Friday, November 8, 2013


represent the ugly face of the 'left'  side of politics.   Willie who thinks the Mana Party represents Maori and John  who would crawl over broken glass to get the Labour Party nomination for Waitakere.    Both have it that 13 YO girls are fair game for predatory youth.  Great advertisement for their respective parties.

Will Hone and David have the balls to discipline/disown them?   Their silence is deafening and that silence indicates either their tacit approval or a lack of moral leadership.   You can be the judge of that.     

You might argue that John has a modicum of excuse.   It is a matter of public record that his brother is a convicted murderer/rapist?.   Guess it's in his jeans/genes.

Tell you one thing.   I wouldn't let my 13 YO granddaughter within a bulls roar of Messrs Jackson and Tamahere.


Andrei said...

Both have it that 13 YO girls are fair game for predatory youth

No they do not - I have zero time for either of these two gentlemen but that is a great calumny

But any relationship between facts and reality to Kiwi chattering class are purely coincidental and bullshit rules

Psycho Milt said...

Correct, Andrei. They put it more like 13-year-old girls who are slutty get what's coming to them. It's inconceivable how anyone could have taken offence...

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I was listening on the day in question. Jackson was looking for "other perspectives" and JT was reacting to what he calls "the thought police". The way the interview with 'Amy' developed was uncomfortable. I felt JT's question about her virginity was uncalled for and unwise, not however anticipating the blow-back that ensued.

I listen to this show reasonably regularly and have ambivalent feelings about it generally. But the current backlash isn't warranted. They were doing what I want media people to do inasmuch as they were trying to explore all angles. Albeit they can be quite unprofessional. But they aren't alone there.

I hope the advertisers who've pulled their business have listened to the full tape and aren't just reacting to someone else's version or interpretation.

Andrei said...

Ah PM, again wrong but an error illustrative of a major defect in the "progressive" mind.

You see, sad as it may be, we do share the planet with people who do not conform to our mores and standards of behaviour and included in their numbers are those who might rape.

And if you are a young woman you may encounter such a predatory creature and if you do you will have to negotiate this peril, or not as the case may be. (I don't like this fact anymore than you do and you can be sure neither of the gentlemen who are subjects of this post do either)

Another reality is that a young woman dressed for Church and sober is far more likely to successfully negotiate a chance encounter with a potential rapist (even if she catches his attention) than one dressed as though she is soliciting for tricks and drunk or otherwise indisposed by intoxicating substances, Indeed for one in this state the chances of being raped are higher by many orders of magnitude than the former example.
Pointing this out does not mean that you are justifying the rape of "drunken sluts" it is merely an observation of life as it is in a very wicked world.

Never the less "progressives" when presented with this sad reality are inclined to fly into paroxysms of rage and go on "slut walks" etc etc etc Though how believing that dressing like a hooker and marching down the street chanting "no means no" and other such things might change the ways of psychopaths is an inexplicable mystery to me.

Anyway drunk thirteen year old girls in the company of thoroughly unpleasant adolescent boys unsupervised by responsible adults would seem to me to be a recipe for disaster - but apparently suggesting this might be so on the radio will get you into deep do doos as the "reality based community" fly off the handle

Psycho Milt said...

Lindsay: the initial reaction was compounded by the facts that they issued an apology they didn't mean and then doubled down on the scummy behaviour by kicking Hooton out of their studio for pointing out their previous form on this (support for their good mate and also-a-rapist, Clint Rickards).

Andrei: a major defect of the conservative mind is the view that slutty girls get what's coming to them. It's well illustrated by Sheikh Hilaly's "uncovered meat" analogy. The fact is that if an old lady had been beaten and robbed in her home by teen thugs, Willie and JT would not be quizzing her about whether her poor security, willingness to open the door to strangers and obvious posession of nice things had caused what happened to her. Nor would you be regarding this as just a fact of life that such things are likely to happen to old ladies who aren't more careful, so hardly something anyone needs to get all angry about.

Keeping Stock said...

Will Hone and David have the balls to discipline/disown them?

Hone Harawira went on air yesterday to stand in solidarity with his "brothers". There's your answer, which I doubt will come as a surprise.

On the other hand David Cunliffe has followed the PM's lead, and won't be appearing on the programme. So Tamihere and Jackson now have no advertisers, no guests, and they'll soon have no listeners.

The Veteran said...

Sorry Lindsay but, with respect, you're wrong. You're arguing the line that as 'responsible' broadcasters they were endeavouring to drill down into the issue and expose PC correctness for what it is.

That is a cop out.

Those two are 'shock jocks2' and when you deliberately set out to provoke and let your mouth run ahead of your brain you may expect on occasions to have things blow up in your face.

They managed that big time and deserve everything they are getting.

The Veteran said...

PM 6.12 .... "a major defect of the conservative mind is the view that slutty girls get what's coming to them".

