Editorials on Veitch
By coincidence the three major dailies have all done their editorials today on Tony Veitch.
Before I summarise them, I’ll give my 2c. I don’t think the two broadcasters are the decision makers here. I think the decision will be made for them by their staff and public. When even Matthew Ridge is saying he may not want to appear on TV with him, you have a problem. How many female TVNZ employees would be willing to help produce shows for Veitch? How many sporting stars will want to appear on a show with him joking about? Regardless of what is fair, a return to television anyway is impossible for some time. The public won’t want to watch, and their own staff won’t want to produce.
Anyway we’ll start with the Dom Post which takes the hardest line:TVNZ has only one option over sports broadcaster and woman-beater Tony Veitch. It must terminate his contract and say he will never work for the state broadcaster again, writes The Dominion Post.
No beating around the bush there.
Quite apart from TVNZ’s hypocrisy in employing him while airing advertisements that say it is not okay, ever, to beat up a partner or family member, having Veitch in living rooms nightly and fronting its Olympics team is unacceptable. His TVNZ career should be over.
Questions of what TVNZ knew may become the bigger issue if it emerges they did know in advance.
The Press looks at the victim:
The Tony Veitch case is a tragedy not for Veitch but for the woman he assaulted, writes The Press in an editorial.
She suffered severe physical injuries from his attack and had her career disrupted; her mental anguish must have been intense. He has maintained his lucrative work and still holds his positions with Television New Zealand and The Radio Network.
One can only have sympathy for her – not only having to cope with the trauma of the assault at the time – but now having to cope with most of NZ discussing it.
There are those who will remain loyal to Veitch that is the nature of friendship but the public should not. The severity of the assault and his attempt to close the case and protect his career by way of a $100,000 cheque are brazen. The loss of public acceptance will surely be too much for the broadcasters to ignore. …
TVNZ presents itself as the expression of New Zealand values, and campaigns against violence towards women. Veitch now represents the opposite. His continued fronting of sports programmes which includes being anchorman of the Olympics broadcasts would be a disaster for the channel’s reputation.
I think there is no question he is off the air until after the Olympics. The question is when or if he will return after that?
The Herald takes a different tack, saying leave it to the Police:
Little good would be served if two broadcasting companies permanently remove the sports presenter Tony Veitch from their programmes to try to bring an end to controversy over his assault on a woman. …
A premature move to dismiss him, though, would be seen as being for one reason only: to help the broadcasting companies’ images, not the welfare of the victim or their audiences. It could never represent the closure they might seek and should not in any case be the last word when the police have begun inquiring into what could yet be a case of causing grievous bodily harm.
I disagree somewhat. The criminal issues are different to the employment issues.
If sacking him now is the answer then someone is asking the wrong question. Veitch’s case needs resolution by an authority far higher than the employer. His former partner reportedly suffered breaks to her back from being kicked on the ground, was temporarily confined to a wheelchair and off work for a considerable period. Veitch has admitted “breaking” and “lashing out” on the night of the incident. Rightly, the police have now appointed an officer to review the matter and consider his admissions. They should make every effort to interview the victim – who this year was party to a confidentiality agreement involving payment to her by Veitch of as much as $170,000 – to reassess her decision not to report the matter to the police when it occurred two years ago.
They make the point that as the publicity has now happened anyway, the rationale for not reporting it has lessened.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:32 am
The whole situation is one sad affair. He’s an entertaining and funny guy. New Zealand television will be lamer without him.
In the fullness of time he should be able to return to television and radio.
Given that Mallard continues to draw a cheque after going six round in parliament mixed messages are being sent by government as whether “It’s OK”.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Employment law and the risk of a personal grievance is the only reason Veitch hasn’t been sacked already.
