Echinoderm

But the next pope may be far more conservative than Francis, who by Catholic Church standards was unusually liberal.

This made slightly less sense before I remembered that manga is supposed to be read right to left.

Or speaking in cant?

"Trust me bro."

It's just a tiny little fella!

I'd forgotten about this series. I've got some catching up to do.

I doubt they would need to enact truth in political advertising laws for that. Dutton and his colleagues have shown a willingness to flex defamation laws when people say things that make them feel sad. They are also privileged enough to be among the few who have the financial means to pursue those kinds of actions.

My guess is you'd end up with a bunch of strategically expensive defamation actions that are intended to tie up those sort of advertisements until after the election.

Now, if it was something that would stop the Greens or teals from building more support? Watch that fly through Parliament with bipartisan approval.

Nope, I have no doubt they happen. I'm disputing that a old comedy film is useful evidence of them.

Toms Hanks also made a movie 40 years ago about role playing games making you mentally unwell and suicidal. So I'm not sure we should necessarily be citing 1980s Tom Hanks movies for their social commentary value.

Responding aggressively to a post asking why it appears that American culture has become more aggressive and hateful is not helping as much as you think.

..."the groom did not respond to our request for comment." It makes it clear that you tried and he was not interested in explaining himself.

For context, it's standard practice in proceedings under the Family Law Act to use pseudonyms, so it's not really possible to track this guy down and ask for his comment.

It must not be overlooked that I am not required to accept evidence, even uncontroverted evidence, if that evidence is contrary to the way events are likely to have occurred

Tell that to the High Court in Pell…

My reading of the Pell appeal was that is more or less what the High Court decided, albeit while applying the more stringent criminal burden of beyond reasonable doubt in relation to a jury trial. The Court fundamentally concluded that while the complainant's evidence was credible, the compounding effect of unchallenged evidence from multiple other witnesses meant that there was "a significant possibility" Pell was not guilty of the charges.

I should mention that I'm not a Pell apologist; it does appear from the Royal Commission on institutional abuse that he was complicit in covering up historical sexual assaults, and that is unforgivable. But for anyone that hasn't read the full text of the appeal (http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html), I thoroughly recommend it. I am not ashamed to say that I think the Court makes a convincing case for him not being guilty of those particular charges.

Here's the link to the case should you be interested: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2024/674.html

To be fair to the BBC, most of the questions you raise don't have good answers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of the other side of the story to report. The judge mentions at several points that the purported groom gave only vague and incomplete evidence, and that he failed to provide details about key issues.