Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
You don't need to apologise Sacha. I was just wondering if you were referring to the date hoohaa that I sprouted up with etc.
I was trying to answer Leg Breaks question about the date when it happened. Some things don't add up. I'm a freak for statistics and what they reveal, Leg Break and probably RB can vouch for that.
Excuse me while I go and count to 1 million.
-
Sacha Danielle and others: I have read many of the Posts since Monday. I suspect that 70% of them are made by people like you who have endlessly repeated the same mantra, that the man is nasty, horrible despicable etc etc etc etc. That 70% includes endless speculations on what might be deduced from the scant information as long is it supports that the man is etcetc. Ad nauseum. You have as a group contributed nothing to the original post of Russel Brown's. The few who have attempted to look at the bigger picture have been ridiculed by you and others.
Well, what counts as "the bigger picture", could be open to interpretation. Anyway, I selected a page at random from this thread and found this one from Deborah, that began:
Posted at 5:33PM on 10 Jul 08. Permalink. (page 10 of my browser)
Some handy information about the women as perpetrators of domestic violence line from the Feminism 101 blog....
In this post there was a load of stats and info about <bold>the bigger picture</bold> of dv as perpetrated by males and females.
Then on page 16 Sacha made some points about the nature of society, individuals and the law. These random selections support my impression (having read the whole thread) that this discussion has ranged over quite a bit of territory.
-
Jacki: I have contributed nothing. Have you offered one contribution that fits Ste phen's high standard of intelligent debate? Every one as far as I can see believe that Veitch has done something very wrong. Everyone agrees that violence against women is wrong. End of story. So what has 42 pages shown. Only affirmation. Endlessly.
-
Mainly it sounds like the usual lines trotted out by those trying to defend men who have been violent against women
I'm still reading and though I'm past commenting I couldn't let that one past. how dare you say that about me, you know absolutely nothing about my experience with victims of abuse and violence.
There's been a bit of it around me just like there is in many kiwis lives, I've tried to make that point while others have tried to say "not me, not around me, doesn't happen".
I admire courage of the guys in the not ok campaign who stand up and say I was that creep, and its not ok, and I'm going to do something about it. I've had friends abused by partners and surprisingly their partners where not faceless monsters who I could easily exile.my comments have never been a defense for anyone, they're a criticism of the holier than though sanctimonious self righteous vein that runs through some of the comments on here by these self appointed judges that are our talk back radio country.
we could do a lot better.
i'd say fuck you but I've learned how to let it slide,
if you don't care what others think anyway.
I do care what others think, I just learn to weed the masturbatory posts from the insightful ones, take on board the good (sofie, simon, mercier, jill etc) and ignore the creeps.
russells just pissed I don't earn him any money from advertising cos I've got ad blocker set to max and I don't think the sun shines out his arse. he's got valid views and he's got an interesting concept in PA, but I'm not going to kiss his just cos of that.
-
Judge Michael Lance agreed with Mr Haigh that Busch's assaults were a "human and inevitable" reaction to seeing his partner in bed with other people.
The idea that 100% of humans would react with violence when faced with that situation - that's quite sad from a judge. Maybe he should get out more and meet people who don't go from angry to violent in 0.5 seconds.
-
................... the affirmation seems to be that the bigger picture may containmany little details, none of which excuse jake the veitch.
The little bit of the bigger picture that tigger helps fill in is that some people are always grasping at little details to excuse the inexcusable.
Its not the bigger picture ................. its muddying the waters
-
The prosecution needs little details too. I work for them ;)
-
The little bit of the bigger picture that tigger helps fill in is that some people are always grasping at little details to excuse the inexcusable.
Its not the bigger picture ................. its muddying the waters
I haven't seen anyone excusing the inexcusable. I think everyone has said that what Veitch did - as the picture emerged - was despicable and shocking and that Holmes (Qantas Award Winning Columnist of the Year)is the one who has the skewed values.
