This entry was posted
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:59 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
The Virender Singh case demonstrates everthing that is wrong with liberal attitudes to justice. While we continue to award the virtues of civilised men to violent criminals by default, and punish the victim for self defence, we will be unable to reduce street crime. Asking a man who fought off five attackers after being stabbed to prove self defence is absurd in the extreme. The Police and crown are pushing themselves into irrelevency and losing the trust of the community.
Goodgod – would you explain further your issues with the case. Given that Mr Singh’s case was thrown out, I would have thought was a perfect example of a system that is working. As the police stated yesterday, they charged Mr Singh with assault based on the best evidence available – given they beleived there was a prima facie case. The Court disagreed and threw the case out. An example of both entities doing the jobs they are entrusted to do.
The police claimed he used excessive violence, i.e. more than was necessary to defend himself. And a charge should be laid in such cases. Self defence gives people the right to protect themselves – i.e. act until they are safe. There were claims that Mr Singh was hitting the youths as they were on the ground. We have a police force who can do the follow up work – i.e. investigating and apprehending those who stabbed Mr Singh. And as soon as I even consider whether or not we should alllow members of the public to take these matters into their own hands, all I hear is “lynch mob, lynch mob”…
I wonder if the inclusion of the labour party in the israeli Government will help to moderate their stance and be a step towards a peaceful solution. The Independant ran an interesting article written by a Jew in which he pointed out that the Jews major problem was that they have a persecution paranoia and until they moderate/cure this there is little hope for a sensible settlement. By Jews I refer to all of them all over the world who encourage an anti-arab stance and ignore the democratic voting where it is posssible. I think the West is foolish to refuse to deal with Hamas and I remember from way back in the old days there was something known as de-facto recognition which meant that we didn’t agree with the government but we dealt with them becuase they effectively were the government. Strikes me as a much more sensible policy rather than just labling all those whose actions you don’t like as terroists or axi of evel and refusing to talk with them.
I hope that I am never in Mr Singh’s position becuase I see a definite difference between saving onself from a single attacker and a gang of five. Then there is the question of costs … when a prosecution fails does the accused have his cost paid? or does he have to pay to prove his lack of guilt?
I reckon I’ve discovered what the Labour MP’s were up to while they were down the West Coast last week. They’ve decided that the best way to reconnect with the public is via Twitter
He is going to have to work a lot of hours to make up the money that this case has cost him – as opposed to his attackers who are probably all on welfare and seem to rob dairies and shops for a living.
NOt1tocommentoften “Self defence gives people the right to protect themselves – i.e. act until they are safe. There were claims that Mr Singh was hitting the youths as they were on the ground.”
If he hit them whilst they were on the ground it would have been to make sure they couldn’t get up and attack him again – ie to make sure he was safe. Why should he wait until they get up into a position of strength before he resumes his self defense? If those thugs hadn’t been causing trouble they wouldn’t have got hit at all.
Hagues – I wasn’t there, neither were you, I am simply going on the facts as stated. The police were there very soon after the incident and gathered evidence. They used this to lay charges. If, the facts suggest that Mr Singh used excessive force, then it is no longer self defence and he has committed assault. Maybe I was wrong to say that it was excessive because he was hitting someone on the ground. Maybe it was excessive because the offenders were no longer attacking him but he carried on attacking them nonetheless. This was obviously a border-line call and the police have to deal with them from time to time. Here, they made the decision to prosecute. The two JPs to presided said there was insufficient evidence to put the question to a jury so he was aquited. The police can’t win – damned if they do half the time and damned if they don’t the rest.
goodgod & NOt1tocommentoften – I think there’s truth in each of your respective positions on this. For me the BIG issue is not ‘should a charge have been laid?’, nor is it was ‘the defence reasonable?’.
What I want to know is where were the parents of these thugs and – bigger question – how can we stop kids growing up in an environment where getting trashed, stoned and taking a knife down to the local grog shop is seen as acceptable behaviour? How can we instill a sense of community pride, right vs wrong and a moral compass?
