Name suppression - again.
Don Mackie
the name of the penis-flapping musician. Her logic makes sense. So
once again, we either have the guessee unfairly stigmatised and his
reputaion harmed (if my daughter is wrong), or the suppression order
is inffective (if she is right). So, remind me what's the point?
WD
It seems amazing that a person who has not yet received due process
can have their name dragged through the mud, yet just because you're a
promiment NZ entertainer you get name suppression forever even when
the fact of your "penis-flapping" has been confirmed in court.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9a2c0fd5-06f6-4097...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Weihana.
-------------
Not naming him is unfair to all the decent performers who are now under
suspicion.
Not to worry, somebody will know and let the cat out of the bag, won't they?
EMB
> Not naming him is unfair to all the decent performers who are now under
> suspicion.
> Not to worry, somebody will know and let the cat out of the bag, won't they?
>
>
Already done - it was all over the Trademe forums a few days ago.
teile
> "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
> It seems amazing that a person who has not yet received due process
> can have their name dragged through the mud, yet just because you're a
> promiment NZ entertainer you get name suppression forever even when
> the fact of your "penis-flapping" has been confirmed in court.
>
> suspicion.
And also to the complainant. She is forever barred from telling
anyone else what happened to her, which seems grossly unfair and
possibly damaging. All to save some disgusting creep's career!
> Not to worry, somebody will know and let the cat out of the bag, won't they?
The sooner the better.
I would like to see the law on suppression amended to make suppression
available only when (1) requested by the prosecution (2) for the
benefit of the complainant or the complainant's family and associates.
LW
Gordon
Because we, the public at large are not certain
WD
Name suppression can often be given to an offender to protect the
identity of a victim. But what about a person who is arrested and
charged yet is in fact innocent of any crime? Isn't such a person
just as much a victim as anyone and shouldn't their identity and
reputation be protected as well? Moreover, isn't everyone innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law?
Surely there should be protections for people who are merely charged
with a crime where the fact of their offending has yet to be
demonstrated in court. However, with this musician his offending has
been confirmed yet he is still protected. It makes no sense.
Weihana.
Gordon
Good grief, no URL or name
teile
> Name suppression can often be given to an offender to protect the
> identity of a victim. But what about a person who is arrested and
> charged yet is in fact innocent of any crime? Isn't such a person
> just as much a victim as anyone and shouldn't their identity and
> reputation be protected as well? Moreover, isn't everyone innocent
> until proven guilty in a court of law?
>
> Surely there should be protections for people who are merely charged
> with a crime where the fact of their offending has yet to be
> demonstrated in court. However, with this musician his offending has
> been confirmed yet he is still protected. It makes no sense.
I agree on all points.
There was, for a while, a law to the effect that all people charged
had name suppression by default. I think, though I may be wrong, that
it was the work of the Kirk government; and it was subsequently
repealed because of protest that guilty people were being protected at
the expense of the community.
To my mind, it would have been better to have restricted the term of
the default suppression until the accused was convicted or discharged
without conviction under s.42. Too often we hear the excuse that is
necessary to publicize a person's name to avoid suspicion falling on
innocent others, which only exacerbates the harm done to the innocent
accused.
And then there's the matter of the innocent person's costs. . . .
LW
A _L_ P
I can't place him at all. What does he do - dance, sing, juggle
flat-irons? Related to the late sexologist and art collector John
Money, I wonder?
A L P
teile
He would have been committing an offence if he had given either.
LW
WD
I was talking about this with someone tonight, whereby I discovered
who the guy was. It's made me rethink my position somewhat on this
(nothing, of course, to do with who he is).
The argument essentially is that the offense in question is at the
very low end of the scale and any average joe would only get
discharged without conviction and a slap on the wrist fine. In this
case, due to the prominence of the musician, revealing his identity
would effect a punishment much more severe than anyone else would
receive and thus out of all proportion to the offense. This is an
important point as punishments should fit the crime and they shouldn't
be excessive or unfair.
Weihana.
A _L_ P
A counter argument is that because of his status he is more likely than
the average joe to have young women paying attention to him and thereby
- foolishly, yes, but in an age-old "moths to fame" response, therefore
society needs more warning about his tendencies than about the average
joe whose opportunities to abuse dizzy girls are comparatively few.
A L P
EMB
> The argument essentially is that the offense in question is at the
> very low end of the scale and any average joe would only get
> discharged without conviction and a slap on the wrist fine. In this
> case, due to the prominence of the musician, revealing his identity
> would effect a punishment much more severe than anyone else would
> receive and thus out of all proportion to the offense. This is an
> important point as punishments should fit the crime and they shouldn't
> be excessive or unfair.
He was discharged without conviction, therefore his international travel
ability was not affected. Naming him would have been a fair (and the
only possible) punishment, otherwise he has got off scot free for a
crime he has admitted.
It is dishonest to make comments about "disproportionate" as even before
he committed the crime he was well aware of what a conviction of this
type would do to his career - like all public figures he has to maintain
a higher standard of behaviour then an unknown if he wishes to maintain
his standing and credibility. IMO this is just another case of softer
justice for the rich and/or famous. See
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10607955
for another example of a well-known entertainer being treated with leniency.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
b06da0...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, WD wrote:
> The argument essentially is that the offense in question is at the
> very low end of the scale and any average joe would only get
> discharged without conviction and a slap on the wrist fine.
