Garrett convicted for assault

Written By: - Date published: 8:33 pm, September 13th, 2010 - 40 comments
Categories: act, crime - Tags:

It seems Act MP and wannabe tough guy David Garrett has a conviction for assault.

I guess you don’t have to dig too far beneath the skin of these Sensible Sentencing Trust types to find their inner thug.

40 comments on “Garrett convicted for assault ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    13 September 2010 at 8:53 pm

    So Hide thinks a man making “lewd comments” to a woman is OK for an oil rig worker or a private citizen…?

    • paula 1.1
      16 September 2010 at 11:57 pm

      [deleted]

      [lprent: As much as I personally dislike the SST, that comment dropped well over the edge. It was straight unsubstantiated defamation. ]

  2. weizguy 2
    13 September 2010 at 8:54 pm

    What’s best is Hide’s use of the “oil rig” defence…

    “He explained the circumstances, they seemed perfectly reasonable to me. David Garrett is a person that’s had rough background, he worked on the oil rigs for 10 years.”

    Followed by a plea to rehabilitation – about the guy who thinks rape is just part of a prison sentence:

    “Anyone can turn their life around,” [Hide] told Campbell Live.

    Really Rodney? Does your mate David agree with you?

    • Tigger 2.1
      13 September 2010 at 9:47 pm

      Loving that rehabilitation line from Hide. Totally kills the three strikes mentality.

    • Graeme Edgeler 2.2
      14 September 2010 at 11:25 am

      Does your mate David agree with you?

      Yes. That’s what strikes 1 and 2 are for 🙂

    • rich 2.3
      14 September 2010 at 1:03 pm

      I worked in offshore oil many years ago (ships rather than rigs). Contrary to some impressions, it was a fairly disciplined environment and assault would definitely mean instant dismissal.

      Maybe that’s how you become an ACT MP; get fired from a proper job for beating people up?

  3. gobsmacked 3
    13 September 2010 at 9:33 pm

    The most damning issue here is non-disclosure. Garrett told Hide, but neither of them bothered to tell the voters. The public – the people who hire and fire MPs, and pay their wages – just didn’t need to be troubled with such details, apparently.

    John Key has ruled out Douglas as a Minister, and Roy was dumped for no reason except Hide’s say-so. Will Garrett be the third strike? That only leaves Hide and Boscawen.

    When will Key get tired of making excuses for Rodney’s poor judgement? Are ACT worth it?

    • Rich 3.1
      13 September 2010 at 10:09 pm

      Possibly explains why there was concern about confidential military documents being bandied around the ACT caucus.

      Concealed foreign convictions – that says “security risk” to me. Can Hide be trusted to remain a minister?

  4. felix 4
    13 September 2010 at 9:41 pm

    What’s that sucking sound?

  5. dad4justice 5
    13 September 2010 at 9:49 pm

    “Anyone can turn their life around”

    Really? TAB paying evens that violent Trevor Mallard will attack another politician in parliament.Wack, smack, went the mad duck again.

  6. QoT 6
    13 September 2010 at 10:02 pm

    I think it’s wonderful that Rodders doesn’t judge people on the basis of minor convictions from their youth eight years ago.

    It would be totally awesome if the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust would extend the same courtesy to non-white, non-middle class people.

  7. Nick K 7
    13 September 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Trevor Mallard has a conviction for assaulting a fellow parliamentarian.

    Sure, he’s not a Lauren Order campaigner, but you could say his was worse because of where it happened and to whom.

    • Marty G 7.1
      13 September 2010 at 10:11 pm

      or, you could stop splitting hairs and say they’re both convictions for assault.

      Then, you can say ‘who’s the hypocrite?’

    • gobsmacked 7.2
      13 September 2010 at 11:56 pm

      The Mallard case was in full public view. All over the media. You had to be stuck in a cave to be unaware of it. So the voters knew about it and subsequently, in 2008, chose to re-elect Mallard in his seat. If voters there or elsewhere chose not to vote Labour because of this, that was their right.

      Nobody knew about Garrett. ACT didn’t want anyone to know. And which electorate voted for him? None. He was on the list. How many votes would ACT have lost if his conviction had been known? Which MPs? Garrett? Boscawen? They are there because of a cover-up. Elected under false pretences.

      So, not so much chalk and cheese, more like chalk and a large pile of dromedary dung.

      Poor attempt at distraction, that’s one strike for you. Next …

  8. Richard McGrath 8
    13 September 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Though I’m no fan of Garrett, the news item made interesting reading. I feel some sympathy if the story is true about being hit from behind and getting his jaw broken (by a doctor, no less!). However how much of the story do we really know?

    • BLiP 8.1
      14 September 2010 at 12:30 am

      He plead guilty.

