Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
And I'd like to hear more about what is driving that effort, from those who have made it.
Sacha: The same thought occurred to me. Except it is the other way round. (It is not a drive to defend the bloke. It is the need to be fair as a society.) What drives the more extreme outrages? Why add extreme language in describing the alleged event? What drives the attackers?
Goodnight. -
Ian, for me it goes back to what Craig said earlier today. We understand one another better if where we are coming from becomes visible through the various positions we discuss. Respectful forums like this are taonga.
I'm not really sure why but I seem to have a less clear picture of the underlying motivation of contributors who are saying there needs to be more evidence. Your comment "the need to be fair as a society" is exactly the kind of thing I was seeking.
Of course it may lead to a dicussion about what is fair...
-
but cracking 3 (or 4, or 5 depending on the "facts") vertebrae is not quite breaking your back.
Oh, faaaaark... I'm actually rather pleased that a certain human being (who seems to have got lost in this, which might be the idea) isn't in a wheelchair permanently. Can we take it as read that when an argument degenerates into kicking, hitting or otherwise causing someone any fucking spinal injuries whatsoever is a BAD BAD BAD THING.
And, Michael, where I come from anything that puts a person in a wheelchair (which Veitch has not challenged) is not generally described as "lashing out". That's reserved for a curt, bad-tempered verbal outburst.
-
Clearly, for the sake of the debate, a Court case would be well worth it. And yes of course concern and sympathy goes to the victim of any attack. A pity that our society is so intent on violence being an answer to problems, frustrations etc. So ?
-
A pity that our society is so intent on violence being an answer to problems, frustrations etc. So ?
It is? I would have thought that our "society" (y'know, communities, politicians, police, courts, schools etc) are doing lots to try and reduce violent reactions to stressful situations.
Now our obsession with rugby undermines all that but still....
-
Don't be disingenuous Ian, it went more like this:
I accuse you. You did not deny it, In fact you admitted a lot of it. Therefore you are guilty.
I'm more of the: "You had the opportunity to clear up what happened; your side of the story would have been prominently conveyed on every news service in the country. And yet you settled for a two-word euphemism."
-
Now we will know what Veitch is referring to next time he mentions going out "on the lash".
On the issue of speculation it's a bit hard in this case as we have a 'respected' media outlet giving reasonably details errr... details while Veitch has said that not all the things being reported are correct. He could be referring to the DomPost or to random things he's hearing through the web.
But I don't know if anybody followed the link to the story about the 4 English rugby players I posted a couple of pages back. Turns out the allegations that it was a big sex romp with an audience weren't quite so true afterall. At least if the English investigation is anything to go by.
The players at the time had to remain tight lipped and were instructed to say nothing. It seems as though two of them walked in on a bloke having sex where "there was no element of voyeurism and they were "actually quite embarrassed" to have disturbed them".
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521046&pnum=2
That's a far cry from what was being implied in the media and various forums (yours truly being a guilty party). Who knows exactly what happened aside from those who were there and until we get admissions from those who were there or were directly involved it probably is better off to concentrate on the credible stuff rather than the 'extras'.
-
Please don't say it was the victim's fault for not reporting it. I don't buy that
that's an interesting point. what is the protocol for a crime where your victim decides not to press charges or report it to the authorities?
how should he have handled this in your esteemed opinions. you'll probably need to give to versions of it though,
one being him and his ex decided to not take it to court and mutually agreed to deal with it outside of the system.
two being he paid her to shut up.
actually there's probably a third or 4th scenario in there some where too.
-
It is? I would have thought that our "society" (y'know, communities, politicians, police, courts, schools etc) are doing lots to try and reduce violent reactions to stressful situations.
the whole front section of any news paper will contradict that unfortunately, and most of mans short an illustrious history on this planet. there's been some good bits for sure, but lets not forget the continuous states of war, greed, general evil etc.
Now our obsession with rugby undermines all that but still....
pigskin ball,....testosterone, shake vigorously
I don't get it either, -
Robbery, "the victim" includes society as well. Hence police investigating in the absence of complaint. Discussed earlier in thread, including historical references.
-
Yamis
On the issue of speculation it's a bit hard in this case as we have a 'respected' media outlet giving reasonably details errr... details while Veitch has said that not all the things being reported are correct.....
Well said Yamis and thanks for the connection to the Rugby accusations, by the "reliable media."
-
Who knows exactly what happened aside from those who were there...
And that's where the context comes in, including the cultural factors about sports, gender and violence.
Let's not be naive and carry on as if there is a level playing field. There isn't - hence some of the comments about justice for the rich, and the understandable desire not to go through an invasive court process for little personal gain.
Are these professional rugby players with instant access to their management and lawyers likely to say anything if they are advised that silence benefits them? Is the only non-team person in the situation likely to be unaware of the discrepancy in her resources, or the consequences of pursuing a complaint, including having her reputation savaged in our courts while the players are shieded (Louise Nicholas, anyone)? Is a judge hired by the English rugby union the sole purveyor of truth?
In Veitch's case, please pay similar attention to the context (lawyers, defamation, staged apology) and perhaps go back and read Russell's post. Just read the first sentence at the top of the screen.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for legal-grade evidence to be supplied. That doesn't stop me and others having a reasonable and historically informed understanding about what is going on and what it means.
Which again causes me to be curious about your motivation for downplaying or denying what most of us seem to understand has gone on here, despite the unknowns and complexities. Do tell.
-
Yamis,
I get what you're saying, but there are some differences.
The Dompost in this case has been very solid about what they've released, and perhaps that's why they haven't printed the other allegations.
The whole Englsih rugby player coverage, on the other hand, was always strong on innuendo and weak on facts.
