Posts by Julie Fairey
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Veitch is the "least interesting part of the incident"? WTF? I'm sorry, I just don't get that at all.
-
Yeah I haven't seen much "Veitch is a monster" angling going on. I've seen a lot of concern that he isn't actually taking responsibility for what he's done, and there are a lot of people like Holmes helping him with maintaining that position. I'm not sure how calling Veitch on that, and in particular on the bits of his statements to the media that don't match up with what is slowly congealing into a likely scenario of what happened.
Ultimately it's to his own detriment - a key part of rehabilitation is understanding what you did, taking responsibility for it, and learning about the bits of you that need to change so you don't do it again. It's been said before, here and elsewhere, but Robbery you seem to keep missing the bit where the commenters who are appalled at Veitch's lack of sincere remorse point that out (showing they do believe in redemption).
As for Wellington owing Dunedin for Anna, I agree Kyle. And there goes The Hand Mirror's token South Islander ;-)
-
I heard the tail end of a woman from Preventing Violence in the Home on the radio the other day talking about domestic violence and she reckoned that it was quite rare for someone to just out of the blue commit serious violence of this nature, usually there was some escalation and other lower level violence first (possibly with other people, in different contexts, whatever). Didn't hear the whole thing though.
Things like that radio interview and this thread did prompt me to help poor Mr Holmes out with his interviews, by suggesting a few questions he possibly, you know maybe, if he felt like it, could have asked Veitch.
-
A way back someone pointed out that calling someone a lesbian isn't actually an insult... It seems to me that a lot of the "dykocracy" discourse is about not really dealing with the fact that there are powerful women in our country these days, and I don't just mean Alison Holst.
Someone mentioned the new NBR column using the title "Helengrad" - my understanding is that this is David Farrar's weekly missive, is that right?
-
I too have been pondering why Key wants to be PM. I don't buy the "I'm ambitious for NZ" line, especially given there appears to be nothing specific he is (prepared to openly state) ambitious for NZ to do/achieve/be, or at least nothing that actually means anything real.
On the private jet thing, I thought this was actually quite a savvy answer from Key, sort of a man-in-the-street answer. Saying you'd give it all to charity is the kind of worthy response that people expect from Clark, and although it may be sincere it probably doesn't appeal to those who aren't already supporters. Whereas Key's response would make a lot of people who are heading in National's direction think "now there's an honest bugger, not like a politician at all (a la Don Brash) and actually I'd get a private jet too if I won a billion."
Does rather beg the question though - with all his dosh why doesn't Key already have a private jet? Lack of ambition?
-
Susan I agree completely about the issues around rehabilitation that you have raised (and which may have also been raised earlier in this mega-thread, I forget!) That's where my thinking is starting to head too, but I get distracted by the very loaded media coverage of this Veitch thing - the Holmes article, the women's mag covers, the feedback coming from talkback - which makes it hard sometimes to remember that ultimately we do all need to be able to live together, again. And that probably (hopefully) the vast majority do accept that it isn't ok (when a lot of the media coverage seems to be of the "no excuses except to say" ilk).
I think there is still a lot of anger flying around, outrage that gets freshly stoked as the details (confirmed or otherwise) are drip-fed and Veitch's earlier comments (in particular to Holmes) become questionable. Instead of focusing on what next we end up in this cycle of "hang on, what actually happened here in the first place?" over and over again. When, as many contributors to this thread have pointed out, I'm not sure it really matters exactly what happened - Veitch himself has admitted an incident of domestic violence, and we know the outcome for the victim was 4 months off work, a wheelchair for a significant period of time, and a mental breakdown. The dots you can confidently join there mean we are talking about serious violence.
Anyway, I think Holmes' approach in particular has meant that many people now have lots more questions (I know I do and I'm going to post something about it as time allows), but it's good that there are also people, here and elsewhere, focusing on the what next too - what do we do with those who admit domestic violence, how do we stop it happening again, how do we respect the rights of victims whilst not writing off the perpetrator?
If a public discussion that actually goes somewhere on this issue, building on the It's Not Ok campaign, is the legacy of this Veitch thing then that would be great. And to that end the continual silence of the Sensible Sentencing Trust on this matter is probably a good thing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks 3410, I couldn't find it last week, glad to see it is up :-)
-
My reference to EAP in my last comment should read Employee Assistance Programme, not Employer, sorry!