Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
I'm too lazy to go back through the thread to find out
That's how come I've introduced a new term for it. But whatever, spinal damage, as Craig poointed out in his inimitable style earlier, is never good.
-
This is starting to feel really creepy-weird.
and it wasn't already?
I find the media detail creepy and weird, I find our spiraling standards of what we expect and accept from our journalists and news papers creepy and weird, (ie I'm addressing a statement printed in a newspaper that said someone pushed another person down the stairs and left them there for 6 hours and the newspaper didn't feel the need to verify the source or explain anything about it except to print it knowing full well that people take newspapers at face value)
I find holmes creepy and weird, -
I wonder if there's a bit of "let's see how far we can push it before he denies it"? At this stage I can't imagine him suing.
I seem to remember (Robbery ,you may need to correct me;-) that the 'lion man' celebrity that Bridget Saunders talks about (back 10 or so pages) denied, went to court, denied, fined $8000, keeps job. So anything is possible really.
I know this may sound crass but he seems to be the ultimate pin up boy for "See what happens if you cover up violence toward others" and if anything bringing this to light may give Womens Refuge the boost it needs. -
fractured
Shall we settle on "broken" then? He broke her back.
-
I seem to remember (Robbery ,you may need to correct me;-) that the 'lion man' celebrity that Bridget Saunders talks about (back 10 or so pages) denied, went to court, denied, fined $8000, keeps job.
From Wikipedia (because I couldn't remember either)
Craig had a previous conviction in 1991 for assaulting a female, for which he received a periodic detention. In 2005, Busch was convicted for assaulting his former partner, Karen Greybrook, who received a lumbar fracture, bruising and a cut head during the assault[1], which occurred when Busch discovered Greybrook in bed with another couple in January 2005[3], who stated things were not as they seemed[4]. In May 2005, Busch plead guilty to two charges of assault, and six other charges were dropped[3], and he was ordered to pay Karen $8,000 in reparations, but received no other sanctions
The pervading stench around that one was that he'd caught her in flagrante, and her adultery made his actions 'understandable'.
-
(Robbery ,you may need to correct me;-)
pass, not really up on that case other than he was a celebrity that did bad shit and is back on our screens.
I do admit to watching the show cos my partner is a cat freak but I mostly paint the humans out of the picture in my head. -
In fact, from the Herald article
Judge Michael Lance agreed with Mr Haigh that Busch's assaults were a "human and inevitable" reaction to seeing his partner in bed with other people.
Scuse me while I go vomit.
-
Shall we settle on "broken" then? He broke her back.
shall we settle on what an official source says?
veitch has said he was under the impression that he had caused bruising until later corrected, powell hasn't spoken on the subject and the rest is unverified sources.
lets go for the revealed in time thing you said before but push for it to be revealed quickly, -
and her adultery made his actions 'understandable'.
that line seems to jump around a bit doesn't it.
I'm not sure if it is still true but wasn't adultery grounds for murder (justifyable homicide) in france up until recently. I'm sure there are other third world countries where that is still the case. we've got a long long way to go as a species -
lets go for the revealed in time thing you said before but push for it to be revealed quickly,
I'll go for that.
Meanwhile, before Graham Reid beats me to it - we've got what now - the Lionman, the Veitch & the.....? Help please.
-
Scuse me while I go vomit.
Ah, ye olde crime of passion. Enough to escape a murder rap, in many countries, including France and Italy as late as what, the nineteenseventies? Something like that.
That link you offered earlier on Roman sexuality was a gem, by the way. "A good woman doesn't move"... Plutarch, you dog.
-
robbery: You risk the wrath of others who I see from previous pages, attack any questioning of the "facts." You will be accused of being either an apologist for violence or a backer of Veitch himself. But good on you. It takes courage to do what you are doing.
-
Yes, his bravery is truly awe-inspiring.
-
It takes courage to do what you are doing.
Thanks, I'd hope some people weren't stupid enough to interpret my comments as in anyway dismissing violence.
This case, (outside of the central core of a couples act of violence) for me highlights some huge flaws in our society, how we marginalise and distance things (its him that did it, i'm passing judgment on him), how we accept being manipulated (where do I start), and how we are still the emotive and instinctive creatures we chose not to see ourselves as (thinking rational beings all of us, I think not).
how can you address an issue if you don't first acknowledge it?ps I resent 20 mins of an hours news being devoted to sport so I've got even more reason to dislike veitch than most.
-
shall we settle on what an official source says?
That would be ideal... but in the absence of that (what with medical records being private, etc.) how about we read between Veitch's lines...
veitch has said he was under the impression that he had caused bruising until later corrected,
So, thats an actual admission that whatever it was, was in-fact not bruising, but something worse than that.
