Why does NZ continue to refuse to let actions have consequences?

Forums › Off topic › Why does NZ continue to refuse to let actions have consequences?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266478 24-Mar-2015 09:54

freitasm:
networkn: Really? Probably first offence, no intent, nobody physically harmed. The consequences will have well exceeded the harm, and they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives, for a mistake made at 16.

No-one died. A severe reprimand, loss of privileges, some agreed community service and an education program would do far more good than what you are proposing.

"No intent"? No intent means "accident". I doubt it was "accidental".

Sorry I respectfully disagree, whilst I understand it wasn't an accident, I personally believe the kids (Yes they are still kids) didn't fully understand the possible ramifications. I believe they weren't trying to hurt anyone or deliberately break or deface anything, this is what I mean by intent. They weren't trying to put stuff into bags, take down an aircraft
or put another persons life at risk.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1266536 24-Mar-2015 10:14

networkn:
freitasm:
networkn: Really? Probably first offence, no intent, nobody physically harmed. The consequences will have well exceeded the harm, and they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives, for a mistake made at 16.

No-one died. A severe reprimand, loss of privileges, some agreed community service and an education program would do far more good than what you are proposing.

"No intent"? No intent means "accident". I doubt it was "accidental".

Sorry I respectfully disagree, whilst I understand it wasn't an accident, I personally believe the kids (Yes they are still kids) didn't fully understand the possible ramifications. I believe they weren't trying to hurt anyone or deliberately break or deface anything, this is what I mean by intent. They weren't trying to put stuff into bags, take down an aircraft
or put another persons life at risk.

yep hormones at that age are a bugger

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266540 24-Mar-2015 10:17

KiwiNZ:
networkn:
freitasm:
networkn: Really? Probably first offence, no intent, nobody physically harmed. The consequences will have well exceeded the harm, and they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives, for a mistake made at 16.

No-one died. A severe reprimand, loss of privileges, some agreed community service and an education program would do far more good than what you are proposing.

"No intent"? No intent means "accident". I doubt it was "accidental".

Sorry I respectfully disagree, whilst I understand it wasn't an accident, I personally believe the kids (Yes they are still kids) didn't fully understand the possible ramifications. I believe they weren't trying to hurt anyone or deliberately break or deface anything, this is what I mean by intent. They weren't trying to put stuff into bags, take down an aircraft
or put another persons life at risk.

yep hormones at that age are a bugger

Yup agreed, it was a very dumb thing to do.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1266546 24-Mar-2015 10:20

networkn:I am a little torn as to what the proper outcome should have been but probably still fall on the side that the punishment outweighed the crime. The AUTHORITIES didn't press charges, as is their right, because they deemed it outside of a reasonable punishment for the crime committed.

I also don't think it's reasonable to assume the parents are "bad" parents, who won't insist on proper punishment for their kids, time will soon tell that I expect.

The authorities used their heads then. A lot of high horse parenting on Facebook...As if their children are angels and never set a foot wrong yet think the kid joyriding on a baggage belt should be sentenced to 10 years in prison, right before condemning the parents for bad parenting. I bet it would be a different story if it was their kid. I also bet their kids have or will do something equally as bad at some point in their lives.

Another silly joke Stuff/Herald article blown out of proportion by overzealous reporting and the masses tripping over themselves to be offended.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266552 24-Mar-2015 10:24

thecripplernz: as someone who personally 'attempted to breach airport security' I spent the best part of 2 separate days in a jail cell. and many months waiting for it to be resolved. They should be treated the same

How old were you? What are the circumstances?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266555 24-Mar-2015 10:25

DravidDavid:
networkn:I am a little torn as to what the proper outcome should have been but probably still fall on the side that the punishment outweighed the crime. The AUTHORITIES didn't press charges, as is their right, because they deemed it outside of a reasonable punishment for the crime committed.

I also don't think it's reasonable to assume the parents are "bad" parents, who won't insist on proper punishment for their kids, time will soon tell that I expect.

The authorities used their heads then. A lot of high horse parenting on Facebook...As if their children are angels and never set a foot wrong yet think the kid joyriding on a baggage belt should be sentenced to 10 years in prison, right before condemning the parents for bad parenting. I bet it would be a different story if it was their kid. I also bet their kids have or will do something equally as bad at some point in their lives.

Another silly joke Stuff/Herald article blown out of proportion by overzealous reporting and the masses tripping over themselves to be offended.

Yup agreed, some very hardcore responses really. People have obviously lost sight of the stupid things THEY did when they were younger.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266567 24-Mar-2015 10:36

"Jordan and Jack and their families want to make it very clear that the court action undertaken was never intended to justify or excuse their actions at Auckland Airport or to suggest that St Bede's College is not entitled to take appropriate disciplinary action in relation to their behaviour. The only reason for the court action was due to concerns over the school's decision-making process and over whether or not the decision as made was proportionate to the misbehaviour."

