Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
Anjum, conviction is highly unlikely as has been discussed in some depth here - so I would rather not make it a precondition for anything. How about we think of them as parallel processes - legal and moral/social?
-
"morality, integrity, decency and respect for others"
But, but, but... isn't that what sport is about? Good clean healthy instillation of moral virtue into the corpore sano on the playing fields of Eton?
This is, of course, the paper that once loudly brayed "Mark Todd owes us all an explanation", after Todd was caught in a compromising, but benign situation by a British tabloid.
-
Anjum, conviction is highly unlikely as has been discussed in some depth here
no doubt. i don't have a problem with that. i do have a problem with the view that we shouldn't even try or that an apology and counselling can take the place of proper legal processes. if the case fails for lack of evidence, that's one thing. if a case never happens because we're going to be forgiving in this instance, that would set a somewhat dangerous precedent i would think. particularly in the area of domestic violence. and it would really annoy me because i don't think we tend to be forgiving in quite that way in regards to any other type of crime.
-
I think that's part of why I'm feeling conflicted. Too much PR speak in the apology, the 'I was tired and stressed' excuse - it doesn't feel sincere to me. I get the feeling he's sorry to have been caught, not sorry for the appalling attack in the first place.
I felt the same.
And now today I'm wondering how much that matters. This is public only because he's a media personality. Maybe the peace he made in private with the victim was sincere, meaningful, and backed up with a real change in himself. Or maybe it wasn't.
I'm not in favour of him getting a better break in life, just because he's a media personality and well-off. I'm also not in favour of him getting a worse break. Joe Bloggs doesn't have to satisfy me with his sincerity if he bashes up his partner, he just has to satisfy, a judge, the victim, and the people that know him.
Him making the statement is all very 'good' TV and so forth. But I'm not sure that I need to be happy with what he's done as restitution. I just need to be happy with the system that deals with domestic violence.
-
Agreed. Maybe we're talking about prosecution rather than conviction?
-
Kyle, it is not just a "private" matter. unless you are Owen McShane of course.
-
Too much PR speak in the apology, the 'I was tired and stressed' excuse ...
Yes, and almost word-for-word the same lines that Paul Holmes used in his "cheeky darkie" apology (October 2003). Presumably not a coincidence.
In Spin-World, all offences are treated the same: a stupid comment on the radio / being drunk and swearing / a violent assault ... all dealt with differently by the law, but not if you "front up" to camera rather than court.
I wonder how serious an offence could be, and still be "handled" by the PR people? "While I do not condone my running amok with the AK47, and sincerely regret any offence caused to the families of the bereaved, I only wish to point out ..."
-
Families of the bereaved? Sorry, blame lack of lunch. I do not condone my vocabulary errors, but ...
-
Nat Torkington really doesn't understand about trees and CO2. I could write volumes in reply, but the key points are:
1) All trees rot. Old growth forests have cycles of death and renewal. Making a sequestration distinction because trees in one type of forest might be harvested and one might not be is irrational.
2) All forestry sequestration solutions are stopgap measures. Placing a forest on pasture increases the CO2 storage in the landscape proportional to the average extra biomass present over time. This means that new forests are CO2 sinks, while all old forests, whether old growth or periodically harvested plantations, are just reservoirs.
3) Wood products are only sinks to the extent that wood product biomass is increasing. If we use wood to replace a house the net CO2 store barely changes because the wood in the old house is returned to the atmosphere. Most people, and some political parties, clearly have difficulty getting their heads around this.
-
Kyle, it is not just a "private" matter.
Well, Sasha, just because I contribute to PAR I don't think the amends I've made to people harmed by my behaviour while drinking is anything but a 'private' matter. I certainly don't think 'the public interest' includes humiliating myself -- or others I've caused enough pain to already -- for the titilation of a scopohiliac culture of Puritan pervs.
However, Russell does have a perfectly legitimate interest that I'm not going to come into the studio off my face and verbally or physically abuse others. And I certainly believe that if I break the law, then I've got to accept the consequences.
Veitch has certainly come all the way out of the closet as a nasty piece of work, and I'm carrying no water for the guy. If his media career is over, I guess that's a matter for his employers. If he's broken the law, then even arseholes have the same right to due process and all that other wet liberal pussy bullshit as everyone else.
But here's one thing I know for sure: Reading out a carefully drafted statement at a presser isn't even a start if he's serious about getting his shit together. It's not that easy, believe you me.
