Ralston on Veitch
There are around 20 stories and columns on Veitch today, and frankly it is getting overkill. I’m not even going to attempt to summarise them, except I do want to quote from Ralston a bit:
A hosed-off One News reporter covering the story appeared in a “live cross” in the 6pm bulletin, denouncing Flannery for failing to respond to her questions and dismissing Rick Ellis’ short press statement on the affair as “bland”. In a wonderfully timed act of rebellion the newsroom then served its TVNZ masters with an Official Information Act request for details of the company’s involvement in the matter and comment from Flannery and Ellis.
This was Lisa Owen and if there is a journalism award for sheer guts, she should get it. Filing an OIA on your own employer and dissing your own Head of News and Current Affairs plus the CEO is just priceless. In one sense Owen is just treating TVNZ no different to any other organisation – as she should – but still there were ways in which she could be more subtle and she chose not to.
The story has got murkier today. We now know that now only did TVNZ and Radio Sport know for over a year, so have the Police. And also the $170,000 or so wasn’t negotiated at the time but asked for some months later.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:59 am
rosemary mcleods’ use of veitch as the basis for an anti-auckland rant would be one of the ‘silliest’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Agree Phil. Rosemary McLeod is a stupid old bint though and deserves to be a sunday tabloid gimp.
What was her i hate auckland line this time?
July 13th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Overkill is on the money.
Anyone would think there wasn’t a recession going on in New Zealand and that House prices weren’t in freefall and nosediving in the general direction of 30% below their peak. It’s a long road to hoe, maybe New Zealanders have already decided they aren’t going to hoe it. That would result in third world status delivered on a plate to New Zealand.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
something to do with ‘puffed up lips’..from what i could be bothered making out..
..they (puffed-lips)..appear to give her an attack of bile/set her off….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am
rosemary mcleod sets off an attack of bile in most of new zealand (the part that pays taxes to support wgns subsidised economy)
July 13th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Overkill? Probably. But Veitch is one of the people many in the media would’ve pissed a kidney to be. The feeding frenzy is entirely predictable.
Woe betide the idol fallen ….
July 13th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Nice imagery, “pissed a kidney to be”
July 13th, 2008 at 9:07 am
OH, APPARENTLY WEE TONY NEVER RECOVERED FROM THE TRAUMA OF HIS PARENTS BREAKING UP WHEN HE WAS 8.
fucking tosser relays his sob story to holmes.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“And also the $170,000 or so wasn’t negotiated at the time but asked for some months later.”
So it was blackmail?
July 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Good onya Lisa Owen.
I’m waiting for the story where Veitch walks into a cop shop and says “I’ve been a bad boy.”
July 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Well, Ellis’ press statement was bland. Ellis said that TVNZ knew nothing about the allegations. But now it transpires that at least four executives from TVNZ had been told. Ellis looks like he’s been economical with the truth. Now who’s bringing TVNZ into disrepute?
July 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Andrew W makes an interesting observation, and a correct one.
The “hush money” was never offered by Veitch, rather it seems it was “demanded” from Veitch by the ex in exchange for no Police complaint (and 12 months later, and after she married a “rich prick”).
What will Women’s Refuge say about all that?
July 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
So the information that seems to be most current is:
1) After breaking up she came to his house for dinner. This means she was not his partner anymore but a person visiting. Therefore it is not domestic violence, it is at worst assault
2) There was an argument. No-one knows what sort of argument. Verbal only? Were thngs thrown? Anything sharp used by either one?
3) She ended up with broken vertebrae. There seems to be a lot going around that he repeatedly kicked her while she was on the ground. Not sure whether that has actually been accepted/proven. If it has then that definitely is not a good look.
4) No Police were called at the time or later.
5) She came to him with a demand for payment. Not unreasonable in the circumstances, however it does raise interesting questions about why formal complaints were never made. If I had been injured to that degree after a verbal I’d certainly call the cops. However if I’d been injured to that degree after having a go at someone with a knife I might not…
Hard to call this one without more information.
I have to say, though, that this “it’s never ok” thing is a bit narrow. If I found someone in my house threatening me or my family, I most certainly would, and with extreme prejudice.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
> Therefore it is not domestic violence, it is at worst assault
[sarcasm]Oh, that’s allright then[/sarcasm]
WTF???
