Chester Borrows goes to trial, Barry Soper goes to pieces

Written By: - Date published: 7:26 am, November 22nd, 2016 - 208 comments
Categories: accountability - Tags: , ,

When you injure someone with your car there are consequences – Chester Borrows to face trial over protest incident (RNZ)

The MP for Whanganui, Chester Borrows, is headed to trial over a charge of careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury.

It follows an incident at a protest against the Trans Pacific Partnership, in Whanganui in March, in which two people allege they were injured.

Video here (after 15 second ad of course).

The idea of a fine upstanding old white man standing trial for this incident is just too much for fine upstanding old white man Barry Soper – Chester Borrows’ case belongs to rubbish bin. The piece drips misogyny and hate –

If you’d said to the elderly female, placard waving protesters in Wanganui last March that Donald Trump was going to be their saviour they’d have thrown up.

They were about the same demographic who came out in the final weeks of the nasty Presidential election campaign, accusing him of being an octopus, a man who couldn’t keep his hands to himself and who, because of his fame, felt he could kiss and grab them and get little opposition.

And then –

Three women got in front of it as it inched towards them and one put on an Academy award winning performance, shrieking she was injured and was put on a gurney and taken away in an ambo. She later said she was traumatised, she’d suffered injury to the soft tissue in her leg, more likely the soft tissue injury was already there, between her ears.

Shame on you Barry Soper, and shame on The Herald for publishing that steaming pile of crap.

Note from the RNZ piece “No trial date has been set and wide-ranging suppression orders remain in place.” No Right Turn on the suppression orders. This post is only for the discussion of facts which are already in the public domain. In particular, no names should be mentioned. If in doubt, comments will be edited.

208 comments on “Chester Borrows goes to trial, Barry Soper goes to pieces ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Incognito 1
    22 November 2016 at 7:45 am

    So, is Soper saying that he would have done the same thing?

    Is Soper saying that Chester Borrows was justified in his actions because who he was and because the alleged victims were of ‘lower standing’ or at least showed behaviour unbecoming of a decent law abiding citizen of NZ?

    I feel a bit nauseous just thinking about Soper …

    • The Real Matthew 1.1
      22 November 2016 at 1:29 pm

      This incident was the most fabricated event of the year.

      The intent to cause a scene where there wasn’t one. The fabrication of injury. The breathless shrieking. This whole thing is just hilarious except the Police have somehow taken the bait and are prosecuting.

      Our Police force is racist. They leave the Maori gangs alone despite entrenched involvement in criminal activities and focus on white revelers having a few drinks at the gallops.

    • John r 1.2
      22 November 2016 at 8:34 pm

      Soper!! Is he the guy the press gallery nicknamed ALMOST SOBER, referring to the spelling similarity naturally.

    • rsbandit 1.3
      23 November 2016 at 9:35 am

      Someone certainly deserves an amateur dramatics award for “best trier”

  2. North 2
    22 November 2016 at 7:50 am

    Super Soper’s in a lather. Comforted no doubt by [NW: no need for that]. They really are the most inglorious pair.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    22 November 2016 at 8:23 am

    Aging white male establishment insider who works as a journalist supports aging white male establishment insider who works as a politician. Both are also puzzled by outcome of US election, failed to predict Brexit and think TPP is common sense.

  4. Gabby 4
    22 November 2016 at 9:00 am

    Sopie wouldn’t have bumped into the odd fellow road user himself at all, would he? Mind you, if he has a journalist’s liver, he mightn’t know.

  5. m.gray@massey.ac.nz 5
    22 November 2016 at 9:13 am

    Soper makes me sick he is very self opinionated just like his mate Hoskings who airs his own political views while we pay his salary with our taxes. The problem is these people have too much of a voice and we have to listen to there bullshit that they actually believe thanks to our mainstream media

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    22 November 2016 at 9:16 am

    This is a nothing incident and should have been thrown out by the judge

    • KJT 6.1
      22 November 2016 at 9:18 am

      Just like it is when it is a brown teenager. Right?

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 9:38 am

        ?

        • lprent 6.1.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 9:54 am

          I believe that he is comparing you to the Sensible Sentencing (Unless You Are White) Trust fellow travellers and the case of Bruce Emery.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10690408

          Tagger-killer Bruce Emery will walk free from prison less than two years after being convicted of fatally stabbing a teenage boy.

          Last night, the Sensible Sentencing Trust welcomed his imminent release and said he should never have gone to jail – a view condemned as “disgraceful” by Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.

          It appears that Barry Soper has the similar views about elderly women.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 11:18 am

            Ah ok, basically there have always been issues with people getting released early

            I tend to go with the longer sentence so I’m actually against him getting released early

            Do the crime do the time

            • lprent 6.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 1:45 pm

              Apparently the Sensible Sentencing Trust disagrees, although when I last looked at their reasoning it read like barely concealed racism.

              Certainly they didn’t appear to think that what looked like an outright premeditated murder to me was worth bothering with a trial… And yet they spend most of the rest of their time promoting stronger sentencing for anyone who isn’t a old white man.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2
          22 November 2016 at 11:40 am

          If it was a brown/poor person being charged would you be saying the same thing?

          Or, to put it another way, if it had been a brown/poor person they would have been in court within the week and they would have been found guilty and get the three month jail term.

      • North 6.1.2
        22 November 2016 at 9:52 am

        Brown teenager ? The charge wouldn’t be careless driving causing injury (maximum penalty 3 months imprisonment). It’d be assault with a weapon (maximum penalty 5 years imprisonment).

    • Naki man 6.2
      22 November 2016 at 9:27 am

      They should charge the stupid women with wasting police time.

    • Jenny Kirk 6.3
      22 November 2016 at 9:32 am

      No Puckish Rogue it wasn’t a “nothing incident”.

      There is clear video footage showing the Borrows car moving into the women, just as the women were starting to move away from blocking it. And one of the women had her foot run over by a wheel of the car, and it obviously hurt. You could see the pain in her face.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.3.1
        22 November 2016 at 9:47 am

        Its a waste of police time and the courts resources, the only reason its got this far is because of who Chester Barrows is

        “You could see the pain in her face” Oh please she was stoked with what happened, got her an interview with reports and everything

        • lprent 6.3.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 9:56 am

          Ah yes. I can just see that helping to cure a crushed foot.

          Chester Burrows obviously committed a deliberate attack with a vehicle.

          • Bob 6.3.1.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 10:04 am

            “Ah yes. I can just see that helping to cure a crushed foot”
            How could her foot possibly have been ‘crushed’, it was her left foot which was in the middle front of the car that was “injured”, pretty sure there are no wheels there to ‘crush’ her foot, so was it ‘crushed’ by the bumper?

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 11:44 am

              How could her foot possibly have been ‘crushed’,

              Because it got run over by a car.

