Is he a paedophile and a liar?

April 14th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The SST report:

The serial paedophile at the centre of a name suppression stoush between the and the appears to have lied on oath about his job status and where he was living.

The man also lied about his identity when approached by the Sunday Star-Times last week.

The paedophile, who claims he has name suppression for sexually assaulting young girls but cannot produce a court record to prove it, denied he was the man in question when confronted at his workplace.

The man’s lie may be an attempt at damage control because it contradicts a sworn statement he made in support of a bid for interim name suppression being sought by the commission.

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the paedophile’s statement, sworn earlier this month, said he was living in the Wellington region and was unemployed.

But a source said the man and his partner took over the running of a central North Island motel about 14 months ago.

Company records show the man described himself as the “manager” of a company believed to be leasing the motel. Other records list his contact phone number as the same as the motel’s.

Yet the Human Rights Commission is using taxpayer money to take legal action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for revealing he is a paedophile.

If there was some proof of a suppression order, then of course it should be obeyed. But to take action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust purely on the basis of the paedophile’s allegations that he has name supression is outraegous.

The fact that there is now evidence that the paedophile is also a liar, may cause the Human Rights Commission to reconsider the wisdom of taking him at his word.

Neither the commission nor the paedophile have been able to produce a court record to show the man was granted name suppression but documents from the commission show it is largely relying on the paedophile’s word that his name is suppressed.

The commission said a newspaper report of the man’s sentence of a year’s jail in 1995, for five counts of doing indecent acts on girls aged 10 and 14, did not name him.

The man had interim name suppression, but there is no record of it having been made permanent.

An interim name suppression application for the man, who, it is understood, has already received a payout of about $15,000 from police after his police record was anonymously sent to the trust, will be heard on Wednesday in the Auckland District Court.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust repeatedly told the commission it would not publish the man’s details if he could show he had name suppression.

A very reasonable position.

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Is he a paedophile and a liar?”

  1. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    I’m baffled why the Human Rights Commission is involved. Surely if the guy thinks there is a problem then he is free to hire a lawyer to bring an injunction and sue for damages. So why is the Commission acting as his agent?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Honeybadger (150 comments) says:

    Yes, he is a paedophile (convicted), and yes he is a liar (shown by the way he obtains employment in the past, and now by claiming to be unemployed while managing motels)

    A manipulative liar…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Doctor Who (45 comments) says:

    The HRC had sore feet and went to a masseur.

    She said: “That’s not a foot!”

    “No, but it’s close, so get on with it…”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,659 comments) says:

    I also find the HRC’s stance on this baffling, it’s starting to look like there is a personal vendetta going on.
    How long has there been for proof of name suppression to be provided? I’d say we’re above the 95% confidence level now that he doesn’t have name suppression.
    The victims from 1995 are at least 28 years old now, they’re not vulnerable children any more, arguing that suppression is in their interests is weak. The interests of protecting others from becoming his victims far outweigh that.
    The SST in this case is absolutely correct: no evidence he has name suppression, no on-going need to protect the identity of his previous victims and every need to protect others from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    HRC. More waste of taxpayers money. John and Bill. Create some fast savings for the taxpayer here please.
    chop chop chop.
    And never mind the posumn head.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Media Watch on Radio NZ’s Sunday Labour Programme was Leftish (as you would expect) on this issue today.

    It alleged MSM bias in favour of Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    Way behind the play,even of the rest of the MSM. What a waste of taxpayer money. Do we really need a State commentariat on the free news media?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    I can’t wait until we get rid of this Labour government so we can get rid of these unnecessary bullshit departments.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    Why won’t the nats abolish the commission? Are they too pussy to fight the looney left?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gravedodger (1,515 comments) says:

    Are you suggesting David there may be a Paedophile out there who never lies.
    Salt and pepper, up and down, in and out, tar and feathers.

    Lieing, grooming, covering up are indistinguishable to these POS, they all form integral parts of the activity along with denial.

    It is not wrong, the kids benefit. Sickening eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (7,606 comments) says:

    He is both a paedophile and a liar.

    Until he accepts that he is a paedophile he will continue to lie about it and be dangerous.

    When he stops lying and is honest to himself and others, there is a chance that he won’t reoffend.

    He might not always be a liar, he will always be a paedophile, even if not acting on his urges the desire will not go away and needs to accept that about himself before he has any chance of controlling that side of his behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (7,606 comments) says:

    gravedodger (1,142) Says:
    April 14th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    ————————–

    There are paedophiles who accept what they are and stop lying about it. Some accept medication that helps prevent their sexual urges.

    Only those that are truthful about what they are, and are open and aware of the danger they pose to young child – ever have any chance of not offending. They need to accept though, that they will always be a paedophile.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tvb (4,205 comments) says:

    Paedophiles are highly manipulative people who live in the shadows of reality. They have to be and get quite skilled at it. Why anyone would take such a person at face value beats me. As for name suppression he got that to protect the identity of the victims. That is where the Human Rights Commission should focus their work. Were their human rights beached by naming the paedophile.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dishy (224 comments) says:

    I’m with you, Gravedodger. That a paedophile is also a liar is about as surprising as news that a bank robber also litters. When armed robbers get done, they don’t get extra time if they failed to give way at a roundabout while escaping. There’s some bad stuff in life you get to do for free – just look at concurrent prison sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    right now>The victims from 1995 are at least 28 years old now, they’re not vulnerable children any more, arguing that suppression is in their interests is weak.

    They might disagree. Would you want your partner, friends, colleagues to suddenly know if it were you? Especially if he was a family member?

    >The interests of protecting others from becoming his victims far outweigh that.

    The man is clearly a vile specimen of humanity. And no parent would want him near their kids. And I am in no way defending him or apologising for him.
    But there are practicalities the authorities have to consider in these cases.
    The big problem is what you do with people once they’ve served their sentence. Obviously, we could all think of a few ideas!! But the scumbag has to live somewhere. And if he’s outed where he is now, and driven out by local vigilantes, he’ll just become somewhere else’s problem.
    Of course the louse is going to lie: he doesn’t want petrol through his letter box.

    Though as davidp said at the start, it’s a matter for the law, not the HRC. Meddling in cases like this just gets them a bad press and gives people the idea that ‘human rights’ are a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    Svelte skills from Mc Vicar. Although nothing appears to have been filed against SST to this point, he’s managed to lay out the charges, ‘fairly’ outline the evidence he hasn’t yet seen and find SST not guilty. What work, investigation, prosecution and defence, the work of the Court, possibly even a jury, all without getting off the couch. Who ever this person is and whatever danger he may or may not be, whether he’s complying with the law is up to the police to investigate – something they’ve no doubt already done because of the public interest involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    Ah, the little people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. greenjacket (417 comments) says:

    Whole thing is bizarre – either the HRC can prove that there is a suppression order, or else the HRC has completely destroyed its own credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RightNow (6,659 comments) says:

    Wait, what? You thought the HRC had credibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    I seem to recall another case recently where the HRC persued a case despite the courts tossing it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. goldnkiwi (993 comments) says:

    The lesser people. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.