Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, so glad you found the time to contribute.
Although I don't think Angus made his point well he made some valid points. There are people on this thread who don't seem to understand how the law works. Fairness and Justice have little to do with law. -
In the 80s it was... Dobermanns...?
Madam's right Sir. :)
Saved a doberman once. It was running scared and free on the Melbourne Motorway. we named him Kaiser. Bit of a punk thing. -
so glad you found the time
Seemed about the right amount of eloquence, considering
-
Cool Sofie- my uncle Bill's Staffies, Joe and (weirdly!) Miss, were great dogs (tho' neither he, nor anyone in the family, trusted either round cats they hadnt been brought up with - and they both could get really bloody excited round other dogs.) Staffies are people dogs - and, I suspect, where their bloodlines are strong in pitbulls, those dogs will be people dogs too.)
Meantime, the family runs to Bichon Frises (dont laugh! They're bloody good wee watch dogs) and German Shepherds.
-
so glad
How's that Laphroaig?
-
Having said that, Angus, I don't think you are a troll, and much as I think your argument is a steaming pile of... disputable opinions, I do respect you coming here, arguing your point and being pretty civil. Considering what kind of argument you're making anyway.
If however you do think I am a troll, here is my confession.
I can see how I could be thought a troll. And i have been banned from a number of sites. Generally though they are of an extreme political agenda and I'd disagree with things on a very regular basis and say so - politely, but persistantly.
I "blurt" stuff, its a thing and i have views, another thing. I'll read a blog, an article and say hey thats not quite right, I think for a while generally about it, jump through a few logic steps and blurt out the first "good enough" conclusion I come to. This first utterance seldom has the effect of being sufficiently succint a definition of the truth to completely swing the argument (as a matter of fact it has never happened, yet), so it gets criticised.
Then i try to justify the "blurt" (this is a step that should really have taken place earlier, but timeliness is a factor in commenting and you have to get something on before the thread dies) and mostly do this by defending what I can defend and ignoring what I can't. (I should admit to stuff I get called out on that is wrong, but that appears weak and defeatist. Next time maybe, I'll swallow my pride and do it anyway.)
Over the course of being called an idiot the defensible stuff will coalesce into something resembling a coherent, thought out opinion. So then i can judge that conclusion against the original post and justify it. Then I might conclude that I was wrong to be critical and make damn sure i read that author again (BTW - Emma I read all your stuff, I am probably going to buy* your book and all those threads i don't comment on strike me as being very well written). Or be convinced that in my own mind that what I have reasoned out is better than the author.
There are a number of drawbacks to this approach. Cheifly that conclusions are so long in coming that by the time I reach one, i've pissed off a lot of people.
* to read and then give as a present to a friend, their birthday is in July so if you could start discounting in early to mid June, okay? Or would it be better if I got a mate to buy it so it arrives with all pages intact?
-
I have the last glass in font of me as I write, I shall savor.
;-) -
See?, Angus is an OK kinda guy, once you get to know what the fuck he is on about.
-
i've pissed off a lot of people
no shit sherlock
I'm sure you can do better than this - like Dyan, I don't read you as a troll. Just frustratingly unreasonable in your arguing. And thanks for fessing up.
snap
-
Meh
-
WTF are you on about? You've made a wild assertion about the "blatant ideological corruption [of] our own justice system" and then reeled off a string of cases whose only common attribute is that they've come to your attention via trial-by-media.
You've conflated cases of interim name suppression, suppression to protect the identity of the victim, suppression at the request of the victim and a successful appeal to the Privy Council and a jury of New Zealanders. This is the sort of nonsense I prefer we avoid here.
'conflate'
–verb (used with object), -flat⋅ed, -flat⋅ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge: to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.No. simply contrasting cases whose only common attribute is money and/or influence. Where visibility seems to have been played off against the excesses of media scrutiny to afford those with wealth or access to wealth, a mildly better protected existance.
Whether or not they have or not, the seeds of indisputable doubt have been sewn in Mr Vietch's garden. The other cases? Simple queries, question marks betwixt what should be imobile nails of equality.
you've made a wild assertion about the "blatant ideological corruption [of] our own justice system"
Tony Vietch paid money and avoided prison for Violent assault and left her for dead. If he hadn't or couldn't have paid he would have gone to prison. It's just 1 case, and it's a landmark. You categorize it as non corrupt,so what price would you accept to let someone who broke your back walk free? That's not what our country is about, at least it wasn't. for a while.
is it fairness? Heading towards or veering away?
There are people trying very hard to improve the vagueness of the law, or at least it's interpretation,
Or is it more a question of the morality societal / values of those charged with administering the law? If I want to break backs and pay for it I could just go and live in China or someplace. So, not so surprised at the apparent injustice in this rape case in that old country that ours but spawn of. Because of Vietch and Bain and a number of cases that have come to my skewed attention via trial-by-media.
-
imobile should read 'impervious', sorry about the dictionary def, please bear with me.
-
But apart from "it didn't happen at all", "there was consent" is pretty much the defence to a rape charge.