              • Bob …
                22 November 2016 at 11:51 am

                Not in that video it didn’t

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 November 2016 at 12:12 pm

                  In that video it did and the doctors found damage to the foot consistent with it being run over by a car.

                  • McFlock …
                    22 November 2016 at 12:20 pm

                    Obviously she avoided the car, then while waiting for the ambulance she stamped really hard on her foot to simulate the injury with nobody noticing.

                • mauī …
                  22 November 2016 at 12:36 pm

                  The protestor who is lined up infront of the left front wheel and who looks like she can’t put any weight on her left leg after the car goes past. That video. What video are you watching?

          • Stunned Mullet 6.3.1.1.2
            22 November 2016 at 10:37 am

            Kudos to you Lynn – two comments and no mention of a penis or bottom.

            • lprent 6.3.1.1.2.1
              22 November 2016 at 1:48 pm

              I generally reserve those for when I am moderating and for the particularly stupid troll. They reflect where I think that the recipient of my moderating remarks keeps their intelligence, because otherwise how could they explain causing me the aggravation of having to moderate their comment.

        • North 6.3.1.2
          22 November 2016 at 10:06 am

          PR you need to sit in the public gallery in courts in Northland if you’re concerned about waste of resources. There is an astonishing double standard in favour of established, non-brown, ‘proper’ people which is starkly evident and about which you have no knowledge at all.

          Instead you support emphasising that double standard in favour of the established, non-brown, ‘proper’ people.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.3.1.2.1
            22 November 2016 at 10:46 am

            Sorry but I’m a bit busy down in Christchurch but next time I have leave I’ll make sure to pencil in a visit a court in northland

            I can only comment on the cases I hear about

            • North 6.3.1.2.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 11:29 pm

              For my sins I’m damn near daily exposed to a worrying frequency of such cases PR. Destruction of people and families because they’re brown. So you can sniff your perfect air if you like but that doesn’t make institutional racism/classism go away.

              Neither you nor I are victims of it so where the fuck do we get off saying what’s happening in the hearts and souls of the victims of it. Very fucking wise people we are with how ‘they’ should feel under it……..” That’s definitive???

              “At the end of the [fucking] day…….” it’s the stuff that’s in our hearts and souls that determines how we all meet the world. From the youngest to the oldest. Fucking “Have a a beer with me……”, facile and flakey as it is ………ain’t no good for hearts and souls. No?

          • JanM 6.3.1.2.2
            22 November 2016 at 3:13 pm

            I’ve lived in Northland now for about 4 years, and it dawns on me more each day that it’s run like a personal fiefdom by ‘old white men’. It’s like the American deep south – it would be funny if it wasn’t so awful. I sense they’re slowly losing their grip, though

            • Lara 6.3.1.2.2.1
              22 November 2016 at 4:19 pm

              Me too. And they’re hopelessly incompetent and arrogant.

              Ugh. Can’t stand that aspect of Northland.

              • North …
                23 November 2016 at 12:03 am

                Eleven years in the Mid-North for me. In a public role engaging with mostly Tangatawhenua……..I’ve given heaps and I’ve been given heaps more actually. That’s explicable against the ahua here where most everybody puts in what they can. It’s a magnificent social model. As shown at Te Puea. And as shown at the marae in Kaikoura right now. Apologies that I don’t know the name. Could Google but you’ll appreciate my meaning without that……..

                That is Maori. About which as a Pakeha New Zealander I am absolutely admiring and delighted and honoured frankly to sit with!

                When you’re up this way on your next hols’ PR, do the courts, And maybe also some learning and understanding. About life beyond you.

    • Tricledrown 6.4
      23 November 2016 at 3:34 pm

      Using a car as a weapon 4years in jail.

  7. Robert Guyton 7
    22 November 2016 at 9:18 am

    There was a passenger in Borrows’ car at the time.

  8. Bob 8
    22 November 2016 at 9:20 am

    If you watch the video and read the article (on NewsHub) you can see why Soper has no sympathy for the women. “She says she couldn’t believe Mr Borrows at no point stopped his vehicle and insists there was no intention to form a blockade.”, bullshit! The car comes down the drive and she and her friends deliberately gather in front of it, she was also complaining her left foot was injured, how? Her left foot was in front of the car nowhere near the wheels…did she kick the bumper?
    Point made, fair dues for getting publicity for her cause, but taking this to the courts for her own actions (she watched the car move towards her, gathered her friends in front of it and made no attempt to move out of the way when the Police told her to move before she was “hit”.), I tend to agree with Soper on this one (with the exception of the weird Donald Trump rant…)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      22 November 2016 at 9:35 am

      Meanwhile, on Earth, the Police not “the woman”, are the ones who’ve laid charges and brought the case before the courts.

      Point made, fair dues, you are determined that she forced Mr. Borrows to drive into her. He had no choice in the matter at all, eh.

      • Bob 8.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 9:53 am

        “the Police not “the woman”, are the ones who’ve laid charges and brought the case before the courts”
        Only after receiving a complaint: “He had called the police and he expected them to talk to him again because a complaint had been laid.”
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78241305/Police-queries-after-allegation-MP-Chester-Borrows-drove-over-protesters-foot

        “you are determined that she forced Mr. Borrows to drive into her. He had no choice in the matter at all, eh”
        Funny how you only see it from that side, of course she was ‘forced’ to gather in front of a moving vehicle and stand there even while being told by Police to move.

        • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 10:13 am

          As they were on the public footpath the law says the onus is on the car driver to give way.
          Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
          Giving way when entering or exiting driveway
          (1)A driver entering or exiting a driveway must give way to a road user on a footpath, cycle path, or shared path …

          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303078.html

          Must give way. he didnt even do that. Im surprised he wasnt charged with failing to stop after an accident.

          • Bob 8.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 10:41 am

            They were impeding the passage of other users on a path:

            Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
            11.1A Use of shared path
            no user may unduly impede the passage of any other user, whatever priority the sign or marking gives.

            http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM2510854.html#DLM2510854

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 11:06 am

              That settles it: they impeded their passage for the due and lawful purpose of political protest.

              • Bob …
                22 November 2016 at 11:41 am

                So if Chester Burrows claims he was protesting against the protests then he should get off scott free by your reasoning? You can break the law as long as it is for the due and lawful purpose of political protest?

            • Tophat 8.1.1.1.1.2
              22 November 2016 at 11:53 am

              Two wrongs don’t make a right. What Chester did was simply illegal. if anyone else in the incident committed a crime, they should also be charged. However…

            • William 8.1.1.1.1.3
              22 November 2016 at 12:14 pm

              You’re full of bullshit, and/or not intelligent enough to understand the legislation you refer to.
              A shared path may be used by pedestrians, cyclists, riders of mobility devices or riders of wheeled recreational devices, NOT motor vehicles. The footpath Chester Borrows exited across is not a shared path.
              And you’ve chosen to quote the last clause, which only applies where signs indicate priority.

