Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Narcissists and bullies

727 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 19 20 21 22 23 30 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Dear Commissioner Marshall. Shut the fuck up and go away.

    Appearing on Firstline this morning, Mr Marshall said police welcome the IPCA investigation.

    “I think we’re actually the good guys in this business. We’re losing focus in relation to these young men who are out there doing what has been reported,” he says.

    I don’t even have swears for this…

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    There's swearing, and then there's things that make you swear. Like the opening paragraph of today's Herald editorial:

    "Absolutely nobody emerges well from the Roast Busters under-age sex scandal. Not, most importantly of all, the four traumatised 13 to 15-year-old girls who have been identified as victims. Not the reviled young predators who bragged about getting girls drunk and having sex with them. Not the police who now face uncomfortable questions about their attitude to crimes of this nature, as well as their operational efficiency. And not the grandstanding politicians who clambered over each other to refer the handling of the case to the Independent Police Conduct Authority."

    I don't think I need to point out the spectacular stupidity of that list. Throw hands in the air and say "gosh, we just don't know, raping and grandstanding, it's all horrid!".

    It would be mildly irritating if it were a talkback caller or twitter-ranter. But it's only the Herald.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1333 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I don’t even have swears for this…

    Not even the C-bomb, the sweariest of them all?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5445 posts Report Reply

  • Brodie Davis, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Dear Commissioner Marshall. Shut the fuck up and go away.

    I also loved how he was on Campbell live last night and didn't have any answers to any questions they had about this case. Surely if your going on a tv station regarding a specific case you should be fucking briefed on it, otherwise you just come across as a fucking waste of space.

    So the options are, he is totally incompetent and didn't think to do any research on the subject of the interview = should be fired, or is hiding deep issues within the police force in regards to this issue = should be fired. I don't get what his end-game was.

    Do the police think that they can tell everyone to "move along, nothing to see here" in regards to this?

    Since Aug 2008 • 54 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to simon g,

    Absolutely nobody emerges well from the Roast Busters under-age sex scandal. Not, most importantly of all, the four traumatised 13 to 15-year-old girls who have been identified as victims.

    Now I do have some swears for that. What a pack of fucking shits.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Henry Barnard, in reply to Brodie Davis,

    I also loved how he was on Campbell live last night and didn’t have any answers to any questions they had about this case.

    He even seemed to say that he wasn't even going to try and find out anything about the case, yet, because he didn't need to. He was just going to pass on whatever he was told. He didn't seem to get the idea that ignorance is not an excuse and that, if he could keep himself deliberately ill-informed, he'd be safe.

    Palmerston North • Since Aug 2013 • 65 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Dear Commissioner Marshall. Shut the fuck up and go away.

    No

    No you are NOT good guys.

    You don't get to say you're a good guy when you let children be raped.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Does New Zealand not have a parody defence like in the U.S.?

    Andrew Geddis is confident both the text of the relevant law and the Bill of Rights Act will cover Bradbury:

    49 Use of term Police or New Zealand Police in operating name

    (1) A person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, carries on an activity under an operating name that includes the word “Police” or the words “New Zealand Police”, in a manner likely to lead a person to believe that the activity is endorsed or authorised by the Police or any part of the Police

    You'd struggle to see that poster as fulfilling the bit from "in a manner likely" onwards.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Henry Barnard, in reply to simon g,

    Absolutely nobody emerges well from the Roast Busters under-age sex scandal. Not, most importantly of all, the four traumatised 13 to 15-year-old girls who have been identified as victims.

    What on earth is this supposed to mean? Surely, surely the editorial can't mean what it seems to be saying? It can't be trying to lay blame on those girls? Badly phrased?

    Palmerston North • Since Aug 2013 • 65 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Someone may just take the Harold down over that crass jibe...

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Is it... is it trying to say that they aren't "emerging well" because they're traumatised? Because that's the only charitable interpretation, but it's *really* badly written. OTOH, if it's saying what it kinda sorta sounds like it's saying... I can't even.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen R, in reply to Henry Barnard,

    He didn't seem to get the idea that ignorance is not an excuse and that, if he could keep himself deliberately ill-informed, he'd be safe.

    Although that attitude might explain why they didn't prosecute John Banks...

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • simon g, in reply to Henry Barnard,

    The kindest thing I can say about the editorial is that the writer(s) "over-condensed" the language, and ended up not saying what was meant.

    But you'd think they'd have read it through before showing the rest of us.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1333 posts Report Reply

  • NBH, in reply to Henry Barnard,

    He even seemed to say that he wasn't even going to try and find out anything about the case, yet, because he didn't need to. He was just going to pass on whatever he was told.

    He didn't just seem to - he said exactly that on Morning Report today: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2575628/police-czar-welcomes-ipca-review (from 5:10 on)

    Wellington • Since Oct 2008 • 97 posts Report Reply

  • Henry Barnard, in reply to Danielle,

    Is it… is it trying to say that they aren’t “emerging well” because they’re traumatised? Because that’s the only charitable interpretation,

    That's what I'd be inclined to think.

    Palmerston North • Since Aug 2013 • 65 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Gee that Firstline interview with Marshall inspires no confidence whatsoever does it? Maybe he's a good grandfather, seemed very nice.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Brodie Davis,

    So the options are, he is totally incompetent and didn’t think to do any research on the subject of the interview = should be fired, or is hiding deep issues within the police force in regards to this issue = should be fired. I don’t get what his end-game was.

