Hard News: Evil
130 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Does anyone else think banning Ron was a bit harsh?
'Some people not feeling comfortable with it' isn't enough reason to suppress someone's freedom of speech.
I don't think the purpose of PA is to attain a group consensus, it's about robust debate.
Sure, he had some odious views, and was a bit of a troll, but he wasn't insulting anyone on the board.
And his views were swiftly countered by stronger arguments.Even though 99% of people agree with the conviction, does that mean we shouldn't hear from anyone opposed to it?
-
WH,
People take a big social risk when they express opinions that are outside group norms. Labels like "troll" need to be used sparingly.
dude was depressingly dodgy
people have said to me they're uncomfortable sharing a thtread with him, and, frankly, I doubt his good faith
Now for sensitive and intelligent comments eh
that we can find a village idiot wiling to defend any behaviour
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Red herrings, insinuation, wilful misunderstandingI wonder how I would feel if I was Ron.
-
I wonder how I would feel if I was Ron.
Not stupid enough to believe your own BS, but cynically dim enough to expect others to.
-
Does anyone else think banning Ron was a bit harsh?
Not really - but that's all somewhat beside the point. This is Russell's patch of virtual real estate, he's liable for the contents and has been pretty clear about the tone he wants to set (including making this a safe zone for women to participate in), and AFAIC he has the absolute right to exercise editorial control here as he sees fit. (And I certainly wish certain other bloggers would tell their resident hysterics to either calm down or piss off.)
Even though 99% of people agree with the conviction, does that mean we shouldn't hear from anyone opposed to it?
Certainly not, and I would have been banned long ago if Russell was a freak for 'crushing dissent'. :) But in the end, you've got to make a judgement call whether some people are adding value to the conversation or killing it. You mileage may vary, but again it's RB's call to make here.
-
WH,
Not stupid enough to believe your own BS, but cynically dim enough to expect others to.
I rest my case.
This trainwreck of a thread is not worth any more of my time.
-
Does anyone else think banning Ron was a bit harsh?
Might have been, but I don't think it was precipitate. He had been arguing on various threads for a while. There were two reasons for my decision:
(a) I decided that he wasn't arguing in good faith. That he was behaving, in other words, as a troll.
(b) More than one of our valued women contributors made it known to me that he was creeping them out.
I think that's the fourth time I've banned someone: there was Ross (who some people seem to think is the same person as ron); dad4justice, who is a bit scary, has real life issues and uses these discussions largely to work out his grudges; and Palm Oil Guy, a spammer who just stopped being funny.
It's not easy decision, because I do value a range of opinion, and I enjoy that opinion being vigorously expressed. But as Craig says, it's my decision to make.
And his views were swiftly countered by stronger arguments.
That's the sense in which I actually valued his presence. But there are limits.
-
"I wonder how I would feel if I was Ron."
Very pleased with myself, should think.
I think there is a big difference between expressing opinions that are outside group norms, and deliberately baiting people.
-
This is Russell's patch of virtual real estate, he's liable for the contents and has been pretty clear about the tone he wants to set
Well said, Craig.
-
Agree with jackie - well said Craig
and thanks Russell
-
I think the reason this guy was weirding everyone out was because his trolling is not motivated by any interest in the issue or desire to debate different points of view, but rather in a taking a kind of perverty pleasure in baiting women with an offensive point of view. And if this is genuinely his point of view, then he is one disturbing weirdo. The thing is, his point of view was weird enough that we (the women here) knew better than to engage him in any way - the intellectual equivalent of making eye contact.
There is plenty of room on Public Address for robust, intelligent debate, and in fact this is the aspect of this forum that appeals most to me. But Ron/Ross (and they both did have the same social-warning-beacon quality to their posts) did not seem to want to defend his point of view as much as he wanted to offend and intimidate women here. I think this is why he was making us uncomfortable, and, on a shallow note it was really quite satisfying to see Russell get rid of him. Thanks for that, Russell. Smote that troll.
-
Thanks for that, Russell. Smote that troll
or is that smite that troll?
-
Dyan
"The thing is, his point of view was weird enough that we (the women here) knew better than to engage him in any way - the intellectual equivalent of making eye contact."A moot point but a few of the women here gave a few dirty stares in Rons direction throughout this thread.
I don't miss Ron, a cloud lifted with his departure.
Just a little interested as to why he got the axe and women contributors just get their offensive comments wiped? -
WH,
I am going to come off my high horse a little.
As a few people have rightly pointed out, this is Russell's place and I don't want to second guess the way he moderates it. Speaking generally, I think we should be courteous to people we disagree with and avoid making personal criticisms. I recognise that all discussions have boundaries, and that those boundaries are not for me to draw.
-
WTF? Why am I left with the impression of Weston standing in a corner facing the wall? Get away from the wall Weston - your original comment was valid! PA is not a 're-education camp' surely? No need to denounce yourself!
Like Weston, I thought banning Ron was harsh, but RB has explained his actions and the deed has been done so its moot.
FWIW: I would have preferred RB gave some sort of warning first, so that Ron could have had the opportunity to moderate himself. And if he continued anyway, then its on him. I personally would hate to be banned without warning, I think its wrong.
-
Oh yeah, as for the topic:
I found the most interesting part of the DomPost story to be:
But some police were uneasy with the way Dewar had run the trials. Top policeman Rex Miller was brought in for a secret internal inquiry. Mr Miller's inquiry ruled that Dewar had failed to investigate properly allegations against Shipton, Schollum and Mr Rickards and had deliberately wrecked the first two trials. Dewar was shifted out of Rotorua and the three policemen were given a dressing down for having sex with a teenager who they almost certainly knew was a rape complainant.
