Re-PELL-ent

Being what I would like to consider something of a wordsmith, my online games are limited to bouts of Words with Friends, and Boggle (naturally, I also play Trivia Rush, but that doesn't really count as a 'word game'). Aside from the fun mental challenge, these games also have a function that enables players to 'chat' with their opponents. I've been enjoying the interchanges between me and my Boggle opponents, most of whom are in the US. Usually the chats are about the differences in climate between Australia (currently melting into a puddle) and the US (cold as fuck).

Anyway, the other night I received notification of a new challenger, and a new message. The message went something along these lines:

'...Me and my friend made a bet for $100 for the first one to show 10 girls a picture of his dick can you help me...'

As you can imagine, I was absolutely incensed! The appalling grammar had me snorting like an angry bull, and I had to be restrained from writing back with corrections. I actually did respond and inform him that I am a middle-aged woman in Australia, and surely to God he can find someone closer to his own age who just might have a skerrick of interest in viewing a photograph of his weiner. I also played the round in Boggle and metaphorically kicked the little degenerate's arse from here to Kingdom Come. I've not heard back, and I'm guessing the reason is twofold: firstly, I am not going to assist him in being the victor of this depraved wager (no doubt devised over a session on the x-box and the bong in someone's basement); and secondly, I am going to flay him alive in Boggle.

On the other hand, I am aware one can do fun things with the 'edit' function; so, perhaps I should have said, 'Yes, I'd love to see your pic!' (and thrown in a few kisses and hearts), and when the priapic image arrived in my in-box 'drawn' googly eyes on it, before sending it back to the satyriatic little twerp (or broadcast the image until it went viral instead). I know it's childish, but googly eyes make EVERYTHING funny!

Okay, like every other commentator that has gone before me, I am going to weigh in on the comments made by Cardinal Pell's lawyer in his submission to the judge in light of Pell's conviction by the jury. Regular followers already know this, but if I've obtained a new follower today (welcome, great to have you!), I will point out my background is one in law, specialising in criminal defence work. I'm not a qualified lawyer, my role was strictly paralegal/secretarial, but I have a good understanding of how and why it works the way it does, and my knowledge and experience shits copious amounts over the comments made by many others.  Everyone has lost their shit over Richter QC's use of the term 'vanilla' to describe the offence for which His Honour must formulate a sentence. Others are of the mind Richter has admitted Pell's guilt in his submission. Sit back, and read carefully:

In making reference to the incident, Richter is NOT saying is client is guilty. Richter's role is to achieve the best outcome he can for his client (keeping within the parameters of the law), and that means arguing for the most lenient sentence he can. Richter is referring to an incident for which a jury has found Pell guilty, and he must therefore argue on the circumstances set out in this offence. This does not mean he is saying client guilty.

The term 'vanilla' is not the best one, but it was not used to diminish any trauma experienced by victims. Richter's role first and foremost is to protect the interests of Pell. Any sexual assault is bad, but the court must take into account any mitigating factors such as aggravated violence. A grope on the bus is a sexual assault, but a perpetrator will receive a more lenient sentence than someone convicted of a sexual assault involving bodily penetration and a knife held to the victim's throat. Understand? What Richter's saying is along the lines of: 'The offence involved X and Y, but not Z'. Like it or not, he's got to do it. It's his job.

Some of the comments I've read go beyond ridiculous. Things like: 'Only a pedo would act for a pedo.' People who think this, can you please not breed? Using this logic, a lawyer representing a person charged with armed robbery must have committed an armed robbery him- or herself.

Also, John Howard is allowed to write a reference for Pell, if he believes it is the right thing to do. We're a democracy, and it is his right to do so.

Another bizarre line of commentary I've been reading is that there are some who are demanding to know the names of people who have contributed to the legal fees for Pell's trial. How do I put this? Oh, I know: It's nobody's business. Think about it, folks. If you decide to donate to a cause, you don't have to disclose this to the general public. If people are disbursing their money for a lawful transaction, it's really nobody else's business. What do you think the office of the solicitors for Pell are going to say if someone rings up and demands to see their trust account ledgers? The response will be a polite: 'I'm sorry, but we will not disclose our personal financial information', whereupon the receiver will be replaced whilst the office representative mutters, 'Fuck off, you idiot!' under his or her breath.

Okay, that's enough of my lecturing for today. I'm aware my thoughts might not be in keeping with the mainstream shock-jock rantings, but I just wanted to explain a few things.

And talk about the request I got to be shown a dick pic.