Should the Pope be in the dock????

[Amy-Winehouse]

Again you have conveniently forgotten to mention HM the Queen , head of the CoE, why are you only picking on the Pope, many Anglican priests have been caught too?

If you read my last post properly, you will see I stated that no matter who they are or what they are (this means EVERYONE GOLACH -you included), if theyve done the crime they should do the time.

Can you not understand that or shall I just make it even easier for you golach??? Your just nit picking again & looking as daft as the other day. Read the post man

[Metalattakk]

Any person who has committed an offence should be tried in the country in which the offence was committed but as we have seen from the Holllie Greig affair the establishment are willing to turn a blind eye to child abuse if it is committed by a certain class of people </snip>

Here we go again.

Where's your conclusive proof of any wrong-doing in the so called 'Hollie Greig affair'? Where is it, fred? Where?

You're sounding more and more like the rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist that most of us suspect you are.

[fred]

Here we go again.

Where's your conclusive proof of any wrong-doing in the so called 'Hollie Greig affair'? Where is it, fred? Where?

You're sounding more and more like the rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist that most of us suspect you are.

It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.

Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?

[bekisman]

New details, it continues:

'Pope Benedict XVI has become embroiled in new revelations over child sexual abuse, over a letter he is said to have signed in 1985 before he became Pope.Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of an offending priest. Cardinal Ratzinger said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in defrocking, AP reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm

[Amy-Winehouse]

It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.

Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?

Fred, I started this thread because they dont really come more famous or well known than his holiness the Pope. It has been on a number of forums I frequent about Pope benedict`s cover up, I hadnt heard of Hollie Greig until yesterday , i still do not know or have heard any of the facts about her case so I cannot comment.
Until I do , I cannot comment but it doesnt sound good, but as Ive already said the pope- they dont come much more famous than him do they & he has to be whiter than white- It appears that hes not, this is where most people have an opinion & rightly so.

[Metalattakk]

It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.

So you say. Again, where is your proof?

Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?

That'll be because you continually propagate the myth of the 'Hollie Greig' case. Without proof, the case is dead. No matter how much you propose it as the truth, without conclusive proof your case is no more than a fanciful supposition.

Please decease with your vile smear campaign, unless of course you can back it up with conclusive proof.

I await, with much interest, your deliverance of the required conclusive proof.

[fred]

So you say. Again, where is your proof?



That'll be because you continually propagate the myth of the 'Hollie Greig' case. Without proof, the case is dead. No matter how much you propose it as the truth, without conclusive proof your case is no more than a fanciful supposition.

Please decease with your vile smear campaign, unless of course you can back it up with conclusive proof.

I await, with much interest, your deliverance of the required conclusive proof.

Hollie's medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old so I don't think there is any doubt she was abused, the police and the courts have not disputed it, she received criminal injuries compensation for it. You are the only one saying she wasn't abused.

As for no one being prosecuted for the abuse it isn't possible to prove a negative, if someone was prosecuted for Hollie's abuse then it's down to you to post the details of the case.

[fred]

Fred, I started this thread because they dont really come more famous or well known than his holiness the Pope. It has been on a number of forums I frequent about Pope benedict`s cover up, I hadnt heard of Hollie Greig until yesterday , i still do not know or have heard any of the facts about her case so I cannot comment.
Until I do , I cannot comment but it doesnt sound good, but as Ive already said the pope- they dont come much more famous than him do they & he has to be whiter than white- It appears that hes not, this is where most people have an opinion & rightly so.

I don't think it's just a matter of what happened, I think it's a matter of how it happened and why.

Just concentrating on the Roman Catholic Church might lead people to believe we are more interested in a Protestant versus Catholic vendetta than the suffering of children.

[Metalattakk]

Hollie's medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old so I don't think there is any doubt she was abused, the police and the courts have not disputed it, she received criminal injuries compensation for it. You are the only one saying she wasn't abused.

Again, you're wrong. She received no payment in lieu of any confirmed abuse. Show me any evidence that she was abused as a nine-year old. Substantiate your words with proof, fred.

As for no one being prosecuted for the abuse it isn't possible to prove a negative, if someone was prosecuted for Hollie's abuse then it's down to you to post the details of the case.

There is no case to prove. Obviously. But that won't stop you promoting your filthy lies and tarnishing the reputation of innocents. It's a sad shame that the internet allows people like you a voice. It's even more of a shame that a voice as determined as yours is wasted chasing unfathomable, unprovable myths.

[fred]

Again, you're wrong. She received no payment in lieu of any confirmed abuse. Show me any evidence that she was abused as a nine-year old. Substantiate your words with proof, fred.

Hollie's mother has stated she obtained her medical records and they show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old. I have seen no official denial of this, if you know of one then post it. If you know of any official denial that Hollie was abused then post it.