Those questions come back to the quality of family and parenting skills. I think we could do better, and elevate the definition of a ideal family (being genetic mum & dad + kids)
I believe that the Police (or at least the hierachy) really don’t like the idea of self-defence. They seem to want to keep that to themselves. Without the means and the right to self-defence you have no self-defence. In the Singh case – there were five to one. I saw a 6′3″ man who had been beaten to a bloody pulp by five teenagers once in Wellington. The reason Steven Wallace was shot four times was to make him fall over and not get up – the only smart thing for Sgt Abbott to have done – Mr Singh should be afforded the same right to make sure his attackers posed ZERO threat to him – in this case hiting them until they stayed down.
getstaffed – thanks for partially agreeing. And I agree to some extent that there is a much bigger issue in existence here. But the Singh case does raise important issues in itself – i.e. to what extent do we let people take the law into their own hands and harm others…
Anyway, I further agree that a lot of these issues do arise in the home. Where I differ though in in your definition of the ideal family, and for a number of reasons. The first, is your reference to genetic. I fail to see how adoptive parents, to use one example, are incapable of raising child with “a sense of community pride” and the ability to know “right vs wrong”. Genetic or not, I think that any loving parent can raise a child well. Secondly, while I agree that having two parents in the home is ideal, I don’t agree that single parent or split families are the primary cause. A loving parent, who cares for their childs needs, educates them, provides for them, and ensures they have a good upbrining is far more beneficial to the kids than two parents who are abusive, fight, or are disinterested. I think a loving family environment is the key, but disagree that “the ideal” family is a manifestation of such.
Miss Marshall the crown prosecutor implied that since one “boy” was wasted, he should have been absolved of his involvement – all his acts up to that point null and void. Damage done overlooked, violence disregarded, potential threat ignored, situation neutral. It was as if he had been there buying bubble gum.
She was willing to believe he was just there “looking for his friend” but unable to believe Mr.Singh percieved a threat. She was so certain in her mind, as representative of the crown, that Mr. Singh had acted with premeditated malice, blind rage, hate even. She knew Mr Singh’s mind, intimately, immediately. But it seems she had to wait some time to construct the defence of the state of her client’s mind. She was peddling the same lies and illusions that sound so much like all the other times this type of crime has occured.
At the point that the blade entered Mr.Singh’s leg there was no troubled upbringing, no society deaf to the hardships of these heroic thugs, no record of the motivating spark, no knowledge of day, time or reason. None of that was known.
Mr.Singh was stabbed in the leg, by these “wasted” and – if you believe the crown – heroic attackers. At that point, in liberal justice lala land, they should have backed off because now Mr.Singh was at a disdvantage. These heroic combatants against capitalism were men of principle – why, how could they now attack a wounded adversary? If they were wasted they would expect quarter. What kind of barbarian would not give quarter?
Oh please.
This is the retarded thinking of liberal justice – all rights and consideration given to the attacker, none to the victim. We should not even be considering the “fairness” of one of a group of thugs being too wasted to carry out his vocation. It is this consideration of “fairness” for the attacker – that is not reciprocated to the victim – that is an abberation of reasoning. It’s merely masturbation of the mind, playing with ideas that are divorced from reality and context. Liberal justice decides the outcome and constructs the case and even the context after the fact to match the outcome. Any moment of imagination can be applied to justify the blade cutting through flesh with immunity – indeed, it was a greater crime that Mr.Singh possessed a leg than that these thugs wounded him.
i.e. to what extent do we let people take the law into their own hands and harm others…
Except that Singh was not taking the law into his own hands. He was defending himself which is lawful, despite the Police trying to make it a crime. The cops can hardly defend themselves (witness a policeman killed by an air-rifle last year because all he had to defend himself against an armed man was his legs and how fast he could run) let alone anyone else.
Except that Singh was not taking the law into his own hands
And even if he were, what else is a man to do when the law dosent show up in a timely manner? Continue to get stabbed? Die perchance?
Pah. if more people felt they were able to defend themselves in the eyes of the law, more criminals might think twice about committing crimes against people.
DPF, it would be really good if the comments here about the Singh case could be transferred over to the new thread pronto, the argument is interesting and important and it is a pity to break it into 2 bits.
