Wednesday, September 15, 2010

IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND ACT MP

David Garrett, but I do think the media fixation on what appears to be a stupid prank undertaken by him over a quarter of a century ago (for which he was taken to Court and discharged without conviction) is somewhat unfortunate and entirely predictable.

You can read it here at Stuff

It would equate to my going on about Phil Goff's membership/dalliance with the Progressive Youth Movement back in the 1960s and their active support for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.

Both Garrett and Goff have moved on since then.

23 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I must admit the first thing I thought of was the image of Goff spitting on the troops.

James said...

While what David was wrong and not a good look no matter which way you spin it it was a long long time ago and he got consequences.

When the MP with no prior sins steps foward to critise Garrett I will accept that as fair enough...till then however....

The Veteran said...

James ... agreed. But it was the MSM I was getting at.

Danyl Mclauchlan said...

It would equate to my going on about Phil Goff's membership/dalliance with the Progressive Youth Movement back in the 1960s and their active support for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.

If Goff had kept his antiwar activism a secret and spent his parliamentary career as a wildly pro-war militarist, maybe . . .

Anonymous said...

I usually find myself agreeing with you but not this time. What was Garrett thinking? I like much of what he has to say on tougher penalties, three strikes, etc. But he's been shown to have a weird idea of what is right and wrong - even if it did happen 26 years ago.

James: what consequences did he get apart from having the story of his stupidity made public?

Veteran: the MSM may be mindless twats much of the time (so much so I rarely buy any of their rags) but I fail to see an unjustified beat-up here.

Charlie

Anonymous said...

To be honest it is not a good look and also Rodney Hide knowing of it and still allowing Garett to stand for Parliament.

The appropriate outcome is for Garrett to leave Parliament and for Hide to really have a good think about the election next year coz at this rate he will be looking for another job.

I just hope that National can get an absolute majority so that there is time for another right wing party to start up.

Jimmie

Anonymous said...

"I must admit the first thing I thought of was the image of Goff spitting on the troops."

You hear about an Act MP stealing a dead baby's identity and that's the FIRST thing you think of? What a wierdo.

Judge Holden

Inventory2 said...

One certainly gets the impression that neither Garrett nor Hide ever expected these revelations to see the light of day. But it does raise one question; who hates David garrett and Act nso much that they are pissing in the media's pocket? And there's a second question; is that ALL there is on Garrett?

Psycho Milt said...

It would equate to my going on about Phil Goff's membership/dalliance with the Progressive Youth Movement back in the 1960s and their active support for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.

If those things had been criminal offences it would, yes.

That said, I'm not seeing much of a reason for the media beat-up about this. Garrett's had some court appearances for crimes that were deemed so appalling that they deserved a $10 fine and a discharge without conviction? Well, whoop-de-shit. It seems to me that having a lawn order spokesman with actual experience of standing in the dock is a huge leap forward from the interchangeable Nat/Labour blatherers.

Most perceptive comment so far on this is over at the Dim Post:

What I want to know is, Heather, who is leaking this stuff?

Flashman said...

Garrett better watch himself.

One more strike and he's out.

Anonymous said...

Garrett's problem is that he thinks leopard's don't change their spots so he is therefore a self confessed idiot with no possibility of change. Therefore he should piss off and take about 100 others with him.

And at PM. Because its legal doesn't make it right and Goff is worse than Garrett.

Anonymous said...

This is the most pointless story for the media to fixate on. The media now has all the necessary devices to broadcast news widely but the difficulty for the media is: There is not sufficient news to broadcast! NB The stories from CHCH post earthquake are becoming sadly trivial as the initial (and genuine) blush of news items from there have lessened. The media now seems to see itself as entertainers rather than informants...they are wanting in both domains!

Cadwallader

Psycho Milt said...

Because its legal doesn't make it right and Goff is worse than Garrett.

Likewise, because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, and according to the NZ legal system Goff is by no means worse than Garrett - unless Goff's also plead guilty to a serious crime at some point, which I'm willing to bet is highly unlikely.

Really, the only interesting or noteworthy aspect of this story is how it came to be released. He was discharged without conviction, ie no criminal record to discover; name suppression was given, ie no information about it in the public domain; which means somebody with inside knowledge and an axe to grind leaked the info, ie we are yet again watching ACT members fuck their own party up the arse. It was a well-executed shafting, which you'd think would rule Heather Roy out of contention as the perpetrator, but my money's definitely on her faction in the last clusterfuck being behind this latest one.

Anonymous said...

Rodders hasn't claimed, that I've seen heard or read, that he was only following the requirements of the permanent name suppression order which applied in this case by not telling us all about the incident. That seems like rock-Rodney-hard-place.

He's not spinning it that way is he. Seemed the obvious course to me.

Maybe we should count up the number of convictions across both sides of the house and compare?

Randominanity said...

defending someone who steals the identity of dead babies - really?!

God help him if he'd used taxpayer money for an election pledge card eh!

James said...

I love how Garrett is being spun as someone who wants to imprision young 'stupid people who cock up with no possibility of redemtion and rehibilitation.

In fact 3 strikes is about violent offenders actually getting another chance, 2 if you like,to change course in life before the hammer really drops on the 3rd strike.If Garrett was really all hellfire and brimstone he would be pushing for the death penalty.Hes actually rather liberal as a person....thats due to life experiences...like his own brushes with the law.

baxter said...

After 26 years it is overblown and of no consequence. It is how-ever yet another example of the evil of name suppression and the denial of open justice.

Anonymous said...

Turns out Garrett lied to the NZ court about his Tongan conviction. He was discharged without conviction after saying he had no other convictions in NZ or Tonga: of course, he actually had the Tongan assault conviction.

That's perjury. That's jail time.

Anonymous said...

Watching this I would infer you expect politicians to be honest. If so you are all idiots.

Anonymous said...

So it is a terrible thing when you get king hit in that paradise of democracy and nil corruption the wonderful Kingdom of Tonga and then found guilty of being a victim. Fuck me what adreadful man!

Meanwhile back in little old NZ we specialise in producing in excess of 250 chldkillers in the period since Garret acted like a twat some of whom are known but have actually never even been charged.
Reality is Garret is a wanker and a fool but by no means is he a baby killer or a kiddy fu..er. The Media scrabble at the airport this afternoon summed up NZ Journalism to a T, pinkfaced,hairless dickheads acting like a pack of worrying dogs. They are a bigger disgrace than Garret.

Anonymous said...

Fact, Heather and Simon were behind this. They waited until Rodney left the country and then let off this little bomb - knowing full well Rodney was unable to deal with it or change his travel plans.

Scumbags.

I'll stay Anon for this part, I am sure you know who I am :)

WAKE UP said...

Well, this topic has sure created strange bedfellows...

What I want to know is: How many others have read Le Carre and run off to the cemetery to search for a dead infant's headstone?

Thought so.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wake Up you bloody plonker it wasn't Le Carre.

No wonder ACT is buggered it if it's stalwarts can't even get simple basics right.