Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 Newer→ Last
-
Aha, not G-rated then..
-
What we envisage, is more fruity than Weta.
And cost-competitive too, one hopes. When the local council at Levin approached Weta Workshop a few years back about having a statue of a generic Chinese market gardener made to enliven the town precinct, the resulting quote was enough to make them have a wee lie down. Seems they found someone else closer to their budget, as they now have a worthy bronze bloke with a hoe.
-
Good on you, well worth commemorating, tho it'd be nice to produce something a little more expressive than the current rather Airfixy dude with ho(e). Hell, my first (and toughest) job at age 10 was picking & weeding for an elderly Chinese lady in Buller Road. A short stooped old dear grudgingly counting out sixpences and shillings, as she did each payday, would be just dandy.
-
Just as an aside, being a sculptor and all that, its always tempting to start making dildos. There is an outlet on the main street in Levin.
Hope it's 3-phase. They take their dildos seriously in those parts.
-
Long as they're not bronze ones..
-
Glad I came back to see where this topic ended up~
-
Sex toy enterprise, Mark.
-
Glad I came back to see where this topic ended up~
Actually, I think Russell may have the last words.
-
Good metastory, thanks Sofie. And no one will be charged over the reported falsification of court evidence, it seems.
-
And no one will be charged over the reported falsification of court evidence, it seems.
That's bollocks The law is the law is the law.Cops just can't be bothered.
-
Sofie, in many cases the police won't pursue an offence unless a complaint is made. It's how it goes. Dame Susan has said she doesn't see the point, much as she'd like to go out "all guns blazing", which certainly won't encourage the police to try and prosecute.
-
Sofie, in many cases the police won't pursue an offence unless a complaint is made
Matthew, in many cases the police do what they like(personal receiving end bugbear ).This particular one was domestic violence requiring the defence to show glowing references. The police were the ones to charge Veitch.Why not watch the rest of the MSM and watch Dame Susan complain there?They could follow it up.They should keep public order, dammit!
-
This particular one was domestic violence requiring the defence to show glowing references.
And it was the system that was abused, wans't it? It seems peculiar that it should require a complaint by the referees, in that it was the court that was deceived.
-
They could follow it up.They should keep public order, dammit!
I can't say I'm impressed that someone misled the people who provided the references and altered at least one of them.
It's not a matter of public order though. I suspect the police thought about it for five minutes and don't see much point in pursuing it. The opinions that the people put on paper were obviously held by them, the opinions haven't been altered as far as we know, just the purpose to which the letter was put.
I don't know if it qualifies as altering a 'document' under the law. It's not a legal form or a contract etc. Even if it does, it's got to be right down the end of the scale.
What would be gained by the police trying to find out who altered the document, and then prosecuting them? Sounds like a lot of work for not much at all. Probably a matter for the law society and the court to do something about rather than the police.
-
Exactly, Kyle. TV was going to get a lenient sentence with or without the contested references. There are at least two suspects for the alteration, and nobody's admitted responsibility. As far as spectacular wastes of taxpayer money go, that one's pretty well up there. Like it or not, Sofie, the police have to balance the deterrent value of a successful prosecution with the likelihood of being able to bring one in the first place. Any sentence would be a gentle administration of a moistened public transport ticket, at worst, since the views presented in the letters aren't being disclaimed by the authors. The court was minorly mislead, and while I agree that that is not acceptable I just don't see anything being gained from the police trying to prosecute.
If references had been forged it would a different story, and I suspect the police would be taking a rather harder view of things. But demanding perfect justice every time is an unreasonable and irresponsible expectation of how public money will be spent. I'd rather that the 10s-of-000s of dollars that would be wasted on such a prosecution be used on prosecuting people who maliciously make false rape complaints. That'd be a far better return on investment.
-
What would be gained by the police trying to find out who altered the document, and then prosecuting them? Sounds like a lot of work for not much at all.
Oh pur-leeze! I have seen plenty of "a lot of work for not much at all" What would be gained? How about the people appreciate a mighty fine job done by our "finest". How about women starting to see that, as half of the country, they feel safe because the cops did understand how it feels and deem it worthy of investigation.Dame Susan went on the box to tell reporters that she felt deceived. She wanted to go out guns blazing or some such.What about under Crimes Act section 259, or should we just think, oh, never mind police wont bother enforcing that law, whateva.
