Bail hearing for Mallard

November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 am by David Farrar

My views on Trevor Mallard’s behaviour are well known but I think it is preposterous, and the private prosecution starts to look considerably vindictive, when bail is oppossed.

I previously blogged that I didn’t support the private prosecution, and this just reaffirms my concerns.

It is obvious to everyone that in no way does Mallard (even if guilty of assault) not qualify for bail.  There is a 0.0000000001% chance he will not get bail. It is being done just to humiliate him by forcing him to argue why he is not a flight risk/risk to the community etc. Now some may say – sure but that’s a good thing.  My response is – not by abusing the court and judicial process.

Tags:

174 Responses to “Bail hearing for Mallard”

  1. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    It seems like somebody likes playing silly buggers. I can understand the reasons for a private prosecution, because the aim is to show that Labour Party MPs are not above the law – but opposing bail is just petty and vindictive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    But you can probably understand why, given the governments own recent abuses of power, some people are happy to see Mallard humiliated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. cubit9f (356 comments) says:

    This nonsense would have been avoided if the Speaker had fulfilled her responsibilities by dealing with it in-house in parliament. Instead she looked for a way to avoid carrying out her duty.

    Perhaps the circus is now best conducted in the court. If Mallard is embarrassed, so what? How does he think Erin Leigh feels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Stop being a softcock, the Duck is a `dirty` politician who is quite prepared to take advantage of priviledge to stick the knife into whomsoever he pleases. Let this piece of nastiness finally be put in a position where his actual insignificance is recognised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. david (2,535 comments) says:

    what kehua said

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    I hope the judge realizes that this case is paramount in maintaining the honour in the highest court in the land . Parliament should not be sullied by such appalling irrational behaviour and despicable violence , because what signal does this send too the rest of the country ? No wonder kids are violent – look at their political role models !! This nasty public servant abused his privileged position , broke the law and the judge must take this very seriously as the integrity and dignity ( lol ) of the government is at stake . I hope the judiciary can see the utmost importance and remand this head case violent duck nutbar in police custody until a trial date can be entered into the justice system . He must be taken from the community before he attacks another member of the public . He is a very good Labour role model – nice one Helen .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    D4J: I hope the judge realizes that this case is paramount in maintaining the honour in the highest court in the land.

    I would think they would treat it with the respect it deserves. This is an important case, which is why I think opposing his request for bail turns it into something petty, rather than something serious. It seems about as cheap as the political point scoring that happens in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (10,097 comments) says:

    Agree 110% with cubit. Margaret Wilson tried to sweep this under the carpet. Good on Graham McCready for taking out the private prosecution, his absolute right under the law, although opposing bail is taking it a bit far. Had Wilson had the moral fortitude to act on the matter, instead of playing small-minded partisan politics, then Mallard could have had his “day in court” amonst his peers on the Privileges Committee, and there the matter might have ended. Instead, another Labour MP goes to Court. This must be the most “investigated-by-the-police” government in the Western world!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (13,249 comments) says:

    DPF

    Labour have abused the judicial process for the last eight years, while I agree that opposing bail is going a bit far they (Labour) need to be taught that they are not above the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Do MP’s have a hand book on what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in Parliament ?

    After all the circus of twisted socialists that pollute the building with bilious bullshit are costing the broken arse tax payer an arm and a fucking leg . These parasitic deluded pricks think they can away with anything !! Keep pushing Clark you @@@@

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Tauhei Notts (1,604 comments) says:

    Big Bruv.
    You are “right on”.
    It would be terribly unjust to oppose bail for a nobody like Sandra Goudie, but Mallard is a badly tempered thug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Linda Reid (396 comments) says:

    There is no need for a handbook. Everyone knows what good, ethical behaviour is and if this lot can’t behave that way they they should bugger off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. milo (538 comments) says:

    What are the odds on some witness tampering?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. david (2,535 comments) says:

    Noh, the judge will find that there is no jurisdiction for offences carried out in the precincts of Parliament by members of the ruling junta unless invited to participate by the Speaker. This despite there being a prima facie case of physical assault. BTW how does a smack in the chops compare with a smack on the backside on a scale of 1 to 10? anyone?

    Nothing to see here folks, move right along

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lindsay Addie (1,129 comments) says:

    Mallard should simply point the judge to the law of common sense and explain how it applies to his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    When the parliament starts to screw with the way the law is applied (and I can think of several examples of government MPs not being taken thru the law when they should have) then one can only expect that members of the public will start to take actions that seem as unreasonable as the MP’s actons have been.

    If the speaker and the police had proceeded with actions as they would against anyone else, then they will the support of the public for the process of aspplying the law, but if they dont, then no one else will either.
    And the longer the MP’s screw wuth things, the longer the reaction will be.

    Since whacking Henare, Mallard has attached the integrity of that woman from the (I think it was) DOC and one could put up a good arguement that as an MP he is dangerous and is liable to ‘reoffend’ with his actions in the house and as such he should be removed from society for the safety of members of society. safety doesnt just cover physical actions and we all know what a acidic tongue Mallard has.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Hold on a minute , as justice is the game and as expierenced dealer I say that if this matter is to proceed , will it be a criminal matter which I presume is normal for this type of violence ? If it is, then Crown must oppose bail, as the Country and it’s reputation are at stake . Surely , just imagine the huge out cry if two judge’s had a punch up ( or cat fight ) in the Supreme Court building ? Get my drift , police must oppose bail . Who is the crown Prosecutor on this ? Boy if only ?? One day roger , one day nome !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    The situation would not have occurred if the police have not acted in such a bias way in regard selectively only charging opposition MPs. The first case was that of Helen Clark signing a painting she did not paint. The next serious case was David Benson Pope. In both cases there was a prima facie case of serious crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Helen Clark thinks prima facie is the name of a pet cat belonging to the Dame ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Members of Parliament, State Servants and all other persons in the Service of the Crown are the most privileged and protected people in the country, from the long arm of the Law.

    Breaches of the Crimes Act 1961 are not labelled as that – they are According to Helen Clark: “Errors of Judgement” and treated accordingly as In House Inquiries, Privileges Committee Inquiries or Disciplinary Tribunal Hearings, and people are given Golden handshakes or promotions.