Unless he is convicted of a serious crime, the employer has to follow a fair process including an investigation of what happened, which in this case is next to impossible for the employer to do effectively. In order for the employer to find that a criminal act has been committed they actually need to establish this beyond reasonable doubt – the same standard as the police. The only legal ways to get rid of him are by offering him a big wad of cash or waiting and hoping he is prosecuted and convicted.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I think that Tony will have a far more powerful force against him than his peers and fellow workers or the police. Remember when Mitsubishi (I think) pulled the advertising from Holmes after his little gaffe about the UN head?
Advertisers will not feel at all comfortable with having their name associated with Tony and will demand that he go. It will be up to the broadcasters as to how that happens, but the Advertising Dollar is the lifeblood of the MSM, and in this case will be the deathknell for him. I also am appalled that there have been attempts to make this appear as though it was an unfortunate incident. He claims that he was exhausted from working two jobs, on medication for that, and all the other excuses that are meant to soothe us. If this had been a security guard in Sth Auckland who also worked as a relief truck driver, and he had been to the pub for his medication, would the same apologists be saying the same thing?
Welcome to the world that the rest of NZ lives in “mate”. Most don’t get the chance to go to FIJI for a holiday as they moonlight somewhere to make the extra Bucks for treats for the kids.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Might we not have expected some sort of acknowledgement from the NZ Herald of their cross-ownership relationship with the Radio Network — and therefore their vested interest in this case? Their editorial comes across as pandering to the commercial needs of their sister company, not an objective view of the situation.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Another issue. Did she get ACC and, if so, what was the explanation for the injuries?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If that is what Matthew Ridge is saying – that even he may not want to appear with Veitch on television – then, for the first time, I actually respect Matthew Ridge.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Damocles – The Herald is just pissed off because it got taken to the cleaners by the Dompost on this story. It really got its arse handed back on a plate and they’re just looking for an alternative angle. It should have declared its interest in TRN though.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Ridge is attempting damage control as he is already damaged goods re: TV and public opinion.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Incidentally I find OECDs comments utterly moronic and lacking any semblance of moral and/or intellectual rigour. Comparing the Mallard incident – a punch – with this vicious beating, is just puerile. Then again, the fact that OECD finds two halves and Veitch so incredibly entertaining is even more evidence that he probably has a two digit IQ.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I am reliably informed staff @ TVNZ didn’t know. Whether management did is unclear.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Yet , how many who want this sports presenter’s head on a platter would cry outrage at the Labour Party when they wish to expose an historical situation around domestic violence when it puts a would-be Maori Party politician in the spotlight?
I am not condoning any of these action, merely pointing out that if the media put half as much effort into exposing the activites of our politicians as they have exposing this harmless prick who clearly can’t wreak utu of any kind on them, the world would be a better place.
Looks like cowards of a feather all flock together.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“Harmless prick”? I suspect T Veitchs ex might have a few issues with that comment. The only “coward” appears to be good ol’ “Veitchy” whose (ineffective) hush money payment – though substantial – is a drop in the bucket compared to what he stands to lose in terms of income. The trouble with sweeping shit under the carpet is that eventually someone is going to smell it. And start talking about it. And that’s one of the reasons why I love democracy.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“I don’t think the two broadcasters are the decision makers here. I think the decision will be made for them by their staff and public.”
Perhaps, but I think that TVNZ could have provided some moral leadership here.
I’m aware of the employment law issues that Nigel Kearney outlines, and that the downside risks of an unjustified dismissal are that much greater where the reimbursement/compensation for lost earnings, etc, is that much greater. However, compare TVNZ’s response here to their immediate dismissal last year of a security guard with 24 years loyal service who dared quietly to challenge a public figure on her public utterances. He lost his livelihood for that heinous crime. No need to wait for a prosecution then.
Don’t “personalities” like Veitch have clauses in their contracts that provide for just this sort of situation. You know, bringing the company into disrepute.
PS Right on Madbilly. OECD’s attempt to equate a punch that left his provoker more amused than anything else with a crippling assault does nothing but undermine OECD’s credibility. (Not that I have any sympathy for Mallard.)