              For completeness I’ll quote the full section;

              11.1A Use of shared path

              (1) This clause applies to a path that—

              (a) may be a cycle path, a footpath, or some other kind of path; and

              (b) may be used by some or all of the following persons at the same time:

              (i) pedestrians:

              (ii) cyclists:

              (iii) riders of mobility devices:

              (iv) riders of wheeled recreational devices.

              (2) A person using the path—

              (a) must use it in a careful and considerate manner; and

              (b) must not use it in a manner that constitutes a hazard to other persons using it.

              (3) A rider of a cycle, mobility device, or wheeled recreational device on the path must not operate the cycle or device at a speed that constitutes a hazard to other persons using the path.

              (4) If a sign or marking on the path gives priority to pedestrians or cyclists, the following rules apply on the path:

              (a) pedestrians, riders of mobility devices, and riders of wheeled recreational devices must give priority to cyclists if the sign or marking gives priority to cyclists:

              (b) cyclists must give priority to pedestrians, riders of mobility devices, and riders of wheeled recreational devices if the sign or marking gives priority to pedestrians:

              (c) no user may unduly impede the passage of any other user, whatever priority the sign or marking gives.

              ————————-
              None of that applies to the motor vehicle Chester Borrows was driving when he exited across a footpath

              • Bob …
                22 November 2016 at 1:53 pm

                Read the full thread, I was replying to:

                “4.4 Giving way when entering or exiting driveway
                (1) A driver entering or exiting a driveway must give way to a road user on a footpath, cycle path, or shared path (as described by clause 11.1A(1)).”
                http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303078.html

                Which directly links to 11.1A

                “The footpath Chester Borrows exited across is not a shared path.”
                What is it then? The legislation sates:

                Use of shared path
                “(1) This clause applies to a path that—
                “(a) may be a cycle path, a footpath, or some other kind of path

                “None of that applies to the motor vehicle Chester Borrows was driving when he exited across a footpath”
                Correct, it applies to the protester who was blocking the footpath, that’s my point

                • William …
                  22 November 2016 at 5:32 pm

                  I most certainly had read the full thread. I’d also read & understood the legislation you’re having trouble with.

                  A shared path is a specially designated path that may be used by more than one of the listed types of users. There will be signage to indicate it is shared and who may share it. Most footpaths are not shared paths, they are for pedestrians only.

                  For example a shared path that both pedestrians & cyclists can use has a sign showing a striding pedestrian & a cycle. See half way down this page for an image

                  https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/regulatory-signs-in-new-zealand/

                  It is possible to have a road where both pedestrians & motor vehicles are legally allowed to be but that is called a shared zone e.g. lower Cuba Street in Wellington.

                  As far as I’m aware, the footpath in Whanganui that the women were on is not a shared path, therefore none of 11.1A is applicable. Even if it was, it applies between allowed users, pedestrians would have to have been given priority. They don’t seem to have been blocking cyclists or mobility devices etc so your quoting of “no user may unduly impede the passage of any other user, whatever priority the sign or marking gives” is a nonsense.

                  Hopefully our paths never cross because you’ve demonstrated a woeful understanding of traffic rules, I would fear for my safety.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    22 November 2016 at 5:35 pm

                    Burn.

                  • Chris …
                    23 November 2016 at 1:13 am

                    Maybe Borrows will be using Bob’s analysis in his defence? Will be interesting to see. Don’t forget, though, that Borrows is a lawyer. This might give him the edge. That said, he’s also a cop. So what we’ve got is someone who’s a lawyer and a cop. I think that in situations like this it’s usually the cop who wins out. That pretty much leaves us with a stupid lawyer. My money’s on you, William.

                  • Bob …
                    23 November 2016 at 11:32 am

                    So what you are saying is it is currently legal for pedestrians to stand on a footpath blocking a driveway, and they have no obligation under current law to move?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      23 November 2016 at 12:57 pm

                      Wilfil ignorance – is that a defense under the law?

                    • William …
                      23 November 2016 at 1:58 pm

                      Good afternoon Mr Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come to the realization that you don’t have the necessary intelligence to understand simple legislation. Trying to explain it to you has been an impossible mission.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 2:18 pm

                      Given your superior intelligence and understanding of NZ legislation, I invite you also to test it by standing in the car park exit of your local supermarket and obstructing the vehicles trying to leave it. Should you remain unmolested by angry drivers long enough for the cops to turn up, you can see whether they also share your interpretation of the law. I’m pretty confident you’ll find they don’t.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2016 at 2:22 pm

                      . Should you remain unmolested by angry drivers long enough for the cops to turn up, you can see whether they also share your interpretation of the law.

                      But that’s the thing – if the molestation by angry drivers is physical and causes physical harm, those angry drivers will also be arrested, alongside the person obstructing the public way (the latter might even only get a ticket).

                      Burrows is no different. He’s lucky he used a car and it came under traffic legislation – if an “angry driver” gets out of the car and thumps someone else, they get done for assault.

                    • William …
                      23 November 2016 at 3:01 pm

                      Psycho Milt, all I have done is point out that Bob has tried to rely on a section of a law (11.1A) that is completely irrelevant to Borrows’ case. That section only applies between allowed users of a shared path.
                      I see down thread you have raised the same point as him when you state “The law that says you’re not allowed to obstruct a footpath is mentioned further up: Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, 11.1A Use of shared path.” That’s nonsense, and if you can’t understand that I extend my derogatory comments to you.

                      As to blocking an entrance, I won’t be doing that because I’ve never argued the protesters had an absolute right to do so. However, I’m certain that if someone did do that the police would not charge them with a breach of 11.1A.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 3:10 pm

                      But that’s the thing – if the molestation by angry drivers is physical and causes physical harm, those angry drivers will also be arrested, alongside the person obstructing the public way (the latter might even only get a ticket).

                      Sure. And the same applies to Borrows in this case. You’re not allowed to get out of your car and physically throw an obstructive arsehole out of the way, and you’re not allowed to push one out of the way with your car. Good so – it’s as it should be, but at the same time the whole shitfest could be avoided if arseholes didn’t try and obstruct a vehicle entrance.

            • Scott 8.1.1.1.1.4
              22 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

              Yes, but this wasn’t a “shared path” – that is like a cycle land that is also the footpath, those sort of things where those people interact, not cars.

              You left out (1)(b) from the definition (1(a) and 1(b) are cumulative):

              (1)This clause applies to a path that—
              (a)may be a cycle path, a footpath, or some other kind of path; and
              (b)may be used by some or all of the following persons at the same time:
              (i)pedestrians:
              (ii)cyclists:
              (iii)riders of mobility devices:
              (iv)riders of wheeled recreational devices.

