Sunday, March 13, 2016

SICK AND SAD


This is the photograph of some sick 'puppy' ensconced outside national Police Headquarters in Wellington with his take on the shooting of four policemen in the BoP on Wednesday.

One hopes consideration is being given to charging him under s174 of the Crimes Act - incites, counsels or attempts to procure a person to commit murder.

Ten years in the slammer as provided for under the Act should see him and us about right.

I'm sure the Media Party will come to his aid defending his action.


26 comments:

Noel said...

Nah
"opinion....a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

Plenty of wriggle room if he lawyers up.

Anonymous said...

His lawyer will refer to section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) to get him off. Probably why the Police are "disappointed" but not laying charges.

Tinman said...

No!

Absolutely bloody NO!

This prick's opinion may not be mine or yours but he has the right to express it - as publicly as he wants.

Veteran, your suggestion that this fellow " incites, counsels or attempts to procure a person to commit murder" is pure bullshit of the type the left use to shut down anything they disagree with.

Your post is shameful - in the extreme.

I hope to see a retraction in the very near future.

Shelldrake said...

Tin man. You are defending his warped mind by the principle of free speech.

However his opinion as to shooting policemen has no place within those principles. Your comment does not advance the cause if democracy. It just gives licence to the warped sad nutters.

Noelu said...

"his opinion has no place with those principles."

Hope to see your civil case agsinst him published.

Tinman said...

Anonymous Shelldrake said...

Tin man. You are defending his warped mind by the principle of free speech.


No I'm bloody not.

I don't doubt his mind is warped, nor do I defend his opinion.

What I defend, vigorously, is his right to hold that opinion and express it peacefully.

Note the word "peacefully".

What I find offensive in the original post is the suggestion this man is " incites, counsels or attempts to procure a person to commit murder".

He does no such thing, simply places his opinion in the public domain by placard, just as we do by commenting on blogs etc.

This is the freedom all honest men strive for.

Angry Tory said...

Sure we need one more shot - him, right between the eyes.

But much more disgusting than this one socialist-terrorist are the political parties like the Greens and Labour trying to call for more gun control. The solution to the problem was clear, rather than going "softly softly" the cops should just have gone in hard and fast and firing, result no cops getting shot, result no expensive standoff, result no even more expensive trial, result no even more expensive incarceration! Just like Operation 8 - what's the point of the cops if not to take out the criminals, terrorists, unionists, etc.

The Veteran said...

Tinman ... of course you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I believe NZ society is fragile enough without having this clown parade his prejudices in such a way that some less enlightened members of society may see it as a 'green light' to initiate violence. Freedom to express a view is not open ended. This clown has stepped over the boundaries and if you find it offensive that I have called him out, then stiff s**t.

Tinman said...

Veteran, you haven't "called him out".

You've called for him to be arrested and imprisoned for something he has not done simply because you dislike his advertised opinion.

His sign calls for nothing at all, it simply expresses his dismay at a certain event.

Your comment that "having this clown parade his prejudices in such a way that some less enlightened members of society may see it as a 'green light' to initiate violence" is exactly the way the left uses to shut down anyone who expresses an opinion different from theirs.

Equally as repulsive and equally wrong and reminiscent of a certain by-product of the male of the bovine species.

Disagree with him, explain his error, stand alongside him with a placard stating your opinion, state your opinion forcefully on your blog but do not prevent him (or try to prevent him) having an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

That is offensive!

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Tinman

You are flat out wrong and your word weaseling about 'his right to hold his opinion' does you no credit. That's the sort of crap I expect from John Minto.

Noel said...

The original post cited a specific section of the Crimes Act and that it should be pursued. The police haven't charged the individual because Veterans promoted charge cannot be upheld.

Those who find that objectionable are free to initiate a civil case.

Anonymous said...

"I believe NZ society is fragile enough"

Care to explain?

The Veteran said...

Noel ... do you know that for sure?

Anon 4.13 ... I look at the range of threats made against public figures and the language involved and I have to wonder where it will all end. I look at the xenophobic rants against immigrants and people of different religions and worry. At some point over the top rhetoric will come back to bite and that's what concerns me. I would argue that NZL is a less tolerant, more polarised society than it was when I was growing up. Some might say that what we see is part and parcel of a maturing society ... not sure that is necessarily the case.

Noel said...

do you know that for sure?

What..that the Police haven't charged or that charge is unlikely successful?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Vet

We've long passed the maturing stage and have now entered upon the putrefaction process.

Anonymous said...

You refering to your post on Kevin Davis?

Angry Tory said...

Free speech is speech that promotes freedom, pure and simple,
just like communist speech is speech that promotes communism,
or anarchist speech is speech that promotes anarchy.

This hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-citizen was not delivering free speech, but communist anarchist speech - which isn't protected by in any free country anywhere, for good reason.

The saddest thing is that the cops won't act, and that political parties who support this kind of communist anarchist terrorism are allowed to be elected to parliament.

Tinman said...

Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

March 14, 2016 at 3:33 PM


Adolf, have you ever th ....

Oh, shit! Sorry.

My words are plain, my arguments simple and straight forward.

Feel free to disagree, that is your right.

Telling lies or comparing my honesty to Minto is not and shows your dishonesty.

I respect Veteran and will happily debate his posts because of this respect.

Notably I don't comment on yours.

Anonymous said...

"I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.

Only it wasn't. Somebody else whose name escapes me. You hold the moral high ground Tinman. I'm afraid Veteran had not made himself clear on whether he stands for free speech or only free speech that he agrees with. As for policemen, I know one that should be doing time and if I had my way he would be No.1 through the door of every drug bust going

Lord Egbut

Noel said...

It was "disapprove of " by Hall not that it matters.

BORA enshrines" Freedom Of Expression" in law making Sheldrakes "free speech" manipulation irrelevant. Also why it would be difficult to prosecute.

With yah on this one Tinman.

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... the simple truth is that the right to free speech is not unfettered There are boundaries which, if you cross them, have consequences. By my count there are at least 28 countries with 'Hate Speech' laws (very few of them being old eastern bloc/communist countries ... funny that).

Of course there are bad eggs in every profession/calling. Police are human just like you and me and the world ain't perfect but no-one should be vilified for doing their job and I would have thought that you of all people would acknowledge that.

Noel ... BORA is not a get out of jail free card. Play that in a case bought against you under s61 of the Human Rights Act or as a defense in defamation and you won't get past first base.

Look, if you guys want to defend the right of some sick puppy suggest that the wounding of four policemen was four too few then OK by me but count me out.

Noel said...

Aw come on where is the defamation in the placard. Stop spinning, your initial post was wrong.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... stop being obtuse. My comment is was response to your suggestion that BORA guaranteed 'free speech'. It doesn't and you know that.

Noel said...

The subject of discussion is the man and his placard.
I didn't say BORA guaranteed "free speech" I said it enshrined "Freedom of Expression".
If you cannot tell the difference between the two this whole discussion has been a waste of the use of oxygen.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... 'enshrined' vs 'guaranteed' ... you're dancing on the head of a pin. Yep, the post was about a man and his placard but it morphed into the so called right of free speech.

The final para in my 10.47 post is my last word of the subject.

Noel said...

"morphed into the so called right of free speech."

No

Right of Freedom of Expression.

My last word.