The poor entertainer
The Dom Post reports:
A top entertainer who shoved a young woman’s head into his genitals in an alleyway is fighting to keep his name secret because he says publicity will destroy his career.
I’ve got a solution. How about you don’t shove a young woman’s head onto your genitals, and then you won’t get adverse publicity?
The Police have not objected to name suppression, so I guess he will get it.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: name suppression
October 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I have a problem with suppression here. The usual problem. Every other male entertainer in his 30′s in this country are now being looked at sideways.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Exactly! Lets just hope the media win their case against the suppression. It sends the wrong message to everyone that if you are famous you can get away with breaking the law.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
..but have you read the full story… 3 girls/women involved…consensual then one turns around and cries foul..gets 5 grand from the guy but now wants her hour of fame…slapper..they all think they are sittin on a goldmine…
October 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Oh please!! Three silly slappers go down an alley with a pissed guy at 3.30am and then claim to have been offended!!! Give me a break!
October 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Refer Cactus: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605934
They were sober(ish), he was not. Three of them went down an alleyway with him, and asked if they could kiss him. He pulled one of them towards his groin. So….drunk entertainer, three chicks want to go into an alley and kiss him, and he draws the conclusion that a bit of a blowjob might be on. And now he’s being sued? Not real smart on his part, but I very much doubt they’ll win the court case.
I wonder if he’s married – any self respecting entertainer should be welcoming the attention. So I presume there is some other reason for trying to hide his name.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I read it as he went into the alley with two of them. You don’t have a ‘kiss’ in the alley. Then the other one comes up and he obviously thought Christmas had come early.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Since when Winston Peters is considered young? Entertainer and crook and corrupt, yes.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Without being rude, crude, or bizarre, can the question be answered how a person’s head can be shoved “into” a male’s genitals, given that male genitals are external equipment?
Or is this merely the phrasing of a female journalist, innocent to a rare (even astonishing) degree in today’s world?
If it turns out the entertainer in question is transgender or a hermaphrodite or some such, could the “into” then be interpreted as a breach of a court name-suppression order, in that it identifies the entertainer?
October 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
And reflecting on DPF’s title “The Poor Entertainer”.
He is not very wealthy?
He doesn’t entertain very well?
Still doesn’t narrow the list down very much, does it.
(copied from misposted thread….damn)
October 29th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Another man being “guilt-raped” by sluts on the prowl for money and their 15 mins…..? Feminism….gotta love it.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
What James said.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
depends how much ‘money’ is involved i guess.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The funny thing is… when these suppression orders are finally lifted, I have usually never heard of the so-called “celebrity”.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Agree Colonel but they are always famous in the tiny world their brain inhabits.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
What a bunch of wimps NZ musicians (I’m assuming that “entertainer” is code for muso) are. In other countries, musicians are angry people who want to take drugs, have sex with as many people as possible, and smash the state. But here they all seem to be Labour Party toadies who’ll fall over themselves to scrape before Helen Clark at an awards show, or compose a Labour Party campaign song. The entertainer in question should claim that he hoped to boink all three girls in the alley, then intended to snort a huge quantity of drugs out of the navel of one of them while the other two indulged in a bit of kinky girl-girl action. Instead, he wants to make amends and salvage his reputation.
If Labour Party MPs can abuse gay people using homophobic insults without feeling any shame, then surely a drunk musician should be able to rub a girl’s face in his crotch without getting all metrosexual about it.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Re DavidP’s 3.47 post..
Hell you seem to be advocating Kiwi musos should emulate our Philu, master of the tantric arts, Nobel Prize winner in Hallucinatory Chemistry, doctor of meat-ology and arcane communication, all in spite of being blind and limited to a special keyboard with ten frigging fullstop keys.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Whoops! Sorry I thought Philu was metrosexual. Blast, he’s meat-rosexual.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Regardless of the merits of who is right and who is wrong in this matter, the fact he plead guilty means he must think he did some wrong, and now he wants no one to know about it. Doesn’t seem right to me, he’s a celebrity (well has been described as one anyway), why should he get name suppression.
Does celebrity status mean you have a reason others don’t that you shouldn’t be named?
October 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
..he did what any pissed red blooded male would do in the situation…and if you deny it you are a liar…or a fag..
October 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I’m with Rolla
Once convicted no name suppression unless a minor is involved and that minor can decide anyway whether they need to be protected.
this is as bad as the sodding AB’s, bunch of wankers.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Don’t forget to DNA test him.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
‘Moments’ later she goes down the alleyway knowing theres some knob polishing about to happen, and she’s upset when he thinks she’s in?
She should be charged with wasting police time.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, right. What if it’s the fag who follows you down the alley? Oh, that’s right, forgot, you’re too pissed to remember so it wouldn’t matter, would it. Or it was his wife, it could take a bit to be allowed to forget that.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
what fucked up ramblings pete george…
October 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I’ve never heard it called that before – each to their own.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
It’s simple – because the moronic hoardes who live on tabloid TV, in some of our newspapers and on talkback radio will never stop dragging up such events when it suits them, name suppression should automatically apply to everyone accused of anything through to verdict. If not guilty it continues for life, if guilty it’s lifted.
It’d also reduce the number of unsuccessful prosecutions (and their cost to the taxpayer) I suspect, as the Police know full well that an arrest on some charges, with accompanying publicity, is the worst part of the punishment for many people regardless of the outcome of the trial, because aforesaid morons make much of the arrest and then fail to mention, or barely note, the acquittal.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Heck, New Zealand has a top entertainer? I would dread to see the bottom one.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Better than being fucked up down an alley.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
with 3 girly girls..hey no problem…would that be a problem for you PG..are you not a real man ?
October 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Yep, committed and faithful to a real woman in the real world.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
..oh how nice. How do you know the guy’s not single ?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
…reminding you what you said, not all males are interested in trysts with trollops or trying to force fellatio.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I heard it was just Simon Dallow getting fresh with the Seagull as he often does in the ad breaks under the news counter.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Given the guilty plea I would have thought name suppression was an uphill battle.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
The girl involved was 16. Her view of musicians is probably Hana Montana and Jonas Brother – all frothy, romantic drivel. It’s not surprising she was out of her depth when she was confronted with the more “adult” behaviour of musicians.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am
mpledger – wasn’t this at 3am in the morning?
October 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
paul, i take it you haven’t been to the big kumara or float lately? you take your reputation in your hands in those places having to avoid jailbait
October 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
That wasn’t entirely my point somewhatthoughtful. I was kind of suggesting that anyone who is out in a bar at 3am in the morning probably isn’t all that out of their depth when confronted with adult behaviour. I suggest that they are probably engaged in all sorts of adult behaviours.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
No complaint from the other two girls though. I guess they had been taught good manners and knew not to talk with their mouth full.