              I don’t think the police ought to have charge him – it was nothing, and if she ended up with a bruise on her foot then maybe that’s what you get when you jump out in front of moving cars and yell abuse at the driver.

              Having said that, Borrows should have just stopped and let the police move her. So I only have so much sympathy for him.

            • North 8.1.1.1.1.5
              23 November 2016 at 12:30 am

              It’s against the law for cars to use footpaths as a location to shove people and cause injury as they please. Ain’t that clear enough for you? Fuck you’re running right counter to even the Magna Carta.

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.1.1.2
            22 November 2016 at 12:43 pm

            As they were on the public footpath the law says the onus is on the car driver to give way.

            The onus is on a car driver to give way to a pedestrian walking on the footpath, and the onus is on pedestrians not to deliberately obstruct a vehicle trying to leave a driveway or carpark. There is no “give way” issue here.

            • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1.2.1
              22 November 2016 at 12:57 pm

              “Onus”? Your two scenarios are not equally weighted, and that’s why we have a rule. There’s a difference of result and the far more serious one, injury to the soft-bodied pedestrian by the hard-bodied car, means that rule is far heavier for the car (or rather its driver). In this case, it’s the driver who has to answer the charge, rather than the pedestrian. And he is.

              • Psycho Milt …
                22 November 2016 at 1:24 pm

                “Not equally weighted” doesn’t mean one’s legal and the other isn’t. Obstructing a vehicle is just as illegal as running over the foot of someone obstructing your vehicle. Relative seriousness of the offending is reflected in the available sentences, but it is nevertheless offending in both cases.

                In any case, the comment was about the idiocy of making a “failure to give way” claim in this context. “Give way” rules are about who gets to go first, not about how you’re allowed to respond to people deliberately obstructing your vehicle.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  22 November 2016 at 2:26 pm

                  “…it is nevertheless offending in both cases”
                  Burrows is being prosecuted because of the (alleged) offending you refer to. We seem to be on the same page there. If the police bring charges against the women for the offending you describe, we’ll have something else to add to the debate. I wonder why they didn’t? Something about the seriousness of the respective (alleged) offenses?

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    22 November 2016 at 3:35 pm

                    As I wrote yesterday, I think there was no reason to charge anyone for anything in that incident, but with Borrows being an MP and an ex-cop they didn’t want to risk claims he’d been let off with something due to his position, so he gets a court appearance.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      22 November 2016 at 3:48 pm

                      That could be it, PM, but if it’s a matter of transparency for the public’s sake, why are the details to be suppressed?
                      I/S isn’t impressed by the suppression order.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      22 November 2016 at 3:50 pm

                      ” I think there was no reason to charge anyone for anything in that incident” … there is, though, the matter of the woman’s injury …

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      22 November 2016 at 5:10 pm

                      … if it’s a matter of transparency for the public’s sake, why are the details to be suppressed?

                      Well, it was the Police who decided to charge him – suppressing the details was the choice of a judge (and judges seem to be altogether way too keen on suppression).

                      …there is, though, the matter of the woman’s injury …

                      With all due respect to her, big whoop. She was doing something foolish and ended up with a sore foot – I’ve had children whose lack of good sense gave them worse injuries, and no-one needed to appear in court over it. If Borrows wasn’t a public figure the cops would have settled for telling both of them not to be so stupid in future.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 November 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      Hmmm.

                      I wonder if the suppression was not so much over Burrows as it was over the victim? ISTR that normally court reports in the paper are “Marshal Arthur Wellesly, soldier, appeared before Justice Blucher charged with assaulting Napoleon Bonaparte on 18 June near Waterloo…” and that sort of thing.

                      Given that “privacy act is for chumps” Bennett was in the car, maybe there were concerns about dirty politics affecting the case…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 November 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      re: the suppression order.

                      A wild guess: the provenance of the alleged threat to Borrows’ passenger might reveal a little more ‘social networking’ than our ‘security apparatus’ is currently charged with?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      22 November 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      …something about Bennett’s involvement…
                      As a “figure of standing” charged with making good decisions on behalf of her constituents…shouldn’t she have advised Borrows to stop? What’s her obligation in such a situation and what responsible behaviour did she show?

                    • KJT []
                      23 November 2016 at 4:08 pm

                      As the police routinely arrest, and as a minimum, give accommodation for the night, to passengers in cars breaking speed limits, Basher should have been charged as an accessory.

            • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1.2.2
              22 November 2016 at 1:29 pm

              What onus on the pedestrian ?
              The law clearly says the car MUST give way, where is the law that says they must not obstruct ?
              You are thinking of protests that occur on roadways.
              And if they had been held up for say 30 sec by the protesters, thats nothing out of the ordinary for cars leaving driveways

              • Psycho Milt …
                22 November 2016 at 3:43 pm

                The law that says you’re not allowed to obstruct a footpath is mentioned further up: Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, 11.1A Use of shared path. If you’ve developed the view that the law gives you the right to deliberately obstruct vehicles trying to exit a driveway, it could come back to bite you, because there is no such right.

                And if they had been held up for say 30 sec by the protesters, thats nothing out of the ordinary for cars leaving driveways

                Really? I can’t say I’ve ever had a pedestrian deliberately obstruct my car for 30 seconds when I’ve been leaving a driveway or car park, and any who do so in future aren’t likely to get much past ten seconds before they get an earful. The commandment “Don’t be a dick” applies as much to pedestrians as everyone else.

                • dukeofurl …
                  22 November 2016 at 5:42 pm

                  Anybody leaving a driveway has the footpath users and the traffic using the road to consider. Its how it works.
                  And no this footpath wasnt a shared path , eg pedestrians and cyclists

                  The law states must give way only applies to drivers crossing the footpath.
                  Obstruction doesnt seem to come up as far as footpaths and the traffic laws go, it mostly covers vehicles obstructing footpaths or entrances.
                  Council bylaws may cover that, but they are ranked lower than road laws.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    22 November 2016 at 6:47 pm

                    I suggest you test this theory by going out tomorrow morning and obstructing the car park exit of your nearest supermarket. I’m sure the cops who come to issue you with a fine will be riveted to hear your case for your right to obstruct a footpath.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  22 November 2016 at 6:29 pm

                  Psycho Milt – ” I’ve had children whose lack of good sense gave them worse injuries, and no-one needed to appear in court over it.”

                  Hmmm… let me ask, if your child had received an injury as the result of a man purposefully and avoidably driving into them, would you still say that no one needs to appear in court?

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    22 November 2016 at 6:51 pm

                    That would depend on whether my child had deliberately and avoidably obstructed a vehicle trying to exit a driveway. If they had, they might well get a sore arse to go along with the sore foot (while on the subject of everyday criminal activity).