    Good on Graham McCready for testing the law to the full. I am surprised he has got so far, in view of the following communication 9 November 2007 from the Office of the Commissioner:

    “I refer you to the Bill of Rights 1688 Section 1 having application in New Zealand by virtue of the Imperial Laws Aplication Act 1988. The relevant portion states:

    “That the freedoms of speech and debates or proceeddings in Parlyamsnt ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”.

    Note the section says”Ought not to be”! Perhaps it is time it was tested in the court and shown that MPs are not above the Law.

    Look at the latest developement in the Field case. Appeal now to the Supreme Court on the fechnicality of the charge brought by Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    But but but didnt Tau grab his tie first……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    I just had a brainwave smack me in the head via Bat antenna’s situated on Mars . The coded incoming message has been decoded by the lovely Pamela – it reads ; We have found the present Labour Government Official Handbook for ALL MP’s and its called the CRIMES ACT . Over and out clever trevor mauler ?
    Cheers from Mars .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “But but but didnt Tau grab his tie first……..’

    Let a jury decide .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Maybe Graham McCready is going a little over-board, but a petty and vindictive Labour Party hasn’t got any grounds for complaint when some one else decides to act in a petty and vindictive way!

    I bet todays developments will engender a smile from: John Banks, Nick Smith, Shane Arden, and the obedient motorcade drivers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. GPT1 (2,088 comments) says:

    To be honest I would be annoyed with the police if they dealt with a similar situation in any other way than a summons – even police bail (residential) would seem excessive. At best the Informant could expect bail, perhaps with a residential condition (although I would argue that is unnecessary) rather than a remand at large but to oppose bail is nothing short of ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. GerryandthePM (328 comments) says:

    Frank. quoted:

    “That the freedoms of speech and debates or proceeddings in Parlyamsnt ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”.

    How does that cover this situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gazzaj (106 comments) says:

    At some point Mallard is going to start looking like a victim and get public sympathy for what most people have already forgotten and never really cared too much about anyway… opposing bail just speeds that up.

    He’s probably *happy* to have bail opposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    dad4justice Says:
    November 30th, 2007 at 9:51 am
    “But but but didnt Tau grab his tie first……..’
    Let a jury decide .

    surely this wont go to jury?
    will Tau be called as a witness?
    will there be CCTV footage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Max; I presume it is not a civil matter , camera footage will be evidence in criminal proceedings ? I am only a bush lawyer of no significance . Maybe you could ask one of your learned friends as to how this one will go . Crimes Act or not ? Keep it simple . Yes or no ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hemi (20 comments) says:

    d4j: “No wonder kids are violent – look at their political role models”

    Kids use political figures as role models? Times have changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Clearly D4J, you dont take any notice of people who post here, or else you would know I was being facetious….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Just to refresh your memory Max , the Labour Mangere MP Phillip Field was charged under section 103 of the Crimes Act . What section of the ACT will direct matters in this case ? Or will it be just another prima facie case swept under the carpet ? I think so .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Quite the contrary Bevan, and I do apologize and I just love that word “facetious….”

    A unique attribute of human beings is our sense of humour . Laughter transcends all human beings . Cheers dude , must go as litigation waits for no -one . The wheels of justice just keep on keeping on . At least it won’t be busy – its judges golf day . FOUR !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    if CCTV footage is used in evidence does the public get to see it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    “Maybe you could ask one of your learned friends as to how this one will go . Crimes Act or not ? Keep it simple . Yes or no ?”

    I have no solicitor friends

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    GerryandthePM. It is a question I have asked myself? So how does 2007 deal with 1688?

    The Section1 was raised by the police in answer to a complaint I lodged against MP’s – viz a possible breach of the Crimes Act 1961. They used it as an excuse for not proceeding with my complaint.

    They State: “You appear to be inviting the Commissioner to take action under the Crimes Act” and quoted the Bill of Rights Act 1688 section1.

    “Accordingly, this matter will be taken no further.”

    So in the Field case why is it sauce for the Goose but not for the Gander?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. berend (1,632 comments) says:

    What’s the risk of Mallard reoffending?

    I think they have a case here…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    The wheels of justice just keep on keeping on . At least it won’t be busy – its judges golf day . FOUR !!!

    Fore?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “I have no solicitor friends”

    Sorry to tarnish your good name Max Call .

    berend ; you have a valid point , as his recent outburst in Parliament would indicate under lining problems and violence issues deep within the man . He needs treatment .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    And isn’t Mallard’s lawyer arguing television cameras should be excluded from the court, because footage would haunt him for the rest of his political career? (I thought I heard a report to that effect on National Radio earlier, but I may have misheard.

    If I didn’t miss anything, its rather ironic considering the number of widely-reported smears he’s launched under the protection of Parliamentary privilege…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. david (2,535 comments) says:

    Pascal
    “For sure” you can then add the seabed and all the problems are solved. The tangata whenua invented golf!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Really Maori invented golf . Great stuff , did the judges play golf with Moa Egg s way back then ? Talk about Crackpots today . I would’ve hate being the green keeper , just imagine the size of the holes you have to dig ? The 19th hole would have been very interesting to watch from a distance .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. david (2,535 comments) says:

    Craig,
    You raise a good point about the “Absolute Privilege” of statements in the house.
    Given that the current speaker has been able to weasel the party’s way out of any Breach of Privilege complaints and has now made it almost impossible for claims of “misleading the house” to be heard (let alone successful), surely there must be a good case for the (re) introduction of some sort of accountability on MPs.

    The modern media situation and live broadcasting of proceedings certainly are a lot different from the days of coffee shop tabloids and longhand reporting and consequently the damage done by what would otherwise be slanderous or libelous (I always get mixed up about which is which) is much much greater and instant to boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    If bail is denied maybe he could share a cell with Burton. We might find out if he is really as tough as his reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Has Burton found a team member for the three legged race ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    LOL What goes around comes around.

    Mallard deserves everything he gets.

    He is a small minded vicious little punk and DPF and others are being far to kind to him.

    He has abused his position as have most of the cretins who occupy the Parliament.

    He and they have continued to treat the good citizens with contempt and now its our turn.

    As the saying goes “Every dog has his day “.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    “Has Burton found a team member for the three legged race ?”

