Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: About Chris Brown

180 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    The authority concluded the publication of the decision was sufficient to mark the breach and no order was made.

    Wow. Bet Hoskings was hiding under his bed terrified that an unfavourable decision was published.
    If the BSA wanted to put up a big sign saying "WE ARE USELESS; SERVE NO PURPOSE; DO NOTHING FOR ANYONE' they could hardly have done so more eloquently.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2091 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Given the way domestic violence works, the only person who's in a position to know and speak about whether or not Veitch has changed his ways is his current partner, whoever they may be. Innocent till proven guilty applies to the courts; it doesn't apply to assuming someone has redeemed their character in the absence of any evidence either way.

    Look, I understand we'd all like to be reasonable, forgiving, accepting people, but the reasons people are giving Chris Brown a free pass are exactly the same as the reasons people have given Tony Veitch a free pass, apart from the racial double standard issue. It was a while ago, you can't hold a grudge forever, give a guy a chance to turn his life around and be a good role model, he makes lots of people happy. We don't do this for fraudsters. We don't do this for thieves. We don't do this for child abusers. But many of us do for domestic violence, even if we're selective about it. And then we wonder why it's so hard to get the message through that it's not OK.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    you are flicking between individual shunning and then back to "how the public sees..." that's a tricky ground to tread

    It is. I'm a lawyer by training, if not by profession, and it's a really important distinction for me, the difference between how a state addresses a crime, and how individuals respond to it. Boycotts are a legitimate response to non-illegal social offending - look how effective Giovanni Tiso was with respect to Willie and JT's advertisers, compared with a BSA complaint. On the other hand, there's a longstanding Christian tradition of forgiveness that runs parallel to the legal system, too. It's up to individuals to decide where they sit along that spectrum, but I have some views about whether they're right to have made that choice.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    surely this is against the law

    yet another failure to prosecute. Recall this at the time.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19686 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to B Jones,

    It was a while ago, you can’t hold a grudge forever, give a guy a chance to turn his life around and be a good role model, he makes lots of people happy.

    What’s weird about this is that both of these cases were particularly egregious (Brown’s police report – and the photos of Rihanna’s face that are out there, if you care to search for them – is just absolutely awful, and we all know the detail’s of Veitch’s assault). I mean, obviously there is no such thing as an acceptable domestic violence incident but these required ongoing, deliberate rage and callous disregard for their partners for lengthy periods – they weren’t just a flash of anger. And neither dude has exhibited much, if any, remorse. It makes me wonder just what *would* be unforgivable in society’s eyes.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to B Jones,

    We don't do this for fraudsters. We don't do this for thieves

    Well, we actually do. A jail sentence will finish at some point and once such likes as parole are completed, an ex inmate will head out into society having paid their dues. Community work as a sentence is actually saying " go out into society and prove to others that you have learnt your lesson by doing a job of some sort then you are forgiven". A conviction can be clean slated as well, thus completely writing off what the crime was, so we do do it for thieves and just about every other crime with exceptions being Preventive Detention and Murder ,I think.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    A good litmus test if an apology is genuine or not, is how many repeat offences have been committed since the apology.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5419 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to B Jones,

    It was a while ago, you can't hold a grudge forever, give a guy a chance to turn his life around and be a good role model, he makes lots of people happy. We don't do this for fraudsters. We don't do this for thieves.

    We literally do. The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act wipes the convictions of thieves and fraudsters and many others after seven years clean, so long as they haven't had a custodial sentence or committed a "specified offence".

    I think even Veitch's 2009 conviction will expire next year. But of course there's the social sanction of the internet. I doubt he'd have any luck pleading the "right to be forgotten" from Google. It's just that the official record will show no conviction against his name.

    PS: Note also that past convictions can still be revealed and reported by the media.

    We don't do this for child abusers.

    No, and that's a specified offence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Key and Peele's commentary on Chris Brown/ Rihanna

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Green MP Jan Logie weighs in regarding Judith Collins’ hypocrisy.

    "This is the woman who as Justice Minister defended Maurice Williamson's intervention to the police on behalf of a man accused of domestic violence."

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    Wow. Bet Hoskings was hiding under his bed terrified that an unfavourable decision was published.
    If the BSA wanted to put up a big sign saying “WE ARE USELESS; SERVE NO PURPOSE; DO NOTHING FOR ANYONE’ they could hardly have done so more eloquently.

    The BSA rulings against Paul Holmes for the Generation Lost and Cheeky Darkie controversies were basically wet bus tickets. For such rulings to have any meaningful influence, they need the equivalent penalty of something like a successful lawsuit. It's a bit like how the Scandinavians regulate their media, and they're among the highest-ranked for media freedom.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5419 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Clean slate only works when you haven't been imprisoned. That does, unbelievably, seem to apply to Tony Veitch because of that fact. Doesn't mean it's right.

    It's not the state's job to forgive anyone - it's their job to either punish someone or stop punishing someone. Forgiveness is a totally different concept.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Whatever may happen in the justice system, there is no requirement for the rest of us to outsource our personal choices to either the courts, or an employer.

