SOLO-NZ Press Release: Perigo on Veitch

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2008-07-11 09:09

Tony Veitch is one of the few broadcasters I rate.

In media now swamped by illiterate airheads, he is intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable in his field, funny, spontaneous, telegenic, charismatic; he speaks clearly (if frenetically) ... and radiates an infectious pleasure in his work. A short man he may be, but he is an exceptionally tall tall poppy.

I have watched and enjoyed him for years and thought, it's no surprise that he's not celebrated; he's too good to be celebrated by crimped, mediocrity-worshipping, talent-resenting Kiwis.

It turns out that two years ago Tony handed them a weapon with which they're now cutting him down. He did something vile and inexcusable.

Not nearly as vile and inexcusable as they, though.

For make no mistake: the crazed mobs baying for his blood and bowels couldn't care less about his assault on his ex-partner. It's not that that has made them rabid. It's his exceptional talent for which they seek to hang, draw and quarter him.

They are far lower than Veitch—as is the Dominion Post that caters to them, that published the story notwithstanding the private deal struck by Veitch and his victim. Veitch's violence was an appalling but unpremeditated one-off, as far as we know, for which he made recompense and strove to atone. The Dominion Post's behaviour is systemic, deliberate, unapologetic ... and something they have every intention of carrying right on with: invading privacy, sensationalising personal tragedies and cashing in on the frailties of anyone who has the temerity to show signs of greatness and stand out from the mob. Their orgy of sanctimony over the Veitch affair is reminiscent of nothing so much as one of the facile mob-pleasing campaigns run by Gail Wynand's Banner in The Fountainhead. The same Dominion Post that demands Veitch's sacking and piously intones that "having Veitch in living rooms nightly and fronting its Olympics team is unacceptable" is the same Dominion Post that is running a poll on its website gleefully, breathlessly asking: "What do you think of Madonna's plan to film a nude bondage scene with Britney Spears for her upcoming world tour?" (And incidentally, it's the same Dominion Post that supports the routine violence by our current government against innocent, productive citizens.)

The Dominion Post is nothing but a tawdry tabloid, staffed by voyeuristic maggots posturing as saints and presuming to judge others infinitely nobler than they.

Any celebrity who sins in any way nowadays is required ritualistically and tearfully to apologise on television for his very existence, his failure as a "role model" ... and so on and so forth, ad nauseam, from the Handbook of Political Correctness. Tony Veitch duly went through the motions the other night. His contrition over his offence was more than that, though—it was clearly genuine. And fair enough too. But there was no need for him to apologise to "the New Zealand public." It's the New Zealand public who should be apologising to him.

Lindsay Perigo 021 255 8715

SOLO SOLOPassion.com


( categories: )

law & order

unsub's picture

Hello there Robert. Thank you for talking with me. You're in the US? Great stuff.

I take an interest in US politics. Merely as an observer.

I replied to your post because it was the most convenient way for me to comment; seeing there were many other comments. Apologies for my failure to scroll.

It's wonderful to have choices, yes? Alas! I have no choice but to stay in NZ.

On the contrary, dear chap; I never meant to castigate anyone or any Party. I am more interested in who is representing which NZ Electorate.

I reckon Mt Roskill will stay with Goff; and Epsom with Hide. Is there any hope for Elijah in Tamaki? I don't know.

What do you think about an appointment in NZ a role similar to the one as the DA in the US Justice System?

By the way, I take the death of a Law Enforcer in this country very personally.

What hope is there for the L&O Policy of NZ Libz...

Robert's picture

Ms Shari Hyder (aka unsub),

May I humbly suggest that you consult the appropriate Law and order policy before issuing arbitrary lamentations?

I hope that you will also note that this case has not even entered the Law phase of the Law and Order process. Veitch has only been subjected to a police investigation.

The evidence collected against Veitch, including statements made by his accuser, have yet to be tested in a court of law in front of a judge and jury. And as such none of us, and certainly no NZ political party, is currently in a position to draw any conclusions about Veitch's guilt nor any policy problems posed by a prosecution that has yet to even begin.

Pointing out this fact has been the thrust of my posts on this topic. I made them in a effort to highlight the injustice of trying Veitch before the kangaroo court of the media.

Lastly, your post is so vague that it is hard to know at whom it is directed or why. If you are directing your ire at me (you attached your comment to my post) and by extension to Libertarianz; then I suggest you quit immediately or risk looking foolish.

I currently reside in the USA and am no longer eligible to participate in the NZ electoral process in any way. I am in the 5th year of immigrating to the USA and I have no intention of ever returning to NZ. I support the Libertarianz financially (when I can) and in spirit only. I cannot, would not and have never made policy for them without first having it ratified by the leadership.

Which is to say, that my sentiments and opinions and mistakes are my own. Castigate me -- and me alone -- for them if you can.

___________

FYI:

"LAW AND ORDER - Libz policy
All laws against victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults will be repealed, in order that real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder, theft and fraud can be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. All people currently incarcerated for victimless 'crimes' will be immediately released. Life sentences for real crimes will mean life. The NZ Bill of Rights will be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means of self-defence."

good grief!

unsub's picture

I have just come across this thread. My mind boggles.

As I wrote to Paul Holmes when the Veitch story broke: "I have always liked Veitch and always will. He is a delight to watch and to listen to."

That to me, was the end of that. Until, the last weekend. At the begnning of this week, I wrote to my ONE voice of consistency about my grief.

So, back and forth about the process of law and evidence is what Libz/SOLO have been spending time on?

What hope is there for the Law & Order Policy of NZ Libz?

Good grief, people.

One of seven assault charges: He threw water...

Robert's picture

"the police like to pile on the pressure in order to get the suspect to incriminate himself."

One of seven assault charges laid against shamed broadcaster Tony Veitch relates to an incident in which he allegedly threw water at former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell.

This is an example of the type of Police psychological warfare I was talking about.

Seven charges of assault laid in order to counter his public claim that it was a one off explosion. They just don't mention that one of the 'assaults' was throwing water.
True, the other charges might be more serious. But if so, why bother with this one?

My opinion on this: Public perception is being used by the Police to put pressure on the accused. Why esle would TV3 be tipped off about the search warrant when it was executed?

This shit only works because the media laps it up. Just think about that and consider what would happen to a falsely accused man in Veitch's position...

I'm not in favor of the Police playing media games like this. There is no need, they obviously have enough to sustain multiple charges of assault. They are abusing their powers here.

But this is one of the things that happens and the best way to counter it (without banning a legitimate Police interrogation tactic, albeit poorly used in this case) is for the bloody media to straighten up their act.

A Sense of Life thing

gregster's picture

Mindy, let's get some perspective here. Let me offer a little.

I could, and for this example, I will, take the picture you've painted as illustrating a "sense of life," as true.

Though what is the sense of life displayed by the Kookologist? The anti-mind pseudo-religion stands for death.
It is a monstrous fraud, and the discarded bodies we have heard of are the logical consequence of it's operations.

It is rightly called a cult because of it's controlling/brainwashing/blackmail activities.

I don't for a moment mind "snide little bully-boy," (a comic gem) but, for you, just once more, I'll altruistically attempt to explain.

It was an ironic "threat" supposedly from a dead man who created a religion of death. Context.

Mindy

PhilipD's picture

 Apologies for the petty comment.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

There's a big circling of

Lance's picture

There's a big circling of wagons going on, it looks like Lindsay is trying to repair the set-back his Veitch PR proved to be. It's already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

...