Perhaps you should time the general debate thread after any obviously debate-stimulating one like the Singh one?
I wonder what ever happened to the Kiwi perception as to the simple difference between right and wrong.That successive Governments have forgotten that their number one function is to provide the means to protect their citizens is now beyond much doubt with even our armed forces, in total ,being hard pressed at the moment to protect even Stewart Island.Much worse of course is that our patter cake police force has given entirely new meaning to the term PC ,like political correctness being far more of an accurate description than the original meaning. Twice,in recent years I have unfortunately been forced to defend myself against criminals busily robbing my house.Fortunately on both occasions,although unashamedly using violent means to overcome the offenders, the Police,being at that time untainted with advanced PC self righteousness,simply said “well done mate,thanks very much”. Perhaps the message should now be to all those tossers at Police Headquarters,either remember who really are the bad guys,or we may have to pop down to Wellington to jog your memories.
Let’s take THIS up now that the Singh argument has gone to another thread: these anti-Israel freaks need a good kicking every time they rear their ugly heads:
jcuknz (112) 0 4 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“I wonder if the inclusion of the labour party in the israeli Government will help to moderate their stance and be a step towards a peaceful solution. The Independant ran an interesting article written by a Jew in which he pointed out that the Jews major problem was that they have a persecution paranoia and until they moderate/cure this there is little hope for a sensible settlement…….”
The Jews have a “persecution PARANOIA……….”????????????
The choice of peace does not lay with the Israelis. This is a simple fact.
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.
NOt1tocommentoften – There will be traditional genetic mum+dad+kids families that provide a less loving environment than do other less optimum structures. I have a couple of good friends who are solo parents, and I can say first hand that the care provided for their kids is an order of magnitude better than a few families at our school.
I still contend, though, that the best family setup is the traditional one. I’ve posted this research reference before… but it’s as relevant as ever. It shows that the incidence of child death, injury and accidental drowning rises as the family structure breaks down to look less like a traditional biological dad+mum+kids. Table 2 on Page 5 is particularly disturbing.
The challenge for commenters here who don’t fit into the biological dad+mum+kids frame to be able to accept research like this knowing that it identifies their family situation as less than ideal, but makes no judgment of their individual ability to parent excellently. This is all about being honest enough to objectively face the facts, rather than dismissing them because they may cast aspersions on one self.
“Murray
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.”
But Murray, you too support genocide in the middle east.
Btw, hows your homoerotic historic dress up club going, fancy a sword fight?
On the Radio NZ national programme Wednesday morning law slot yesterday (March 25), the speaker was Professor John Burrows QC, former law professor, a Law Commissioner, and an author on media law. Talking about privacy, he used as an example, the allegedly Pauline Hanson pictures.
Only Dr Burrows didn’t say alleged Pauline Hanson pictures. He talked of them as though they were genuine, and neither he nor the interviewer mentioned that three days earlier the pictures had been revealed to be bogus and apologies issued.
Could we see Dr Burrows from this being called as a witness in an Australian libel case to illustrate how a correction didn’t wash off all the mud? A man of his expertise, experience, and gravitas would be a powerful witness.
Alas I fear we will see a situation where the Police hestitate to act in a confrontation because they are scared of the consquences uopn themselves and the result will be innocent citizens maybe children and infants killed by an offender.
The PC crapola over those who put themselves into a confrontation with the Police get dealt to and then we have the grief and guilt laden responses of the family and so called supporters is beyond the pale
Balance must be restored Personal responsibility of the consquences of actions must be enforced and the excuses dealt with as just that excuses.
I must disagree iwth you If the Crown Prosecutor had the right ethics and morals she would have said that she was unable to take the case as it offended her sense of judgement
The Nuremburg Defence is not a valid excuse
Until we get people in authority to act in accordance with good morals and good ethics we will continue to have a corrupted system
Only when good men and women stand up and are counted will a bad system be changed
Those who support a bad governnace system will resist change at all cost until they are forced to.
Not sure if this has been covered yet but I see that the piece of shit who killed Karen Aim has received what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
“The teenager who murdered Scottish tourist Karen Aim on a Taupo street will be behind bars for at least 12 ½ years.