-
Women are going to feel safe because the cops pursue an altered letter used in a plea bargain which probably has made no material difference to the world, given that the police and victim already agreed with the plea?
I think police have better things to do. There are lots of laws that police don't enforce at times. It's called police discretion and it means that probably about 90% of the "crimes" that occur in New Zealand aren't prosecuted.
-
I think police have better things to do. There are lots of laws that police don't enforce at times. It's called police discretion
I understand that, but this case was pursued once a complaint was made and my point (albeit as misinformed as i thought I could be) was to highlight how the information was coming via the media and what the public perceive is how the police seem to respond. However, having said that, the police do have a duty to protect, so they could have used their media spokesperson to explain to the public why they would not pursue it because some will start to think and convey that once again, the police are incompetent.
and it means that probably about 90% of the "crimes" that occur in New Zealand aren't prosecuted.
and if this is the reality, then it really isn't worth complaining.and perhaps Dunne Powell had it right in the first place, just take the money. Sad
-
No it means that a lot of the things that are technically crimes never come to the attention of police, and no one cares. Someone throws a punch in a sports game and the referee deals with it. That's assault, but it's never going to be brought to the police and largely we're happy with that. Someone jumps over a fence and steals some apples off a tree is theft, also not likely to make it to the police, let alone court.
Someone takes a letter written to support a guy, removes a paragraph, and uses it for a different purpose, but still in support of the guy. The police will look at it for five minutes and decide it's not worth their time and nothing beneficial would be gained.
The reason the line "police will not investigate unless a member of the public lays a complaint" comes out so often is that police will always investigate at least if a complaint is laid. If a member of the public feels aggrieved enough to complain to the police the police will look at it as part of their service to the community.
If no one is aggrieved enough to phone up the police and say "hey, this happened..." then there is a reasonable chance (not always, domestic abuse doesn't follow this rule in the police, they'll always investigate and arrest if they can) that it has been a victimless crime.
-
a victimless crime
Other than undermining public trust in our justice system, of course. I would have thought this one was high profile enough to at least warrant a minor investigation before deciding to do nothing.
Not as if the facts are hard to verify, and it was a quite deliberate act that seems to have been done with the intent of (allegedly) perverting the course of justice. That's serious, whatever the actual outcome was.
-
I'm no expert on the legal definition of perverting the course of justice, so I don't know if it comes under the definition.
Things I'd want the police to pursue under that though:
Tampering with evidence.
Interfering with the jury or judge or witnesses.Those are things that definitely affect the outcome of 'justice'.
Deleting a paragraph which I'd imagine said something along the lines of "On this basis I believe he is worthy to hold a passport again for the good of his career." and then presenting the rest of the letter intact as what's essentially padding to help get the judge agree that the plea bargain that the police have already agreed to is OK? By all means, call in the Law Society, sounds like a serious professional issue, but the police?
-
Someone takes a letter written to support a guy, removes a paragraph, and uses it for a different purpose, but still in support of the guy. The police will look at it for five minutes and decide it's not worth their time and nothing beneficial would be gained.
Meanwhile, how many folks are WINZ and IRD prosecuting these days for fraud?
Then again, the Police apparently know nothing, and care even less, about breeches of electoral law because they're a distraction from "real" crime -- an exercise of 'discretion' I imagine both National and Labour feel rather grateful for.
-
Yes, but WINZ and IRD fraud leads directly to money in the pocket, so signing those documents is a direct link to a crime. Removing the paragraph from that letter much less significant in terms of outcome, and no direct link to money or any benefit.
But I'm with you on the election law. I'd like to see that actually end up in the courts sometimes.
-
But I'm with you on the election law. I'd like to see that actually end up in the courts sometimes.
I'm sure you can understand why the police don't want to go near electoral law issues, though. The party being prosecuted will invariably claim the police have been leaned on and are bowing to political pressure And if you're a top copper it probably pays not to piss the politicians off. Because that pollie you're prosecuting may one day be your boss.
The main reason, though, is that electoral law is so damn complex that the police probably figure they have more interesting and pressing things to do with their time.
-
Kyle, I reckon intent should count as well as outcome. Agree it wouldn't have made much difference to the sentence bargain. Concerned about the signal being sent that the ends justify the means. Especially if you're a connected rich person.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.