Interesting this, in a thread about the cover up of child abuse we can see how it happens before our very eyes.

[Metalattakk]

Hollie's mother has stated she obtained her medical records and they show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old. I have seen no official denial of this, if you know of one then post it. If you know of any official denial that Hollie was abused then post it.

Hollie's mother has been diagnosed with psychiatric problems. There is no shred of evidence that has been presented by any other professional to confirm her claims. Note that I said 'her' claims, and not Hollie's. That's because Hollie's claims have only been reported and presented by her mother.

Interesting this, in a thread about the cover up of child abuse we can see how it happens before our very eyes.

And again, you try to justify your slanted view by slating others. Grow up, fred.

[Anfield]

New details, it continues:

'Pope Benedict XVI has become embroiled in new revelations over child sexual abuse, over a letter he is said to have signed in 1985 before he became Pope.Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of an offending priest. Cardinal Ratzinger said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in defrocking, AP reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm

As the story unravels,it looks like, according to the above link and other media reports, that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implicated in the cover up of child abuse.

If reports are authenticated then he, and any others involved should resign and face any criminal charges which may be brought against them.

[fred]

Hollie's mother has been diagnosed with psychiatric problems. There is no shred of evidence that has been presented by any other professional to confirm her claims. Note that I said 'her' claims, and not Hollie's. That's because Hollie's claims have only been reported and presented by her mother.

Both your statements are false, Hollies mother was never diagnosed with psychiatric problems, two qualified psychiatric experts have said she does not have psychiatric problems.

Hollie has been interviewed by others apart from her mother and none have denied that she was abused.

Hollie's own medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was nine years old. If this were not true it would have been refuted by the authorities. It is a claim which would be easily disproved.

This folks is how a cover up of child abuse happens, in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Scottish establishment.

[Metalattakk]

Both your statements are false, Hollies mother was never diagnosed with psychiatric problems, two qualified psychiatric experts have said she does not have psychiatric problems.

Prove it fred. Gimme the proof or shut up.

Hollie has been interviewed by others apart from her mother and none have denied that she was abused.

A denial that she wasn't abused does not equate to a proof of abuse. FGS fred, wake up. And again, where are these official reports? Link me to them.

Hollie's own medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was nine years old. If this were not true it would have been refuted by the authorities. It is a claim which would be easily disproved.

Prove it fred. Where's the evidence that her medical records show anything? Is this just another 'fact' that has come from her mother's mouth?

This folks is how a cover up of child abuse happens, in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Scottish establishment.

Head, meet Desk.

[Anfield]

Do you ever stop to think why a 9 year old girl (and her mother) would invent such a story, and be able to name individuals and events?
If this was just for publicity/compensation, would she have not been better naming a much more "famous" person than a Sheriff, who, unless you have appeared in front of, most people have never heard of.

As Fred has stated all along, it is situations like this which scream of "Cover up"

[Metalattakk]

Do you ever stop to think why a 9 year old girl (and her mother) would invent such a story, and be able to name individuals and events?
If this was just for publicity/compensation, would she have not been better naming a much more "famous" person than a Sheriff, who, unless you have appeared in front of, most people have never heard of.

As Fred has stated all along, it is situations like this which scream of "Cover up"

The mother has been classified as an untrustworthy witness, by implication at the very least. All of the so-called evidence has come from the mouth of the mother. There is not one single scrap of credible evidence to support her claims.

The only people who are screaming "Cover up" are those with a conspiracy theory to add to the rest of their conspiracy theories.

I am more than happy to accept any credible evidence that implicates any one in the Hollie Greig case. If there is something amiss then I will expect and demand criminal proceedings.

Give me credible evidence and undeniable proof. If you can't give me that, haud yer wheesht.

[Anfield]

The mother has been classified as an untrustworthy witness, by implication at the very least.

It would not have been people with a vested interest in this case that classed Hollies's mum as an "untrustworthy " witness would it.
And what is this about "by implication at the very least"

[Metalattakk]

It would not have been people with a vested interest in this case that classed Hollies's mum as an "untrustworthy " witness would it.

No, because by implication (you know how that works, eh?) her testimony wouldn't have stood up to legal scrutiny. In other words, her evidence was a load of unsustainable bollocks.

Don't be fooled into falling for the conspiracy theorist's agenda.

[Mrs Bucket]

Should the pope be in the dock. YES

[fred]

Head, meet Desk.

Read the report in the Press and Journal.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1488131

Two independent psychiatrists and a police officer said Hollie was telling the truth. She received criminal injuries compensation for her abuse.

I have posted the evidence Hollie was abused, now you post your evidence to support your claim she is lying.