July 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The questions I would like an answer to: who leaked this information to the paper in the first place, why, and why now?
(Is there some code-of-”honour” in the press that they do not ask these important questions of each other? Surely the whole saga is begging for some kind of context?)
July 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ah, yes… I think Holmes — and HoS editor Shane Currie — have some serious questions to asnwer like: Mr Holmes, is it true you gave Veitch advice on the statement he read to that press conference. If so, on what planet is it even remotely appropriate that you conducted what (AFAIK) is Veitch’s ONLY media interview? Is it true that the original tape, and the full transcript made of it, were destroyed and nobody else has copies — and does the Herald/Herald on Sunday extend that “courtesy” to anyone else? If so, who?
July 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
This is a VERY interesting column especially given the position Ralston once held. The bit I find MOST interesting the degree of political interference in staffing decisions by Ministers down to the Board down to management. Ralston who was once Head of News and Current Affairs TVNZ seems to take this as given. As for Veitch who cares, goneburger I think, plenty more where he came from.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
> As for Veitch who cares, goneburger I think, plenty more where he came from.
Maybe, but I suspect that to get rid of him TVNZ will have to grease his palms with lots of money, and they won’t want to do that for fear of pissing off Auntie Helen.
> After breaking up she came to his house for dinner. This means she was not his partner anymore but a person visiting.
Indeed, he may have asked her to leave but she refused. If so, she was potentially trespassing. I agree that it’s curious that she didn’t file a complaint and has remained silent since. The media have been asking for Veitch’s side of the story; I’d be just as interested to hear his ex’s side.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Ah well, when the cover is blown on the MSM’s favouritism to their own, they sure try to make up for it, don’t they, like that lady who “doth protest too much”, if you ask me…….
July 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Veitch’s high public profile has probably been the pervading influence all along. Imagine what it was like for Kristin at the time of the assault. If reports are true, then she was very seriously injured. Could you blame her for being persuaded by Veitch that it was not in her interests to go to the Police? Otherwise, she risked being hounded by journalists, who would have staked out the hospital, her home etc. I think a very natural (and self-protective) reaction was to cocoon herself as best she could, and focus on her immediate recovery.
As for her conduct later, I also don’t feel comfortable about the report that her lawyer approached him for hush money. (Although that account clearly contradicts his statement to Holmes that they negotiated a payment of compensation a few weeks after the assault). That may influence her credibility as a witness should he subsequently be charged.
However, it should not stop her from making a statement to the Police as, to the extent that any contract involved agreeing to cover up a crime, it would not be enforceable. (That said, to the extent that the payment was in consideration for her silence then he may be able to recover it. But it’d be a brave PR consultant who recommended that he now attempt to sue her!!)
My advice to Kristin now that the story has hit the media, would be to repay the money and give a full statement to Police.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
My advice to Kristin now that the story has hit the media, would be to repay the money and give a full statement to Police.
Why should she have to repay the money? If the contract was to keep silent about criminal conduct then it cannot be legally enforced.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Metcalph – the whole contract is probably void, including her entitlement to receive money in return for her silence. But, as I said in the last post, I can’t see him suing her for it. However, from her perspective it would be a much better look if she simply returned the money to him and let the matter be dealt with criminally.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
the whole contract is probably void, including her entitlement to receive money in return for her silence.
If the whole contract is void then she is under no obligation to return the money that she has received.
However, from her perspective it would be a much better look if she simply returned the money to him and let the matter be dealt with criminally.
What’s “look” got to do with this? There is no need for her to return the money in order for the matter to be dealt with criminally.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ralston made sense.
Paul Holmes odious “poor Tony” piece made me want to wretch.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I agree that she doesn’t have to return the money before the matter can be dealt with criminally. The “look” is about preserving her credibility. Judging by some of the criticisms of her expressed on this blog and elsewhere, she could receive some flak for taking the money in the first place. IMO, the money’s tainted – best get rid.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I would suggest to you, Mike S, that that might have been why it was run. Sometimes the media run “woe is me” interviews to show how self-pitying and self-absorbed the woe-afflicted one really is. I’d say, in this instance, it worked a treat.
