plekhanov Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 You admit some of them did report it to the police. That's good. I presume the priests were tried by the courts in the usual way and if guilty were sentenced appropriately? I don't "admit" anything of the sort as I never denied it. What I am doing is rebutting yet more of your disgusting apologism for a Christian Church's decades long conspiracy to hide paedophiles form the police whilst giving them access to fresh children to rape. It is truly sickening that you are once again blaming the victims of rape rather than the rapists and those who colluded with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Paedophiles tend not to rape adults How do you know none of those 47,000+ women were raped by priests? Precisely the point I was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 I don't "admit" anything of the sort as I never denied it. What I am doing is rebutting yet more of your disgusting apologism for a Christian Church's decades long conspiracy to hide paedophiles form the police whilst giving them access to fresh children to rape. It is truly sickening that you are once again blaming the victims of rape rather than the rapists and those who colluded with them. You just did admit some of the rapes were reported to the police. And you disgusting attempts to deny, mitigate and distract from the Christian enabled rape of children continues. There is nothing "alleged" about the abuse, thousands of children definitely were abused courts and official enquiries have determined that. Some of them did, many however had such misplaced faith in the church that they initially reported the abuse to priests, bishops... who then did everything they could to silence them. It takes courage for child abuse victims to tell even a single person, telling a 2nd after the first has tried to silence them is all the harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Precisely the point I was making. Why? Did anyone claim paedophiles tend to rape adults? How do you know that none of the adult victims of rape were attacked by priests? You just did admit some of the rapes were reported to the police. I "admitted" nothing of the kind as that would imply conceding a point I'd previously denied when I had done nothing of the sort. Correcting yet another of your failed attempts at apologism for those who assisted for so long in the rape and abuse of children is not an "admission". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Why? Did anyone claim paedophiles tend to rape adults? How do you know that none of the adult victims of rape were attacked by priests? I "admitted" nothing of the kind as that would imply conceding a point I'd previously denied when I had done nothing of the sort. Correcting yet another of your failed attempts at apologism for those who assisted for so long in the rape and abuse of children is not an "admission". Stop thrashing about in the water, you'll drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 "At least 47,000 adult women are raped every year in the UK." Not one by a paedophile priest. Why would a paedophile priest rape an adult woman? Precisely the point I was making. What, that paedophile priests have abused children in their care? Or that they have been hidden from the law by the church's superiors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Why would a paedophile priest rape an adult woman? What, that paedophile priests have abused children in their care? Or that they have been hidden from the law by the church's superiors? Neither, the point I was making was that in the UK alone 47,000+ women are raped every year which puts things into perspective better than plekhanov's wild rantings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Stop thrashing about in the water, you'll drown. A typical ploy by Grahame to avoid answering direct questions. It is now well established fact that some of the Catholic priesthood in Boston (USA) and in Ireland sexually abused children over many years. It is also now well established fact that the Catholic church hierachy shielded abusing priests by a) not reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to the police; b) moving abusing priests to different parishes - where they sexually abused yet more children. Incontrovertible facts Grahame. So, a simple question for Grahame to answer - why do you defend the Catholic church for shielding paedophile priests? I look forward to your answer Grahame, though I suspect that once more you will dodge the question*. *Tell you what Grahame - I'll make it dead easy for you to dodge my question. In your reply, just refer to my being an atheist and then you can accuse me of having an anti-Christian agenda. There - I've made it really easy for you to avoid answering my question Grahame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 So are you making excuses for the paedophiles or those who attacked them or both? Neither, grahame. but then again, unlike you, I never said that Holly and Jessica were to blame for their own murders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Hmm... but you allow yourself to call other posters I see? .... Grahame - paedophiles are not given new names and identities upon release from prison. Do get your facts right. I am glad you have come back because I wanted to add to my previous post that paedophiles are given new identities to protect them from vigilante groups, Sarah's Law does not come into force until 2011 and anyone disclosing the identity of a paedophile will be prosecuted. PT was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.