Island Life: Ice-cold rabble rousing
82 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
You mean you pay them money ? That'll only encourage them ...
-
This has to be one of the silliest things Helen has ever said - the machine of the law has completed its cycle and justice has been done within the remit of the judicial process - whatever we feel or think about it.
Wouldn't it be hysterical if HC was charged with contempt of court? -
Oh, David... So, the Prime Minister was being authentically disingenuous; and the Sunday tabloids couldn't still their own fizzing outrage long enough to engage in a little honest self-examination about the dangerous of trying to game a Police investigation, or conduct a trial, by media.
The only person who comes out of this media/political axis of idiocy with any credit whatsoever is Counties-Manakau district Commander Steve Shortland, whose dose of 'STFU, you ignorant fools' was diplomatic to a fault.
-
**Tax Cuts** are pork?
-
A more fruitful avenue to pursue ... Fix that problem, and you might save the lives of some other children.
Well said David.
-
Now that I think of it, it would have been nice if Superintendent Steve Shortland hadn't been diplomatic at all, and offered to revisit a number of cases involving alleged breeches of electoral spending laws. :)
-
Tax Cuts are pork?
Only when they're offered by George Bush, John Howard, David Cameron or John Key to their "rich prick" hollow buddies. Get on message, Lyndon! :)
-
Tax cuts = Rates rises.
It's not that too much has been taken in tax it's that it has been held centrally when so much responsibility has been decentralised to District & Regional Councils.
-
Thanks, David. I was going to write something similar, but you've done it better. There's a strong and understandable public urge for resolution in this case, but that doesn't mean the Prime Minister should start directing prosecutions.
-
Do you not have a lime green bio hazard suit yet? They're all the rage in Kelburn. Morte so than hoodies.
-
There's a strong and understandable public urge for resolution in this case, but that doesn't mean the Prime Minister should start directing prosecutions.
I agree wholeheartedly, but can appreciate the PM's need (or perceived need) to vocalise the community's feelings in this matter.
Can anyone say why members of the family have not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice (or whatever it is called now)? Clearly the family knows whodunnit, but Chris Kahui had the easiest defence imaginable - "It mighta been her" - there's your reasonable doubt without raising a sweat. I wonder if Mr Edgeller has an opinion on the private members bill to limit the right to silence (or is it another case of wanting to be seen to be doing something)?
-
Can anyone say why members of the family have not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice
I believe perverting the course of justice involves actively doing something - destroying evidence, hiding the murder weapon etc. I don't know if "refusing to answer any questions" or saying "I don't know" comes under its brief.
-
Perversion of the course of justice takes the form of one of three acts:
* Fabrication or disposal of evidence
* Intimidating a witness or juror
* Threatening a witness or juror -
I agree wholeheartedly, but can appreciate the PM's need (or perceived need) to vocalise the community's feelings in this matter.
FFS, Paul, don't you suspect that politicians and media outlets "vocalis[ing] the community's feelings" that someone, anyone needed to be charged with something NOW might have played a significant part in an astoundingly weak case being brought against Chris Kahui in the first place?
And don't we remember when Clark was (quite correctly) suggesting that the likes of Ron Mark and Pita Sharples should take a deep nose-breath and calm the frak down after the 'Te Quaeda' Urewera raids? (At the time I gave both Clark and Key props for resisting the urge to engage in what Mr. Slack rightly calls "ice-cold rabble rousing.")
I'm not an uncritical booster of the Police, but what the hell does Clark expect them to do? Keep charging members of the family on increasingly flimsy pretexts until something sticks, or their credibility is terminally FUBAR, whatever comes first?
In the end, I really hope Clark gets a big enough bounce in the next round of preferred PM polls to make it worthwhile.
-
...the private members bill to limit the right to silence...
I think the proposed bill is merely that MP (Geoff Braybrooke? I know it's one of the Hawkes Bay ones) thinking out aloud. Such a bill hasn't got a snowball in hell's chance of becoming law.
I suspect he's just trying to make it look as if he's being active on law and order, always a popular political football, during election year. At most, it's kite-flying and I expect it'll get little more attention.
The right to silence has been a long-established right for centuries. Just because it was used in a high-profile case is no reason to get rid of it. -
Tax Cuts are pork?
