Hard News: Undie Wankers
330 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Ah yes; Michael with the silent “h” Laws.
If it wasn’t for him I couldn’t really give a rat’s about the name change, but now I think it’s brilliant.
-
Initial reaction is unsurprising:
A New Zealand Geographic Board ruling that Wanganui must take an 'h' is "racist", city Mayor Michael Laws says.
"It is another racist decision, no question about that," he said on his Radio Live show this morning.
He said he would make no further comment until a press conference this afternoon.
-
Greetings Ben Wilson! I want you to bottle two media interviewers, six production assistants and two cameramen. Your reward will be three trollhide inflammable sofas.
You will receive 1g 20s
-
I vote for Ben's grand vision.
I've previously argued against students getting any sort of special treatment in court under diversion
But they actually do, don't they, no matter what you might prefer?
Or are the stories of prospective lawyers pleading their "career" as mitigation just unrepresentative? Certainly never heard of a garbage collector getting off because their progress up the career totem pole might be unduly thwarted by youthful indiscretions.
Many organisations will take further action to protect their reputations after criminal charges against their members. There's no special treatment for students in that.
And defying the police is not the same as giving the finger to mummy and daddy. Life lesson, as some have said. The students were warned what the consequences would be - no diversion - and they decided to go for it anyway. I believe what probably set Russell off was the entitled whining from some of them that it wasn't fair. Hardly original thought from a teenager.
-
Things to remeber about the first four ships.
*They weren't first. Three wave of Maori migration and continued occupation are recorded for 1000yrs. Europeans had settled on the Peninsula and the plains years earlier, often intermarrying with Ngai Tahu.
* If you're from the first four ships, odd are on that your mum was (at least) mail order. Notice how the respected families photos are from the 1880 on. -
Nothing personal, but isn't that the same sort of one-way sense-of-entitlement thinking that is annoying some people?
I can't figure out if this thread is aout the undie 500 riots or its a red convention to discuss the ills of the capitalist system.
I was intentionally being provocative. But I have met people like that and they annoy me. A lot.
Ra Ra Ra Rasputin ; )
-
If you're from the first four ships, odd are on that your mum was (at least) mail order.
Ooh, slappers in the closet. Go Canterbury.
-
Heh. I just found this in the 19th-century Napier print-trade journal Typo:
The Manawatu Herald quotes as follows from the local school inspector's report:— « Pronunciation of names in the colony should receive more attention from several teachers. For instance, that 'ang' in Wanganui, Tauranga, & is pronounced by them like ang in 'hang,' seems very curious. » The Herald thinks that the critic should have gone farther and indicated how the vowel should be sounded. Does he adopt the vulgar pronunciation, which turns the a into the o in « song »? The a is the same as in « Rangiora » —longer than the English vowel in « hang, » and not quite so long as the a in « far. » The g is commonly mispronounced. In the Maori the ng is always inseparable, and is very commonly an initial sound. In divisions of words this is often overlooked by the comp. « Tau-ra-nga » is the proper division—not « Tau-ran-ga. » The Herald pertinently asks why, if the Inspector stands up for correctness, he falls into the common error of dropping the h from « Whanganui. »
That's from May 31st 1890.
-
That's a wicked find. I love it when people dig up this sort of thing.
-
Greetings Ben Wilson! I want you to bottle two media interviewers, six production assistants and two cameramen. Your reward will be three trollhide inflammable sofas.
You will receive 1g 20s
Excellent, I will use my skinning and tailoring to make one set of flame-proof trollhide armor, which I will auction off at Kiwiblog. Much better than just whaling on pigs for experience.
-
Here's the original item, from the Manuwatu Herald (18 April 1890).
-
Sacha has summed it up very well:
And defying the police is not the same as giving the finger to mummy and daddy. Life lesson, as some have said. The students were warned what the consequences would be - no diversion - and they decided to go for it anyway.
The privilege these students enjoy doesn't necessarily mean they are wealthy - clearly they are ordinary middle class NZers. Their wealth is not the issue, their privilege and sense of entitlement is what is irritating people here.
The suggestion that these offenders are entitled to better treatement than other groups in society - like Maori and Pacific Island offenders - is galling:
Diversion is apparently not going to be offered to these "rich prick" kids
Although it is up to the Police to offer it, most first time minor criminals get it as right but it is only offered once
Most "rich kids" only need it once because they are quick learners unlike habitual criminals who are certainly not.Actually this isn't true.
Socioeconomic Factors in Sentencing
I can't cut and paste from that document, as it's a PDF, but it says that "Maori enter prisons at 8x the rate of non-Maori" and that "Maori were younger than Europeans the first time they entered prison" that "Maori fare less well in the judicial system than Pakeha, being more likely to be prosecuted, convicted and when convicted, receive harsher sentences than their European counterparts".
There was an earlier study that also showed that Maori and Pacific Island offenders are much less likely than Europeans to receive fines for offending - and more likely to receive custodial sentences - and a custodial sentence is considered a harsher penalty than a fine.
The reason given for this disparity in sentencing was that Maori and Pacific Islanders are less likely to be able to pay their fines than Europeans. This is profoundly unjust, and if this preferential treatment were administered strictly on the basis of ability to pay the fines - in other words, wealth - there would be some pretty loud wails of injustice from all quarters.
