I think all of you that have spoken out in support of the 'Entertainer' should read today's Dom. What the Editor has to say, I agree with 100%.
You would be Ok, I reckon you could get enough people to testify that you are a comedian or at least entertaining.
Using their choice of living as an excuse to let them go sucks, it is as bad as blaming bad behaviour on alcohol. In both case you know the effects/risks before partaking so there is no excuse. This shows poor judgement and therefore should be enough to cost the judge their position.
Why thankyou,
And obviously I agree with this guy.
We're all just meat on a stick when it comes down to it. A bear is gonna eat you regardless of whether your funny, rich, powerful or a bum on the street.
If you put yourself in front of the bear and poke it with a stick you deserve to get eaten.
The same should go for the courts process and all laws in general.
Personally I cannot recall anyone " speaking out in support of the Entertainer", rather ( as has been pointed out), Support of due Process.....
I don't agree with the opinion in the Dominion personally, it is actually factually misleading.
The main misleading point is in relation to the "offender agreeing to the Police summation of facts"
To be considered for discharge with-out conviction, one of requirements is (among others) is that you have to accept the facts, as the Police present them, (I am 100% certain that had this arrangement not have been made, this would have first proceeded to a disputed facts hearing)
Personally, as an objective person, I look at the Dominion article, and see it as written by someone with not only an opinion, but also an agenda.
To get the discharge, this guy had to agree to th ePolice summation of facts, based on witness statements from a (rightly so) distraught woman, and nothing else.
The Judge had all the facts we don't.
Again, Judges don't make a habit of freeing Paedos.....
The article also mentions the guy who rubbed dunny water in his ex girlfriends face ( failing to mention what the situation was that made this normally reasonable (by all accounts) man act in such a way).... If I remember it was something to do with his cell phone she chucked in the shitter ( destruction of personal property, physical and emotional abuse, manipulation.... I'm starting to think the Woman in this case should have been charged
There are two sides to every story, and since this guy has accepted the discharge, we will never know his side.
Its actually against the law (contempt of court) for anyone to tell us.
Do most 4 year olds still wear nappies?
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
That's the great thing about opinions. We're all entitled to one. It's my opinion that the article is well written, but someone that has no agenda, nor any reason to have one. I think it quite righty points out that more often than is exceptable, certain people in society get away with certain things you or I might not, and shouldn't.
I think that was the point of the editorial, that it happens too often if you have some claim to fame and that justice is peaking beneath her blind fold. It isn't discussing the guilt or rights and wrongs of the particular case but the rights and wrong of the judges sentencing decisions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks