Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
prosecute this matter via PR and media
But wait, there's more:
Mr Grieve said Veitch was "stitched up" over several issues, including publicity of the agreement for him to pay Ms Dunne-Powell money to compensate her for loss of income, medical and other costs.
"I have got information established to my satisfaction that she was in contact with news media beforehand. That was one of the reasons the confidentiality aspects of the deed of settlement were sought and granted.
"I don't think it was any accident this thing was leaked. Where that leak came from I do not know. I am not suggesting necessarily it came from the complainant at all but as I understand it, the decision to publish it by the Dominion Post (the Wellington newspaper which broke the story) was made by senior executive level, not by journalists," he said.
-
By "c***" I presume you mean "c**k", right?
Why, no, Sacha. I don't.
-
apparently to his benefit
Can't argue with that - and "who benefits?" is a very useful question in most situations.
-
So, will the 300 hours community service etc sentence set a precedent for other cases in the future? It seems mighty light to me. i think New Zealand women would do well to feel afraid. So often it seems one would do better to simply walk away and spare yourself the agony.
-
That, Kerry, is the thing I am bothered by.
A definite message has been sent out to ANZ women who dont have lawyers, media spinners, a public profile - hell, to any woman who doesnt even have family support!- if your mate has knocked you around in a bone-damaging way, dont bother complaining-it is ALWAYS "Not OK" - but this whole kveeech thing has undermined that-
-
As a corollary or elaboration, abusers try to make their victims think that they have at some level brought it upon themselves and that they are if not guilty, helpless and fated in some way to endure what they receive, disconnected from other, luckier, people. People who wonder why abused persons do not simply leave their abusers do not understand the insidious dynamics of an abusive relationship - the very strategy and nature of abuse is to demolish any resistance or path of escape so that the abuse can continue (and escalate) with full 'justification'.
Sacha, I do not by any means accuse you of any naivete, by the way. I'm talking to the gallery, as it were.
To get on my soapbox, if you see that a woman's refuge is collecting, give. Even if someone can 'get away with it', then the thing that must matter, the one positive thing that can come out of this, is the certainty that there always is a place to go, somewhere safe.
Most reasonable people will believe in the power of redemption if they think it is founded on a genuine belief or desire to make good on past mistakes.
I'm reminded of a student of mine, with convictions for GBH and Heroin offences, who said that A Clockwork Orange had been his youth but who had, by the time I met him, changed quite sincerely and had become (and is) someone I quite like and admire. Here's hoping, but Veitch, I'm afraid, does not strike me as someone that intelligent.
-
To get on my soapbox, if you see that a woman's refuge is collecting, give.
Why wait to be solicited? Their online donation form is very user friendly and if you happen to be an idiot and, erm, enter the wrong credit card details, they'll get in touch and be very nice and not at all pushy about it.
-
By "c***" I presume you mean "c**k", right?
Why, no, Sacha. I don't.
Hahaha excellent. This is why I spend my precious procrastination time here. You guys rawk.
-
So often it seems one would do better to simply walk away and spare yourself the agony.
That, Kerry, is the thing I am bothered by.
It worries me too, considering the statistics of rape and abuse - that which occurs versus that which is reported... and the police's willingness to take complaints seriously.
We place too much faith in the absolutes of the law - and I do not mean that in a cynical way, rather I mean that ultimately it is culture that matters, and therefore the 'It's not OK' campaign is definitely vital to raise awareness and to - however incrementally - change the climate of attitudes.
-
the decision to publish it by the Dominion Post (the Wellington newspaper which broke the story) was made by senior executive level, not by journalists," he said.
What's Grieve saying here. Decisions on what gets published are never made by journalists, they're made by editors. If he thinks otherwise, he's not nearly so learned as he is purported to be.
Is he trying to intimate that journalists were really on Veitch's side, and that the story is the result of some executive vendetta? His client pled fucking guilty to a serious crime. IIRC, the decision to prosecute does not rest with a journalist, or editor, or even the victim.
These people should just shut up and go away.
-
change the climate of attitudes.
Yes! Remove Paul Henry immediately.That's a start.
-
IIRC, the decision to prosecute does not rest with a journalist, or editor, or even the victim.
I'm curious: could anybody name a single case in which the strategy of blaming the media has actually paid off? There may be several, but I can't think of any and have always assumed it led to disaster. Even the My Views troll-o-rama seems to have decidedly turned against Veitch after the circus of the last 24 hours.
-
I'm curious: could anybody name a single case in which the strategy of blaming the media has actually paid off?
As a strategy, no, but as a reflex... well in that case, payoffs aren't consciously considered.
-
some people who are emotional narcissists/sadists try to inflict as much pain as they can on other people (often those they have selected precisely because they are vulnerable) by any means at hand so as to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
Bingo! I can see this whole nasty business has touched a nerve with you, Kracklite - pinged the whole nervous system even - me too, and doubtless many others. I've never had to endure physical abuse, only various forms of emotional/mental blah, and I'm pretty good at spotting the patterns now.
I agree it's the culture that matters - the willingness to minimise, excuse, forgive the abusers and (worse to me) willingness to find the slightest excuse to claim the victim attracted their punishment.
I accept that humans have a remarkable capacity for cruelty to each other. i don't want to accept it but the evidence is overwhelming.