There were several of us from other countries who have expressed surprise at the blatantly preferential treatment some people (white, middle class) get over others (brown, poor). While this is exactly what happens in any other colonised country - Canada, the USA, Australia - at least there is some attempt to appear fair. Here I can think of dozens of cases where the mitigating circumstances consist of the defendant "wanting to work overseas" or "having a bright future that would be otherwise spoiled".
I can also think of an instance where someone in their mid-twenties received a light sentence for setting fire to two people - one who died, the other horribly disabled and disfigured - and the offender's "youth" and the fact that he was drunk were "taken into consideration". When a 12 year old who participated in the murder of a delivery guy, no such factors were taken into consideration, despite the fact that the defendant was less than half the age of the other "young" offender.
The actions of the students in Dunedin should be dealt with as harshly as the law allows. They were warned in advance of the consequences, they are all adults, whatever their lawyers want to argue, and if they were brown and from South Auckland they would certainly be feeling the full force of the law and considerably more wrath from the public .
-
But they actually do, don't they, no matter what you might prefer?
Or are the stories of prospective lawyers pleading their "career" as mitigation just unrepresentative? Certainly never heard of a garbage collector getting off because their progress up the career totem pole might be unduly thwarted by youthful indiscretions.
Diversion isn't just available for students or people with future careers. Lots of people get it for first offenses. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a garbage collector.
The students were warned what the consequences would be - no diversion - and they decided to go for it anyway.
Your argument is that they should be additionally published because they are students and have access to the diversion scheme, when the police have already said that they won't allow access to the diversion scheme for all these people? It seems a perfect time to apply "no diversion, no additional punishment from the university" as the rule.
-
they should be additionally punished because they are students
I understand that there are conditions of membership at Otago University. The Police do not control what those are.
-
Diversion isn't just available for students or people with future careers. Lots of people get it for first offenses.
I agree people get diversion across the board. Just not equally by arguing that their future employment is jeopardised. I don't think it's contentious to say that the "justice" system treats some careers like they count more than others.
An equivalent might be the way high profile sportsmen seem to be immune from punishment for assault.
-
I understand that there are conditions of membership at Otago University. The Police do not control what those are.
Yup. And the university shouldn't do it.
Several decades they used to take an interest in whether men flatted with women. This is similarly nothing to do with them. If students go get tanked and are dickheads, they should face consequences under the law, and that's it. No high school or other educational institution would get away with doing this in relation to a non-school problem with its students.
The university gets away with it in the media because as we discussed on page 4, it's easy to attack students as privileged whiny white kids. Whatever they are or aren't, they should face no more and no less legal sanctions for their actions than anyone else.
-
I agree people get diversion across the board. Just not equally by arguing that their future employment is jeopardised. I don't think it's contentious to say that the "justice" system treats some careers like they count more than others.
That doesn't just apply to students though. People trying to become security guards, police officers, any job involving a security check (airline staff for example) can all use that line.
It's not a consequence of being a rich privileged student, it's a consequence of most of the careers being affected by conviction being ones that require university qualifications.
And its only one of the factors that the police consider when agreeing to diversion (or not).
It seems silly to argue that students should receive additional university punishment for their actions because they often get diversion, when none of these students are going to get diversion.
FYI, the scheme that keeps a lot more students out of criminal convictions at Otago is the University Proctor getting hold of the students and preventing them being arrested. He wrangles a donation or some community service from them, with the agreement of the police, and it never sees the inside of a court. That's a privileged system only available to university students (again, not in this instance).
What these additional punishments run the risk of, is high profile events, like last weekend, being punished more than others just because the university wants to protect it's reputation. A person, student or not, who drunk too much, threw bottles, and was a right shithead, but didn't get on international TV, would never face up to university expulsion. It's making people's actions more of a crime because it's a marketing problem. Students don't owe that to the university, they're not employees or representatives.
-
Undie 500 canned (stuff)
-
This is a weird argument. OK, the little douchebags are whining, and it's admittedly annoying, but I don't get why some of you are so intent on them being punished twice. As Kyle says, they're not getting the usual access to diversion, and they're being prosecuted. What purpose would another university-based punishment serve, in this instance?
-
I don't want them "punished twice" but that seems to be a consequence of their membership of the university, whose motivations are probably as Kyle describes them.
it's a consequence of most of the careers being affected by conviction being ones that require university qualifications.
Fair point. I actually agree that the playing field should be level, though I still do not believe that it currently is. Happy to accept disagreement about that, and I am certainly no expert on diversion, student shennanigans or other aspects of this situation.
-
What purpose would another university-based punishment serve, in this instance?
Agreed. The university should not attempt to extend whatever authorised powers it might have over students qua students to cover their activities as citizens, unruly or otherwise.
-
Are Lhaws' crazy eyes on Campbell Live freaking anyone else out?
-
Are Lhaws' crazy eyes on Campbell Live freaking anyone else out?
Oh yes. Along with the use of the word raschist.
-
He had to put the H somewhere..
-
Oh, I see Mr Reid makes that point elsewhere this fine day. More eloquently, of course.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.