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      22 November 2016 at 6:58 pm

                      I see. I’m assuming you are making a joke, a merry jape to show your devil-may-care approach to political correctness, or what ever. If your child had deliberately obstructed a vehicle trying to exit a driveway and that driver had deliberately run your child over, you’d “give them a sore arse to go along with…” whatever injury they’d been dealt? You’re an interesting fellow, Psycho.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      22 November 2016 at 9:43 pm

                      Is there evidence that Borrows “deliberately” ran someone over, or is that just a bit of casual libel on your part?

                    • Muttonbird …
                      22 November 2016 at 9:50 pm

                      Is there evidence that Borrows “deliberately” ran someone over

                      There’s enough for him to stand trial so there must be some.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      22 November 2016 at 10:37 pm

                      There’s enough evidence to charge him with not being careful enough, hence the charge “careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury.” No-one’s presented any evidence that he “deliberately” ran someone over, which would be a much more serious offence.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      22 November 2016 at 10:38 pm

                      You are grasping there. I’ll leave you to it.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 6:12 am

                      So, yes just casual libel then.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      23 November 2016 at 6:24 am

                      I’m not a lawyer but to me, ‘careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury’ is someone being negligent of care but not deliberate in their actions with respect to any injury caused.

                      I reckon Borrows’ action was deliberate in it’s carelessness knowing injury would likely to be caused.

                      One judge has said there’s a case to answer here. You seem to think there isn’t.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 7:34 am

                      There’s a case of carelessness to answer for, yes. However, Robert Guyton’s claim is that Borrows made a conscious decision to run someone over (and if you think that isn’t what “deliberately run [X] over” means, you need a dictionary). It’s a claim with no evidence yet presented for it.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      23 November 2016 at 7:45 am

                      Psycho Milt – I’ve searched and searched but still can’t find where I’ve said what you claim I’ve said. Could you please show me? If I’ve done so, I’d better clear it up. cheers.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      23 November 2016 at 8:19 am

                      So we agree it was reckless. Now there is the difference between recklessness unintentionally causing injury, and recklessness intentionally causing injury.

                      I’m saying Borrows’ action was the latter. I do hope the judge sees it the same way.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 8:43 am

                      Robert: it’s in your analogy in the comment at 6:58 above: If your child had deliberately obstructed a vehicle trying to exit a driveway and that driver had deliberately run your child over…

                      The analogy is clearly about Borrows running over a protester’s foot, so you’re saying that Borrows deliberately ran the protester over – either that or it’s a false analogy.

                      Muttonbird: we’re certainly not agreed, because “reckless” is different from “careless” in the context of traffic offences, and Borrows hasn’t been charged with reckless use causing injury.

                      Also: you have no idea what his intent was, and just declaring him to have intentionally run someone over is libellous.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      23 November 2016 at 9:00 am

                      Oh, an analogy
                      I see.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      23 November 2016 at 9:23 am

                      Yes, an analogy. In this case, a false one, by the sound of it.

            • North 8.1.1.1.2.3
              23 November 2016 at 12:57 am

              God you’re ignorant PM.

              The only defence to what Borrows did is in s.48 of the Crimes Act…….self defence or defence of another. Google it……..”NZ Legislation Crimes Act 1961 s.48″.

              And to make you feel even more silly read s.8 and s.38 of the Land Transport Act 1998. And then read some case law as to the never changing (for five decades) definition of ‘careless driving’. You do all of that and you’ll agree with me that the appropriate charge (particularly were the driver a teenage brown person)………would be ‘assault with a weapon’.

              Do all of that and hey presto you won’t any longer have a sense that Chester laddie is suffering a miscarriage of justice here. The prick drove the car, a weapon, AT people. Deliberately. So don’t give me your poulava about anyone meant to give way to anyone. Completely irrelevant in all the video recorded circumstances.

              • Psycho Milt …
                23 November 2016 at 6:17 am

                And yet he’s only been charged with careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. Perhaps if the lawyers involved weren’t so ignorant and instead shared the depth of legal knowledge, training and experience you can bring to the table, he’d be charged as you’ve specified, but sadly people as expert as yourself are hard to come by.

                Also: if you read the thread, the “poulava” about give way rules is dukeofurl’s – I merely point out that give way rules are irrelevant in this case.

        • DH 8.1.1.2
          22 November 2016 at 10:32 am

          Bob. A complaint doesn’t automatically lead to a prosecution, the Police have considerable discretion here;

          From the SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S PROSECUTION GUIDELINES

          The Test for Prosecution

          5.1 Prosecutions ought to be initiated or continued only where the prosecutor is satisfied that the Test for Prosecution is met. The Test for Prosecution is met if:

          5.1.1 The evidence which can be adduced in Court is sufficient to provide a
          reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test; and

          5.1.2 Prosecution is required in the public interest – the Public Interest Test.

          5.2 Each aspect of the test must be separately considered and satisfied before a decision to prosecute can be taken. The Evidential Test must be satisfied before the Public Interest Test is considered. The prosecutor must analyse and evaluate all of the evidence and information in a thorough and critical manner.

          • Bob 8.1.1.2.1
            22 November 2016 at 10:53 am

            “A complaint doesn’t automatically lead to a prosecution, the Police have considerable discretion here”

            True, but the two Police officers clearly visible at the protest made no attempt to stop Mr Burrows, and they didn’t get on their radios for anyone to chase him down, so they clearly weren’t overly concerned at the time. The prosecutions seems to have come as a result of the complaint rather than the initial offense.

          • dukeofurl 8.1.1.2.2
            22 November 2016 at 12:09 pm

            You are using the regulations for crown prosecutions which are done by crown solictors under the Crimes Act.

            This prosecution is under the Land Transport Act, commonly referred to as Traffic Offences – which arent criminal offences.

            You will see from the context of the SG Guidelines that its giving a standardised rules for what are otherwise fairly independent crown prosecutors and lower level criminal offences which are prosecuted by police.
            http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Prosecution-Guidelines/prosecution-guidelines-2013.pdf

            In effect DH you are using the wrong bureaucratic mumbo jumbo as this isnt a criminal offence

            • dukeofurl 8.1.1.2.2.1
              22 November 2016 at 12:22 pm

              Ive looked at the Police Prosecution Service Guidelines which clearly state the SG guidelines are for Criminal cases, while the ‘principles flow into non criminal cases like traffic
              http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/pps-statement-of-policy-and-practice.pdf
              Getting to the heart of it ( page 13)

              ‘The first test for prosecution is consideration of the evidence. If the case does not pass the evidential sufficiency test it will not proceed no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential sufficiency test, the prosecutor should proceed to the second test and decide whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.’

              and when we get to the public interest side there is a long list ( much more than the SG) where the impact on the victim is considered amoung others.

              An offence which has caused injury, in which the offender did not stop to render assistance, would almost always be prosecuted.

