Comments on: R v Whale

By: Tauhei Notts

Tauhei Notts — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:43:44 +0000

To Pete George;
If that tongue in groove set from the Labour Party had passed a law making homosexual activities compulsory, I imagine that you would be in there obeying the law and loving it.
It is our duty as citizens to ignore bad law. Whale Oil’s behaviour is to be applauded.
Our German friend told us how they passed a law in 1933 making it an offence to be polite to Jewish people. The devout and law abiding German people (Pete George would have felt at home amongst them) obeyed that law to the letter. Since 1945 no Kraut will ever obey a stupid law. They have seen how blind obedience can get one into trouble.

By: ross

ross — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:20:32 +0000

I recently came across the following Youtube video. It is very interesting, mainly for the fact that Mihcael Laws hasn’t been taken to task over revealing suppressed information in regards to the Peter Ellis case. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Laws was discharged without conviction, in June 2008, in regards to another case where he allegedly breached suppression laws? Why are police going after Whaleoil and not doing the same to Laws? Something seems amiss here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkQ5B3e_yo

By: CharlieBrown

CharlieBrown — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:04:36 +0000

LOL – I just had a quick google and the first page loaded said the name of the “entertainer”. Hehe, even msn.co.nz has it named somewhere, are the police going to summon Bill gates now? The judge that issued that name suppression order is a proper twat that deserves to go through what that 16 year old girl did (ie, “suck the entertainers balls”)

Like others though, I support whaleoil with naming the entertainer, but not the others cases. Name suppression is valid whilst someone is innocent of the crime, and its disgusting that the press and courts even release partial details of a person which allows for speculation to run rife… I’d hate to be a comedian that lives in ChCh at the moment. Also, untill someone is found guilty of a sex crime, even being names in beforehand can cause untold damage if they are innocent. The other case where name suppression is valid is when naming the criminal will identify the victim.

By: Viking2

Viking2 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:27:59 +0000

Any reporter worth their money would publish the names before they get to Court. To late to stop it then. But what no court reporters any more.
Just taker the stuff off the police comms fax.

By: Robert Black

Robert Black — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:15:20 +0000

I am the only idiot who doesn’t know who the musician or the comedian are.

Maybe someone can give me a Christman present?

Hehe.

Merry Christmas from China!

Good luck Whale! If I was there I would represent you for free.

By: toad

toad — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:48:02 +0000

I wish Whale had just left it with identifying the “musician”. I supported him on that – the guy was guilty and the suppression order when the case was finalised was a very bad decision by the Court. It was a good case for a civil disobedience protest to highlight the inappropriateness of suppression orders after someone has been found guilty. Someone should have done that with Shipton and Schollum too.

But with the “sportsman”, Whale went way too far. His case is completely different – the “sportsman” hasn’t even gone to trial, and the alleged victim can be identified from Whale’s post without much effort. His alleged breach of the suppression order in this instance may well jeopardise the Police case against the “sportsman”. Sorry, that one was a very bad call by Whale, so I won’t be turning up at Court to support him on 5 January.

If he’d just left it with the “musician” I may have.

[Shit - just realised I agree with big bruv (@8:16 am) on something. Guess it's that time of year.]

By: Michael E

Michael E — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:37:00 +0000

Well, I have to be the dumbest Whaleoil reader – I couldn’t work out who the musician was from his pictogram as I misinterpreted the surname. It wasn’t until I saw the musician was on TV1 news that I worked out who it was from the build, hair style and skin colour – despite the musician being blurred out. So I hope TVNZ are getting the same charges.

By: Viking2

Viking2 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:50:51 +0000

Just a thought, but if suppression was eliminated wouldn’t that be a good thing. After all it would eliminate a lot of reporters and newspapers playing hide the parcel in the end who really cares about most of these names. Its just another way of extracting funds for the benefit of the legal and newspaper professions.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:18:32 +0000

[DPF: 1 - Based on Siemer if the material is never removed.

They have been removed ( perhaps to avoid a contempt charge) . But you can still see them on the cache. Which Is why I never named the blogger concerned as it leads to the identity of the suppressed name.

By: Alistair Miller

Alistair Miller — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:03:42 +0000

Not only do I support the Whale in his stance, I support his undeclared but apparent rules as to appropriateness. He has not picto-grammed the comedian, although I’m sure he could, presumably because of the nature of the charges involved. The “musician”, the olympian and the (former) parliamentarian, on the other hand, are justified outings.

A slight segue, but when I learned the identity of the “musician”, I thought that descriptor could well have been a red herring given to the media to obfuscate the person’s identity. It might, at a stretch, be an “entertainer”, but it is certainly not a “musician”. Using these rules, the “comedian” could be pretty much anyone from an actual comedian (although the’re all shouting “Not me, not me, not me” to anyone who’ll listen) to Gerry Brownlee (the Brokeback Mountain thing was bloody funny, after all).

By: Pete George

Pete George — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:57:23 +0000

If you followed every law out there to the letter of said law, you would be an emotional cripple

I don’t follow every law to the letter.

But I don’t break laws or push legal boundaries to prove my own powers, when the effect on other people, especially innocent people, could be significant.

By: Dirty Rat

Dirty Rat — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:45:07 +0000

Um, Whale Oil is seeking “Pro Bono” lawyers ?

I’m not sure what Whale Oil has to offer these Lawyers, but I know a Gay high profile Barrister in Manukau.

Thats if whale oil is up for it

By: Pete George

Pete George — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:31:50 +0000

If every group of people who didn’t like a law flouted it we would have a mess. Or much more of a mess.

A few bloggers who don’t like a law and can easily flout it doesn’t mean it’s a good or popular stance or reasonable stance to take. It could be but there is a good reason why there is a proper process to change.

There are other people much longer and deeper legal experience who still think name suppression is an important part of the legal process.

In the “comedian” case what would name publication achieve? It would satisfy some curiosities, but I doubt it would do anything positive for the family, and far more likely it would have negative effects.

Even if the “comedian” is found guilty what would publication achieve? Apart from the sentence his family situation is possibly irreparably damaged anyway, and maybe the same for his career.

Sitting at a remote computer it is far too easy to forget that real people suffer real consequences, some just and justified, and some unfairly damaging. It is too easy for bloggers to get too full of their self perceived importance, and forget responsibilities to other people in the still real community..

By: Brian Smaller

Brian Smaller — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:12:01 +0000

Because laws can be circumvented does not mean they should be, or it is right that they should be.

If you followed every law out there to the letter of said law, you would be an emotional cripple – except that there is probably a law against it.

By: Dave Mann

Dave Mann — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:01:23 +0000

Keep voting, guys. Its 9 to 3 for the Whale at the moment

By: Pete George

Pete George — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:33:26 +0000

Whale pushed the boundaries knowing it would likely attract attention, probably hoping it would attract attention. He deliberately tried to circumvent the law, to prove it’s ineffectiveness? This is the consequence. It will be up to the court to decide if he took it too far.

Because laws can be circumvented does not mean they should be, or it is right that they should be.

By: J Mex

J Mex — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:25:19 +0000

I do hope that Whale is going to ask for his name to be supressed…

By: dime

dime — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:11:33 +0000

its only a $1000 per offence? thats pathetic.

By: Dave Mann

Dave Mann — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:06:31 +0000

Here’s an idea for a ‘poll’…

I support Whale.

Vote on this simple statement to show whether or not you support him on this one (in general terms that is).

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:05:36 +0000

Do you want us to all come down to the court to cheer you on?