Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: So far from trivial

1095 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 13 14 15 16 17 44 Newer→ Last

  • FletcherB,

    Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.

    As I recall, In the press conference, Veitch did say that "some" of the reported details were incorrect, but offered no further clarity...

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 887 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Fletcher, yes I did wonder whether the payoff being bigger was one of the details that Veitch was alluding to when he said some o the facts was wrong...

    There has been a good deal of effort put into imagining more benign explanations for these serious injuries.

    And I'd like to hear more about what is driving that effort, from those who have made it.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Are you suggesting that PA is run on our not attempting to use facts as a basis for opinions?

    Clearly not. I'm just pointing out that the little 'we weren't there! we don't know!' dance some of you are doing over this particular issue has a smidge of the Doth Protest Too Much about it.

    Or, what Russell said.

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

  • Ian MacKay,

    OK. Let the Dom Post article be an honest report based on credible witness. Should the lack of a denial in a public statement automatically assume you must be guilty? I accuse you. You did not deny it. Therefore you are guilty. Mmm. (The issue is the interesting bit. Not the person.)
    I quit.

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Don't be disingenuous Ian, it went more like this:

    I accuse you. You did not deny it, In fact you admitted a lot of it. Therefore you are guilty.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • michael o'brien,

    Clearly not. I'm just pointing out that the little 'we weren't there! we don't know!' dance some of you are doing over this particular issue has a smidge of the Doth Protest Too Much about it.

    Yeah, but what do we have to gain by Protesting Too Much?
    I don't know Veitch. Never met the guy.

    I just want discussion to move back to the centre ground sometimes and not be to far in either direction, which conversations like this can do....
    All I am saying is that there is a lot of stuff that we don't know, and until we do know it (from the Courts, Woman's Weekly, whatever...) we are making huge assumptions....

    Since Nov 2006 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Put that way, Ian, it does sound a little Wishartian. But unlike Investigate, the Dom Post is an ideal target for a keen defamation lawyer with a financially comfortable client - well-funded and with a respectable reputation to defend. Assuming the Dom Post makes an honest report based on a credible witness is different from assuming a random person on the internet has done so.

    It's not enough to convict, but it is enough to discuss, especially since we've heard the unmediated other side of the story.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    And I'd like to hear more about what is driving that effort, from those who have made it.

    Sacha: The same thought occurred to me. Except it is the other way round. (It is not a drive to defend the bloke. It is the need to be fair as a society.) What drives the more extreme outrages? Why add extreme language in describing the alleged event? What drives the attackers?
    Goodnight.

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Ian, for me it goes back to what Craig said earlier today. We understand one another better if where we are coming from becomes visible through the various positions we discuss. Respectful forums like this are taonga.

    I'm not really sure why but I seem to have a less clear picture of the underlying motivation of contributors who are saying there needs to be more evidence. Your comment "the need to be fair as a society" is exactly the kind of thing I was seeking.

    Of course it may lead to a dicussion about what is fair...

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    but cracking 3 (or 4, or 5 depending on the "facts") vertebrae is not quite breaking your back.

    Oh, faaaaark... I'm actually rather pleased that a certain human being (who seems to have got lost in this, which might be the idea) isn't in a wheelchair permanently. Can we take it as read that when an argument degenerates into kicking, hitting or otherwise causing someone any fucking spinal injuries whatsoever is a BAD BAD BAD THING.

    And, Michael, where I come from anything that puts a person in a wheelchair (which Veitch has not challenged) is not generally described as "lashing out". That's reserved for a curt, bad-tempered verbal outburst.

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

  • Ian MacKay,

    Clearly, for the sake of the debate, a Court case would be well worth it. And yes of course concern and sympathy goes to the victim of any attack. A pity that our society is so intent on violence being an answer to problems, frustrations etc. So ?

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Savidge,

    A pity that our society is so intent on violence being an answer to problems, frustrations etc. So ?

    It is? I would have thought that our "society" (y'know, communities, politicians, police, courts, schools etc) are doing lots to try and reduce violent reactions to stressful situations.

    Now our obsession with rugby undermines all that but still....

    Somewhere near Wellington… • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Don't be disingenuous Ian, it went more like this:

    I accuse you. You did not deny it, In fact you admitted a lot of it. Therefore you are guilty.

    I'm more of the: "You had the opportunity to clear up what happened; your side of the story would have been prominently conveyed on every news service in the country. And yet you settled for a two-word euphemism."

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    Now we will know what Veitch is referring to next time he mentions going out "on the lash".

    On the issue of speculation it's a bit hard in this case as we have a 'respected' media outlet giving reasonably details errr... details while Veitch has said that not all the things being reported are correct. He could be referring to the DomPost or to random things he's hearing through the web.

    But I don't know if anybody followed the link to the story about the 4 English rugby players I posted a couple of pages back. Turns out the allegations that it was a big sex romp with an audience weren't quite so true afterall. At least if the English investigation is anything to go by.

    The players at the time had to remain tight lipped and were instructed to say nothing. It seems as though two of them walked in on a bloke having sex where "there was no element of voyeurism and they were "actually quite embarrassed" to have disturbed them".

