RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Diver Dan

Suppression Order - WOFTAM!

Recommended Posts

Quote from Herald today:

Despite the suppression order, in the hours and days after the verdict overseas media and social media users - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name.

Beard, the police officer in charge of the case, warned Kiwis about breaching suppression orders relating to the case just a day after the guilty verdict.

"While we appreciate the public feeling around this case, we do want to remind the public that it is an offense to breach a court order such as a name suppression - this includes naming someone on social media," he said.

 

Please tell me it wasn't our beloved poundforpound.

The poor girls name gets dragged through the mud by the unscrupulous defense and the "scumbag murderer" gets name suppression???

The only reason he gets name suppression is that he's got a dodgy past.

It only takes 2 seconds to find this "scumbag murderers" identity via other news outlets.

The suppression law in NZ in this case is outdated and not fit for purpose.

How is any of  this fair and quantified as justice.

Merry Chistmas to all RC members and take care on the roads.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Diver Dan said:

Quote from Herald today:

Despite the suppression order, in the hours and days after the verdict overseas media and social media users - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name.

Beard, the police officer in charge of the case, warned Kiwis about breaching suppression orders relating to the case just a day after the guilty verdict.

"While we appreciate the public feeling around this case, we do want to remind the public that it is an offense to breach a court order such as a name suppression - this includes naming someone on social media," he said.

 

Please tell me it wasn't our beloved poundforpound.

The poor girls name gets dragged through the mud by the unscrupulous defense and the "scumbag murderer" gets name suppression???

The only reason he gets name suppression is that he's got a dodgy past.

It only takes 2 seconds to find this "scumbag murderers" identity via other news outlets.

The suppression law in NZ in this case is outdated and not fit for purpose.

How is any of  this fair and quantified as justice.

Merry Chistmas to all RC members and take care on the roads.

 

The suppression order is in place to protect his identity due to matters that are also suppressed. Remember the law and justice are often a long way apart. Wouldn't like to speculate re PFP but the age is about right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope its is no one from here too. Why on Earth this scumbag still has name suppression after the trial decision beats me. There have been thousands of internet searches for the name so it would be fair to say plenty of New Zealanders already know who he is.

He probably does have previous form, but that is not going to influence any jury now, let alone a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the suppression order may appear to be abhorrent it is unfortunately necessary .

I believe I read some where this character has further charges ahead of him on other serious matters , naming him puts those prosecutions  at risk  and could deny justice for other victims .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, tripple alliance said:

While the suppression order may appear to be abhorrent it is unfortunately necessary .

I believe I read some where this character has further charges ahead of him on other serious matters , naming him puts those prosecutions  at risk  and could deny justice for other victims .

How much more serious than murder can it be FFS.....?? :rcf-angry-1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When those bent cops Schollum, Shipton  and co were standing trial for the rape of Louise Nicholas, Shipton and Schollum had already been found guilty of rape so their names were suppressed until after they all had been found not guilty of raping Louise Nicholas.

If Schollum & Shipton's names were not suppressed for the Louise Nicholas trial then it would have been highly likely that all of those on trial would have been found guilty of raping Louise Nicholas.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is not the murder. Its the use of social media. There has to be rules and whether one agrees or not the law in this case clearly spelled out the restrictions. If one person thinks they are above the law then whats the point of any laws? Breaking the law is not the way to make a point.

I am sure most will agree that social media needs a shake up and most of all there needs a level playing field without retaliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppresion orders are only for people in high places or the scum that have multiple charges against them with everyone sucking up to them with no thought or feelings for the poor victims that the scum didnt give a toss for .Cheers BH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, poundforpound said:

Suppression orders have a role in the justice system......but my understanding is that the 63 year old charged breached the orders because he considered the defence lawyers ( Ron Mansfield ) use of the elective sexual history of Grace Millane to be wanton “slut shaming” that was used to mitigate the premeditated & inexcusable actions of the murderer 

In doing so Graces family and friends were unnecessarily humiliated and embarrassed, and that’s a disgrace to the justice system, and to NZ..

Grace was victimized by the murderer, and then again by the legal system.

The person charged believes Judge Simon Moore should’ve suppressed all evidence pertaining to Grace’s elective consented sexual history, because it had no degree of “public interest”

As for the murderer getting suppression, ........mmmmmmm.......that’s another story but suffice to say it’s more complicated than it appears......

Its immaterial what the person charged believed unless he was unaware of the suppression order. That doesn't appear the case. Simply... case closed. The law was breached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, poundforpound said:

When the law is wrong you have a moral right to breach it to force a “conversation” society must inevitably have

I’m told the 63 is “taking one for the team” to force that conversation

I remind you ( in case you think the law is right and it rigid ) that in my lifetime various laws have been wrong and cruel, including but not limited the following;

It was illegal to offer shelter or safe harbour to Jews

It was illegal to liberate and offer freedom to African American slaves

It was illegal for consenting adults to engage in homosexual acts 

It was illegal to have a joint in your pocket 

Have a wee think about that now, and how the law is sometimes an ass and must change

Did you mean ass or arse?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, poundforpound said:

Dickens wrote ass but in this modern world I genuflect to those who want to align the ( what’s the word for phonetically similar words ) with their own sexual orientation 

Yes, but I think it was Chapman well before Dickens borrowed it. Definitely a twisted comment though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2019 at 4:34 PM, poundforpound said:

When the law is wrong you have a moral right to breach it to force a “conversation” society must inevitably have

I’m told the 63 is “taking one for the team” to force that conversation

I remind you ( in case you think the law is right and it rigid ) that in my lifetime various laws have been wrong and cruel, including but not limited the following;

It was illegal to offer shelter or safe harbour to Jews

It was illegal to liberate and offer freedom to African American slaves

It was illegal for consenting adults to engage in homosexual acts 

It was illegal to have a joint in your pocket 

Have a wee think about that now, and how the law is sometimes an ass and must change

I will have a pint of what you drink , fugitive slave act of 1850 was repealed 28th June 1864 , your having a good innings P4P .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, poundforpound said:

Well I feel like I’m 150 some days, point noted though. I should’ve said Africans not African Americans  

BTW google Mauritania 1981 

Big year for the 17% of the Africans enslaved there 

Thats a sobering read about Mauritania .

Of course the end of the civil war didn't suddenly promote the freed slaves to living the good life either  .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.