One true lesson about the Tony Veitch affair

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 pm, July 13th, 2008 - 57 comments
Categories: Media - Tags:

It seems that everyone’s commenting right now on Tony Veitch. The various slants by the different commentators, on the same sordid matter seem largely to come down to which ‘camp’ you started from, although not exclusively I presume that Mathew Ridge regarded Veitch as a mate before the saga emerged.

There are of course those who are outraged, and rightly so. But then there are the apologists those who readily point to Veitch’s contrition and celebrity status as being a factor for sympathy.

Michelle Boag is one such person, as seen on Close-up last week. As a former National Party president and Public Relations practitioner, Michelle reckons it’ll blow over fairly quickly for Veitch and New Zealanders will forgive when someone expresses regret, as Veitch has done.

Here’s a little question for Michelle and those who have rushed to his defense. Are these not the same people who often talk about Law & Order in the terms of the inappropriately named ‘Sensible Sentencing Trust’ ‘violent offenders should be locked up and the key thrown away’?

Oh yes, we live in a world of double-standards. I suspect that ‘Law & Order’ issues, as ranted about by the likes of Michelle Boag and the National Party should only apply to non-celebrity types. That’s why Tony Veitch will be given every opportunity to rehabilitate himself by people like Michelle Boag and her ilk without ever seeing the inside of a prison.

Of course it can never be the same for those who can’t afford the good advice of Michelle Boag and who have to face our justice system.

See also the Spare Room comment.

57 comments on “One true lesson about the Tony Veitch affair ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Anita 1
    13 July 2008 at 7:38 pm

    To echo Maia for a moment, why is The Standard treating domestic violence as a primarily party-political issue?

    [lprent: The Standard is a program running on a machine. Address it to a human]

  2. Anita 2
    13 July 2008 at 7:45 pm

    To echo Maia for a moment, why is The Standard treating domestic violence as a primarily party-political issue?

    This issue is about a woman who was beaten by the man she loved, it is about a man who beat a woman, it is about the domestic violence in our community, it is about the changes we all have to make to create safe homes for all New Zealanders.

    Seeing it as no more than a political opportunity is revolting, it shows a lack of care and respect for every woman, child and man who has experienced domestic violence.

    Bah!

  3. Z K Muggletonspofin 3
    13 July 2008 at 7:55 pm

    What bollocks Anita. ‘Life’ itself is about political debate. If you cared about respect for every woman, child and man, you should enter into the political discussion without going into The Standard (a political debate website) to plead that it shouldn’t be discussed. Have a chat to Womens’ Refuges about whether violence is a political issue worthy of debate?

  4. Anita 4
    13 July 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Domestic violence is a political issue worth starting a debate about.

    You did not, however, do that. You attacked Michelle Boag, the National Party and, to some extent, the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    It is disturbing to know that when a woman’s back has been broken and details of her personal life spread across the media, what you see is an opportunity to attack the ex-president of the National Party.

    There is so much room in this discussion for real political debate, for trying to make things better; but instead you chose point-scoring.

    (Ok, I’m going to make a nice cup of tea and try not to get myself banned)

  5. Dean 5
    13 July 2008 at 8:03 pm

    “What bollocks Anita. ‘Life’ itself is about political debate. If you cared about respect for every woman, child and man, you should enter into the political discussion without going into The Standard (a political debate website) to plead that it shouldn’t be discussed. Have a chat to Womens’ Refuges about whether violence is a political issue worthy of debate?”

    Mmmhmm. And how about that Labour activitist who smashed someone with a megaphone in front of a camera?

    Of course, you like his politics, so let’s just move along and pretend there’s nothing to see here.

    It amazes me how much people like you will spin the hell out of any issue when the polls are down. As Anita said, bah.

    captcha: “Good salesman”. How terribly bloody fitting.

  6. jafapete 6
    13 July 2008 at 8:17 pm

    Anita’s got a point. But on the other hand, I am just plain disgusted to hear about Boag’s utterly cynical response. Thanks for pointing this out ZK.

    Looking at the blogs, I’ve noticed that many of those who would normally come down very heavily on lawn order have been tempted to make excuses. Yes, they do tend to be right-wing. That said, there are some honourable Ridge-like exceptions amongst the right-wing blogs.

