Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
Yes, we will need bridesmaids. Danielle will definitely have to organise the frocks though - I have the feeling her sense of style is somewhat more, um, stylish than mine. Deborah?
Me? I do a fine line in frump. I want the frou frou meringue dress - pavlova gone mad. Plus gumboots. I was born and bred in Taranaki afterall.
Moving on.
To Las Vegas for the wedding of the week, I hope.
-
Isn't that the very definition of apologist?
I'm not sure, I think some are using the term to imply that others are making excuses for veitch, which I don't think they are.
I could say sorry if that helps, that's kind of being an apologist isn't it?
-
you and rob sure don't seem to be noticing anyone else's lengthy, nuanced arguments about violence, control or the lack thereof, and empathy.
what do you mean I don't notice it? if I don't comment on it you can take it as read that I noticed and absorbed said comment. I don't think I'm supposed to comment on everything I think is valid as well do I?
ps, you're my favourite
-
I'm ready to put Magic coach Noeline Taurua alongside Buck Shelfords torn scrotum for coaching in the 1/4 finals 3days after giving birth.
I tend to think their priorities were wrong, but equally so.
-
Is this discussion over? If not, any wise interps of the Paul Holmes interview? I reread it this am - I think it starts well - then there's the question/answer bulk of it that is very Holmes-like - it's mostly about Tony's pain - just as Holmes used to try to make us feel sorry for him(???) Degenerates into emotional slush?
There's no mention of the pain of his former partner although he is made to speak kindly of her. It's about his progress under counselling which is not what the public want to hear. Surely.
Another thing - how do lawyers for both sides allow people to cover up grievous bodily harm?
-
For those who want reassurance that commenters in this thread are not lone voices:
Tapu Misa: When sorry just doesn't cut it
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10521343&pnum=0Not surprisingly, Veitch seems to have played down the seriousness of the assault, both when he told his bosses at TVNZ and The Radio Network late last year and when he made his carefully scripted public apology last week, in which he offered up the classic excuses familiar to those who work with the perpetrators of domestic violence.
...if this week I should beat my child so violently that she ends up in hospital with four cracked vertebrae, unable to walk or attend school for some time, and if somehow I convince her to lie about how she got her injuries (to spare her the humiliation of publicity), I hope you'll all just mind your own business and let me get on with mine, because either my intentions were loving but I went just a bit too far, or I "broke" and "lost it" but said sorry afterwards and promised never to do it again (and I was sorely provoked).
-
Celia:
You know something, I really tried to come up with a "wise interp" of that interview and I just can't. Yesterday was the first time in I can't remember how long I actually paid for the Herald on Sunday. So, I guess Holmes did his job. The interview itself was not so much "emotional slush" as a PR puff piece not the tough, in-depth interview being promoted.
Nice to see the Herald on Sunday didn't so much lower the bar, as dig a very deep hole and bury it.
Oh, and nice to see The Standard have found a way to Blame National.
-
Another thing - how do lawyers for both sides allow people to cover up grievous bodily harm?
because it's lots of money for all.
-
And in stark contrast (and perhaps the definition of apologist from a dim hack dependent on "celebrities"):
About Town With Bridget Saunders
http://stuff.co.nz//blogs/abouttown/2008/07/14/lionising-violence/Come on … We have to stop bleating and whining… Let’s admit it. We love The Bash! It’s part of our culture.
-
And another angle from someone who can write:
Model behaviour? That's not his role
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4617036a1861.htmlMen who put women in wheelchairs do not require any extra judgement on the basis of their being role models.
Besides, do you know of anyone who "looks up" to the likes of Veitch and his fellow autocue plug-ins (as I once read them uncharitably described)? They may well be admired or even envied for their jobs, salaries and lifestyles, but that constitutes aspirational behaviour in the same way wanting bigger breasts makes Pamela Anderson a role model for certain women.
-
"inflexible" I meant no harm but isn't a reality that people who have once taken up a position stick to it regardless. For example if you give long support to a particular political party , you refuse to recognize any nuance or distraction if it interferes with your perception. I have been long time been upset by bullying in any form. But I still look for why he/she is a bully. It is easy to punish the bully. Bit harder to prevent without looking at "other factors". You can say that this is obvious, or I am an apologist for xxx , or it is a patronizing position or whatever. Go for it.
-
A big issue for me is to do with the law and that it should be applied equally. It bothers me that many violent offenders with little money and/or little powerful contacts go to jail for domestic violence. In contrast it seems that wealthy white guys can buy their way out of a similar situation.
How does this help to lessen violence in NZ?
-
If we were really honest about ourselves I wonder how many of us would act differently.
I would suggest to you, that your need to ask that question says more about you, than it does about the people to whom you pose the question.
Jackie, I think you were exempt from that comment. You've already admitted an assault that neither you nor your victim saw fit to report to the police. We can probably assume that if your husband had turned his head at the wrong moment and you'd busted his nose, that would have been dealt with in-house too - after all, the intent was to "get a reaction", not to rearrange his face.
I don't know you. but the impression I get from your posts is that you are smart, funny and likeable, so I can't imagine that you would have kicked him viciously on the ground. Unless, I dunno, you were strung out after a long period of 70-hour weeks, had a mix of legal and illegal psychosis-inducing drugs in your system and were tormented by demons real and imagined. But you've made it pretty clear that after dropping hubby at the hospital you'd be straight down to hand yourself over to the police (probably even if your husband advised against it). And I think we can assume that Ian probably wouldn't. Veitch was set to host an Olympics - pretty much the pinnacle in his profession. If I translate that to my career, I can't honestly say I wouldn't try to make it all go away myself.