PPS Right on again Madbilly. Harmless pricks don’t break people’s backs.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Didn’t one of Veitch’s high profile “holier than thou” critics have an unsavoury involvement in roughing up a female taxi driver in Auckland twenty or more years ago?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
If there’s one thing boofheads love, it’s blokish nicknames – usually (and imaginatively) created by appending a “y” to the relevant persons surname, hence “Ridgey”, “Veitchy” (though “Ellisy” doesn’t work particularly well, which must leave Marc feeling a little left out of this faintly homo-erotic tradition).
Anyway, I propose a new nickname for Veitchy, its simple and memorable, not to mention apposite: “Wheelchair”. Just on its own, or as Tony “Wheelchair” Veitch.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
From Ridge’s comments, it looks as though working at his carwash is now out of the question for Veitch. And is Centrebet running odds on how long Veitch’s new wife will hang around for?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Well, I think the Herald should be penning an editorial explaining yesterday’s blaring front page headline: “What DID you do to her, Tony?”
My response was, “How much detail do you want, you sick fucktards?” I’ve eaten raw tofu with more taste than that headline, and it’s nice to see domestic violence is just an occasion for titilating voyeurism and sanctimonious hypocrisy from the media bitch pack. I’m certainly not sympathetic to Veitch, but the media have hardly covered themselves in glory either.
To give what little credit is due, at least someone at the Herald on-line decided to pull it — but it shouldn’t have gone to press (or been posted on-line) in the first place.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
It seems to me that those who are frothing on this subject have only a passing interest in justice, on the one hand, or are misogynistic and sexist, on the other. The key question here is whether Veitch, having done something completely wrong, has acted honourably and appropriately toward his victim. That is the only matter which should concern us. Anything else is gratuitous outrage. For those interested, the argument is developed at http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/07/its-justice-but-not-as-we-know-it-jim.html
July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Crucify him! Crucify him!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
“…If sacking him now is the answer then someone is asking the wrong question. Veitch’s case needs resolution by an authority far higher than the employer…”
reminds me of the similar story in the Herald today about the English rugby players and the woman who won’t lay a complaint. The players have been found guilty of misconduct overnight and fined by their employers, yet there is no evidence or report of a crime outside of a newspaper story in an increasingly tabloid newspaper, started by an outraged boyfriend. No police investigation, no complaint, woman says she’s not talking, and yet guilt has been laid. Interesting. I conclude the “misconduct” was in getting in the papers and not the activity, since international tours always involve nightime activities and sex between players and hangers on is as common as breathing.
So back to Veitch:
TVNZ say they need time to disclose what they knew in advance. They advocate getting all the facts first. Oh the irony! They’ve been publishing rumours all week and they’re advocating getting all the facts first? haha it just keeps getting better. No one can get the dirt on someone else without first getting dirty. I’m not sure I’d be as controlled as Veitch under such “stress”. If TVNZ have the dirt on him, I bet he has the dirt on a few TVNZ executives too. In such a small industry it would be impossible not to know. Good on him for holding back, that takes real self control and avoids a real mess, but hell, it’d be tempting wouldn’t it?
I remember the grief the MSM gave Ian Wishart over the Peter Davis – LAX story. they were laughing that he didn’t actually know for sure if Peter was gay. He was grasping at straws. Making it all up. A joke.
And now they’re running headlines like: “What did you actually do Veitch?” haha
July 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
How much compensation did Ridge pay to the guy whose car he ran over with tank just of interest since the guy is so pure.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
@ Craig: good point. If I was being charitable towards the Herald (a rare occurrence, admittedly) I could view it as a reference to the fact that he actually admitted no assault at all in his press conference, which was surely scripted by Jesuits. The alternative is that the Herald – still outraged that an Auckland-based “celebrity” was exposed in a Wellington newspaper – is desperately worrying the scrag-end of the kill left over by the more dominant animal.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
> reminds me of the similar story in the Herald today about the English rugby players and the woman who won’t lay a complaint. The players have been found guilty of misconduct overnight and fined by their employers, yet there is no evidence or report of a crime outside of a newspaper story…
The Judge’s report can be found here. http://www.rfu.com/PDFs/discipline/nz-allegations-web.pdf
“All four players appear honest and truthful in their accounts…there is independent evidence provided by witnesses unconnected with the allegations which corroborates much of the four players’ own evidence”. The Judge suggests, none too subtly, that the accuser is a liar.