    Margaret Wilson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. george (398 comments) says:

    He should be locked up, but in a nuthouse not a prison. He has an extreme anger management problem that needs serious treatment, perhaps ECT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    It’ll all end in a brief home detention and a slap on the wrist in the short term

    In the long run it’ll leave him in opposition. I think Phil will want him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Madam speaker Margaret Wilson. Yes well Johnboy . The less said about her by me the better, as I could serve a life time ban describing my thoughts on her . It would only take one sentence , however the bigger picture , the total destruction of the Labour Party is my objective . They are making it so easy for us critic’s . The Mallard is a loose cannon . He must be sacked ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. david (2,535 comments) says:

    george, they say that a pre-frontal lobotomy is pretty effective. But given that he only has half a brain it migt be contra-indicated in his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Cacofinix says…

    “I just had a brainwave smack me in the head ”

    “I have no friends”

    lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. david (2,535 comments) says:

    Where is the TDF (Troll Defence Force)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Thanks hinamanu , cowards just can’t ease up, can they folks . I have no respect for such a low life as yourself . Why do you persist ? What a sad life you lead ? Get back on your pills you twisted lunatic fuck !! Face to face cowards run which makes the internet a breeding ground for wimpish nerds like Miss Hinamoo cow pat !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    ok, ok

    that WAS underhanded. you’ve taught me well.

    I will say i still believe you had a go at me yesterday with another alias.

    You have to admit I never change, unlike some.

    Hinamoo is always Hinamoo

    not D4J/John/blah blah blah.

    anyway, just couldn’t resist.

    Now we even for yesterday,, despite your denials.

    When you change persona, you need to change your script.

    I mean, really!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. big bruv (13,249 comments) says:

    D4D

    I agree with some of what you say but for goodness sake man take a bloody chill pill as you are coming across as a complete nutter.

    Leave the ranting and loony talk to the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    hinamanu – You are not only a pathological liar but also a cowardly vindictive women . I have one name dad4justice that I blog under , check with Google . Interesting to note you are by far ( except for roger nome ) the most frequent visitor to my blog . Well the visitor records are so interesting and please stop it Helen ? Everything is above board my end . Can I link to your blog . Fuck off you sadist creep !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    If I am the most frequent visitor to your blog, then you really do have no friends. Been there twice. Once out of plain nosiness (b4 I knew your poisonous character)

    A second to check a reference.

    Therefore you have just made it glaringly plain your blog is a desert with no oasis of thought, hope or light. Just a deep dark abyss.

    Now, lets get down to brass tacks. I know I turn you on and you wish your perversity upon my well endowed form you have concocted in your depraved mind that thinks I am seducing you because you are sooo warped.

    Sorry to pop the bubble, I’m male.

    And those two visits were very far between.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Mallard deserves everything he gets and more. He’s behaved like a bullying thug representing a corrupt and arrogant government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “I agree with some of what you say but for goodness sake man take a bloody chill pill as you are coming across as a complete nutter.”

    I agree big bruv . I do wonder if the rotten hinamanu snake would call me a person with a “depraved mind ” to my face . Yeah right . Your comments big bruv are wise ?

    Have a good day mate .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Your comments big bruv are wise ?”

    well,,

    If you’re going to take some ones common sense to heart, I’ll bother you no longer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    After your comments yesterday may I suggest a few pissed off prison wardens would really like to catch up , and they will bother you . End .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    I don’t think applying for bail will be humiliating for anyone except those opposing it. When they explain why Mallard is a flight risk, they will look very silly. To explain why he is not will be a matter of one sentence. But the entire case is basically silly, so this turn is not a surprising addition to the existing farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. PM of NZ (66 comments) says:

    hinamanu:
    “I will say i still believe you had a go at me yesterday with another alias.”

    No it wasn’t cacofinix whoever he might be or d4j – it was me. I ignored it yesterday, but since you are still looking out for big brother, it had nothing to do with either of them at all.

    Nice though to see a Labour MP about to be fronted outside of parliamentary privilege in the same courts the sheeple are dragged through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “No it wasn’t cacofinix whoever he might be or d4j – it was me. I ignored it yesterday, but since you are still looking out for big brother, it had nothing to do with either of them at all.”

    Thank you PM of NZ.

    Apology hinamanu and the deplorable comment on my blog left 10 minutes ago by you is sickening . What prison do you have your computer based ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    you two will bve black mailing me next

    You apologise to me then then state I left a deplorable comment on your blog in one foul breath.

    I hardly feel victimised by your sad attempt to discredit me.

    You need to really think about yourself

    And look up the dictionary to find what the word ‘end’ means.

    These last two posts are complete jokes.

    lol, lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Sorry about this himamanu thread jacker – any bets it is Georgina Beyer ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    you mean Georgina who wants a gina.

    Could well be, very astute thinking.

    is that why you two are connecting so well.

    Is something or someone coming out ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    D4J.
    I thought from your posts earlier this morning that you must be on new medication and starting to sound like a real sound cohesive human.
    But know, as the morning has gone on, you have turned back into the lunitic that you usually are. That’s a shame as some of your earlier comments where worth reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Well,,

    After that little pearl, I can see my lobs done.

    I’m off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Thanks John Dalley my old mate , hinamanu and explain the word “lunitic”, as I don’t understand socialist suckhole lickspittle language frothed up by twisted sisters on communist acid .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    Maybe Mallard is going to jail. While on my way to work this morning (So I can keep up my support for the WINZ clientelle) I spotted him in the duckmobile heading towards his old abode this morning, maybe to pack an overnight bag. You know old punchbag, Helen posters to brighten up the cell walls, Photo of Vernon Pugh holding a heinekin in a suggestive manner, that sort of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    And before you start hinamanmoo – I am going whitebaiting NOW – it is my last tide . I will laugh if I catch a red fish ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    “lunitic” = Socialist term for a blood sucking leech that comes from a different planet than the rest of us.

    Most of the Labour Cabinet are lunitics.

    Their earthly leader is called Tickey Sullen.

    Hope this clears it up for you D4J.

    Never forget the socialist scum are sad victims of their own education system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Well, DPF – looks like youre are a lone voice in the wilderness on this one – and more than just in the wilderbess, but youre facing into the wind as well.

