Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
And I agree it is striking how violent abusers unerringly pick on people who are less powerful than them - which means socially as well as physically. It's cowardly, and it must require a fair degree of self-delusion to stay surprised by it if you're an offender.
-
I just finally succumbed and read the online version of Holmes' interview with Veitch.
In contrast to the, mostly, well-considered comment and analysis that has evolved here over the last few days, that must go down as one of the most ridiculous pieces of 'journalism' this reader has had the misfortune to swallow (conflation with Craig's earlier description intended).
It was collusion, it was apologist, it was fuckin disgraceful and distasteful.
Its also very-bloody-insulting that the main broadsheet daily in this country's biggest city thinks that shit like that is worthy of it's audience and adds any value to a topic of considerable importance.
Repeated note-to-self # 4,673 - Stop expecting any better!!
-
Sacha -back to the media aspect of this issue - can't remember who let slip the info on the former partner's demand for $100,000 to 170,000. In the same story was a reference to her wealthy new husband and their $1.8 mil property. As a teacher earning a basic $60 thou and working all hours god sends even in the hols, i sort of go into a Rosemary McLeod anti-Auckland type attitude!
Is it possible that the DomPost - if they did drip feed this info - having exposed the dirt on Veitch - are now trying to paint his victim in a less than favourable light in order to create a shock horror response in readers - or indeed any emotive repsonse????????
-
I agree it went a bit further too but many others, including Russell, have noted the unfortunate timing of National's annoucement to get rid of the Commission.
Paul: I'm going to give you mad props for understatement but I'll make this point: I think The Standard should be held accountable for their own 'unfortunate timing', and I'll make no apologies for saying ANYONE using the revelations of Veitch's thuggery as an occasion for partisan point-scoring is totally beyond the pale, in my book.
That being the case, it's perfectly reasonable that someone would challenge National on how they'd work to reduce crimes against women before they're committed (I'm well aware of their views about criminal penalties).
Well, Paul, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder how that post actually contributed anything to a serious public policy debate. At least, if you're going to imply a political party doesn't really give a shit about preventing violence against women and children make a slightly stronger case than drawing a very long bow indeed from abolishing the Families Commission.
I actually think there are some times, and certain subjects, where the partisan hacks should lay down their cudgels. Just for a bit.
-
The 'spin' put on Tony Veitch's violence (domestic violence); his assault (which must have gone on for some time to cause the injuries which hospitlaised the woman), on a vulnerable eprson and his attempt to get out of culpability and confronting his guilt, are mindblowing.
I note that in an interview with another mindless sports person he's quoted as wanting not to ahve 'lurid' details ruin his announcement of his engagement. This really calls into question his understanding of what he did to his former partner.
As a professional who has had decades of working in the fields of amily problems/violence/education/victim survival etc., I am deeply concerend that excuses are being made on the media outlets for Veitch. Maybe it's ecause he is invovled in sport and the perception is that sport allows vicarious aggression to be outed. Hey, let's get real, as Russell Brown has so rightly commented other persons in the media eye who have sport as their profession are also consistently being seen appearing in the Courts and being held publically accountable.
The mention of money and a payout for silence is really a 'red herring' - there is no way any amount of money changes your emotional and physical affect from violent behaviour. All money does is allow you a bretahing space to reassert your life.
Veitch needs to face aCourt trial for his actions. He needs to be seen to be enrolled on and to be made to attend a Stopping Violence programme and he needs to be otherwise ou of the 'public eye' and certainly no longer a 'media personality' sending the very worst message to males that effectively, "it's ok if you can get them to shut up about the beating."
-
Is 32 pages of comments a record on here?
no I've got one running at 34, so I think we should wind this discussion up. veitch bad, humans must try harder, money can't by happiness. phew, glad we sorted that one out.
-
Craig, I don't know if this is the right time to deal with the party-politics of this either however, I certainly didn't imply that National don't give a shit about preventing violence against women.
