Posts by anjum rahman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__However, it does seem a little dodgy how a good quality tape-recording of a closed session at the Congress ended up in a journalist's hands who then didn't declare that he had it when interviewing Williams.__
Oh, so the issue isn't that Williams lied, but that he wasn't given a sporting warning that he could have been caught out? Anyone want to point out the flawed moral reasoning there?
sorry craig, but you didn't have issues with mike williams being caught out by a secret recording back in april (per your words above). i don't recall seeing a single comment from you about the ethics of secret taping. nor do i recall hearing anything from you regarding guyon espiner airing a pre-interview conversation with michael cullen without cullen knowing he was being taped, although i may not have been paying close attention. so why the all the angst now?
just to be contrary, i don't feel comfortable about what happened at the labour party conference nor with what happened at the national party conference, which i've commented about on my own blog. but the way national have been dealing with the issue since the weekend is creating even more problems for them. time to sack their PR experts, i think.
-
late into the conversation as usual, but yes i had the "tree" experience when i got my glasses at 16. didn't realise i needed them until i went for my drivers license. what kept going through my mind were lines from an eddie murphy movie (can't remember which one, it starts with him pretending to be a blind beggar who gets caught out by the police) "i can see! it's a miracle! hallelujah, praise the lord, i can see!"
on the other hand, i had a real experience of disappointment when looking into the night sky. the stars which had been large shiny orbs suddenly became pinpricks of lights that weren't nearly as nice to look at.
i've had laser eye surgery as i finally got fed up with the glasses and the disposable contacts. it's been great, well except for the stars at night...
-
i don't want to get embroiled in what craig foss may or may not have done or owned, nor do i know much about rules of disclosure for MPs. what i do know is that trusts can't legally own shares. the trustees have to individually own the shares in their own names or they hold them jointly as a group of individuals. have no idea what relevance that may have here.
-
because it's so much easier to be happy when we can pretend all of this stuff doesn't exist, right kyle?
it's so difficult to care enough to want to do something, but not care so much that you're paralysed. and to fight off that feeling of helplessness and hopelessness that things will ever change. but che, somewhere, you have made a difference. if not to their lives, then at least to our awareness of it.
-
thanx jill for raising those issues. i know that many of us have been trying to work on those small things you speak of, but these days you get knocked down for "political correctness gone mad". i'd love to hear your thoughts on those who trivialise the efforts for incremental change in that way.
-
Anjum, conviction is highly unlikely as has been discussed in some depth here
no doubt. i don't have a problem with that. i do have a problem with the view that we shouldn't even try or that an apology and counselling can take the place of proper legal processes. if the case fails for lack of evidence, that's one thing. if a case never happens because we're going to be forgiving in this instance, that would set a somewhat dangerous precedent i would think. particularly in the area of domestic violence. and it would really annoy me because i don't think we tend to be forgiving in quite that way in regards to any other type of crime.
-
anjum, you appear to be saying that reformation is contingent on being caught. To which the response is as Deborah has said, 'he's just sorry he got caught'.
what i was trying to say is that this crime should be treated like all other crimes. we wouldn't take "i'm sorry" as a response to any other crime, without making sure that a conviction happened first. even restorative justice requires that, i would think.
whether he is truly sorry or not is something to consider after conviction.
-
well yes, redemption etc etc. but after a conviction. we wouldn't accept less from any other crime so why this one? the redemption etc can be taken into account during sentencing, as is usually the case.
-
Frankly, if I were the partner of a media figure, I suspect I would rather take the money and privacy than the court case. Name suppression doesn't prevent gossip. A court case is hugely stressful. Who wants to spend days, weeks of your life preparing and in court and reliving a "victim" role, rather than moving on?
which means that we should be thinking about societal attitudes and practices and the justice system. by accepting what this particular victim has done means that no meaningful changes are made to ensure that seeking is justice is no longer such a traumatic process.
-
matthew, really appreciating your comments, cos they are helping me to clarify my understanding of the issues here.
The public might be interested, but is it really "public interest"?
the public interest would be to convict those who commit assault. the reason why action can be taken without a complaint for domestic violence is around issues of intimidation of the victim, isn't it? basically, she can say that it's not her fault the case is going ahead which may protect her from some further aggravation. it may also be for a wider public interest though - crimes like this should not go unpunished because the victim is too afraid of the consequences of making a complaint.
i'd accept that if there is sufficient evidence in the public domain, then the medical records should be private. but if there isn't, then i would think there might be an exception. quite happy with the requirement of a court order as you mention.
re the lawyers, i take you're point that they aren't allowed to go to the police. can i ask another question though: was the agreement with the confidentiality clause illegal (in that it's an agreement to cover up the crime)? if so, have the lawyers breached their code of ethics by being a part of the process in setting it up?