Name suppression for high profile people

**Akzle** · 21st July 2014, 06:50

Originally Posted by awayatc

cuntroversial....?

can't be.......... This proverb means that to enjoy a beautiful or pleasant thing, you must sometimes endure something difficult, or even painful.

and the womans name wasn't rose........

dinncha hear? He's been huffing tiling glue, he's on a completely different planet...

**Banditbandit** · 21st July 2014, 11:41

Originally Posted by MVnut

There should be no name suppression after guilt is proven or admitted. Prior to proving guilt, I agree with name suppression

I agree that being a high profile person should NOT be a reason to grant name suppression ...

But frequently Name Suppression is granted to protect the victim - so someone is convicted for incest raping their daughter/son/niece/granddaughter ... identifying the guilty person would also identify the victim - adding to their trauma ... in this case I support permanent name suppression.

**Big Dog** · 21st July 2014, 13:24

WWJD? Forgive all who are repentant. I am not so magnanimous, nail the fucker to a cross. He is certainly not repentant if he seeks name suppression.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**awayatc** · 21st July 2014, 13:50

In my military potty training the mantra was: Man at night...? man in the morning....!

**Laava** · 21st July 2014, 14:01

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I agree that being a high profile person should NOT be a reason to grant name suppression ...

But frequently Name Suppression is granted to protect the victim - so someone is convicted for incest raping their daughter/son/niece/granddaughter ... identifying the guilty person would also identify the victim - adding to their trauma ... in this case I support permanent name suppression.

I agree totally. In this case, it is sought because of him being an elite sportsman

**oldrider** · 21st July 2014, 16:04

Originally Posted by Akzle

moving forward, who is qualified to 'run the world'?

Hitler or Stalin were extremely bad examples and just when you think it is not possible to get that low again ... along comes "Netanyahu"!

Worst of them all!

**Akzle** · 21st July 2014, 16:48

Originally Posted by oldrider

Hitler or Stalin were extremely bad examples and just when you think it is not possible to get that low again ... along comes "Netanyahu"!

Worst of them all!

shhhhhhhh. you're not allowed to say bad things about jew cunts.

stalin was "worse" than hitler, just didn't kill many joos, so didn't get the same media coverage.... nevermind the "allies" etc... wow, what a fucking farce that was, so many people dead,
and now so many old, white cunts still believe in it's righteousness.

**Banditbandit** · 21st July 2014, 17:02

Originally Posted by oldrider

Hitler or Stalin were extremely bad examples and just when you think it is not possible to get that low again ... along comes "Netanyahu"!

Worst of them all!

Yeah .. well, that is not surprising ... He's a successor to these types ...

The Stern Gang (Lehi)

Lehi initially sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis. During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles". After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism. It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29 ... where there's more ..

While Lehi was named "Stern gang" after it's founder, when he died Yitzhak Shamir took over ... Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983 ...

A long history of nastiness ..

**oldrider** · 21st July 2014, 18:16

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I agree that being a high profile person should NOT be a reason to grant name suppression ...

But frequently Name Suppression is granted to protect the victim - so someone is convicted for incest raping their daughter/son/niece/granddaughter ... identifying the guilty person would also identify the victim - adding to their trauma ... in such cases I support permanent name suppression.

Back on track ... totally agree but had to change the last little bit ... sorry BB it seemed to insinuate that the one the OP was referring to should be supported!

**Banditbandit** · 22nd July 2014, 10:07

Originally Posted by oldrider

Back on track ... totally agree but had to change the last little bit ... sorry BB it seemed to insinuate that the one the OP was referring to should be supported!

I didn't mean that at all. In the context, I was responding to a post that implied that all sexual abusers should be named and should never be granted name suppression.

**Berries** · 29th July 2014, 23:20

I'd tap him.

**unstuck** · 30th July 2014, 05:01

Originally Posted by Berries

I'd tap him.

In the head with a 6lb hammer.

**Winston001** · 31st July 2014, 01:13

Originally Posted by Laava

I agree totally. In this case, it is sought because of him being an elite sportsman

Or was, probably before some KBers were even born.

**avgas** · 31st July 2014, 04:12

All blacks is a team of pussies who can't hack acknowledging to the public they are guilty and they are sorry.

And no I don't agree with name suppression in this circumstance (cos he was famous like 40 years ago........when there was no real choice for heroes).
This guy is a scum bag - scum bags don't get name suppression.