Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to pollyrotovegas,
How then do police convict pedophiles from video footage when the victim is often unable to be located, therefore unable to make a statement. I thought having sex with an under 16 yr old was considered pedophilia or at the very least statutory rape.
Paedophilia (which isn't actually the offence, either, it's the clinical term for sexual interest in pre-pubescent children) is below the age of 12. Between 12 and 15 it’s just sex with someone under 16.
And if you hadn’t noticed, it’s pretty bloody obvious when someone is three or four, or an infant. Real paedophiles don’t want hints of actual sexuality, which means their victims are young. When you can point to a video and say “That child is unquestionably under 12, and here’s an array of forensic anthropologists who will testify to that fact”, that obviates the need for an identifiable victim. You can’t have that certainty with early teens. -
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If they have video of someone having sex with someone who is obviously a child
And that's the clincher. An unidentified 14- or 15-year-old is very hard to distinguish from an unidentified 16-year-old on what is, most likely, the video from a cellphone. Or even on broadcast TV, for that matter. If they've got a school ID out with the DoB clearly visible, well, that's about the gold standard, but somehow I don't think that's what's happening here. Or if the rapists in question were dumb enough to get "How old are you?" on video, that would probably also do it.
We're not, as far as we know, talking about actual paedophiles whose offending on video is pretty easy to spot, we're talking about guys who fuck young-teen girls, and it's mighty hard to tell from video whether she's 13 or 15 or 16. If the cops could find a victim and get confirmation that she was under 16 at the time, well, jackpot, but probably only for an offence with a maximum sentence well shy of the 20-year maximum for black-and-white rape.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to binary.heart,
[Whaleoil is] “Jerry Springer meets Fox News” – Actually that’s pretty unfair on Jerry Springer and Fox News
Certainly unfair on Jerry. I'm sure Faux News would consider it a compliment.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to John Farrell,
Is that the famous “south of the Bombays” syndrome we hear whispers of?
Couldn’t tell you the names of the mayors of anywhere north of Warkworth, either, so I’m an equal-opportunities snob :)
ETA: not strictly true, either. I know about Lianne Dalziel in Christchurch, and Celia Wade-Brown in Wellington. That's two mayors from south of the Bombays. I'm positively enlightened!
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Russell Brown,
Well, he is our mayor, and you know his name. I wouldn’t have a clue of the name of yours without going and asking Google.
His name
That much puts you ahead of me. I didn't even know the gender.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to John Farrell,
Interesting listening to the outrage from the far end of the country. The ODT managed a short column, on page 4 I think, about Len Brown.
Well, he is our mayor, and you know his name. I wouldn't have a clue of the name of yours without going and asking Google.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Jacquelyne Taylor,
Mr. Key shoulder tapped Ian Fletcher ( his ex school buddy) for a Directorship of the GCSB in very well documented and publicised actions..
Reaction? Lots of temporary froth but very little longterm frenzy? HOW does Key & Brown’s ‘conflict’ and ‘aid’ differ other than the adult sexual relationship aspect of this from the shitstorm a good few determined ‘stirrers’ seem to be intent on progressing?In part, at least, because Key has absolute statutory patronage over who sits as Director of GCSB. He is entitled to appoint Bronagh’s poodle’s hairdresser (disclaimer: I don’t know if Bronagh owns a poodle or, if she does, if it has a hairdresser) to the role, should he so choose. Hell, he could have appointed Ben Hana and it would’ve been legal!
I don’t think there’s any scandal worth being scandalised about in Brown’s provision of a reference for Chuang, assuming she actually was competent for the role, but it is proper for there to be scrutiny because Brown’s patronage extends only as far as appointment of various committee roles. He’s not allowed to meddle in what is meant to be an ordinary employment relationship at the Art Gallery.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Steven Peters,
the council continuing to respect Len, because, correct me if I am wrong, it is only they who have the power or ability to make him take responsibility for his actions in this particular matter.
As Rich said, Len's elected, not employed. The only way he goes is to resign or to become ineligible to hold office. The latter requires a quite serious criminal conviction while in office, or being subjected to compulsory treatment for a mental health issue. It wouldn't matter if the rest of the council thought he was the unholy spawn of a liaison between the Blubbery Cetacean and Sarah Palin, they cannot eject him from office.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Russell Brown,
Brown provided a favourable job reference for Chuang when she applied for a job at Auckland Art Gallery.
Oh, oh, oh. Nepotism. Putting in a good word for his lady friend. Clearly she was only qualified because she was scruffing the mayor, of course.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Rob Stowell,
after filling the first 5 pages of NZ’s largest paper with salacious garbage-trawling
To be fair, it's tabloid size so five pages isn't all that much. It is, however, an exceptionally appropriate physical format.