Well, not exactly. But their impetus that led them into Parliament on the back of the fraudulent Three Strikes legislation is exposed as irrelevant. So is revealed, that single issues that capture public fear or animosity can and do set the political landscape beyond their single point. With the 3 Strikes legislation NZ was given some ACT MPs who before their Parliamentary terms had finished would be exposed for fraudulent behaviour. Instead of being given a good law that delivered on its promise the public were sold a duck, along with that they got an MP that would need to resign and another that would have to repay misused funds that when asked of that MP, Hide, if it was good for the public that he had chosen to take his then girlfriend on an overseas publicly funded trip, responded 'that it was good for him.' Yes indeed. It was also good for David Garret whose carefully researched proposed 3 Strike Legislation, along with the backing of McVicar and the nod of Simon Power, and popularised hoardings elevated Act into power and an 'easy' ticket for Power's party to ensure they had a compliant coalition partner if things got tight on numbers.
For McVicar it must have been the realisation of the political power he craved, never realising that his decision to remain silent that the author of the legislation Garret was already on his second strike, which Hide and McVicar ruled as not necessary to tell the public, would be exactly that which came to come back to bite them on the arse. Additionally, it remains evident that most likely it led to the decision of Power to end his Parliamentary career, or perhaps he was encouraged by the impact it would be seen to have made on the credibility of the Government. Of course Power's departure was not before he repealed laws that were working and made serious attacks on the freedoms of NZers. His intention was to remove rights in favour of an all powerful state, an elite. When he finally left office he spoke about the possible need for independent inquiries into the injustices that feature in our legal system and which he said were 'deeply troubling' or something similar. Perhaps, not realising or being too arrogant to care that when he was intent on changing laws left, right and centre it was within his power, indeed his obligation as a law maker, to put right things that were 'deeply troubling' within the Justice system.
However, for the bare bones of the once lauded 3 Strikes laws we now see it as a failure, a fraudulent failure. Kim Workman has spoken out about the actual progress of the Law and quoted that anybody that believes that it is a success should speak to the Government's Chief Science Adviser, or the Ministry of Justice. The core group to which the legislation was meant to impact upon showed a little over 25% had even heard of the legislation, and none understood how it actually worked. Hello, that's a zero impact. Blinking brilliant.
But fear not, Crusher Collins, whose crusher legislation has so far failed to crush a single car, was able to 'confirm' that 'it does work, because of the comments that police and Corrections are getting from prisoners' she said. Hello again, the departments own statistics don't confirm that it works, the Chief Science Advisor, but Crusher knows that it does because anonymous people told her that it does by quoting, yes, the crims themselves who don't understand it. Well folks can be comforted by that when the Minister of Police who is down on crims, tough on them, uses anecdotal evidence apparently supplied by the most credible source of all, the crims themselves. Life must be tough for a bullshitting politician, particularly those that chose to deceive and frighten the public to ensure they're elected. But what of honesty? What of the critical need to unite and empower the people with truth? We now see truth and compassion lose to political expedience and lust for power.
Though perhaps the information that we see now as the real truth is something which can be learnt from, something proverbial about which truth shall endure, and liars who corrupt it are no better than those they lie about to condemn, steal from or influence. As this Parliament rises for the elections not less that a handful of liars have been removed, or decided to leave, before the people judge them of their honesty while the dear Minister of Police supports her case with the veracity of criminals as McVicar and Hide limp away.
Showing posts with label Watching Rodney and Garth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Watching Rodney and Garth. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
The dust still settles on Simon Power's failure to further erode the rights of NZers.
Simon Power, somewhat like Garth McVicar, chooses events that create public concern or anxiety to sheet home laws and policies to further divide society and make purchase from rare events in a manner that transports our society backwards. Likewise, a manner which divides our society and creates a medieval, stifling atmosphere of fear, most often fear of nothing when it is seen in the cold light of day.
Power removed a law hundreds of years old, the defence of provocation, because of one case, so ignoring hundreds of cases where the defence of provocation helped break down the greyness of what a reasonable person might do when faced with possible death by violence. The one case of course was the Weatherston case, one which for years in the future will cause consternation for its brutality. The law change of course effectively ignored that in the Weatherston case, the original law of provocation worked effectively. Behind the attack on a suitable working efficient law allowing recognition of provocation, half a step away in fact, was probably the true reason that drove Power and his frightened allies - a common objection that properly allows the relationship between the victim of a crime and the alleged perpetrator to be examined. Understandably, there is great difficulty for the family or friends of a victim for details of the victims love life for example, or propensity toward promiscuity, violence, sexual, drug or alcohol abuse. All of which creates in the family's mind that the victim and not the perpetrator is on trial.
