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 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1273344 30-Mar-2015 12:14

I bet he thought about it, don't you think?

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1273345 30-Mar-2015 12:14

joker97: I bet he thought about it, don't you think?

No. They were clear about what they considered the issues to be, and unless his kid was discriminated against in the process as a result of the prior legal action (Retaliatory) there would be no reason to legally challenge this. They aren't even remotely the same issue.

I don't agree with the lengths the parents went to for this, but I can SEE how it came about.

I feel disappointed in some members blatant "rich" people bashing in this thread, it wouldn't be acceptable to make the same (opposite) comments about poor people. The issues should have been discussed on their merits.

Sideface

9364 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1273702 30-Mar-2015 19:57

networkn: ... I feel disappointed in some members blatant "rich" people bashing in this thread, it wouldn't be acceptable to make the same (opposite) comments about poor people ...

I think that the "bashing" is aimed squarely at rich people who are bad losers with an exaggerated opinion of their own importance.
Poor people who are bad losers are just as repulsive, but get less publicity.

Sideface

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1273718 30-Mar-2015 20:18

Just read that article.... "Kennedy told The Press he would not speak to the newspaper again if it published a story about how the boys were not listed as trialists."

Looks like there's more than one spoilt pr*ck in that family.

And sounds like "I'm taking my ball and going home!!!" *stamps foot* *runs off to mummy*.

BooHoo

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1273752 30-Mar-2015 20:40

Sideface:
networkn: ... I feel disappointed in some members blatant "rich" people bashing in this thread, it wouldn't be acceptable to make the same (opposite) comments about poor people ...

I think that the "bashing" is aimed squarely at rich people who are bad losers with an exaggerated opinion of their own importance.
Poor people who are bad losers are just as repulsive, but get less publicity.

I disagree. Remember ... nek minnit?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1273969 31-Mar-2015 09:39

joker97:
6FIEND: "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11425155

The selectors will likely never admit it, but this is almost certainly a variation of the Streisand Effect.

I would love to see Shane Kennedy sue Rowing NZ ... surely his son deserves to be in the trials, the trial short list is not fair, and disproportionate to his skills and performances

Fortunately, rowing is an activity carried out in a seated position so we won't be blinded by the sun shining out of his backside...! ;-)

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#1274948 1-Apr-2015 09:22

Is it just me or are we missing a much wider point here, that these parents were able to access a High Court Justice over the weekend and gain an injunction under urgency for what is effectively their children being told they weren't allowed to play with their friends.

Teenagers do stupid things all the time, parents do stupid things some of the time because they think their children's happiness is threatened. Judges, aren't they the ones who are supposed to set the rules? The ones who abide by rules in a sober, considered way?

Surely, they have better things to do than rule on injunctions like this? The best defense of Justice Rachel Dunningham (who ironically has this "The politics of personal associations to achieve legal success in New Zealand" as one of her professional interests when you look her up online) was that 'judges have to rule on the cases that are presented to them'. People can spend years in legal limbo because the courts are very busy and don't have time. Unless, you have $20,000?

Why is the media not asking questions of the justice/legal system? It should have gotten to: Is there a judge to rule on an injunction?

No, get in line.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1274974 1-Apr-2015 09:43

if you know someone who knows someone who knows someone .... anything is possible!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1274985 1-Apr-2015 10:00

or maybe the Judge made a decision based on the information presented that maybe all here are not privy to and drawing on her knowledge of the Law.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1275060 1-Apr-2015 10:51

Another strange example of no consequences was on TV last night.

On Police 10-7, a woman had a major crash on the motorway in Auckland because she was stoned.

No one was killed - or greatly injured, miraculously, but she was found to be under the influence of something unspecified (in the program - I am sure they knew what it was after the blood test) and yet.. she was discharged without conviction. WTF?!

cf Australia, with roadside drug testing and so on. Time we woke up a bit.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#1275087 1-Apr-2015 11:04

KiwiNZ: or maybe the Judge made a decision based on the information presented that maybe all here are not privy to and drawing on her knowledge of the Law.

It's the 'maybe'. Judges work for us, that judge should be able to account for the urgency and seriousness of two boys being allowed to row in a school rowing race.

We shouldn't be wondering. Either there is an easy to understand reason this injunction was heard under urgency and we would all go, 'fair enough'; or there is an arcane legal reason it was heard and we would go 'we don't understand, but we can vote for someone promising to change things'; or something else happened and if that is the case we should know that too.

At present I can just as easily say 'maybe ... ' and nobody can call me out because we don't know. An important principle of justice is openness, this doesn't seem open.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1275092 1-Apr-2015 11:09

Geektastic: Another strange example of no consequences was on TV last night.

On Police 10-7, a woman had a major crash on the motorway in Auckland because she was stoned.

No one was killed - or greatly injured, miraculously, but she was found to be under the influence of something unspecified (in the program - I am sure they knew what it was after the blood test) and yet.. she was discharged without conviction. WTF?!

cf Australia, with roadside drug testing and so on. Time we woke up a bit.

One cannot make a judgement based on a TV entertainment programme.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1275097 1-Apr-2015 11:11

crackrdbycracku:
KiwiNZ: or maybe the Judge made a decision based on the information presented that maybe all here are not privy to and drawing on her knowledge of the Law.

It's the 'maybe'. Judges work for us, that judge should be able to account for the urgency and seriousness of two boys being allowed to row in a school rowing race.

We shouldn't be wondering. Either there is an easy to understand reason this injunction was heard under urgency and we would all go, 'fair enough'; or there is an arcane legal reason it was heard and we would go 'we don't understand, but we can vote for someone promising to change things'; or something else happened and if that is the case we should know that too.

At present I can just as easily say 'maybe ... ' and nobody can call me out because we don't know. An important principle of justice is openness, this doesn't seem open.

A legal expert can better advise but my understanding the decision she made was in a civil action not a criminal action therefore it is not open.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1275255 1-Apr-2015 13:34

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic: Another strange example of no consequences was on TV last night.

On Police 10-7, a woman had a major crash on the motorway in Auckland because she was stoned.

No one was killed - or greatly injured, miraculously, but she was found to be under the influence of something unspecified (in the program - I am sure they knew what it was after the blood test) and yet.. she was discharged without conviction. WTF?!

cf Australia, with roadside drug testing and so on. Time we woke up a bit.

One cannot make a judgement based on a TV entertainment programme.

I think I can make a judgment that a stoned person who crashes a car in which there are passengers, which swerves across 3 lanes of speeding traffic after hitting the median barrier then hits the hard shoulder barrier and ends up rolling down the shoulder and coming to rest on it's roof should, at the very least, be convicted of dangerous driving......

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1275259 1-Apr-2015 13:36

crackrdbycracku:
KiwiNZ: or maybe the Judge made a decision based on the information presented that maybe all here are not privy to and drawing on her knowledge of the Law.

It's the 'maybe'. Judges work for us, that judge should be able to account for the urgency and seriousness of two boys being allowed to row in a school rowing race.

We shouldn't be wondering. Either there is an easy to understand reason this injunction was heard under urgency and we would all go, 'fair enough'; or there is an arcane legal reason it was heard and we would go 'we don't understand, but we can vote for someone promising to change things'; or something else happened and if that is the case we should know that too.

At present I can just as easily say 'maybe ... ' and nobody can call me out because we don't know. An important principle of justice is openness, this doesn't seem open.

IMV the judge should have said "If you are not all out of my courtroom in 10 seconds I am holding you in contempt for wasting the court's time!" because school discipline is the bailiwick of the headmaster, not a judge.

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