              Its a fact of court life, that a large number of traffic prosecutions/infringements seem to be trivial, but offenders realise that and plead guilty and dont use some flim flam about[redacted to comply with court suppression] to try and get away with it.

            • North 8.1.1.2.2.2
              23 November 2016 at 1:18 am

              And you dukeofurl are celebrating a complete misunderstanding of the position and appear resultingly to be a dick.

              To the extent that the Crown Guidelines reflect principle well based in The Rule of Law and the way of proceeding in a free society they apply also to determinations as to what were once called “summary” prosecutions.

              Would you have it any other way ? To think that in the “summary” jurisdiction it is all fine and dandy to proceed on a lesser set of principles. “We’ll just charge him/her and really fuck them up even if ultimately we can’t sheet it home!”

              You’re not at your best dukeofurl.

            • North 8.1.1.2.2.3
              23 November 2016 at 1:51 am

              Dear Duke of Url……..manifestly it is a fucking criminal offence. It carries a sentence of imprisonment. For fuck’s sake man. This is not a game, a pathetic, ignorant, mouthing off scenario.

    • North 8.2
      23 November 2016 at 12:21 am

      Yeah well you be ‘the judge’ Bobby Boy. Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of The Rule of Law. It’s not Maori law, it’s not activists’ law, it’s not John Key or Gerry Brownlee law, It’s fucking English law. It’s called ‘prima facie case’. God you dork me out Bob.

  9. Robert Guyton 9
    22 November 2016 at 9:21 am

    A “nothing” incident?
    Then what was the judge who ruled that there will be a trial thinking?

    • Puckish Rogue 9.1
      22 November 2016 at 9:50 am

      Probably the same thing as the judge who decided KDCs missus was a more believable witness than Lady Banks

      I didn’t think I needed to point this out to you but judges aren’t infallible, the judge got this wrong

      • Robert Guyton 9.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 10:04 am

        But you’ve got it right?
        Curious…
        What makes you so sure about this, Pucky?
        What insight do you have that we don’t. I’m genuinely interested to know.

        • KJT 9.1.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 10:34 am

          Pucky thinks protesters should be shot on sight.

          Only he is too scared to say it except in this roundabout way.

          What month does he select for running over protester season.
          Or should it be all year around?

        • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.2
          22 November 2016 at 10:36 am

          Are you going to ask that of every person that states their opinion on this matter?

          • North 9.1.1.2.1
            23 November 2016 at 1:22 am

            Only the ones as ignorant as you PR. You’ve got this childish notion that judges who don’t quail at it being Ches’ and Paula are somehow Mexicans.

      • AB 9.1.2
        22 November 2016 at 12:55 pm

        “Lady Banks”. Full-on sycophancy now. As though old Banksy’s knighthood osmotically confers trustworthiness on his partner.
        Craven, just craven worship of authority.

        • Puckish Rogue 9.1.2.1
          22 November 2016 at 1:18 pm

          Call it what you like but the judge got that very wrong and had she not have the money to fight the ruling she’d still have the smear against her name

          • wellfedweta 9.1.2.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 10:45 pm

            …all because the judge couldn’t detect a liar when he saw one. You’re right, they are far from infallible.

    • Scott 9.2
      22 November 2016 at 4:03 pm

      I think there was good reason for the Police to decline to prosecute, but after they have made that decision there is pretty limited scope for the judge to chuck it out. The time for the Judge to exercise his discretion might be at sentencing where a nothing event like this (and I think it is) might end up with a discharge without conviction.

      • North 9.2.1
        23 November 2016 at 1:24 am

        Read s.107 of the Sentencing Act Scott. And the case law. And in default of that shut the ignorant funk up!

        • Scott 9.2.1.1
          23 November 2016 at 10:45 am

          If you have a point, make it.

          I am aware of s107, and the case law.

          • North 9.2.1.1.1
            23 November 2016 at 1:02 pm

            Then you will know Scott that s.107 is the gateway to the discretion to order discharge without conviction under s.106. If s.107 is not met, viz. the consequences of a conviction whether direct or indirect are NOT shown to be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, then the court has no jurisdiction to even consider the exercise of the s.106 discretion . The law is explicit in that regard.

            What then are the consequences which in your view are out of all proportion Scott ? I mean consequences outside of Borrows being ‘important’, his feeling embarrassed, his political supporters feeling miffed, and his being ‘inconvenienced’ by 6 months disqualification.

            They are not on their own consequences a court will weigh. They are routine. New Zealand courts enter convictions every day which cause embarrassment, miffed feelings and inconvenience. There’s the proof that those consequences on their own are not enough to get through the s.107 gateway.

            So I’m asking you to advance the other consequences which would open the gate.

            • Scott 9.2.1.1.1.1
              23 November 2016 at 1:55 pm

              I’d expect a judge inclined to grant a discharge would (wrongly in my book) be happy to pin it on the effects on overseas travel for employment related purposes.

              That is rubbish in my book, but you and I both know that it happens on an almost daily basis.

              I also had in mind that people with a serious conviction (and I think the maximum penalty on this charge is over two years) may be barred form being ministers, but in searching I could not find that quickly.

              Should he get a s106? No. Will he? Probably (if it comes to that at all).

              • KJT …
                23 November 2016 at 3:56 pm

                The rugby player defence?

                • Scott …
                  23 November 2016 at 4:45 pm

                  A version of it yes. It also applies to students, posh housewives, anyone with an important sounding job, other sportspeople… basically any time the judge things it is much ado about nothing. (which I don’t like but I’m a realist)

              • North …
                23 November 2016 at 9:00 pm

                No Scott. The maximum penalty is 3 months imprisonment. Which is a factor in assessing the gravity of the offending to then be weighed against post-conviction consequences of which there is “……a real and appreciable risk.” to quote dictum in a relatively recent Court of Appeal decision.

                Which gives renewed life to my earlier comment (can’t find it)…….if it weren’t Ches’ and it were a teenage brown boy……the charge would have been assault with a weapon (maximum 5 years imprisonment). With the result that that aspect would weigh notably more heavily in the balance, requiring that more striking and weighter consequences would need to be shown to establish disproportionality.

                It’s a question of how the two factors, gravity and consequences, stack up in the balance.

                And what do we get in this discussion ? Some right wingers whose appalling arrogance advises them that in a court of law their wahanui ‘opinion’ rules. So Keydashian !

                Not to say that a s.106 won’t be granted if sought. We all know that the dilemma of rationalising different treatment as between rich white people and poor brown people is very frequently overcome.