    Mallard is a bum who deserves all he gets and even though he will probably be let off or get off it somehow, he will still have a lot due to him for his parliamentary behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    You are right Barry, Mallard deserves all he gets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    99.99 % chance the case will be dismissed by the judge due to the private prosecution not offering any evidence.
    I understand that henare mallard and a parliamentary employee were the only witnesses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Evidence depends on what the prosecution will bring. Id say there’s plenty of evidence – radio reports, TV interviews (as long as hes taped them as i doubt TV1 will be allowed to pass them on) news paper reports, Mallards own apology to parliament and his admission that he did whack henare and that he shouldnt have done it etc. Id say that it would drop him completely in the shite. If he tried to withdraw his parliamentry comments then he’d be in breach of misleading Parliament.
    It depends on the judge a bit – but if the judge applied the law fully, then trev would be closer to Barton than he ever thought he might be.

    Then he’d REALLY have something to be worried about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I think Mr McCready should show compassion and not oppose bail for the Trev provided he surrendered his passport to the court. The case is unlikely to be heard for the better part of a year so such an action would result in substantial savings to the taxpayer and a reduced carbon footstep for the Trev.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Helen Clark (11 comments) says:

    Now listen you lot – Ill not let Trev be made a fool of. Hes done a good job of this himself and enough is enough……..!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “The case is unlikely to be heard for the better part of a year .”

    Unfortunately, the court won’t order home detention for his bail conditions for a year and by the time the case is heard trev will be close to sitting in opposition seats.

    Will he bother continuing a political career. Only David Benson-Popes clutching at straws tell me yes.

    No shame, no honour, no pride.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    David et al – while I share the general thrust of your sentiments about the pointlessness and vindictiveness of this exercise, will you be saying the same thing in 9-12 months time when the Government is using the forces of the State to challenge every piece of advertising/electioneering/opinion sharing issued by their opponents – thereby forcing those same opponents to burn up their own resources defending said advertising/electioneering/opinion sharing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    I see tonight the pressure is really coming on to make some sort of apology to the poor woman who’s reputation he maligned in Parliament. A second helping of humble pie me thinks, served with a large laxative, as the man is obviously full of it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. redbus (106 comments) says:

    I hope the judge realizes that this case is paramount in maintaining the honour in the highest court in the land.
    - Yet you can’t manage to spell ‘realise’ in the mainstream language of the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Cactus Kate (545 comments) says:

    It is rather lovely that Mallard’s only explanation for the assault may be provocation and defending honour for something said in the House regarding a woman who according to Mallard himself does not actually exist as a factor in his life because they have never actually met, “Sharon”.

    Yet he recently maligned the reputation of another woman, one who actually does exist, Erin Leigh, in the House. No one asked him to come outside and punched him for that.

    No bail. And no sympathy with that. Readers are right, DPF, on this issue you are soft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. redbus (106 comments) says:

    This nonsense would have been avoided if the Speaker had fulfilled her responsibilities…”
    - She did. The event happened outside of Parliament, in the lobby… That is not an area she has control over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “It is rather lovely that Mallard’s only explanation for the assault may be provocation and defending honour for something said in the House regarding a woman…”

    This was Helen’s defence of her minister. Yet when Don Brash deferred in arguing with her as a female, this same woman scoffed at the gentlemanly approach.

    so Helen, you want men to be gentlemen or not.

    Or are only your ministers gentlemen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    redbus: I thought it had already been established that the speaker does, in fact, have jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. redbus (106 comments) says:

    I thought it had already been established that the speaker does, in fact, have jurisdiction.
    - Had it? I hadn’t been informed. When did that come about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “- Yet you can’t manage to spell ‘realise’ in the mainstream language of the land.”

    Really redbus , why bother bout spulling as Ministir of Education says FUCK it and the children go haha .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Redbus:

    You take the same degree of interest in grammar and punctuation as Robinsod. Sheer coincidence? You’re not the alter-ego of Robinsod, or anyone else at The Standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Lindsay Addie (1,129 comments) says:

    What Cactus Kate said,

    This is the same POS that smeared Erin Leigh in Parliament in a cowardly manner who according to the item on TV3 tonite whose career has been hurt. The guy has serious issues and deserves what he has coming to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. kiki (425 comments) says:

    He closed our high school, spat on our community and screwed us over so it is good to see someone take revenge on him. We only managed to give Sutton the arse Mallard just walked away so petty vindictive, I say good. It matches his personality.

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    POC I think you will find redbus is the sub standard bus as it has the same odour ,oops I mean toxic fumes . I hope they have a boxing ring at the back of the bus so clever trevor can practice a few jabs while traveling the State Highway’ s . No doubt the clapped out red bus smokes diesel fumes and is driven by a drug crazed socialist suckhole ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “This is the same POS that smeared Erin Leigh in Parliament in a cowardly manner who according to the item on TV3 tonite whose career has been hurt. The guy has serious issues and deserves what he has coming to him.”

    But how much of this will actually come up ion the court case.

    I can’t see it expanding to this depth.

    Unless he pleads not guilty and goes b4 a jury, fine details will not be involved. He’ll take the rap, what else is there to do. Why give a prosecution case the light of day and go through all the gory details that would lead to facing all the embarrassing issues.

    Cacofinix who claims to be a lawyer should’ve spelt all this out ages ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “Cacofinix who claims to be a lawyer should’ve spelt all this out ages ago.”

    Is anybody else notice this odd fixation ? A bush lawyer I said , I don’t get invited into chambers where the deals are done .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    I think those advocating “no bail” are enjoying the moment, but missing the point.

    Mallard has a worse reputation than a pseudo-chef in a dodgy back-alley restaurant. Having said that, a judge considering the bail application won’t be the slightest bit interested in Mallard’s track record. The issue won’t (and shouldn’t) be about any perceived hypocrisy between bopping Henare outside the House and besmirching Erin Leigh under parliamentary privilege.

    The issue will (and should) be the merits of bail in relation to the charges. On that score, Mallard will be treated the same as anyone else charged with common assault. And in this case it’s a slam-dunk for Mallard, so wasting valuable court time. I don’t know if costs follow the event in private criminal prosecutions, as in civil proceedings – does anyone know? If so, then Graham McCready can expect a bill in the post (in addition to Mr Lithgow QC’s preparation and appearance fee).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Rex Widerstrom (5,257 comments) says:

    dad4justice asks:

    Do MP’s have a hand book on what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in Parliament ?

    Yes they do, it’s called Standing Orders and is publicly available (831k pdf file).

