Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, not nearly enough anatomical references, for one.
-
Wrong if you beat the crap out of someone...
-
And thanks, Ian.
-
I thought it was a fashion shoot at first and then wondered if he was checking how he'd look against a prison wall.
Other related Sunday Herald stories (and I recommend reading the first two in full):
Editorial: Veitch's 'sorry' has hollow ring of regret that he was found out
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10521219...the victim of the assault is conspicuous by her absence. Indeed, she is rendered entirely invisible. Veitch might as well have admitted that he "lashed out" and struck a wall - an act of intimidating violence in itself. The careful framing of his mea culpa cannot escape the accusation of being mealy-mouthed because it seeks to gloss over - indeed, comes close to ignoring - the impact of his actions on anyone other than himself.
Like it or not, Veitch's position imposes on him a particular kind of noblesse oblige: he trades on a public image of a lovable scamp and he is held in high regard by young, sports-mad men who figure disproportionately in violence statistics.
Bill Ralston: TVNZ on a hiding to nothing
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521239&pnum=0A hosed-off One News reporter covering the story appeared in a "live cross" in the 6pm bulletin, denouncing Flannery for failing to respond to her questions and dismissing Rick Ellis' short press statement on the affair as "bland". In a wonderfully timed act of rebellion the newsroom then served its TVNZ masters with an Official Information Act request for details of the company's involvement in the matter and comment from Flannery and Ellis.
TVNZ admits senior bosses knew of Veitch assault last year
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521284&pnum=0 -
Anita, it is her almost certain lack of permission that guarantees the mystery, and I respect that.
What I'm saying is that it is not a good enough reason to wring our hands and say that that we can't possibly come to any conclusions or do anything because there isn't any legally sanctioned evidence.
-
Michael, it might be sensible but is it useful?
What is reasonable in the almost certain absence of forthcoming legal action is more the question, and I don't think after re-reading the entire thread just now (I know) that anyone has been particularly unreasonable during this conversation.
Being sensible sometimes sounds just like the usual reasons not to take action against family violence, as some posters have noted. That's why some phrases arouse suspicion. Clouded in mystery just aint good enough any more. Feel the shift.
-
Jackie, marry both of em I say. Damn the consequences.
-
Thanks, Anita.
I want to acknowledge too that the concerns expressed by Ian, Robbery and others about fairness are in themselves admirable - and actually something positive about being men that is under-rated. I'd feel safer with people like that in any jury.
-
Karen, do you mean we haven't paid enough attention to the gendered aspects of the story? I thought you were talking about the gender of posters here, I admit.
-
although he does say your sense is common.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 … 1971 Older→ First