OECD rank 22 kiwi @ 8.04am:

Let me cue up a Dixie Chicks platter — it’s the appropriate soundtrack for people who bleat that their dissent is being crushed by people… well, disagreeing with them.”

You’re the only one whining craig.

TV3 are after the story because its going to make great telly. Look at all the angles, sex, drugs, famous people, sports stars, previous activities of the punters involved etc

The charges:

Injuring with reckless disregard: January 29, 2006.

Male assaults female: December 18, 2006, at Auckland.

Male assaults female: November 5, 2005, at Auckland.

Male assaults female: July 8, 2005, at Auckland.

Male assaults female: June 3-4, 2005, at Rotorua.

Male assaults female: Between April 14, 2003, and April 9, 2005, at Mangawhai.

Male assaults female: Between March 15, 2002, and April 19, 2003, at Auckland.

I have no opinion one way or the other on Veitch’s guilt. I don’t know enough and it’s likely information will come out subsequently that will make any opinion look foolish.

I do, however, have an opinion on (and first hand knowledge of) Police procedure and attitudes. Yes, they do treat certain people differently – those who would make a prominent scalp and/or those who have annoyed them in some way in the past (and I’m not talking criminals, I’m talking, for instance, people found not guilty under the system in which you claim to have faith).

Seven officers to execute a warrant isn’t normal. I had the misfortune to share accommodations with someone who, it turned out, had a bit of a drug problem (and a bit of a robbery problem to fund the drug problem). When the warrant was executed to find both drugs and stolen property, four officers was considered to be enough. And one of them kept an eye on the arrestee.

Veitch may be guilty as hell. He may be innocent as the driven snow. He may be somewhere between those two things. But one thing is evident. He’s on what I’ve come to call the Police “s**t list” and is being treated accordingly.

In my comment above Veitch can only hope to be supported through the public opinion, the law is clear. He is pretty clearly going to jail – given the claims on a “broken back” – consistent to having to be covered up with a fall down a stairwell. That’s pretty serious stuff.

The point you have made is absolutely accurate and profound, yet you discourage yourself from analysing the worth of what you state. No matter whether or not he is guilty, what if the law is in error?

It will not be found out under this charge by relying on the Court.

The statistics of male violence are horrendous. This is because those statistics are bound to an immediate disadvantage of legislation that is gender discriminatory. So Veitch is saying/appealing to the public that there are two sides to every story. Under this section of law that is not true. The charge (or one of them) he is being labelled with is only about him being a man. As he is a man he is not allowed under any circumstances to hit a woman. Sex though is equal. She is allowed to goad or hit him as she wants, so if either of those components are part of his defence to the other side of the story then he doesn’t have a hope except in the sentencing. He is stuffed. He is guilty. He has admitted that he lashed out, which will obviously include physical contact because otherwise he would have stated something different.

So if you’re a bloke and you don’t want to see another bloke be treated unfairly then you should make more comments and craft the public opinion to recognise that there is a serious disadvantage to having a set of testicles. The Court have never batted an eyelid at this legislation because they don’t have a choice, but every time one of these charges come up, the woman in the circumstances is at a complete disadvantage. That disadvantage was further proved when the female police officer demonstrated how the police handle such cases on investigation and before they are tried.

So public opinion is the only hope.

But then I thought: No, that would almost defeat the purpose of the comment…

I have approximately (I stress this for good reason) six live complaints with the Human Rights Commission on gender discrimination against men and fatherhood.

Among these is a complaint on the male assaults female, which as I remember is s194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It is gender discriminatory legislation – this is clear and gender discrimination is unlawful.

The HRC will not be able to reject that complaint given that they have accepted and on one occasion encouraged me to put in a complaint on another more obscure breach. The consideration they have to give the complaint is whether I want the HRC to simply approach the complaint from an ordinary negotiator perspective or as I remember (murky without the documents at hand) on this issue employing the broader powers of the Commission under section 5 (2) (h) of the Human Rights Act 2003. The wording of my complaint, for Tony Veitch, whether or not he or counsel decide to pick up on my comment is important. The two different causes of action have different results.