    And what does the Sensible Sentencing Trust have to say on such a high profile case? Their silence is deafening.

    Apparently the key message is too subtle for these people, but I’ll try again… Once you start making excuses, such as ‘he’s paid up’, then IT IS OKAY. And that’s very wrong.

  7. Blar 7
    13 July 2008 at 8:23 pm

    You’re a fucking slimeball.

    Saying that is worth the ban/warning I might get.

    [lprent: probably I would if I could figure out who you were talking to or what about. I don’t ban unless I cannot see sufficient provocation]

  8. Z K Muggletonspofin 8
    13 July 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Let’s get something quite clear. Yes political debate is about political points-scoring, but it’s also about actually having the debate so that we might all learn from each other’s views. When Michelle Boag, representing a ‘firm’ National Party line on violence, comes out in sympathy for someone who has caused considerable damage to his former partner, why shouldn’t that be debated here?

    How would Anita like it to be debated? Should it be without mentioning Michelle Boag and National’s attitude to violent criminals? Perhaps she doesn’t think that Tony Veitch is such a person?

    Let me comment on somethig else – “Labour activitist who smashed someone with a megaphone in front of a camera.”

    For all I know Tony Veitch might even vote Labour, although I hope not. To take a completely non-party line, I suspect that the problem of domestic violence is not drawn along political affiliantion lines. But I’m damned if Michelle Boag can decide who is a criminal and who is not.

  9. Lew 9
    13 July 2008 at 8:43 pm

    I think y’all are missing Anita’s point to an extent.

    The worst thing about this issue with Tony Veitch, last year’s issue with Sitiveni Sivivatu, and (insert list of other such cases) is that the matter is framed as the (possible) end of a man’s career, whereas the issue of public good is the harm inflicted by a man on a woman and by extension the throughgoing nature of domestic violence in NZ.

    Who cares about his career? What of the victim?

    L

  10. Blar 10
    13 July 2008 at 8:57 pm

    To clarify Lynn, I was talking to Z K Muggletonspofin. I called him/her a fucking slimeball because this is a genuinely reprehensible post that follows the following logic:

    Michelle Boag is a member of the National party. She was invited on to a program to give her independent opinion as a well known PR consultant – this was a view sought by TVNZ, not offered by Boag because they felt a comment from a PR professional was of interest to viewers.

    The professional view she expressed was that Veitch could survive this. This view was founded on the assumption that Veitch wouldn’t be charged – at no point did Boag say she thinks he should charged because it is frankly down to his ex-partner to press charges.

    You have extrapolated from this that Boag is secretly a proponent of domestic violence for the rich. You have extrapolated from this is the view of the National party because it was expressed by someone who was, until they were ignomoniously booted out, an office holder in the organisational wing of the National party, a role that was as you would have guessed, purely administrative and had nothing to do with the formation or implementation of policy.

    You have then said this strawman view conflicts with the Sensible Sentencing Trust who you have labelled another front for what seems to be an increasingly multifarious National Party ergo the National party are wife-beating hypocrites.

    You’ve set up two massive straw men and attempted to use them to attack National. It’s disgusting and highly ineffective politicking, the sort we haven’t seen around the place since the early days of Sleep-on-politics.

    It would be on par with me saying the Labour party is run by the Moonies because Peter Tapsell is a former Labour MP or that everyone in the Labour party trawls for rough trade because Colin Moyle sniffed around the wrong places about 30 years ago.

    So just to clarify, the author of this post – Z K whatever – is a fucking slimeball.

  11. Anita 11
    13 July 2008 at 9:07 pm

    ZKM,

    A quick list, what could/should a left leaning political blog say about the whole Veitch issue

    1) Talk about how the crime-and-punishment pressure groups at the moment have put additional pressure on the victims of domestic violence; how they make it both harder to report and harder if they don’t report, how their narrow focus on a particular type of violent crime makes it harder for victims of other types.

    2) Talk about how the focus of the discussion has been about Veitch, and his victim has been either blamed, overlooked or revictimised. What are the forces that mean we focus on the more powerful and ignore the weaker.

    3) Discuss the causes of domestic violence, how they apply to to Veitch, how they apply to other members of society, what that tells us about NZ as a society and how we could change it.

    4) Talk about what recent governments have done about domestic violence, how successful it has been, and whether it would be carried on by other parties.