Of course a Jury is entitled to hear such evidence, and also hear it tested because it helps them consider the 'guilty mind' aspect that attends crime. Most readers would be totally sympathetic that a woman charged with killing her lover is able to call evidence that showed her lover had been abusive in a number of ways, or had such a propensity for violence that when she acted in some fashion to take his life - that she did fearing she was about to be killed.
Given that this objection to victims 'being tried' is somewhat in the public mind and likely to be the driver for all sorts of calls for changes to the law I think the public and the law were entitled to a more reasoned approach from Minister Power. For example the ability or logic even to speak about the need for the Courts to have all the facts and for Judges to be able to exercise their powers as to what is and isn't admissible - an everyday situation. But no Simon Power had to have a knee-jerk reaction and change the law at a time when there was still some public pressure and a lot of misunderstanding about the provocation defence.
Of course, there was an immediate step Power could have taken which both assisted evidence being able to be carefully considered by a Jury and the desire of a family not having to undergo the stress of feeling that their loved one was under scrutiny for being a victim. He could have written to the Judiciary and the Law Society and advised that such cases, relatively rare that they are, might as a rule have suppression orders attached to particular evidence that a family might find objectionable - a power I understand the Courts either already have or which could be exercised by being encompassed in current rules.
So we see the difficulties of having politicians, those such as Power with little life or Court Room experienced, as law makers. Simon Power has always had his eye on his own interests as any politician is entitled to, but as a lawmaker a politician must have the ability to put that aside and be detached. As I read in an editorial in todays Sunday Star Times, the ancient legal cliche 'hard cases make bad law.' Simon Power has made a number of bad laws, not ever showing the presence of mind to realise he has heightened public expectation in some quarters, such as McVicar before his fall out with the Minister for 'undoing good work,' that all that a bad situation takes to be 'fixed' is a new, and most often tougher law to be introduced.
This week Power came a cropper, his attempt to expunge the 'right to silence' was stopped in its tracks despite his political attractive trappings of 'saving' Court time and making the process of the law more streamlined and efficient. Even the Judiciary and lawyers spoke out against the intended changes.
Power was however able to get through some tougher sentences for those that don't report child abuse, despite a growing cynicism in his own party that longer sentences are of any value. A more realistic person than Power would know that these recent changes will have little effect, as people prepared to ignore child abuse or reporting it, are unlikely to have any idea or concern of the consequences anyway, or of law changes that make those consequences harsher.
What has been less significantly understood, something which Simon Power, of all nzers would know but chose to ignore - was that the 'right to silence' if removed was likely to lead to more abuse that contributes to miscarriages of Justice. Consider this, both Arthur Thomas and David Bain, initially forgave their right to silence and (as it will be seen know) naively co-operated with police who ultimately ensnared both men in miscarriages of Justice. I say Simon Power knows that best of all because of the number of cases he has dealt with this year alone and others in which he tries to relegate himself to Judge and Jury against the very essence of that which upon our law is based the Magna Carta, which took from politicians or heads of state the right to judge, rather bestowing that upon the peers of the individual.
'Hard cases make bad law,' so do politicians seeking political power and support of the type offered Power by McVicar and which over time might be seen as the power which brought both men down.
Power removed a law hundreds of years old, the defence of provocation, because of one case, so ignoring hundreds of cases where the defence of provocation helped break down the greyness of what a reasonable person might do when faced with possible death by violence. The one case of course was the Weatherston case, one which for years in the future will cause consternation for its brutality. The law change of course effectively ignored that in the Weatherston case, the original law of provocation worked effectively. Behind the attack on a suitable working efficient law allowing recognition of provocation, half a step away in fact, was probably the true reason that drove Power and his frightened allies - a common objection that properly allows the relationship between the victim of a crime and the alleged perpetrator to be examined. Understandably, there is great difficulty for the family or friends of a victim for details of the victims love life for example, or propensity toward promiscuity, violence, sexual, drug or alcohol abuse. All of which creates in the family's mind that the victim and not the perpetrator is on trial.
Of course a Jury is entitled to hear such evidence, and also hear it tested because it helps them consider the 'guilty mind' aspect that attends crime. Most readers would be totally sympathetic that a woman charged with killing her lover is able to call evidence that showed her lover had been abusive in a number of ways, or had such a propensity for violence that when she acted in some fashion to take his life - that she did fearing she was about to be killed.