-
Craig, not denying the private nature of individual amends. I'm talking about whether that's all there is, or if you also believe such a thing as "society" exists with its own interest alongside those of the individuals who are part of it.
McShane (and Maggie Thatcher) would say there isn't. Our legal system says there is, so some offenses are against society not just the individuals involved.
On a basic level, regardless of the law or employment contracts many people seem to have a pretty instinctive interest in how other people's children are treated, for example, or in whether people beat each other. I don't think there would be 16 pages of comments here, otherwise. -
Wow... don't you just love this. An on the whole calm and rational discussion where we're exploring differences, and finding that (more often than not) objects really are closer than they appear?
-
Sue,
I see 'game of two halves' is on tv tonight
and he's still on the tvnz website page for itI wonder if that will be a bit like sports cafe and nothing will be said.
even tho both shows have a history of mentioning any rumor around -
I wonder if that will be a bit like sports cafe and nothing will be said.
even tho both shows have a history of mentioning any rumor aroundGood point.
Sportscafe’s first time back in 3 years on Wednesday; the day of the confession and the only sports news in town and…
…not a mention.
Which is taking creepy loyal male bonding stuff a bit far. -
Sports Cafe Team served a standdown period after the A class drugs episode.
If I remeber rightly Ridge & Cockroft were fingerpointing back then as well.
-
If the show goes ahead they'll probably wing it like they usually do. The other week Jerry Collins was late for the show after missing a flight so they had a kid from the audience sitting in his place until he arrived.
I suspect though that people staying up for it may find they are watching something else.
On The Crowd Goes Wild it was funny watching Andrew Mulligan taking the mickey out of Mark Richardson 2 nights running for the text abuse incident involving him and Scott Styris.
-
We were just discussing legal, justice-type stuff, because, in case you hadn't noticed, he broke his ex-girlfriend's back. In four places. And, uh, put her in a wheelchair.
And that's what this is about. At the end of the day. When it comes down to it. Pure and simple. There is no prettying it up, or justification. There is no circumstance mitigating enough. Just this.
-
Just this.
Quite right. Now want to work up some good old fashioned outrage? Seen very recently, on the subject:
"most men in domestic violence cases wouldn't be anywhere near as honest as this."
"The key question here is whether Veitch, having done something completely wrong, has acted honourably and appropriately toward his victim. "
The writer considers the answer to be "yes".
Only click through if you want to end up shouting at your screen.
-
We were just discussing legal, justice-type stuff, because, in case you hadn't noticed, he broke his ex-girlfriend's back. In four places. And, uh, put her in a wheelchair.
And that's what this is about. At the end of the day. When it comes down to it. Pure and simple. There is no prettying it up, or justification. There is no circumstance mitigating enough. Just this.
It is not really. It may be what happened, but cracking 3 (or 4, or 5 depending on the "facts") vertebrae is not quite breaking your back. We don't really know. Did he kick her in the head? Maybe but the our judgements are predicated on media reports. Trust them? Don't really.
-
Especially given this article painting a rather different pitcure of events than I suspect most of us had in our heads thanks to the sketchy media reporting of it (eaarrghh).
-
but cracking 3 (or 4, or 5 depending on the "facts") vertebrae is not quite breaking your back.
Is it not? I must tell the family doctor who treated my sister for 2 cracked vertebrae some years ago. He'll be glad of your expert opinion, I'm sure.
I think, as Danyl pointed out somewhere, we're now basing our judgement on his public confession.
-
But Andrew, his public confession described "losing it". The detail was offered by media. It may be true and he may be a pocket sized thug. But the judgements and not on known facts. Perhaps he slapped her and she stepped back and fell onto the corner of the dressing table. Awful. Wrong but possible and not necessarily a savage beating. I very anti-violence, antismacking etc. but....
-
Yeah Ian, it was just an innocent mistake. An innocent mistake he felt worth $100k to cover up.
-
i do have a problem with the view that we shouldn't even try [for a conviction]
But what is enough? Are you saying that unless the police drag him into court on charges, not enough has been done to try? Because I will be highly fucked off if tens-of-thousands of dollars are thrown at a prosecution that's doomed from the start. Bringing a criminal case is not cheap, and the standard for deciding that a jury should hear the evidence is hopefully higher than "He's a celebrity, the minuscule chances of a conviction be damned."
-
Pulled from Olympics role, and comments from workmates towards bottom of story:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521008Ian, we already discussed that point yesterday.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.