Jahche Broughton, 15, was sentenced in the High Court at Rotorua today.”
That is a pathetic sentence for a callous and unprovoked murder, this little prick should be put to death, failing that he should never see the light of day again.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The choice of peace does not lay with the Israelis. This is a simple fact.
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.
Till then, cram it.
How odd then that there was very little bloodshed in the ME until israel began its campaign of land theft. Just maybe if the Jews had stayed, where they belonged, in Europe, there would be peace in the ME today.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
i.e. to what extent do we let people take the law into their own hands and harm others…
Except that Singh was not taking the law into his own hands. He was defending himself which is lawful, despite the Police trying to make it a crime. The cops can hardly defend themselves (witness a policeman killed by an air-rifle last year because all he had to defend himself against an armed man was his legs and how fast he could run) let alone anyone else.
Well, as far as defending himself goes, he should have been wearing his Police uniform.
We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.
“We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.”
This from the idiot who, on another post on this blog, is screaming against Mr Singh getting off. Do you realise how stupid you are or do you need people to point it out for you?
The AP has a nice story about some fairly distasteful Israeli armed forces tee shirts:
JERUSALEM – Israel’s military condemned soldiers for wearing T-shirts of a pregnant woman in a rifle’s cross-hairs with the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills,” and another of a gun-toting child with the words, “The smaller they are, the harder it is.”
12 1/2 years for Karen Aimes killer. I feel sad for the family. He will be out living his life by age 30. She will still be dead.
It just doesn’t feel right to me.
He also got 6 years for assaulting another woman to be served concurrently. What is with the discount? First crime free as long as the second one is worse? seriously FFS.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.”
This from the idiot who, on another post on this blog, is screaming against Mr Singh getting off. Do you realise how stupid you are or do you need people to point it out for you?
Which post would that be Craig? I haven’t made any comment on the Singh case, so fuck off and colour yourself idiot.
I gather you’re OK with police skulking around private property in the dark, interfering with vehicles. Tell me, if it was your car, what would you do?
CraigM : Karen Aimes and her family have not received justice.
This little murderer needs to be behind bars for the rest of his life. I’m happy for my taxes to pay for this.
I can’t believe he is only going away for 12 1/2 years. I would have liked to smash the judge in the face if it were me. How can the judge keep a straight face handing out life in prison, then say the killer can get out after 12 years? This is political correctness gone mad.
Murder is unforgiveable, especially so one as cold and calculated as this one. I always think, what if if were one of my kids who were murdered.
Why pay tax to keep this low life alive for the next 12 years?
Send him to a maximum security unit for a few months, let the “big boys” have their way with him a few times and then take the bastard out into the yard as shoot him.
Seems a reasonable exchange for the life of an innocent young lady don’t you think?
March 26th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The Virender Singh case demonstrates everthing that is wrong with liberal attitudes to justice. While we continue to award the virtues of civilised men to violent criminals by default, and punish the victim for self defence, we will be unable to reduce street crime. Asking a man who fought off five attackers after being stabbed to prove self defence is absurd in the extreme. The Police and crown are pushing themselves into irrelevency and losing the trust of the community.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Goodgod – would you explain further your issues with the case. Given that Mr Singh’s case was thrown out, I would have thought was a perfect example of a system that is working. As the police stated yesterday, they charged Mr Singh with assault based on the best evidence available – given they beleived there was a prima facie case. The Court disagreed and threw the case out. An example of both entities doing the jobs they are entrusted to do.