Are you claiming it hasn't been?? As to motive, that's a no-brainer.

...

Are you claiming it hasn't been? How does its being edited mean Lindsay is lying??

So, are you claiming it hasn't been? Speak up.

...

The title itself said "Edited" or "Updated." I didn't note the date.

...

The Veitch post has been edited!
Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!! What sort of tomfoolery are you up to??? How low will you stoop? What scurrilous excuses are you rehearsing to yourselves??? Don't you realize you will have no integrity left? Do you expect everybody who has been reading the Veitch controversy to forget what its language was??? Amazing!

...

Lindsay's comparison said "evil"
Are you really going to deny that???

...

No wriggle room, Lance
Do you deny that the original Veitch post contained the word "evil?"

I really do think that a retraction and admission of making a mistake is in order. At best I'd assume that you were convinced that Lindsay had surreptitiously edited the original release, which as far as I can deduce was because you recalled this statement:

Just so you know, Goode—what you represent, as I said in my press release, is incalculably more evil than Veitch.

And mistakenly attributed it to the original release, and assumed on not finding it there - that it had been edited out. At worst, and with your continued ignoring of this matter now that your accusation of cowardly and dishonest editing has been roundly refuted I'm inclined to think the worst, you are a smearing, low-life liar. Of course I've already called you a liar - an accusation I will gladly retract and apologise for if this matter gets cleared up.

Why

Ptgymatic's picture

...is that funny, Phillip? It's a sense of life thing.

--Mindy

Poetry

PhilipD's picture

 "I removed my psychology and my poetry contributions to this place the moment I saw your fake-ID death threat, Greg-stir. It was the first thing that came to my mind, like snatching back your hand from a burning stove."

The first thing you thought to save was your poetry!? Now that is funny!

 

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

You're all class Mindy

Lance's picture

So after yesterday's performance, with all your finger pointing and hysterical screeching*, when you finally got called on it, when you were shown to be wrong, you just carry on elsewhere here like it never happened?

All class lady, all class.

*Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!! What sort of tomfoolery are you up to??? How low will you stoop? What scurrilous excuses are you rehearsing to yourselves??? Don't you realize you will have no integrity left? Do you expect everybody who has been reading the Veitch controversy to forget what its language was??? Amazing!

I'm sorry, what was that about integrity?

Incidentally ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I have no interest in "playing down" anything in the original press release. I stand by every word, 1000%. The behaviour of my adversaries here has in fact bolstered my case.

Robt. Winefield noted:

"The error in logic was made by Goode et al. and none of you have the common fucking decency to admit that. Instead, you are coming here and accusing Linz of all sorts of low perfidy and skullduggery."

Lack of common fucking decency is so right.

Ah ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I assume you're referring to

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

in which I said:

Just so you know, Goode—what you represent, as I said in my press release, is incalculably more evil than Veitch.

Problem is, I was not quoting myself verbatim, and did not use the words "more evil" in the press release. You, Mindy, have accused me of using the words, then removing them:

Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!! What sort of tomfoolery are you up to??? How low will you stoop? What scurrilous excuses are you rehearsing to yourselves??? Don't you realize you will have no integrity left? Do you expect everybody who has been reading the Veitch controversy to forget what its language was??? Amazing!

You accused me of doing so to:

play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

Your accusations are demonstrably false. You should respond accordingly.

Just so you know,

Lance's picture

Just so you know, Goode—what you represent, as I said in my press release, is incalculably more evil than Veitch.

Great, now you have an entirely separate issue to bang on about.

No one has denied that Lindsay said that.

You, however, accused Lindsay (and apparently others - note plural "yourselves") of deliberately editing the original press release:

1) Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!! What sort of tomfoolery are you up to??? How low will you stoop? What scurrilous excuses are you rehearsing to yourselves??? Don't you realize you will have no integrity left? Do you expect everybody who has been reading the Veitch controversy to forget what its language was??? Amazing!

...

2) There's a big circling of wagons going on, it looks like Lindsay is trying to repair the set-back his Veitch PR proved to be. It's [the PR]already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

If there's one lesson I've learned dealing with the likes of you, it's to not get distracted each time they toss in something new and proceed to duck, dive, dip and dodge.

You said Lindsay had edited the press release "to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial."

He hadn't.

You lied.

For fucks sake...

Matty Orchard's picture

So you're quoting a comment!? a comment paraphrasing the original post?????

You're ridiculous. A laughable clown of a woman, you really are.

Lance has not just supplied the original as he received it in email, seeing as you don't trust his honesty that's redundant. He probably realized this and so he included a google SNAPSHOT of the article when it was FIRST PUT UP.

That's proof Mindy. Apologies.

Yes, I did

Ptgymatic's picture

I removed my psychology and my poetry contributions to this place the moment I saw your fake-ID death threat, Greg-stir. It was the first thing that came to my mind, like snatching back your hand from a burning stove. I saw the rot of this place in that snide little bully-boy post of yours. Didn't know right away how deep it was, how extensive. I'm still learning that!

You found yourself a replacement poet, though, congratulations! You certainly won't miss my worthless threads, though you keep complaining that I removed them.

--Mindy

To quote Lindsay...

Ptgymatic's picture

"...as I said in my press release, is incalculably more evil than Veitch."

--Mindy

Lowlife Mind y

gregster's picture

To falsely accuse over a supposed edit - this from one who removed a full thread - anyone remember the preposterous "Invariance in Human Cognition?"

Pardon me, but I've lost my temper now

Lance's picture

"Wriggle room"?

You accuse me of "wriggling"?

FUCK YOU

I simply refuse to play your game. I know this game - it's called "silly buggers", and I bet I'm better at it than you.

Here's a simple statement of fact, AGAIN, you ridiculous bint:

The Press Release at the top of the page is exactly the same - word for word - as the original release. Nothing has been changed. Stop Lying.

Strawberry Waffles:
Ingredients

1 cup all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/8 teaspoon salt
1 cup sliced strawberries
2 tablespoons 1% low-fat milk
1 tablespoon vegetable oil
1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 large egg
Cooking spray
Buttered Strawberry Sauce
Preparation
Lightly spoon flour into a dry measuring cup; level with a knife. Combine flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a medium bowl; make a well in center of mixture. Place strawberries, milk, oil, vanilla, and egg in a blender; process until smooth. Add pureed strawberry mixture to flour mixture, stirring just until moist.

Coat a waffle iron with cooking spray; preheat. Spoon about 1/4 cup batter per 4-inch waffle onto hot waffle iron; spread batter to edges. Cook 5 to 6 minutes or until steaming stops; repeat with remaining batter. Serve hot with warm Buttered Strawberry Sauce.
Yield

6 servings (serving size: 1 waffle and 1/2 cup sauce)

You are a mouth breathing, time wasting, troll. I only hope readers derive some satisfaction from the delicious waffles.

No wriggle room, Lance

Ptgymatic's picture

Do you deny that the original Veitch post contained the word "evil?"

--Mindy

Mindy ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lance has supplied the text of the press release as it arrived at and went out from SOLO Media Centre. The words "more evil" are not there. If you believe they are there, kindly point out where they are, there, so we may know the point from which they've been removed.

Your "Are you really going to deny that?" smacks of Robert Campbell. Just make any old assertion for which there's zero evidence and say, "Is there any reason to doubt it?"

There's a site, Mindy, for liars and smearers. It's the one I call O-Lying. I commend it to your attention for your active and congruous participation. SOLO is for those who proceed in good faith.

