Posts by Span .
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's the question I always find myself asking about trolls llew. There's got to be a masters thesis in it somewhere ;-)
-
Sadly it seems there are trolls everywhere over this issue :-(
-
I've been avoiding reading too much of the media coverage, but I see the Weekend Herald is kind of backing the complainants, while the SST appear from the front page to be Rickard supporters, but the editorial says otherwise. I got sucked into the vortex of reading the gruesome descriptions in the Herald's saturday coverage and I won't be making that mistake again. I'm angry and upset enough already.
Which is probably hypocritical or something, to not bother following in detail, but actually it's about protecting yourself and meaning you can function and I make no apologies for that.
Craig R, yes it is very eww to be thinking about how Rickards' representation might argue for his job back. It will be interesting to see how public the details of that debate become. It may be of interest to the public, but is it in the public interest to publicise it?
I can't help thinking about Graham Capill in all of this. He denied and denied and denied (or at least claimed some kind of perverted consent), including beyond the point at which he pled guilty.
As for juries, I was on one once, about three years ago, and it was depressing. There were only two men on it and I had the impression that a large majority of those who turn up for jury duty are women. That wasn't the depressing bit. That would be the stupid people who kept repeatedly claiming the defendant hadn't proved he was innocent.
-
It's nice to know I'm living in the Suburb of the Future - especially as the extreme roadworks, lack of cafes and the relentless loud parties at the house on the corner every farking weekend are getting me down.
-
As for the comments Rickards has made since the verdict bringing the police into disrepute, that's a possible grounds for disciplinary action I guess, but I suspect he has a pretty good defence there on the grounds of the extremely emotional situation, strain of the trial, etc. I'm thinking about the arguments I'd make if I was representing Rickards, as disgusting a thought as that is.
And still I feel that those comments would not be enough for dismissal.
Although, having hoped so hard for the verdict in this case to be other than it was, I may now be over compensating with regard to this.
-
I'm waiting until I am less sad and angry to write a proper post on this, but on the issue of Rickards getting his job back:
He has been acquitted, twice now. That gives strong impetus to his claim to be reinstated. I agree with Craig R that probably someone will find enough money to make him go away, and from an employment law sense that is probably what it is going to take, because on the facts to date I'm not convinced that the police could get rid of him justifiably.
I understand that police officers have no code of conduct or code of ethics. If they do now they probably didn't back then, when these rapes were committed. What has Rickards breached? Or, more importantly, what has he breached that would have been the standard in the 1980s? Because having rapists for friends is not going to be enough to fire him justifiably.
-
Sorry, I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to note that this is not the first time that a Family First spokesperson has made outrageous claims on The Panel:
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2006/07/disbelief.htmlI have to say I find that organisation entirely misnamed. I would be very interested to know more about where their funding comes from.
-
Quite possibly more than you would ever suspect David.
Shudder.
-
I think it's genius the way Boag and Edwards are usually paired.
But then I also think that every other panellist should put Deborah Hill Cone on their Not With Me Thanks list.
-
I concur with rodgerd above, Labyrinth has come through the years more kindly than The Dark Crystal which seemed much much longer than I remembered.
Watching Labyrinth again as an adult was disconcerting. I didn't remember the Connelly character (Sarah?) being so young, and I also didn't recall the (now) obvious sexual tension between her and Bowie. Still love it though. The interview with Bowie that's on the DVD is revealing too (although The Bulge is not mentioned).
Babel I found almost entirely unrelentingly bleak. I'm not a big fan on films that make me miserable. What's the point of escaping to somewhere you don't like?