There was also: "there wasn't consent, but I thought there was". However, after a couple of really bad cases, in New Zealand (and I think the UK as well - probably most places) this is now: "There wasn't consent, but I thought there was, and my belief was reasonable in the circumstances).
-
No. simply contrasting cases whose only common attribute is money and/or influence. Where visibility seems to have been played off against the excesses of media scrutiny to afford those with wealth or access to wealth, a mildly better protected existance.
I'm trying to to come across too sharply, but you're simply wrong. Whatever you feel about the people involved, they have rights under law. In the "comedian" case, the man charged has interim name suppression and denies the charges. I'd rather wait until he's convicted to name and shame him. In other cases, as I said, name suppression has been ordered at the request of the victim, or to protect the victim's identity.
Remember, only a tiny fraction of suppression orders relate to people you've personally heard of.
Tony Vietch paid money and avoided prison for Violent assault and left her for dead. If he hadn't or couldn't have paid he would have gone to prison. It's just 1 case, and it's a landmark. You categorize it as non corrupt,so what price would you accept to let someone who broke your back walk free? That's not what our country is about, at least it wasn't. for a while.
My views on Tony Veitch have been made very clear, and I actually know Kristin Dunne Powell.
I gather the money he had previously paid to her in reparations -- at her request , remember -- did come into the mix, not so much in sentencing itself, but in the negotiation with police on what and how many charges he'd face.
In the end, he pleaded guilty to a sole count of assault and was sentenced on that basis. I suspect there was a degree of relief all round that a trial was avoided. I was more disappointed that he could still emerge and depict himself as the victim, even as he hurled around threats.
-
I was more disappointed that he could still emerge and depict himself as the victim, even as he hurled around threats.
And worse still, a number of public figures were basically saying, "go easy on Tony, he's just a man being a man."
-
In the end, he pleaded guilty to a sole count of assault and was sentenced on that basis.
It was a charge a injuring, which is substantially more serious.
-
Tony Vietch paid money and avoided prison for Violent assault and left her for dead.
I wouldn't want to defend what he did, but his actual actions were bad enough, I don't think he actually left anyone 'for dead'. Someone actually has to be dying to be left for dead, his assault on her was serious but not that serious.
-
Well how about left her for dead (for a while), Only going on what the media reported, I don't know Kyle, broken back, no assistance for a few hours. He left her for dead for a few hours and then reformed?
seems to have been played off
but you're simply wrong.
regardless of whether the perception is right or wrong, the perception exists and is evident in the New Zealand netscape, to call me wrong for drawing attention to a perception held by New Zealanders whose thoughts I could link to, if you feel it necessary that I prove that I am right to draw attention to the fact, that people have voiced the opinion that 'there seems to preferential treatment accorded to those with influence', negates the necessity for your blog on that very topic not six months ago.
Where visibility seems to have been played off against the excesses of media scrutiny to afford those with wealth or access to wealth, a mildly better protected existance.
The perception may be wrong, but people do have this perception. To labour a point. And this perception is in part aggravated by the case of Tony Veitch paying off his victim, or the case of the 18 year old 'asian driver' who ignored a police flag down, crashed into a petrol station, killed a 4 year old child and avoided serving time after paying $40,000 dollars.
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/170026
How much are the various members of our families worth?
Money will always talk, but how much should our justice system let it say?I'd rather wait until he's convicted to name and shame him
I'm not interested in shame. What I'm driving at is the matter of equality, I'm quite interested in equality. It's not about what he/ she or they did, it's about honing a fairer system where everyone is accorded the same rights and privileges regardless of social status or wealth. This is what I refer to with the term ideologically corrupt.
name suppression has been ordered at the request of the victim,
An aside: In the case of the prominent entertainer, that's not what was reported, on the contrary, the victim expressed anger at being muzzled from outing the defendant. (I linked to that story here), as I recall at the time, you mentioned that it was interesting for a number of reasons.
Most importantly in that case was the fact that prominent music industry suits presented the case that name suppression was required to protect the man's livelihood.
The most humorous aspect was that that man was a musician, ie; music, that industry riddled with criminals and criminal convictions where there's a George Michael to every Cliff Richard, countless stars who have been charged with various crimes and continued to sell well. Some of whom have built careers on their infamy. Not only did the judge show ignorance of the marketing potential for music with attitude but the highest echelon's of the NZ music establishment showed similar ignorance. White bread stuff, but hardly surprising in a country where the lines between the music industry and the establishment have become so blurred.
But I digress.
The issue is one of equality and fairness. ie How many records does one need to sell to be accorded name supression, how large is the sphere of influence.
and I actually know Kristin Dunne Powell.
And I'm sure you could name or be a phone call away from naming all the name suppressed celebrities I mentioned, your station in life being more equal than say, mine, for instance.
If name suppression is to protect people's identity, then what is it to protect them from? our sympathy? our assistance? or our bullying and malevolance, what does this phenomenon say about the nature of the New Zealander and more precisely our attitudes to 'victims'? what is the primary issue here?
fairness?
privacy?
