Daily review 22/11/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 22nd, 2019 - 53 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

53 comments on “Daily review 22/11/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Dukeofurl 1.1
      22 November 2019 at 6:52 pm

      Thats even funnier when you realise the National Party Foundation has prices for 'a brick'

      BUY A FOUNDATION BRICK

      LEVELS 2 – 4: $500+, $1000+, $5000+

      I would think the beehive basement has been well and truly 'mined' by now.

      Not that the Tory rag Stuff will say anything like that, just platitudes from Bridges

      • weka 1.1.1
        22 November 2019 at 7:04 pm

        Do they give people an actual brick? Or is a wall being built somewhere?

        • bwaghorn 1.1.1.1
          22 November 2019 at 7:45 pm

          Just another brick in the wall

        • Sacha 1.1.1.2
          22 November 2019 at 7:52 pm

          Still recruiting wombats.

        • Anne 1.1.1.3
          22 November 2019 at 8:32 pm

          A former Auckland Labour Party luminary came up with that idea once. We were all supposed to buy a brick for I dunno… think it was a $1000 and it would have our name engraved on it. Most of us came to the conclusion we did not want to buy a bloody brick at that price.

          The idea was shelved.

    • gsays 1.2
      22 November 2019 at 8:16 pm

      Thanks weka, that is brilliant.

  2. Buster12 2
    22 November 2019 at 6:04 pm

    Good, now hopefully the piece of shit is named and never let out of jail.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117069680/grace-millane-murder-trial-latest-updates

    • weka 2.1
      22 November 2019 at 6:15 pm

      name suppression stands, and reasons for that are suppressed too.

      https://twitter.com/Alisonmau/status/1197738204473856000

    • McFlock 2.2
      22 November 2019 at 6:27 pm

      thank fuck

    • Sacha 2.3
      22 November 2019 at 6:41 pm

      Nope. Moderators here will need to be vigilant.

    • Dukeofurl 2.4
      22 November 2019 at 6:45 pm

      10 years isnt the standard no parole period any more , its more like 17-18 years

      This was just last week

      20 years and 17 years 9 months

    • Incognito 2.5
      22 November 2019 at 7:07 pm

      Quite simply put, anybody who puts this site at legal risk receives an instant permanent or at least a lengthy ban, regardless of who they are. This applies to this case and in general.

      • weka 2.5.1
        22 November 2019 at 7:10 pm

        I haven't been able to find the details of the name suppression order online. Anyone?

        • lprent 2.5.1.1
          24 November 2019 at 9:54 pm

          Details of suppression orders are typically not put online.

          In the usual obsolete way that the law has, they are targeted at the people present in court – including media.

          However they apply to everyone.

    • Sacha 2.6
      22 November 2019 at 7:39 pm

      Agree. I've suggested that to mods.

    • roblogic 2.7
      22 November 2019 at 8:53 pm

      I think the suppression order is only temporary.

    • Psycho Milt 2.8
      22 November 2019 at 9:24 pm

      "I strangled her to death by accident" has to be the most fucked-up defence seriously contemplated by a jury since they banned the "I had to kill him because he was gay" defence. I feel embarrassed for my country that this will be getting so much coverage in the UK.

      • aom 2.8.1
        22 November 2019 at 11:16 pm

        Oh you sexual puritan PM! Guess you never even wanked since you seem totally ignorant of some of some people's sexual preferences. By the way, does the name Peter Plumley-Walker ring a bell? In this case, the defence was far from 'fucked-up' in that the scenario presented was quite probable, particularly when there was evidence that the victim was not averse to BDSM practices and also had not been under any coercion regarding the 'hook-up'. Fortuitously, there was evidence to support the contention that the death was not accidental in the minds of the jury members, but this was not a certainty. It is difficult to understand the relevance of your, "I had to kill him because he was gay" comment. Are you saying that any death related to sexual acts is comparable to gay bashing murders? Hopefully you will not die of a heart attack while in flagrante delicto. Under your perverted legal interpretation, your sexual partner could end up being incarcerated for a long time because of your over-excitement.

        • Psycho Milt 2.8.1.1
          23 November 2019 at 7:56 am

          Bullshit. There's a world of difference between indulging someone's kink for playing at having their breath cut off and spending upwards of five minutes strangling them to death, including at least a couple of minutes spent continuing to strangle them after they've lost consciousness. That doesn't happen by accident any more than being stabbed multiple times happens by accident.

          It is difficult to understand the relevance of your, "I had to kill him because he was gay" comment.

          I don't see why. It's not that long ago that male defendants were succeeding in court with the defence that they panicked and killed a man for wanting to have sex with them. We put a stop to that defence, and we could put a stop to this as well if we wanted to.

          • Psycho Milt 2.8.1.1.1
            23 November 2019 at 8:12 am

            On reflection, feel I should add: there's zero evidence that Grace Millane asked to have her breathing restricted, just a self-serving claim to that effect by a proven liar. Comparing her to Peter Plumley-Walker is insulting.

          • aom 2.8.1.1.2
            23 November 2019 at 8:27 am

            Don't be an idiot PM! The defence was not necessarily invalid or as you say, "fucked up". It was properly presented and appropriately tested in the Mullane case – hence the guilty verdict.

            I'm surprised that as the royal we, you managed to put a stop to the "I had to kill him because he was gay" defence. Wasn't it something to do with judicial direction to temper the influence of homophobic jurors?

            • Psycho Milt 2.8.1.1.2.1
              23 November 2019 at 8:44 am

              "We" as in the people of New Zealand, via our constituted authorities.

              A defence that the victim effectively consented to their murder may not be invalid under NZ law right now, but it should be. "Accidentally" strangling someone to death is like "accidentally" stabbing them a dozen times with a knife – there's no plausible "accident" there.

              • aom …
                23 November 2019 at 9:49 am

                So why bother with the inconvenience of evidence or trials – Duterte no doubt has a job for you. Thank goodness your concepts of 'justice' don't have a place in NZ. By the way, consent to a dangerous sexual act is not the same as consenting to being murdered. Actually, wasn't that properly raised for the consideration of the jury?

                • weka …
                  23 November 2019 at 10:00 am

                  we live in a society that can't even manage consent for non-dangerous sex across the population*, I think arguing that consent is the relevant issue here misses the elephant in the living room.

                  *by which I mean men.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  23 November 2019 at 10:55 am

                  So why bother with the inconvenience of evidence or trials

                  Because it has to be established that the accused is in fact the murderer. If the accused admits to being the murderer but pleads not guilty, as this one did, the trial should be pretty short because the defence of "I strangled her to death by accident" shouldn't be available.

                  And if that were to make men feel that squeezing women's throats during sex just wasn't worth the thrill any more, I'm not seeing any down side to that.

                  By the way, consent to a dangerous sexual act is not the same as consenting to being murdered.

                  First, there's no evidence Grace Millane consented to a dangerous sexual act. Second, yes that was considered by the jury and rightly rejected on the basis that, even if the accused didn't have intent to kill he was reckless in continuing to do something that was likely to kill his victim.

              • Craig H …
                23 November 2019 at 10:34 am

                The Crimes Act says people can't consent to being killed, so in a sense, that's provided for. The issue here is where the line is drawn on what people can consent to. Can someone consent to sexual activity that may result in death? Common law on the issue is that consent to bodily harm requires a public interest test, so surgery is fine, but BDSM has not been heavily tested in this area, and while light pressure on the neck is not bodily harm, it's a fine line between that and unconsciousness, which is probably not acceptable.

          • KJT 2.8.1.1.3
            23 November 2019 at 8:59 am

            But it is still a defense for women "I killed him because he tried to have sex with me against my will".

            Men being raped, is still treated as a joke.

        • weka 2.8.1.2
          23 November 2019 at 9:33 am

          "Are you saying that any death related to sexual acts is comparable to gay bashing murders?"

          no, but I am close to saying that any man who chooses to have sex that involves strangulation of his partner, should know that they will not be able to use 'sex gone wrong' as a defence and can expect to face a murder charge. It then becomes a simple choice of is this pleasure worth the risk?

          My reason for this is that there is an emerging trend of women being murdered and this defence being used. You can have a look at the UK, where the law is different than in the NZ and there are greater numbers of this defence being used.

          https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/ (content warning for descriptions of extreme sexual and physical violence against women)

          People's kink is a personal thing but at at societal level I don't think the right to one kind of pleasure trumps the right to be free from the risk of murder. People in the kink and BDSM communities are saying that there are safe ways to do this sex act, so it's on individuals to learn those skills if they want to do it. Watching something on youtube probably doesn't count.

