General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
|
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Just because they said they did doesn't necessarily mean its the truth. It's not like the church has never lied concerning abuse.
![]() ![]() The article isn't about what he did as a social worker. Anything there is total speculation. If he abused kids as a social worker, it's bad. I understand you're concerned about prior but no one has put forth any proof of what happened prior. Actually no one is even accusing him of anything prior. It's just another typical strawman to distract people from the fact that an officer of the church hired to 'to monitor church groups to ensure paedophiles did not gain access to children in the church’s congregations.' got caught uploading child porn. Well done. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
I said I was speculating so what's your point?
Yes it is likely that he was scum before, but you're just speculating there too. And screw you if you think I don't care about abused children. I think since you're the one that has continually supported the church throughout all the PROVEN accusation make you the one that doesn't care about the children. I'm laughing because the church looks stupid again. And further speculation. For all we know the guy was a saint as a social worker and didn't turn into a pedo until after he had associated with priests for nine years. The only thing we have proof of is that he was caught with child porn while working for the church to weed it out. Refute any of that. If you can't see the irony of if. You're even worse than I thought. Which would be really bad. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
I find something funny and that's the only thing I say that let's you rest your case.
Just because I find it funny doesn't mean I find it funny "ONLY" because it makes the church look stupid. It's funny that they hired a ped to police it. Heck if the police did it, I would still find it funny. You don't refute any of the facts, and you rest your case. But when you have no case, I guess its easy to rest it. MORON. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
Meanwhile, back on the home front...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2119607/ [hide][top]Bishop Lahey’s child porn case in sentencing hearing [hide][top]Ottawa— The Canadian Press [hide][top]Published Thursday, Aug. 04, 2011 11:55AM EDT [hide][top]Last updated Thursday, Aug. 04, 2011 12:07PM EDT A disgraced Roman Catholic bishop betrayed little emotion today as a court was told his laptop contained hundreds of pornographic images of young boys — including photos of torture. Raymond Lahey was in court for sentencing in a child-porn case that has rocked his former Nova Scotia archdiocese of Antigonish. The 71-year-old cleric pleaded guilty in May to importing child pornography and voluntarily went to jail to begin serving time even before a formal sentencing. Almost 600 photos, mostly of young teen boys, were found on Mr. Lahey's Toshiba laptop and a handheld device when he was stopped at the Ottawa International Airport in September 2009. An Ottawa police detective told the court Thursday that the images ranged from soft-core nude shots to far more gruesome photos. “Some of them were quite graphic,” Det. Andrew Thompson said. “There were images of nude boys, but there were also torture and stuff like that.” As Mr. Thompson answered questions from the witness stand about the contents of Mr. Lahey's laptop, the bishop sat quietly, his right hand trembling slightly as he ran his index finger along his lips and chin. He was dressed in a grey sport coat, khaki pants and a tan shirt with the top few buttons undone. He wore glasses and his grey hair was neatly combed and gelled. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|