I do think that by saying that they'll disband the Commission, it's valid to ask what they'll do to fill the gap? I don't want to comment on the particular approach adopted by the Standard.
Both Labour and National will compete for top spot in the tough-on-crime stakes; that's a sad fact we'll all probably lament. But, whatever it's provenance, the Families Commission is part of the current government's response to family violence and National will not continue it. I know that National members care as much as anyone about family violence, I don't need to interview them to know this, however what will they actually do to try to reduce it? I'm not maligning them, I'm simply asking.
-
But, on the bright side, Tony has contributed a new eponym to the rich stew that is the English language.
-
Paul, you'd be asking for policy, then. :)
Cecelia, I don't know but suspect it's possibly more just the paper reporting what little they know about Kristin. Veitch deliberately spun his response, and buddies like Holmes are just continuing the same denial.
-
I thought that was very clever, Craig. Brought to mind the very hebrew word "kvetch". And I had no idea, or had forgotten, that that was what an eponym was.
-
Craig, I don't know if this is the right time to deal with the party-politics of this either however, I certainly didn't imply that National don't give a shit about preventing violence against women.
I didn't think you did, but clumsy phrasing on my part could have reasonably given that impression. Please accept my unreserved apology for that.
And on the other front, I don't actually think we're coming from a different place at all. I just think that post was substantively and tonally way out of line. I'll put it this way, the death of Sergeant Derek Wootton last Friday could have been an occasion for partisan pissing matches all over the show -- and given the way so-called 'law and order' issues have been political napalm recently, I was pretty impressed that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I dreaded. Not to say that there aren't serious public policy arguments to be had, but folks seem to have decided that (almost literally) over an open grave is neither the time nor the place.
When you've even got hyper-partisan lefties like 'Robinsod' saying trying to turn the Veitch case into a partisan issue is way OTT, then you've got to ask if you've crossed a line.
-
I didn't think you did, but clumsy phrasing on my part could have reasonably given that impression. Please accept my unreserved apology for that.
Not needed, I've re-read and see that you meant the Standard.
I didn't think the original piece in the Standard was too far out of line though I can see why some might. I don't want this to become partisan but I do wonder about National's policy (as you well know). All oppositions' struggle with law'n'order and the need to be seen to be tougher than the other lot; I was working at the Ministry of Justice when Doug Graham was Minister... he wasn't much of a fan of justice policy too-far-from-the-orthodoxy but then Phil Goff wasn't making life easy for him either.
-
Sorry I haven't read all these comments, I'm going to wade in on a couple of points anyway, so apologies in advance if it was on page 25...
First up, big ups to Deborah et al for calling bullshit on the "there but" crap.
In regards to the discussion about how the phrase used to describe the violent beating Veitch carried out as "lashing out", it is directly from his media statement. I was typing on the laptop when he read it out, and his precise words were:
“my frustration took over, I broke, I lashed out in anger.”
Is it just me, or is this media statement not available online anywhere, other than quotes in media articles? Seems a bit strange that...
On the issue of the counselling, I am VERY concerned that the counselling may have been lined up by one or tuther of the employers, TVNZ and/or Radio Sport, after he disclosed an incident that might bring them into disrepute to them. It sounds as if either Veitch didn't give them the full story ("oh yeah, I broke her back in four places, but it's no biggie" perhaps?) or they didn't ask enough questions to ascertain that this was serious violence. And if they organised the counselling then I'd say it's likely that rather than arranging a counsellor who deals primarily with violence and anger management issues they would have brought in the poor old Employer Assistance Programme provider, and focused on the work-related stress. Which might explain why Veitch didn't hand himself in as a consequence of his counselling, which I would have thought would be a logical outcome of any decent anti-violence programme.
-
I realise there are client confidentiality issues etc, but has the “1 counselling session per week for a year” claim been verified anywhere?
-
So it's like Tony "Soprano" Veitch then?
-
My reference to EAP in my last comment should read Employee Assistance Programme, not Employer, sorry!