The police claimed he used excessive violence, i.e. more than was necessary to defend himself. And a charge should be laid in such cases. Self defence gives people the right to protect themselves – i.e. act until they are safe. There were claims that Mr Singh was hitting the youths as they were on the ground. We have a police force who can do the follow up work – i.e. investigating and apprehending those who stabbed Mr Singh. And as soon as I even consider whether or not we should alllow members of the public to take these matters into their own hands, all I hear is “lynch mob, lynch mob”…
March 26th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I wonder if the inclusion of the labour party in the israeli Government will help to moderate their stance and be a step towards a peaceful solution. The Independant ran an interesting article written by a Jew in which he pointed out that the Jews major problem was that they have a persecution paranoia and until they moderate/cure this there is little hope for a sensible settlement. By Jews I refer to all of them all over the world who encourage an anti-arab stance and ignore the democratic voting where it is posssible. I think the West is foolish to refuse to deal with Hamas and I remember from way back in the old days there was something known as de-facto recognition which meant that we didn’t agree with the government but we dealt with them becuase they effectively were the government. Strikes me as a much more sensible policy rather than just labling all those whose actions you don’t like as terroists or axi of evel and refusing to talk with them.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:50 am
I hope that I am never in Mr Singh’s position becuase I see a definite difference between saving onself from a single attacker and a gang of five. Then there is the question of costs … when a prosecution fails does the accused have his cost paid? or does he have to pay to prove his lack of guilt?
March 26th, 2009 at 8:52 am
jcuknz – Virender Singh will have to pay his legal fees, unless he has Legal Aid. This is one prosecution which should never have been brought.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I reckon I’ve discovered what the Labour MP’s were up to while they were down the West Coast last week. They’ve decided that the best way to reconnect with the public is via Twitter
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/03/twitter.html
March 26th, 2009 at 8:57 am
He is going to have to work a lot of hours to make up the money that this case has cost him – as opposed to his attackers who are probably all on welfare and seem to rob dairies and shops for a living.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am
NOt1tocommentoften “Self defence gives people the right to protect themselves – i.e. act until they are safe. There were claims that Mr Singh was hitting the youths as they were on the ground.”
If he hit them whilst they were on the ground it would have been to make sure they couldn’t get up and attack him again – ie to make sure he was safe. Why should he wait until they get up into a position of strength before he resumes his self defense? If those thugs hadn’t been causing trouble they wouldn’t have got hit at all.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Hagues – I wasn’t there, neither were you, I am simply going on the facts as stated. The police were there very soon after the incident and gathered evidence. They used this to lay charges. If, the facts suggest that Mr Singh used excessive force, then it is no longer self defence and he has committed assault. Maybe I was wrong to say that it was excessive because he was hitting someone on the ground. Maybe it was excessive because the offenders were no longer attacking him but he carried on attacking them nonetheless. This was obviously a border-line call and the police have to deal with them from time to time. Here, they made the decision to prosecute. The two JPs to presided said there was insufficient evidence to put the question to a jury so he was aquited. The police can’t win – damned if they do half the time and damned if they don’t the rest.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
goodgod & NOt1tocommentoften – I think there’s truth in each of your respective positions on this. For me the BIG issue is not ‘should a charge have been laid?’, nor is it was ‘the defence reasonable?’.
What I want to know is where were the parents of these thugs and – bigger question – how can we stop kids growing up in an environment where getting trashed, stoned and taking a knife down to the local grog shop is seen as acceptable behaviour? How can we instill a sense of community pride, right vs wrong and a moral compass?
Those questions come back to the quality of family and parenting skills. I think we could do better, and elevate the definition of a ideal family (being genetic mum & dad + kids)
March 26th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I believe that the Police (or at least the hierachy) really don’t like the idea of self-defence. They seem to want to keep that to themselves. Without the means and the right to self-defence you have no self-defence. In the Singh case – there were five to one. I saw a 6′3″ man who had been beaten to a bloody pulp by five teenagers once in Wellington. The reason Steven Wallace was shot four times was to make him fall over and not get up – the only smart thing for Sgt Abbott to have done – Mr Singh should be afforded the same right to make sure his attackers posed ZERO threat to him – in this case hiting them until they stayed down.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:21 am
getstaffed – thanks for partially agreeing. And I agree to some extent that there is a much bigger issue in existence here. But the Singh case does raise important issues in itself – i.e. to what extent do we let people take the law into their own hands and harm others…
Anyway, I further agree that a lot of these issues do arise in the home. Where I differ though in in your definition of the ideal family, and for a number of reasons. The first, is your reference to genetic. I fail to see how adoptive parents, to use one example, are incapable of raising child with “a sense of community pride” and the ability to know “right vs wrong”. Genetic or not, I think that any loving parent can raise a child well. Secondly, while I agree that having two parents in the home is ideal, I don’t agree that single parent or split families are the primary cause. A loving parent, who cares for their childs needs, educates them, provides for them, and ensures they have a good upbrining is far more beneficial to the kids than two parents who are abusive, fight, or are disinterested. I think a loving family environment is the key, but disagree that “the ideal” family is a manifestation of such.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Miss Marshall the crown prosecutor implied that since one “boy” was wasted, he should have been absolved of his involvement – all his acts up to that point null and void. Damage done overlooked, violence disregarded, potential threat ignored, situation neutral. It was as if he had been there buying bubble gum.
