Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: So-called celebrity justice

246 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • mark taslov,

    What happened last night? you just replied to my second post today. I've been on the topic of name suppression.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    oh please, this is hard news, not soggy news, or flaccid news, or no fire in the belly news, or touchy feely news or community taonga news...isnt it ?

    ...just trying to live up to the hype is all :p

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've seen for ages.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Seriously Sacha, what happened last night? I wasn't here. The hysteria is a almost understandable, except there are are handful of NZ sites that are openly flouting the suppression order as far as I can see and as long as they remain up, your fears are questionable, especially with regards to me.

    I'm willing to go along with the official story but I think you're beating whatever I may or may not have done yesterday morning out of proportion.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    From what I've just seen on international sites, this suppression will do immeasurably more harm to the guys career than if he just um "grows a pair" faces the music and makes a public statement. Whoever thought pushing this offshore was a good idea?

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Real news Dubmugga, and anyone else slightly interested in our little young and not perfect country could be the ETS amendments that have just victimised Maori (by the Maori party in accordance with Nats)and other working class NZers yet again under this lot that aims for short term gain over long term investment. Now that is worth debate.Sit back and watch your bills rise because that is where we are headed.

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

  • mark taslov,

    you've taken the heat off me with that one.

    Another wrong decision by the state, Sofie. It's a sad tack to take. More people will die because of this, Power prices are already over the top. They sure picked the time to fling this one through...again.

    I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but all urban apartments in this city get 3 months of 24/7 heating for $200 (NZ) over winter Nov 15-Feb 15, a cost that is worn by the landlord. I realise that not much of a comparison can be made between the two countries, but I ponder.....values and priorities.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    They sure picked the time to fling this one through...again.

    Remember short term gain, always looks ok in the interim, and long term looks expensive no matter what way the balance sheet falls.I was so saddened to hear that the best interests for our supposedly "clean green country" are at the mercy of people who are on the 9th floor and the good image of Phil Goff and the Labour Party is seen as a threat to said floor and therefore not to be considered in any circumstance. That is disgusting. Innit

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

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    I ponder.....values and priorities.

    Absolutely!

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

  • mark taslov,

    It's. And only a week or so after NZ was celebrating being the least corrupt country in the world. Which I don't dispute, but there's no question who this new legislation works out best for and why? We are trying to attract large scale polluters to invest in New Zealand?

    good image of Phil Goff

    high praise there ; )

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    high praise there ; )

    That was 2nd reading in the House, divulged info from a Nat. in the House!

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

  • Russell Brown,

    Well, Mr Gotlieb informs me there is no official reason I can't state the information I was alluding to upthread, which leaves me with just the feeling that I'm stepping into someone else's shit ...

    The charge to which the entertainer pleaded guilty was not the original charge laid -- that was much more serious: the most serious charge you can imagine in the circumstances.

    My understanding is that it was withdrawn after security camera evidence showed the offence could not have taken place.

    It didn't show what actually happened, but I gather it did show the time between the complainant entering the alley in pursuit of her friends, then leaving again, was of the order of 18 seconds.

    So having accepted that their perp wasn't a rapist, the police were obliged to find another charge. There may have been some negotiation as to a charge on which he'd plead guilty, but I don't know about that.

    Please be careful about how you respond to this. I'm actually going to close off the thread before I go to Wellington tomorrow.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22761 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I'm still not comfortable with a judge describing any sexual offending as being "on the low end" of any scale (especially when that scale is entirely made of decency fail), but thanks you for the interesting context. There's plenty of scope for douchiness (and criminal) behaviour without meeting the bar of "the most serious charge you can imagine in the circumstances."

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

  • dubmugga,

    A chain email flouting the name suppression of an entertainer facing sex charges may force a test case for the courts, law experts say...

    "We just named him ... Sort it out John Key, even you wanted to know. It is a basic right. A criminal should own up to the crime he is found guilty of.

    "Either he faces his fans and the general public of New Zealand, and admits what he did and takes responsibility for his actions, or we will."

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3097505/Sex-charges-email-may-test-suppression

    hate the playa not the game ?

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    hate the playa not the game ?

    Don't you just love it when A. Nonymous takes a "do what I say, don't say what I do" approach to transparency, accountability and personal responsibility?

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

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    The jokes are already being created out there too considering what was going around last night at the pub.

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

  • Jackie Clark,

    Oh. Dear. So hypothetically speaking, one could be accused of something that one does not remember, and only security footage shows that that accusation cannot be substantiated, and so one might, concievably, be so cowed that one admits to a lesser something, which one may or may not have done. Really? All very much best left alone.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    CCTV in the Uk is huge and is considered evidence for many charges. I was aware of them whilst there and I guess it is a protection even though I found them annoying because you know they are monitoring them all the time. Way of the world eh, don't ya just luv it?

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

  • Russell Brown,

    and so one might, concievably, be so cowed that one admits to a lesser something, which one may or may not have done.

    I'm sure an unsavoury incident took place, presumably roughly commensurate with the eventual charge. It sounds like a horrible drunken mess, although I think you can see why I used the word "momentary" earlier in the thread. But yeah, I don't really want this thread to run and run.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22761 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    My understanding is that they're NOT monitoring them all them time -- hardly at all, in fact. And they don't have much of a deterrent effect either. They have been useful in prosecutions later though.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I was aware of them whilst there and I guess it is a protection even though I found them annoying because you know they are monitoring them all the time.

    But the funny thing is, according to a Metropolitan Police internal report released earlier this year they're fuck all use in actually clearing crimes.

    And here's the punchline from the story I've linked to:

    A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer".

    Oh... that's OK then. Appearance trumps reality, again.

    And there plenty of rather unnerving factoids here. My personal favourite:

    The borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston [USA], Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.

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

  • mark taslov,

    I'm actually going to close off the thread before I go to Wellington tomorrow.

    This is interesting. Can't really see much of a motive for doing that.

    6 months since facebook
    7 months since youtube

    re: the mounting swathes of shit on offshore sites about this guy, maybe the NZ Government could start blocking offshore sites like they do here, at least to maintain an air of consistency (dare I say credibility) in its approach to the law it's created.

    That would be a timely reminder which side of the iron curtain we sit.

    Bring back Harry!

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    This is interesting. Can't really see much of a motive for doing that.

    It's not up to you, is it?

    I'm not going to be comfortable being offline and travelling and not able to keep an eye on it. I think the reasons for that discomfort should be obvious, and they don't relate solely to the suppression order.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22761 posts Report Reply

  • Kim_Wright,

    Breaking the law is a personal choice we all have but breaking it when someone else could end up wearing the punishment is a different kettle of fish

    Whether you agree with the law is not the point - no-one has the right to break the law on behalf of someone else (well maybe assisted euthanasia but that's a whole other debate), especially when they have specifically asked people to be respectful and not break this particular law

    Just because other people are doing it overseas is not a good reason to shoot your mouth off - they're doing it so you should too Russell, c'mon how lame is that for an argument, about as lame as you be our case law guinea pig Russell and I'll stay hidden behind my oh-so-rebellious persona

    Wellington • Since May 2009 • 57 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    It's not up to you, is it?

    Of course not. I'm not challenging your authority. I am commenting on the effectiveness of such an action in contrast to the specifications of the order and the avenues left open. I'm looking forward to the show Russell. Take it easy.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.