-
-
3410,
Is it just me, or is this media statement not available online anywhere, other than quotes in media articles?
-
Thanks 3410, I couldn't find it last week, glad to see it is up :-)
-
Having had a quick look at that statement it's interesting that it differs a little from how he read it, which is to be expected of course, but things like pauses and leaving words out become significant in this situation I guess. For example the bit that I quoted above, which I typed as he said it on the telly, reads differently in the text.
Anyway, thanks again for the link.
-
In his statement Veitch said that since the incident he and Kristin had kept in touch continualy since the "incident". This made it sound that they were still on failry friendly terms. Yet he didn't find out the extent of her injuries til 2 months later according to the Holmes interview. And then the settlement was reached several months after that.
In the Holmes interview Veitch also says he underwent counselling for a year. Yet the TVNZ statement says:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1903549
"Ellis said that on December 17 2007, TVNZ's Head of Television, Head of Corporate Affairs, Head of News and Current Affairs and News and Current Affairs Legal Counsel met with Tony Veitch at his request.?"
At this meeting the TVNZ people claim:
"We offered to put him in touch with some counselling and a lawyer to act for him at his own expense."
-
Carolyn, that's exactly what sparked my concern that the counselling was organised by his employer and was more in the EAP vein than the domestic violence vein... The Holmes interview (which I've just read) tends to indicate that the counselling was focused on Veitch's problems around forming and maintaining relationships, which is something else again.
I don't expect him to fully disclose the intimate details of his counselling, but I would really like to know if the counselling focused at all on him taking responsibility for his actions. From reading the Holmes interview it doesn't sound to me like he has. It reads as if he felt that the violence happened to him, not that it was perpetrated by him.
-
24 hours and I am still boggled by the last sentence of the Holmes interview:
There is another harrowing meeting to prepare for as he fights, as he must, to save his career and his livelihood.
That paints a pretty disturbing picture of Holmes' world view. Why is saving his career and livelihood the must? Aren't there things that Holmes would think are worth more than that?
-
Julie, TVNZ were very precise in their statements that they suggested a counsellor but did not provide one, presumably including EAP.
I imagine any one-on-one sessions would have been useful, although may have lacked the bigger picture or specialised focus of anti-violence programmes, and the getting real from a group approach.
Harrowing, indeed. I'm sure the narcissistic "poor Tony" spin continued by Holmes and co is part of what is pissing people off, although it does seem to have succeeded in garnering sympathy as no doubt was its intent.
Carolyn, I'm still struggling to make the quoted timelines match up too.
-
Well, Paul, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder how that post actually contributed anything to a serious public policy debate. At least, if you're going to imply a political party doesn't really give a shit about preventing violence against women and children make a slightly stronger case than drawing a very long bow indeed from abolishing the Families Commission.
It was actually a reasonable point, although, of course, I wouldn't have phrased it in Standard-speak.
The quote is from written responses to questions from Kiwi Parent, which is published by Parents Centres NZ Inc.
**Families Commission - What value do you place on the role of the Families Commission in New Zealand? What is your party's intentions towards the Families Commission, do you intend to keep it, disband it, or change its current form?**
National believes that the Families Commission should focus on supporting everyday parents. We are not convinced that all of their current work, including advertising campaigns worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, are necessarily of practical help to mums and dads.
The implication being that social campaigns are chiefly of interest to Wellington bureaucrats rather than proper people. It's an expedient and meaningless response.
There's a lot of spin in the responses, and some really needless politicking.
Key even manages to sling off at Labour in his answer to a question about breastfeeding. He'd have been better off just saying his party cautiously supported the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill, which comes back from select committee this month.
Compare Labours's positive response, and that of the Greens and the Maori Party. None of them sling off at other parties.
The only thing I'm not clear on now is the actual date of the questions and response, but I presume it wasn't long ago. But the more I look into this, the more National's offering looks like one big fucking dog whistle, and the less I mind the Standard having a crack. Somebody needed to.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.