Still, the Auckland cops investigating the complaint got to fly to Christchurch and watch the second test.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
> And now they’re running headlines like: “What did you actually do Veitch?” haha
Yes, I’m suprised the Herald hasn’t asked him: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Shes still trying to hang them by remote control ross.
Not really playing inside the rules is she.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
No doubt some will see the irony that the employment laws enacted by the Socilaists are preventing Veitchs employers from sacking him even if they wanted to.
cant help smile that the HANG HIM HIGH brigade are also the same that defend and justfiy the laws that shackle a good employer from firing a bad employee
An another note re above posts The England RFU has banned players on tour from taking ladies to their hotel rooms.
No mention of not taking men to their rooms. Now far be it for me to suggest the English rugby team player may ( excuse) “bat for the other side” but one would have thought in these days of equal opportunity the RFU would have included both genders in their ban.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
> The England RFU has banned players on tour from taking ladies to their hotel rooms.
Not yet, it hasn’t. It’s just a recommendation.
And TVNZ can sack Veitch it it wants to. It just may cost them a lot of money to do so. Remember when TVNZ sacked John Hawkesbury? They don’t call him the six million dollar man for nothing.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
This is just another incident of domestic violence. Sure, it is a high profile case. But to be honest it is no more or less important than any man lashing out at his girlfriend, for some irrational reason our culture treats celebrities with a different set of rules than anyone else. I certainly wouldn’t condone what he did. But at least he had the decency to pay her a quite substantial amount of money as compensation over the incident – most men in domestic violence cases wouldn’t be anywhere near as honest as this.
Frankly it should be an issue for the courts, and it is not our or any media organisations job to speculate on the details until the courts have sorted it out. And if his former girlfriend is satisfied with the compensation she has already received, there is no need for them to go to court at all, it might just cause more stress over an issue both feel is settled and would prefer to forget.
The media just like this because they can make a bit of cash off the headlines. There are far more important things in the world than this for them to be writing about.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
that’s the point isn’t it? It would have been an issue for the courts if he hadn’t concealed the crime. If the media hadn’t exposed it, you think he’d have offered a remorseful confession?
Fuck me, honest?
You guys are pretty sick.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Pure gold in here today – I do hope you live alone.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Now what’d you go and do that for???
July 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
> It would have been an issue for the courts if he hadn’t concealed the crime.
It would probably have been an issue for the courts if his ex had laid a formal complaint. It’s a funny thing, but usually it’s the victim who lays the complaint, not the offender. But I admire your optimism.
I would note that today Derek Fox’s ex admitted being beaten by Fox many years ago. Fox could become an MP later this year.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You’re looking suspiciously like you’re holding the woman responsible for this Ross. Like I asked before, when offered the hush money, do you think she gave him a hug & they cracked a bottle of bubbles to celebrate?
I’m somewhat sickened that anyone can consider that Veitch has been honest, and has acted honourably. Why aren’t you?
July 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Well, who would have thought that men and women are equally violent towards partners? Certainly not the screaming banshees over at Public Address.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/08-02-06_press_release.html
08 February 2006
Latest research from the long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) at the University of Otago’s Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, calls into question conventional thinking about domestic violence between partners, and its effects on mental health.
This study by Professor David Fergusson, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, surveyed 828 males and females at 25 years regarding violence between partners and the impact on mental health. The violence recorded ranged from psychological abuse to serious physical attack.
“In broad terms the results provide a challenge to the dominant view that domestic violence is a ‘women’s issue’, and that it arises predominantly from assaults by males against females,” says Prof. Fergusson.
