Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
Cheers ScottY,
In the case the views were expressed by the owner of the site rather than just a random poster though? And the owner of the site clearly had a bee in his bonnet, so stuck to his guns
I just can’t see how a third party, posting something on a forum, could cause any long term damage.
Forums, like history, can be rewritten pretty quickly.
-
Who isn't? But he wasn't actually convicted of a sexual offence, so ...
True enough, and as I said there's more than enough out of the man's own mouth to expose him as an utter turd without going that far. I just wish some folks (present company excepted) would have have shown Louise Nicholas and Kristen Dunne-Powell the same courtesy. Because where I come from perjury, and malicious false complaints of abuse, are pretty serious offences. Then again, I suspect they actually just want to get on with their damn lives and handing out some (IMO) well-deserved defamation writs contributes nothing to it.
-
And the owner of the site clearly had a bee in his bonnet, so stuck to his guns
I think "bee in his bonnet" rather understates the degree of extreme and obsessive behaviour in that case. I can think of other words, but they're probably defamatory ;-)
-
I was trying to be understated RB...
But you raise a good point. Obsessive behaviour from the owner of a site is quite different from a drive-by comment on a forum that can be removed / altered if anyone can be bothered complaining?
-
I just can’t see how a third party, posting something on a forum, could cause any long term damage.
It's not as simple as that. If someone posts an inflammatory comment on a blog site and the site's owner doesn't take it down, or delays in doing anything about the post, the site's owner may become liable if someone perceives they have suffered some blow to their good name.
Even if there are no genuine grounds for legal action, the site's owner could still end up spending thousand in legal costs defending himself/herself.
-
I should have refreshed before my last post...
Obsessive behaviour from the owner of a site is quite different from a drive-by comment on a forum that can be removed / altered if anyone can be bothered complaining?
The safer approach is to remove any potentially inflammatory comments before the complaint arrives. Often the first thing an organisation knows about a complaint is when it receives a "cease and desist" letter from the complainant's lawyers. And a common demand made in any "cease and desist" letter is "...and you must also pay our legal costs".
So it's better not to get the complaint in the first place. If a comment is potentially defamatory it shouldn't stay up unless the site owner's fairly confident they have a good defence (e.g. truth, honest opinion etc).
I don't think any of us should post anything that could mean Russell has to take a hit - unless we're all prepared to have a whip-around to help cover his legal costs?
-
If a comment is potentially defamatory it shouldn't stay up unless the site owner's fairly confident they have a good defence
But given most sites / blogs / forums have a “Contact us” button, wouldn’t the complainants be better advised just to use that?
Can every blog / forum owner be expected to vet everything posted on their site? Seems to go against the whole point of it.
BTW, speaking more out of self-interest than on behalf of PA to be honest.
-
Can every blog / forum owner be expected to vet everything posted on their site? Seems to go against the whole point of it.
Since when is the law supposed to get the point?
Seriously, though, a blog owner or forum maintainer is regarded as a publisher under NZ law, as may be the ISP that hosts the site. It does miss the point, but it's more that the point of blogging misses large chunks of the law ;-)
-
Hello,
I originally arrived here at Mr. Brown's Blog a couple of days ago (via a link from Cactus Kate).Anyhow, in the last 24 hrs or so I have followed this thread and read the posts. This thread caused me to register and to comment.
So I'd like to add the following two statements:
(1) I've been rather disturbed by the Veitch saga on many levels over the last few months including a) the obviously awful domestic abuse , b) the horrible apologists, c) the terrible descent of Mr. Veitch into a suicidal state, d) the venality of the media and its spin doctors e) the manipulation of media coverage (seems both parties might have been a bit calculated here) ... and on and on ... but what prompted me to post tonight (other than my point (2)) is:
I simply cannot abide by the commentary posted by Paul Holmes in the NZ Herald. It was my breaking point on this whole situation ...
That commentary was appalling. It likely did more harm than good for Mr. Veitch. The comments about [paraphrasing] "not messing with a breakfast guy on Sunday night" almost bought me to tears in their callous disregard for, and near condoning of; domestic violence. Mr, Holmes' attempt to invoke God [paraphrase] ."not yet Tony"... seemed somewhat patronising, superfluous and potentially alienating for a large part of NZ's population that are secular. Finally, what on earth does [paraphrase] "lose your freedom from Monday to Friday" mean .... for goodness sake; then so do I (and FWIW I usually put in 60 hrs+/week for my job including being on call 24/7, 362 days/yr for a special medical project I have going) .... its called a full time job! What a ridiculous, unsupportable and frightening column to justify a serious assault conviction.
SIGH. Sorry, long post I guess.
2) I don't pass on jokes, funny stories, warm "fluffies" nor links in e-mails .... BUT... this week I sent an e-mail on Tuesday (past) to several friends with a link to the You Tube clip of Susan Boyle singing in the UK's Got Talent reality show. As a woman who was once described as "not that much to look at but she sure is smart" perhaps I overly identify with Ms. Boyle, however; that voice (acapella!!!) is sincerely amazing, set-up by Simon Cowell or not.