    5) Discuss section 59 repeal, how has this influenced our attitudes to domestic violence. Are the organisations fighting for the right of parents to smack children also more accepting of husbands smacking wives?

    6) Talk about what the different political and legislative approaches to resolving the issue could be.

    7) Talk about the attempts the current government has made to identify why victims of domestic violence don’t come forward, what they’re doing about it, and how other parties have reacted.

    8 ) Talk about the risks around SOEs, COCs and other quasi-government organisations in shaping and modelling who we want NZ to be (a stretch but an interesting one, and one which stretches to privatisation).

  12. Anita 12
    13 July 2008 at 9:08 pm

    ZKM,

    Better still, what could/should a Labour movement blog talk about

    1) It interests me that Veitch partly blames working two jobs – what does this say about an economic and labour environment which forces so many people to work two jobs?

    2) His victim is said to have lost her job because of his violence toward her. How should employers, unions and colleagues support victims of domestic violence?

    3) How many of the people who support the victims of domestic violence either volunteers or very poorly paid? Why are the people who investigate, prosecute and defend perpetrators of domestic violence so much better paid? What does this say about the way we value labour and skills?

  13. Dean 13
    13 July 2008 at 9:11 pm

    “Let me comment on somethig else – “Labour activitist who smashed someone with a megaphone in front of a camera.’

    For all I know Tony Veitch might even vote Labour, although I hope not. To take a completely non-party line, I suspect that the problem of domestic violence is not drawn along political affiliantion lines. But I’m damned if Michelle Boag can decide who is a criminal and who is not.”

    To take a completely non-party line would be fine, but in the very same paragrapgh you are still trying to take a party line. You just cannot help yourself, can you. You attempted to politicise this event by linking it to something a former National president said recently, and it’s backfired on you spectacularly.

    You can attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy of National and the sensible sentancing trust all you like – and theres plenty of ammunition to go on there, I agree – but this wasn’t your motive with this post, and it’s obvious to everybody.

    Sorry, ZK, but if you’re going to post like this then you’re going to have to expect to be called on it for what it is – ridiculous grandstanding.

  14. jafapete 14
    13 July 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Blar, “… ergo the National party are wife-beating hypocrites.”

    Don’t see this anywhere in ZK’s post, but at least you provided a detailed argument this time.

    To address Boag’s points, I don’t think kiwis will forgive quite so quickly. For one thing, the idea of someone buying their way out of the justice system just because they are wealthy doesn’t sit well with traditional kiwi values.

    Clearly someone with the same so-called “professional” expertise is advising TVNZ management, because they seem to think that they can hide Veitch for a few months and then rehabilitate him. Can’t see it working, but I guess time will tell.

    Captcha: manager polls

  15. CMR 15
    13 July 2008 at 9:21 pm

    There are two crimes here:

    1 That the thug could assault his partner.

    2 That the thug believed, at least ostensibly, that he could buy his way out of the criminal code.

    In essence I agree with Anita except for “…the changes we all have to make to create safe homes for all New Zealanders.” Sorry, but I and my family already live in a safe home in NZ. What additional changes do you require of me? If you can answer this I’ll endeavour to live up to your inchoate expectations.

  16. Blar 16
    13 July 2008 at 9:25 pm

    JP – “I suspect that ‘Law & Order’ issues, as ranted about by the likes of Michelle Boag and the National Party should only apply to non-celebrity types”

    Seems to imply that the National party is down with wife-beating.

  17. Anita 17
    13 July 2008 at 9:25 pm

    lprent,

    [lprent: The Standard is a program running on a machine. Address it to a human]

    The front page contains the analogy between The Standard and a newspaper. We can cheerfully say “The Herald seems to be very anti-Labour at the moment”, what is different about saying “The Standard is using an example of domestic violence for political point scoring”?

  18. Anita 18
    13 July 2008 at 9:28 pm

    CMR,

    What additional changes do you require of me? If you can answer this I’ll endeavour to live up to your inchoate expectations.

    For a start, every single time you hear or read someone saying anything explicitly or implicitly blaming a victim of domestic violence or rape, pull them up on it. Every single time.