“In fact, what our findings suggest is that amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study.”
The research shows the range of violence committed by men and women is similar, and that both men and women engage in serious physical attacks on their partners. The consequences of this domestic violence in terms of injury and psychological effects are also similar for both sexes.
The findings confirm other overseas studies that violent partnerships are more likely to be associated with psychosocial problems relating to childhood adversity, mental health disorders and other life course difficulties.
“Domestic violence tends to occur in those relationships which have a wider psychosocial history of disadvantage and difficulty,” says Professor Fergusson.
The research shows that domestic violence also has an impact on the mental health of those involved, even when other background factors, which might result in mental problems, are taken into account. With increasing exposure to violence there is a greater likelihood of mental health problems developing in both men and women.
Disorders such as depression, anxiety and suicide are between 1.5 and 11.9 times higher in those people who experience domestic violence than those who don’t.
However, Professor Fergusson says this study suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focussing on male perpetrators and female victims, to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship.
“This points to family policies that encourage couples to work together to harmonise their relationships and to overcome the collective adversities they face.”
Professor Fergusson says we need to understand why studies of community samples such as the CHDS usually show an absence of gender differences in domestic violence, whereas other sources dealing with severe violence, such as Women’s Refuge or police complaints, report a predominance of male perpetrators. “The best way of doing this is to study a large sample to examine the frequency of common couple violence involving mutual assaults and the frequency of more severe forms of domestic violence,” he says. This study only applies to young people, and domestic violence tends to decrease with age.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
> Like I asked before, when offered the hush money, do you think she gave him a hug & they cracked a bottle of bubbles to celebrate?
Probably not, but do you think Veitch woke up one morning and said “I’m going to beat the living daylights out of my ex?” I seriously doubt it. Veitch has apparently acted VERY badly, but as the above press release shows, domestic violence is a male AND female problem. Who would’ve thought?
July 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Tell me Ross, why is that relevant to this particular case? You like the smokescreens, don’t you?
Oh wait – you DO blame the woman, don’t you?
July 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
This is the longest length I’ve ever seen anyone go to in trying to convince the public they’re heterosexual.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
> You like the smokescreens, don’t you.
I prefer facts. The fact is that domestic violence is perpetrated by men and woman. Listening to some people, you’d think it was a male problem only. “Veitch has apparently acted VERY badly”. I’m not sure which part of that you didn’t understand.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Um… I don’t understand what a broad generalisation, true or not, has to do with this specific case? Does it make Veitch blameless, because in wholly unrelated cases women have assaulted men?
I’m not sure what part of that YOU don’t understand? On the one hand, you seem to be blaming the victim, and on the other, you’re excusing Veitch bacuse what? unrelated men have been assualted by women?
I no longer question whether you’re an idiot.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Facts unrelated to this case – sorry, this caused me to laugh out loud.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Lets cut to the chase , this person was putting the BOOT in , he WASNT lashing out he is a POWER FREAK ???????? HE WAS KICKING THE SHIT OUT OF A WOMEN ( GOOD OR BAD) A GREASY HEAD FUCKWIT, If tv1 wants us to watch him , WE WILL LISTERN to his words(THINK)in his show ,gone forever??? We have to put the boot into the australian rugby team (FEMALES this is what i do ) i kick and lash out (females beware) i will put the boot in due to pressure
July 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
OK, this is what REALLY happened…I was there. K called me to repair a VCR or something and when I got there she and T were arguing over what channel to watch. T wanted to watch himself on Two Halves and K wanted to watch some lame chick flick. Anyway, they couldn’t agree, so they, um, decided to dress up their cat, Pebbles. Some people are into this, believe it or not. But they started arguing again. K wanted to dress the cat up as Princess Di. T wanted to dress the cat up as Bo Duke from “The Dukes of Hazzard”. T won the argument, but as he was trying to stuff the cat through the drivers window of a scale replica of the “General Lee”, the poor cat went nuts. You know how at circuses they have a motorbike rider getting up speed and going round and round a “cage of death”, staying up only through centrifugal force? Well, this is what the cat started doing. Except, that instead of a cage of death, it was an apartment. And no motorbike, just a tabby in a Bo Duke outfit. The cat fell on K, and she tripped, that’s how she hurt her back. Both T and K decided no-one would believe the story so they made that cash deal everyone is on about. So everyone, just leave T alone, OK? You bastards.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
In this case if the woman involved had laid a complaint with the police she would have been out $170,000. When I got mugged, stabbed with a screw driver and hit in the head with a tomahawk in 1986, I got $17.53 from the Dept of Courts as restitution for my broken glasses and suffering.