If I were exactly who I say

Lance's picture

If I were exactly who I say I am??? Why would that bother you?

I'd ask what the hell you were on about (or maybe just what the hell you were on) - but that would legitimise your trolling.

Apple Waffles:

Prep Time: 5 minutes
Cook Time: 10 minutes
Ingredients:

* 2 cups sifted flour
* 3 teaspoons baking powder
* 1/8 teaspoon cinnamon
* 1 tablespoon sugar
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 3 eggs -- separated
* 1 1/2 cups milk
* 5 tablespoons melted shortening
* 1 1/2 cup chopped apple

Preparation:
Mix and sift dry ingredients. Combine beaten egg yolks, milk, melted shortening and; add to dry ingredients, beating until smooth. Stir in chopped apple. Fold in stiffly beaten egg whites. Pour or spoon apple waffle batter into each section of a hot waffle iron. Cook apple cinnamon waffles until crispy and browned. Apple waffles serve 6.

Most importantly, the

Lance's picture

Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!!

No it hasn't, the press release is exactly the same now as when it was released.

Are you really going to deny that???

See above.

Blueberry Waffles:

Ingredients:

* 2 eggs, separated
* 1 1/2 cups milk
* 1/2 cup melted butter
* 2 cups sifted all-purpose flour
* 2 teaspoons baking powder
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 1 tablespoon sugar
* 1 cup fresh or frozen blueberries, rinsed

Preparation:
In a small mixing bowl, beat egg whites until stiff; set aside. Beat egg yolks; add milk and melted butter. Sift dry ingredients together; add egg yolk mixture and mix until smooth and fold in blueberries. Gently fold in beaten egg whites. Bake in a hot waffle iron.
Makes about 6 blueberry waffles.

Deleted duplicate post...

Robert's picture

In spite of the fact I may be accused of editing my argument, I'm going to live dangerously and delete this duplicate post... So there!

I would...

Robert's picture

... but that paragraph died of intellectual dysentery soon after I made my offer of assisted suicide.

Here instead is my eulogy to the recently departed.

Paragraph was a confused and bewildered young stanza who's point in the great argument of life was obscured by the chronic intellectual diarrhea that beset him since his inception. We can be thankful that the end came quickly and that Mr Davey has a large supply of air freshener on hand to mask the smell of decomposing prose.

What would it mean

Ptgymatic's picture

If I were exactly who I say I am??? Why would that bother you?

--Mindy

Lindsay's comparison said "evil"

Ptgymatic's picture

Are you really going to deny that???

--Mindy

The phrase "More evil" never

Lance's picture

The phrase "More evil" never appeared in the original press release. And I am quite certain you know it.

You, sir/madam, are a troll. You are making false accusations. The only only question is: Is it deliberate confusion or purposeful lying? The excessive use of three question marks as punctuation (a sure sign of an imbalanced and dangerous mind) I guess means you could still be confused.

So, on that note, here is a recipe for waffles:

For this waffle recipe you will need: 4 ounces of all purpose flour, 4 ounces of whole-wheat flour, one tablespoon of sugar, 2 teaspoons of baking powder, some salt, three eggs, one and a half cup of milk, and some vegetable oil. And a waffle iron.

How to make a waffle in five easy steps:
1. Put all the dry ingredients (flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt) into one bowl.
2. Put all the wet ingredients (eggs, milk, and oil) into another bowl and beat, mix, shake, stir until the eggs and milk become one.
3. Pour the mix you've just made into the bowl with dry stuff and mix again, until there are no lumps left.
4. Now put half cup of batter you made in the waffle iron. It would be a good idea to have the waffle iron hot and ready if you are really hungry like us. Or you can wait for it to warm up since the batter can rest for a while anyways and even tastes better if it does (little secrets).
5. There is no number five with this waffle recipe, you are done! We told you it was a simple, quick and hassle free waffle recipe!

PS: We wanted to make this waffle recipe like a walk in the park so note one more thing - if you are short on waffle irons don't sweat it. Just pour the waffle mix on to a hot buttered up pan and make them like pancakes. They will lack the waffle shape but not the taste.

Oh, this waffle recipe will give you around eight or nine, 9 inch sized waffles. Enjoy.

edit: fixed some punctuation and added a sentence or two (honestly that's all I did!)

The Veitch post has been edited!

Ptgymatic's picture

Most importantly, the phrase, "more evil" has been removed!! What sort of tomfoolery are you up to??? How low will you stoop? What scurrilous excuses are you rehearsing to yourselves??? Don't you realize you will have no integrity left? Do you expect everybody who has been reading the Veitch controversy to forget what its language was??? Amazing!

--Mindy

Now that's cleared up...

Matty Orchard's picture

Would you care to apologies Mindy?

Lance: I don't know what you

Lance's picture

Lance: I don't know what you mean by "link on the tracker page." Does "shuffled it around" mean change order of paragraphs, or what?

http://www.solopassion.com/tracker
This is the "Recent Posts" page, it lists all entries from all forums and personal blogs, ordered by when they were last posted to. The titles, depending on user preferences and when you last visited the page, will have "New" if it's a new entry that you haven't viewed yet, or "Updated" if it has been edited, stickied, unstickied or had it's node weight (position on front page) changed.

www.solopassion.com
This is the front page. What appears first on the front page is determined manually, items that appear first on the front page are "stickied", which means they won't get bumped down by new entries. To determine the order of "stickied" entries, their "node weight" gets adjusted (what I referred to earlier as "shuffled around")- bumping them up or down the list of "stickied" entries. This is so Lindsay can set what articles/entries greet people who arrive at the site on the main page. When this happens to any entry, the list on the "tracker" page (recent posts) displays the entry as "Updated", until you read it.

Robert and Lance

Ptgymatic's picture

I can't put it more clearly, Robert, Lindsay's saying "vile and inexcusable" didn't prevent him from also diminishing Veitch's assault by finding Veitch "noble" by comparison with the media hype-slingers, and by calling malicious gossip more "evil" than assault!

A no-brainer example: Someone says, "I don't believe in God. Let us pray: Our father, who art..." It's called inconsistency or self-contradiction. 

Lance: I don't know what you mean by "link on the tracker page." Does "shuffled it around" mean change order of paragraphs, or what?

--Mindy

For instance, your third

Lance's picture

For instance, your third paragraph should be taken out and shot as an act of mercy.

Sorry, but the management at SOLO have recently revised policy and adopted a zero-tolerance approach to death threats. We kindly ask that you sinisterly edit your statement to "play down" the threat and apologise to the paragraph in question.

Mindy

Matty Orchard's picture

Ok now, this has to be the most cut and dried argument I've ever seen on SOLO.

SURELY you're going to apologies now...

Huge leap

Lance's picture

from The title itself said "Edited" or "Updated." to
It's already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

Such a huge leap, I would not give the benefit of believing you were genuinely confused.

Liar.

PS: The link on the tracker page would have said "Updated". It means Lindsay has shuffled it around on the front page - stickied or unstickied it.

Picking fights.

Robert's picture

"So having written that Veitch's assault was "vile and inexcusable" does not mean that Lindsay did not later imply that assault is not as "evil" as malicious gossip. I made this point long ago."

Where was this specific imputation made - by Lindsay that is; not the voices in your head nor the pixies at the bottom of your garden? You have accused someone of being dishonest. And instead of showing clearly where and when that act of dishonesty occurred, you are making pretzels out of the English language.