New Zealand's scorn for the victim of sex crime? the victim should feel shame for others to know they were assaulted or molested or raped? We should hide our victimhood? What message are we sending?Again I digress.
I gather the money he had previously paid to her in reparations -- at her request , remember -- did come into the mix, not so much in sentencing itself, but in the negotiation with police on what and how many charges he'd face.
In the end, he pleaded guilty to a sole count of assault and was sentenced on that basis. I suspect there was a degree of relief all round that a trial was avoided. I was more disappointed that he could still emerge and depict himself as the victim, even as he hurled around threats.
You are an "it's not OK" representative.
Are we to accept "it's not OK, unless you can afford it"?Is domestic violence OK if the victim is then financially coerced into dropping some charges?
Is this not simply another non violent means of control by the violent partner?
If you were violently assaulted, paid money to shut the fuck up and to help pay your medical bills, would you feel guilt when it came to prosecuting your attacker?Is a victim of domestic violence going to feel safer knowing that?
It's not OK, but it's OK if you pay? not corrupt? Russell?Are the judiciary the tools of the law, or are the laws the tools of the judiciary and by proxy those with influence over the judiciary.
Had the judge (who granted name suppression to the entertainer) ever met the high level music industry professional (who made the case for supression) in a social setting?
Did the jurors who aquitted Bain attend the after party just to be part of the action and soak up the atmosphere?
Did the prosecution in this British gang rape case make the decision not to prosecute, in an office? At a dinner party? Or over a 5 way with a Miss Desirée from Uraguay via Croydon?
Basically are these people, our judges, our prosecutors qualified for their fairness, their sense of justice? Their immaculate moral standing both publically and privately? Or has the establishment become so ensconced and comfortable that leeways are being made for those who can.
Overlooking the personalities and personal pressures involved in any given justice system seems wrong.
-
And I'm sure you could name or be a phone call away from naming all the name suppressed celebrities I mentioned, your station in life being more equal than say, mine, for instance.
Dude. Grow up.
-
?
-
I perhaps wrongly assumed a media aficianado like Russell to be in the loop. No offence intended. Simply that there is a loop. A separate entity from the greater populace and hence perceived inequality.
-
0(-<
-
name suppression has been ordered at the request of the victim,
...In the case of the prominent entertainer, that's not what was reported, on the contrary, the victim expressed anger at being muzzled from outing the defendant.
You may have some interest in my views on that issue, chris.
However, I must say I think overall you are conflating separate issues with the justice system in a way that I'm not sure is helpful.
-
name suppression has been ordered at the request of the victim
...In the case of the prominent entertainer, that's not what was reported, on the contrary, the victim expressed anger at being muzzled from outing the defendant.
Unfortunately you've misread -- deliberately or not -- what Russell Brown wrote, which was:
In other cases, as I said, name suppression has been ordered...
i.e. no ALL. As in, "in some of the other cases, but not all". Big difference. In the case of the "prominent entertainer", Defence Counsel Ron Mansfield asked for it and the judge granted it.
-
you are conflating separate issues
I'll admit I am confusing separate issues.
Russell is right to call me up on it. I, like some of the other Jones', find it confusing, I made a mess in the kitchen to present a conclusion that there's1. a perception of inequality.
2. blatant ideological corruption in the justice system.I slaughtered a whole zoo of creatures to catch 1 measly rat.
Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps there is total equality, and those of us who perceive the inequality and corruption are wrong. Maybe. but if something is rotten in Denmark, as indicated by the judiciary's handling of Vietch, then i see acknowledgement of the issue as the first step in rectifying the problem.
Even if a justice system is but partly ideologically corrupted, to all intents and purposes, it is still corrupt, in that it's no longer 'non corrupt'. The ideological and moral corruption, of it's not ok, unless you pay, is undeniable in my opinion.
I agree with your views on name suppression Steve, I find name suppression in NZ, at the very least, is based on a gross miscalculation of the size of the NZ population, as you said;
it seems anyone who really wants to know can find out the suppressed name anyway.
And what I was driving at with my 'in the loop' comment is that for some, finding out an identity is as easy as turning up for work, for others it may be eminently more difficult, albeit hypothetically doable. perpetuating a perception of inequality/ unfairness.
Unfortunately you've misread -- deliberately or not -- what Russell Brown wrote,
Thanks Stephen and sorry about that Russell. To be fair, I've never set out to deliberately misread anything.
:( But it happens, inadvertantly, in the haste.But, (and my apologies Emma, I never intended to go this far off topic), In the case of the gang rape trial, I do think the best way to restore balance globally, is to start at home and lead by example.
And the way the media can facilitate this is to scrutinize those members of the judiciary/ police who exploit the wording of the law to make dodgy decisions rather than adhering first and foremost to the spirit of the law.
I know Russell feels "it's not Ok", So i passionately question a decision and the decision makers that strongly undermine this sentiment.
"I gather the money he had previously paid to her in reparations -- at her request "
I find the subtext deeply worrying. It set a precedent that can be exploited by either member of a domestic dispute and does nothing to address the violence.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.