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521046&pnum=2

    That's a far cry from what was being implied in the media and various forums (yours truly being a guilty party). Who knows exactly what happened aside from those who were there and until we get admissions from those who were there or were directly involved it probably is better off to concentrate on the credible stuff rather than the 'extras'.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    Please don't say it was the victim's fault for not reporting it. I don't buy that

    that's an interesting point. what is the protocol for a crime where your victim decides not to press charges or report it to the authorities?

    how should he have handled this in your esteemed opinions. you'll probably need to give to versions of it though,

    one being him and his ex decided to not take it to court and mutually agreed to deal with it outside of the system.

    two being he paid her to shut up.

    actually there's probably a third or 4th scenario in there some where too.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    It is? I would have thought that our "society" (y'know, communities, politicians, police, courts, schools etc) are doing lots to try and reduce violent reactions to stressful situations.

    the whole front section of any news paper will contradict that unfortunately, and most of mans short an illustrious history on this planet. there's been some good bits for sure, but lets not forget the continuous states of war, greed, general evil etc.

    Now our obsession with rugby undermines all that but still....

    pigskin ball,....testosterone, shake vigorously
    I don't get it either,

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Robbery, "the victim" includes society as well. Hence police investigating in the absence of complaint. Discussed earlier in thread, including historical references.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    Yamis

    On the issue of speculation it's a bit hard in this case as we have a 'respected' media outlet giving reasonably details errr... details while Veitch has said that not all the things being reported are correct.....

    Well said Yamis and thanks for the connection to the Rugby accusations, by the "reliable media."

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Who knows exactly what happened aside from those who were there...

    And that's where the context comes in, including the cultural factors about sports, gender and violence.

    Let's not be naive and carry on as if there is a level playing field. There isn't - hence some of the comments about justice for the rich, and the understandable desire not to go through an invasive court process for little personal gain.

    Are these professional rugby players with instant access to their management and lawyers likely to say anything if they are advised that silence benefits them? Is the only non-team person in the situation likely to be unaware of the discrepancy in her resources, or the consequences of pursuing a complaint, including having her reputation savaged in our courts while the players are shieded (Louise Nicholas, anyone)? Is a judge hired by the English rugby union the sole purveyor of truth?

    In Veitch's case, please pay similar attention to the context (lawyers, defamation, staged apology) and perhaps go back and read Russell's post. Just read the first sentence at the top of the screen.

    I'm not holding my breath waiting for legal-grade evidence to be supplied. That doesn't stop me and others having a reasonable and historically informed understanding about what is going on and what it means.

    Which again causes me to be curious about your motivation for downplaying or denying what most of us seem to understand has gone on here, despite the unknowns and complexities. Do tell.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    Yamis,

    I get what you're saying, but there are some differences.

    The Dompost in this case has been very solid about what they've released, and perhaps that's why they haven't printed the other allegations.

    The whole Englsih rugby player coverage, on the other hand, was always strong on innuendo and weak on facts.

    Apart from that Angel Barbie distraction of course.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    we have no idea which details are correct or not, Russell makes a super Important note that
    Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.

    BUT
    does it matter how severe her injuries were?
    isn't it bad enough to know she was hit, and that that is wrong.
    other wise it potential implies there is a sliding scale of acceptable violence towards another person. Which i am sure nobody here would even think was an ok thing

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    Yep LB, there was a distinct difference in that the English rugby players "allegedly" did this and that (that word was used frequently in the media) while in this case the DomPost is stating things as facts and that is a clear and obvious difference.

    Thus far though it seems the facts can be stated as

    1) Tony Veitch seriously assaulted his ex-partner resulting in head injuries and 4 fractured vertebrae
    2) He paid her money as some form of compensation

    The exact details of the assault and aftermath and motives may or may not become clearer with time.

    Either way, what we do know thus far has me convinced that the guy is a scumbag and I don't mind any of the discussion on these here pages. I think it's all been perfectly fair given the circumstances and details at hand.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    isn't it bad enough to know she was hit, and that that is wrong.
    other wise it potential implies there is a sliding scale of acceptable violence towards another person. Which i am sure nobody here would even think was an ok thing

    There is no acceptable form of violence but there are fairly obvious differences from an arguing couple exchanging slaps and then pulling back and walking away and one partner beating the other unconscious, or to death in a sustained deliberate attack.

    Otherwise the court sentence for any violent crime would be exactly the same.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Otherwise the court sentence for any violent crime would be exactly the same.

    Exactly, as would the size of the payment for silence. The scale of both bruising and bribe seem to have attracted our attention.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    The size of the payment for silence is probably more of an indication of the wealth of the culprit. If it was me, my wife would be getting my cd collection, our mortgage .... and then I'd be off to prison. Or she would after getting all Taekwondo on me.

    $170,000 sounds pretty damning though and if the DomPost is to be believed the way it was agreed on and when does nothing to enhance my opinion of Veitch.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 13 14 15 16 17 44 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.