So I don't despise Veitch for misguidedly thinking he could put it behind him and get on with his life. I despise him for the assault itself (and for whatever self-medication took him way, way over the edge). And I despise him (a litle less) for not "manning up" when this hit the headlines - if it was me, I'd be a broken man and leaning heavily on my friends (thankfully Holmes wouldn't be one of them). I would appreciate my lawyer/management doing their professional job in laying out the options ("save my career" versus "do the right thing"), but want my friends to gently steer me in the right long-term direction. -
Jackie, I think you were exempt from that comment. You've already admitted an assault that neither you nor your victim saw fit to report to the police. We can probably assume that if your husband had turned his head at the wrong moment and you'd busted his nose, that would have been dealt with in-house too - after all, the intent was to "get a reaction", not to rearrange his face.
I don't know you. but the impression I get from your posts is that you are smart, funny and likeable, so I can't imagine that you would have kicked him viciously on the ground. etcetcSt phen. I enjoyed your contribution. Balanced. Again thanks to Jackie for being game to post as she did as well. It is just a matter of degree. Starting from just yelling/swearing at someone through to a sadistic killing it is all a matter of degree and chance.
-
Ian, stop digging. Violence is not a matter of "chance" but of choice and your continued ignorance of that is getting tired. Go read the link to Tapu Misa's column and perhaps reflect on why your position has sounded like minimising Veitch's actions.
In some forums repeating the same point over and over without showing the slightest sign of listening to others would constitute trolling.
-
What is a "circle-jerk"?
An act (and a very pleasurable one, if you're that way inclined) that should only be engaged in in private, with a group of people you really, really like.
Starting from just yelling/swearing at someone through to a sadistic killing it is all a matter of degree and chance.
Ian: I think we're well past the point where we should agree to disagree and move on, but I'm really troubled by the idea that sadistic abuse or murder is 'a matter of degree and chance'. In my experience, people who say 'I had no choice' are bullshitting. They had a choice, and they made it. Call me simplistic and unbalanced (in whatever sense you like) if you must, but I believe that human beings aren't born rational, but that's no excuse for acting like an animal.
-
wot he said
-
Ian,,I have always considered that All humans are equal. What I see more and more is the demise of the human species from the likes of those who want to be in control.It is all very well of you to try to analyse the who ,what why, of an appalling situation like this .Unbeknown to me is your reason, of which I have no problem but please,without judgement, can you not understand (or even learn from) those around here with experience.There is emotion here with empathy and because of experience, there is also anger. So from me IT IS NOT OK and because it is common behaviour on this planet, please support whatever we can do to educate those who don't know.
I am off now,I don't have time to continue as I don't work on my computer, Sorry no time to discuss any more so you have yourself a day and whatever -
Craig: Thanks I did look up the definition.
I totally agree that it is not an excuse to damage other people -at all. Pity we could not have listed all the common agreements. Does everyone abhor violence against people or any living thing? Yes. Unanimous. No excuses. yes. Unanimous. So not going through the human frailities again. Chance meant if this was a different time, a different place, arrived later, weapon not to hand, baby had slept for even a few hours, etc. -
Ian writes:
Starting from just yelling/swearing at someone through to a sadistic killing it is all a matter of degree and chance.
As I think I wrote somewhere up thread there is an element of chance, my genetics make it much less likely that I will cause serious damage if I were to attack an adult.
But even if I was born huge and strong and with a genetically predetermined impulse control deficiency, and grew up in a household where violence was the norm, I could still control myself. It might be physiologically harder, it might be psychologically harder, but it would be possible, and whether I beat my partner to death or not would be entirely my responsibility, not a matter of chance.
-
Hear how a real man can take responsibility for his role in family violence:
streaming:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/tony_veitch_sagadownloadable:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20080714-0912-Tony_Veitch_Saga-048.mp3 -
Woman's Day and WW - front page TV stories - Woman's Day - he's smiling and holding a fluffy white pussy cat!
-
but I believe that human beings aren't born rational, but that's no excuse for acting like an animal.
that's a somewhat confusing comment coming after the one above it but I completely agree with you on it.
it's no excuse to not be rational but it not exactly surprising.
-
Sofie. I agree with you. Absolutely, Except if you are going to change behaviour, you have no choice but to look at the who, what, why. I found a a 9 year old girl was stealing, cheating. Naughty. That is wrong. Then found that her friends father was interfering sexually. (Incidentally I have fought a lifetime based on the premise that we are all born equal and despise misuse of priviledge through wealth, or power, etc. I was prominent in the banning of strapping children in schoolsetc) I believe that the ITS NOT OK researchers did more than just promote the message. I am for them and the message.
If you read this after your work day I hope you had a good day. Sounds like a fatuous Americanism. But true. -
There may be some element of chance, at least in some cases. But people who have worked with and/or studied domestic violence have identified some common patterns. These include increasing escalation in the level of violence, for instance, so that a very violent incident usually follows incidences of lesser violence. This is not chance. It involves a pattern of behaviour, usually incorporating attempts to control the behaviour of the victim.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/lethality.htm
Post your response…
This topic is closed.