Justice Dunningham said she was satisfied there was "at least a serious question" over the issues raised by the parents. "I think it at least seriously arguable that to make the decision based on the emailed report of a head coach who was not present when the incident took place, without interviewing the boys in question or the other participants, and without gathering information on the consequences of the decision to assess whether it was proportionate to the alleged misbehaviour was unfair and in breach of natural justice," she said.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266568 24-Mar-2015 10:37

networkn:
DravidDavid:
networkn:I am a little torn as to what the proper outcome should have been but probably still fall on the side that the punishment outweighed the crime. The AUTHORITIES didn't press charges, as is their right, because they deemed it outside of a reasonable punishment for the crime committed.

I also don't think it's reasonable to assume the parents are "bad" parents, who won't insist on proper punishment for their kids, time will soon tell that I expect.

The authorities used their heads then. A lot of high horse parenting on Facebook...As if their children are angels and never set a foot wrong yet think the kid joyriding on a baggage belt should be sentenced to 10 years in prison, right before condemning the parents for bad parenting. I bet it would be a different story if it was their kid. I also bet their kids have or will do something equally as bad at some point in their lives.

Another silly joke Stuff/Herald article blown out of proportion by overzealous reporting and the masses tripping over themselves to be offended.

Yup agreed, some very hardcore responses really. People have obviously lost sight of the stupid things THEY did when they were younger.

In this case it was the stupid things two team members did, and that the other team members encouraged. The argument that it affexcts the other team members is invalid. The team should have just missed the regatta.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266572 24-Mar-2015 10:38

thecripplernz:
networkn:
thecripplernz: as someone who personally 'attempted to breach airport security' I spent the best part of 2 separate days in a jail cell. and many months waiting for it to be resolved. They should be treated the same

How old were you? What are the circumstances?

ah, 27 ... it was that fake pilot thing in 2011

Sorry that isn't even remotely similar to the same thing. Age is a big factor, pretending to be a pilot involves planning and intent, in my opinion you were incredibly fortunate with the outcome you got.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1266573 24-Mar-2015 10:38

networkn: Really? Probably first offence...

Sorry - not meaning to zero in on your comments specifically, but...

The entire team was already "on notice" as a result of previous instances of bad behaviour at Maadi Cup events.

These two individuals also had prior "form" in this sense:
Jordan Kennedy "...was stood down for three days in year 9 for a disciplinary incident"
Jack Bell "...was involved in an incident at Maadi Cup last year in Twizel"

(source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67483617/Rowers-feared-missing-out-on-rep-teams)

It seems that you're going out of your way to view this crime through "rose tinted glasses"?
(yes, I used the word "crime" deliberately)

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266574 24-Mar-2015 10:40

We clearly do not like consequences.

See most drink-driving offence outcomes for details!

Also the Master of a 38,000 tonne vessel was just fined a mere $3000 for being drunk in charge of it at sea...!

$30,000 and a ban on ever sailing in NZ waters would have been more appropriate.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266578 24-Mar-2015 10:43

6FIEND:
networkn: Really? Probably first offence...

Sorry - not meaning to zero in on your comments specifically, but...

The entire team was already "on notice" as a result of previous instances of bad behaviour at Maadi Cup events.

These two individuals also had prior "form" in this sense:
Jordan Kennedy "...was stood down for three days in year 9 for a disciplinary incident"
Jack Bell "...was involved in an incident at Maadi Cup last year in Twizel"

(source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67483617/Rowers-feared-missing-out-on-rep-teams)

It seems that you're going out of your way to view this crime through "rose tinted glasses"?
(yes, I used the word "crime" deliberately)

Agree fully. And other team mambers encouraged them, so in effect the team was at fault

What if it was me? I'd be in the dock facing charges, fines, community service.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1266580 24-Mar-2015 10:44

thecripplernz:
networkn:
thecripplernz: as someone who personally 'attempted to breach airport security' I spent the best part of 2 separate days in a jail cell. and many months waiting for it to be resolved. They should be treated the same

How old were you? What are the circumstances?

ah, 27 ... it was that fake pilot thing in 2011

I'd hazard that riding a conveyer belt in to a baggage storage facility and pretending to be a pilot to breach aircraft security are two totally different offenses. I'm surprised you only got two days in a jail cell and weren't held for the months it took to sort it all out.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266591 24-Mar-2015 10:51

tdgeek:
6FIEND:
networkn: Really? Probably first offence...

Sorry - not meaning to zero in on your comments specifically, but...

The entire team was already "on notice" as a result of previous instances of bad behaviour at Maadi Cup events.

These two individuals also had prior "form" in this sense:
Jordan Kennedy "...was stood down for three days in year 9 for a disciplinary incident"
Jack Bell "...was involved in an incident at Maadi Cup last year in Twizel"

(source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67483617/Rowers-feared-missing-out-on-rep-teams)

It seems that you're going out of your way to view this crime through "rose tinted glasses"?
(yes, I used the word "crime" deliberately)

Agree fully. And other team mambers encouraged them, so in effect the team was at fault

What if it was me? I'd be in the dock facing charges, fines, community service.

Fair enough, however a proper investigation wasn't held and this is what the injunction was for. Give it a little time, let's see what plays out.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1266639 24-Mar-2015 11:37

NZ is soft

Pupils get away with breaking the law, so do teachers.

Steal $45,000 from long suffering taxpayers, get a wet bus ticket slap and be forced to do a budgeting course and continue to teach the next generation

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26767460/teacher-keeps-job-despite-fraud/

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9