Funny, though, how some cases attract the judicial line: "we've got to make an example of them, so others will realise they can't get away with it" and others don't. I'm disappointed that this case evaded that line and i do believe it sets a tragically bad example.
-
2 He was in a bad relationship.
This is not meant in any way to excuse his actions - but -Bart, having just spent the evening reading through this entire thread, and also watching the Campbell Live interviews (her: impressive and restrained; him: looking even more a dick)...
...today feels like the day where statements like the above should be interrupted at the 'but' and not allowed to continue. Isn't that exactly what he said at his original media statement? "It is no excuse but [five reasons which are no reason to hit another person follow]"
This Guy got 180 hours community service and ordered to pay reparation for wilfully damaging a bag of feta cheese.
Heh. Good context point Steve. I'd feel more comfortable about the 300 hours if it was all devoted to appearing in newspaper, tv, and radio adverts with a script written by womens refuge rather than by his media minders.
-
I remember reading that American Idol contestants, for example, are weeded into three groups before the judges even lay eyes on them. The middle group - the unexceptional ones - never see the judges at all, while the other two groups - 'good singers' and 'deluded/crazy/taking the piss people' get to go to the audition room we see on the telly.
It's an average book (no where near as good as Stark for example) but Ben Elton's Chart Throb will pre-disillusion you about these relaity idol type shows. And yes, they totally cover the the pre-selection before the judges get to you see process.
-
I agree with your views on Tony Veitch. He has come perilously close to sounding like he is as much a "victim" as the woman he kicked in the back as she lay on the floor. We have a long way to go, I'm afraid, before we confront male violence.
-
I have always understood the best defence against action for defamation to be having the money to pay for expensive lawyers. It is not an area of the Law which is predicated on fairness.
Coming in rather late, this point still bears repeating. For all the talk of defences to an action for defamation, you still have to go to court before you can earn vindication using said defences. That's a very expensive proposition, especially when the legal arsenal arrayed against you is a) talented (I guess it's a bit arguable, but they're definitely not mediocre whatever their other faults), b) well-funded, and c) very demonstrably happy to take on even major media outlets, with said outlets also possessed of very capable legal advisors and fairly deep pockets with which to fund a response.
As for the rest, if what Russell's intimated about a major smear campaign by Team Kveitch through the Sunday papers is accurate, it's just a shame that the judge can't overturn her original sentence and decide that, actually, there's zero remorse and he's really worthy of a spot of sub-standard housing (whatever Garrett and McThicker may have to say about prisons, you can be sure that Veitch wouldn't find being inside a step up from his ordinary lifestyle) at one of Auckland's premier incarceration facilities.
-
Bingo! I can see this whole nasty business has touched a nerve with you
Well, I can say it's very complicated, with some deeply mixed loyalties at a personal level. Beyond that, I'll let discretion prevail.
-
it's just a shame that the judge can't overturn her original sentence
The answer is likely to be "no" but a question occurs: If the judge feels that the court was misled by the material presented on Mr Veitch's behalf (and Devoy and Currie seem to be saying that they were misled as to the nature of the references and therefore the material is out of context), and the judge's comments indicate that the references carried great weight in the decision on sentencing, can she order a review? Or is that the end of the decision unless the Crown appeals the sentence?
-
To get on my soapbox, if you see that a woman's refuge is collecting, give.
Word.
In fact I 'd be honoured to pledge the first $20 bucks to the TV Guide to Women's Justice and Recovery from Violence fund.
Anyway, I'm serious. Rename it so as we don't perpetuate the trivialisation already afoot but why not direct this anger and frustration into a good old-fashioned positive doohickey.
And we can always be noisy about it too. No point TV Utd/Ltd getting all the action.
-
I'm curious: could anybody name a single case in which the strategy of blaming the media has actually paid off?
Winston Peters made it an art form.
-
There's not a whole lot I can add to this very informative thread, other than to say that, for my money, one of the most obnoxious things the guilty party has said relates to the spying-and-snooping he authorized:
"I did some investigating and I went and I dug and I went through records and I went through disclosure and you know what ... I had a good time and I found stuff," he said.
So he admits to getting his kicks this way. What a prat.
Reminds me of the behaviour of some people who act on behalf of a certain governing political party, but that's by-the-by.
Unfortunately, the resulting tattle-tale in this case will likely go down a treat with the public at large. Afterall, 3.1% of our GDP is generated by scuttle-butt regarding local C-list celebrities.
-
What's more, his $300,000 seems to have been very well-spent, in terms of the outcome from his perspective. He really should STFU.
-
What's more, his $300,000 seems to have been very well-spent, in terms of the outcome from his perspective.
I'm still not convinced of that. Given that this was a first time offense, his character as presented to the court (testimonials, charity work etc) and his decision to plead guilty it seems that a $10,000 fine and 300 hours of community service is a pretty reasonable outcome - esp since the victim seems to have been opposed to a custodial sentence. I suspect that he would have gotten an identical outcome if he'd spent a tenth of what he paid on QC's, private detectives and media advisors.
Indeed, the money paid to Glenda Hughes looks to have been a very bad investment, ensuring that the whole horrible saga had maximum media coverage has basically destroyed her clients career. My impression is that she's exploited Veitch's poor judgement and desire for revenge against his former partner to maximise her fees and help her friends in the industry sell newspapers.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.