Given that this objection to victims 'being tried' is somewhat in the public mind and likely to be the driver for all sorts of calls for changes to the law I think the public and the law were entitled to a more reasoned approach from Minister Power. For example the ability or logic even to speak about the need for the Courts to have all the facts and for Judges to be able to exercise their powers as to what is and isn't admissible - an everyday situation. But no Simon Power had to have a knee-jerk reaction and change the law at a time when there was still some public pressure and a lot of misunderstanding about the provocation defence.
Of course, there was an immediate step Power could have taken which both assisted evidence being able to be carefully considered by a Jury and the desire of a family not having to undergo the stress of feeling that their loved one was under scrutiny for being a victim. He could have written to the Judiciary and the Law Society and advised that such cases, relatively rare that they are, might as a rule have suppression orders attached to particular evidence that a family might find objectionable - a power I understand the Courts either already have or which could be exercised by being encompassed in current rules.
So we see the difficulties of having politicians, those such as Power with little life or Court Room experienced, as law makers. Simon Power has always had his eye on his own interests as any politician is entitled to, but as a lawmaker a politician must have the ability to put that aside and be detached. As I read in an editorial in todays Sunday Star Times, the ancient legal cliche 'hard cases make bad law.' Simon Power has made a number of bad laws, not ever showing the presence of mind to realise he has heightened public expectation in some quarters, such as McVicar before his fall out with the Minister for 'undoing good work,' that all that a bad situation takes to be 'fixed' is a new, and most often tougher law to be introduced.
This week Power came a cropper, his attempt to expunge the 'right to silence' was stopped in its tracks despite his political attractive trappings of 'saving' Court time and making the process of the law more streamlined and efficient. Even the Judiciary and lawyers spoke out against the intended changes.
Power was however able to get through some tougher sentences for those that don't report child abuse, despite a growing cynicism in his own party that longer sentences are of any value. A more realistic person than Power would know that these recent changes will have little effect, as people prepared to ignore child abuse or reporting it, are unlikely to have any idea or concern of the consequences anyway, or of law changes that make those consequences harsher.
What has been less significantly understood, something which Simon Power, of all nzers would know but chose to ignore - was that the 'right to silence' if removed was likely to lead to more abuse that contributes to miscarriages of Justice. Consider this, both Arthur Thomas and David Bain, initially forgave their right to silence and (as it will be seen know) naively co-operated with police who ultimately ensnared both men in miscarriages of Justice. I say Simon Power knows that best of all because of the number of cases he has dealt with this year alone and others in which he tries to relegate himself to Judge and Jury against the very essence of that which upon our law is based the Magna Carta, which took from politicians or heads of state the right to judge, rather bestowing that upon the peers of the individual.
'Hard cases make bad law,' so do politicians seeking political power and support of the type offered Power by McVicar and which over time might be seen as the power which brought both men down.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
More from planet McVicar...
From the same 'press release.'
...'Mr. McVicar also took a swipe at Green M P Keith Locke and Mana's Annette Sykes who said Tasers were being used disproportionately on Maori and Pacific Islanders.'
"Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes seem to conveniently overlook the fact that a corresponding 'disproportionate' number of Maori and Pacific Islanders are also committing the crime."
"Rather than blame the police, Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes would be well-advised to have a look at their own ideology. The welfare state championed by the Greens and Mana Parties has created a festering resentment from those trapped by that mentality"
"The festering resentment and anger created by the "I want" welfare mentality is largely responsible for the violence the Police are confronted with."
"The feral environment the police face today has nothing to do with Tasers whatsoever."
"Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation. It is unfair and dishonest to try and make them the fall-guys."
"The Police job is to protect the public, not play nurse-maid to miss-fits and dead-beats created by badly mistaken social policies."
Poor old Garth he thinks the Green and Mana parties are responsible for the welfare state that superseded their own parties by over 70 years. Good arithmetic Garthy, you might get out of the dunces corner by christmas. But I can see his point, he may as well take a swipe everybody because it might relieve the pain of his haemorrhoid's. He must feel so frustrated being outed as a crook and having his henchmen wiped out of politics like a bad smell in the face of an air freshener.
He even borrows the word 'feral' from his mate Michael. He'll probably give him a call in the morning and ask Michael what he thought of the press release, point out that he's 'available' for a interview. So saucy.
Garth McVicar has nothing of substance to say, he's undermined by the fact that his most useful tool of trade, fear and anger, are spent commodities. He doesn't realise that people don't want walls built within our society, they want to be uplifted and realise what might have been the original kiwi dream - to give people a go, put a hand out to them, share respect, touch one another on the shoulder during difficult times and never to judge by race or colour, or choose something apparently unpopular to off load against with the sole intention of your own benefit. Bad luck Garth, you suck.
