Jump to content

Pope accepts resignation of Polish bishop after gay orgy scandal in diocese


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

For gay sex?

 

It's Poland, not Palestine.

 

From the article above:

 

"A prosecutor said the priest was suspected of “failing to provide assistance to a person whose life is at risk” for having allegedly tried to bar paramedics from entering the apartment."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't think that the Pope has the power to sentence Polish people for offences alleged to have been committed in Poland.

Vatikan law valid!

Posted
5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

From the article above:

 

"A prosecutor said the priest was suspected of “failing to provide assistance to a person whose life is at risk” for having allegedly tried to bar paramedics from entering the apartment."

Suspicions are enough to lock people up now? Good to know...

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Actually they always have been. 

 

Pre-atrial incarceration is a thing.

 


 

 

Without being charged? Fascinating...

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You perhaps assume English Common Law is universal.

 

So you support prison for people who haven't even been charged? Not very 'liberal'.

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. You started out by asking this:

"For gay sex?

It's Poland, not Palestine."

Then when your misunderstanding was exposed, you pivoted to the issue of due process. 

Not at all. I was highlighting that calling for prison for someone who hasn't been charged with a crime is not appropriate.

 

Whether the "crime" is the gay sex or failing to provide assistance is not the point. He has not been charged.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, JonnyF said:

Not at all. I was highlighting that calling for prison for someone who hasn't been charged with a crime is not appropriate.

 

Whether the "crime" is the gay sex or failing to provide assistance is not the point. He has not been charged.

What in your quote backs up that statement? You did not mention anything about due process. Rather you pointed out that the homosexual acts took place in Poland not Palestine. In other words, that gay sex is not a crime in Poland.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, placeholder said:

What in your quote backs up that statement? You did not mention anything about due process. Rather you pointed out that the homosexual acts took place in Poland not Palestine. In other words, that gay sex is not a crime in Poland.

 

He hasn't been charged. So why put him in prison?  

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, JonnyF said:

 

He hasn't been charged. So why put him in prison?  

Utterly irrelevant to your first quote pointing out that gay sex is not a crime in Poland. It had nothing to do with the issue of due process. Only when your misunderstanding was pointed out, did you pivot to that issue.

Posted
1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Utterly irrelevant to your first quote pointing out that gay sex is not a crime in Poland. It had nothing to do with the issue of due process. Only when your misunderstanding was pointed out, did you pivot to that issue.

 

Nonsense. He had gay sex, not a crime. He hasn't been charged with any other offense.

 

So tell me, why should he go to prison? 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nonsense. He had gay sex, not a crime. He hasn't been charged with any other offense.

 

So tell me, why should he go to prison? 

No contributor to this post except you suffered from the mistaken belief that this had anything to do with the fact that the priest was engaged in gay sex or any kind of sex.

  • Confused 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You might want to check the post I was replying to before you butted into the conversation.

 

The poster was calling for prison. I said he hadn't been charged with a crime. You butted in "Ah but you can lock people up people prior to trial". What trial? He hasn't been charged. Calling for prison is not appropriate. 

When responding to my posts you might want to try sticking to what I actually said and not attribute your own fabricated statements to

me:


"Ah but you can lock people up people prior to trial".

 

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Actually they always have been. 

 

Pre-trial incarceration is a thing.

 


 

 

The above statement is not even close to ‘calling for prison’.

 

46 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So you support prison for people who haven't even been charged? Not very 'liberal'.


Quite a bizarre conclusion with absolutely no justification.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No contributor to this post except you suffered from the mistaken belief that this had anything to do with the fact that the priest was engaged in gay sex or any kind of sex.

 

So why lock him up? He hasn't been charged.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So actually you agree that there is no reason for him to go to prison?

 

In which case, why the trolling?

You can’t draw that conclusion from my statements either.

 

I simply corrected your misunderstanding on the matter.

 

I’m sorry doing so caused such offense.

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So actually you agree that there is no reason for him to go to prison?

 

In which case, why the trolling?

No, I don't agree. There may  be a reason, as was pointed out in the article. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You can’t draw that conclusion from my statements either.

 

I simply corrected your misunderstanding on the matter.

 

I’m sorry doing so caused such offense.

 

 

There was no misuderstanding from me. No charge. No prison. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...