    I am so envious, I never get to use “inchoate”! 🙂

  19. Blar 19
    13 July 2008 at 9:29 pm

    “Clearly someone with the same so-called ?professional? expertise is advising TVNZ management”

    The Head of Corporate Affairs – whose brief involves dealing with the media – Peter Parussini could have his role in this looked at. If I was in to partisan politics I woild point out he is a former Labour party press secretary and political candidate. But I’m not, so yeah.

  20. jafapete 20
    13 July 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Anita, About your 9.07 list. Do draft such a post and send it to me at jafapete@hotmail.co.uk and I’ll happily post it. Cheers Peter

  21. Fairfacts Media 21
    13 July 2008 at 9:33 pm

    I was a bit surprised at Michelle Boag believing the fuss will die down and Veitch will be able to sneak back into work.
    But she was offering that view as Michalle Boag, PR woman, not Michelle Boag, representative of the National Party.
    I think you will find people on the right as disgusted with Tony Veitch as those on the left.
    Certainly the little shortarse has had much condemnation from myself and Adolf at No Minister, Whale Oil, Keeping Stock and Kiwiblog,etc.
    You are clutching at straws to make a political statement from Veitch.
    What is more concerning for me and others was the focus the media gave to Tony Veitch when there are more pressing issues like Winston Peters, the economy, John Key, etc, etc.

  22. lprent 22
    13 July 2008 at 9:49 pm

    We can cheerfully say “The Herald seems to be very anti-Labour at the moment’, what is different about saying “The Standard is using an example of domestic violence for political point scoring’?

    The difference is editorial control. Each poster is capable of putting their posts up without having anyone else looking at them and often do so. (which is why ZKM managed to put their post up as a page earlier).

    It is a multi-author blog site without editorial control. Therefore to talk about “The Standard” is to talk about a level of authority and responsibility that doesn’t exist. The Herald on the other hand has that collective responsibility. The eventual legal implications get interesting.

    Where we do cooperate is on the moderation and even there the guidelines are pretty damn loose and subject to individual interpretation. That is a common interest in making sure that comments section doesn’t get overrun by raving flamewars.

    That is why there isn’t “The Standard” as a entity with an opinion. It is a site.

  23. Tane 23
    13 July 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Anita. As Lynn said, “The Standard” isn’t saying anything about the issue – individual posters write in their own individual capacities.

    I haven’t written anything on Veitch yet, and I probably won’t. One reason is because I hardly have time to write anything these days, another is that all that needed to be said has already been said in my opinion.

    Personally I don’t think there’s much to be gained by trying to tar any political party with the Veitch fiasco, and it’d be a far better use of my fellow posters’ time to divert their energy somewhere else. But contrary to the conspiracy theories of some of our right-wing friends, there is no editorial control or direction on this site, and no collective check on what anyone writes. Sometimes that’s a strength, sometimes it’s a weakness.

    I see you’ve already had an offer from JP, but if there’s a perspective you feel should be expressed here that is currently lacking then feel free to write us a guest post. We’re all about the diversity of opinions.

  24. Oliver 24
    14 July 2008 at 2:20 am

    Having looked over what Boag said she didn’t endorse Veitch’s actions, she didn’t say that it’s okay for him to beat his partner, she simply said that she expects it to blow over. If I walk outside on a cloudy day and say that I expect it to rain that doesn’t mean that I want it to rain or that I endorse rain.

  25. dad4justice 25
    14 July 2008 at 6:53 am

    If you’re a pretty pill popping, smart mouthed boy from the rip off TVNZ club, you don’t have to worry about the DV Act like other people !!!!!

    I have experienced seven years of shear hell built around false allegations of psychological and emotional abuse, and this wee prick gets away with vicious violent crap like this ? No wonder I am bitter !!!!!!! Stuff the two faced system. Who said it wasn’t US and THEM in New Zealand , the land of the looooooooooooooooooooong black lie !

  26. andy 26
    14 July 2008 at 8:25 am

    Have we reached “Peak Veitch”?

    Leave it to the Police, they know both sides of the story.

  27. Craig Ranapia 27
    14 July 2008 at 8:52 am

    Anita. As Lynn said, “The Standard’ isn’t saying anything about the issue – individual posters write in their own individual capacities.

    Oh come on, Tane, what a bloody cop-out. That’s like saying the Herald on Sunday isn’t “saying” anything by it’s decision to run a truly vile puff-piece interview under Paul Holmes’ by-line yesterday. Are there any editorial standards in play here, at all?