She was willing to believe he was just there “looking for his friend” but unable to believe Mr.Singh percieved a threat. She was so certain in her mind, as representative of the crown, that Mr. Singh had acted with premeditated malice, blind rage, hate even. She knew Mr Singh’s mind, intimately, immediately. But it seems she had to wait some time to construct the defence of the state of her client’s mind. She was peddling the same lies and illusions that sound so much like all the other times this type of crime has occured.
At the point that the blade entered Mr.Singh’s leg there was no troubled upbringing, no society deaf to the hardships of these heroic thugs, no record of the motivating spark, no knowledge of day, time or reason. None of that was known.
Mr.Singh was stabbed in the leg, by these “wasted” and – if you believe the crown – heroic attackers. At that point, in liberal justice lala land, they should have backed off because now Mr.Singh was at a disdvantage. These heroic combatants against capitalism were men of principle – why, how could they now attack a wounded adversary? If they were wasted they would expect quarter. What kind of barbarian would not give quarter?
Oh please.
This is the retarded thinking of liberal justice – all rights and consideration given to the attacker, none to the victim. We should not even be considering the “fairness” of one of a group of thugs being too wasted to carry out his vocation. It is this consideration of “fairness” for the attacker – that is not reciprocated to the victim – that is an abberation of reasoning. It’s merely masturbation of the mind, playing with ideas that are divorced from reality and context. Liberal justice decides the outcome and constructs the case and even the context after the fact to match the outcome. Any moment of imagination can be applied to justify the blade cutting through flesh with immunity – indeed, it was a greater crime that Mr.Singh possessed a leg than that these thugs wounded him.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I realise that by my last comments I may have got into the “traditional family” debate…. is this one to avoid on this blog?!
March 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Except that Singh was not taking the law into his own hands. He was defending himself which is lawful, despite the Police trying to make it a crime. The cops can hardly defend themselves (witness a policeman killed by an air-rifle last year because all he had to defend himself against an armed man was his legs and how fast he could run) let alone anyone else.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Sometimes it is
March 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I wouldn’t ping the crown prosecuter – she is just doing her job with the material given to her.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
And even if he were, what else is a man to do when the law dosent show up in a timely manner? Continue to get stabbed? Die perchance?
Pah. if more people felt they were able to defend themselves in the eyes of the law, more criminals might think twice about committing crimes against people.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am
The Singh case now has it’s own thread. DPF is slow today.
[DPF: Not really I blogged it at 5.30 am, but time delayed it. If I have losts of posts I time them throughout the day]
March 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am
DPF, it would be really good if the comments here about the Singh case could be transferred over to the new thread pronto, the argument is interesting and important and it is a pity to break it into 2 bits.
Perhaps you should time the general debate thread after any obviously debate-stimulating one like the Singh one?
March 26th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I wonder what ever happened to the Kiwi perception as to the simple difference between right and wrong.That successive Governments have forgotten that their number one function is to provide the means to protect their citizens is now beyond much doubt with even our armed forces, in total ,being hard pressed at the moment to protect even Stewart Island.Much worse of course is that our patter cake police force has given entirely new meaning to the term PC ,like political correctness being far more of an accurate description than the original meaning. Twice,in recent years I have unfortunately been forced to defend myself against criminals busily robbing my house.Fortunately on both occasions,although unashamedly using violent means to overcome the offenders, the Police,being at that time untainted with advanced PC self righteousness,simply said “well done mate,thanks very much”. Perhaps the message should now be to all those tossers at Police Headquarters,either remember who really are the bad guys,or we may have to pop down to Wellington to jog your memories.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Let’s take THIS up now that the Singh argument has gone to another thread: these anti-Israel freaks need a good kicking every time they rear their ugly heads:
jcuknz (112) 0 4 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“I wonder if the inclusion of the labour party in the israeli Government will help to moderate their stance and be a step towards a peaceful solution. The Independant ran an interesting article written by a Jew in which he pointed out that the Jews major problem was that they have a persecution paranoia and until they moderate/cure this there is little hope for a sensible settlement…….”