  10. dukeofurl 10
    22 November 2016 at 9:31 am

    The reason for the rush was so that Paula Bennett was exposed as a jafa fake had to catch her flight after a meeting to talk about her accomplishments promote herself

  11. Robert Guyton 11
    22 November 2016 at 9:39 am

    If I were a National Party strategist, I’d be smiling in a self-satisfied way about this development. As the story progresses, the protesters (irrational, shrill Lefties) will be demonized and pilloried and Borrows’ (nicest, most decent Righty), lionized. I’d commission Soper to write an inflammatory piece (testing, testing) as a starting point for this process and hope that the leading Lefty blog would take it up 🙂 The “Borrows” story would serve as the perfect distraction and could be fanned into life easily at any time. It’s perfectly divisive.

    • Puckish Rogue 11.1
      22 November 2016 at 9:52 am

      You make a very good point but it shouldn’t have even got to this stage in the first place

      • dv 11.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 11:41 am

        YesPR, Burrows should not of run over them in the first place.

        • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 11:55 am

          The protestors should have followed polices directions to move before they were “run over”

          • Robert Guyton 11.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 12:15 pm

            Perhaps they should have, but that doesn’t negate the law that says that you can’t drive your car at a person and hit them. Does it.

            • dv 11.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 12:20 pm

              Or backup and move to the side.

            • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1.1.2
              22 November 2016 at 12:42 pm

              Correct however they didn’t drive the car at the protestors, the protestors deliberately got in the way of the car and failed to follow police instructions

              • Robert Guyton …
                22 November 2016 at 12:52 pm

                Incorrect, Pucky and hairsplitting for the sake of diversion. In any case, the judge will decide and it seems one already has ruled that there’s a case to answer. Do you wonder why he didn’t make the claim you have and let ol’ Chester off? (cause he knows the law, that’s why).

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  22 November 2016 at 1:13 pm

                  Judges are not infallible, they (as I understand it) interpret the law and if judges aren’t infallible (and they’re clearly not) then they can be wrong and if they can be wrong then the judge can be wrong in this situation

                  I didn’t take you to be the type to just accept anything someone says if the have a title, I guess I was wrong

                  • adam …
                    22 November 2016 at 1:44 pm

                    P.R. I love how when a judge gets it right as you see it, you praise the justice system – then bang on that we should all respect the law. But when a judge then get it wrong as you see it, you bang on about judges being infallible. Dude, your inconsistency is showing…

              • North …
                23 November 2016 at 1:26 am

                So says the honourable Judge of fuck all, PR. There’s a video don’t forget.

        • Scott 11.1.1.2
          22 November 2016 at 4:09 pm

          to DV: He didn’t “run over” anyone. At most it was a minor thing (she claimed to have a bruised foot, nothing more).

          In any event you assume he caused any injury at all. It is an allegation, and having watched the video several times it is far from clear that he did cause her an injury.

          Having said that, the silly bugger should have stopped and let the cops get rid of her.

    • dukeofurl 11.2
      22 November 2016 at 10:01 am

      Sounds like Jason Ede is back in the Beehive, but not writing draft stories for bloggers, but doing it for the MSM.

    • Psycho Milt 11.3
      22 November 2016 at 12:52 pm

      If I were a National Party strategist, I’d be smiling in a self-satisfied way about this development. As the story progresses, the protesters (irrational, shrill Lefties) will be demonized and pilloried and Borrows’ (nicest, most decent Righty), lionized.

      Yep. It’s hard to feel sympathy for someone who tries obstructing a vehicle and gets a sore foot out of it. I expect there’ll be plenty of right-wing blog outrage to go round.

      • Robert Guyton 11.3.1
        22 November 2016 at 3:17 pm

        It is, yes, Psycho Milt, hard to feel sympathy for the injured woman. It’s just too easy to lampoon her; the drama, noise, theatrics. The thing is though, deciding to drive your car onto her and continuing on your way after doing so, is even more difficult to sympathise with, don’t you think?

        • In Vino 11.3.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 7:25 pm

          Actually, going by the attitude of some in this thread, perhaps it could be argued that Borrows has a case for prosecuting the woman protestor for causing possible damage to his tyre (or bumper) by posing her robust body in a stationary position in front of his weak, fragile, moving car… If one party is stationary, having stopped, guilt usually goes onto the party that failed to stop.

    • Chris 11.4
      23 November 2016 at 1:31 am

      Key’s office probably ordered it. The nats have always seen Borrows as fodder, and Borrows is probably fine about taking one for the team. He ain’t losing his seat over it, and they’ve probably organised the not guilty verdict over a beer at Northern Club.

  12. Robert Guyton 12
    22 November 2016 at 9:55 am

    If he’d obeyed the law it wouldn’t have.

  13. Ad 13
    22 November 2016 at 10:08 am

    Will be a fun stretch of ‘Discharge without conviction’.

    Make more sense as a first time offender to get a fine, and be done with it.

    Really, really dumb if he doesn’t plead guilty right off bat.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      22 November 2016 at 11:08 am

      Yep. Should’ve done that right from the start: get it over and done with.

    • McFlock 13.2
      22 November 2016 at 12:15 pm

      pretty much.
      He won’t be kicked out of parliament for it, and it’s obviously a voter draw for some tories around here.

    • Scott 13.3
      22 November 2016 at 4:11 pm

      If he plead guilty I expect he’d be eligible for diversion. But you don’t get that without a guilty plea.

      Regardless of that though, or even if she is making it up, he should have just stopped and let the cops clear the way. That was just silly.

  14. Tarquin 14
    22 November 2016 at 10:21 am

    A fine piece of acting, much better than anything on Shortland Street. Should be a shoe in for NZ’s got talent.

  15. tc 15
    22 November 2016 at 10:35 am

    soper and his partner typify the red neck lowbrow dog whistling you’ll be hearing alot more from in the run up to election 17.

    Mediwonks are probably setting up a vehicle now for the likes of these beltway bleaters to run an agenda thru 2017.

  16. mpledger 16
    22 November 2016 at 11:58 am

    I have no idea how injured or not the women were but it can’t be allowed for cars to ram protesters or anyone for that matter. It sets a precedent.

    If he gets away with this then next time someone could be fatally injured because a politician think that what they do is so important that they are allowed to drive into people.

    I hope the judge takes into account that these were middle aged/elderly women and comes down like a ton of bricks because they are more vulnerable to injury (compared to a fit, young man).

  17. framu 17
    22 November 2016 at 2:02 pm

    Im intrigued by all the righties on this topic basically saying that you dont have to even try and stop your car if someone happens to appear on the road in front of you

    weird outlook you all have – really weird

    would you all change your tune if it had been some kids instead of some “bloody protestors”?

    • Bob 17.1
      22 November 2016 at 4:51 pm

      “would you all change your tune if it had been some kids instead of some “bloody protesters”?” Definitely, but I doubt someone’s kids would be deliberately obstructing your car while being told by the Police to move out of the way.