For instance, your third paragraph should be taken out and shot as an act of mercy. But instead of reaching for my gun, I will do your readers a favor and simplify it by paraphrasing Bill Clinton: "It depends on what you mean by the word 'edit.'"

Mindy writes: "I myself, and many others take the actual wording at face value." If that were so, which part of "vile and inexcusable" did you not understand? Notice that after this point in the press release, Linz is no longer talking about Veitch. He is talking about the chattering classes whom label themselves journalists. At ~no~ point does he excuse Veitch for his actions nor diminish the gravity of the crime of assault. He merely points out that 'envy' is an even more ghastly crime and then seeks to prove the point.

It isn't that Linz is demoting assault from its rightful place in the dais of shame. It remains where it is - vile and inexcusable. Instead his press release is pointing out that the 'Tall Poppy Syndrome,' is more insidious not least because many people (Dr Goode & yourself, for instance) do not consider it to be a vice - certainly not a mortal one.

And instead of arguing about whether envy is a mortal vice; yourself and sundry other twits made the following illogical leap:

(1) Linz states that envy is more evil than assault.
(2) I think that assault is more evil than envy.
(3) Therefore Linz thinks assault is not evil.

Having not formally committed the terminology of logic to memory I cannot list the logical fallacies you've based your so-called argument on. I will leave that to more pedantic students of philosophy. Instead, I will point out that (1) does not and will not lead to (3), no matter how many times you falsely accuse Linz of being inconsistent or of editing history.

The error in logic was made by Goode et al. and none of you have the common fucking decency to admit that. Instead, you are coming here and accusing Linz of all sorts of low perfidy and skullduggery. And now you accuse ~me~ of picking a fight!?

All I am doing is asking you to prove your initial claim that Linz edited his post(Drunk to stealthily improve his image/argument. That ain't a fight. That's a perfectly reasonable request in response to an utterly despicable accusation.

A request you have yet to answer. I could ask the reader to ponder why that might be, but there would be no need, the answer is obvious.

I didn't note the date

Ptgymatic's picture

The title itself said "Edited" or "Updated." I didn't note the date.

--Mindy

Yes please ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

When was it edited and what changed exactly?

So when was it edited and

Lance's picture

So when was it edited and what changed exactly?

Google cache

Lance's picture

This is Google's cache of http://www.solopassion.com/nod.... It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 30 Jul 2008 17:04:02 GMT.

Cached version

There's a big circling of

Lance's picture

There's a big circling of wagons going on, it looks like Lindsay is trying to repair the set-back his Veitch PR proved to be. It's already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

I could be generous and call you mistaken, but I fail to see how one would make such an error. So I'll call you a liar.

Here is the original, as copy/pasted directly from SOLO Media Centre email sent box:

Tony Veitch

By Lindsay Perigo

July 11, 2008

Tony Veitch is one of the few broadcasters I rate.

In media now swamped by illiterate airheads, he is intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable in his field, funny, spontaneous, telegenic, charismatic; he speaks clearly (if frenetically) ... and radiates an infectious pleasure in his work. A short man he may be, but he is an exceptionally tall tall poppy.

I have watched and enjoyed him for years and thought, it's no surprise that he's not celebrated; he's too good to be celebrated by crimped, mediocrity-worshipping, talent-resenting Kiwis.

It turns out that two years ago Tony handed them a weapon with which they're now cutting him down. He did something vile and inexcusable.

Not nearly as vile and inexcusable as they, though.

For make no mistake: the crazed mobs baying for his blood and bowels couldn't care less about his assault on his ex-partner. It's not that that has made them rabid. It's his exceptional talent for which they seek to hang, draw and quarter him.

They are far lower than Veitch—as is the Dominion Post that caters to them, that published the story notwithstanding the private deal struck by Veitch and his victim. Veitch's violence was an appalling but unpremeditated one-off, as far as we know, for which he made recompense and strove to atone. The Dominion Post's behaviour is systemic, deliberate, unapologetic ... and something they have every intention of carrying right on with: invading privacy, sensationalising personal tragedies and cashing in on the frailties of anyone who has the temerity to show signs of greatness and stand out from the mob. Their orgy of sanctimony over the Veitch affair is reminiscent of nothing so much as one of the facile mob-pleasing campaigns run by Gail Wynand's Banner in The Fountainhead. The same Dominion Post that demands Veitch's sacking and piously intones that "having Veitch in living rooms nightly and fronting its Olympics team is unacceptable" is the same Dominion Post that is running a poll on its website gleefully, breathlessly asking: "What do you think of Madonna's plan to film a nude bondage scene with Britney Spears for her upcoming world tour?" (And incidentally, it's the same socialistic Dominion Post that supports the routine violence by our current government against innocent, productive citizens.)

The Dominion Post is nothing but a tawdry tabloid, staffed by voyeuristic maggots posturing as saints and presuming to judge others infinitely nobler than they.

Any celebrity who sins in any way nowadays is required ritualistically and tearfully to apologise on television for his very existence, his failure as a "role model" ... and so on and so forth, ad nauseam, from the Handbook of Political Correctness. Tony Veitch duly went through the motions the other night. His contrition over his offence was more than that, though—it was clearly genuine. And fair enough too. But there was no need for him to apologise to "the New Zealand public." It's the New Zealand public who should be apologising to him.

Lindsay Perigo 021 255 8715

SOLO SOLOPassion.com

Using Google docs for a text compare there isn't a skerrick of difference between that and the version posted here.

Mindy

Kasper's picture

You have been appealed to 3 times to offer proof. All you have done is answer the questions by asking another question....
What's that about?

"So having written that Veitch's assault was "vile and inexcusable" does not mean that Lindsay did not later imply that assault is not as "evil" as malicious gossip". Linz implied nothing. He wrote it clear as crystal.

Not 'gossip' but tall poppy syndrome. Written words should not leave such gross mis-understandings. There are people here who deliberately out of smearing and scheming twist, mis-read and change meanings to suit their points. This is dishonest behavior. At times it is an honest error but this has been rare.

Especially for Goode - an intelligent guy who makes very poor moral decisions and then won't own up to them.

Lindsay was inconsistent!

Ptgymatic's picture

Yes, Lindsay was careful to say, in the early part of his original PR, that Veitch's attack on his friend was "vile and inexcusable."

Unfortunately, people can contradict themselves. Consistency is not automatic. And someone who expresses inconsistent views doesn't get to say: I'm only responsible for this one. So all of those affronted complaints that Lindsay couldn't possibly  be condoning assault, since he had written "vile and inexcusable" were making a specious argument.

On a discussion site like this, people in general have only what is said explicitly to work with. While others know one another from long history of posting, or personally, and might correctly give a post a different "reading" for that reason, I myself, and many others take the actual wording at face value. If a post isn't self-consistent, the writer is responsible for all he actually wrote, and can't claim not to mean "a" because he also wrote "non-a."

So having written that Veitch's assault was "vile and inexcusable" does not mean that Lindsay did not later imply that assault is not as "evil" as malicious gossip. I made this point long ago.

It's a simple matter to correct accidental inconsistencies in a subsequent post. Lindsay chose not to. He complained that the implications of his theme were recognized and criticized. His defense was that he had already said the assault was "vile and inexcusable." But logic isn't a pretzel. 

Seems awfully like you're trying to pick a fight, Robert! I haven't said Lindsay lied, nor that he has been dishonest. And it's not incumbent on me to defend what you claim to be the case!