The Jews have a “persecution PARANOIA……….”????????????
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha………….
But seriously, though, it is not funny.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The choice of peace does not lay with the Israelis. This is a simple fact.
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.
Till then, cram it.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
NOt1tocommentoften – There will be traditional genetic mum+dad+kids families that provide a less loving environment than do other less optimum structures. I have a couple of good friends who are solo parents, and I can say first hand that the care provided for their kids is an order of magnitude better than a few families at our school.
I still contend, though, that the best family setup is the traditional one. I’ve posted this research reference before… but it’s as relevant as ever. It shows that the incidence of child death, injury and accidental drowning rises as the family structure breaks down to look less like a traditional biological dad+mum+kids. Table 2 on Page 5 is particularly disturbing.
The challenge for commenters here who don’t fit into the biological dad+mum+kids frame to be able to accept research like this knowing that it identifies their family situation as less than ideal, but makes no judgment of their individual ability to parent excellently. This is all about being honest enough to objectively face the facts, rather than dismissing them because they may cast aspersions on one self.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
There’s a ripper of a cartoon in the Herald this morning from Rod Emmerson – celebrating one of Helen Clark’s finest moments as PM
March 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“Murray
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.”
But Murray, you too support genocide in the middle east.
Btw, hows your homoerotic historic dress up club going, fancy a sword fight?
March 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
yes..muzza likes to ‘dress-up’..
..and then have some ‘rough ‘n tumble’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Something for media junkies….
On the Radio NZ national programme Wednesday morning law slot yesterday (March 25), the speaker was Professor John Burrows QC, former law professor, a Law Commissioner, and an author on media law. Talking about privacy, he used as an example, the allegedly Pauline Hanson pictures.
Only Dr Burrows didn’t say alleged Pauline Hanson pictures. He talked of them as though they were genuine, and neither he nor the interviewer mentioned that three days earlier the pictures had been revealed to be bogus and apologies issued.
Could we see Dr Burrows from this being called as a witness in an Australian libel case to illustrate how a correction didn’t wash off all the mud? A man of his expertise, experience, and gravitas would be a powerful witness.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
and this ..is for muzza..and you other righties..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/a-major-difference-between-conservatives-and-progressives/
“..Even as Bush implemented one massive expansion of government power after the next —
– the very “un-conservative” policies they long claimed to oppose —
– there was nothing but (at best) the most token and muted objections from them.
The handful of conservatives who did object were cast aside as traitors to the cause..
.. and criticisms of the President became equated with an overt lack of patriotism.
Uncritical support for the Leader was the overarching, defining attribute of conservatism..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Alas I fear we will see a situation where the Police hestitate to act in a confrontation because they are scared of the consquences uopn themselves and the result will be innocent citizens maybe children and infants killed by an offender.
The PC crapola over those who put themselves into a confrontation with the Police get dealt to and then we have the grief and guilt laden responses of the family and so called supporters is beyond the pale
Balance must be restored Personal responsibility of the consquences of actions must be enforced and the excuses dealt with as just that excuses.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
KiwiGreg
I must disagree iwth you If the Crown Prosecutor had the right ethics and morals she would have said that she was unable to take the case as it offended her sense of judgement
The Nuremburg Defence is not a valid excuse
Until we get people in authority to act in accordance with good morals and good ethics we will continue to have a corrupted system
Only when good men and women stand up and are counted will a bad system be changed
Those who support a bad governnace system will resist change at all cost until they are forced to.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Not sure if this has been covered yet but I see that the piece of shit who killed Karen Aim has received what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
“The teenager who murdered Scottish tourist Karen Aim on a Taupo street will be behind bars for at least 12 ½ years.