    I’d refer you to page 115 (Parliamentary Privilege and breaches thereof) which at page 117 under “Examples of Contempts” lists:

    (l) assaulting, threatening or intimidating a member or an
    officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s
    or the officer’s duty:
    (m) obstructing or molesting a member or an officer of the House
    in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty

    Could there be a clearer case of contempt as defined in Standing Orders than the case which has been hand-balled to the court, when in fact it is correctly (in the absence of a complaint to the police by Tau Henare) a matter for the Privileges Committee?!

    I completely agree with cubit9f’s first paragraph (at 8.10 am) and I think that backs up his/her assertion that the Speaker has failed in her duty, leading to this preposterous situation.

    Whatever the finding against Mallard, my hope is that the judge in this case has the cojones to point out the foregoing in his ruling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Lindsay Addie (1,129 comments) says:

    Doubt if Wilson will do anything about using the standing orders on Mallard.
    She’s too biased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “I don’t know if costs follow the event in private criminal prosecutions, as in civil proceedings – does anyone know?”

    From the bush telegraph POC , surely it is in the public best interests (as he was a MP when the alleged offending occurred ) that the whole matter of costs should be argued that this is one of those rare cases in which full indemnity of costs should be considered ? surely this is serious enough to warrant that ? considering the circustances ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Rex:

    I guess there’s some wiggle-room in the qualifying words “in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty”. One could argue that Henare wasn’t doing anything especially dutiful in the parliamentary lobby. He just happened to be there because Mallard had invited him outside the chamber :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Hi Rex – just imagine what would happened if you asked a judge to ” step outside ” from his fortress chambers so he could get punched in the head ?

    Cell in .5 of a second after severe police beating . Oh well I guess he really is Clever Trevor and the Blockheads ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    D4J:

    I’ve found the answer – having looked back at the (unsuccessful) private criminal prosecution that followed the Waitara affair – the Steven Wallace case:

    Two Queens Counsel lawyers did not bill the Wallace family for their advice but the cost of bringing a private prosecution is still crippling for them says John Rowan, QC.

    The Wallace family were not eligible for legal aid because it applied only to defendants. Because it was a private prosecution, they were responsible for many court-related costs such as witnesses, transport and accommodation.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3008063

    Costs will follow the event, and whatever the ultimate outcome, McCready may be pinged for wasted court time in relation to the bail application.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    POC,,

    thanx for that post on the Wallaces. I had no idea they were still fighting the crown. for myself , I am sure that officer resorted to shooting far too early.

    He would have had a baton and pepper spray.

    Were these two very valid points ascertained at the original inquest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    It would be a tragedy that this got struck out “in its entirety” and any crown costs awarded for vexatious litigation relating to the bail matter, as McCready is acting in the publics’ best interests ? Isn’t he ? Yes , surely New Zealand hasn’t stooped that low ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    It’s an article dating back to 6 December 2002, so not current. Another article states: “The inquest was adjourned in 2001 when the Wallace family brought a private murder prosecution against Senior Constable Keith Abbott. He was acquitted by a jury”:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=124&objectid=10455770

    As to your other question, my vague recollection (without checking) is that the police had neither batons nor pepper spray with them, although they considered going back to retrieve them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “is that the police had neither batons nor pepper spray with them, although they considered going back to retrieve them.”

    but I thought the officer involved was acting on his own.

    You mean he already had colleagues with him who attended a violent confrontation without the nessecary defense weapons ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    No. The second article states: “The two police officers at the scene of the fatal shooting of Waitara man Steven Wallace should have formulated a plan before approaching him, Hamilton District Court Coroner Gordon Matenga has found”.

    Anyway, I only raised the Wallace case for its relevance to court costs for a private prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “The two police officers at the scene of the fatal shooting of Waitara man Steven Wallace should have formulated a plan before approaching him..”

    no, no, no.

    This sounds terrible. These officers are sposed to be professionals.

    They sounded inexperienced with no procedure for the event.

    they attended a call out that must’ve sounded serious from the beginning

    And as with the Aramoana incident, one individual was allowed to dominate where a number of police failed to execute their duty professionally, diligently and competently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    David Farrar this hinamanu is purposely changing the subject , surely you must see this ? Work this snake out, as I have . It is so obvious who it is .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. valeriusterminus (245 comments) says:

    So will this McCready guy lodge a private prosecution the next time he sees some “biffo” on the rugby/league Field.? A failure to do this will expose him as a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    valeriusterminus , League field or parliament house for a bit of biffo . I guess one was a leaguee and the other a duck, so what matters eh , lets all smack the crap out of each other eh ? Good one Helen !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Hate to point fingers but POC started this thread jack.

    I will say I do thank him for the info as it raised questions I did not know, esp that the officer accused was not in fact dealing with the suspect alone as I first thought.

    I think I had the right to ask the questions since the controversial subject was bought up. Although the history was older than I knew.

    The families appeal has obviously been dis-continued.

    No incorrect protocol on my part.

    some people should understand the great grace and patience that has been afforded them on this blog instead of trying to sabotage another and claim bizarre group support for themselves against an unoffensive individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. thehawkreturns (162 comments) says:

    Since Klark “respects” Sharia Islamic Law so much (including the flogging of rape victims) then no doubt she will be pleased to see this moronic bully
    sent to gaol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. valeriusterminus (245 comments) says:

    dad4j: Agreed – biffo is never acceptable, – but I suspect there is more of an irrational tolerance for this in sport – even if televised to our kids.
    We just need to expose McCready for what he is – and what he has done – his prosecution is purely political, – must have learned something from Lockett? 76/82
    Otherwise; the moral assertion, the courts would be brimming with prosecutions from McCready.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    Hate to point fingers but POC started this thread jack.

    That’s unfair. Please read my 9:12 pm comment – my reference was quite relevant to the discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Reg (544 comments) says:

    After watching the visible distress of Erin Liegh this evening any remaining sympathy I have for Mallard has evaporated.
    Helen’s attack dog has bitten one too many innocents, it time for him to be politically euthanised.
    Although McCready’s case is unlikely to succeed, I’m now of the view that he should be commended for pursuing it.

