Jump to content


Replying to From Cleric To Relic


Post Options

  • Anti-spam: complete the task
  or Cancel


Topic Summary

time

Posted Yesterday, 08:40 PM

 

 

 

 

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Geoffrey Robinson has always sounded to me as much an opportunist as the Howard Marks's or Lynne Stewarts of the world. I didn't include him anywhere this year--I simply don't believe he's in as dire straits as presented at testimony. I need more news updates on his 'condition' with a quote from or visit to a physician at the very least before he even makes a 2017 list.
SC
 
Assuming you're under the impression that this is another Megrahi gambit, Robinson's been a longtime advocate for the Catholic Church to be far, far more transparent regarding its child abuse, rather than someone who was hiding information, so I doubt he'd be hamming up his ailment. I could see him lasting for some time, but that's moreso because the cancer is still stable last I've read of him and not because of deliberate exaggeration.


It's quite a simple rule IMHO: if a person could 'potentially' use a health matter to obtain public sympathy, no matter how scant, they sure as hell are doing it. Don't be a lemming, don't believe the hype. It's my rule and it works for me; dismiss as you feel appropriate. I think history favors my position though. Citing an opposing name or two when you know I can throw at least a 2:1 ratio back at u is a disingenuous position. Talk to the hand.

Insert Robinson into the rule and there you go. It's funny it's only ever the criminal or their attorney who proffer doomsday health, never a doctor on the stand confirming it. Think about it.
SC

 

 

Howard Marks has been out of prison for over 20 years, so I don't get why you keep including him in your list of jail-dodging malingerers.

 

Rules is rules.


Toast

Posted Yesterday, 07:17 PM

 

 

 

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Geoffrey Robinson has always sounded to me as much an opportunist as the Howard Marks's or Lynne Stewarts of the world. I didn't include him anywhere this year--I simply don't believe he's in as dire straits as presented at testimony. I need more news updates on his 'condition' with a quote from or visit to a physician at the very least before he even makes a 2017 list.
SC
 
Assuming you're under the impression that this is another Megrahi gambit, Robinson's been a longtime advocate for the Catholic Church to be far, far more transparent regarding its child abuse, rather than someone who was hiding information, so I doubt he'd be hamming up his ailment. I could see him lasting for some time, but that's moreso because the cancer is still stable last I've read of him and not because of deliberate exaggeration.


It's quite a simple rule IMHO: if a person could 'potentially' use a health matter to obtain public sympathy, no matter how scant, they sure as hell are doing it. Don't be a lemming, don't believe the hype. It's my rule and it works for me; dismiss as you feel appropriate. I think history favors my position though. Citing an opposing name or two when you know I can throw at least a 2:1 ratio back at u is a disingenuous position. Talk to the hand.

Insert Robinson into the rule and there you go. It's funny it's only ever the criminal or their attorney who proffer doomsday health, never a doctor on the stand confirming it. Think about it.
SC

 

 

Howard Marks has been out of prison for over 20 years, so I don't get why you keep including him in your list of jail-dodging malingerers.


Sir Creep

Posted Yesterday, 06:40 PM

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Geoffrey Robinson has always sounded to me as much an opportunist as the Howard Marks's or Lynne Stewarts of the world. I didn't include him anywhere this year--I simply don't believe he's in as dire straits as presented at testimony. I need more news updates on his 'condition' with a quote from or visit to a physician at the very least before he even makes a 2017 list.
SC
 
Assuming you're under the impression that this is another Megrahi gambit, Robinson's been a longtime advocate for the Catholic Church to be far, far more transparent regarding its child abuse, rather than someone who was hiding information, so I doubt he'd be hamming up his ailment. I could see him lasting for some time, but that's moreso because the cancer is still stable last I've read of him and not because of deliberate exaggeration.


It's quite a simple rule IMHO: if a person could 'potentially' use a health matter to obtain public sympathy, no matter how scant, they sure as hell are doing it. Don't be a lemming, don't believe the hype. It's my rule and it works for me; dismiss as you feel appropriate. I think history favors my position though. Citing an opposing name or two when you know I can throw at least a 2:1 ratio back at u is a disingenuous position. Talk to the hand.

