JaseNZ:

 

I agree that the law itself needs to be reviewed and update, It's not fit for purpose if the wealthy are able to abuse it.

 

 

 

If I were them though I would just come clean , People would see the names and move on to the next piece of news.

 

 

 

I personally would like to see some jail time as this was a calculated break of the rules. 

 

As long as a standard suppression order prior to a hearing or trial is abnormally expensive. 

tdgeek:

 

Actions speak louder than words. You cannot blame people for tarring others as this is so common. All good until caught. In sport it's rife. They can be racist, mysoginistic and a PR based response is fine. It isn't. For many but not all, the pain is they got caught. 

 

Yes, actions speak louder than words, so judge them on actions post apology.

Of course it's common, it's the universal language for admitting a mistake. Its the same language you'd use, genuine or not.

Handle9:

 

networkn:

 

People forget that in most cases name suppression is about not as much protecting those people who committed the crime, but protecting those associated with them who are innocent or protecting the identity of those associated who may have been victims.

 

 

That isn't the case here. Being unhappy at the most advantaged in society getting access to name suppression is reasonable. 

 

If you don't think that his parents, other family and probably friends aren't going to absolutely cop it from the unhinged social media keyboard warriors, then I am not sure what to tell you. You only have to read half the comments here or have a look at what happened to friends and family of other lockdown breachers to get an idea.

Why is it in the public interest for these people to be named at all? There is a mechanism for meting out punishment, it's not anyone elses job.

tdgeek:

 

'irresponsible and inexcusable' actions

 

LOL. Thats was a quick lapsing? Cat out of the bag, no remorse, so they will now take the heat due to no remorse. 

 

Editors in newsrooms around NZ had the finger well and truly primed on the 'publish' button apparently. Evidently the district court judge put the interim order in place until 7pm tonight to allow for an application to the High Court for continued suppression (as judge felt this was a decision better made in that court; however the alleged offenders chose not to apply for that continued suppression (which incidentally the mother is apparently strongly supportive of this decision not to apply for continued suppression).

I'd love to accept their apology at face value, but it still feels slightly more like "we're sorry we got caught"? Perhaps I'm wrong, who knows.

Will be interesting to see what they're charged with, which way they plead, and if they argue for discharge without conviction.

networkn:

 

Yes, actions speak louder than words, so judge them on actions post apology.

 

Of course it's common, it's the universal language for admitting a mistake. Its the same language you'd use, genuine or not.

 

 

 

I'd use?? Not at all, by a long shot. I know right from wrong. Im sure you do too. 

In other news, I applaud his mother, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300406721/wnaka-lockdown-breach-couple-named-apologise-for-irresponsible-and-inexcusable-actions I choose to assume she knew nothing. 

antonknee:

 

Editors in newsrooms around NZ had the finger well and truly primed on the 'publish' button apparently. Evidently the district court judge put the interim order in place until 7pm tonight to allow for an application to the High Court for continued suppression (as judge felt this was a decision better made in that court; however the alleged offenders chose not to apply for that continued suppression (which incidentally the mother is apparently strongly supportive of this decision not to apply for continued suppression).

 

I'd love to accept their apology at face value, but it still feels slightly more like "we're sorry we got caught"? Perhaps I'm wrong, who knows.

 

Will be interesting to see what they're charged with, which way they plead, and if they argue for discharge without conviction.

 

Tks for the detail. Its in my opinion, pre calculated, no sympathy here. But they chose to "fess up" as there was no option to lay low, so its again all calculated damage control. Its over. They should get what anyone else would get as regards punishment. The big picture is that there is a pandemic in Auckland, but they were bigger than that. What if they infected Hamilton and South Island? What if this outbreak was in ChCh and they infected Auckland upon their return? Its not a misdemeanour in American talk.

tdgeek:

 

I'd use?? Not at all, by a long shot. I know right from wrong. Im sure you do too. 

 

So, you and I both know the difference between right and wrong, presumably, then, neither of us has ever made a mistake, even one that seems obvious to everyone else? If that isn't the case, and afterward, you felt the need to apologise, and try and do better, what language would you use?

Getting caught doing something you shouldn't be doing, can absolutely make you see a different perspective and cause genuine remorse.

The only person who knows if that apology is genuine, is the one making it. If that is the case, then we should allow the course of justice to follow through and hope we never see them in the same or similar situation again.

networkn:

 

 

 

If you don't think that his parents, other family and probably friends aren't going to absolutely cop it from the unhinged social media keyboard warriors, then I am not sure what to tell you.

 

 

 

I agree on that, and from the link I posted, his mother at least has gone public and took the higher ground, exposed herself and will take some heat I guess, but she did what the others didn't, be honest. And I expect she will come out unharmed, ups to her. You cant go far wrong being honest.

tdgeek:

 

I agree on that, and from the link I posted, his mother at least has gone public and took the higher ground, exposed herself and will take some heat I guess, but she did what the others didn't, be honest. And I expect she will come out unharmed, ups to her. You cant go far wrong being honest.

 

If you were a cynical person you might consider that to be a PR control measure as well.

networkn:

 

So, you and I both know the difference between right and wrong, presumably, then, neither of us has ever made a mistake, even one that seems obvious to everyone else? If that isn't the case, and afterward, you felt the need to apologise, and try and do better, what language would you use?

 

Getting caught doing something you shouldn't be doing, can absolutely make you see a different perspective and cause genuine remorse.

 

The only person who knows if that apology is genuine, is the one making it. If that is the case, then we should allow the course of justice to follow through and hope we never see them in the same or similar situation again.

 

Who said I haven't made a mistake?? The issue is HOW you deal with it. (I will ignore the "presumably")

Getting caught doing something you shouldn't be doing, can absolutely make you see a different perspective and cause genuine remorse.

Yes it can, I fully agree, But how do you measure that when the first response was secrecy? And the "act" was clearly precalculated, they didnt exactly fall into a car to Hamilton and a plane to Wanaka in Lockdown.

The course of justice isn't about personal remorse its about a Statute. Its a bit hard to search for the positives, but at the end of the day, its donewith. Entitlement isn't a given, and I'm sure his Mother will be more a mentor than the sentencing Judge. 

geekIT: What do you think about the Auckland couple who broke the anti-Covid rules?

They've apparently been granted interim name suppression. Is this fair?

networkn:

 

If you were a cynical person you might consider that to be a PR control measure as well.

 

Yes, it may well be, only she knows. But you cant go through life trusting everyone or mistrusting everyone, so on this particular issue I took her age (am I allowed to say that?) and wisdom into account. 

I think the couple finally did one small right thing in letting name suppression lapse. As for their apologetic statement issued minutes before the suppression lapsed, I don't think it will have whatever effect they were hoping for. The timing of it was awful (far too late) and it reads like very carefully crafted PR spin.

I wonder if there will be any charges relating to fraudulent use of a document?