Cracker: Strike Nine (and counting)
249 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Because Garrett was an MP, someone she thought she should respect, she felt completely blindsided, didn't know what to do, and didn't even mention it to my friend for days. Utterly repugnant.
Ugh. That's not even funny.
-
This is a great piece Damian. I share your general dislike of the bloke and think he's shown a significant error in judgment by not disclosing elements of his past that are entirely relevant to his current role. That said, any plurality of representatives must include people who've done something they're not proud of. Not every misdemeanor is relevant, of course, but these were and he and Hide were entirely wrong to conceal them. Yes he's just human, and his past is his past; but there's no way he can remain in his current role having not been honest from the start.
-
Because Garrett was an MP, someone she thought she should respect
That's a toxic meme we'd be well rid of.
-
That's a toxic meme we'd be well rid of.
Actually, I disagree. It should be valid, it's bloody tragedy it's not.
-
Everyone has a second chance. But some have more of a second chance than others.
It seems Mr Garrett has a mild case of Capill's Disease - do as he says, not as he does.
-
It was a stitch up, the other guy started it, and he'd probably admit it too, if he hadn't hit that table on a particularly nasty angle on the way down, and lost his life. She'd seemed happy enough about it at the time, it was only the next day she regretted it and didn't want to get in trouble with her parents, honest.
While he could argue it that way, it's not like getting a passport with a dead baby's name is a single event like your examples. Such deception takes a good while to execute - photos, application forms, paying for it, finding the baby's name in the first place. Very pre-meditated. And all along knowing that none of it was legal.
-
People who are saying that he'll have to go are being way too enthusiastic.
The line currently being cooked up in ACT HQ is "He was a bit rough and got into some trouble when he was younger but he pulled himself up by his bootstraps and turned it around and this is exactly what ACT's law and order policy is pushing for. Shame he was over-taxed into assaulting that Tongan psychiatrist!"
It doesn't have to make sense, it's the ACT party, they never made sense and they make even less sense this week so why start now?
-
Very pre-meditated. And all along knowing that none of it was legal
And we've only got his word that he never used it.
-
people defending Garret need to ask themselves "What do people do with fake passports?". Invariably its because they want to defraud social welfare or a bank, or because they figure that one day they might do something that necessitates fleeing the country. We've all (guys, mostly) gone thru that phase as young adults when we think we're badd-ass and wonder "how hard could it be to...?" but we don't actually do it.
(Disclaimer: in my case I dun a few tings, but I'm not seeking higher office) -
Politics aside, hard for me to do, I think he should resign for the sake of the decency of parliament. Stealing the identity of a deceased child is disgraceful. His subsequent behaviour, campaigning for transparent justice, only serves to amplify the offence (and must surely further distress his victims).
-
Shame he was over-taxed into assaulting that Tongan psychiatrist!
That's "*top* Tongan psychiatrist" to you.
-
Stealing the identity of a deceased child is disgraceful.
The parents must see his mug and squirm, knowing he is an indecent man. Selfish man, selfish Party policies. Should be gone by lunchtime.
-
And we've only got his word that he never used it.
Ah, I dont want to be seen to stick up for this dick-head, but I'd presume if that was not correct, the immigration department (or whatever it's called) would have brought this up at the time of the court case, and he wouldnt have been discharged without conviction?
-
And we've only got his word that he never used it.
It doesn't really matter either way, does it?
He's committed one crime in getting the passport (all that document falsification and whatnot is, as cindy points out, a pre-meditated bit of wrong-doing).
Using it would, admittedly, made things worse (a third strike, perhaps!), but a crime had already been committed.
-
(And we've only got his word that he never used it)
I'd presume if that was not correct, the (authorities) would have brought this up at the time of the court caseNot necessarily true. He could have used the fake passport for fraululent purposes, and just not got caught. Maybe if his fake name was published any victims would come forward? But then that would cause more trauma for the family involved, who've probably got it tough enough already right now.
-
I have my own David Garrett Backbenches story:
This one time, after Backbenches, maybe the second time I met him, David Garrett and I were talking about law and order policy - perhaps name suppression, or three strikes (or both?) - and he said something like "I don't really know you and I don't know why I'm telling you this" and then mentioned that he had received a discharge without conviction for something in the past that he wasn't particularly proud of and had gotten name suppression.