    • Psycho Milt 17.2
      22 November 2016 at 5:15 pm

      Im intrigued by all the righties on this topic basically saying that you dont have to even try and stop your car if someone happens to appear on the road in front of you

      Can you point to an example of that? The only right-wingers I’ve noticed on the thread have been Puckish Rogue, Bob and James, and none of them have made that claim.

  18. save nz 18
    22 November 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Sounds like the police have had enough after looking like political lackys after Nicky Hager illegal search. Good on them for bringing it to trial.

  19. Mrs Brillo 19
    22 November 2016 at 2:52 pm

    I think I see those women’s real crime, in the eyes of the old white guys.

    The women got old and grey and STILL refused to sit quietly at home solving their family’s problems.

    Instead they let themselves be seen in public while sticking up for their country.

    Politics! Old sheilas?!
    Don’t they know that politics are old coots’ affairs, not old biddies?

    Don’t they know old women are meant to be invisible?

    They were to Chester Borrows. They are to Barry Soper.
    Of course they have only one functioning eye each.

    • Puckish Rogue 19.1
      22 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

      • Mrs Brillo 19.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 5:51 pm

        It’s just one tired old cliche after another with you, isn’t it?
        Try for some originality, petal, if you want anyone to listen to you.
        Although I don’t think you do – you’re all transmit and no receive.
        Like a lot of older blokes.

  20. The New Student 20
    22 November 2016 at 4:05 pm

    This is worse than seagulls squabbling over leftover chips.

    You can always choose to NOT drive a vehicle into somebody. Why is that so difficult for you people? Entitled much?

    • Puckish Rogue 20.1
      22 November 2016 at 4:17 pm

      You can also choose to NOT stand in front of a moving vehicle.

      • McFlock 20.1.1
        22 November 2016 at 4:21 pm

        Indeed. Stand somewhere safe, like a footpath – oh, wait…

        • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1.1
          22 November 2016 at 4:26 pm

          Absolutely correct, you should never avoid a vehicle when you’re on the footpath.

          • McFlock 20.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2016 at 4:39 pm

            Exactly, they should avoid you, according to traffic law.

            If the wrong people give way, it causes confusion. You can fail a driving test by giving way when you have right of way, just as you can by failing to give way at the appropriate time.

            What Burrows should have done was wait five seconds for the cops to remove the protestors obstructing the footpath. Tory entitlement didn’t let that option occur to him, though

            • Bob 20.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2016 at 4:58 pm

              Of course! Them Tories should just wait for the Police to clear their way! Protesters, continue your unlawful behavior until a Police office kindly moves you to the side.

              • McFlock …
                22 November 2016 at 5:11 pm

                Well, yes.

                Doesn’t running over someone’s foot seem to you to be a bit of an overreaction to a slight pause in your driving?

                It’s not like he needed to call and hope they’d turn up within an hour (like normal people have to do) – the cops were literally a few feet away. Fucksake, I’ve been in similar situations with genuinely hostile folks (not just a couple of picketers) at some public events. You look over at the cop, raise an eyebrow, and they get off their chuff and move the individuals back. I’ve also been on the other side, and cops are pretty good at moving people on.

                Oh, and also cops have the power to use force and arrest people. Burrows didn’t.

          • North 20.1.1.1.2
            23 November 2016 at 1:41 am

            You’ve so misread this whole thing PR. You wouldn’t mind giving me a list of the roads you customariy travel and the footpaths you cross would you ? I’ll warn my Nana.

      • Robert Guyton 20.1.2
        22 November 2016 at 5:40 pm

        “Choose” – yes, that’s the issue. The protester chose to stand where she did and has suffered a consequence. Borrows chose to drive ahead despite her presence and is suffering a consequence of the action he chose.

      • Chris 20.1.3
        23 November 2016 at 1:49 am

        So if you do choose to stand in front of a vehicle moving towards you and the driver has time to stop before hitting you but doesn’t, are you saying it’s not an offence because you chose to stand there?

        • Puckish Rogue 20.1.3.1
          23 November 2016 at 8:31 am

          So if you see a car coming towards you and you have ample time to move before getting hit but don’t move, are you saying you’re not partially to blame for getting hit?

          • Chris 20.1.3.1.1
            23 November 2016 at 10:04 am

            Are you now asking whether there’s partial blame rather than whether something’s an offence? I’m talking about whether it’s an offence, not whether there’s partial blame. If a driver has time to stop but doesn’t then are you saying the pedestrian is partially criminally liable?

          • Robert Guyton 20.1.3.1.2
            23 November 2016 at 10:20 am

            So what? “Partial blame”…pffffft

          • North 20.1.3.1.3
            23 November 2016 at 1:12 pm

            So wrong PR.

  21. james 21
    22 November 2016 at 5:01 pm

    As one of the “official right wingers” on here – I reckon the judge made the correct decision.

    I also think if he is found guilty – then when sentencing that they take into account the contibuty actions of the lady involved – because yes – she did contribute to the situation.

    But – she made the complaint – and deserves her day in court.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1
      22 November 2016 at 5:15 pm

      They say that everything before the but is bullshit.

      I agree with the things before the but. All of them.

      I don’t care for the things after the ‘but’ because they reduce the issue to the complainant, rather than the principle. And it’s the principle that matters: ‘when kindness is lost there is justice’.

  22. Rosemary McDonald 22
    22 November 2016 at 11:12 pm

    I’m hearing an echo…

    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/2004%20Report%20on%20Police%20handling%20of%20a%20picket%20at%20Port%20of%20Lyttelton%20in%201999%20(1).pdf

    For those of you who don’t remember this tragedy…industrial action at the Port in Lyttleton in late 1999. Man drove through picket line and hit and killed activist Christine Clarke. Charges were laid and a prosecution was successful. Conviction was eventually overturned and the killer walked free.

  23. Ross 23
    23 November 2016 at 7:06 am

    To be fair to Soper, his Wellington apartment was trashed by the quake last week. I suspect it’s affected him more than we might have expected! (His wife was crying on camera as she showed viewers the apartment’s interior.) He shouldn’t be doing any work while his mind is somewhere else.

  24. Paul 24
    23 November 2016 at 7:45 am

    Soper is a contemptible little man.
    He would write anything to get his pay cheque.

  25. Pasupial 25
    23 November 2016 at 10:23 am

    NRT has a good point here that I haven’t seen addressed in this thread:

    Borrows isn’t a minor, there’s no significant privacy interest, the events have been widely reported on. Instead, it simply looks like the judge is trying to spare someone powerful, a former Minister for the Courts, from additional public embarrassment. But that’s not what the court’s suppression powers are for, and their abuse in this fashion undermines the social licence for suppression throughout the entire justice system.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/11/an-abuse-of-suppression.html

  26. Pete 26
    23 November 2016 at 10:48 am

    I’m surprised people are getting at Soper.

    Anyone who comes up with that stuff are unwell.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.