Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
isn't it bad enough to know she was hit, and that that is wrong.
that is bad enough yes, but then it makes all of us look like arses because this kind of violence happens often in our society and we give very little of our community consciousness to it, we certainly don't get worked up into a lather over it (and we should) and mostly it doesn't grab front pages across the country for every instance of violence of which there is a substancial amount.
the difference here is this guy is famous. cult of celebrity. focusing on the issues in someone else's back yard.
The only factor justifying anything like the response he gets above other worthy candidates for loathing is this guy may possibly have paid someone to keep it quiet, also possibly not. -
grossly stupid action
This thread is getting so weirdly apologist for this dude. Since when is cracking four vertebrae and putting someone in a wheelchair just 'stupid'? It's not 'stupid'. It's not something any of us could have done in the heat of the moment, or whatever other bullshit line Your Views is spinning right now. It's a really serious and deliberate assault, not a 'stupid action'!
[Five, four, three, two, one.] 'But we don't know what really happened...'
I think the reason I'm finding this so irritating is that these arguments are exactly what people have used forever to ignore and trivialise domestic violence. 'It's not our business, it's between them, we don't know what really happened, maybe it wasn't as bad as it looks, we're rushing to judgement...'
Meh. Just... meh.
-
What Danielle said.
-
what you would have done if you were involved in a situation where you'd done something incredibly stupid, possibly out of character, possibly not, and the person you did it to for what ever reasons agreed to not put it to the police. what should he have done? i'm not siding with him, i'm just wondering how you think he should have acted post grossly stupid action.
Like most criminals you'd expect Veitch to act in his own self-interest, avoid the bad publicity, legal consequences of his actions ect. What you wouldn't expect is a torrent of apologists to appear dreaming up excuses for his criminal acts. Couldn't you apply identical logic to the guy who killed a police officer in Porirua recently and then tried to evade capture? He did something stupid, possibly out of character, what else was he supposed to do afterwards, ect ect?
-
what you would have done if you were involved in a situation where you'd done something incredibly stupid...
Well, I have and holding a press conference that consists entirely of a carefully worded statement (which I can't believe wasn't carefully drafted by a PR flack and vetted by a lawyer or two) wouldn't really be upmost in my mind.
And here's what's gotten a lot of people's hackles up, I think: When you start a sentence with "There's no excuse for what I did..." that's a perfect place to stop. Just stop talking. And why do I suspect "lashed out" was deliberately chosen because to most reasonable people that connotates behaviour that may be unfortunate but stops well short of spinal injuries that puts someone in a weelchair for any length of time.
-
This thread is getting so weirdly apologist for this dude.
Danielle: There seems to be some confusion. I don't know anyone who is an apologist for violence against people. I am not. What concerns me is the intensity of the blame. In fact the real issues : (right to remain silent, choice of making a complaint or not, media trials, is there a difference between repeat offenders and a one-off, provocation etc,) would not have been aired on this blog if every one saw it as slam dunk. Guilty. Throw the book at him. You could have written your decision and saved everyone the trouble of thinking about the issues because everyone would agree with you. All those in favour of Guilty say Aye. Unanimous. Close Blog. Go and have a cup of...
-
What concerns me is the intensity of the blame.
Because so many people here have advocated stringing the guy up by his balls. Oh, wait, no: *no one here has done that*. And in fact, the greatest extent of 'blame' has stretched to calling the dude a 'scumbag' and wishing the case would be prosecuted by the police. Quelle horreur! How dare we wish for someone who has admitted to committing a violent crime to go to court instead of paying his victim off!
In other words, I think you are *hugely* exaggerating this 'intensity of the blame' thing, and I have no idea why.
provocation
That's one of the 'real issues' in this case?
-
In fact the real issues : (right to remain silent, choice of making a complaint or not, media trials, is there a difference between repeat offenders and a one-off, provocation etc,) would not have been aired on this blog if every one saw it as slam dunk. Guilty. Throw the book at him. You could have written your decision and saved everyone the trouble of thinking about the issues because everyone would agree with you. All those in favour of Guilty say Aye. Unanimous. Close Blog. Go and have a cup of...
I'm just wondering when you and Mr Veitch are going to get off the cross, because I need the wood and nails for something useful. One does have to wonder, though, why this thread had run for twenty pages if you're the lone speaker of truth to a hateful, simple-minded lynch mob.
Guess we're going to have to wait and see what "details" printed in the DomPost are untrue, because Veitch was curiously unenlightening in his presser. Like Mr. Brown, I find it very hard to believe any media outlet would have run those stories without being very, very confident they were sound. Because, if nothing else, the legal consequences are potentially horrifying.
-
Veitch has so far succesfully avoided a charge of and a short jail lag for the crime of GBH.
Never mind about his career and public image ................... its very hard to do television work from inside your small jail cell.
So far Veitch has paid the coin and stayed out of the dock.
If he avoids a conviction and jail sentance then his blood money has worked well.
The prick should have been locked up ............... no if's, but's or maybe's .................... you break bones on another person through anger and violence then you NEED a spell in jail to think about yourself ....................
-
More McShane: batshit insane.
-
Read the letter from prison.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521170&pnum=2
-
That was the McShane comment I was referring to.
