Posts by anjum rahman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Surely not! Seriously, if that's possible in the absence of a complaint I'm disturbed beyond words. Medical records are private!
then what would be the point of allowing a case to go ahead without a formal complaint, not just in this case but in any case? that law becomes pointless without the medical evidence being able to be accessed. to me there's a public interest argument in a case like this, where the violence is so severe. that doesn't mean that those records have to become public documents - surely the rules around suppression can be used to protect the privacy of the victim?
-
what is the victim knew that if this became public she would become a public figure. maybe she felt she'd lived though enough?
and maybe she didn't want it to become public because of the way media treats victims of domestic violence and all the nasty comments that pop up on talkback/blogs etc. shouldn't we be working on changing that rather than allowing it to occur by letting the victims contract out of prosecution?
-
If his employers knew (and it seems that at least some people did), then they should be resigning themselves.
sorry, not good enough. if they knew and failed to report to the police, then they should be prosecuted and convicted for aiding and abetting or whatever it's called these days.
i'd also be interested in the code of ethics for lawyers, as paul pointed out in the fundy post (http://fundypost.blogspot.com/2008/07/life-of-pie.html). do they have absolutely no responsibility to report the crime, even as they draw up the settlement agreement around it?
-
Absent a full confession from Veitch, or evidence from his ex, it'll be difficult to get a conviction.
surely the police can get access to her medical records from the hospital that treated her, confirm the date of the event and there is the proof they need? also, i would think they would be able to get a copy of the agreement - surely they can require vietch or his lawyers to provide them with it?
the other worrying thing here is the alleged time lapse between when the injuries were sustained and ms dunne-powell reached the hospital. i would hate to think what might have been happening in that period of time.
-
no shep, i wouldn't blame him. the front page article on ms lewis ("angel") in the waikato times made no mention of the fact that the alleged victim was in fact a person other than ms lewis. from reading that piece, we found out that ms lewis couldn't understand where the rape allegations came from given she had had great sex with one of the players and they all seemed like really nice guys. once could easily conclude that the allegations had been made on her behalf and she had no idea why. i'm sure the times wasn't the only paper to do this, and in fact craig made the same mistake way up-thread. i certainly wouldn't suspect his quiz-winning abilities because of it!
-
i'd second that lucy. they could have said "alleged victim", "complainant", "young woman" etc. her profession has no relevance here. rape is rape, no matter who it is done to. and as i said on my first comment on this thread, she deserves as much benefit of the doubt as the players ie "we don't know what happened" includes the notion that she has potentially told the truth.
my concern is that by using the language they have and reporting it in the way they have, the paper makes it harder for the young woman to press charges if what she has alleged was true. it intimidates her, because she knows that if she goes further, the language and the vilification will only intensify.
as for police, they have said they are conducting an investigation. until they have results from said investigation, why would they be saying anything more?
-
same lucy, well said. consent also becomes a problem when you are surrounded by two or more other big guys who may have entered the situation without your permission, and you happen to be totally unarmed. what realistic chance of withholding consent is there? in that situation, do you shut up and let them get on with it, in which case you "consented"? or do you try to get out and have them beat you up or hold you down and do it anyway?
-
so what you guys are saying is that when women see international rugby players, they should obviously think "scumbags, potential rapists, stay well away"? which other group of men should that apply to (other than satan's slaves)?
craig, there is no evidence that this woman tried to shop her story to the press at all. she didn't even call the police, and it could be that she was taken to hospital because she actually had serious injuries.
just to add another factor into the mix, what if this young woman was a prostitute and was paid to be there? is rape part of the contract? is she still stupid and uncaring of her safety?
-
i'm calling bullshit on this one. i take your point that the rugby players are innocent until proven guilty. but how about we give the young girl the same courtesy? in other words, let's not assume she's an extortionist or a liar until she is proved to be so.
are the two positions contradictory? i don't think so. it's a matter of mentally thinking that we don't know what the truth is here, so let's suspend judgement.
i guess i'm really angry that the vilification of this young woman started almost immediately from the moment the nature of the complaint became public. is it any wonder then that she has so far not pressed charges, even though she apparently ended up in hospital. knowing that she will face more of this in a much nastier way if she goes ahead is a significant deterrant to making a complaint.
-
a couple of things:
1. a lot of the electorate vote for the maori party happened because voters were able to party vote labour. so they could be assured that they would get maori labour MPs as well as maori party MPs. without that security, i would predict a large drop in the vote for the maori party. hence, it is in their self-interest to have MMP. since the other parties, and particularly labour, will have maori MPs as well, they know the total number of maori MPs will be higher under MMP, which would cancel out the benefit of a higher proportion of influence under FPP.2. you'll note the business roundtable has paid for a report which states (and i paraphrase wildly) that the maori seats should be abolished. if we lose both the maori seats and MMP, there is the distinct possibility of having no maori in parliament. after all, there is no current maori MP who has won a general electorate seat. you say that under FPP the argument to abolish maori seats becomes weaker, but what if the questions are asked concurrently?