Insert Robinson into the rule and there you go. It's funny it's only ever the criminal or their attorney who proffer doomsday health, never a doctor on the stand confirming it. Think about it.
SC

Death Impends

Posted Yesterday, 06:20 PM

 

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Geoffrey Robinson has always sounded to me as much an opportunist as the Howard Marks's or Lynne Stewarts of the world. I didn't include him anywhere this year--I simply don't believe he's in as dire straits as presented at testimony. I need more news updates on his 'condition' with a quote from or visit to a physician at the very least before he even makes a 2017 list.
SC

 

 

Assuming you're under the impression that this is another Megrahi gambit, Robinson's been a longtime advocate for the Catholic Church to be far, far more transparent regarding its child abuse, rather than someone who was hiding information, so I doubt he'd be hamming up his ailment. I could see him lasting for some time, but that's moreso because the cancer is still stable last I've read of him and not because of deliberate exaggeration.


Davey Jones' Locker

Posted Yesterday, 06:00 PM

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Bishop Newell was the other one not looking great at the Royal Commission: 86, memory problems and other health issues. He'd be in the same boat with regard to obitability.

Sir Creep

Posted Yesterday, 05:56 PM

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.

Geoffrey Robinson has always sounded to me as much an opportunist as the Howard Marks's or Lynne Stewarts of the world. I didn't include him anywhere this year--I simply don't believe he's in as dire straits as presented at testimony. I need more news updates on his 'condition' with a quote from or visit to a physician at the very least before he even makes a 2017 list.
SC

gcreptile

Posted Yesterday, 04:37 PM

Interesting, dear guest. There's also the problem of obitability with him. I've thought that he'd obit indirectly, because he would die before Geoffrey Robinson so that his obit would mention the earlier one. Another chance for an obit was the continuing coverage of the Pell commission, in the Guardian, for example. And well, the earlier he dies, the more likely a qualifying obit turns up, in the form of a one sentence-recognition of his death.


Posted Yesterday, 04:16 PM

Thoughtful update provided by the Royal Commission in to the health of Bishop Ronald Muklearns:

 

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/documents/reasons-for-decision-mulkearns 

 

Annexure A

 

What is Bishop Mulkearns’ current state of mental and physical heath?

 

I believe Bishop Mulkearns has mild cognitive impairment (MCL) of vascular etiology. The effects of recent surgery and anesthesia could possibly have impacted on his baseline function as was assessed last year. Notwithstanding, from a cognitive perspective, he performs surprisingly well with the deficits noted above.

 

Bishop Mulkearns’ physical health is certainly less good than when he was assessed last year. Unquestionable, he does have colon cancer, which is obstructing one of his ureters and causing deterioration in his kidney function. He is aware of his reduced life expectancy, which he indicates he has been told could be around six months. He has lost considerable weight but currently is eating reasonably well and is stable with no acute medical problems.  

 

Bishop Mulkearns says he is very stressed by the events surrounding the Inquiry and the thought of being further involved in the Inquiry. He says this is constantly on his mind. Whilst denying being depressed, he scored at the extreme in the depression scale.

 

He does have chronic abdominal pain related to his cancer requiring significant doses of morphine related narcotic medication.

 

 


Davey Jones' Locker

Posted 06 February 2016 - 06:54 PM

The end? Of the Aspinall saga as he gives evidence to the Royal Commission:


LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Phillip Aspinall took the stand at the child sexual abuse Royal commission today. His Grace was questioned about claims of a paedophile ring that operated in the Church of England Boys Society for 30 years from the 1960s. He denies claims he cajoled a boy into the bed of paedophile, just one of several difficult lines of questioning. As Michael Atkin reports, the Archbishop maintains he did not know about the abuse while it was occurring.

MICHAEL ATKIN, REPORTER: Phillip Aspinall returned to Hobart today, a man determined to defend his reputation. It's been 22 years since he worked here as an Anglican priest and a time when fellow clergy were allegedly operating a paedophile ring inside the Anglican Church.

[snip]

MICHAEL ATKIN: Phillip Aspinall was a teenager in the 1970s when he regularly attended the Church of England boys camps in Tasmania. He later became a youth field worker and close associate of paedophile Lou Daniels during the 1980s.

QUESTIONER: By that time you had developed a close friendship?

PHILLIP ASPINALL, Archbishop of Brisbane: Yes, I think that's fair.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Last week in the Royal commission, Phillip Aspinall was accused of encouraging a boy to go into a room with another paedophile, priest Garth Hawkins.

