McLeod on TV justice shows

May 9th, 2016 at 12:08 pm by David Farrar

Rosemary McLead writes:

I am bored with the Sounds murders. I’ve had it up to my nostrils with them. I am bored with Scott Watson. I do not count him as a martyr to the justice system, but as a convicted double murderer. Which is reasonable, because that is what he is. As far as I’m concerned he doesn’t deserve your sympathy, or mine.

I think of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, two young people with their whole long lifetimes before them, whose existence was snuffed out – a jury agreed – by this man, who now merits my tax dollars being squandered on him in the name of fashion.

It is fashion, of course it is, because documentaries that cast doubt on criminal convictions are beloved of kindly people who believe the justice system is an evil thing about which they cannot bring themselves to be kind. Many nice people like to believe the world is an evil place, and that dark forces drive the police to frame the innocent. Yes, it happens, but this is how often in this country: not much.

There would be no documentary to establish Watson’s guilt for a million dollars.

No ratings in a show saying the Police got the right person. But maybe Ian Wishart should apply for funding for a documentary backing his book that concluded Watson did do it.

These documentaries are made because kindly people, people with good hearts, just cannot bring themselves to believe that a man who says he’s innocent could lie. Or that his lawyer most likely crafted a defence without knowing the whole truth any more than you or I. Or that everybody’s family believes them to be innocent and will say so, repeatedly, as Watson’s father does. And rather than sit through the tedium of a long trial, which Watson – and his jury – did, they would prefer to believe a documentary that sweeps aside inconvenient detail and spells out a story in words of one syllable, between ad breaks, in a commercial hour.

Will this documentary show the evidence that supports Watson’s conviction, or only the evidence that supports their contention? Will it be advocacy or factual?

McLeod on the election

September 25th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Rosemary McLeod writes:

The big guy’s not wrong when he admits he was toxic for the Internet-Mana Party. Actually he’s toxic for New Zealand. We don’t admire personal feuds and personalised attacks on this scale in our part of the world, and to tag it on to a general election was too much.

Dotcom’s squeals of pleasure, as his tame speakers attacked John Key, would have turned many stomachs, not just mine. They knew nothing about Key that could justify their attack on his character, and the only good thing about their display of viciousness ended up being that it perversely gave a landslide victory to Key at the end of the most bizarre campaign I can remember.

Who would have thought Harre and that martyr of all Left-wing causes, John Minto, would be enticed by big bucks? Was that how truly principled paragons of the Left should behave? Dotcom has looked and behaved like the epitome of the kind of fat cat they would normally deplore, throwing his money around, but that very money had them mesmerised.

They threw away their credibility, and it can hardly have been worth it.

A sadder case is Hone Harawira, who threw away his ability to advocate in Parliament for issues he genuinely believes in. Did he think Maori voters would follow him blindly?

They were too intelligent for that.

Hone and Laila were genuine principled advocates for their beliefs. And then they sold out. They took the money, and aligned themselves with a rich criminal’s jihad against John Key, as they thought it would get them into power. The former staunch unionists had not a word to say about the allegations of his former staff who claimed Dotcom paid them $5 an hour only.

Even the sainted Nicky Hager, who the overseas speakers lauded for his series of indignant publications, is tainted by the campaign waged against Key. It was a cynical and calculated gesture to publish his book so close to an election, hoping to derail National’s predicted chances. He managed to knock Judith Collins out of the running, and WhaleOil will never look so beguiling again, but he doesn’t look any cleaner for it. When you’re praised by the kind of crowd that whooped and hollered in the Auckland Town Hall you’re not in classy company. At least he had the good sense not to be present.

Both Hager and Dotcom made the same mistake – doing their attacks during the election campaign. New Zealanders don’t like gotcha politics like that. Any serious issues they had would have been far more effectively considered if they had released them three to six months before the election.

And for those who are about to attack McLeod as being a cheerleader for National:

I voted Labour – out of nostalgia, though I knew it would fare badly. …

And for the record, I’ve never voted National in my life.

And I suspect never will.

McLeod on Chauvel

October 21st, 2011 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Rosemary McLeod in the Dominion Post writes on Charles Chauvel:

MINE is a thankless trade. Surely all writing is. You beaver away with scarcely a word of encouragement – and then screens take the place of paper, and you become endangered as well as thankless.

You don’t anticipate this. You couldn’t have imagined a time when yesterday’s work wouldn’t be wrapping tomorrow’s takeaways. But that day is fast upon you, and it’s time to get a grip. What would Labour MP Charles Chauvel do in a situation like ours? That’s the question.

Which Rosemary goes on to answer.

McLeod on Robinson

January 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am by David Farrar

Rosemary McLeod writes in the SST:

PUT TOO much makeup on a 60-year-old woman and she’ll look like a man in drag. Such is the cruel fate of Irish politician Iris Robinson, a cosmetics queen who condemned gays while secretly bonking a mere slip of a boy. Her close-ups are a worry.

Iris was in “acute psychiatric care” last week after being forced to resign from politics, and quite likely costing husband Peter, First Minister of Northern Ireland, his career. I note this not to rejoice at her hypocrisy exposed, or revel in her distress, but to marvel at the many ingenious ways we make ourselves unhappy.

Eighteen months ago Robinson told the Ulster parliament that, “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than the sexual abuse of innocent children.” Putting gays on a par with paedophiles naturally enraged the gays, but she was unrepentant. “What I say I base on biblical pronouncements based on God’s word,” she insisted. She is a born-again Christian but why gays would interest her in particular is anybody’s guess.

Whenever we see a “Christian” blathering like this, we know instinctively that personal disaster is on the cards. In this country, for example, there’s former Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill, also a former pastor, a former barrister and former police prosecutor, a father of 10 children, currently serving nine years for multiple sex offences, including rape, against three young girls.

Robinson’s hypocrisy was rather blatant. I’m not sure when God told her to sleep with the 19 year old guy, despite being married.

Normally I might point out Robinson is slightly the victim of differing standards. People react far worse to a 60 year old woman sleeping with a 19 year old boy than a 60 year old man with a 19 year old girl.

But then I remember that this woman claimed that consensual homosexual sex is “more” vile than child abuse, and my sympathy dries up.