A Good Reason to Vote National!

**Beemer** · 15th September 2005, 23:24

Originally Posted by Gremlin

umm... am I missing something... why does this make us want to vote National??

Is it the compo?? I won't start anything there... words fail me... and I might use some very bad words the youngsters might not like...

National is one of the parties supporting tougher sentences for violent offenders, Labour is not, I think that's the reasoning behind this.

And how's this for yet another kick in the guts for this woman?

"A campaign to get a better deal for victims of violent crime has fallen foul of a political decision within Television New Zealand.

TVNZ has told the Sensible Sentencing Trust it would not broadcast an advertisement featuring the mother of a teenager murdered 18 years ago when she refused to have sex with gang members in Napier.

In the advertisement, Ida Hawkins said she wanted a better deal for victims of violent crime.

She had had no help after her 15-year-old daughter Colleen Burrows was murdered in 1987. Sam Te Hei, one of her daughter's killers, had been given $90,000 in compensation after he claimed his human rights were breached in prison and could be in line for another $25,000.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said in the television advertisement Mrs Hawkins wanted to expose the way she had been treated and the "gravy train" which criminals had latched on to for compensation.

The advertisement was due to be published last night but Mr McVicar said TVNZ decided it breached the Broadcasting Act.

In a letter to the trust, TVNZ said Section 70 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 prohibited any election programme being broadcast on television or radio if it was not paid for with monies allocated to a political party by the Electoral Commission.

He said TVNZ claimed an election programme was defined as a programme which encouraged voters to vote or not vote for a political party.

"We are staggered, absolutely staggered, shocked to be honest," Mr McVicar said.

He said the advertisement featured the parties which supported the trust's call for tougher sentences for violent crimes. It mentioned ACT, National, New Zealand First, and United Future.

It gave voters an informed choice but did not encourage voters to vote or not to vote for any party.

He said the Labour Party would not support the call for tougher sentences for violent offenders.

"We are not saying vote for anybody. We are saying this is the situation."

The trust wanted voters to be informed when casting their vote.

He said the advertisement would have cost the trust $10,000 to broadcast.

"It is gagging freedom of speech."

He said the trust was apolitical and had worked with all political parties.

"But we don't mince our words if we think the system is breaking down," he said.

He said Mrs Hawkins was absolutely furious and after being helped to climb out of a dark emotional hole by the trust, the "system seems to belt her back down into it".

He said there was not the time or the resources to appeal the TVNZ decision.

TVNZ company secretary Noel Vautier, said he made the decision to drop the advertisement yesterday when it was brought to his attention.

"It is discouraging voters from voting Labour or a Labour-led Government and encouraging them to vote for a National-led Government."

He said the decision could not be appealed and the advertisement could not be run next week because it was an election programme.

He said TVNZ and the Sensible Sentencing Trust had a different interpretation of the advertisement under the terms of the act."

**Dafe** · 16th September 2005, 06:21

Interesting, because what I didn't tell you is that the policy claimed upon by Sam TeHei, was infact one put in place by National under Jenny Shipley's era.
However, the issue is that with two terms in office, Labour has failed to alter the system when the system has begun collapsing.
A change can happen very quick indeed, It's only the passing of a bill afterall.
When the system begins to fail us, the current government needs to address the problem urgently, rather than sit on it for at least two years whilst it costs you and I.
It's not so much an issue of who put the law in place, as laws added later can end up creating the loop holes and opening the doors to vulnerabiliity.

**What?** · 16th September 2005, 06:30

Originally Posted by Beemer

National is one of the parties supporting tougher sentences for violent offenders, Labour is not...

Does not mean they will change anything should they take power this weekend. How many election promises have you ever seen kept? I can only think of one (Lange's anti-nuke policy).
Sorry, but I agree with Motu - a change of govt is not going to change the crap situation with the penal system. Or much else.

**Lou Girardin** · 16th September 2005, 08:13

There has not been any compelling reason to vote for any party this election, other than the hip pocket.
None of them have propounded a vision for where they want to take New Zealand other than the usual cliches.
They both blame each other for policies they either introduced, or failed to change.
Threads like this that expect people will vote because of one isolated issue are naive.
The best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils. Which is why I'm not voting for Nat s or Labour.

**Biff** · 16th September 2005, 10:10

And voting National would have convinced the thugs not to kill her? And a National govt would have given her taxpayers money for a head stone?

We're getting a little desperate here me thinks.

**esspro** · 16th September 2005, 10:47

One thing that really pissed me off recently was on the last issue of Police 10 7. One guy did a runner in a stolen car from the cops and in the end hsi car got spiked.. he then fled from the car and got caught by a police dog as well as his passenger (who also fled). Upon bringing them back to the station they let the passenger go scotch free because he "didn't know the car was stolen"... bullshit... after a half hour police chase you didn't think that possibly the car might have been stolen... and when you get picked up by your mate in a car you've never seen before you don't ask any questions about where it came from?

