Cracker: Strike Nine (and counting)
249 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
But we don't legislate to condemn hypocrisy. That will happen at the ballot box.
Fair point and I sincerely hope so. I've got family in Epsom, I will be encouraging them to remember that Hide knew all this when he recruited Garrett.
-
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?
I guess I was thinking of matters that might not have been known at the trial. False ID can be used for a lot more than just travelling to Bail incognito.
-
False ID can be used for a lot more than just travelling to Bail incognito.
Often considered the best form of id for all manner of situations from mortgages to credit cards to licences to car finance to... I could go on.
-
I doubt he'd get away with having set up a whole alternate identity in NZ. But overseas...who knows?
-
Good grief! What planet does Judith Collins live on?
Three strikes not out despite Garrett revelations - Collins
Police Minister Judith Collins says ACT MP David Garrett's past does not affect the credibility of the three strikes legislation which he proposed.
-
Police Minister Judith Collins says ACT MP David Garrett's past does not affect the credibility of the three strikes legislation which he proposed.
I haven't followed the link, but I'm gonna put a fiver on the next bit of the story saying "because it never had any credibility at all".
Was I right?
-
False ID can be used for a lot more than just travelling to Bail incognito.
Often considered the best form of id for all manner of situations from mortgages to credit cards to licences to car finance to... I could go on.
And of course, blowing shit up in crowded areas.
-
merc,
Then they all had a Road to Damascus moment and lived happily ever after?
-
Actually, I disagree. It should be valid, it's bloody tragedy it's not.
Respect for power is a weapon politicians use against us. It allows them to get away with things, as seen here. Remove the respect, remove the weapon.
-
Good grief! What planet does Judith Collins live on?
The same planet where Trevor Mallard may be a wretched hypocritical cock-monkey with serious anger management problems, but that didn't affect the credibility (or otherwise) of the anti-bullying strategy put in place on his watch as Education Minister.
I think the three-strikes law is a load of crap, but it would be no more or less crap-tacular if Garrett was a dead cert for sainthood.
-
I don't think the Sensible Sentencing Trust really gets the meaning of the word "inexcusable".
-
Good grief! What planet does Judith Collins live on?
Planet expedience?
Its close orbit exerts a strong pull - strong enough to offset the entropic effect of ACT for at least another year or so.
-
I don't think the Sensible Sentencing Trust really gets the meaning of the word "inexcusable".
If there's any justice, this will have some impact on the public standing of the SST.
McVicar knew about his legal advisor's past. He knew about it even as he railed against name suppression, and against the very sort of judicial discretion that let Garrett escape not only public shaming but a conviction for a serious offence.
In the context of the 2005 case, the decision of the judge might well have been reasonable. But for Garrett, McVicar and Hide to have then gone on and actively campaigned against just that sort of dispensation for others is simply despicable.
-
Respect for power is a weapon politicians use against us. It allows them to get away with things, as seen here. Remove the respect, remove the weapon.
That's one way of seeing it, not mine however. I see it in reverse; you're elected to high office, you're bestowed with privilege, then you respect that by embodying certain qualities like honesty, integrity, care and consideration. You don't abuse it by being a thug, a letch, a bully or a liar.
-
Rather than concentrate on David Garrett's illegal behaviour, I'd like to float a hypothesis about his (and other politicians who stridently promote anti crime policies and laws) lawmaking behaviour. That is, that the reason he is so anti crime is his view of himself and his own behaviour. In other words that he measures all the rest of us by his own low standards of ethical and moral conduct, and in retrospect believes it is necessary to harshly legislate to threaten people like him in order to deter them from committing offences.
The vast majority of people are not morally and ethically incompetent and act with respect towards others. They therefore do not need the laws that a very small vocal minority like David Garrett and his Sensible Sentencing Trust colleagues do. Perhaps if more people were treated with compassion by the legal system (and the lawmakers in particular) the way he was, we would have a great deal less crime in our community!
-
I just can't stop thinking about how awful this must be for the poor parents and family of the child - I cannot imagine the horror of losing a little one like that, and then to have to have to reawaken the grief when you find out his identity was stolen.
Now this - with Garrett saying it was a prank. Where is the respect for the family? Tragic. So many wounds reopened, just because of this nasty man.
-
Interesting idea, Henry (surely it's Harry? :-)). Often crooked people have very harsh views on punishment, having themselves developed contempt for soft treatment that failed to alter their own behavior.
-
Further details released this afternoon by the court: apparently Garrett got the child's name from a cemetery. That's your TV picture, six o'clock tonight.
More soon, as they say ...
-
There are things I've done in this lifetime that I'm not proud of. I'm not going to be making huge public stands against forgiveness and redemption, however.
-
Stealing the identity of a deceased child is disgraceful.
Not to lessen this statement, but stealing the identity of anyone is disgraceful.
Shame about the name suppression. I wonder if there's a case to require name suppression be reconsidered by a judge for anyone running for public office, to decide if it's then in the public's interest to know. (Especially given the platform David Garrett campaigned on, and as long as it wasn't there to protect others.) Not that I understand the mentality of people who vote for ACT.
-
You just can't trust these crims. Turns out Garrett denied the offence ... at first.
-
Or having little experience of soft treatment at all Ben? "A good whacking never did me any harm" point of view perhaps.
off topic - Harry was my Grandad :-) -
More details than you want, probably.
The extracts from the victim impact statements are tough to read. I feel for this family having to go through all this again; it's their third strike even if it isn't his (something Police Minister Judith Collins seems entirely insensitive too).
-
The suppression order has been lifted, and the Herald has all the squalid details here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10673912
Best bit:
Garrett asked to keep his identity secret to "maintain his reputation".
A hypocrite as well as an arsehole.
-
I wonder if there's a case to require name suppression be reconsidered by a judge for anyone running for public office,
More to the point. Garret should have applied for the lifting of name suppression the moment he considered public office. The fact that he didn't is deceitful to say the least. This is not only Garrets problem but a problem for the ACT party, who knew of the name suppression and took advantage of it, after all would the public vote for a man who stole a dead child's name?. I may go as far as saying this was election fraud, a deliberate concealment of the facts so as to gain public office. If that ain't an offence it should be. Where's Gerry Brownlee when you need him?.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.