Comedians lines up to say not me
The Sunday News reports many prominent comedians are lining up to sign declarations that they are not the comedian with name supression charged with child abuse.
It occurs to me that at the rate comedians are saying “not me”, most people will soon be able to work out who it is, by process of exclusion!
Those quotes as saying it is not me are:
- Michelle A’Court
- Oscar Kightley
- Mike King
- Ewen Gilmour
- Te Radar
The guild wrote to TV3 director of news and current affairs Mark Jennings asking the network not to refer to the accused as a “well-known comedian”. “When people make a list in their heads of a well-known comedian, it is a really small group of people and this person would not be on this list,” A’Court said.
“Being charged with the sexual abuse of a child is as appalling as it comes. I feel very sad when I hear people outside of our group saying, `Oh, do you think it might be blah, blah’. I am really convinced that if his name becomes public, everyone will go, `Really, I wouldn’t call him a comedian’.”
Michelle A’Court has a valid point. If the name ever is made public, I don’t think most people would associate them with the term comedian.
As always, no guessing identities in comments please.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
We don’t have to guess in the comments.
It’s that evil Kermadec Cruncywasp again!
December 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I knew it! Christchurch + comedian. Could only be [deleted by DPF].
But isn’t he a bit old to be fathering four year olds?
December 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I don’t know what the stupid asshole fuckwit justice system is trying to achieve with this name suppression thing. Why the fuck would they allow the description ‘comedian’ to be published?
I think there should EITHER be complete suppression of the whole case until a guilty verdict is reached OR (preferably) no name suppression whatsoever.
This bullshit is just a farce. Not only does it make a mockery of the system, but it also potentially tars ALL comedians with the same brush until they are ‘proved’ innocent.
Change the system!!!!!!
National Government, read this (and other comments on other blogs). Take notice. C H A N G E . T H E . S Y S T E M around name suppression.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
name suppression is silly, the way it is applied doesn’t seem fair.
I agree before the trial, but at trial they must be named.
Then others can come forward and if it is not true they can sue for damages.
All should be equal before the law celebrities, AB’s and the especially the monied or powerful.
No exceptions.
Some shame is actually necessary for a healthy society.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
In this instance Dave the name suppression isn’t for the accused it is for the protection of the child.
The accused did not apply for suppression, it is automatically put on because of the age of the victim.
Needless to say I think the Party is over.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
If name suppression, then why give employment or any details? “XX year old male”, even simply, “male” is enough. Unless there are public safety issues in which case the person should be in custody. Small groups in NZ, like “prominent musician” or “beloved comedian” create the problem, in a way that “unemployed” or “beneficiary” don’t.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I still don’t think the name should be suppressed, Whale. I agree that there would probably be pain involved for the child, and to protect her from undue focus by not actually mentioning (as opposed to actively suppressing) her name should be good enough. I don’t think the TV cameras and the paparazzi would be hounding her and its hardly likely that she would be pointed at and singled out for the rest of her life. Good taste and a generally accepted code of behaviour should apply.
But the NAME of the ACCUSED should be known at some stage… either when charged or if found guilty.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I would have thought if people are going to be surprised that they are a “comedian” it would put Te Radar back in contention!
December 20th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
And half of the Labour Party
December 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I wonder if Marie Dhyberg can get the old “I was pissed and it was an honest mistake M’Lud” defence to stick – that seems to be what the defendant’s PR team is saying in both major papers today.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
MikeNZ is right “Some shame is actually necessary for a healthy society. “
This BS about not wanting to upset the public lives of celebrities by making them subject to the same legal standards as the rest of us is complete bollox. We know our politicians are above the law, they validate their actions and make it so – but this growing list of “special class of citisen” is getting more and more disturbing.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Can someone tell me when computer nerds can expect full name suppression for heinous crimes because there are a lot of hotties around in summer and a man gets urges….
December 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Dave Mann suggests:
If found guilty, certainly. But prior to that, the accusation — particularly of this nature — can be the most damaging and destructive part of the process for the accused. Particularly because the media (and particularly the Sunday News, which keeps looking for a new depth in its gutter. And finding it) have this frankly ridiculous habit of foraging through someone’s past to try to make them out to be a celebrity of some sort, so their raucous headlines sound better.
