a successful appeal.’]
Please stop it! A jury found Pell guilty of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old. You obviously don’t believe in the tried and tested system of justice. Those who can afford it, invariably appeal their verdict, but few succeed. Pell’s as guilty as sin until and if an appellate court finds differently.
I will not take sides over the outcome of this trial.
I have no issues with the rule of law in this case. I believe that what I’ve read shows that during the trial, with all its inherent emotion and pain ,the Judge and the Jury have fulfilled their responsibilties to society. An appeal against the judgement is both legally and ethically reasonable and fair. That too is the rule of law.
Regardless of any Appeal outcome, however, my concern is that there was a history of abuse and violence within the RCC in Victoria, probably well before Pell took the leadership role.
That nothing was done under and during his leadership to deal with that, and that he apparently,maybe wilfully, turned a blind eye to that constitutes reason to lay charges against him on the grounds of complicity, conspiracy to cover-up criminal acts and the abuse of power, spiritual,legal and financial , in order to do so.
In support of many,many people, both living and dead, I believe he must be charged as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia. Ultimately, all responsibility lies with him.
Lest I be accused of religious bias, that would only be the beginning. There are not only other religious organizations open to charges, but non- religious organizations as well.
That would only be the first steps in dealing with truly horrific crimes against innocent people.
In order to begin the healing of so much hurt, it must start now.
Michael A, you are the worst of the haters here. The smugness with which you pour it on over anyone who disagrees with you is quite sickening.
I am not sure of anything. I merely point out that “institutional truth” is not the same as “absolute truth”, and that Pell has an appeal process he can use to try to have the verdict reversed or vacated. This process will examine previous stages in the process to see if they have been properly conducted. What part of “We have a legal system in Australia” do you not understand?
None of that says I believe Pell’s innocent, or that I admire him, agree with Bolt and Devine, am pushing a right-wing agenda, or am a troll just making trouble. None of it casts any aspersions on the jurors or witnesses. It simply reflects the reality that we have a legal system, for a reason, and my opinion that promoting and perpetuating hatred is a corrosive practice.
You seem to have made up your mind based on Stage #1 of the legal process. You seem to revel in expressing your hatred of Pell. You attack anyone who does not share your vehemence. The astonishment with which you express yourself shows that you literally cannot believe they could possible have a valid, or even arguable point of view. You put words into their mouths and attribute beliefs, opinions and moralities to them that they do not possess.
We know you hate Pell. Why tell us over and over again? There’s nothing to be gained from it. Let the legal system take its course.
Puffy,
Oh, and what BB just said!
Bushfire Bill @ #181 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 10:35 am
Which is actually a good reason not to wait on the outcome of any appeal. Whatever an appeal decides, it can only ever alter (or confirm) the institutional truth and not the absolute truth. In which case, why bother?
The evidence is already out there and no longer under gag order; we can all read it and decide for ourselves whether Pell is guilty or innocent. If what the courts say cannot inform upon the absolute truth, there’s no reason to wait to see what the appeal says (or even what the trial says, except to the extent that the evidence may only be unearthed via the trial).
Of course, there’s probably a broader problem with everyone just substituting their personal opinions over the top of jury verdicts because ‘institutional truth is not necessarily absolute truth’ rather than respecting the (imperfect) outcomes of our legal system. But I’m not seeing what that might possibly be. 🙂
They merely appoint people to run it who disrespect the ABCs independence.
Completely different. Like, light years different. Any insane RWFW political animal ad man shadow of a nobody can see that.
I had forgotten about Howard’s role in the Heffernan allegations against Kirby. Fortunately others have not.
http://andrewcatsaras.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-question-of-character-john-howard-on.html
BB
I suggest you read David Marr in the Guardian.
I suggest you also read the reports by people like Melissa Davies.
I am basing my conclusion that the appeal is more likely to fail than to succeed based on those reports.
As was pointed out on the Law Report the circumstantial evidence was confused and contradictory. The direct witness account the Jury heard and we have not seems to be the basis of the conviction.
You and I have zero chance of knowing about that.
Look at what is the basis for appeal? I think you will then see why I am saying I think the appeal is weak.
Until an appeal succeeds we treat the person as guilty as charged. This is what reasonable people do.