    How many reputations does a Labour Party Minister have to shred before he is held accountable?
    How many cowardly attacks under parliamentary privilege does one have to notch up before his political superiors read the riot act?
    And is it not surprising that were their is a demonstrable failure to act to restrain such appalling conduct; someone that has experienced the heavy hand of the law in their own life decides to use available legal avenues to bring such conduct to account?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    In fact,,

    upon scrolling up, I find it was indeed Cacofinix himself who started the thread jack that started P O C on the research for him.

    Now Cacofinix has pointed the finger at me in a vain and childish attempt to sadly discredit me yet again.

    I shouldn’t even have to point out what can be ascertained in 2 seconds, but a man has the right to defend himself, esp when the truth is so close at hand.

    And esp because I haven’t been harrassing this blog with the dogged consistency of this insulting and unsound social leper.

    I mean, all this time. I’ve only been around 5 mins. :o

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    P O C,,

    He’s turning us against each other.

    And did you indeed send him an email in his support as he claims ??

    I would be interested to know any one actually supports him.

    I would in fact be honestly dismayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I haven’t sent D4J an email.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. valeriusterminus (245 comments) says:

    OK – anyone (bloggers,posters, sycophants) who support the private prosecution of Trevor Mallard is a bigot unless they retrospectively and subsequently submit private prosecutions for any display of “biffo” in the public domain; especially televised sports events.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    reg.
    While i do agree that Mallard was out of line, what did Erin Leigh expect.
    It was unproffesional of her in the first place to go to news outlets.
    she may be right but it was not her place to speak out unless it was before some sort of inquiry and she was giving evidence.
    It was unproffesional of her, and that more than anything will be the undoing of her business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Umm,, valeretc,,

    televised sports events and assault cannot be compared.

    I take it by your latest post we are to deduce your political bent,,

    because that post was bent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    redbus: When Rodney laid a privileges complaint, I believe it was accepted since the Speaker had jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. valeriusterminus (245 comments) says:

    Oh-hinamanu;
    What we assail here are acts of assault, they remain – being televised is just an added bonus – and we see so many when watching “sport” with our kids.
    My political bent will become evident as my posting evolves. A surprise awaits..!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Trevor Mallard is sane compared to the twisted sister hiny . What a laugh .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    Hey hinymoo give your teddy bear Cacofinix a big hug , you sad wallyess .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    I wonder how Mr McCready intends to prove a punch was thrown?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Reg (544 comments) says:

    John Dalley don’t you think that if Erin Leigh quietly objected to Labour’s political interference to her public service bosses she would faced the likelihood that her career in the civil service would have “quietly” ended anyway?
    Ms Leigh courageously exposed a blatantly unacceptable degree of political control in the Ministry of the Environment and the result was a display of the characteristic cowardly arrogance that marks the Clark administration.
    Mallard should apologise or resign!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Valeriusterminus

    I’m not convinced that televised sports violence is directly comparable to biffo in the parliamentary lobby. Perhaps you can comment further?

    My current thinking:

    (1) Any analogy stops at the “role model” point, and even then only if professional sports players are expected to conduct themselves as model citizens. This is a moot proposition, given growing cases of drugs in sport.

    (2) The administering sports body (say, NZRFU) can impose sanctions. To take a couple of examples, cricket players can forfeit part of their match fee, and rugby league players can be sidelined – effectively a financial sanction.

    (3) The position is different with MPs. For one thing, it’s unclear to me that the Privileges Committee has real bite. Perhaps someone can clear that point up? Second, leaving aside private defamation lawsuits and the like, can you name one MP whose pay was docked for misconduct? Quite to the contrary: rogue MPs are often suspended from parliament on full pay – think Field, and also other MPs on garden leave for misdemeanours). Third, I don’t see the political party as the equivalent of the administering sports body. It’s not appropriate to leave it up to the political party (if in government) to demote the rogue MP to the back bench.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    Heard of CCTV? There’s surely one of those in the parliamentary lobby. Taxpayers have foot the bill for security, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “Heard of CCTV? There’s surely one of those in the parliamentary lobby. Taxpayers have foot the bill for security, after all.”

    Assuming that Mr McCready can get hold of it, a bit if, will a blurry CCTV be able to distinguish between a playful tap and an upper cut?

    Without a complaint from the alleged victim Mr McCready is wasting court time and tax-payers money – unless he intends to pay all the associated court costs and hourly salaries associated with his grandstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    Assuming that Mr McCready can get hold of it, a bit if, will a blurry CCTV be able to distinguish between a playful tap and an upper cut?

    Yes, I think the court could tell the difference between fawning pandas and brawling lions. How on earth do you suppose police secure armed robbery convictions using CCTV evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Mallard should apologise or resign!

    Either of these actions would take some spine. The duck was behind the door when spines were being issued.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    An assault occured..

    By whom ??

    It should be pursued..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. valeriusterminus (245 comments) says:

    Thanks POC – a manifestly tempered and rational request for analysis:

    1/ Yes MPs and professional sports people are asserted as role models, but the requirement to obey the law of the land is not constrained by this mantle. The analogy does not stop at the claim that MPs are more of a role model than sports people, the analogy persists at the claim that MPs are people as are professional and lay sports-people. Mr Kahui is also a person.

    2/ Don’t care about the “administering body” the “Mongrel Mob” have an administering body – should we leave justice to them?

    3/ Mr Mallard will recieve less Parliamentary remuneration in the 2008 year than the 2007 year.

    Bottom lines:
    Privately prosecute Mallard; – then privately prosecute all who act like Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “Yes, I think the court could tell the difference between fawning pandas and brawling lions. How on earth do you suppose police secure armed robbery convictions using CCTV evidence?”

    Ummmm, presumably because the person being robbed turns up in court to witness that he wasnt handing over money because the robber had pretty eyes.

    It would be pretty difficult for police to secure a conviction for armed robbery based on CCTV evidence alone if the victim refused either to lay a complaint or testify?

    How could they prove that he wasn’t handing over the money willingly?

    It seems a pretty simple point that you are trying your hardest to pretend you cant understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Valeriusterminus:

    You raise some interesting points. My response:

    (1) No argument from me about equality before the law. But this doesn’t mean that everyone should be privately prosecuted as you claim. There’s a difference between public and private prosecutions. Public prosecutions use taxpayer funding and, as such, must satisfy Crown Law’s Prosecution Guidelines (as I understand it). By contrast, anyone can conduct their own private prosecution, with their own financial resources, if they feel strongly enough about an issue. I mentioned the Wallace family above, as one example. Assuming it proceeds, John Boscawen et al’s juducial review proceeding relating to the EFB is, in some ways, another example (though not a criminal prosecution per se).

