Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
I don't know if anyone else agrees, but the real problem with Campbell Live is that it was initially billed as smart, relevant and substantive daily current affairs for people who were sick of having their intelligence insulted by Paul Holmes.
Aye. I liked what Campbell brought to the mid-show interviews with politicians during TV3 news. There was an appropriate amount of cynicism as he tried to cut through the spin, without a screenful of Holmes wankery.
I used to make time to watch Campbell Live when it started in the hope that it would be a decent in depth news and interview show. Now I only watch it if I see an advert and it happens to be something I'm really interested in.
-
If you want to criticize the actor in the wheelchair for getting something wrong, that's OK. But for not really being the character he portrays?
I think someone should point out that while 'able-bodied' people can play a character in a wheelchair, the reverse doesn't apply. Given that the only role that an actor in a wheelchair can play, is a character in a wheelchair, it'd be nice if they got those roles sometimes. It's not like characters in wheelchairs get that many roles in TV or film to start with.
Unless we don't want people in wheelchairs to aspire to be actors.
-
I should add, without knowing how things happened in this case, you can see things from the prosecution's point of view in practical terms.
On one side they've got a woman alleging rape, on the other side they've probably got six people saying that it was consensual, and then a related transcript of a conversation between the woman and one of the guys saying that she might be interested in group sex. Even if the prosecutor believes the woman, they will be looking at the jury and thinking "there's no way I'm going to get a conviction with this". Crappy, but if there's no chance of conviction... would be a waste of everyone's time and money.
It does seem that the ways that rapes are treated in court hasn't yet caught up with where they should be, though some progress has been made over the past 50 years. It seems to me that the two components for something to be rape (or sexual assault) is:
1. The sexual activity taking place.
2. No explicit or implicit consent given (or that consent withdrawn).Other matters, particularly what a person said or did beforehand, how they were dressed, doesn't really matter, and our laws should reflect that. If a woman turns up for sex with one guy, and finds five more in the bedroom, all she needs to say is 'no' and the law should support that (as much as 1. evidence, and 2. conflicting stories from both sides, allow).
-
Do you think, in rape cases generally, statements complainants have made about their sexual desires towards men who are not the defendant(s) are always relevant? How far back in time?
I think back to puberty would be fair. Anything before that would be well... icky. We're not unreasonable. Just note what revealing clothing you were wearing and any flirting that you partook in.
If you're a guy however, just back to the last time you sobered up. Or just after your woman burnt your eggs. Or y'know, whatever.
-
It's also 'Soft on Details' and only moderately 'Firm on Principles.'
Lol.
-
icely done! Linkage?
Heh. I don't see your name on it Giovanni.
-
Damian, the BSA link in your posting is broken.
-
When I came over from Italy (which is where I am originally from) I could bring a limited number of books and it was an interesting exercise.
I'm currently preparing to move house (not quite as far) and have decided to get rid of about half my books. My collection of fantasy books have all gone up on trademe. I kept history books - particularly in my area of academic interest - and a couple of dozen personal favourites (mostly comedy - Ben Elton, Bill Bryson), plus about 15 or so novels that people have given me which are in my 'to be read' pile.
I used to read so much in my youth, and now I'm more a watcher of TV and DVDs, it kinda feels like I don't really have a personal canon.
-
Not beyond reasonable doubt. It looks like she has been lying for 6 months and these men have been kept in prison on the basis of her being a credibly truthful person.
That whole blaming the victim thing Emma sometimes mentions?
-
It depends exactly what it was she said online. If all she did was discuss her group sex fantasy, then why should she disclose that to the prosecution? It should be irrelevant.
Any half decent investigation into a sexual assault should also find out how the victim knew the accused, and what happened in the time leading up to the assault. If the police and/or the prosecutor didn't ask those questions, they weren't doing their job.
What happens before the woman says 'no', doesn't change it being rape. But it's sure as hell going to come up and have an impact upon the court hearing. Only an act of parliament is going to make that go away.