It was also made several days AFTER the publication of un-attributed statements that several vertebra were cracked (or similar)...
So, it definitely worse than bruising, and he's not denying or clarifying something widely attributed.... that would have been the ideal time to do that wouldn't it?
Its not concrete proof, or outright admission... but if you add two and two... you'll end up with something between 3 and 5.... if reality was 1 or 7 there'd be strong denials or lawsuits.
-
I'm not sure if it is still true but wasn't adultery grounds for murder (justifyable homicide) in france up until recently.
, Thought it does still get used as a defence, and there are the honour killings throughout India as well. I think I'd rather anyone talk about me tits thanks:)
-
shall we settle on what an official source says?
Should we also point out that if this thing hadn't been scooped by a newspaper, the whole incident would not have come to the public's attention and the guy would have, you know, got away with it? In the fulness of time we might (or might not) know exactly what happened, but in the meantime we owe what we know to unnamed sources, do we not? And a lot of it is uncontested, is it not? It may well turn out that he did in fact leave her there for hours, at this point I don't think any of us would be surprised.
-
Meanwhile, before Graham Reid beats me to it - we've got what now - the Lionman, the Veitch & the.....? Help please.
The Lionman, the Veitch and the Wheelchair ?
-
Yes, his bravery is truly awe-inspiring.
your sarcasm cuts like a knife,
you could have said ill-advised. -
I mean, does this speculative detail matter?
apparently not to you mr shattered spine, or was it crushed? :)
yeah, I think its really important considering how emotive this is,
did he throw her down the stairs or not?Your fixation on the difference between "shattered" and "fractured" is pointless and irrelevant - and you are also incorrect to assume "fractured" does not mean "shattered".
If you are casting around for the correct term for "shattered" when referrring to serious bone fractures (as opposed to not so serious, undisplaced bone fractures) then the term would be "comminunated fracture" which is a clinical term.
The victim is certainly very likely to have had comminunated fractures if she was kicked repeatedly by someone. That is to say, she is likely to have had "shattered" bones as a result of a sustained and vigorous kicking by a fit, energetic person, even if he is tiny.
As Raybon Kan observed in his column, can we just start at a charge of GBH and work back from there?
The raising of these points - "shattered" or "exactly how many hours" etc is an example of how, if someone cannot construct a logical argument is out-debated, they will try to split hairs - i.e. debate a point that is irrelevant to the point being argued - and they will use "red herrings" i.e. introduce points that are irrelevant to both the argument at hand and also the topic itself.
Study some logic, Robbery. Learn how to construct an argument and not, as you did on the music thread, simply derail the discussion by introducing irrelevant points that do not pertain to the discussion, then complain that somehow your "argument" is being overlooked. It's annoying, but ultimately irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
-
Thanks Dyan, nicely put.
Rob, no one is trying to silence you or drive you out of the discussion, but I think Dyan is right about your style of argument. It might be well-intended, but it ends up like trolling.
Oh, and yes, Veitch's house does have stairs. Hard ones. They've been in photographs.
-
Should we also point out that if this thing hadn't been scooped by a newspaper, the whole incident would not have come to the public's attention and the guy would have, you know, got away with it?
I take your point but right now I'm not a fan of news media, and I don't think we should ever leave it to them to bring us the law or judgment on people.
The correct procedure should someone have had legitimate information on this case would have been to have reported it to the police, and then for us to have learned bout it via police sources (this is of course ignoring the fact that our police force is a piss poor excuse for men and women to wear uniforms and complain about how under funded they are so why should they even bother trying to uphold the law (and I say this from personal experience with them), but that's another argument for another time)
trial by media is not something to which we should aspire, and media printing unsubstantiated claims be the presently denied or not is not something we should be applauding. They should have stated that they had verified the information given and discussed it with police, instead they treated it as something to sell newspapers.but in the meantime we owe what we know to unnamed sources, do we not?
that would all depend on what we know, and since veitch is the only one talking and he's not saying much we don't know as in actually know facts of fuck all, and apparently powell wants it that way for whatever her reasons but one of her friends possibly does not.
And a lot of it is uncontested, is it not?
uncontested doesn't make it true although I agree it does give the appearance of truth, but experience would show you that truth takes its time if we're even allowed to glimpse it.
the whole thing smells funny, from the apologists side to the hang em high side.
I'm a smart enough person but I'm finding it difficult to figure who the real veitch is and what happened,
my imagination could come up with some impressive scenarios but then they'd still just be what I thought up so not worth the brain cells they're written on. -
my imagination could come up with some impressive scenarios but then they'd still just be what I thought up so not worth the brain cells they're written on.
Could you imagine that people have stopped listening?
-
Sunday, 6 January, 2006
LB -
Cancel that date.
Abort, abort!!!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.