    (2) My reason for introducing administering sports bodies into the discussion is that they can impose sanctions – typically sanctions having a financial effect. Your Mongrel Mog analogy is about vigilante justice, and as such, not socially palatable or relevant to this debate.

    (3) I honestly don’t know what sanctions the Privileges Committee can hand down – and would be interested to hear from others on this. And, failing the Privileges Committee, I don’t think the political party should be permitted the luxury of its own deckchair-shuffling exercise (in the case of a governing party, to boot rogue MPs out of cabinet; in other cases, it’s less clear what clout the party would have). Also, unless I’ve missed something obvious, I don’t think Mallard will receive less remuneration in 2008. He’s still a Cabinet Minister and, therefore, he’s a “member of the Executive Council who is a Minister of the Crown holding 1 or more portfolios and who is a member of Cabinet” – thus earning $225,000:
    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C225CBD7-A9DA-4144-AA23-3C7BD387AC20/52917/ParlSalaries_AllowancesDetermination2007.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    I’ll continue to address you politely, if you desist from stupid remarks like “trying your hardest to pretend you can’t understand”.

    You miss the point altogether: the relevance of CCTV evidence goes to identification of the offender. In court, on your argument, would be robber and victim. Robber says I didn’t do it. Victim says robbery happened, and it was robber. The court might accept that a robbery happened. The issue then becomes, well, is it the person charged? So additional evidence is necessary, yes? And CCTV evidence is prime material, yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. redbus (106 comments) says:

    “…why bother [spelling when the Minister of Education says, "fuck it", and the children say, "haha"].
    - When did Chris Carter say that? Could you please provide me the source from whence this information came?

    You’re not the alter-ego of Robinsod, or anyone else at The Standard?
    - You’re right, I am not. However, I presume you’re asking me if I am, though your wording would contradict that. None the less, I’ll take it as a question. I am not ‘anyone else at The Standard’, in fact; I am merely the same ol’ bus at both The Standard and Kiwiblog. I don’t quite understand the recent fixation by a number of commenter’s both here and at The Standard that every commenter must be another version of the same person. I would also like to point out that there are many who would prefer that some people correct their grammar and spelling. I don’t bother with pointing out the flaws of others in respect to these as, for the most part, their comments are largely coherent. However, when idiots like ‘dad4justice’ babble on about nothing. One simply doesn’t bother to delve into intelligent debate with them as, to be blunt, one can not lower ones brow that low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. redbus (106 comments) says:

    Haha.. Do please excuse the italics in my previous comment. I’m still mastering the use of italics within paragraphs. I’ll get there, I’m just waiting till the Minister of Education takes back his “fuck it” remark so I can, once again, learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    Redbus:

    My default assumption was that you’re not the alter-ego of anyone, but I was just seeking confirmation, so thank you for that.

    The relevant Minister of Education predated the recent Cabinet reshuffle. It was, of course, Mr Steve “Fuck You” Maharey, speaking to Jonathan Colman:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10432760

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “The issue then becomes, well, is it the person charged? So additional evidence is necessary, yes? And CCTV evidence is prime material, yes?”

    In this instance, yes. Because we know that a robbery took place. It might be difficult to prove a robbery took place based on CCTV evidence alone if the victim refused to make a complaint.

    For example if a tape of David Benson Pope in full dominatrix mode, whipping a Young Nat who says over and over “Ive been a bad boy, I deserve it” came into the public arena, could you use this to charge Mr Pope with assault?

    I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. redbus (106 comments) says:

    You need not provide the link, I think it’s a fair call to say that the image is firmly imprinted in many of our memories.

    I think it is worth noting for the benefit of one, ‘dad4justice’, that Mr. Maharey did not address the statement to the students of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Bok (740 comments) says:

    whoa!! Back up the truck DPF… If he was just an ordinary bloke smaking some-one would you still feel the same way? Here is the rub. These guys are paid a fortune to run the country. To make the laws. If they break them surely they should be under harsher penalties than the rest of us. The guy is a thug who committed an assault on some-one. If he had smacked a woman, would you feel different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. redbus (106 comments) says:

    If he had smacked a woman, would you feel different?
    - I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you can’t try to influence opinions by proposing theoretics. You must put forward facts on the case, or opinions related specifically to the topic, otherwise its just too unimportant to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,943 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    I agree that victim cooperation is essential in some contexts; arguably less so in others. For example, the Police can’t prosecute rape offences without the victim’s cooperation. Why? Because contested rape cases often turn on the thorny issue of consent. We “know” the rape took place. But it’s impossible – not merely difficult – to prove the rape if the victim refuses to make a complaint.

    Your specific scenario:

    For example if a tape of David Benson Pope in full dominatrix mode, whipping a Young Nat who says over and over “Ive been a bad boy, I deserve it” came into the public arena, could you use this to charge Mr Pope with assault?

    First, thanks for bringing Panty Slut Boy into the discussion, it brings humour to this thread! Second, I agree that the tape probably wouldn’t help, but for a different reason to you. The flaw in your scenario is that prosecution under our Crimes Act 1961 generally requires proof of the physical assault and also an “intentional” element:

    Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning:

    I don’t have a circle of friends in the BDSM community, but there’s definitely an issue of consent to be a whipping-boy. There’s at least one New Zealand case I can recall (off the top of my head, R v Tavita?) where the “session” went horribly wrong, and the victim ended up being tossed into the Huka Falls. So what might have been assault became murder.

    I agree with you that there’s no black-and-white rule that CCTV evidence always, of itself, secures a prosecution. But it’s as often close to a smoking gun as you’ll get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Flashman (184 comments) says:

    If Duckman is tough enough to throw a fist, he should be tough enough to have his pet shyster set out a simple one point argument to the judge over his bail.