I only remembered when the Tonga thing came out (and had forgotten about the name suppression bit until yesterday), but it seemed a while ago and I didn't see that it affected his position as an MP so hadn't said anything about it to anyone until yesterday. Still not sure I do now, either.
-
And we've only got his word that he never used it.
It would be mind-numbingly stupid of him (OK, even more stupid than he is!) to have said that if it wasn't true.
Obviously everything else about him is already coming out, so if he'd used it the police officers involved, the court etc, plus others, even if he never mentioned it inside ACT, would know, and that would come out as well.
-
he said something like "I don't really know you and I don't know why I'm telling you this" and then mentioned that he had received a discharge without conviction for something in the past that he wasn't particularly proud of and had gotten name suppression.
He really does suck at this politics thing! No wonder TVNZ found out if he was having a few drinks and telling people he didn't know well at the pub. At Backbenches, which would probably have a few people who wouldn't like hanging around.
-
I didn't see that it affected his position as an MP so hadn't said anything about it to anyone until yesterday. Still not sure I do now, either.
The original crime... no, even though it was a detestable thing to do. The failure to admit it, to the public, by someone who opposes the Clean Slate legislation? That's the problem.
-
Damian, that revelation of an obscene remark to your friend rather puts in context the story about the psychiatrist's attack being over his wife. Something about Garrett's story just didn't ring true, people don't just get randomly attacked in public by well known professionals for no reason at all, and if they do and receive grievous injuries, those professionals don't just get a slap on the wrist. Nor do the victims get a slap on the wrist. Not even in Tonga.
-
And we've only got his word that he never used it.
Shame, if he had used it he might be living outside the country, permanently.
-
The original crime... no, even though it was a detestable thing to do. The failure to admit it, to the public, by someone who opposes the Clean Slate legislation? That's the problem.
Again, I slightly disagree.
The original crime is a serious offence, as Graeme's pointed out at the Dimpost, punishable by ten years under the current Act. His defence was clearly accepted, in 2005, that it was a frivolous action. I suspect it was, but it's commission today would see him turfed from parliament immediately. Quite apart from this though, I agree with Phil Goff's comments this morning that it must have been agonising for the victims to be unable to disclose that the very man campaigning for harsher penalties and more transparency had been so leniently and secretively treated.
-
Most people are pretty good at forgiveness, BUT Mr Garrett has stood on a platform of no forgiveness.It is this hypocrisy that makes his position as an MP and indeed that of law and order (lawyer) spokesperson (representing victims, not the convicted) an untenable position to hold.Hell one cannot even call another MP a hypocrite in the House so really they are not supposed to be there, and if caught they really should leave, (don't ya think ACT?) It's the hypocrisy he can't account for.
-
I agree with Phil Goff's comments this morning that it must have been agonising for the victims to be unable to disclose that the very man campaigning for harsher penalties and more transparency had been so leniently and secretively treated.
I agree with that. To me, the greater harm of the crime is the hurt done to the parents, especially given Garrett's later campaigning on law and order. But we don't legislate to condemn hypocrisy. That will happen at the ballot box.
All the same, I am thoroughly unimpressed by someone falsifying documents, and trying to undermine the integrity of the system we have for identifying and protecting New Zealanders when they travel overseas.
ETA: Sofie - SNAP!
-
people defending Garret need to ask themselves "What do people do with fake passports?"
They enter New Zealand to commit an act of state-sponsored terrorism? Something I recall the government of New Zealand (including one of Mr. Garrett's caucus colleagues) found ever so slightly irritating at the time...
As I've said elsewhere, perhaps Messers Hide, Garrett and McVicar should organise a lunch date with US Ambassador David Huebner. He's not only delightful company, but I'm sure the State Department could work up an informative briefing on why identity theft and passport fraud is not viewed as a "prank" by his government but a major crime with serious economic, social and security implications.
Most people are pretty good at forgiveness.
Up to a point, Sofie -- and Garrett has passed mine. I was listening to Nine to Noon today and, predictably, someone trotted out "let he who is without sin..." Funny how the same people never quote the rest of that story, where Jesus told the woman taken in adultery (who was sincerely repentant) to go forth and sin no more -- which she did.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.