“Nondescript bloke with dead end job accused of sex ofences” doesn’t sell nearly as many papers as “Prominent [insert occupation here] arrested for sex crimes”. Yet when you look into it the “prominent politician” is someone who once stood for the local drainage board in 1963, just as the “prominent comedian” will probably turn out to be some who once told six lame jokes on a Telethon.
Name (and occupation) suppression to guilty verdict for everyone would sort this out. Sex and age are sufficient. If there are other victims they can come forward once the offender is imprisoned – he can still be tried on those offences and any sentence set so as to add to the one he’s already serving.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
If suppression is to work at all then sex and age should be all that is revealed. It makes a mockery of suppression if occupation is given, especially when it is in a small field such as has made a few jokes on TV (even when you include the often inane attempts by news presenters). Banning the publicising of “clues” would be a fair thing to do for the accused who deserves suppression, and also to those who are incorrectly deduced, and those openly considered as possibilities.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I object to name suppression of people found guilty of a crime, but isn’t it premature to be attempting to name someone who hasn’t been found guilty?
To be honest. The press should be barred from reporting anything on crimes like this until it has been proven. Just shows how repugnant the press are, I rate them lower than lawyers and politicians.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Sounds like material for another Tui billboard.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I would prefer no name suppression but perhaps occupation suppression at the Judge’s discretion in a case such as this. The Not Guilty plea is unlikely to be heard for at least six months and another month for sentencing. The accused may commit similar acts in the interim. Publication may bring further complaints forth. The recent case of a Schoolmaster facing about 20 indecency charges presently grew to 40 once his name was published and the Police appealed for more complainants to come forth is a case in point. The certainty of name publication would be a major deterrent to much crime. The shelter of suppression the reverse.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Rex – the “person” involved in this case is somewhat better known than your Telethon analogy. As the process of elimination continues, I suspect that a good few people are going to review their viewing habits.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
backster – Good point but it still isn’t right. Justice is based on innocent untill proven guilty. And with the case of sex crimes, as far as society is concerned, you are a sex offender untill the accuser recants, even if found not guilty in court, so naming someone suspected but not guilty of a sex crime is completly wrong. If the police do their job right then they should be able to find people to come forth without publicising the name.
“The certainty of name publication would be a major deterrent to much crime.” – Yes, but only if the person is guilty. It doesn’t prevent people making false accusations… in fact it encourages it as it is a sure way of stigmatising a person for life.
And publishing the name of the offender after being found guilty can quite often cause undue harm on the complainant as well if they are related. In the case of sex crimes, the press should be barred from reporting any details of the defendent unless permission is given by the victim.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Yes Rex, Pete and Charlie I agree with you. The name should be published if found guilty, but unless and until that happens all details should be suppressed to prevent inuendo, speculation and scuttlebutt from damaging innocent people’s reputations just because they have the same job as the accused.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
NZ comedians should learn to take a joke – they always get really self-righteous about things like this.
I read another ‘media personality’ was said to say this about the offender: “All of his friends know he is innocent and would not be capable of this.” Which I think is a pretty stupid way to decide if someone is a sex offender or not. Hopefully he won’t pull a Tea Ropati and use his famous mates to get him off the hook.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Suppression sucks.
The notion that the victim has an interest in hushing things perpetuates the idea that a victim has something to be ashamed about.
In the real world all the victim’s family, neighbours and peers already know who is involved, but only the specific facts are subject to rumour.
I believe we are all best served by the truth being unrestricted.
December 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Comedian from Christchurch makes me think that Jim Anderton was the man, but not even I could think that of him.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Mudwatcher – The victim should decide about name suppression. It should be there choice, it shouldn’t be forced upon them. Name suppression does suck, but it sucks even more when a possibly innocent person gets slandered by the press because name suppression wasn’t given.
Once again though, the press is guilty of mud-raking bullshit. Like the weatherston case, they are making headlines out of things that should be left private.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
You want the kid being hassled at school about his dad? Cos that’ll fucken happen.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I suppose they used “comedian” because “entertainer” would be inappropriate.
There are times when name suppression is the correct thing and from my reading about this case I’d suggest this is one of them.
This person may actually be innocent of intentional wrongdoing and publication of his (Michelle?) name will destroy his career.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I didn’t know there were any comedians living in Christchurch!