    • Rex Widerstrom 8.2
      14 September 2010 at 2:05 pm

      I have some sympathy for him too, Richard. That sympathy is derived from having dealt with dozens of people who’ve also found themselves arrested for and convicted of something:

      a) they were justified in doing; and/or
      b) the Police acted corruptly in bringing the charges, and/or
      c) the courts applied the black letter law and gave insufficient weight to the accused’s defence

      all of which have been advanced in Garrett’s defence. I even have a wee bit of sympathy for Hide’s “he was an ignorant roughneck who knew no better” excuse, because that describes a lot of people who get themselves into trouble, especially violent trouble.

      But my sympathy also generates an almost incandescent rage, because I know Garrett would not endeavour to understand, for one second, someone in a similar position. Where once I found him contemptible, the fact that he’s been through a dodgy “justice” process, and that the outcome is now affecting his life and his career hopes, and yet he has not an ounce of sympathy for anyone else in a similar situation makes him beneath contempt.

  9. Rharn 9
    13 September 2010 at 11:42 pm

    More hypocrisy from ACT. Hide’s a comments on oil workers shows his double standards on behaviour. But what does one expect from this two faced perk buster.

  10. BLiP 10
    13 September 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Gerry Brownlee also has a history of violence, doesn’t seem to bother King John The Clueless of Charmalot.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    14 September 2010 at 12:06 am

    Today’s “you couldn’t make it up” quote …

    Rodney Hide is New Zealand’s leading proponent of accountability and transparency in government.

    From Rodney Hide’s profile, on Bebo.com.

  12. jcuknz 12
    14 September 2010 at 3:22 am

    The best gamekeeper is an ex-poacher. But guys and gals, enjoy your slanging.

  13. Nick K 13
    14 September 2010 at 8:29 am

    This post and the comments makes Farrar’s troll farm look civil.

    • joe90 13.1
      14 September 2010 at 8:56 am

      Really Nick K, there’s nothing quite like a wee whiff of Schadenfreude on a Tuesday morning, delicious!.

    • gobsmacked 13.2
      14 September 2010 at 10:51 am

      Nick, you could raise the tone simply by debating the points raised. But you don’t seem to want to.

      Do you think Garrett/Hide/ACT should have disclosed this assault conviction to the voters, prior to the election?

    • Pascal's bookie 13.3
      14 September 2010 at 11:04 am

      For comparison:

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/09/garretts_conviction.html#comments

      I think this one’s my fav

      I find the timing quite remarkable since David Garrett was the only outspoken mp against the new foreshore and seabed legislation and his interview on the radio yesterday why he is against this legislation. Also, his bill was voted out in minutes about the repeal of the anti-smacking law which did show out of touch Parliament is when 1.2 million voters voted to have the act repealed. Today is the first reading of the foreshore and seabed legislation. Is this a coincidence? I think National had a hand in this article as well.

      • Rex Widerstrom 13.3.1
        14 September 2010 at 3:32 pm

        We’ve had better than that later in the same thread, Pb:

        So, Rex, should he trot back to Tonga and beg to be punished further for this extremely serious crime committed 8 years ago in a tin-pot little country run by men renowned for their peaceable natures.

        I’m awaiting with interest a reply to my having asked what exactly “men renowned for their peaceable natures” means, if not a nasty little piece of racial profiling dressed up as sarcasm.

        If it’s true that a man can be judged by the company he keeps, Garrett’s supporters reveal a lot about the man himself.

  14. fot 14
    14 September 2010 at 9:17 am

    [You are currently banned — r0b]

  15. randal 15
    14 September 2010 at 11:54 am

    the act gang are just that.
    a gang.

  16. joe bloggs 16
    14 September 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Garrett was fined $10 – his antagonist, who king-hit Garrett from behind and broke Garrett’s jaw, was fined $100.

    Talk about wetting yourselves with excitement. Must be a freakin’ slow news day in la-la-land if you can whip yourselves to a frenzy over a pathetic little beat-up by that creep John Campbell.

    • gobsmacked 16.1
      14 September 2010 at 12:32 pm

      Do you think Garrett/Hide/ACT should have disclosed this assault conviction to the voters, prior to the election?

      • joe bloggs 16.1.1
        14 September 2010 at 1:30 pm

        Garrett rightly disclosed this to ACT before the 2008 election.

        Should Hide have disclosed this to the electorate earlier? Probably would have been wiser to have done so given the proclivity for the left to go mouth-foaming, barking mad over trivial shit like this.

        But does it affect Garrett’s standing in the house? Hell no, and why the fuck should it? Being fined $10 in 2002 for being king-hit from behind by the local psychiatrist in Tonga???

        Get a life Gobby

  17. Mac1 17
    15 September 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Did I hear it right on the National Radio news that Strike One Garrett is actually Strike Two Garrett with another guilty plea to falsification of a passport?

    Ooops. The Day of the Jackoff had not loaded when I wrote this. Wondered why I was first cab off the rank!

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.