Apart from that Angel Barbie distraction of course.
-
Sue,
we have no idea which details are correct or not, Russell makes a super Important note that
Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.BUT
does it matter how severe her injuries were?
isn't it bad enough to know she was hit, and that that is wrong.
other wise it potential implies there is a sliding scale of acceptable violence towards another person. Which i am sure nobody here would even think was an ok thing -
Yep LB, there was a distinct difference in that the English rugby players "allegedly" did this and that (that word was used frequently in the media) while in this case the DomPost is stating things as facts and that is a clear and obvious difference.
Thus far though it seems the facts can be stated as
1) Tony Veitch seriously assaulted his ex-partner resulting in head injuries and 4 fractured vertebrae
2) He paid her money as some form of compensationThe exact details of the assault and aftermath and motives may or may not become clearer with time.
Either way, what we do know thus far has me convinced that the guy is a scumbag and I don't mind any of the discussion on these here pages. I think it's all been perfectly fair given the circumstances and details at hand.
-
isn't it bad enough to know she was hit, and that that is wrong.
other wise it potential implies there is a sliding scale of acceptable violence towards another person. Which i am sure nobody here would even think was an ok thingThere is no acceptable form of violence but there are fairly obvious differences from an arguing couple exchanging slaps and then pulling back and walking away and one partner beating the other unconscious, or to death in a sustained deliberate attack.
Otherwise the court sentence for any violent crime would be exactly the same.
-
Otherwise the court sentence for any violent crime would be exactly the same.
Exactly, as would the size of the payment for silence. The scale of both bruising and bribe seem to have attracted our attention.
-
The size of the payment for silence is probably more of an indication of the wealth of the culprit. If it was me, my wife would be getting my cd collection, our mortgage .... and then I'd be off to prison. Or she would after getting all Taekwondo on me.
$170,000 sounds pretty damning though and if the DomPost is to be believed the way it was agreed on and when does nothing to enhance my opinion of Veitch.
-
And then there's this...........
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-12023903.html
Sunday Star Times:
Date: December 26, 2004| Author: BOLAND, Mary Jane |
BROADCASTER TONY Veitch is under fire for calling an African American tennis player "the world's ultimate golliwog".
Veitch was interviewing James Blake - who is coming to Auckland for next month's Heineken Open - on Friday, when he asked why the popular player had cut off his dreadlocks."You were the world's ultimate golliwog . . . now look at you, you're bald," Veitch said on his Radio Sport breakfast show.
The Sunday Star-Times was contacted by people concerned at V...
-
Sacha: "do tell". Actually the first word in Russell's original post was "If". That is what started my train of thought yesterday. What if this is not basically a true account? Thus I kept on looking for some clear facts that I could believe rather than just trusting. I do believe that on balance that terrible things did happen. But I dislike the way that supposition becomes stated as though it were fact. And am really interested in the debates from all sides. Stimulating apart from the horror of hurt.
-
I saw 30 seconds of a Game of four fifths. It's gone from bad to worse - the MC is now grumpy-bum-face-Devlin
-
I'm more of the: "You had the opportunity to clear up what happened; your side of the story would have been prominently conveyed on every news service in the country. And yet you settled for a two-word euphemism."
I was talking about this with a couple of friends last night, one of whom was trying to suggest that maybe breaking her back was an accident, that he pushed her and she fell on a table or something, etc. The other two of us pretty much shouted him down on the strength of the DomPost article, which he hadn't seen.
Sent him the link just now, and in the ensuing discussion I had this realisation: By not denying the kicking to the point of vertebral fracture, which is incredibly damning even by the standards of domestic violence, Veitch effectively confirms one of two things. Either it happened pretty much as the DomPost posits, or the truth is much, much worse. I don't think it's the latter, but it's certainly possible. -
Kyle, it is not just a "private" matter. unless you are Owen McShane of course.
I didn't say it was a private matter. Just that whether I thought his apology, restitution etc was sincere or not, as much as they're being discussed in public, aren't a basis for anything other than gossip.
They're matters to which the victim should have an opinion, to which a judge/jury should have an opinion, and to which his family and friends should have an opinion.
Everything else is just blood in the water for the rest of us, but it's not the basis for anything useful.
-
In general I agree....... but for maybe two possible exceptions..... If reality is actually WORSE than the rumours, you might tend to stay silent.....
Or, more likely, if reality is bad, and the rumours are "close enough", you might prefere to live with the rumours staying just rumours than by refuting them in a legal setting.....
The third is "you've overshot with your speculation, in my tell-all interview with Paul Holmes you'll see from my side that it's actually less than what you've been talking about for a week, and you'll reach the logical conclusion that "oh, that's not so bad"".
I'm more of the: "You had the opportunity to clear up what happened; your side of the story would have been prominently conveyed on every news service in the country. And yet you settled for a two-word euphemism."
I thought the use of the words "lashed out" was very interesting. I presume that the words were specifically chosen by his lawyer. Difficult to say in a court what "lashed out" means. Could mean physical, but as Craig says, could be a good verbal tongue lashing. Even if it was physical, could be "just a push". Yet if the details do get confirmed and it turns out that he hit and then kicked her as the Dom said, then he might be able to justify "lashed out" as being "honest that violence happened".
-
"the victim" includes society as well. Hence police investigating in the absence of complaint. Discussed earlier in thread, including historical references.
ok, so how should he have handled the situation. nobody really answered the question of what they thought he should have done.
what you would have done if you were involved in a situation where you'd done something incredibly stupid, possibly out of character, possibly not, and the person you did it to for what ever reasons agreed to not put it to the police. what should he have done? i'm not siding with him, i'm just wondering how you think he should have acted post grossly stupid action.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.