Hard News: Undie Wankers
330 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
University based punishment is designed to appease the masses and give the criminal actions of the priviledged class a literal Get-out-of-Goal-Free card.
This discipline approach is part of the one law for all (of them & none of us) that exists in NZ.
-
From the Otago Daily Times (Sat 19th Sep), of the 59 people currently before the courts 26 are Otago students. The 44% percentage may go up a bit as more people are charged, and would be a bit lower if you counted the people who had already pled out. So from this I draw the conclusions:
-most of the discussion (diversion/ University justice etc) in this thread is directed at the minority of those charged that were Otago students, ignoring the majority.
-the event was acting a a draw card for Youf that wanted to be confrontational with the police. -
Not so much ignoring as mislead. I draw the conclusion that one can not trust early media coverage for even the most basic facts these days.
-
A bit late to this, but:
The Herald reports the charges against the students and others. I noticed that nobody has been charged with a crime with a non-police victim, such as assualt against a member of the public or criminal damage.
That suggests to me that the violence was mostly a result of the police attacking the students in order to try and force compliance with various social control laws, such as alcohol bans and the like. Had the cops kept their distance, it's quite possible that we'd have had a few charred sofas, a lot of vomit and broken glass, but few real crimes committed.
Also, why should the university get involved? We are in a world of corporate capitalism, and the uni simply provides educational services to their student customers. They are no more in a position to punish the students than Shell or Toyota, for instance.
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2882818/1-Undie-500-beer-promo-irresponsible
Why am I not surprised at all that this went on. I think if we really want to address many of the problems involved, the sheer cynical opportunism of the liquor retailers has to be considered. -
Just when you thought someone might be aware that student drinking is topical and might be worth keeping an eye on.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2884059/Christchurch-students-in-Nazi-row
This was the Halls party, part of the Uni.
-
nobody has been charged with a crime with a non-police victim, such as assualt against a member of the public or criminal damage.
That suggests to me that the violence was mostly a result of the police attacking the students in order to try and force compliance with various social control laws, such as alcohol bans and the like. Had the cops kept their distance
If you watch some of the video, rich, you'll notice that the cops didn't attack first. They formed a line, stood back, and gave verbal orders for the crowd to disperse. Then the missiles started, and the crowd failed to disperse.
Why should they "keep their distance" when they're being attacked? Why should they "keep their distance" when lawful orders are being disobeyed? Whether or not you like them, their job is to enforce the law. People who break the law can expect to become of interest to the police, and when that law-breaking consists of throwing things at the police and failing to disperse when ordered they've really got it coming. The police didn't even charge in when the first objects were thrown, either, they still gave the crowd a chance to leave of their own accord.
-
gave verbal orders for the crowd to disperse
I dispute that the cops have a right to prevent people from remaining in a public place. I dispute the concept that the police are above the people and entitled to order them to do anything.
That's based on my personal worldview, not NZ law as it stands. Many people believe that the majority has a right to use violence (which is what the police force ultimately amounts to, legally sanctioned violence) to force people to behave as they want. I don't.
-
Alternatively, if I take off my anarchist's mask for a second and try and answer within the constraints of current majoritarian democracy:
Having a range of laws that address "antisocial" behaviour by criminalising various acts (mostly without identifiable victims) and using the police to try and enforce behavioral standards is inherently going to lead to conflict.
A less confrontational approach to policing events like the Undie 500 would be to establish a zone of tolerance (maybe a park, or certain streets) and allow the participants to drink in public, do burnouts, burn sofas or whatever away from most of the public that don't want to participate. The event organisers could maybe fund clearup (they raise a bunch of money for charity from the Undie 500, after all).
This pretty much goes on already when it's "mainstream" people letting their hair down. After all, what is "party central" going to be if not a (taxpayer funded) zone for heavy drinking and raucous behaviour?
-
Rich, who started the violence? The police didn't do anything more than demand compliance until after they were under attack by a numerically-superior group.
Also, when a group of people are engaged in illegal behaviour (drinking in public is an offence in that part of Dunedin, and burning couches in the middle of the street is creating a public nuisance throughout the country) they lose any argument about their "right" to be where they are. The police were attempting to break up a gathering that was definitely not law-abiding. -
Rich, although I agree that drinking in public for an event such as this should be allowed, I heartily disagree with you about tolerating acts that are actually dangerous. The hazards of burning sofas were demonstrated admirably during the 500 (see the article about the young man who ended up in hospital), and misuse of motor vehicles has caused more than a few deaths in this country in recent times. All the nice wishes in the world can't change the reality of drunk people doing stupid things, and thus needing to be kept away from flaming furniture or heavy, wheeled weapons.
Even at the Big Day Out, where the police turn a blind eye to a lot of consumption of "recreational substances", people doing things that are dangerous to themselves, or particularly to others, will find that they get a distinctly chilly reception from the authorities.
-
Have a party by all means, but once you start throwing bottles, my sympathy reduces to zero.
-
Is there some competition we don’t know about between South Island universities to see who can be the biggest dicks?
Lincoln students, not to be outdone by their bigger city rivals, sure staked their claim over the weekend.
-
Lincoln students, not to be outdone by their bigger city rivals, sure staked their claim over the weekend.
Sheep shaggers. They got nuthin'.
-
All the nice wishes in the world can't change the reality of drunk people doing stupid things, and thus needing to be kept away from flaming furniture or heavy, wheeled weapons
No, I disagree that the state needs to keep them from doing these things. I think the community *does* have an interest in stopping them endangering non-participants, and having the cops do that (e.g. pull people over for drunk driving in the middle of Wellington) is reasonable. But if people want to fuck themselves up setting fire to sofas, why is it governments job to stop them.