--Mindy

Linz has stated...

Robert's picture

that his opponents (ie Goode and yourself) are guilty of ignoring the sentence: "He did something vile and inexcusable." In other words he merely reiterated his initial point and exposed his opponents piss-poor reading comprehension skills.

You, in claiming that he edited the press release or his stance after drawing criticism by those who believed he was suborning wife-beating, are are claiming that he is being dishonest. You are claiming that he back-tracked to recreate history. In other words you are calling him a liar.

Now stop prevaricating and either prove your claim or retract it.

Are you claiming it hasn't been?

Ptgymatic's picture

How does its being edited mean Lindsay is lying??

So, are you claiming it hasn't been? Speak up.

--Mindy

You made the claim

Robert's picture

that Linz has been dishonest. You prove it or retract your accusation.

Proving a negative, as you've just challenged me to do, isn't possible (in philosophical terms, it is a logical fallacy).
That's philosophy (let alone objectivism) 101. But you'd know that from the objectivist conferences you've visited etc.

If the proof is plainly seen, then it should be of little consequence for you to direct me to it.

Are you claiming it hasn't been??

Ptgymatic's picture

As to motive, that's a no-brainer.

--Mindy

And of course you have proof...

Robert's picture

It's already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

And of course you have proof both of the editing and the reason for it.

Default value

Ptgymatic's picture

I don't think you realize, Rosie, that Lindsay, et. al. must resort to verbal abuse, because the facts are against them. No point in citing them and no others exist to adduce and strengthen their position, either. They default to snap-and-snarl mode and hope to intimidate everybody else.

Oddly, it doesn't occur to them that the opinions of persons of that sort don't matter at all to thinking people.

There's a big circling of wagons going on, it looks like Lindsay is trying to repair the set-back his Veitch PR proved to be. It's already been edited to play down the ill-conceived comparison that proved so controversial.

Let him spit and spew, he's only hurting himself, and he is far from the primary value of this site!

--Mindy 

Face to face

Matty Orchard's picture

A lot is lost in the written word. Rosie's proposal of an evening shiraz in the hope of a potential truce and mending of an obviously strenuous friendship isn't something that should be dismissed out of hand.

Just the musings of a bystander mind you...I hope you and Richard do work this out privately.

.

Jameson's picture

.

Goode Riddance

Jameson's picture

I won't miss his 'drive-by' potshots, fired from the lip with all the ambivalence of a pithy pomo pistolero.

"... fail to see the subtleties or humour in the arguments"... Puh-lease, Ms Purchas, you give your guy way too much credit. To be subtle one must still have some semblance of substance. Most of his threads were pomo-poses without a position. He was a baiter, not a debater; a fisher, not a Fischer.

"In the context of Veitch's appalling barbarity, such hyperbole is vile. It trivialises domestic violence."

This from the asshole who trivialised 9/11.

Somewhere ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is an exchange between James V and Goode where James asks him something like what influence philosophy has on his life and Goode replies something like, "You're joking of course."

If what you say were a true statement, I for one certainly wouldn't be a regular reader or contributor of this forum.

Neither would I. Eye

Luke...

Olivia's picture

It amuses me that you and Richard are so alike.

That, Luke, is absolute crap.
They are not remotely alike. The ideas (philosophies) that you say they both take seriously, are poles apart, and they are what maketh the man.
Goode's philosophy is not to take anything seriously - especially philosophy, or anything else that may cast him in an "uncool" light.

If what you say were a true statement, I for one certainly wouldn't be a regular reader or contributor of this forum.

Thanks

Luke H's picture

Thank you for your reminder, Linz.  I must stop smoking so much weed.  Sticking out tongue

A further question: Do you think there is a level of seriousness (of violence) past which people cannot "sort it out between themselves"?

 It amuses me thatyou and Richard are so alike.  You both take your philosophies very seriously, find certain things that you cannot laugh at, and enjoy word games.

Robert, those are good contributions.  Pity everyone is ignoring you.  :-(   But that is SOLO in a nutshell.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your "interpretations" are consistently mistaken. For instance:

You say that Veitch and Kristin Dunne had worked things out between them and therefore the police should not have got involved.

Now will you please read what I actually said, repeated for your convenience in the "Memory loss, Luke?" post just today, quote it back and compare it with your "interpretation"?

I do not need a lecture on the role of humour in discourse. I use it frequently, as anyone who pays attention knows. What I object to strenuously is the routine use of sniggering pomowank "humour" in lieu of argumentation. I had hoped that, overall, Richard would offer a serious, concerted defence of the fashionable positions to which he subscribes so that he and Objectivists like myself could have at it. He hasn't done that. He's never sustained a serious argument for longer than 5 seconds. He's done drive-by shootings, hit-and-runs, quoted endlessly from pomowank pin-ups, and that's about it. On this particular thread he's displayed gross bad faith. When he starts accusing me of trivialising violence, he ought to know he's going to get it from me out of both barrels. And I've no intention of supping Shiraz with him.

And let me also point out

Robert's picture

that I have no problem with the police lying to a suspect, provided it is not while they are giving evidence, under oath in the court room.

Yes, that's right. I believe there are instances where the Police should lie in order to do their job. What matters isn't that they lied, it is the reason why they lied.

For instance, I have no problem with undercover officers lying about their true vocation. If they didn't lie, they'd be dead and the criminal would still be free. I have no problem with police officers pretending that they have evidence against a subject when, in fact they don't.

For instance: John Douglas et al. in the FBI Serial Murder squad developed a method to interrogate the monsters they hunted. The suspect would be deliberately led through the Police headquarters, past maps decorated with pins, piles of boxes (empty if necessary) marked to look as if they contained reams of evidence, witness statements and scientific reports. All of this to give the suspect the impression that the investigation was complete and that this interview was a formality. To give the impression that they didn't need the confession - fait accompli.

Why is this OK? Because the suspect isn't compelled to talk. He has a right to an attorney at any time. And, most importantly, all of what happens to him - including the manner in which the police lied to can be examined in court before a jury.

And when that happens, the jury can use their common sense to see whether the suspect was an innocent victim of entrapment (yes, I do believe that there is a limit to which the Police can lie) or a criminal hoisted by his own petard.

Yes, sometimes innocent men are compelled to confess crimes they didn't commit by this means of psychological warfare. Where have I said that the system was perfect?

The fifth amendment/right to silence exists precisely because the nature of police work puts the citizen at a disadvantage when dealing with the police.

No law reform or constitutional amendment you can envision is going to change that. We want professional investigators on the job. They are going to get better at interviewing people than the average layman. That's what we bloody pay them for!

Linz

Rosie's picture

"Everything is about "witty rejoinders"; everything is a word-game; nothing is to be taken seriously"

I think you are wrong about that. Much and many things are taken seriously and humour is a vehicle in which serious argument may sometimes be expressed. It is the oil in the cogs of human interaction and is a civilised way of disagreeing. The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers did not reduce themselves to name calling because they disagreed. You won't find too many civilised people who do. 