I accept that there is some conversational value in being a devils advocate, and there's been interest in the legal niceties - but surely as Danielle and others have had to keep reminding us the "real issues" in this sad situation are more to do with male violence against women, how our charming meathead thugby culture relates to that, the influence of money on justice, and public vs private spheres colliding in the glare of media. If it wasn't about Veitch all those factors wouldn't have come together.
The conversation has been instructional in that sense, but not if we keep rushing to defend the indefensible out of some warped sense of fairness. It's not ok. There's no way to make it ok. Stop trying.
-
This thread is getting so weirdly apologist for this dude. Since when is cracking four vertebrae and putting someone in a wheelchair just 'stupid'? It's not 'stupid'. It's not something any of us could have done in the heat of the moment, or whatever other bullshit line Your Views is spinning right now. It's a really serious and deliberate assault, not a 'stupid action'!
I just knew it was going to be you that would come back with this comment and of course you're absolutely correct, apart from mis quoting me, I did say "grossly" stupid, but you're right, I should have said "very grossly extreme out of this universe mega x 5 insanely stupid" etc, and it was right of you to side track an interesting point re the correct appropriate emotive hyperbole to use although I'm not so sure abut you lableing any of my comments apologist cos if true I'm as disgusted as anyone, but
now we've got that out of the way how should could or would someone else who wasn't a famous tv sports announcer deal with correctly with their actions.
and just to give you something to avoid answering that question, here's another thing I just came up with along those lines.
If society has been harmed also, then who else has wronged society?
just for starters this could have played out a lot differently if the medical people who treated his ex's back injuries had reported it. surely its their responsibility to do so, and while we're on it isn't it his ex's responsibility also to do so. are they going to get dragged into this for perverting the course of justice while we're getting all worked up and all. I mean her back specialists must have known the injury they were looking at wasn't cased by falling down.
its starting to get really complicated isn't it?
-
More McShane: batshit insane.
Um, yes. I wonder if McShane would be taking the same line if property rights were concerned. I don't recall him being a big fan of the notion of eminent domain no matter how much compensation gets dished out. I've certainly been far from impressed by the media coverage of this, for all kinds of reasons, but he's taken that into a lemming-like dash over a very high cliff.
-
now we've got that out of the way how should could or would someone else who wasn't a famous tv sports announcer deal with correctly with their actions.
Not giving weirdly evasive press conferences? Not blandly hiding their abuse behind euphemisms, and saying "there's no excuses..." and doing exactly that?
And I certainly hope the Herald on Sunday isn't going to contain a Rickards-style puff piece which boils down to "the vindictive lying psycho cunt really asked for everything she got".
And can I just say, Robbery, I find it appalling that Veitch blamed stress, medication and played the victim to the hilt. It's just a bit on the nose to those of us who actually manage physical and mental health issues (including medication) without "lashing out". As Helen Clark used to be fond of saying, when you're in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.
-
how our charming meathead thugby culture relates to that
Tony Veitch plays rugby?
A sport played on Saturday afternoons by other people made him do it?
They were watching a game of rugby on the TV at the time?
I don't get the link.
The guy is a sports presenter/journalist (albeit a mediocre one).
-
And here's what's gotten a lot of people's hackles up, I think: When you start a sentence with "There's no excuse for what I did..." that's a perfect place to stop. Just stop talking.
Thanks craig, a point well made and agreed although the sound bites might have been a little light for tv. a career in tv probably doesn't go well with speaking simply especially when the great waffler holmes is on your team.
detail might also have been useful at said point but then there are probably a swag of lawyers strongly advising against that. -
The guy is a sports presenter/journalist (albeit a mediocre one).
And perhaps it's not out of line to point out that the media is hardly famous for attracting... well, shall we say, those of a monastic disposition.
-
Yamis, here's one for you, mate:
-
I find it appalling that Veitch blamed stress, medication and played the victim to the hilt. It's just a bit on the nose to those of us who actually manage physical and mental health issues (including medication) without "lashing out".
it does indeed leave an unpleasant taste and veitch will be able to share the blame for that taste with his script writers.
taking it back from the script written part though, how would you have handled the actual event though? Serious question making no apologies for veitch (why do I have to even say that?) who I don't even like especially after reading the 2 documented accounts of his racist comments and the fact that he's a friggin sports commentator. -
you labeling any of my comments apologist cos if true I'm as disgusted as anyone,
if true meaning if he did administer a sustained and brutal unprovoked beating as inferred by those with detailed knowledge be it insider or otherwise. just wanted to make that point clear cos it wasn't clear to me on re reading.
-
Just call me 'Uppity D', Robbery.
side track an interesting point re the correct appropriate emotive hyperbole
On the contrary: I think the range of bizarre euphemisms you're using to describe a serious assault (a phrase which is *not* 'emotive hyperbole', thanks very much) actually *are* my key point.
-
And perhaps it's not out of line to point out that the media is hardly famous for attracting... well, shall we say, those of a monastic disposition.
That's for sure, off the top of my head I can get to half a dozen lawbreakers pretty quickly.
-
It's not something any of us could have done in the heat of the moment,
apparently statistics begs to differ with you on that one. we've got a high rate of domestic violence as a country, and there will be people on this board reading or speaking that are involved on both sides of it.
its not just something tv personalities do. -
brutal unprovoked beating
Erm. Why is 'provocation' suddenly part of this equation for some of you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.