Posts by Peter Cresswell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell, you also say: "__You're citing an increase in recorded violent crime and steadfastly ignoring what that crime is. In 2007, there were 6252 additional violence offences recorded. 5810 of them were reported incidents of family violence. There's an elephant in the room trying to get your attention.__"
Well, in 2007 there were 52,883 recorded violent offences in total, of which reported incidents of family violence were 11%.
So my point is: there are other elephants in this jungle as well? 52,883 of them, to be precise, including 51 homicides so far this year. Violent crime that's been trending up since 1999. That's the wider picture I was talking about above.
How about that elephant, hmmm?
BTW, it's true that Austin Hemmings was killed when he interceded without foreknowledge in a domestic dispute, but he wasn't part of that dispute; he was killed by someone who appeared to have no compunction about taking a stranger's life.
That's the bigger issue I'm trying to address -- people who have no compunction about taking a stranger's life, and how the various ways the agencies of law deal with them appears not to be discouraging them, but the reverse.
I'm asking what the last straw is for people. If fifty-one people murdered this year isn't enough, then what is?
If asking that question is in your eyes the the equivalent of "your average tantrum," then so much the worse for your judgement, I say.
You might be content to rest on your "it's only domestic violence" defence, and claim the government is already doing all that it can so don't worry, but here's the thing: like the attack on New York's Central Park jogger all those years ago, which provoked outrage that eventually helped lead to a change in focus for NY law enforcement, the killing of Mr Hemmings has made people angry, and they want to see something change.
Public reactions have to start somewhere, and they don't always match the proximate cause of that to which they're reacting. The straw that finally breaks the camel's back isn't always from the same crop as all the straws the that have for so long been weighing the camel down.
Consider for example the truckers' protest recently that shut down the country's main streets -- all that anger wasn't just over the rise in road user charges; it was directed at a government that is perceived as being bossy, nannying and not listening. The overnight raise in the road user charge was simply the last straw; the proximate cause for which people said "Enough!" and got out there in support of the truckers.
What I felt when I heard the news of this murder was the same: "Enough!" and I felt sure my readers would feel the same.
I've had enough of New Zealanders being killed, and all the excuses that say "nothing can be done," "it's all too difficult," and now (apparently) "it's only domestic violence so don't worry."
-
MICHAEL: Eugenics? Please. Hyperbole never helps an argument. And you being offended by the facts doesn't alter them.
RUSSELL: There are two separate issues here.
You say that "not a single thing" I suggest would have prevented the murders in question. Well, the murders I have in mind are those to which I refer: the fifty-one committed so far this year, and all the others like them still to be committed.
I disagree with you that "not a single thing" I suggest would prevent them. There you are. We disagree.
But more important to my mind is not the concrete details of crime prevention, of which neither you nor I are experts, but the primary issue I'm trying to raise: that the focus of the law must change. That the status quo is not working. That it's time to say "Enough!"
We may differ on the concrete details, but I'm surprised you appear to dismiss without argument this second point - the need to say "Enough!" And I'm disappointed you and your readers appear to think the status quo is good enough.
It's not.
-
Oops, I'll try that again.
Why not read my response, and find out.
-
If that's a genuine question, Michael, then why not read <a href="http://pc.blogspot.com/2008/09/murder-it-not-ok.html">my response</a> and find out?
-
"Was he trying to miss the point there?"
No, trying to make a wider point.
-
As far as I got, he never actually engaged Russell's criticism about the knife attacks being domestic incidents, but just brought out loopy talking points.
I guess one man's loopy talking points are another man's cogent arguments, eh, Kyle?
No, I never specifically engaged Russell's criticism about the knife attacks being domestic incidents because unlike Russell's myopic criticism, which missed altogether the wider point I was making, those domestic attacks weren't all that I was focused on in the original post.
I chose not to continue addressing the wider point.
I invite you to lift your eyes and focus on the fifty-one New Zealanders who've been murdered this year -- not all of them family members who hadn't seen Russell's TV ads -- and to reflect that it's high time there was a decent response to this number of murders from the agency whose sole moral justification is the protection of people's lives and liberties.
If this murder won't do it, what will?
And by the way, by "a decent response" I do not mean knee jerk responses like banning kitchen knives.
And neither do do I mean hand-waving dismissals that suggest doing anything is too difficult, so instead we should just do nothing.
That's just not good enough.
-
Sorry, Russell, your 'analysis' is as lame as the thesis, for which Mr Stoddart was awarded an academic diploma.
You'll note for example, if you read the thing, that Stoddart quite explicitly doesn't bother to distinguish between the comments and views of either callers or hosts; so trying to bag Perigo for comments of his callers, or for the views of John Banks, would be like trying to bag you for the views of your commenters, or for the political allegiances of Mr Ranapia.
It's just ridiculous.
And you should have known -- or at least Mr Stoddart should have, since he offered this up as research -- that Perigo didn't leave the shows because he "inevitably, had a hissy fit and left the show (probably blaming his "enemies")" [your words], but because his gig had finished. That was the period for which he had been hired.
Frankly, the research was pissweak -- but that's all that's needed at universities these days. I had thought better of you.
-
I have to say that when posting images by contemporary artists on my own blog, the artists and galleries to which I always link them have been only too happy for the publicity -- no matter what their explicit copyright statements under, around or on the originally posted images might say.
Perhaps another example of how common internet useage is leaping ahead of copyright as she was known.
-
"Boring"? After that freaky 'Heartbreak Hotel' opening, the first half was a little flat (true), but the second half was fantastic, and that band was as tight as a fish's arse.
Maybe you had to be up front. :-)
-
Crikey, talk about imbibing state worship with your mother's milk. Such teary-eyed adoration should be the aim of every good early childhood policy, for sure.