Richard's pithy points have mainly been to point out the illogic and inconsistencies in posts.  He points this out in a kindly and amusing way mostly. That is how I interpret it anyway. For example your interpretations of what he said are completely at odds to mine (your paragraph 2) which just goes to show how much room there is for misunderstanding in written posts. I am sorry he has gone. But I guess the combination of your really nasty comments and the constant misinterpretation make it difficult for him to stay. I think you should meet and make up. It is terrible to allow  misinterpretation/misunderstanding to destroy human relationships. And if you are the serious person you say you are you will know that human relationships are the most important thing.  To destroy them on the basis of misunderstanding is just as bad as any terrorist act arising from a larger religious feud - just on a small scale. But worse because of it being misunderstanding. To this end I invite you both to coffee (Shiraz?) at my house sometime. I have no heavy metal music. Eye Please don't let this pass. You can p m me when you are ready to meet.

 "The Saddamite Goode thinks 9/11 was funny. Goode thinks Ms. Dunne-Powell's injuries, whatever they might turn out to have been, are legitimate fodder for a "witty" T-shirt."

No.  You are wrong.  He doesn't think 9/11 funny.  Noone would. And you must know that. It is you who are playing games in saying that.  It is the absurdity of the caption he thought was funny. Particularly in context as drugs spokesman I would have thought.  The witty t-shirt was clever.  It didn't make any pronouncements of guilt necessarily although Veitch had already confessed to doing what he did as you say yourself. Plays on words are funny.  Even when discussing something serious. It is the art of conversation to lighten a mood of serious conversation with a joke and then to return to the subject.

 "Veitch is a tall poppy"

Is he?  Why?  Because he can read the sports news?! What are his outstanding achievements? I am interested to know. 

And finally : You say that Veitch and Kristin Dunne had worked things out between them and therefore the police should not have got involved.  If that were true it would have been restorative justice and a good example to others in the sense that their relationship could have been altered and maybe restored in friendship BUT it would seem that neither Kristin nor her family are satisfied with the way it was resolved. If they had been she would not have laid the complaint and they would not be quoted in today's newspaper as saying they were relieved that charges had at last been laid. There was a mistake somewhere so that restorative justice was not fulfilled or satisfactorily completed.  Hence my earlier quote from Plato "Nothing ever is, but is always becoming." 

Rosie

 "...he cannot take

Elijah's picture

 "...he cannot take seriously the notion of taking anything seriously. Ideas are only there for "witty rejoinders," to "get the upper hand" over one's opponent in an intellectual chess-game. There is no idealism here, no sincerity, just the pomowanker's sniggers and sneers. Ugh!.."

Yes, alas, a sad state of affairs.

I have, on numerous occasions, spent 2 or 3 hours researching something very important, spent time writing up a post, popping it on SOLO presuming others may be interested in my highlighting of socialist evil, or abuse of power by the State, or businessmen having profits stolen...or whatever...only to find....

Nothing.

Few people read it, no one comments on it...and although I do not consider anything I do in life to be a waste of time, it can be frustrating.

This is in contrast to trivial, perepheral nonsense threads...which garner a great deal of views, comments, often decending into name calling and pissing contests as to who is more Randian and Libertarian than anyone else...and this goes on for weeks at a time.

So yes, one does start to wonder if, even here, dumbing down is rife and chaps prefer tabloid trivia over ideas and important issues...

Each to their own, I suppose...*shrugs*

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

That

PhilipD's picture

 is exactly what I would expect from you, Mindy.

"Verbal abuse is so often a prelude to violence, and is often symptomatic of the impulse to resort to violence. Both are--just as you note--abandonment of reason."

Ah the usual pious, passionless piece of nonsense from Mindy.

So, it's not OK to show anger? But it is OK to, oh so politely, grossly misrepresent the views of others as you have done  earlier in this thread.  Or-nicely- lump together one and all as accepting of the initiation of force.

"All in all, you guys accept the initiation of violence much more readily than I would ever expect from Objectivists."

Thanks, its been pleasant...

 

 

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Ms. Purchas opines ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here was your opportunity to laugh at his point and try and think up some witty rejoinder to get the upper hand (as if you could!). But no. Again, you miss the point, fail to see the subtleties or humour in the argument, take it oh so unphilosophically and personally and then become abusive, nasty and vindictive.

This is exactly what I can't stand about Goode and pomowankers generally. Everything is about "witty rejoinders"; everything is a word-game; nothing is to be taken seriously. I don't know what it takes to get through to folk that SOLO is not that kind of place and I am not that kind of person.

As it happens, Goode had already lost the argument by equivocating (dishonestly) between Veitch's being found guilty in a court of law after due process and being found "guilty" by me of what he'd already owned up to. Goode compounded his display of bad faith by acquiring a sudden enthusiasm for my "vile and inexcusable" verdict that had mysteriously eluded him during his reprehensible quest to paint me as a diminisher or trivialiser of domestic violence (as he diminished and trivialised Tall Poppy Syndrome). He also willfully distorted my "no one else's business" stance.

Now, instead of calling him on his viciousness I'm supposed to look for the "subtleties and humour" in it and think up a "witty rejoinder" for the edification of the PC Ms. Purchas, who wouldn't know wit if on her bum it bit? I don't think so. My calling him what he is is somehow comparable to the buffoonery of Bob Jones and a precursor to physical violence on my own part??!! Now that is funny, but vile too.

The Saddamite Goode thinks 9/11 was funny. Goode thinks Ms. Dunne-Powell's injuries, whatever they might turn out to have been, are legitimate fodder for a "witty" T-shirt. Goode thinks anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations about Veitch leaving Ms. Dunne-Powell to die are legitimate to cite, breathlessly, and with a "witty" header like "Once more unto the Veitch." Before a jury has even been selected, and notwithstanding "innocent till proven guilty," Goode has pronounced the "Veitch creature," the "poster boy for domestic violence," guilty. Why? Because Veitch is a tall poppy, that's why. And Goode takes cutting down tall poppies very seriously indeed, contrary to his customary pomowanking anti-seriousness.

The evil that Goode men do was brought home to me the other day when I was interviewed by a young man for a university thesis he's doing on the ideas that have competed to shape New Zealand. This young man used to be a socialist, but got turned off by the loathsomeness of socialists. Instead of seeking out better ideas, however, he has rejected the very realm of ideas as such; he cannot take seriously the notion of taking anything seriously. Ideas are only there for "witty rejoinders," to "get the upper hand" over one's opponent in an intellectual chess-game. There is no idealism here, no sincerity, just the pomowanker's sniggers and sneers. Ugh!

I note that Goode has made an announcement of his flouncement. He'll come back only if he's reinvited, his announcement says. That's not witty, exactly, but it's his funniest rejoinder yet.

Memory loss, Luke?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Me, earlier on this very thread:

I said it was no one else's business because the couple had sorted it out between themselves. If you come round and beat me up, Goode, and I choose to forgive you and accept your recompense, that's between us. It's not for the Dom-Post or the mob. If it somehow comes to the notice of the police notwithstanding our agreement, then the police should investigate because it involves an alleged breach of the law, but I will tell them we sorted the matter privately, I don't wish them to prosecute and I won't testify. [Bold added for Alzheimers sufferers.]

Memory loss, or deliberate misrepresentation of my position, like that of the (thankfully flounced) pomofuck last night? I'll have more to say about that thing later.

Linz, do you now champion

Lance's picture

Linz, do you now champion the justice system and due process in this case, or do you still believe that "the matter was settled between him and his ex as described in the story, and is no one else's business", as you stated in the Max Mosley thread?

Obviously that is for Lindsay to answer, but I don't see any inconsistency here. It had been settled between him and his ex. Represented by lawyers on both sides too, a fact not often mentioned in the media, they much prefer insinuating it was "hush money" in the dirtiest sense. Now, criminal charges have been laid, it's very important that Veitch gets a fair trial. Due process and wotnot.