The guy has been humiliated, effectively lost his career and any standing he had in the community – and is out $170K (surely the biggest fine for assault in the history of New Zealand. I think Justice is well and truly served now.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Ilew:
Neither me nor Ross are holding the woman responsible. We are just pointing out that usually the victim lays a complaint, then the police investigate. If the victim doesn’t feel the need to lay a complaint because they have already come to an arrangement outside the court system, good on them – saves them time in court. No-one is standing up for what he did, beating a woman like that is inexcusable.
As Brian Smaller has pointed out, by getting a $170,000 payout she may well be better off than she could ever have hoped for by going through the court system, and he has already had his punishment. I am very glad they could come to an amicable arrangement without the stress and expense of court.
And I still feel the media is just beating this up for money from the headlines. They don’t make the same issue about any other man who beats his partner, unless they are a celebrity whose name on a headline will get them more business.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
His “celebrity” certainly gives the story some prominence… but I honestly believe the severity of the assault would guarantee this made headlines if it had been Joe Bloggs round the corner.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
So he was on ‘medication’ huh??? Question is, what sort of ‘medication’?? And didn’t all this occur around about the time some of his high profile buddies were subsequently publicly exposed for snorting cocaine and inulging in other drug paraphernalia such as ‘E’, ‘P’ and the like???
July 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
..Just makes you wonder, about the agendas of all the ‘players’ in this matter, don’t you think??
July 11th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Madbilly- that was a thing of beauty.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi, capills_enema and thanks…its nice to be appeciated:)
July 12th, 2008 at 8:14 am
“And I still feel the media is just beating this up for money from the headlines. ”
That would suggest that the media actually know the facts. Which they admit they don’t. You have to know the facts to build a media beat up. In this case it is a media fabrication. They don’t know the facts and aren’t waiting. In fact, they’re now misrepresenting legal jargon and taking advice from remand prisoners.
(see today’s Herald online Veitch Incident update – a letter from a remand prisoner saying how it’s so unfair he can’t pay “hush money” http://tinyurl.com/5o98em )
There never was any hush money. It was a confidentiality agreement. Same diff you say? Then all those others that settle out of court for various reasons are cowards, frauds and worthy of losing their jobs? Yeah right.
So Herald, front up with sourced evidence of hush money or watch out, you may get call to account legally. And should.
A confidentiality agreement requires an agreement. It is not one party binding the other to a chair and threatening them with torture unless they take the money. To work, there has to be an agreement not to speak. You have to agree that the money is worth more than the personal cost of not revelealing the truth. If you then break such an agreement, you’re a blackmailer and a liar and generally the agreement has some kind of legal penalty.
The Herald are wading into the realm of complete and utter lies on this and not only bringing their company and the media into disrepute they’re embarrassing themselves. So to quote their own expert on employment law in today’s Veitch Incident article:
“…Rick Hargreaves, a senior associate at DLA Phillips Fox in Auckland, says: “You would expect any action which brings the company into disrepute would be subject to action up to and including dismissal.”
Will the people responsible for fabricating unsubstantiated rumours about a well known public figure and so bringing their own company into disrepute suffer the same fate as Tony Veitch?
Or will the media close ranks and defend the indefensible?