And the main thing that pissed me off is not only had the driver admitted to stealing cars he also was found to be involved in violent crime, multiple house breakins and theft as well as having 6 warrants for his arrest... and he got - a menial fine and community service!! WTF!! after stealing a car and running from police at over 100kms through a residential zone and all the other stuff he ADMITTED to... makes me want to become a crim

**Beemer** · 16th September 2005, 12:02

Originally Posted by What?

Does not mean they will change anything should they take power this weekend. How many election promises have you ever seen kept? I can only think of one (Lange's anti-nuke policy).
Sorry, but I agree with Motu - a change of govt is not going to change the crap situation with the penal system. Or much else.

No, it doesn't mean anything would necessarily change if Labour was kicked out this weekend, and if anyone votes for a party because of ONE policy of theirs, they deserve the government they get!

But the fact is, Labour will not come out in support of tougher sentences for violent offenders whereas these other parties will. It doesn't mean they will rush out and implement policies once they are in power, but it does mean they are aware there is a problem and think something should be done about it.

**Pathos** · 16th September 2005, 12:04

I remember this being a news story a while ago before the money had been given.

Labour promised that legislation would go through so that all money won my the inmates would go to the victims family.

Obviously that hasn't happened.

**Beemer** · 16th September 2005, 12:04

Originally Posted by esspro

Upon bringing them back to the station they let the passenger go scotch free...

Well, I should hope so, I don't want my hard-earned tax dollars going towards free whisky for crims. And besides, then they would have had to process him for drink driving...

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th September 2005, 12:12

Originally Posted by Beemer

Well, I should hope so, I don't want my hard-earned tax dollars going towards free whisky for crims. And besides, then they would have had to process him for drink driving...

Absolutely....course it could have been Whiskey.

BTW Luv yr siggy

**Beemer** · 16th September 2005, 12:14

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Absolutely....course it could have been Whiskey.

BTW Luv yr siggy

Nope, you're wrong there - Scotch is spelled whisky, and Irish is whiskey!

BTW - couldn't resist it!

**kerryg** · 16th September 2005, 12:43

Originally Posted by Pathos

I remember this being a news story a while ago before the money had been given.

Labour promised that legislation would go through so that all money won my the inmates would go to the victims family.

Obviously that hasn't happened.

Yes, that's righty. Phil Goff was pretty hot about the whole thing but it seems to have faded into the background. Maybe it will get some attention again now that this woman's situation has had some publicity.

It's impossible not to feel outrage that a killer, and especially such a brutal killer, can be collecting big payouts from the taxpayer but I heard the case argued and it's interesting: under all the conventions of international law it is not legally right (the morality might be a different matter though!) for the Crown or victims or whomever to lay claim to money paid to prisoners for mistreatment in prison or other (arguably legitimate) grievances. The penalty determined by the Courts, if it is 10 years' imprisonment or whatever, is the totality of the penalty. If a prisoner is legitimately and legally awarded compensation for something (e.g. treatment in prison that is outside the bounds of what is reasonable and of what the Courts envisioned) that is in pretty much the same category as you or me getting compensation for something: it's nobody's business but my own. The lawyer I heard arguing about on National Radio made a very persuasive case, aying that any attempt by Phil Goff or anyone else to distrain (is that the word?) the compensation moneys paid in such circumstances would expose NZ's legal system to international ridicule.

Let me be clear: if it was my kid was kicked to death by that animal, I would want him not merely imprisoned but disembowelled while being kept alive as long as possible and then fed into a mincer, starting with his goolies (and NOT his pudenda, cos he's a boy :slap: ) and fed to the seagulls. My point is not to defend the case for letting him keep his money. Emphatically he is not morally entitled to live, let alone to get compensation, but the legalities are not straightforward

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th September 2005, 12:47

Originally Posted by Beemer

Nope, you're wrong there - Scotch is spelled whisky, and Irish is whiskey!

Ye think Ah didnae ken thart?
There are plenty out there who think (e) is just as good and will try to do a 'Jim' with it.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th September 2005, 12:50

Originally Posted by kerryg

Let me be clear: if it was my kid was kicked to death by that animal, I would want him not merely imprisoned but disembowelled while being kept alive as long as possible and then fed into a mincer, starting with his pudenda, and fed to the seagulls. My point is not to defend the case for letting him keep his money. Emphatically he is not morally entitled to live, let alone to get compensation, but the legalities are not straightforward

Hear Hear.....but his pudenda??