It's as if there are some people who are more in the know about issues surrounding domestic violence - there was a really poignant post to the Herald BTW - but that doesn't mean that other people who are less aware of the issues can't raise valid questions about this media-related case. Or have slightly different ways of looking at it while all the time wondering at the "moral crisis" (is that what HC said?) which has been made manifest in Veitch himself and in TVNZ.
I think this is a great forum with brilliant contributors but it's also very intimidating for people who want to air their views and question what's going on in NZ without getting their heads bitten off because they might not be on the same wave length as the majority.
-
I think this is a great forum with brilliant contributors but it's also very intimidating for people who want to air their views and question what's going on in NZ without getting their heads bitten off because they might not be on the same wave length as the majority.
Cecelia, it's just your computer.You can always ignore bits if you like:-) Helps to have a thick skin though,eh? The world is your oyster!
-
What I'm thinking about now is that people who do bad things (kicking their partners downstairs included), have to eventually be accepted somehow back into our community. We can't demonise or ostracise them forever, that's stupid and unrealistic. There has to be a way for them to find a place with us again. I understand, and believe in, the therapeutic value of 'owning up to' one's bad behaviour. This may include formal 'punishment' as well as the informal forms we are seeing now - public criticism, loss of job, loss of face, expressions of remorse (genuine) etc etc. I would like to see Tony Veitch accountable for his actions in a court of law. But, one day he has to be able to live amongst us again. As do all those people already in the prison system for whatever silly or despicable things they've done. If you are on the side of Sensible Sentencing obviously you lock them up forever/brand them/ do whatever it takes to signal they are less than human. But don't we need to 'forgive' them eventually? (After due process, penance, counselling, the passage of time, whatever it takes.) I don't mean saying what they did is before is now ok, but that we are ok with how things are now.
I just feel that it is easy to be angry with Tony Veitch's actions, and to get hot and bothered about all the ramifications. I certainly do. But he's not 'evil'. I would rather see him rehabilitated than pilloried.
Hmm... I sound very pious. Probably due to watching Taxi to the Dark Side at the Film Festival tonight. (Gitmo Bay, torture, Rumsfield etc.)
-
Cecelia, it's just your computer.You can always ignore bits if you like:-)
i know I know but well they are still human voices comin' out of the ether.And I don't think you should have to armour yourself because putting forward a point.
And I MUST leave this alone now and do something healthier with my dwindling brain cells - could you call this a veitchhunt, has someone already used that awful pun and does the 43 page discussion have an element of this? I mean not in the sense of getting moral panic and mass hysteria but in the sense of mass summat, mob moral outrage and .. oh I don't know.
-
Susan I agree completely about the issues around rehabilitation that you have raised (and which may have also been raised earlier in this mega-thread, I forget!) That's where my thinking is starting to head too, but I get distracted by the very loaded media coverage of this Veitch thing - the Holmes article, the women's mag covers, the feedback coming from talkback - which makes it hard sometimes to remember that ultimately we do all need to be able to live together, again. And that probably (hopefully) the vast majority do accept that it isn't ok (when a lot of the media coverage seems to be of the "no excuses except to say" ilk).
I think there is still a lot of anger flying around, outrage that gets freshly stoked as the details (confirmed or otherwise) are drip-fed and Veitch's earlier comments (in particular to Holmes) become questionable. Instead of focusing on what next we end up in this cycle of "hang on, what actually happened here in the first place?" over and over again. When, as many contributors to this thread have pointed out, I'm not sure it really matters exactly what happened - Veitch himself has admitted an incident of domestic violence, and we know the outcome for the victim was 4 months off work, a wheelchair for a significant period of time, and a mental breakdown. The dots you can confidently join there mean we are talking about serious violence.
Anyway, I think Holmes' approach in particular has meant that many people now have lots more questions (I know I do and I'm going to post something about it as time allows), but it's good that there are also people, here and elsewhere, focusing on the what next too - what do we do with those who admit domestic violence, how do we stop it happening again, how do we respect the rights of victims whilst not writing off the perpetrator?
If a public discussion that actually goes somewhere on this issue, building on the It's Not Ok campaign, is the legacy of this Veitch thing then that would be great. And to that end the continual silence of the Sensible Sentencing Trust on this matter is probably a good thing.