  28. Tane 28
    14 July 2008 at 8:58 am

    Craig, read higher up the thread. The HoS has centralised editorial control. The Standard doesn’t. I wasn’t a fan of ZKM’s post, but then I’m sure he’s not a fan of some of mine. That’s what a diversity of voices is about.

  29. Blar 29
    14 July 2008 at 8:59 am

    Anita. As Lynn said, “The Standard’ isn’t saying anything about the issue – individual posters write in their own individual capacities.

    Someone has to be responsible for allowing a tard like this to post. You guys have previously said you wouldn’t have Robinsod as a poster and I highly doubt you would accept my application to post. So who let this tard post?

    [lprent: Try this http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?author=10
    ZKM has had writer privileges for a long time and even if you dislike his opinions, does write posts that read well, have opinions, points and arguments that provoke discussion. That is the basic criteria the writers use. After that the writers tend to select people to give those privileges to whom they respect, even when they disagree.
    You could always ask them – e-mail is in the Contacts page. But you’re probably right. I’m not sure you’d fit the criteria.]

  30. Anita 30
    14 July 2008 at 9:03 am

    Lynn, Tane,

    The issue is that The Standard is put forward as a site which speaks on the behalf of the labour movement.

    If it said “we’re some people with some similar views who like to post stuff together” then I’d currently think unkind thoughts about a couple of you because of recent posts, and perhaps I’d think a little less kindly of the rest of you for not publicly pulling up those posters, but that would be all.

    As it is, you say you’re speaking on behalf of the labour movement and you should expect us to say “not in my name!” when you get it wrong.

    If you want to use the strength of the labour movement you need to represent all of us.

  31. Craig Ranapia 31
    14 July 2008 at 9:11 am

    Craig, read higher up the thread. The HoS has centralised editorial control. The Standard doesn’t. I wasn’t a fan of ZKM’s post, but then I’m sure he’s not a fan of some of mine. That’s what a diversity of voices is about.

    Still copping out, Tane. A “diversity of voices” doesn’t actually mean “no editorial standards whatsoever” either in the MSM or the blogisphere. And I had the (perhaps naive) hope that Veitch’s vile thuggery, and some of the equally vile commentary around it, wouldn’t be the occasion for quite so transparent partisan hackery.

  32. Tane 32
    14 July 2008 at 9:20 am

    Anita, we don’t speak on behalf of the labour movement – we certainly have no mandate to do that. We speak on behalf of ourselves, and our shared values are those that underpin the labour movement.

    Craig, our standards are that we don’t vet each other’s posts before they go up. You can say what you like, my only request is that you direct your purple prose at the poster(s) in question, not at the rest of us.

  33. RedLogix 33
    14 July 2008 at 9:23 am

    When someone like Veitch f*cks up so spectacularly as this my first instinct is to keep my mouth shut and to offer up a short private prayer for all those for all those caught up in this madness. Once you reach a certain age, and have had enough things go wrong in your life, the old line “There but for the grace of God go I” gains greater import.

    The facts are not all in. Nothing will excuse the kind of kicking we have read about so far, but without the whole story we have no right to form conclusions, nor much opportunity to learn anything from the sorry episode.

    I am wholly uncomfortable with trying to string this into a partisian story. Yes the world is full of double standards. It is true that if Veitch was brown and from Cannons Creek we would not be hearing calls for redemption from the likes of Boag (and Richard Griffin on an RNZ Panel discussion) just yet. But it is too soon and a step too far to generalise this to the whole of the right wing without a much clearer pattern emerging.

    Veitch will loose his job, and his public life as he currently knows it is over. Yet out of all this, one might hope that someday, something new and cleansed might arise from all of this for him.

  34. higherstandard 34
    14 July 2008 at 9:28 am

    RedLogix

    Very sage advice indeed, I agree wholeheartedly.

  35. Robinsod 35
    14 July 2008 at 9:32 am

    ZKM dude, This post? What a f*ckn joke. As much as I hate to say it on this issue even Slater hasn’t tried the partisan line. Worse than Whale? You should be ashamed.

  36. Anita 36
    14 July 2008 at 9:51 am

    Tane,

    we don’t speak on behalf of the labour movement

    You might want to tweak your Whom – saying that you’re the New Zealand labour movement’s own newspaper digitally reborn sounds a lot like you think you do.