GARTH HAWKINS, ABUSER: He was cajoled or teased by Phillip Aspinall and the other boys into joining me in my bed.

VOICE OF 'BYF', ABUSE SURVIVOR: "Archbishop Aspinall, he put me in that bed, he made that decision after I'd told him that I was concerned that Hawkins was the one who was going to abuse me."

MICHAEL ATKIN: Today, the Archbishop of Brisbane said he didn't remember that conversation from 1982, but conceded he could've been joking.

PHILLIP ASPINALL: No, I certainly don't recall that.

QUESTIONER: Alright. But you can't deny that there was a conversation about that?

PHILLIP ASPINALL: No, I can't positively rule it out.

MICHAEL ATKIN: In 1992, a leader in the Boys Society warned Phillip Aspinall that Lou Daniels was involved in serious misconduct involving boys. Daniels resigned without explanation two years later.

PHILLIP ASPINALL: I knew something had gone on.

QUESTIONER: Did you suspect at the time of his resignation that it may have had something to do with inappropriate conduct with boys?

PHILLIP ASPINALL: Um ... I may have. That's possible.

MICHAEL ATKIN: In 1998, a church inquiry in Tasmania found it had a serious problem with paedophilia. A year later, Phillip Aspinall, who was a senior leader in the church, provided Lou Daniels with a character reference at his trial for child sex offences.

PHILLIP ASPINALL: I can see how my writing of such a reference would cause them deep grief and I certainly regret that.

MICHAEL ATKIN: In 1999, Phillip Aspinall was living in Adelaide as the assistant bishop. At that time, Don Owers was the parish priest at the Magill Church in South Australia when abuse survivors of another alleged member of the paedophile ring, Bob Brandenburg, started coming forward.

DON OWERS: I interviewed the third person who had come forward to talk about abuse at the hands of Brandenburg. He mentioned boys being abused interstate, sometimes on CEBS national camps.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Don Owers contacted Phillip Aspinall and the Archbishop Ian George about his concerns. Some survivors had already gone to the police.

PHILLIP ASPINALL: I was personally aware of at least four victims, which makes it very serious. The police had also told us that they expected there could be many more.

DON OWERS: Phillip Aspinall would've been involved in the decision-making processes through to the time that he left to become Archbishop of Brisbane at the end of 2001. Did he do enough? Well, I think he could've done more.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Just before Brandenburg was due to face court, he killed himself. The church didn't go public about his abuse for four more years.

BOB BRANDENBURG, FMR CHURCH OF ENGLAND YOUTH LEADER: I'm deeply sorry that the church did not protect children.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Phillip Aspinall did eventually act. As Archbishop of Brisbane, he set up an inquiry in 2002 that led to the resignation of his predecessor, Peter Hollingworth.

PETER HOLLINGWORTH, FORMER GOVERNOR-GENERAL: My decision to resign as Governor-General was taken after long and soul-searching consideration.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Yesterday at the Royal commission, Peter Hollingworth apologised for allowing paedophile John Elliott to continue working as a priest in the 1990s.

PETER HOLLINGWORTH: I'm deeply sorry that I was not sufficiently sensitive to your needs.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Aspinall is the current Archbishop of Brisbane and one of the church's brightest stars.

COLLEAGUE: I have known him since he became prominent as an Anglican priest, then bishop and Archbishop of Brisbane and then as primate, which means the leading bishop in Australia. His career as a churchman has been absolutely exemplary, significant.

MICHAEL ATKIN: Abuse survivor David Gould was listening to Phillip Aspinall give evidence today. He's not convinced he's heard the full story.

DAVID GOULD: I find his recollection less than convincing about some aspects of this. ... I think the Royal commission has been - with Archbishop Aspinall has put some of the facts out, not all of them.

Source: http://www.abc.net.a...15/s4400694.htm


Aspinall still seemed to look very unwell but perhaps it was just just nerves as he faced cross examination over these allegations. Skin was pale and blotchy and he looked very old for a man who is just 56. This photo doesn't show it too closely but it gives a bit of an idea. Thoughts?

r1_9_419_245_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

msc

Posted 06 February 2016 - 03:32 PM

Though the idea of a Escobar type giving casual interviews to the BBC about his cancer does raise a smile.


Review the complete topic (launches new window)