I'm curious

Luke H's picture

Linz, do you now champion the justice system and due process in this case, or do you still believe that "the matter was settled between him and his ex as described in the story, and is no one else's business", as you stated in the Max Mosley thread?

Sometimes...

Robert's picture

... it is best to stay silent and let everybody think you are an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

The Police officer in the video taped lecture I linked to states that one interrogation tactic is to

(1) Lie to the suspect
(2) Deliberately ramp up the psychological pressure in order to induce the suspect to drop his guard and talk.
(3) And to catch the suspect in a lie - no matter how small - in order to get him to unravel and get him to spill his guts.

Unfortunately, as that same policeman (and the former defense attorney turned Law Professor) states, the suspects are often stupid, and can cop to things that never happened.

One of the other things both people state is that the ultimate protection against being rail-roaded is

(1) the right to silence.
(2) That and the fact that the burden of proof lies with the State.
(3) Nor may you be detained or your property searched and seized without good reason.
(4) Nor may you be denied right to council.
(5) Nor may the state employ cruel and unusual measures to extract information out of you.

And on top of that, in the USA, you are reminded of these rights before questioning begins.

If I have missed any of the rights that every citizen has then I apologize.

The problem, if you'd watch the videos, is that people don't exercise these rights. In part because of the perception that remaining silent is an admission of guilt.

Which is the whole point of my post

But why do I bother answering. Any git too stupid to clink a mouse button and listen to a 20 minute lecture is not going to expend the energy in reading this riposte!

Assault...

Robert's picture

"the legal definition of 'assault' says that any intentionally applied force, no matter how slight constitutes an assault" says Dame Silvia Cartwright

That was in 2002.

This is an example of what I mean when I say that the police like to pile on the pressure in order to get the suspect to incriminate himself.

We could be talking about 5 instances where Veitch touched the lass on her shoulder.

Then again we could be talking about something more sinister. Nobody, but the Police & Crown prosecutors, know for sure.

Does the point I made about epistemologically perilous circumstances (to borrow Greg Perkins' phrase) make sense now?

Until you know all of the 'evidence' against you, you can't make a coherent attempt to answer it.

Thus until the fog lifts you should stay silent and await your trial - the only point in this whole sorry process when everybody with a dog in the hunt has an equal chance to speak and face their opponents.

This is what pisses me off about the way the Press (and certain ex-SOLOists) are treating this.

It is exactly this sort of half-cocked, jumping the gun, bullshit that ruins innocent men despite the outcome of any actual legal proceedings. Duke Lacrosse team anyone?

This atmosphere of idiotic speculation is no friend of the prosecution either: as the OJ Simpson farce demonstrated.

And to be nit picky and

Lance's picture

And to be nit picky and invite more self righteous outrage:

"Broke" is a word that sounds a lot more dramatic than fractured. I imagine certain people got a tight little shiver inside when they realised they could breathlessly say that her back had been "broken" (cos it was on the news doncherknow?) In layman's terms the term gets applied equally to complete breaks and fractures.

Oh and for the complete dolts - No I don't think there's any moral difference between someone who "breaks" a back and one who "fractures" it. But it is interesting to look at the language being used to "dramatise" it for the news.

I daren't ask lest I be

Lance's picture

I daren't ask lest I be pronounced by some in the peanut gallery of some such moral crime or other but...

six counts of assault and one count of injuring with reckless disregard

Injuring with reckless disregard? Hmmm what exactly constitutes that? Does not the report of repeated kicking until her back broke in 'X' places sound like something more serious than "Injuring with reckless disregard"?

Is there anyone who knows what conditions are applied to press the various assault charges? I thought back breaking would be a "grievous bodily harm"? Or is that an "intent" charge?

"Verbal abuse is so often a prelude to violence..."

Robert's picture

"...abandonment of reason"

So when I call Elijah racist scum, I'm abandoning reason and my outburst should be treated as attempted assault?

Congratulations: You've just won the gold medal for moral equivalence today.

I should call you stupid right now (for in uttering that statement you are), but I'd hate to be accused of beating a women with word and thought.

Videos

Ptgymatic's picture

Those are terrific videos!! Thanks.

 

 "..One of the tactics

Elijah's picture

 "..One of the tactics routinely used by the Cops is to pile on the pressure in order to sweat a confession out of someone they believe is guilty. And fair enough too.."

You have obviously never been in that situation yourself, Robert...I think that is an absurd thing to say!

What if an accuser is lying to the Police to cover their own tracks and some gullible Policeman zeros in on an innocent person to gain a confession?

(you really need some 'life experiences' old chap)

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Doesn't mean squat.

Robert's picture

Veitch has yet to see all of the evidence against him and to answer his accusers in a forum under the rules of evidence apply.

One of the tactics routinely used by the Cops is to pile on the pressure in order to sweat a confession out of someone they believe is guilty.

And fair enough too.

The job of the Police is to collect evidence against someone.

It's the job of the court and the judge and the jury to weigh that evidence.

This last phase awaits Tony Veitch, but at the moment both he and ourselves are UNAWARE of the full context of the charges the police have brought.

Veitch will no doubt exercise his right to silence - and as such will be damned for it. But remember, as Greg Perkins (from Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh's blog) points out: "While exercising 5th amendment rights [to silence] is widely associated with guilt, Duane explains that it wasn't designed for that -- it is for protecting innocent people in epistemologically perilous circumstances."

For a professional's take on Police interviews I recommend watching this video lecture. This should emphasize why you should wait until all the evidence is presented at trial before you make your mind up. (Hat tip: Noodlefood)

From a Professor of Law:

From a current US Police Officer

Administrator

Ptgymatic's picture

You really should amend your guidelines to accommodate "your" style!

--Mindy

Farewell

Richard Goode's picture

I'm putting myself out of your misery.

I won't be back, unless reinvited.

Well-said, Rosie

Ptgymatic's picture

Well-put, well-judged, well-expressed, and, well...brava!

Horrific anecdote, but psychologically telling. Verbal abuse is so often a prelude to violence, and is often symptomatic of the impulse to resort to violence. Both are--just as you note--abandonment of reason.

--Mindy

"Nothing ever is, but is always becoming." Plato

Rosie's picture

"you supercilious, pomowanking, vile fuck"

Linz: When a truly great chess player is squeezed in to a tight spot he
thrives on the challenge, a lesser player tips up the chess board and
abuses the opponent.

Here was your opportunity to laugh at his point and try and think up some witty rejoinder to get the upper hand (as if you could!). But no. Again, you miss the point, fail to see the subtleties or humour in the argument, take it oh so unphilosophically and personally and then become abusive, nasty and vindictive. Again. How truly immature both emotionally and intellectually. But also how very very droll.

Very immoral of you though in that you will be aware how the sycophants just adopt your views - making Richard's worthwhile and pithy posts henceforth disagreeable to them in order to show their loyalty to you. You are the host of this site - you say in your rules something about it being likened to being at your house or dinner party. Well that is no way for a host to behave. Certainly no adult of any worth would behave in such a childish tantrummy fashion. "And I'm not your friend anymore!"

