Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So why is he the one who has to go even if she started it?
As long as *someone* has to go, minimising harm dictates that you remove the person statistically likely to cause the most damage. I imagine it's often hard to establish who started it, and of course that doesn't tell you who's going to finish it either.
I think I'm going to want more than some anecdotes before I believe that police persecution of men whose wives hit them first is a widespread problem in New Zealand.
Also, I realise that we got off on this tangent in an organic, freewheeling kind of way, but considering that the original discussion was about a case where a woman was victimised, it is depressing that even here it appears to end up with discussing the problems of violence against men.
-
The very definition of villainy is kicking someone when they're down.
-
Sue, rights have to be balanced. Otherwise every time a celeb commits a crime that harms someone else in an interesting way, we'll have to hush it up, and that's not right either.
IF this had gone to court in the first place, her name could have been suppressed, and it would never have been known to the general public or been able to escape a tight circle of gossipers into the press. The only reason this is an issue now is because of Veitch's actions in trying to hush it up.
As to what should happen now, the cat's out of the bag - I can't see that she'll be pursued by the (scumbag) elements of the media any less no matter what happens.
-
Ian, Rachel - justice is not just for the victim. It is for society as a whole.
It is wrong to allow an unofficial justice system for people with deep pockets.
It's easy to offer restoration when you can afford to drop $100K. Rich people have to suffer in jail the same way that poor people do.
Anyway, I don't see that there is any contradiction between hoping for Veitch's redemption and rehabilitation, and wishing him to be punished. Both things can happen. Likewise, if the victim suffers more from the publicity, that is Veitch's responsibility..
The victim's interests and the interest of the public don't, as the public is interested in the double-page spread in Women's Day
That's not an argument, that's just a play on the ambiguity of the word "interest". It isn't news that the public interest - what serves the good of the public - is very often not the same as what the public is interested in - what lots of people are entertained by.
Incidentally, I found one email address on the Tui website: hq@tui.co.nz . Perhaps it would be nice to drop them a line.
-
(I believe) those were unscripted, improvised, real conversations (which Telecom still use on big hoardings up at Wellington Airport).
Will you believe that of any future similar campaigns? Way to ruin your brand.
-
am i a total Pollyanna for hoping that people are able to be rehabilitated?
I certainly hope so, and I support that. After they've been punished.
Veitch gets the Tui treatment.
WTF? The first thing that billboard said to me was that the person paid to be quiet had cheated. It is at minimum badly worded but it actually reads like an attack on the victim for not keeping mum.
-
Shep, I see it as straightforwardly one law for the rich who can pay their way out, preserving their name and their career, and another for the poor.
Justice is not just about recompensing victims but also about all members of society who offend being treated equally, and their punishment being a deterrent to others.
-
And a PS - I don't go for the handwringing over Flight of the Conchords missing out. The inevitable caning handed out for our local TV failures must make any funder of local TV extremely wary and virtually guarantees the play-it-safe low-brow mundanity of most local shows that are publicly funded.
But there has to be something wrong when Sensing Murder gets a million bucks and FoC got nothing.
(Actually I would love to see an FoC-hosted psychic takedown. I bet it would be hilarious.)
-
To be fair they have classed it "entertainment" and not "documentary/factual". Which probably means that even the producers know it's a pile of horse-hockey.
I'm not buying that.
I do have a bee in my bonnet about Sensing Murder. The producers talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they disclaim all responsibility and class their show as entertainment - on the other hand they promote in documentary style and act victimised when the credibility of their "psychics" is impugned. There's no parallel with the harmless Forgotten Silver which was proudly revealed as a hoax after it screened.
The show actively promotes and spreads ignorance. To the extent that vulnerable people are emotionally hurt or persuaded to give money to frauds, it's damaging to the public well-being. I cannot think of a more outrageous use of public money as far as recent broadcast shows go. None of the other lowbrow crap actually leaves a chunk of its viewers more deluded than when they started watching.
-
It depends, Graeme. In the US 110 proof is 55% alcohol by volume, but in the British system, it's 63%.