...'Mr. McVicar also took a swipe at Green M P Keith Locke and Mana's Annette Sykes who said Tasers were being used disproportionately on Maori and Pacific Islanders.'
"Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes seem to conveniently overlook the fact that a corresponding 'disproportionate' number of Maori and Pacific Islanders are also committing the crime."
"Rather than blame the police, Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes would be well-advised to have a look at their own ideology. The welfare state championed by the Greens and Mana Parties has created a festering resentment from those trapped by that mentality"
"The festering resentment and anger created by the "I want" welfare mentality is largely responsible for the violence the Police are confronted with."
"The feral environment the police face today has nothing to do with Tasers whatsoever."
"Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation. It is unfair and dishonest to try and make them the fall-guys."
"The Police job is to protect the public, not play nurse-maid to miss-fits and dead-beats created by badly mistaken social policies."
Poor old Garth he thinks the Green and Mana parties are responsible for the welfare state that superseded their own parties by over 70 years. Good arithmetic Garthy, you might get out of the dunces corner by christmas. But I can see his point, he may as well take a swipe everybody because it might relieve the pain of his haemorrhoid's. He must feel so frustrated being outed as a crook and having his henchmen wiped out of politics like a bad smell in the face of an air freshener.
He even borrows the word 'feral' from his mate Michael. He'll probably give him a call in the morning and ask Michael what he thought of the press release, point out that he's 'available' for a interview. So saucy.
Garth McVicar has nothing of substance to say, he's undermined by the fact that his most useful tool of trade, fear and anger, are spent commodities. He doesn't realise that people don't want walls built within our society, they want to be uplifted and realise what might have been the original kiwi dream - to give people a go, put a hand out to them, share respect, touch one another on the shoulder during difficult times and never to judge by race or colour, or choose something apparently unpopular to off load against with the sole intention of your own benefit. Bad luck Garth, you suck.
What planet is McVicar on?
'Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation. It is unfair and dishonest to try and make them the fall-guys
For Immediate Release:
Don't blame Police or Tasers for social failings says Watchdog
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says organizations and individuals critical of Police use of Tasers should look in the mirror before laying blame.
Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar was commenting after the Mental Health Foundation called for a formal review of police use of Tasers after figures released this week showed four out of 10 of those tasered in the past year were experiencing mental health problems.
But police say their use of force - including Tasers - against those suffering mental health problems is a symptom of a wider problem of how people with mental health issues are dealt with.'
He's trying to pretend he has something to say by way of reply, 'Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation.' Problem is that nobody has said they are. The issue that was raised is that 40% of those tasered in the last year were experiencing mental health problems and certainly not a suggestion that such illness was created by police.
Here McVicar shows how he goes for the low blow, instead of addressing with sound comment an issue that is of public concern, the treatment of the mentally unwell, he 'changes' the focus to safe ground for him - support of the police. He sidetracks the debate to a issue of police operations when in fact the issue is of how we are dealing with the mentally unwell. He dresses this up with some accompanying issue of hysteria (bogey men) 'volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders.' His is the language of division. He cannot distinguish in his general myopia the difference between a person suffering illness or one deliberately breaking the law. He says correctly that the problem is not a police creation despite no one claiming that it is, using that to whitewash the real issue that dealing with the mentally unwell, unfairly or inappropriately (tasered) is a step backwards for many reasons but for one most relevant, using a more appropriate analogy that McVicars - the mentally unwell 'don't create' their own illness.
In a just society any group dissolved of compassion or humanity is a humiliation of the entire society, a step backwards. McVicar, sensing a foothold, begins a list - the mentally unwell, volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders and leaves the rest of us to wonder who else would be on the list if this idiot was emboldened enough to speak truthfully from his own, bigoted, frightened mind. The man is divisive. The man would lead others into beliefs that certain auto crash victims shouldn't be helped, that 'classes' of society should be punished for being poor, lacking in education or hope.
McVicar uses his crutch, he trys to frighten others into his conformity, to his own mind he 'champions' victims when in reality he doesn't speak for all victims he speaks for himself and his own ambitions - his is an unreasonable voice in times when reason is most needed. If there is anything to thankful for is that McVicar shot himself in the foot and those politicians mindful of the ease with which some members of the public are influenced by law and order issues, no longer take his calls, probably quietly take pleasure that McVicar destroyed his own credibility and that of his organisation by being a crook, and selective of other crooks in maintaining secrecy, whilst making accusations against others.
For Immediate Release:
Don't blame Police or Tasers for social failings says Watchdog
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says organizations and individuals critical of Police use of Tasers should look in the mirror before laying blame.
Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar was commenting after the Mental Health Foundation called for a formal review of police use of Tasers after figures released this week showed four out of 10 of those tasered in the past year were experiencing mental health problems.