Let me say: I don’t think Veitch should be hung, drawn and quartered. I do think everyone should have their chance at redemption. But first of all, they’ve got to say “I did it. There are no excuses. I’m truly sorry. I’ll face whatever the consequences of that are and won’t spend thousands trying to wriggle out of some of them.”
July 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The “look” is about preserving her credibility.
How does keeping the money make her less credible? If there wasn’t any truth to the rumours, Tony wouldn’t have given her the money in the first place, no?
Judging by some of the criticisms of her expressed on this blog and elsewhere, she could receive some flak for taking the money in the first place.
So, in your view, no matter what she does with the money now, she’s going to receive flak for taking it in the first place. Why then should she even think about give it back?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Lisa Owen is a credit to everything which journalists ought to be but so often aren’t.
What a stark contrast between her making the interests of her viewers (and the truth) paramount and the disappointing behaviour of Paul Holmes.
If only we could clone Lisa Owen and put at least one of them in every newsroom in the country – and several in the Gallery.
As for Paul, I’ve found him to be a person of some empathy. That’s an excellent talent in an interviewer who’s aiming to bring out the character of his guest, viz David Frost or Andrew Denton in Australia and no doubt others. Both have elicited some startling insights into the character of their subjects using empathy.
But that only works if the subject isn’t your mate. Otherwise it can’t help but make you an unpleasant combination of shield, enabler and a toady. Paul really should have known better, but he’d have been blinded by his desire to help Veitch. If they’re mates it’s an understandable desire – but someone at editorial level should have called it as inapproriate and either cannned it or refused to run with it.
It would have been simple enough to say “Tony, Paul’s clearly vested in this. If you want to tell your story, it’ll have to be to someone else who’ll bring a more balanced perspective”. Why didn’t they?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
This post is a joke MR Farrar
this NON important overpaid thing kicked a lady on the ground , didnt know the damage. payed 100k+ to shut up for this chicken shits abuse of a women , TO ALL HIS SUPPORTERS , wheres the law suit, against the dom post to save his, arse???? send the chicken shit to trial(kicks a women on the ground ,a chicken shit whimp)
fuck im waiting for the loose heads to post (SHE DESERVED IT , she drank his last beer or snorted his last line of coke or god forbid was worried about a (possible) excessive P use, why would a teleprompter put the boot in to a downed lady (DRUGS MAYBE) hell i have had fights with my wife (BUT I AM FAR MORE OF A MAN TO KICK A LADY ) get rid of the REALLY OVERPAID women kicker
if you support this thing you are into the women bash IT COULD BE A AUCKLAND THING, rugby and veitchy seems SO VIOLENT AUCKLAND
PS the PM? and the advertisers DONT want to go near him, so his rich father in law will have to watch for the safety of HIS daughter , the wife of the female kicker
July 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I remember Paul Holmes interviewing Scapelle Corby’s mother, years ago, saying words to the effect that the Corbys were a decent lot. He was dead wrong on that account and he is equally wrong, IMO, to offer any comment or assistance to Veitch. Paul is an intelligent, empathetic chap, but when he misfires, baby, it’s bad. I am still receiving counselling over having to hear the playing of a couple of his songs from his album on radio, one dark morning.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I’m with you on that Holmes CD. Sheesh. As Colonel Kurtz might have put it…the horror…the horror…
July 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Veitch might have opened up a big ol’ can of whoop ass on Kirsten but P Holmes egomaniacal assault on some glorious standards was a far greater crime, against music…a cat gang raped by a dozen p crazed rottweilers would have sounded more tuneful.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Lisa Owen rocks. Goddamn she has some guts alright. Its good to see at least one inspiring example against this ugly Veitch/TVNZ backdrop. Kudos Lisa.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If Andrew W is right, and Kirsten asked for the “hush” money in order not to lay a complaint, then that means K can hardly be said to come to the matter with clean hands. That is by no means to excuse Veitch. He must be held accountable, and should lose his job. But if K effectively did compel the payment it does not say a lot for her character. Because if that is what she did it it is legally blackmail aka extortion (and I am in the legal field so I know this)and it carries a substantial maximum penalty (imprisonment for a number of years). So, to be fair, perhaps K needs to be investigated as well.