(Mainstream dangerous activities, like rugby, fishing and unhealthy eating are of course not suppressed by the state. Go figure).
-
I think the community *does* have an interest in stopping them endangering non-participants
Does the community also have an interest in discouraging participants from subsequently needing state-funded health and similar services?
-
But if people want to fuck themselves up setting fire to sofas, why is it governments job to stop them.
Um, Rich, as someone pointed out up-thread, burning couches in the middle of the road is a public nuisance. And while that's technically a tort, not a criminal offence, most people would assume that the state's authority extends to keeping the highways clear of obstructions. Particularly when those obstructions are on fire. And then there's the separate fact that drunken polytech students who try to jump over said couches tend to end up in public hospitals at the taxpayers' expense. And then there's that whole out-of-control-fire-spreading-to-neighbouring-houses thing. The line between "participants" and "non-participants" is a pretty blurry and fluid one, after all.
Or, on preview, what Sasha said.
-
The majority, Rich, don't have your level of anarchistic belief. Also, courtesy of the existence of ACC, if people want "want to fuck themselves up setting fire to sofas" the rest of us pay for their treatment. That gives the state a distinctly vested interest in stopping them from doing it.
That rugby, etc are legal is utterly irrelevant. The benefits from exercise are undisputed - though I wouldn't be terribly upset if rugby were banned on the grounds that it's glorified violence with an unacceptable level of injury - and even unhealthy food provides sustenance for continued living. Burning sofas provides what social benefit, exactly? Or do we now have to support tagging and other forms of vandalism on the grounds that temporary relief of boredom by way of damaging property is an acceptable trade-off?
-
...Had the cops kept their distance, it's quite possible that we'd have had a few charred sofas, a lot of vomit and broken glass, but few real crimes committed...
Most of the pompous "string 'em up" commentary going on here and elsewhere seems to be based on the assumption some sort of serious lawlessness occurred in Dunedin. Look at the video again, and remember that the cameras only show the worst of the entire night.
Looking at the video, I didn’t see much violence. The mob advance, with a few of the more liquored up or foolhardy capering about in front in a near perfect unconscious echoing of the Roman description of Celtic fanatics (indeed, one imagines the police inspector giving his officers a somewhat similar pep talk as Paulinus when outnumbered 10-1 in his battle with the Iceni in AD60 – "Ignore the racket made by these savages. There are more women than men in their ranks. They are not soldiers - they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before and when they see our weapons and feel our spirit, they'll crack”).
The mob then halts a distance collectively judged to be close enough to show their liquored up bravado, but also at a distance that signaled they were not serious about confronting the police. In flight/fight terms, the mob – as someone described them year two accountancy students with mobile phones - was only ever going to run away. They then mill aimlessly about, lobbing the occasional missile in the general direction of the police. The police then advance, and the students predictably turn and flee in panic.
Only one side was organised, equipped and up for a serious fight and that was the police, and they also stuck to the “rules”. One cop got clunked by a lucky (or rather, unlucky) missile but that was the extent of the damage.
All in all, it was a highly ritualised confrontation that any anthropologist would recognise in an instant. Young men away from home blow off some steam with a ritualised behaviour display designed more to generate a collection of war stories to impress young women as anything else is behaviour as old as mankind itself and hardly worth getting so high and mighty as so many seem to be getting over it.
Lincoln students, not to be outdone by their bigger city rivals, sure staked their claim over the weekend.
Yup. Now we are going to be given the unedifying spectacle of a bunch of po-faced middle aged hypocrites, who thought it was enormously funny in their day to wear Sex Pistols tee shirts and engage in petty acts of punk rock vandalism and crime, persecute a bunch of teenagers on their choice of fancy dress costumes. Massive institutional violence against a bunch of kids dressed up as Nazis and Jews – oh, the weeping irony.
-
Caleb, sorry, public nuisance wasn't what I was after. Disorderly behaviour was. There's also wilful damage, and disorderly (Summary Offences Act) or unlawful (Crimes Act) assembly. Pick any or all of them. Plenty of flagrantly illegal misbehaviour going on, with consequent legitimate interest on the part of the police in causing the group to disperse.
Sorry, Rich, the police were entirely justified in seeking to cause the group to disperse. Even without the liquor ban they were still breaking multiple laws.
-
Novelty award for conflating punk with nazism, tom. Can't be a particularly strong argument.
-
Sacha, both are/were just kids trying to shock people for the hell of it.
If it was a Stormfront party then yes, it would be offensive.
But for God's sake, they are nineteen and twenty year olds at a hostel fancy dress party. Lincoln University should be protecting them, not throwing them to the wolves.
-
Novelty award for conflating punk with nazism, tom. Can't be a particularly strong argument.
Yeah, not like punks ever did that themselves, eh?
-
Yeah, Joy Division & Sir Richard Brandon have done some explaining of this as being dumb youth. Same as Elvis Costello with his imfamous "N - word" for Ray Charles.
It was a bunch of agricultural kids (the type who filled the Brown Shirts in another time and place) being funny and exposing their ignorance.
Which is why the Uni should get the kick in the arse not the kids, being a Halls party and all.
-
The majority, Rich, don't have your level of anarchistic belief.
Indeed. Fortunately, my belief system doesn't involve the majority being able to impose their will on minorities through state violence.
Not that I have any hopes for the success of anarchism in NZ or anywhere else. Unless and until the (fully tolerated) antisocial activities of the majority damage the ecosystem to the point where current societal models are no longer viable.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.