          I also think it's on those communities to speak out against the act as something for lay people to do and to push back against things like sharing on social media how to strangle women without killing them. I have no doubt that people skilled in this kink know what they are doing, but likewise I have no doubt that there are sadistic fucks doing it without regard for the wellbeing of their partner or motivated by the need to cause harm. That latter group not being restricted to the men who kill their partners.

          There's also the issue of the number of women feeling pressured to have this kind of sex. There's a societal balance to be had between promoting sex positivity and not promoting violence or degradation of women. The latter is already a significant problem, exacerbated by the kinds of porn that many men are using, and it's obvious that strangulation is now a part of that dynamic. Don't believe me? Spend some time online listening to what women are saying.

          • Rosemary McDonald 2.8.1.2.1
            23 November 2019 at 9:54 am

            Thanks for putting this information out here weka. I too have been noticing an increasing number of reports internationally along the 'consensual rough sex gone bad' defense line and I have the sense that it is a significant part of the increase in misogynistic trends.

            SSDD, but now being packaged differently.

            • weka 2.8.1.2.1.1
              23 November 2019 at 9:57 am

              Yep. Time we went for nuance and got past the binary thinking that this a sex positivity vs prudery issue. We can't have a sex positive culture when rape culture misogyny not only exists but is developing new forms off the back of sex positive culture.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                23 November 2019 at 10:41 am

                Firstly…aficionados of 'kink' need to understand that there is very little new or innovative in what they're into. It has, quite possibly, been done before .

                Secondly, there needs to be some serious thinking and discussion of what is acceptable kink, and what is rape and abuse and murder in disguise.

    • Naki man 2.9
      23 November 2019 at 5:20 am

      I am pretty sure anyone who wants to know his name already does

      [Don’t play with fire because you and others might get burned – Incognito]

    • Craig H 2.10
      23 November 2019 at 10:38 am

      Standard is life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years. I'm not sure if there is anything about this crime that dictates a sentence outside that, but wouldn't surprise me if the actions afterwards earn him longer.

      • Dukeofurl 2.10.1
        23 November 2019 at 11:26 am

        Not 'standard' 10 years anymore its more like 17-18 years

        A sentence last week for murder for 2 defendants gave 20 yrs and 17 yrs 9 months

        • Craig H 2.10.1.1
          23 November 2019 at 2:36 pm

          One of them had a first strike, and they committed murder as part of a robbery, so they automatically met the criteria for minimum of 17 years non-parole.

          • Dukeofurl 2.10.1.1.1
            23 November 2019 at 2:48 pm

            Nothing to do with previous first strike

            The legislation says

            104 Imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years or more

            (1) The court must make an order under section 103 imposing a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years in the following circumstances, unless it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so:

            (a) if the murder was committed in an attempt to avoid the detection, prosecution, or conviction of any person for any offence or in any other way to attempt to subvert the course of justice; or

            (b) if the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning, including making an arrangement under which money or anything of value passes (or is intended to pass) from one person to another; or

            (c) if the murder involved the unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place; or

            (d) if the murder was committed in the course of another serious offence; or

            (e) if the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness; or

            (ea) if the murder was committed as part of a terrorist act (as defined in section 5(1) of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002); or

            (f) if the deceased was a constable or a prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty; or

            (g) if the deceased was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age, health, or because of any other factor; or

            (h) if the offender has been convicted of 2 or more counts of murder, whether or not arising from the same circumstances; or

            (i) in any other exceptional circumstances.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_New_Zealand

            • Craig H 2.10.1.1.1.1
              23 November 2019 at 8:51 pm

              I read the sentencing order, the first strike definitely had an impact. In part, because the previous convictions were used as a reason to uplift the sentence, but also because of section 86E of the Sentencing Act:

              "When murder is a stage-2 or stage-3 offence

              (1) This section applies if—

              (a) an offender is convicted of murder; and

              (b) that murder is a stage-2 offence or a stage-3 offence.

              (2) If this section applies, the court must—

              (a) sentence the offender to imprisonment for life for that murder; and

              (b) order that the offender serve that sentence of imprisonment for life without parole unless the court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

              (3) If the court does not make an order under subsection (2)(b), the court must give written reasons for not doing so.

