Here's a great ad opportunity for Tui

**Crasherfromwayback** · 19th February 2007, 15:19

Clint Rickards isn't a rapist.

**bistard** · 19th February 2007, 15:49

yeah right

**Crasherfromwayback** · 19th February 2007, 15:56

The guy's filth. I hope he gets to share a cell with Burton.

**Squeak the Rat** · 19th February 2007, 15:58

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

The guy's filth.

You could almost say he's the chief of filth

**Steam** · 19th February 2007, 16:15

I think someone stuck up that on a Tui billboard during the trial for the rape of Louise Nicholas, it got taken down pretty damn fast.
What a bastard eh, I guess all of NZ knows the suppressed information by now, he's SO going to jail.

**0arbreaka** · 19th February 2007, 17:23

agreed, he is a sick fuck... something something bottle something something vagina

**Hitcher** · 19th February 2007, 17:49

This matter is still before the Courts. Under New Zealand's "justice" system people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Speculation as to the guilt or otherwise of any defendant in public media in these circumstances is a highly risky business. You may not care as to what happens to your personal reputation, but ill considered posts put at risk the reputation of this site and its owner.

You have been warned.

**ynot slow** · 19th February 2007, 17:59

i agree with hitcher innocent till proven guilty,granted very dubious

**Crasherfromwayback** · 19th February 2007, 18:52

Originally Posted by Hitcher

This matter is still before the Courts. Under New Zealand's "justice" system people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Speculation as to the guilt or otherwise of any defendant in public media in these circumstances is a highly risky business. You may not care as to what happens to your personal reputation, but ill considered posts put at risk the reputation of this site and its owner.

You have been warned.

That's not actually always the case I'm afraid.
They (the police) claim I was clocked at 143 kph and they suspended my licence on the spot for 28 days. The officer in question (who was travelling in the opposite direction at 100kph on the other side of a concrete median barrier higher than the bike I was riding) has 'identified' me by my 'multi coloured' helmet. That's a closing speed of 243kph. I was stopped app 10km's up the road by a seperate officer and held there until officer 'A' turned back, and came to identify me by.....yes, my multi coloured helmet.

I'm going to court to defend the charge, as it's bollicks.

So how come, I'm guilty before proved so? I've had no licence for 23 days now....not that I'm counting....what happens if the charge is thrown out (as it should be)?

I certainly don't want to bring the site into disrepute, and I'd like to think it'd be me in person they'd wanna have words with over my views.

Bring it on. It's a personal view. The jury has been selected. They're not allowed to be swayed by anything they may see here outside of the court room. I think you're panicking over nothing.

**Hitcher** · 19th February 2007, 18:58

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

I think you're panicking over nothing.

No panic. Just a warning about people taking care about what they post on this thread.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 19th February 2007, 19:02

As long as they are simply 'opinions', I doubt there's a problem.

**Steam** · 19th February 2007, 19:12

The rule is called "Sub judice" or some spelling like that, and it means you can't discuss it in the media, and that includes on a web forum like this, so technically if we discuss the trial or his crimes, beyond reporting of what happened in court, KB could be done for contempt of court.
ALso if we say what a lot of people know already about the suppressed evidence then we can be done for ... um, contempt again?
Yeah, something like that.

**Donor** · 19th February 2007, 19:14

Originally Posted by Steam

you can't discuss it in the media, and that includes on a web forum like this

Does it?

I thought that could only be an issue if the site was hosted on NZ soil, as the NZ judicial system would have no jurisdiction nor sway over a foreign service provider.

Interested to know the answer to this - after all, CYFSwatch is a prime example.

**Hitcher** · 19th February 2007, 19:14

Steam has summarised things well. The voracity of any "opinion" counts not a jot.

**Steam** · 19th February 2007, 19:17

Originally Posted by Donor

Does it?
I thought that could only be an issue if the site was hosted on NZ soil, as the NZ judicial system would have no jurisdiction nor sway over a foreign service provider.
Interested to know the answer to this - after all, CYFSwatch is a prime example.

Yeah, interesting point of law. Lawyers out there? Opinions?