-
Pharmachick, great post to introduce yourself to PAS.
-
Not wishing to up set anyone's senseabilities,but I would remind you that our so called justice system let two convicted rapist's hide behind an assistant commissioner's uniform,and that the same ex assistant commissioner of police chose to resign rather than face the 15 internal charges of sexual misconduct,after telling us all on the steps of the court,(just like tony veitch)that he would fight every charge tooth and nail.No,he was not convicted of anything,but then nether was O.J convicted of anything.The point of my writing was the' Public Image' of these men,and a ex assistant commissioner of police's 'public image' is in the toilet where it belongs,unless you are one who thinks it is cool for three serving police officers to pick up your 17year old daughter and take her of a ride.I was talking about the law for the likes of tony veitch and the ex assistant commissioner of police and the law that the rest of us face.In ending I will quote Mr clint rickards,"I had consensual sex with the victim".The same astounding arrogance,the same court technique of attacking the victim,and the same bullshit result.No real justice for these women,no real justice for anyone.
-
3410,
I simply cannot abide by the commentary posted by Paul Holmes in the NZ Herald. It was my breaking point on this whole situation ...
Me too. I'm lost for words at the mentality behind that column.
-
I was surprised at how easily I found some.
-
Guess P.Holmes was listening to a little eminem when he wrote that one; "It'd be so empty without me", textbook rarking up the masses technique. His editor must be chuffed.
-
No real justice for these women,no real justice for anyone.
Hey cloudwalker,I am assuming (albeit an often foolish thing to do on PAS) that you have fortunately not had the pleasure of our Court System. One littl' pearler I learnt rather quickly is this. The Law and Justice are 2 completely different things. This was passed on more than once from Lawyers. Our Court deals with the Law.
-
As a law student a looong time ago, I learned that Law (which is manifold), and Justice, and Equity are very different things indeed...
-
That's what put me off becoming a lawyer.
-
That's what put me off becoming a lawyer.
I know the point Islander's making and why many agree, but... despite the sometimes absurd and perverse outcomes, laws, lawyers and court rooms are still capable of delivering justice and probably do so more often than not.
I don't like Vetich's sentence but I like the fact that he's be tried and found guilty of a crime. That's better than letting his estranged partner's family sort him out.
-
I know the point Islander's making and why many agree, but... despite the sometimes absurd and perverse outcomes, laws, lawyers and court rooms are still capable of delivering justice and probably do so more often than not.
I disagree. They deliver a result. Whether or not it resembles anything called "justice" is dumb luck.
Our legal system is half a step advanced from "trial by combat", especially in the civil area, but not much less in the criminal area.
I'm a person who believes in civic duty, but I will move heaven and earth not to be in a jury again. Talk about PTSD...
-
Paul Williams - yes. We've yet to augment something other than the several legal systems in place round the world (I'll exclude the religiously-based ones) as a way of dealing with all the crimes/errors/disputations that our species inevitably fall into-
it is WAY better to argue/talk/dispute (however imperfect the processes)our ways to some kind of settlements (however imperfect the settlements) than resorting to -o, stonings? Trial by fire or feat of arms? The Gods?
I think there are large imperfections with our current justice system here in ANZ, but - it is an ongoing ongrowing system-
-
I don't like Vetich's sentence but I like the fact that he's be tried and found guilty of a crime. That's better than letting his estranged partner's family sort him out.
Indeed. And who gets to decide what justice is? The estranged partner's family? Cloudwalker? Me? Our legal system might not always deliver our particular view of justice in an individual case but our laws are intended to reflect our community's view of what justice broadly looks like.
Yes laws do become outdated and the system for changing them is slow. The speed thing has pros and cons. But the good thing is that it IS possible to change laws that no longer reflect our community's beliefs. So if one feels strongly enough that justice is not being achieved in a particular field one has a variety of mechanisms available to push for change.
Which is what the SST does.
-
Mark, remember we still have a huge number of pre-MMP laws, i.e. from a time when it was the norm for the governing political party to pass whatever law they felt like. For all it's flaws I'd argue that because MMP gives our community the opportunity to have more of a say, we end up with laws that better reflect our community's beliefs.
Having said that, on some occasions that bulldozing ability protected the minority from the views of the majority, e.g. the Homosexual Law Reform Act.
-
I think Kracklite et al were not gossiping but instead discussing real experiences and trying to draw from their own knowledge to try and clarify what is going on so publicly for Mr Veitch. It may not help him but it may help someone who reads this thread.
Thank you, Bart, that was my intention. I think that Kerry made a vital and necessary - and deeply moving - contribution.
-
Mrs Skin says
"Which is what the the SST does."Assuming that you mean the "Sensible Sentencing Trust", I would disagree with you to an extreme.
They are very clearly a racist body - any words from them about Mr Veitch?
No?
-
They are very clearly a racist body - any words from them about Mr Veitch?
No?As it happens, yes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.