Jahche Broughton, 15, was sentenced in the High Court at Rotorua today.”
That is a pathetic sentence for a callous and unprovoked murder, this little prick should be put to death, failing that he should never see the light of day again.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Bruv – agree. Murder should be a 20 yr min IMHO
March 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Murray (2660) Vote: 5 1 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The choice of peace does not lay with the Israelis. This is a simple fact.
Not one of you ultra left national socialist pricks have any right to make any comment on the middle east until you explain why you support a state that has genocide as the first article of their charter.
Till then, cram it.
How odd then that there was very little bloodshed in the ME until israel began its campaign of land theft. Just maybe if the Jews had stayed, where they belonged, in Europe, there would be peace in the ME today.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Brian Smaller (943) Vote: 3 0 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
i.e. to what extent do we let people take the law into their own hands and harm others…
Except that Singh was not taking the law into his own hands. He was defending himself which is lawful, despite the Police trying to make it a crime. The cops can hardly defend themselves (witness a policeman killed by an air-rifle last year because all he had to defend himself against an armed man was his legs and how fast he could run) let alone anyone else.
Well, as far as defending himself goes, he should have been wearing his Police uniform.
We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Just maybe if you had stayed, where you belonged, at The Standard, there would be sensible debate at Kiwiblog today
March 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Watch THIS promising young Pommie conservative MP dish out the mother of all rippings to Gordon Brown in the European Parliament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs&feature=related
March 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.”
This from the idiot who, on another post on this blog, is screaming against Mr Singh getting off. Do you realise how stupid you are or do you need people to point it out for you?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The AP has a nice story about some fairly distasteful Israeli armed forces tee shirts:
JERUSALEM – Israel’s military condemned soldiers for wearing T-shirts of a pregnant woman in a rifle’s cross-hairs with the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills,” and another of a gun-toting child with the words, “The smaller they are, the harder it is.”
http://fe21.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_army
March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
and the reason I came to General debate:
12 1/2 years for Karen Aimes killer. I feel sad for the family. He will be out living his life by age 30. She will still be dead.
It just doesn’t feel right to me.
He also got 6 years for assaulting another woman to be served concurrently. What is with the discount? First crime free as long as the second one is worse? seriously FFS.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
CraigM (411) Vote: 0 0 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“We issue police with uniforms to help them stand out and so we know who they are. Skulking around in the dark and interfering with private property leads to all sorts of ethical and moral issues, let alone criminal and personal safety issues.”
This from the idiot who, on another post on this blog, is screaming against Mr Singh getting off. Do you realise how stupid you are or do you need people to point it out for you?
Which post would that be Craig? I haven’t made any comment on the Singh case, so fuck off and colour yourself idiot.
I gather you’re OK with police skulking around private property in the dark, interfering with vehicles. Tell me, if it was your car, what would you do?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
jesusinawheelchair ratbiter, you’ll have Murray slavering all over you know. You know he only gets hard when someone points out the folly of the jews.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
“philu (4022) Vote: 0 1 Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
yes..muzza likes to ‘dress-up’..
..and then have some ‘rough ‘n tumble’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)”
Too right Phil, I hear his national front boys are in on it too, you know, what goes on in camp stays on camp…
March 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
CraigM : Karen Aimes and her family have not received justice.
This little murderer needs to be behind bars for the rest of his life. I’m happy for my taxes to pay for this.
I can’t believe he is only going away for 12 1/2 years. I would have liked to smash the judge in the face if it were me. How can the judge keep a straight face handing out life in prison, then say the killer can get out after 12 years? This is political correctness gone mad.
Murder is unforgiveable, especially so one as cold and calculated as this one. I always think, what if if were one of my kids who were murdered.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
wreck
Why pay tax to keep this low life alive for the next 12 years?
Send him to a maximum security unit for a few months, let the “big boys” have their way with him a few times and then take the bastard out into the yard as shoot him.
Seems a reasonable exchange for the life of an innocent young lady don’t you think?