If the Commission prosecute the information under their own initiative it is better for Veitch. Once the action is engaged he would be able to move the High Court for an order of perpetual testimony. This would be extraordinary but worth its weight. I say this because there is an underlying argument (and this argument is I imagine his full defence) that he is being persecuted by a misrepresented public opinion. If he seeks perpetual testimony and evidence then he will be able to bias the Court in his favour given that the nature of the charge itself is unlawful and he is being (in part) persecuted because he is male – and not (fully) because he committed violence. The rest of his defence then remains to the fact of whether or not he kicked her and how hard. Why, has little, or nothing to do with it except for sentencing.

If my complaint was centred on my cause of action then it will be more than a year before anything is done about it because of the structure of New Zealand’s democracy where injustice and corruption, no matter how well alleged or proved can simply be ignored (or Petersed).

laos_newzealand@yahoo.co.nz

If we can compare Kahui/Veitch cases.

It’s difficult to assassinate the character of two 3 month old babies, but face it, we know it wasnt the fault of Kahui, his ex, or his stonewall family.

The system let them down. How were they to know its not ok to murder babies? They seriously hadn’t thought of the consequences. 2 dead babies is less welfare money. They need welfare, so why would they do that?

Those on welfare should be left alone. Only rich smarmy pricks like Veitch should get hauled before the courts.

What the hell was he thinking admitting “lashing out” before any charges were laid.
And fancy getting counselling prior to it going public.

Im outraged he was given bail. He is a danger to women everywhere. Those charges show a history of violence.

I’ve no doubt Dunne-Powell was brainwashed into not laying charges earlier. Clearly Veitch’s terrifying manner and huge physical presence intimidated her and her family into silence. At least at some stage she had the tenacity to demand money from him…..

Might be best for her safety to change her name.. and get police protection. Thank god she has her family to protect her….

Just like the Kahui’s………….

Let me cue up a Dixie Chicks platter — it’s the appropriate soundtrack for people who bleat that their dissent is being crushed by people… well, disagreeing with them. And I’m simultaneously delighted and nauseated by the way you think any respect for the rule of law is “political correctness”. There’s certainly so much knee-jerk cop bashing going on around here I’ve got to check the masthead to make sure I’ve not been Rick-rolled to some lefty site.

does anyone truly believe that the police would have sent 7 officers to execute a search warrant if Tony Nobody from Otara had given the missus the bash a few years ago and kept her quiet with a tinny and a slab of red?

Well, Robotnik, I think the answer is yes. But what I’d love to know is whether ‘Tony Nobody’ would have the same cheer squad willing to assassinate the character of the complainant?

Such a contract would have no validity, would not be enforceable and may in itself be a criminal act or be evidence of several.
I have been present at the execution of search warrants, one even concerning murder, and this one seems over the top in respect of mayhem.
Assuming Veitch is found guilty I would only convict and discharge him; sufficient retribution has been inflicted on him by the community in their disrepect for justice. The other parties need looking at too.

Are we asking too much?

Are we truly democratic?

Or is that our perception?

I’m not saying that implicit instructions have been given, but it’s all about the perception and the message. It’s not ok Tony, you got that?

Wonder who Tony f*cked off the most during the party years – the police, the media or his missus?

Criticism of criticism is criticism.

I never expected the Spanish Inquisition to pursue that line of thinking.

What is the PC line of thinking then? Veitch is guilty regardless of the facts because “all men a bastards”, woman are “always 100% innocent” and the “Man drought” is a freak statistical occurrence unrelated to the happiness or otherwise of menfolk in NZ?

Come on!

Revel in the media filth.

You know TV did.

The media frenzy.
The police sentiment.
Hugely conflicting stories and hints of drug use with both parties.
Two peoples lives under a microscope, and all the collateral damage within the friends and family.
Uninformed opinion.
Copious red herrings.
Judiciary ability to hold a fair trial.

This is a sad, and lamentable situation. And no-one can possibly gain any satisfaction.
Not even at the end.
Not a case of six of one, and half a dozen of the other.
I haven’t got a clue what proportionality is involved at all!

Even the geek rabble, as you so eloquently refer to them, is allowed an opinion, its called a democracy.

Chill out.

It’s GREAT Telly.