Errrrrrrrrrr conservative?

Last time I looked these two were/are card carrying apologists for the Left and hard Left.

Colin Craig will be upset and Willie Jackson mortified by your use of that descriptive.

Nah ... shock jock idiots with a limited moral compass ... yes.
Conservative not.

Andrei said...

Andrei: a major defect of the conservative mind is the view that slutty girls get what's coming to them. It's well illustrated by Sheikh Hilaly's "uncovered meat" analogy.

LOL Milt that in psychological terms is called "projection" - it is probably what you actually think deep down and therefore believe others do to.

Let me explain something to you - when a young woman dresses in what we, provocatively, might call a "sexually provocative" manner she is highlighting the sexual (or more accurately reproductive) aspects of her body. And her purpose for doing so is to attract the attention of males!

Not all, in fact quite probably most of the attention she attracts will be unwanted and if she is skillful at the game she will fend off the unwanted suitors and inappropriate approaches off with little difficulty. On the other hand if she is young, naive as well as intoxicated she is highly likely to come to grief.

It is fundamentally necessary for young men and young women to come together in order for the species to perpetuate itself and it is inbuilt in most young men and women to seek out someone of the opposite sex - most of us are in fact driven to do so.

And the way we present ourselves to the world will have a bearing upon the type of partner we will attract and the commitment that person will display towards us in the longer term.

Which is why as responsible parents my wife and myself were frequently heard to utter phrases such as you can't go out dressed like that! and engage in battles of wills with our young as they matured and learned to negotiate the pitfalls of courtship and of life itself in a fallen world.

Noel said...

During the WWII psychologist's we brought into investigate the large numbers of US servicemen on rape charges in the UK.
On of the factors involved was that UK women presented differently to US women.
In short when he thought the woman was intimating she was prepared for a sexual liaison she was not.
But they were dressing and acting to "attract the attention of males"

The Veteran said...

Noel ... where does getting 13 YO drunk in order to 'hit' them up come into that equation?

You are talking about adult women.

This is about children below the age of consent.

Anonymous said...

13 YO girls are not exactly a byword for stability or common sense when they get liquored up. Neither are hormone driven youths with eyebrow rings that stupefy, rape and then post boasts of their 'conquests'. They both need rescuing from themselves, preferably by their parents but then the police.

But it's probably too late in the piece for a hiding or time in the lockup to do Tamihere and Jackson any good. They're both as nasty as Hone.


Barry said...

I think that Jackson and Tamihere are ugly racist pigs and parasites but I agree with Lindsay Mitchell's second paragraph that the backlash isn't warranted. It all seems like phoney taking-of-offence to me. Like phoney outrage.

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei: all of which is just a lengthier and more disingenuous assertion of Sheikh Hilaly's "uncovered meat" thesis.

Further: it's a thesis that's only relevant to this issue if it's supporting a claim that these girls brought this misfortune on themselves. Which is, in effect, what you, Willie, JT and a bunch of dim bulbs on Kiwiblog are claiming.

Andrei said...

PM what is your malfunction here?

The world is a dangerous place and I do not make the rules and nor do you.

It is what it is and it is not a safe place for unattended drunk little girls in mini skirts and hot pants.

And you can spit all the venom you like at those who point this sad fact of life out but it will not make the world a safer place for drunk little girls out on the tiles. It will not.

I am not about to take advantage of a drunk thirteen year old and nor are you and if we encounter one we would take her under our wing protect her and keep her safe until we could return her to where she belongs (I have done this on at least two occasions).

But that is the best we can do - we cannot wave a magic wand and make the world safe for drunk thirteen year old girls everywhere and at all times much as we might like to

Psycho Milt said...

In short - what's your point? Apart from the statement-of-the-obvious that criminals exist?

In this case, we have serious crimes being committed and being publicly boasted about, and police who don't seem to consider it their job to do something about it.

It seems to me there are a number of points of legitimate public interest and public concern with that - with the attitude of the criminals, in that they seem to have imagined other people would find both the crimes and the subsequent public humiliation of the victims as entertaining as they do; and with the attitude of the Police, which seems not to have improved since management were covering up for rapists on its own staff.

It likewise seems to me that what isn't of public interest or relevance would be to help gang up on the victims by dwelling on the various ways they could have avoided becoming victims of a crime in the first place. As I pointed out, that's equivalent to hearing that an old lady was beaten and robbed in her own house, and saying "Well, if these dozy old trouts will open the fucking door, what do they expect?" If someone does offer that as a relevant opinion on such a crime, yes I do wonder exactly what their mental problem is.

You're presenting us with the true-but-irrelevant fact that some men are rapists and we can't change that. It's about as useful and notable a fact as the equally true-but-irrelevant one that some teenage girls will engage in risky behaviour. They're both "facts," but neither of them has any bearing on the actual issues involved here - which are the astonishing attitudes of the perpetrators and the Police.