    I would like to have heard a few sports people - and indeed, the Prime Minister - say that while Veitch absolutely had the right to due process and, if possible, redemption, they also had the right not to appear on his radio show, and they intended to exercise it.

    Perhaps some have said that, and I'd be happy to learn of those who did. I don't know any. That bugs me more than Newstalk ZB's decision to hire him.

    FWIW, I don't listen to Veitch, and I used to listen to Murray Deaker, so I'm not setting the broadcasting bar too high.

    There is another, and local, aspect to all this: our concentrated media village makes prominent people less likely to speak out against the hosts who give them a regular platform (see previous cases: Tamihere/Jackson, Henry, etc). The need to be "mates" with the broadcasters overrides the need to call them out when they deserve it.

    No such need exists for fly-in fly-out foreign celebs, so Brown is a safer target.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1324 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to simon g,

    No such need exists for fly-in fly-out foreign celebs, so Brown is a safer target.

    Also, Tamihere, Jackson and Henry haven't savagely assaulted anyone. And they're not seeking an immigration waiver.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to B Jones,

    It's not the state's job to forgive anyone - it's their job to either punish someone or stop punishing someone. Forgiveness is a totally different concept.

    Genuine question: have you always held that view of the Clean Slate Act? Do you think no one should be allowed to move on after paying their penalty? Should someone busted for a joint or shoplifting in the 1980s still have trouble travelling or getting a job?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Point of information: Convictions don’t actually get wiped when they get clean stated.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4316 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to steven crawford,

    Point of information: Convictions don’t actually get wiped under the clean state legislation.

    No, true. They're removed from the public record, you don't have to declare them to anyone and it's an offence for anyone to reveal them from the record. You can't even find out about your own convictions.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I think Clean Slate is fine for non violent offences, and even some minor assaults. I'm staggered it can apply to someone who broke his partner's back. There are people who have died because their partner's or family member's violent history wasn't disclosed.

    Clean Slate doesn't help international travel - that's other countries' laws in play.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • simon g, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Yes, I didn't make my point properly there, sorry.

    Agree entirely that Brown is not entitled to any special status, and his crimes are horrific. Some of the commentary online seems to be "Judith Collins must be wrong, ergo Brown not that bad" - which is cock-eyed nonsense.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1324 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Genuine question: have you always held that view of the Clean Slate Act? Do you think no one should be allowed to move on after paying their penalty? Should someone busted for a joint or shoplifting in the 1980s still have trouble travelling or getting a job?

    Here's a tangential question I've been waiting for someone to answer. If Chris Brown was a New Zealander what would be his chances of getting a visa to perform in the United States under identical circumstances? Serious question, because the relevant section of the US State Department website isn't exactly a model of clarity.

    The c-word nobody seems keen to use here is Class - or more precisely money to lawyer up. If you've got a promoter who stands to lose an awful lot of money if a tour gets cancelled because your headliner can't get a visa, that's one thing. If you're on the other side of the Tasman, and nobody else gives a shit who you are... well, I've heard Christmas Island is lovely this time of year.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to simon g,

    Some of the commentary online seems to be “Judith Collins must be wrong, ergo Brown not that bad” – which is cock-eyed nonsense.

    Thanks for saying that, because prudence made me delete my response to that line of spin. Yes, I'm perfectly happy with Collins being held accountable to her record as a minister of the Crown but I'm less than convinced this is the time or place for political point scoring. Especially when I've not exactly seen any Government giving any consideration to amending the Immigration Act to make domestic violence convictions grounds to decline visa applications.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to simon g,

    “Judith Collins must be wrong, ergo Brown not that bad” – which is cock-eyed nonsense.

    Yes.

    Very, very frustrating.

    The message gets shot down because of the messenger.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    The c-word nobody seems keen to use here is Class – or more precisely money to lawyer up. If you’ve got a promoter who stands to lose an awful lot of money if a tour gets cancelled because your headliner can’t get a visa, that’s one thing. If you’re on the other side of the Tasman, and nobody else gives a shit who you are… well, I’ve heard Christmas Island is lovely this time of year.

    Aka "the best get-out-of-jail-free-card money can buy".

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5419 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    If Chris Brown was a New Zealander what would be his chances of getting a visa to perform in the United States under identical circumstances?

    Kelvin Davis raised this on Radio NZ saying one of his family who did screw up when young can't even get a transit visa for 2 hours in la to get to the UK.

    if you want to go to america, make sure you've never broken the law.

    thank you for the Veitch info, still think he's a unrepentant creep. but that's a personal opinion, and i doubt he gets to ever go to the the usa

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Should someone busted for a joint or shoplifting in the 1980s still have trouble travelling or getting a job?

    Although I'm not B Jones, I think we should be allowed to make a mistake and be given a clean slate. Especially when I disagree that marijuana is bad for me. Also where the same law may have more harsh penalties in other countries, the clean slate really helps when travelling through. Plus charges can change in our Country, such as drugs possession is quantified now, with an acceptance of some being only a fine. Yeah I'm glad for the clean slate.

    interesting B jones says it doesn't help in other Countries. I'm surprised.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.