-
I believe in rehabilitation too, for what that's worth. Not via Paul Holmes, though.
-
What a wonderful page. I lay awake last night deeply concerned. But the writers on this page 43 are as refreshing as a sunrise on a beautiful day.
-
I understand, and believe in, the therapeutic value of 'owning up to' one's bad behaviour. This may include formal 'punishment' as well as the informal forms we are seeing now - public criticism, loss of job, loss of face, expressions of remorse (genuine) etc etc. I would like to see Tony Veitch accountable for his actions in a court of law.
I think that's the way most people here feel. As I said before, I have far less of an opinion about punishment than I do about this coming properly to account in a court.
But as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the Sensible Sentencing Trust has very little to say about family violence anyway. It doesn't fit their worldview.
-
I mean Julie, Cecelia, Susan, and Robbery
-
I mean not in the sense of getting moral panic and mass hysteria but in the sense of mass summat, mob moral outrage and .. oh I don't know.
Hum... I don't know about you Celia, but I'm rather glad that there are one or two things that should excite general revulsion and while (saying this for the billionth time) I've been seriously underwhelmed with the media coverage of this, I'm rather glad that society is a little less tolerant of the "bitch asked for everything she got" defence than it used to be. Though Paul Holmes (and the lastest issue of the Wimmin's Weakly) really seems determined to prove me wrong.
-
On the other hand, I really seem to be out of the mainstream in my belief that a little more shame wouldn't go amiss.
-
Meanwhile, off on the fringe ... Lindsay Perigo:
For make no mistake: the crazed mobs baying for his blood and bowels couldn't care less about his assault on his ex-partner. It's not that that has made them rabid. It's his exceptional talent for which they seek to hang, draw and quarter him.
They are far lower than Veitch ...
Leighton Smith apparently read out the whole press release on air.
-
I'm rather glad that society is a little less tolerant of the "bitch asked for everything she got" defence than it used to be
A sentiment that you measured how? I took a look at the Have your say pages of the Herald the other day and it seriously made me consider applying for a change species. (Too bad the amphibians wont' have me.)
I'm glad we've been able to muster some ol' fashioned outrage on these pages, but let's face it, it's a fairly like-minded group. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
Oh, and I heard last night that Woman's Day is really pissed off because it had the Veitch story too, but the Dom Post went to press first. I gather both have copies of the controversial private agreement.
There's a lot of digging going on by other media organisations too.
-
It's his exceptional talent for which they seek to hang, draw and quarter him.
In fairness, though, the few times I caught him on the telly or radio I couldn't but utter in awe, man, this guy has exceptional talent.
-
That's way the f, out there from Perigo.
A few interesting comments below it all, and a few curious ones.
One of the things I find often in arguments like this is people using terms like "crazed mobs", or variations of it, lumping an entire segment of the community, or world into one bucket with no evidence of any such thing. It's a bit like the "they're out to get me line". Who's "they"?
I've been following the case fairly closely although I admit I skip talkback radio at all costs but I am never sure who people are referring to when they make those kinds of statements. I'm assuming he has seen these mobs in the street, or went door knocking and did a survey.
-
A sentiment that you measured how? I took a look at the Have your say pages of the Herald the other day and it seriously made me consider applying for a change species. (Too bad the amphibians wont' have me.)
Well, I had lunch yesterday with a beer-and-rugby loving Southern Man who doesn't fit the stereotypical PA reader demographic in any way, shape or form. But when it comes to putting the bash on women he's the very model of "political correctness gone mad" (tm) -- not that there's anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld used to say. :)
-
In fairness, though, the few times I caught him on the telly or radio I couldn't but utter in awe, man, this guy has exceptional talent.
And T.S. Eliot was, in my not so humble opinion, the greatest - certainly the most influential - poet and critic of the 20th century. Doesn't mitigate his repulsive anti-Semitism one whit, in fact it makes it worse somehow, that a man of his intelligence and sensitivity to language would be prey to such an ugly prejudice.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.