Only if they go to poor people. If they go to the rich, then its sound, sensible, responsible policy, of the sort the Herald thinks should result in everyone getting a gong.
-
Congratulations, then, to Marie Dybergh for having the fortitude to stick up for the separation of powers as she did today on Morning Report.
Agreed - she was completely correct. But, it's somewhat ironic that this is the same lawyer reminding us of the right to silence when only a few years ago she threatened a NZ Herald court reporter that she'd better not write up certain aspects of a case, or else, despite there being no supression of the aspects.
Of course, the threat ended up being a story unto itself and Dybergh had to swiftly back-pedal over it.
-
what the hell does Clark expect them to do? Keep charging members of the family on increasingly flimsy pretexts until something sticks, or their credibility is terminally FUBAR, whatever comes first??
The latter. By moving quickly, they've shot themselves in the foot. Double jeopardy means they can't charge Kahui again, while if they prosecute anyone else, the earlier trial is reasonable doubt on a plate. So, public outrage = no justice. Let this be a lesson to you all.
-
You know the tide is turning when the Craigster says
I really hope Clark gets a big enough bounce in the next round of preferred PM polls
;-)
But seriously. Clark had to say something and "urge" the police not to let the case hang there was really the only thing she could say. She is NOT telling the police what to do and neither should she but she is voicing her concern as we all should. A group of people who conspire to obstruct the police in an investigation is, well, a conspiracy and we have laws that would cover that. -
Clark had to say something
Indeed she did. And that thing was "in this country we have a seperation of powers and an independent police force. It would thus be improper to comment on a criminal case". Unfortunately, she decided to say something else.
A group of people who conspire to obstruct the police in an investigation is, well, a conspiracy and we have laws that would cover that.
As people have pointed out above, its not obstruction of justice to simply remain silent (or even agree to). No-one in this country has any obligation to speak to the police, except to give them your name if asked.
In the heat of the moment, some people are advocating changing that. I suggest they think again. Yes, removing the right to silence would undoubtedly result in more confessions and convictions. They just won't be from guilty people. But someone will have been "made accountable" (to use the police's revolting phrase), and the police's stats will be up, so I guess everyone will be happy.
-
The latter. By moving quickly, they've shot themselves in the foot. Double jeopardy means they can't charge Kahui again, while if they prosecute anyone else, the earlier trial is reasonable doubt on a plate.
They could charge him again, if significant new evidence came to light. Which is what they'd need really - someone who knows to break their silence.
-
But seriously. Clark had to say something and "urge" the police not to let the case hang there was really the only thing she could say.
I'm sorry, I just don't get the reasoning behind your premise. Why the hell did she have to say anything? (Or for that batter, why the fuck has Key felt the need to climb on the bandwagon as reported on the mid-day news on Nat Radio.
Look, they've found a populist way to 'talk tough' on what anyone with an ounce of decency would consider a tragic pair of deaths, but please don't tell me that there was anything "inevitable" about it. As I said up thread, I gave both Key and Clark credit for keeping their heads during the elevated rhetoric around the Urewera raids. They sure don't feel the need to comment on every controversial crime story. As far as I'm aware, not a peep out of either over the extraordinary plea for leniency from the jury that convicted Ian Crutchley of attempted murder.
-
Since I brought it up, do Clark and Key support matricide? The "court of public opinion" sure seems to, and that's all that matters -- right? Or is leadership about, just occasionally, speaking unpopular and inconvenient truths?
-
Could someone enlighten me as to whether our legal system has anything akin to Double Jeopardy? I don't think so, but I defer to higher authority.
-
National leader John Key said he agreed with Miss Clark and it was unacceptable that no one was held accountable.
"I find it repugnant that two young New Zealanders are dead and no one is being held accountable for that and I am pleased police have said they will. . . have a look at information."
Mr Key said Miss Clark's comments reflected the frustration of most New Zealanders.
He said if the delay in questioning family had affected the conviction then it was wrong but Mr Key would not be drawn into criticising police.
Asked whether the double jeopardy law should be changed, Mr Key said that was something that could be looked at.
So how will Winston (or Ron Mark) trump them both? "Defence Lawyers must be scrapped ... it's PC gone mad"?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.