Double standards?

[Mom]

Sitting here reading the paper this morning and I read the usual tales of woe and angst. Skimming through a couple of stories and a glaring example of preferential treatment by our courts leapt out at me. How the hell can two standards apply, given the charges are the same...

In the first case a woman twaked a bully that had beaten up her daughter...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769778

"Mellissa Anderson is alleged to have slapped one of two 14-year-old girls who attacked her 13-year-old daughter Summer outside Kaipara College in Helensville on Friday afternoon."

Her lawyer sought name suppression and the court decided...

"Community magistrate Dianne Hale said she sympathised with the requests but ruled it was in the interests of "open justice" to continue without suppression. "Courts are open and fair for people to attend.""

The second case involves an ex All Black that is appearing in court charged with assault on a child...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769780

"It is believed the case is one of excessive discipline, and the former player has been ordered to undergo anger management counselling before he next appears in court."

"He was reportedly granted name suppression because of his standing in sporting circles and in the community as well as to protect the identity of the complainant."

So, the complainant in the first case, a 14 year old girl, that grantedly is a troubled soul, is not considered important enough to protect her identity, but the one in the second needs protecting?

This is an issue that really needs to be sorted out. It is time that an even had is dealt to anyone coming through the courts, and by even I mean the same rule for all. Just because you are "well known" publically does not mean that it is any more embarrassing for you to have your name out there than it is for Jo Average in their day to day lives.

[oneofsix]

that is a double standard Mom but the one I thought more closely related was the one you quote about the mother defending her child where, because she has been named so has the child verses the mother down south that spread rumours about anothers child but the rumour spreader got permanent name suppression to protect HER (that is the bullies') child, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6050440/Mum-sentenced-for-lies-about-daughters-rival. So the courts protect the bullie's child but shame the protectors child WTF???
The ex-All Black should not have got name suppression. Tempts you to start rumours about all the ex All Blacks you can think off and see how long it takes before they shame him. :whistle:

[nzspokes]

The All Black got it due to the idea that Rugby is important in NZ and is a big sport.

Its not.

[HenryDorsetCase]

dont read the paper.


I get all my news from KB, the kneeslider, bike exif and bbc online. (Oh, and The Sun)

[Swoop]

Thugby is somehow perceived as being important in this Banana Republic.

Some small sectors of society have convinced themselves that we are a "warrior nation" and should be treated differently from the rest of the community.



Quite sad regarding the mother swatting the kid. The children know that the school can't do anything and the "adults" have their hands tied. Hopefully it comes as a large shock when they encounter someone who cares not, and gives them something long overdue.

[oneofsix]

Thugby is somehow perceived as being important in this Banana Republic.

Some small sectors of society have convinced themselves that we are a "warrior nation" and should be treated differently from the rest of the community.



Quite sad regarding the mother swatting the kid. The children know that the school can't do anything and the "adults" have their hands tied. Hopefully it comes as a large shock when they encounter someone who cares not, and gives them something long overdue.

Not just thugby, there are other sports and 'arts' get the same considerations, don't forget the comedians that no one had heard of that got name suppression because they were 'famous' (in their own mind obviously). All and I forgot ex-politicians that were also unknown to most.
Only those with real jobs get named and shamed.

[oldrider]

Thugby is somehow perceived as being important in this Banana Republic.

Some small sectors of society have convinced themselves that we are a "warrior nation" and should be treated differently from the rest of the community.



Quite sad regarding the mother swatting the kid. The children know that the school can't do anything and the "adults" have their hands tied. Hopefully it comes as a large shock when they encounter someone who cares not, and gives them something long overdue.

Look for the "Judge" in the case .... normally part of the problem, rather than the solution! :facepalm:

[willytheekid]

Double standards?...In a NZ court!...naaaah...never!

:facepalm:...sorry Mom(:love: ya!)...but this took you how long to notice?
The NZ courts always protect the rich the famous & bloody thugby players....hence why we have a problem with thugby violence and white collar crime in this country...why stop when the law is on your side!

....and yet they wonder why some of us believe in and resort to vigilante justice.

[Haggis2]

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130205176]

Some small sectors of society have convinced themselves that we are a "warrior nation" and should be treated differently from the rest of the community.

We ARE a warrior nation - particularly when it comes to beating the crap out of kids :facepalm:

[tigertim20]

Sitting here reading the paper this morning and I read the usual tales of woe and angst. Skimming through a couple of stories and a glaring example of preferential treatment by our courts leapt out at me. How the hell can two standards apply, given the charges are the same...
*omitted.
.

I agree. The current justice system basically says:
it isnt fair that some people have more to lose than others, so when someone high profile, whether it be business, sporting or otherwise related, it is reasonable to provide them with a lesser sentence, and provide them with fairer treatment so they do not lose too much.

The reality SHOULD be:
If you have more to lose, then you have more reason than anyone to think about the consequences of your actions, and as such, it stands to reason that if, with all you have to lose, you STILL decide to make a poor decision, you should be punished equally, as there is no point being kinder to you, when you have made your decision despite the knowledge of all you have to use.

That said though, (to play devils advocate) IF the woman has a record of same, or similar offences, and the all black does NOT, then that does go some way to justifying the different treatment. - Im not defending the rugby meathead here, I think theyre all cunts anyway, but sometimes there is a lot of very relative history that played a part, details that the papers omit for whatever reason.