But police say their use of force - including Tasers - against those suffering mental health problems is a symptom of a wider problem of how people with mental health issues are dealt with.'
He's trying to pretend he has something to say by way of reply, 'Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation.' Problem is that nobody has said they are. The issue that was raised is that 40% of those tasered in the last year were experiencing mental health problems and certainly not a suggestion that such illness was created by police.
Here McVicar shows how he goes for the low blow, instead of addressing with sound comment an issue that is of public concern, the treatment of the mentally unwell, he 'changes' the focus to safe ground for him - support of the police. He sidetracks the debate to a issue of police operations when in fact the issue is of how we are dealing with the mentally unwell. He dresses this up with some accompanying issue of hysteria (bogey men) 'volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders.' His is the language of division. He cannot distinguish in his general myopia the difference between a person suffering illness or one deliberately breaking the law. He says correctly that the problem is not a police creation despite no one claiming that it is, using that to whitewash the real issue that dealing with the mentally unwell, unfairly or inappropriately (tasered) is a step backwards for many reasons but for one most relevant, using a more appropriate analogy that McVicars - the mentally unwell 'don't create' their own illness.
In a just society any group dissolved of compassion or humanity is a humiliation of the entire society, a step backwards. McVicar, sensing a foothold, begins a list - the mentally unwell, volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders and leaves the rest of us to wonder who else would be on the list if this idiot was emboldened enough to speak truthfully from his own, bigoted, frightened mind. The man is divisive. The man would lead others into beliefs that certain auto crash victims shouldn't be helped, that 'classes' of society should be punished for being poor, lacking in education or hope.
McVicar uses his crutch, he trys to frighten others into his conformity, to his own mind he 'champions' victims when in reality he doesn't speak for all victims he speaks for himself and his own ambitions - his is an unreasonable voice in times when reason is most needed. If there is anything to thankful for is that McVicar shot himself in the foot and those politicians mindful of the ease with which some members of the public are influenced by law and order issues, no longer take his calls, probably quietly take pleasure that McVicar destroyed his own credibility and that of his organisation by being a crook, and selective of other crooks in maintaining secrecy, whilst making accusations against others.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Garth must be having kittens. Look what crusher said..
Staff in some New Zealand prisons are working in "Dickensian" conditions and they should be closed down, Corrections Minister Judith Collins says.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Garth McVicar, petulant and panicking.......
Bill English has been criticised for claiming the country doesn't need any more prisons.
The Finance Minister told TVNZ's Q&A that there'll be no more prisons built under his watch, calling them a moral and fiscal failure.
But Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth Mcvicar has deplored the comments, saying Mr English has no understanding of what prisons are for.
He says much of the good work from National and Act has now been destroyed, and it seems the Government has now deserted victims of crime.
Very refreshing that in election year a Crown Minister is not racheting up crime and punishment, promising new laws and harsher sentences. Also refreshing that a Minister is speaking rationally about solutions that don't involve 'toughening up' and heightening public fears whilst at the same time points out the costs involved that frankly are unaffordable socially and financially. Then along comes Garth talking about the 'good work' that has been destroyed by Mr English's statements, the 'good work' built on misleading the public with erroneous figures on the '3 strikes' statistics by honest Wild Bill Davey Garrett and his side kick one-eyed Rodney, one eye on the perks and the other Wild Bill's back for when he needed to plunge the dagger in. Poor fellows, I hope Garthy is currently writing to Bill English and explaining what prisons are for because Bill has apparently led a very sheltered life and has no idea.
The Finance Minister told TVNZ's Q&A that there'll be no more prisons built under his watch, calling them a moral and fiscal failure.
But Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth Mcvicar has deplored the comments, saying Mr English has no understanding of what prisons are for.
He says much of the good work from National and Act has now been destroyed, and it seems the Government has now deserted victims of crime.
Very refreshing that in election year a Crown Minister is not racheting up crime and punishment, promising new laws and harsher sentences. Also refreshing that a Minister is speaking rationally about solutions that don't involve 'toughening up' and heightening public fears whilst at the same time points out the costs involved that frankly are unaffordable socially and financially. Then along comes Garth talking about the 'good work' that has been destroyed by Mr English's statements, the 'good work' built on misleading the public with erroneous figures on the '3 strikes' statistics by honest Wild Bill Davey Garrett and his side kick one-eyed Rodney, one eye on the perks and the other Wild Bill's back for when he needed to plunge the dagger in. Poor fellows, I hope Garthy is currently writing to Bill English and explaining what prisons are for because Bill has apparently led a very sheltered life and has no idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)