For nine years, it all went silent.
I think what we now need to know is how, despite all this 'uneasiness', Rickards still managed to be promoted up thru the ranks to become Top Cop?
-
I think what we now need to know is how, despite all this 'uneasiness', Rickards still managed to be promoted up thru the ranks to become Top Cop?
'Culture' is a word which needs to be tossed around a lot in relation to NZ Police, particularly historically. I'm sure some people involved with promoting him either 1. didn't know, 2. overlooked as 'not too bad', 3. thought his good points outweighed his bad, or 4. Thought 'good on him' for what he did.
I would suspect there would be a lot of explanation within 1. People either didn't know, or had heard vague rumours or stories, but nothing more. You can't go not promoting someone based on some vague rumour you overheard at drinks after your shift finished ten years ago, with no further evidence.
-
if you follow ron's line of reasoning, then your explanation (2) might also follow. i.e. that it was known about, but was considered "ancient history" and not officially on rickard's record.
-
On Radio NZs 9-noon this ex-cop from the 1980s has a book out.
To say he was given an easy ride is to understate it.
He claimed he was party to terrorist plans (as an undercover cop) for attack on cops etc for a cancelled Springbox Tour.
He seems to be losing a few faculties as he needed to be correct as to when "The Tour" was. He said '82 or '83. Some may forget the year of the 81 Tour but a cop central to terrorist claims?
Anyone know Andy Bell? -
But in the end, you've got to make a judgement call whether some people are adding value to the conversation or killing it.
Or the next thing you know, you're Kiwiblog, and the quality of your blogging is undermined by the vile crap in your comments.
-
if someone assumed i view women as chattels, they'd be drawing a long bow.
Which we can obviously glean from:
would you like this behaviour acted out on your daughter? consensual or otherwise?
-
um, you have a reading problem rodger?
i explained that statement way back on page 4. go on, off you go.
-
Or the next thing you know, you're Kiwiblog, and the quality of your blogging is undermined by the vile crap in your comments.
To be fair, rodgerd, there's a rainbow coalition of unhinged wingnuts from the loony left to the rabid right. Again, in David's position there are a few regulars I'd at least have on permanent moderation but that's his patch, and he can exercise his editorial discretion as he sees fit and wear the consequences just like Russell and everyone else. Personally, I just keep my finger on the scroll button and keep in mind the people whose comments I avoid unless my blood pressure happens to be particularly low.
-
Russell Brown,
What happened here, and what was going on in Rotorua in the 1980s, was evil. And I know one thing: Clint Rickards not only should not be one of our most senior policemen, he should not be in the force at all. He is lucky to be at large.
What you think you know and what you can prove are two entirely different things. And as long as that remains the case Clint Rickards (presuming he does not rape anyoneelse) has nothing to worry about. He has been found innocent on the evidence discovered and can keep his job (or accept a multi-million severence).
He is in my opinion positively blessed with luck, because no matter how guilty he may be it is not politically expedient to investigate corrupt practices in the police in the lead up to an election. The problem being that if serious digging is conducted into Rotorua, circa. 1980 there is real potential that this will spread to the rest of the country and a stench of corruption will be unleashed in an election year. You yourself explained this dilemma when confronted with Wishart's allegations involving the Dunedin police and you were right - inquiring into corruption in the police is bad news.
-
Does anyone know what if anything has come of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry? I don't know the details of the legalities when it comes to doctors and teachers but surely something similar could be applied to the police. By that I mean, if you engage in a sexual relationship with someone who you have contact with in the course of your work there are some guidelines. Maybe this could be incorporated into a 'Code of Conduct'.
Because correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure someone will ; ) but those cops must have know Louise Nicholas was a rape complainant and I think I read that they met her on the job (under-age drinking? I forget).
This is surely relevant.
I have actually been having face to face conversations with people about this subject this week. (Old school I know but strangely satisfying).
If a university professor has a relationship with a student he or she can justifiably get in deep shit, there will of course be the risk of false accusations and there is a chance that the relationship is not simply an abuse of power but two people in love or engaged in mutual hanky panky. It is however unprofessional. I would like this to be the case for the police too.
Anyone have any links or information for me?As far as Clint Rickards goes I think that the police are in a difficult position and I don't envy them that. It is not possible to fire him because he was acquitted and he has employment rights. It is a right old mess.
Surely a Code of Conduct would help stop this happening again. -
What you think you know and what you can prove are two entirely different things. And as long as that remains the case Clint Rickards (presuming he does not rape anyoneelse) has nothing to worry about. He has been found innocent on the evidence discovered and can keep his job (or accept a multi-million severence).
They're working very carefully on the relatively minor disciplinary case against him. As someone else said here, Rickards is probably the only person who think it's appropriate for him to continue as a senior policeman.
You yourself explained this dilemma when confronted with Wishart's allegations involving the Dunedin police and you were right - inquiring into corruption in the police is bad news.
I'm not sure that's what I said, but I have been thinking about Wishart's Dunedin claims. The Shipton-Schollum et al horrorshow clearly shows that very bad things can happen, and be covered up, but Wishart's main source/victim, Joyce Conwell, has made such bizarre allegations -- including that she was framed by her police enemies for both her separate attempted murder and murder convictions -- that it's impossible to regard her as credible. She seems crazy. And she did get to tell her story to senior government MPs, who appear to have thought the same thing.
Wishart also crapped on his own story by framing it as a sweeping high-level government conspiracy, not being frank about his victim's credibility problems in the first place, and relying on the unreliable Wayne Idour.
But enough. Wishart, judging by his silly letter in the new Metro, seems to want to fight me, and I'm not terribly interested.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.