So let's make drink driving anonymous! PC gone wrong!

[Genestho]

For goodness sake.
I ask myself :no:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/wellington/2757416/Privacy-fears-end-shame-lists

Radio NZ 7am.

[scumdog]

Post their name, their picture and the car they drive.

With all the soft-cock sentences being handed out that's the least that can be done.:argh:

[Genestho]

I await to hear the Privacy Commissioners "Reasonable Solution"

Reporter said the comissioner sounded confused!!!! Somethings not right - after doing this for 10 years, suddenly there's a privacy issue?
They've never had a complaint?
FFS Wrap me up in cotton wool and throw me over a bridge will you?

[Pussy]

Post their name, their picture and the car they drive.

With all the soft-cock sentences being handed out that's the least that can be done.:argh:

With you on this, scummy!

[newbould]

So now the Dominion Post have to actually go to court to learn who has been drunk driving. In other words they have to do their job.

[Nasty]

Great to hear you on the radio this morning Jos ... even if they called you Jo!

[Pussy]

Great to hear you on the radio this morning Jos ... even if they called you Jo!
Got a link where I can find the interview online, Kari?

[CookMySock]

"A large part of the concern seems to stem from changes to the practical arrangements by which this information is made available."Something is amiss there. The cops don't roll over this easy on something that matters.

Steve

[PrincessBandit]

Once upon a time, in a land far far away.....

...name and shame was considered a tool to use both for discouraging certain activities and probably giving the victims a sense of satisfaction. Nowadays we all know that we mustn't do anything that might upset our sensitive offenders. Their rights must be considered at least as equally with those who have borne the brunt of their actions.

Bring back public stocks I say!!

[Pussy]

Photos in the media wouldn't go amiss, either!

[PrincessBandit]

So now the Dominion Post have to actually go to court to learn who has been drunk driving. In other words they have to do their job.

It would seem that the "making public" is by way of hearing the name(s) spoken in court. Even if the reporter is there and hears the details they're still not allowed to actually publish - i.e. if people want to know the "who" aspect they have to be there in court, reporters aren't going to be allowed to turn up to court then print what they hear. That's how I read it.

[Nasty]

Got a link where I can find the interview online, Kari?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport - under article bikers against drunk dickheads ;)

[Nasty]

It would seem that the "making public" is by way of hearing the name(s) spoken in court. Even if the reporter is there and hears the details they're still not allowed to actually publish - i.e. if people want to know the "who" aspect they have to be there in court, reporters aren't going to be allowed to turn up to court then print what they hear. That's how I read it.

This is public information - the problem is that the police are compiling it - which anyone can do from the records. There is no issue with publishing the names of convicted criminals and that is what they are ... the issue appears to be with police providing the list. There is no real privacy issue as in the names are public anyway.

[ManDownUnder]

Post their name, their picture and the car they drive.

With all the soft-cock sentences being handed out that's the least that can be done.:argh:

no no no -don't name them - that just embaraasses the family (who in my opinion do have a reasonable right to be left alone.

Anonymous is the way to go... put them in stocks... in Manners Mall, and pay fruit and veg places to supply surplus/rotting goods for high speed delivery to said fuckwits.

[Mully]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2762624/Drink-drivers-should-be-named-and-shamed

Change of plan - back to naming and shaming.

[Mully]

no no no -don't name them - that just embaraasses the family.

But does it?

Perhaps if the Drunk Driver is a respected member of society who "slipped" over the limit (i.e. blew 410 or something after a night out). In which case, the family would probably be embarrased. And it would never happen again. Which is the point of punishment.

But, if it's society's scumbags, it's almost a rite of passage and something to be proud of. That's reflected in their attitude to being caught repeatedly drink-driving.

(Note for those for whom logic isn't a strength; I'm not excusing the person blowing 410 in this post, I'm just trying to explain my point. Go back to your finger-painting)

[Waxxa]

Its not for the Police to be giving out personal information freely to a newspaper!!!

newspaper reporters get printed information wrong all to frequently and a simple misspelling will imply an innocent party and the damage will be done!

if an official body wants personal information there is the Official Informations Act to go by.

Repeat offenders wont give a shit, but those who are genuinely remorseful for their mistake which we all do make mistakes in our lives, then this action of printing names is above and beyond their conviction and sentence.

How many of us have driven or ridden from a mates' place, pub on a sunday ride or whatever occasion with one to many under our belts, but haven't been caught? how would you feel the Police of all organisations giving out your name to a newspaper?

[Nasty]

Its not for the Police to be giving out personal information freely to a newspaper!!!

newspaper reporters get printed information wrong all to frequently and a simple misspelling will imply an innocent party and the damage will be done!

if an official body wants personal information there is the Official Informations Act to go by.

Repeat offenders wont give a shit, but those who are genuinely remorseful for their mistake which we all do make mistakes in our lives, then this action of printing names is above and beyond their conviction and sentence.