    Nothing to see here. Move along. Not in the public interest. Primo faeces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “I think it is worth noting for the benefit of one, ‘dad4justice’, that Mr. Maharey did not address the statement to the students of New Zeaand ”

    Hey communist redbus with concrete wheels – my four children asked me why a Minister of Education said FUCK in parliament ? I said, he is a foul mouthed snake , mate of the vile PM’s and his name is called smarmy Mahaery . Hey just a word of warning , don’t stop in redneckville as we need some cannon fodder .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. redbus (106 comments) says:

    Hey communist redbus
    - To call every Leftist a communist is as moronic as calling every Rightist a Nazi. You’re an absolute joke, you offer nothing to these forums other than cyber-excrement.

    my four children asked me why a Minister of Education said FUCK in parliament?
    - You responded to this, “Mr. Maharey did not address the statement to the students of New Zealand”, yet you come up with some babble about your kids (who by the way, were not told ‘fuck you’ by the past Minister of Education). To which you answered by indoctrinating them to your views. You’re pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    can anybody else see the steam coming from inside the redbus ? It looks like the green sauna room :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. redbus (106 comments) says:

    I doubt many will try, I think there are only a select few who still bother to read your comments. I don’t know why I still do, call it beginners bad-luck. I’ve only been here for a week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “I’ve only been here for a week.”

    Really sonic ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. big bruv (13,249 comments) says:

    redbus

    Would it be safe for me to assume that you never make political comments around your kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    Hey redbus you caught the wrong one. Go read your timetable. Can be found in the Liarbore Party Manifesto under “If you can not come up with a good idea of your own (like a blog) hijack the other sides successful one (Kiwiblog) if this does not work immitate it (Kiwiblogblog). Fuck off back to the Lowest Standard where you belong loser. A weeks training is not enough for dumb socialist cannon fodder like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    D4J: Keep up the good work. Any comment that gets the snivelling little socialist arse wipes so worked up that they lose whatever cool they have been permitted by their masters is a GOOD comment in my book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    Wilson has control over the parliament complex when she wants to evict protesters but then she draws a narrow definition of her writ when it comes to a Labour MP in a brawl inside parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    D4J – Interesting you are commenting on violence…a little hypocritical….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. redbus (106 comments) says:

    Would it be safe for me to assume that you never make political comments around your kids?
    - When I have kids I’ll do the same as my Father, let them know what I believe, but encourage them to make their own decisions. My Father is a National supporter. But he didn’t try to indoctrinate me as ‘dad4justice’ does with his spawn.

    Any comment that gets the snivelling little socialist arse wipes so worked up that they lose whatever cool they have been permitted by their masters is a GOOD comment in my book.
    - Interesting, I’ve yet to see any – plus I’ve never seen a socialist arse wipe snivel before, I didn’t think excrement with an ideology could snivel… but hey, if thats what the Right says, then it must be true. One would think however, that considering this is supposed to be a political blog, the comments on this site would be better if they were actually related to politics. But I suppose that would leave only two or three comments per post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    “But he didn’t try to indoctrinate me as ‘dad4justice’ does with his spawn.”

    Haha what a laugh . Nice work Heather or Kay ?? Childless harlots !!

    Sorry my children are not spawn and I think you got me confused with your “spawn ” as you’re a female species of jellyfish aren’t you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “valeriusterminus Says:

    November 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
    Oh-hinamanu;
    What we assail here are acts of assault, they remain – being televised is just an added bonus – and we see so many when watching “sport” with our kids.”

    sports is about health, fitness, strength, ambition, the test of adversity, enduring,sportsmanship, comradeship, discipline, taking a stand, being counted, being respected, being a role model, making a future, pointing to the future, being the future.

    All of which I’d bring kids up on.

    :) alright!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    who is this heather/kay lady ??

    I like her already

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Castafiore (263 comments) says:

    While I agree it has the apperance of what is vexatious it is a principle that needs to be upheld the body that makes the law must keep it .

    Sorry bover boy Games up at Bully Boy Central!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    redbus Says:

    “When I have kids”: I take it little snivelling socialist arse wipe that you are assuming you will be able to find a suitable she-goat somewhere that will allow you to mate with her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. dad4justice (7,741 comments) says:

    A bully always pushes too far then – smack bang – lights out -shut down the logical neuron transmitters and angry pills can’t stop the violence. A brawl in parliament when I am not allowed to have a peaceful protest as F4J Batman in the grounds . Hello – something is seriously wrong here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. redbus (106 comments) says:

    You know, for all the comments at The Standard, we seldom get idiots like dad4justice and Johnboy clogging up the conversations. Sure, there is opposition, but for the most part there aren’t many there who are as offensive and appalling as you both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Redbus,,

    Could you please confirm to this blog you are not indeed Hinamoo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    redbus Says:

    “You know, for all the comments at The Standard—–”

    Johnboy said:

    “Fuck off back to the Lowest Standard where you belong loser. A weeks training is not enough for dumb socialist cannon fodder like you.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. redbus (106 comments) says:

    Could you please confirm to this blog you are not indeed Hinamoo
    - Who or what is a ‘hinamoo’????

    As I have said before:
    “I don’t quite understand the recent fixation by a number of commenter’s both here and at The Standard that every commenter must be another version of the same person.”

    It is a pathetic manoeuvrer to try to undermine people with opposing views by suggesting they are somebody else. Are you people really so stupid that you think that only one Leftist exists and that this person has the time to create a number of different accounts to oppose your idiotic opinions??? People simply don’t care enough about what Johnboy and dad4justice have to say to do that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Ahhhhh,

    A rip roaring comment from redbaiter at this exact time would be the icing on the cake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    redbus Says:

    “People simply don’t care enough about what Johnboy and dad4justice have to say to do that!”

    So what is it that attracts you to this blog like a moth to a flame then redbus? Have you been allocated it by your commissar or is it that deep seated resentment you had for your right wing father even though he undoubtably worked hard in a failed attempt to educate you. Did he beat you as a child. Did the rich kids at your school laugh at you. Do you worry you will never find a suitable Young Labour female to mate with. Tell us all we promise not to laugh too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. redbus (106 comments) says:

    Johnboy, I’m not even going to grant those disgusting assertions of my childhood with an answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Johnboy (14,961 comments) says:

    Shit that was fast redbus 3 minutes. I think you may be becoming obsessed with this blog. I hope I am not getting to you by asking my innocent questions. Why don’t you pull yourself away from the screen and get down to the Young Labour meeting and start searching for miss right (sorry miss left). Get a life son.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Tauhei Notts (1,604 comments) says:

    I heard that they were going to get 75 milimetres of rain in Fiordland tonight.
    I thought that Redbus’ nanny goat would be getting his 75 millimetres tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.