Actually, I think that’s exactly why they get it, to prevent them from committing further crimes. Not given lightly, but there are some who just continue to offend and are deemed a risk to public safety.
Yeah but just “we think they might” commit a crime isn’t enough. The court has to be satisfied that they’d be likely to commit particular crimes. So you’re making the basically the point I was getting at, but was too lazy to expand upon.
I take issue with the whole “corruption of language” thing. Looked at another way, Latin outside of the church evolved and blossomed into the Romance languages. And (indirectly) gave us the richness and depth of vocabulary that English now has.
Yes, and he did seem to have a very judgey-pants way of expressing it, too.Classical “Roman” breaking down to mere vulgar Latin. And as an aside, as someone who knows Latin, Finlayson should know better than to fret about splitting infinitives in English.
Apparently I’m way out on the fringe thinking that permanently imprisoning someone because we think they might commit crimes if released is an awful thing to do.
I could be wrong, but I don't think people get PD just because it is considered that they might commit a crime upon release.
That FB Roast Busters page which was up again is now down thanks to a call from a Kiwi director in LA to another Kiwi, Mark D’Arcy, who is now the Global CD of Facebook. He had it disabled immediately.
It’s back up, with the message “They shut us down a second time.”
And: "Facebook, fuck you. We didn't violate any of your rules on our second page. Happy Roasting."
Maybe tell that to Mark D'Arcy.
First, how do I categorise what’s wrong with the page? It’s not harassing me personally, nor anyone I personally know. It’s not spam or a scam. It’s not duplicated or miscategorised. I don’t want to report a post rather than an entire page. That leaves “I just don’t like it” or “I don’t think it should be on facebook”. But I have to pick one of these, not both. I’m going with “I don’t think it should be on facebook”,
I went with the same option. Got a quick “not taken down, doesn’t violate community standards” response. So I chose to send feedback and wrote this very quickly. (Not eloquent or anything but worth a try.)
Me to Facebook:
“This is the same page from the same people you have already taken down.
See this article, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/roast-busters-teen-rape-group-alleged-in-new-zealand-1.2417934
"The Roast Busters web page was taken down only recently after a media complaint to Facebook. A new page has popped up this week claiming to be a revival of the group. It says, “We’re back. Happy roasting."
What is the point of taking a page down if they can simply restart it? They are also effectively saying ‘screw you’ to facebook itself in so brazenly adding their page back after you stopped it.
As for your standards: “we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their … sex, gender…”.
Think about why you deleted their page last time. Look at the media coverage of the matter in New Zealand and overseas, and how FB looks in letting them back up. These guys use social media to brag about getting a 13 year old girl drunk & raping her. I know you must get a lot of complaints to address, but this one really requires your proper attention and judgment.
"Mr Tamihere also levelled some criticism at the media reporting of the interview, saying “there’s a bunch of people in the media that hate our guts”:
Yeah right , first its the girls fault now its the media’s fault .
Tamihere will consolidate: It'll be the stupid little girls in the media’s fault.
... we are told to not walk alone at night.
That message has been put out plenty before too, after some attacks. I note that the incident that started this discussion involved women walking together, through an apparently well lit park. But hey, let's just shift the goal posts so women shouldn't do that either.
Oh for crying out loud Craig! That is a very silly argument. There is no logic to it.
To be fair, the silliness in that exchange started with Bob's analogy with the DMC.
So while that is extremely difficult to regulate, what is known is that you can be safe by taking precautions like not wandering around drunk in the dark.
Ah I see. It’s “extremely difficult to regulate” the stuff that actually accounts for most sexual assault, but you can be safe anyway, just by avoiding a few drinks on a cloudy night.
An indecent assault is not an indecent assault if a jury acquits the accused of indecent assault.
Incorrect. Even with your myopically legalistic take, the jury’s view is only that that person didn’t commit the act of indecent assault, not that there was necessarily no assault. Besides, the point here seems to be that some disagree with the jury’s view – it just begs the question to say the jury must be right.
I never usually watched Media 3 (or 7), but it was just nice knowing that it was there. I guess that’s the problem – TV shows need viewers, not supporters.
Our of curiosity, why were you a supporter more than a viewer?