December 20th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
The biggest problem with name suppression in general is that there’s always the sniff of suspicion that its the goatriders protecting one another via a fiddly handshake.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
In my view, suppression should mean that and used sparingly, and if used, almost nothing should be released, perhaps, Male from Auckland (which would make it not news anyway) and occupation, age – anything that makes it a story should be suppressed, what difference does it make if this dickhead is a comedian – none at all he will get his, if he deserves to and perhaps we can hear about it afterwards – but before he is proved guilty why does it need to be out there. I dont actually like this, but as it is you have this in between type law, where you have protects the rights of the accused (and victims) by smearing totally innocent people. Outta interest I checked all the usual suspects to see if I could pick up this name and found 3 different sites with people “outing” 3 different people who at least 2 possibly all 3 are innocent of it which is a shame for them and totally unnecessary.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am
Hang on if these people signing up are comedians wouldn’t that imply that some should be funny?
Frankly Mike Kings hypocracy in flogging pig meat untill they fired him then turning into a wailing wendy for the anti-farming mob is just plain pissing me off.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
flobbadob !!!!
Not another name supression
December 21st, 2009 at 9:22 am
I do think it’s funny that people automatically suspected Mike King. It shows our level of respect for him.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am
If it turns out it’s a “comedian” that isn’t at all funny, is it still technically a comedian?
December 21st, 2009 at 9:49 am
I don’t think it’s funny that people automatically suspected anyone. And I’m sure those named under suspicion don’t see the funny side of it either. Their families are not likely to be laughing about it either.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:50 am
llew, do you think it might be a case of someone like (purely a “for example”) Matthew Ridge for whom finding a printable description would otherwise prove too difficult?
December 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
No all we need is the accused to plead not guilty and we won’t know who it is, not that I care a tinkers.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
When people say comedian, they usually think of a stand-up act. The guy everyone is suspecting has been on a comedy show, but I don’t think he had his own act. As his celeb mates said he seemed to be quite a nice guy (compared to the unlikeable Matthew Ridges, Mike Kings and Dai Henwoods who plague our TVs).
December 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Only just read this in the media after everyone has been talking about it, I must live on another planet, but then, I never did find NZ comedians funny. I have read all the above comments but are we missing the point altogether – how can a grown man allegedly mistake a young child for his wife? Either he is dreaming we could believe this (if he says the event occurred) or we have one horrible allegation made in a custody dispute!! Either way, it all makes me sick…oh and name suppression, if it’s done to protect the victim I agree, but if it’s done to protect celebrities then no way!!
January 5th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Innocent until proven. May i add why david (1162) tristanb (29) started bringing Mathew Ridge into this particular blog.
Matty is great, a true hero. Some people are just plain jealous. Tall poppy slayers strike again.
Cheers all
January 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Jesus, our court system is brainless. To protect the child whether or not the alleged offender is named, simply suppress the relationship between the two and any evidence that reveals it. People might guess, but they couldn’t know for sure.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Simonsimon – Matthew Ride (Matty as you put it – you must be close) is what he is – an arrogant little spoon who deserves all he gets – put yourself up there and act like a prick then expect everything that comes your way, and Matthew Ridge has perfected that art!!
January 11th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
To fortunateson (are you really, lucky you)
Thanks for reply. I don’t understand what your on about. Why must i be close to him because i call him Matty? why is he arrogant? He’s nothing but fresh and honest and people like you can’t cope with that. You are right that he gets what he deserves, beautiful wifes and kids and houses and wealth and good friends. I guess your just jealous, which is understandable. If your referring to his honesty about that little leech tony Veitch, well tony got what he deserved.
All his so called attempted suicides were little more than PR coups to gain public sympathy. The little cretin even had a PR consultant throughout all his bullshit. Cheers Simon
P.S. regards your remark “I never did find NZ comedians funny” what about flight of the conchord and the Deja Voodoo movie, they are classic brillaint NZ comedy. Cheers again
March 24th, 2011 at 1:36 am
Oh my goodness, I know who it is. I was at the auckland district court on 21 february – 23rd february appearing as a witness for a case. therefore i waited in the victim support area. I saw a child, and when i left the building after we had tried for our own justice i saw a comedian walking past. Now i love comedy, so taking my small opportunity i would probably never have again – I told the comedian (who was in a rush to get somewhere – da da da hmmm) that i loved his work!. I say no more.