How many of us have driven or ridden from a mates' place, pub on a sunday ride or whatever occasion with one to many under our belts, but haven't been caught? how would you feel the Police of all organisations giving out your name to a newspaper?


Police are giving out public information not PERSONAL information ... the data is in the public and accessible - so good on them.

If people are stupid enough to ride/drive after drinking too much I don't want to be on the same road as them. If they don't know how to drink and still be able to ride/drive - then pray be that they are caught, go to court and get named - Too Fucking Bad - break the law - deal with the consquences.

[Waxxa]

Police are giving out public information not PERSONAL information ... the data is in the public and accessible - so good on them.

If people are stupid enough to ride/drive after drinking too much I don't want to be on the same road as them. If they don't know how to drink and still be able to ride/drive - then pray be that they are caught, go to court and get named - Too Fucking Bad - break the law - deal with the consquences.

it is personal information that is then getting into the public arena.

As a society we rely on government and business organisations to protect our information. it is not to be given away or to be sold! no matter what. some may disagree...

The problem I have nasty is information going to a fucken newspaper!...very unreliable medium for correct information

[Nasty]

it is personal information that is then getting into the public arena.

As a society we rely on government and business organisations to protect our information. it is not to be given away or to be sold! no matter what. some may disagree...

The problem I have nasty is information going to a fucken newspaper!...very unreliable medium for correct information

If you are convicted without name suppression (and not many drunks get that) ... IT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION!

[Oakie]

My read on it would be that as soon as stuff has gone through court and as long as there is no suppression order then it is in the public domain so there shouldn't be a problem with the police providing the info to the newspaper.

As an interesting aside, the brother of a woman I work with had an accident recently in which a passenger in the car he was driving was killed. He has been waiting a couple of months for the police to decide what charges to bring. The charges were eventually published in the paper a couple of weekends ago but unfortunately he had not actually been charged at the time. Of course the first thing he knew about the charges was when one of his mates rang and said "Oh I see they've finally charged you with xxxxxxx". Red faces abound!

[Genestho]

And, da dum! :2guns:Common sense is back!!!

Quick turnaround, took all of two hours!! Well done Judith Collins!
MOT have released a document too, I await eagerly to get my hands on it, sounds good thus far

Phew I might be able to retire on the South of France after all!:sunny:
Radio NZ just called for a reaction interview, should be up soon!:done:

[Pussy]

And, da dum! :2guns:Common sense is back!!!

Quick turnaround, took all of two hours!! Well done Judith Collins!
MOT have released a document too, I await eagerly to get my hands on it, sounds good thus far

Phew I might be able to retire on the South of France after all!:sunny:
Radio NZ just called for a reaction interview, should be up soon!:done:

Bloody excellent!

[Genestho]

But does it?

Perhaps if the Drunk Driver is a respected member of society who "slipped" over the limit (i.e. blew 410 or something after a night out). In which case, the family would probably be embarrased. And it would never happen again. Which is the point of punishment.

But, if it's society's scumbags, it's almost a rite of passage and something to be proud of. That's reflected in their attitude to being caught repeatedly drink-driving.

(Note for those for whom logic isn't a strength; I'm not excusing the person blowing 410 in this post, I'm just trying to explain my point. Go back to your finger-painting)

There is no way for Joe public to guess their limit, I feel for first time drink drivers that make a mistake, but publication will deter them!
We need to educate that lot.
Recidivists will not be affected by publication - IMO!

Convicted drink drivers are public domain, and this is a tool for the cops.
It's also about public awareness of the stories and the figures! How are we to learn, be aware, if we don't have the information??

Also, I didn't ask for my husbands and friends bodies and bikes to be splashed across TV media, we didn't ask for our names to be published - that day.
Nor does anybody in similar situations.

We had no rights at all.

Leon, and our friends were in the right place at the right time - out for a Sunday pootle on their Guzzis, on the last of the Autumn days, it was the drink driver that should never have been on the roads.

Name and Shame!

If that is all they have to deal with, then they should be so bloody lucky! (not aiming that at you Mully, or anyone else in the thread! I is fired up :))

Many thanks as always to those that support my family and I, and NZ.B.A.D.D :)

[ckai]

I would have no problems if my family drunk drove and got plastered (pun intended) all over the media ripping shit. I wouldn't get embarrassed at all and in fact, if there was a public vege throwing outing I'd gladly join in. I would do it to mates as well.

There are some things that just aren't tolerated. And for me personally it doesn't matter if they "slip" over the limit or not. Drinking and driving is just that. 1 ml or 1000 ml (or whatever the measure is).

If they are a "public figure" then that's even worse because generally they have the money to call a bloody taxi!

National website to bullock people I reckon. Anything and everything. Do the crime, get your ass whipped.