              (4) If the court does not make an order under subsection (2)(b), the court must,—

              (a) if that murder is a stage-3 offence, impose a minimum period of imprisonment of not less than 20 years unless the court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to do so; and

              (b) if that murder is a stage-2 offence, or if the court is satisfied that a minimum period of imprisonment of not less than 20 years under paragraph (a) would be manifestly unjust, order that the offender serve a minimum period of imprisonment in accordance with section 103.

              (5) If, in the case of a stage-3 offence, the court imposes under subsection (4)(a) a minimum period of imprisonment of less than 20 years, the court must give written reasons for doing so.

              (6) If, in the case of a stage-2 offence, the court makes an order under subsection (4)(b) and the offender does not, at the time of sentencing, have a record of final warning, the court must—

              (a) warn the offender of the consequences if the offender is convicted of any serious violent offence committed after that warning; and

              (b) record that the offender has been warned in accordance with paragraph (a).

              (7) It is not necessary for a Judge to use a particular form of words in giving the warning.

              (8) On the entry of a record under subsection (6)(b), the offender has a record of final warning.

              (9) The court must give the offender a written notice that sets out the consequences if the offender is convicted of any serious violent offence committed after the warning given under subsection (6)(a)."

              The judge found that a sentence of life without parole would be manifestly unjust, but landed on 20 years 9 months after considering all the factors.

  3. burt 3
    22 November 2019 at 8:18 pm

    Is this a caption contest? If it is I'm in;

    Taxpayers pay to promote fishing show.

  4. weka 4
    22 November 2019 at 8:27 pm

    Alwyn, all that was necessary was for you (or anyone) to point out that I'd missed one.

    I'm not a lawyer, so I err on the side of caution. Two mods have pointed out the need for caution here. Repeating what I had just deleted from your previous comment is either incredibly stupid or you think you get to decide what puts the site at risk (you don't). Do that again and expect a ban.

    • alwyn 4.1
      22 November 2019 at 11:29 pm

      Yes. That was all I was trying to show.

      I'm glad to see you have removed all the offending comments.

      • weka 4.1.1
        23 November 2019 at 12:04 am

        I need you to acknowledge what I just said. You cannot repeat something that has been deleted by a mod, even to tell a mod to remove another comment. It puts the site at risk. You're in premod until this gets sorted out.

        • alwyn 4.1.1.1
          23 November 2019 at 10:06 am

          Well can you please tell me how I can try and bring something to the attention of a moderator without it appearing on the blog?

          Would it work if I was to corrupt the Mail address? If I put xxxxx@windowslive.com say would it get flagged to be looked at without going straight to the blog? After all that would be flagged as being a new commentator wouldn't it and go into moderation automatically.

          Then I could say something like –

          "Don't publish this.

          Look at comment by Fred. He appears to me to be breaching the suppression order when he says xyz."

          Would that get to a moderator and only a moderator? If it did it would seem to let me give a warning without making it public.

          Or does just warning a moderator count as breaching a suppression order and get everyone in trouble?

          I realise what you are on about. The problem I had was that you deleted my comment, which was fine by me, but you had missed the other ones that were even more explicit and that I was trying to bring up as being, possibly, out of line.

          I thought I should make another attempt to warn you. The alternative is simply to take no action at all when a warning of some kind is appropriate.

          [you seem to still be missing the key point here. Commenters ARE NOT ALLOWED to repost material that has been deleted, especially where it was deleted because it put the site at risk. If you do it is likely you will get a long ban. The only reason you haven’t is because the two mods looking at this think it’s better for the community for this exchange to be instructional.

          There is zero problem with pointing out to moderators any problematic comment. Just don’t copy and paste or paraphrase it. In this case a simple reply to me saying “comment x.x.x seems to be an issue as well” or similar would have worked. Giving a link to the specific comment always helps.

          Yes, making a comment with a changed name or email address will drop it into moderation (assuming it’s not been used before). Please don’t put legally problematic content in that comment, but as above give a reference to the comment you want the mods to look at, a link is best. Don’t tell mods what to do, instead let them know there is a potential problem. – weka]

  5. A 5
    22 November 2019 at 8:58 pm

    "Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity." — Roman historian Tacitus