Looks like Journalists just moved a up a level on the least trusted scale, surpassing Real estate agents. I remember the recent news item on TV about it: the woman reporter said that it was a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
The further this witch trial continues without fact, the worse the MSM looks – clearly they don’t care – but there ar enough lawyers out there that do. Can they come up with a reason why should people like DPF, and others who look for the inside angle on a matter, should use them as reference to political matters when they are hiding proven liars and fabricators in their own ranks? They’ve made themselves obsolete in the information age.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
madbilly you silly fool, stop being a socialist parasite.
Project your own inadequacies somewhere else. The “Mallard incident” as you put it was not acceptable behaviour by a member of parliament. What fine did Mallard pay for his violent actions? Did Mallard have to stand down from Cabinet? He’s still drawing a cabinet ministers cheque isn’t he?
Where were you to condemn his actions?
Stop being a silly boy and embarrassing yourself with your slanted and just plain wrong views.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Hi OECD, um, I think you’ve either (a) attributed someone else’s post to me or (b) stopped your anti – psychotic medication, contrary to your mental health compulsory treatment order or (c) both (a) and (b) (most likely).
I never said the Mallard incident was OK, I just pointed out your puerile comparison beween that incident and the Veitch incident, an incident which was far more serious. So calm down.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
You blew the “Mallard incident” off.
Something you’re no doubt good at!
You can’t be loser all your life madbilly, best stop now.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
OECD, if you weren’t so obviously stupid, I might be somewhat annoyed at your latest comment. But as you clearly are – stupid, that is – I’ll take it as a compliment:).
July 13th, 2008 at 6:06 am
madbilly – You’re the socialist weasel, the quintessential village idiot.
Your going to lose this upcoming election and then your going to suffer the consequences as a result of your failed socialist belief system.
I don’t wish to condemn or praise Veitch for the “alleged act” itself. The Law has taken its course.
I do note that the All Blacks lost to the Springboks this Saturday 12 July 2008, feel better madbilly?
With Veitch’s absence from the Olympics who is going to be the cheeky chappy to make funny and fill in all the dead air between New Zealand not winning any medals and looking as lame as the Sydney result?
Think about that while you watch the snoozefest of New Zealand underachievement, the living embodiment of what the Labour party stands for, better to participate than to win. Yawn.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:31 am
And they will be wearing Crocs – how fucking embarrassing.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Paul Marsden – steroids, coke and E.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“Quintessential”…how many hours sifting through the dictionary did it take for you to find that one OECD? Well done. Incidentally, the law hasn’t actually taken it’s course at this stage. Again, your obvious stupidity just ends up making me look good…thanks!! Please reply, because I get endless amusement, not to mention mileage, from you. Please, please, please. And yes, as a South African (and National voter, by the way, not that that is particularly relevant) I was absolutely delighted with our victory. We’ll kick your asses in the next World Cup too:).
July 14th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Thanks, madbilly. The National voter bit is relevant as it invalidates my “Village idiot” comment as that title belongs to the exclusive preserve of Labour voters.
It’s good to watch the competitive sprit in rugby between two teams, one ranked number one in the world and the other somewhere between fifth and eighth going off the last Rugby World Cup.
Interesting to observe how South Africa goes tomorrow for the final day at Lord’s for the cricket. They looked gone for all money against England after Day three. Today they appear to have dug out a draw. Might have to head to the concluding day tomorrow to catch the action.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Well, ok, cheers. Seriously, thanks, this discussion was getting a little heated so I appreciate your diplomacy. Not sure about the ABs at the moment. A good team but not one of the great AB teams. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that Labour – Clark and Cullen especially – are patronising idiots without any real world business experience. Unlike John Key who at least had the brains and the cojones to make his money in the (tough) world of foreign exchange. I really think the overhelming national sentiment is that the country has had enough of these (Labour) f**ktards and I look forward to an overwhelming National victory come November 8th. We can expect to see some world class bitchiness from H Clark in the interim. Thats the one area where she truly leads the pack.