    Another thing is that he also happens to be (IIRC) New Zealand's highest-paid civil servant and it's his freaking job to know. I know Ann Tolley doesn't have many fans around here, and I'll grant she has to pick her words with some care, but she was lied to and (however unwittingly) mislead the House -- which is serious shit - and the public. She's perfectly entitled to be a little short on the patience, even though as I understand it she's can straight up sack him.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Thinking more about the approach taken by the CEO of the Waipareira Trust to this topic. Is it *really* appropriate? What kind of role model does he think he is?

    Here's their strategic plan:

    http://www.waipareira.com/strategic_plan

    Link to the PDF on the RHS.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Hooton, in reply to MrHoward,

    I certainly didn't say I intended to make a "scene".

    On Wed I tweeted friends asking if I should go on the Willie & JT show again, and also discussed the matter with Matt McCarten (who has the same view as me on all this, albeit a more measured radio style).

    On balance, Matt and I both decided it would make no sense to give up our opportunity to air our perspectives on politics just because of what Willie & JT had said on the Tuesday, and that we would appear but strongly express our disapproval at them. (Why let, say, Chris Trotter and Cameron Slater be the ones who get to do it?)

    I tweeted this accordingly saying Matt and I had decided to appear but that Willie & JT would probably wish we hadn't.

    Willie & JT had seen that tweet and I confirmed it before we went live, so they knew in advance what was going to happen. (After my Cunliffe/Fonterra experience, I find it is better to

    Auckland • Since Aug 2007 • 195 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    art apes life...

    Does New Zealand not have a parody defence..?

    here the Herald parodies Bradbury's earlier satirical work.
    I hope he isn't prosecuted for wilfully 'leading a corporate entity along the path of wickedness', also...

    ... I do worry that the new Cyber Bullying Bill will get most use from Government and politicians trying to take down criticism and satirical images.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Henry Barnard,

    That’s what I’d be inclined to think.

    Not me. I read it immediately as saying that it didn't make the girls look good. Considering that was the very first group they chose to mention as "not emerging well", "most importantly of all" I thought they mucked up the tone of the article completely. The most charitable thing I can think of is that they might have lured some readers for whom victim blaming is natural to read on a bit further, and consider the unlikeliness that the police have really done everything they could.

    They still fail to see that harm could have been prevented, and direct action over underage sex and supplying minors with alcohol could have been taken, searches could have been done to ascertain the truth of at least some of the aspects of the story. I can't understand the ongoing pussyfooting around that point by people condemning of the rape itself. Perhaps they're trying to be liberal about minors drinking and having consenting sex, but if so, you can't start asking questions about whether the girls were being slutty, and you most certainly can't ignore the fact that numerous girls made complaints directly to the police about the same bunch of guys. Then when we finally get to the point that the police knew about the online bragging about being rapists years ago then we're no longer anywhere near the police being forced to consider the slight possibility that this is just girls getting back at some popular guys who shagged them, then slagged them.

    There's far, far too many warning signs. There's a pattern of criminal behaviour devolving rapidly. I even think from the first girl's complaint that it's possible one of the boys was considerably less nasty at the beginning, but as it became clear that nothing would be done he got worse. If Amy who spoke on Radio Live has her numbers anywhere near right, there's a lot more victims than just those 4 who complained.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to BenWilson,

    Also, I'd be more disposed to give The Herald the benefit of the doubt if they didn't have so much previous form printing rape culture enforcing fappery like that Bob Jones column last month.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Hooton, in reply to MrHoward,

    I certainly didn’t say I intended to make a “scene”.
    On Wed I tweeted friends asking if I should go on the Willie & JT show again, and also discussed the matter with Matt McCarten (who has the same view as me on all this, albeit a more measured radio style).
    On balance, Matt and I both decided it would make no sense to give up our opportunity to air our perspectives on politics just because of what Willie & JT had said on the Tuesday, and that we would appear but strongly express our disapproval at them. (Why let, say, Chris Trotter and Cameron Slater be the ones who got to do it?)
    I tweeted this accordingly saying Matt and I had decided to appear but that Willie & JT would probably wish we hadn’t.
    Willie & JT had seen that tweet, and I also confirmed it before we went live, so they knew in advance what was going to happen. (After my Cunliffe/Fonterra experience, I find it is better to warn hosts if I will be expressing unusually strong opinions.)

    I expected they would decide to just to take the criticism for half an hour as a way of balancing Tuesday and allow everyone to move on, and then we would have spent the rest of the half hour on the week in politics as usual.

    I probably should have recommended that to them (we have been work colleagues of sorts for some years) but I didn’t. I certainly had no intention of doing a Dennis Connor despite some friends recommending I should.

    So, I certainly didn’t say I intended to make a “scene” – just gave fair warning of the line I was going to take, and the strength of it.

    In retrospect, maybe I was a bit yell-y (some people will know I have that tendency if it gets a bit stressful on air) and Matt probably could have been less passive (IMHO) but you can’t script these things.

    Also, I was not drunk as JT claimed later in the programme. Just one glass of wine for Dutch courage (as recommended in both the Brian Edwards/Judy Callingham and Exceltium media training courses.)

    Auckland • Since Aug 2007 • 195 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to BenWilson,

    I can’t understand the ongoing pussyfooting around that point by people condemning of the rape itself. Perhaps they’re trying to be liberal about minors drinking and having consenting sex,

    Perhaps they're trying to maintain some shred of trust in the Police? I imagine that for a lot of people in NZ the idea that the Police might not be entirely trustworthy is a bit scary.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Hooton,

    Kudos to you for taking a stand. I don't usually agree with anything you say, but I thought you showed some true steel yesterday.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 19 20 21 22 23 30 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.