[Mom]

that is a double standard Mom *snip* So the courts protect the bullie's child but shame the protectors child WTF???

Yepper, the examples are all over the place, the double standards that we are accepting as "just how it is" are beggining to grate.



Tempts you to start rumours about all the ex All Blacks you can think off and see how long it takes before they shame him. :whistle:

Yeah, but the fall out from that in this PC/crybaby society could be immense, and I would hate to tar all with the same brush.


I get all my news from KB, the kneeslider, bike exif and bbc online. (Oh, and The Sun)

I met a very sucessful business man who never read, watched or listened to any news, reckoned it was toxic LOL



Quite sad regarding the mother swatting the kid. The children know that the school can't do anything and the "adults" have their hands tied. Hopefully it comes as a large shock when they encounter someone who cares not, and gives them something long overdue.

My eldest daughter got bullied at school. I went to visit the mother of said bully, sorted with no hard feelings.


Look for the "Judge" in the case .... normally part of the problem, rather than the solution! :facepalm:

Dont even start me on that.


Double standards?...In a NZ court!...naaaah...never!

:facepalm:...sorry Mom(:love: ya!)...but this took you how long to notice?
The NZ courts always protect the rich the famous & bloody thugby players....hence why we have a problem with thugby violence and white collar crime in this country...why stop when the law is on your side!

....and yet they wonder why some of us believe in and resort to vigilante justice.

I hear ya! And yeah, I know, but I have been a bit quiet of recent times, I guess I am starting to pay attention once again.

Speaking of apathy, not that long ago a thread like this would have been pages long while I was at work. All the thinkers must be gone :dodge:

[slowpoke]

The effect on the woman's life of no name suppression is quite different to the effect on the AB's life. Is the woman likely to lose her livelihood from the results of this? No. Depending on the AB and his circumstances the answer could well be yes, whether proven innocent or not. He is innocent until proven guilty, so why should hardhhsip be forced upon him until the guilty verdict? Is the child involved in the bullying incident going to face intense scrutiny? No. Is the child disciplined by the AB going to be ravaged by the media? You betcha.

For all we know the AB could have done something very similar to the woman's disciplining of a bullying lil' cunt, in which I applaud them both. Or the circumstances of the cases could be quite different, so why should they be treated the same?

You can generalise all you like but the fact that people have already shown contempt for the guys AB status and their willingness to get the knife out regardless of the fact they nothing about the case proves the merit of the name suppression.

Well done people, by pre-judging and jumping to conclusions you've vindicated the decision you disagree with.

[slowpoke]

Farkin' double postin' idjit

[ynot slow]

Supression of name is ok pre trial,but once found guilty name and shame,no matter who the person is.

[MSTRS]

There is supposed to be one law for all, and all are equal under the eyes of the law.
That said, then name suppression prior to any trial/conviction should be automatic for all. Or nobody.
If/when convicted, then sentencing may be tailored to the individual and their particular circumstances, and name suppression could be lifted (or not) for all sorts of reasons.

[Edbear]

I agree. The current justice system basically says:
it isnt fair that some people have more to lose than others, so when someone high profile, whether it be business, sporting or otherwise related, it is reasonable to provide them with a lesser sentence, and provide them with fairer treatment so they do not lose too much.

The reality SHOULD be:
If you have more to lose, then you have more reason than anyone to think about the consequences of your actions, and as such, it stands to reason that if, with all you have to lose, you STILL decide to make a poor decision, you should be punished equally, as there is no point being kinder to you, when you have made your decision despite the knowledge of all you have to use.

That said though, (to play devils advocate) IF the woman has a record of same, or similar offences, and the all black does NOT, then that does go some way to justifying the different treatment. - Im not defending the rugby meathead here, I think theyre all cunts anyway, but sometimes there is a lot of very relative history that played a part, details that the papers omit for whatever reason.

Now there's a novel idea... :yes:


Yepper, the examples are all over the place, the double standards that we are accepting as "just how it is" are beggining to grate.

Yeah, ...SNIP.... All the thinkers must be gone :dodge:

I think, therefore I am... :innocent:


There is supposed to be one law for all, and all are equal under the eyes of the law.
That said, then name suppression prior to any trial/conviction should be automatic for all. Or nobody.
If/when convicted, then sentencing may be tailored to the individual and their particular circumstances, and name suppression could be lifted (or not) for all sorts of reasons.

Thanks for clearing that up... I think... :mellow:

[Scuba_Steve]

this is why we need a "blind legal system". I reckon judges should not be able to see whom they are judging & persons names or companies they work for should not be able to be mentioned in court i.e. an All Black can only be called a "rugby player", & politician or council worker "public servant", a judge or lawyer "legal worker" etc

This way only the legalities should be able to be argued, not "he's John Key, an All Black, or a cop so deserves special attention despite the offence"

[oneofsix]

snip
name suppression prior to any trial/conviction should be automatic for all.

seem to remember we had that for a couple of years and then the Government changed and the rule of privilege was reintroduced. Of course the plebs did recognise it as the rule of privilege, they thought they were being deign knowledge. Fair dues, I mean how could they publicly lynch people before all the facts were in if they didn't know who was being accused.