Andrew Bolt's Paywall Blog 27/2/19; Bolt's unqualified at anything but an expert on everything. However Pell won't be calling hin for his appeal;

A comment never allowed on Bolt's blog

Has anybody noticed just how many PAYWALLS were on Andrew Bolt's previous blog how little work that entailed from Bolt but the size of his production team was Bigger than Ben Hur for which he stole the credit? He did that with his books recently bragging about his sales compared with "lesser" authors at MUP mostly those from the ABC. However, they didn't have the luxury of a PR machine like News Corp behind them when one does a cost sales evaluation on Bolt's sales it's a book on an expenditure of millions with a less than 1% return. A total failure in any publishers eyes but a hero in Bolt's.

PELL VERDICT: WHY I DON'T ACCEPT IT

COLUMN Cardinal George Pell has been falsely convicted of sexual abusing two boys in their early teens. That’s my opinion, based on the overwhelming evidence. Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic, is a scapegoat, not a child abuser. In my opinion. And here's why.

13m Link

Andrew Bolt refuses to let the courts do their job.
It's as simple as that he wasn't present at the claimant's 2 days of questioning the court were all there when he gave evidence. He hasn't bothered to investigate the case he has merely indicated that he sides with Fr Brennon. However, not entirely because Fr Brennon's concluding response was "let the courts do their job". His disappointment is irrelevant to our justice system.

Bolts attitude has been that there has been a conspiracy between the police, the media and an incompetent defence all acting in chorus with a broken system.
"Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic, has been made to pay for the sins of his church and a media campaign of vilification."
Bolt's overwhelming evidence was is that Pell escaped previous accusations that date back to the '60s and that the police had decided to drop two other charges relating to the 70s knowing Pell would most likely be convicted of the current offence in the 90s. There seems to have been a lot of smoke around Pell over 50 plus years.
Pell's defence was of the highest order Robert Richter no less in front of 12 honest Australians under the advice of a highly respected judge, not good enough! Bolt can't, given his history, stand up to the same sort of scrutiny yet he puts himself in a position higher than all of the above and the Australian justice system in this case.
Bolt's been here himself declaring his innocence in the face of being judged guilty by our system of justice. He came close to spitting the dummy because the News Corp legal team failed to persist in defending him. He wouldn't put his hand in his own pocket, would he? A man with a proven record to be a liar in public and to his family Bolt was forced to admit his failing when threatened to be sued. Now he maintains he has overwhelming evidence that the court didn't attend to and ought to be trusted in his opinion and judgement.
Bolt claims Pell is merely a scapegoat and entirely innocent man on all counts even though Bolt wasn't a party to all the evidence presented and the most important of which was in camera. Will Andrew Bolt be now called, rushed, by Pell's defence team to be heard at his appeal the Quixotic hero who will save the day? I don't think so and nor would Pell even want him there. Dream on Bolt The Australian Justice system can't be bought like your much admired American one. Buying The Liberals On Interest-free Terms While Andrew Bolt Tells Us That Courts And Scientists Are Wrong! - » The Australian Independent Media Network

ON GEORGE PELL'S CONVICTION: HOW CAN THIS STAND?

Frank Brennan on George Pell's conviction for sex crimes: "The jury must have disregarded many of the criticisms so tellingly made by Richter of the complainant’s evidence." Greg Craven: "What the last year has shown is that the justice system can be systematically assaulted from the outside in a conscious attempt to make a fair trial impossible."

It seems Bolt is saying more than Brennon and Craven who are both lawyers and Brennon is also a priest and both are disappointed with the decision but not with our Justice system. Bolt, on the other hand, goes much further. Even Pell was in favour of distancing the church from the state. Bolt's bluster almost sounds as if he believes the state should step in and overturn the law.

Miranda Devine declares the decision a win for vigilante Justice she and Bolt don't believe that 12 honest and unaffected Australians can be found because of the media witch hunt that Devine declared went on for 20 years. The problem however she and Bolt are the media the largest in the country, and they trumpeted Pell's innocence all that time they were the loudest voice. Disappointment is significantly contempt for the law.

Andrew Bolt has contempt for the umpire's decision. Without being party to or present to the legal process he denies that 1) the jury was made up of 12 good Australians 2) The judge was competent in his advice 3) The defence was even less competent and 4) the witness and claimant was a liar whose evidence was inconsistent. All amounting to the fact that we don't have the best justice system money can buy but a biased one. If he could the government or political appointments needed to be made to free Pell. It wouldn't have happened if the judge was politically appointed.

None of these people neither Bolt or the others mentions the fact there was another case dating back to the 70s that was dropped by the Police not for lack of evidence but because of a possible agreement between Pell's defence and the prosecution. None were witness to the two days of evidence given in camera that 12 good Australians were privy to. None had any connection to the claimant who they seem to suggest was of unsound character compared to CEO of the Catholic Church whose high standing made him faultless in their eyes and everyone else flawed. If we held these standards up against Andrew Bolt's opinions would they pass muster over and above our justice system?
YOU NEED to LAUGH Bolt has a habit of calling out Reverse Racism Reverse Sexism and now Reverse Justice.
Buying The Liberals On Interest-free Terms While Andrew Bolt Tells Us That Courts And Scientists Are Wrong! - » The Australian Independent Media Network

ALBRECHTSEN: BANKS AND BISHOP WEREN'T WARRIORS FOR LIBERALS

Janet Albrechtsen destroys the myth: "Putting more women into parliament won’t lift the Liberal Party from its electoral funk. Just look at the political miscalculation of preselecting Banks in... Chisholm. She won the seat as a Liberal, only to desert the party at the first whiff of political grapeshot." And Julie Bishop was weak in battle, too.

1hLink

How history is thrown out the door as rubbish, and it's done by yet a woman whose a Murdochian hardly an independent to what went on. Let's ignore the fact that Julie Bishop was a member of the LNP for over two decades and she managed to hide her two-faced from those far more meritorious than her.
Banks is also so politically astute she was chosen by these wiser men to the seat which she won, but they never believed she could. If these two women one with over 20 years and the other the ability to win the unwinnable seat didn't have the heft why all the male

Photographs distributed by the Refugee Action Coalition advocacy group appeared to show security posts deserted across three compounds on Manus Island.

Every human being in Morrison's and Dutton's detention centre's is suffering, and yet they claim they are offering the best not the worst of processing practice. The clients are rapists, murderers and pedophiles. The carers and medical professionals can't be trusted so need to be threatened, and security is now out on strike. Yet Morrison is pounding his chest claiming the best operating practice money can buy to save this country from a mythical created fear and to stop people drowning. Which is his number one priority?

Wednesday 27 February 2019