He was under the influence of a drug at the time of the offence.
Supposing it happened to be an illegal drug; would you still consider it to
be “at the very low end of the scale”, worthy only of a “slap on the wrist
fine”?
WorkHard
Did he harm anyone else?
Sailor Sam
WorkHard
Well I knew YOU could never answer the question. That's why I
never asked you.
But I also note you continue 'suppress your name here.
Sailor Sam
So that's a no then.
Don Mackie
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <e9266248-f5ce-493d-be30-
Legal or illegal - he has a drug/drink problem in that his drug use
gets him into situations where his judgement is so impaired that he is
at risk of committing crimes and has little or no recall of the event
(aka a blackout). Would be nice to think that problem was fixed before
saying he's unlikely to do it again.
Geopelia
"WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote in message
news:55WdnT0gUtsknGvX...@giganews.com...
What a mature woman might feel is just cheek and laugh off could seem very
different to an innocent virgin.
No doubt she will be offered counselling.
Matty F
The name keeps being added to the TradeMe forums. His "talent" is no
loss at all. The suppression as usual is a complete waste of time. Why
won't judges learn that suppression orders are a complete waste of
time?
teile
> . . . In this
> case, due to the prominence of the musician, revealing his identity
> would effect a punishment much more severe than anyone else would
> receive and thus out of all proportion to the offense. This is an
> important point as punishments should fit the crime and they shouldn't
> be excessive or unfair.
But the extra punishment is not being inflicted by the system; it is
self-inflicted. If it doesn't fit the crime, he has only himself to
blame.
LW
WD
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <e9266248-f5ce-493d-be30-
>
In my personal opinion yes I consider drug possession to be pretty low
level offending but my views don't correspond with how it is actually
treated.
Weihana.
WD
Yet the same applies to every case of name suppression. The
"punishment" is never dished out by the system but can be a reality
nonetheless. Simply pretending that it has nothing to do with the
justice system doesn't really address the issues in my view.
Weihana.
WD
That's a pretty good counter argument. I suppose this would depend on
one's assessment of the individual, his likelihood of reoffending, the
circumstances which led to the offending etc. Dealing with substance
abuse would be important of course.
Weihana.
Petito
> On Nov 7, 3:44 pm, Don Mackie <ooo...@mac.com> wrote:
>> One of my daughters has been sleuthing and come up with a guess as to
>> the name of the penis-flapping musician. Her logic makes sense. So
>> once again, we either have the guessee unfairly stigmatised and his
>> reputaion harmed (if my daughter is wrong), or the suppression order
>> is inffective (if she is right). So, remind me what's the point?
>
>
> can have their name dragged through the mud, yet just because you're a
> promiment NZ entertainer you get name suppression forever even when
> the fact of your "penis-flapping" has been confirmed in court.
>
>
How prominent?
Geopelia
"Matty F" <matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ff4d80d2-70f8-46ca...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I think I've found it, but as I have never heard of the unmentionable person
I'm none the wiser.
So the really famous folks don't have to worry that people will think it was
them.
A _L_ P
I am often astonished at yet another middle aged, middle class
professional whose understanding of the computer extends to the use of
email..... and tentatively typing in double-u double-u double-u
something-or-other copied from a newspaper. Many people "use" computers
at work in the way desk-workers used to fill in paper forms, this one
for new clients' details, this one for mileage claims, the green
notebook for addresses. My guess is that judges have people to even do
most of the form-filling so unless they as individuals have an interest
in using their computer for more than email and some simple browsing
they just don't get it, news isn't suppressible any more. If it's too
risky to put on a blog or group it can be put up very securely on sites
like http://wikileaks.org/ .
A L P
Geopelia
"A _L_ P" <hay.he...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd6ik6$egf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
That's an interesting website, but the anonymous person doesn't seem to be
there.
Perhaps it is just too trivial for the site to bother with.
teile
Embarrassment and public approbation are the result of committing the
crime and being exposed, so I suppose it could be argued that the
justice system contributes to them. But I regard them as a natural
consequence of the crime, not a punishment, and the public desire for
punishment calls for more.
LW
Brian Dooley
Of all the thousands assumed to have some connection with PCs how
many actually do or know more than that. I've been reading about
the death of hard copy for many years but it doesn't seem to have
happened yet. My present pick is that if it doesn't appear in a
newspaper then to all practical purposes it has been suppressed.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
A _L_ P
You probably never registered hearing of him, any more than I did, which
is why you haven't picked up the hints on any sites.
A L P
A _L_ P
Possibly, especially within groups that aren't particularly interested
in him which includes most of the people I know. However if it were
someone we were interested in I can assure you that the computer-savvy
ones would have found out and told the rest of us, and we would have
told our other friends, who would have told.........
Maybe your friends don't do that in which case you'd be right about
suppression working - within some sectors of society.
A L P
John Cawston
I have checked all the NZ singers I know and now fearlessly
declare that the offender was Hayley Westenra. Using Google and
various other internet tricks, I determined this by a process of
elimination, ie, Malvina Major wasn't around and Kiri didn't fit
the parameters of the search I instituted.
JC
>
> A L P
A _L_ P
Unvanished s'Trewth! Wotta hero!
A L P