Your behaviour reminds me of the time I met Bob Jones at one of his party political meetings. He had one of his henchman lead me off to some sideroom when I was a student because he wanted to meet me. He asked me a bit about myself and I asked him about his being interviewed with all his philosophical works behind him on the tv and that I had noticed that one of them was Plato's Republic. He was delighted to be thought of as an intellectual (his achilles heel that he was completely uneducated) until he heard the next part of the tease. I asked him whether he agreed with the idea behind the leadership of the Republic. He said he did. I asked him whether philosophy meant more to him than money. He said it didn't. I asked him why he then made himself leader of the party since the Republic only recommended philosopher rulers as the only minds capable of making decisions with pure motives. He lost his temper, called me vile names - rather like you have done to Richard - then struck me. An ill bred little man with unsophisticated humour, aggression and violence just under the skin. Also lacking in decency, respect for others and, as it turned out, any philosophy whatsoever!

And the point of my post?!

"Not guilty by due process, which you have just pronounced him"

There is no post where Richard pronounces Veitch guilty by due process.

 

Rosie

You smarmy low-life!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The first person on SOLO to pronounce Veitch guilty (of "something vile and inexcusable") was you, Linz!

Not guilty by due process, which you have just pronounced him; I pronounced judgement on what he'd confessed to, which judgement you evaded in your filthy attempts to convict me of diminishing violence.

I retract "piece of shit." You're worse than a piece of shit. Don't ever even think of having anything further to do with me, you supercilious, pomowanking, vile fuck.

Funnily enough

Richard Goode's picture

I see the "creature" has already been pronounced guilty here on SOLO by those who hitherto have been clamouring for due process.

The first person on SOLO to pronounce Veitch guilty (of "something vile and inexcusable") was you, Linz!

But I missed your clamour for due process. Do you still think that it's "no one else's business"?

I feel I should say

Elijah's picture

I feel I should say this....and do not mean to be 'nitpicky'...

Tony Veitch has indicated (according to Concert FM news at 5:00pm NZ time) he will defend the charges against him.

As he has now been charged, as this matter is now before the Court, I feel that SOLO-ists should let the Jury decide guilt or innocence.

By all means comment in 'general terms', or engage in esoteric points of objectivist philosophy, but I think it is 'bad form' for anyone on this site to comment on Mr Veitch's guilt....that is now a matter for the Jury.

I say this because hundreds of New Zealanders ...(and therefore potential Jurors)...visit this site per week and SOLO should be showing some level of responsibility.

Mr Veitch is entitled to be deemed innocent under natural Justice, Mr Veitch is entitled to remain silent under natural Justice, Mr Veitch is entitled for allegations made against him to be proven [beyond reasonable doubt] to a Jury who have an open mind and are not biased.

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Mindy

PhilipD's picture

Mindy, I haven't seen much acceptance of the initiation of force going on here.

And fuck off with your 'All in alls."

Richard, thanks for that breathless report, did ya wet yourself while writing it? I believe he is defending all charges

 

 

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

On the 'two sides to every

Elijah's picture

On the 'two sides to every story' front, I think it is a case of "I will tell the truth about you in response to the lies you have told about me.."

I gather Veitch's barrister is sharpening his knife and eagerly awaiting Ms Dunne-Powell entering the witness box....

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Veitch says ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... there are two sides to every story, and his side will out. But I see the "creature" has already been pronounced guilty here on SOLO by those who hitherto have been clamouring for due process. Still, a "creature" is a step up from a piece of shit.

Veitch arrested and charged

Richard Goode's picture

The Veitch creature has been arrested and charged with six counts of assault and one count of injuring with reckless disregard, reports the Herald.

As a supporter of the

Mark Hubbard's picture

As a supporter of the concept of a police force, many issues within the NZ police today worry and scare me.

One thing is for sure about Veitch, to quote the TVNZ site:

 

Meanwhile, police say there hasn't been a public apology made over a message left on Tony Veitch's answer-phone.

A female detective who called Veitch's Herne Bay home on Thursday evening made the comment, "I bet he hasn't got a smile on his face like that anymore," after hearing a cheerful recorded message.

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty says reports of a public apology are incorrect. She says it was an unfortunate and regrettable error and the detective is no longer working personally with Veitch.

 

No matter what the truth, he can forget a fair treatment or trial; the officers involved seem to already have formed their conclusions, and as usual will drive the facts toward that end. There is something basic wrong with the investigation methodology they employ. That, or I have to wonder if the NZ police are actually capable of any type of intelligence - both meanings - at all, and am not surprised they predominantly try and stick to traffic infringements.

Tall poppies

Richard Goode's picture

a tall poppy is an extraordinary achiever who stands head and shoulders above the crowd.

You mean, someone like Peter Jackson, or Caroline and Georgina Evers-Swindell?

In other words, a tall poppy?

Olivia's picture

Being a capable, mature businesswoman does not make one a tall-poppy... not at all. One can be capable at many things - most ordinary people are, but a tall poppy is an extraordinary achiever who stands head and shoulders above the crowd.

Matty... if she lashed out first and broke his back, he should go immediately to hospital, where he lays a complaint with police and sues for damages... just like she should've done. But she did not.

New Zealand law...

Ptgymatic's picture

...is new to me, I admit. I assumed it was fairly consistent with U.S. law. I read the first page of the sentencing Act, and learned that making amends would be taken into consideration. That doesn't mean the victim must choose between damages and punishment. I can't take time to read the whole thing. If your justice system forgives violent crimes because the aggressor makes apologies or payments, etc., more's the pity.

All in all, you guys accept the initiation of violence much more readily than I would ever expect from Objectivists. I don't know whether to chalk it up to New Zealand laws, or your Libertarianism...?

--Mindy

Sentencing Act

reed's picture

"... She is entitled to

Elijah's picture

"... She is entitled to damages, and to criminal prosecution.."

Actually, no she is not....not in New Zealand.

Justice does not mean you destroy someone's life, empty their bank account and have a lot of lunatic types baying for blood.

To put this before a New Zealand Court would be foolish in my opinion.

Sentencing guidlines mean a Judge must put a lot of weight on Veitch having paid damages to her long before anyone knew about this matter...ie he did not wait until he was rumbled and slip her a few quid to make it look good.

A Judge also has to take into account the behaviour of the complainant...(such as trousering damages, going to the media, conflicting stories about injuries, visiting Veitch a couple of weeks afterwards whilst now claiming to be a 'victim', and waiting a considerable period of time before making a Police complaint, any hint of subtle blackmail in requesting damages 'this is your last chance' in an email)...in order that 'Justice' is done, rather than anything uncivilised.

As such I imagine Veitch will, at worst, be convicted and discharged, and at best be discharged without conviction..(with a severe telling off for Police and Prosectors for wasting the Court's time)

[edit] ...Here are the relevant parts of the Sentencing Act 2002...

Section 8 (Grade

Section 8 (Crazy

Section 9 (1)(i)

Section 9 (2)(c)

Section 9 (2)(f)

Section 9 (2)(g)

Section 10 (1)(a - e)

Section 10 (2)(a and b)

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Olivia: having it both ways

Ptgymatic's picture

She is right to have it both ways. She is entitled to damages, and to criminal prosecution. If she hasn't waited past the statute of limitations, she hasn't waited too long, right? Is there proof that the money was hush money?

Could you be more specific about how Veitch is persecuted by the cops?

--Mindy 

Pretty straight forward.

Matty Orchard's picture

"even if it was established that the ex had been the one to lash out
first, you'll find that Veitch would be the only one to be taken down
and absolutely nothing would happen to her (other than buckets of
sympathy coming her way). That's the kind of world we live in."

...And if she broke his back?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.