    On the other hand, the labour movement does need this kind of voice in this kind of space. Perhaps aiming to be a collective which does reflect the voice of the labour movement would be the better thing to do.

  37. Craig Ranapia 37
    14 July 2008 at 10:02 am

    Craig, our standards are that we don’t vet each other’s posts before they go up. You can say what you like, my only request is that you direct your purple prose at the poster(s) in question, not at the rest of us.

    Tane: Thanks for the critique of my prose style. Perhaps “we” should start, and you might want to be a little less sanctimonious the next time you feel like pissing on David Farrar as the custodian of a “sewer” for the “Kiwiblog right”. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

  38. lprent 38
    14 July 2008 at 10:12 am

    Anita: Tane has already covered most of my points at 9:20. However I’d add that I don’t have an opinion on the post.

    I have no idea who Veitch is. I don’t watch very much TV. I also don’t know much about the whatever the fuss is. Probably because I don’t spend much time on NZ media.

    I gather that it is about a domestic assault, which I strongly disapprove of. I’ve heard too many horror stories from my mother who volunteers for a womans refuge. I really disapprove of settling privately in any assault case, it should always go to the police for a criminal determination.

    On the matter of this post. What I looked at was the mechanics. Did the post have a point, did it present an argument, or did it express an opinion? It did – that the case should should have gone to the police and why hasn’t it. Mechanically it was put up as a page rather than a post, which was fixed before I got home.

    After that the writer is on their own. We just moderate the comments.

    I don’t have to agree with the posts, and I regularly don’t with parts or the whole. That would be expected because my personal leanings tend towards the centre (some say centre-right), and most of the posters are far to the ‘left’ of me. If I exerted editorial control, then I’d probably be the only writer and I’m really not that good writing without a compiler.

    The commentators seldom agree fully with the posts either. You can disagree with the post and even attack the posters opinions provided you don’t deteriorate into personal attacks and have point, argument, or opinion that isn’t out of some troll phrasebook.

    The posts are there to provide points of discussion. They aren’t policies. They are the writings of a person which you and I don’t have to agree with.

    BTW: Look at the ‘sods comments to see where the comment boundaries are drawn. The ‘sod has investigated them closely. The one above is a classic.

  39. lprent 39
    14 July 2008 at 10:21 am

    craig: I think that kiwiblog’s comment areas are a sewer. Sure there is some good stuff in there. But an awful lot is by the hackneyed troll phrasebook, attacks on other commentators that are purely personal, and the interesting debates get drowned.

    I don’t read there because of that. The noise to signal ratio is appalling. It gets a bit like that here sometimes as well, but we usually moderate out the bad behaviors as soon as possible. But there are more of us doing it, and we’ve done it before our number of comments grew too high.

  40. lprent 40
    14 July 2008 at 10:32 am

    Perhaps aiming to be a collective which does reflect the voice of the labour movement would be the better thing to do.

    Exactly. It reflects how the ‘left’ activists from the labour side, green side, and various special interest groups operate in my experience. There is a lot of “agree to disagree” on some things and lets cooperate on what we agree on.

    They should also talk to the ‘right’ for the same reason. In the end we are generally in some kind of agreement on long-term objectives. We disagree on how to get there but there are areas we can and do cooperate in. Forums like this are a place to find out where they are.

    Oops I’d better stop blogging and get ready to head off for the funeral of an old friend.

  41. Tane 41
    14 July 2008 at 11:24 am

    Anita, fair point, I hadn’t considered it might give that impression. Feel free to email us any ideas you might have, and if you’re happy to help out then that would be more than welcome too.

  42. Policy Parrot 42
    14 July 2008 at 11:43 am

    If some of the posters judged Michelle as harshly as they do the Standard, then their phoney claims of politicisation might ring true.

    Michelle Boag might have been wearing her PR hat, but that was not why her comments gained attention. How many other PR people have offered their perspective, and why would Michelle speculate that hers might have a wider audience than most?

    Those who defend Veitch deserve to be prison with him.

  43. peanut 43
    14 July 2008 at 2:43 pm

    The Tony Veitch affair should have been dealt with by the police and his employers at the time of disclosure, not several months down the track.
    TVNZ and RNZ have not shown to be responsible employers at all. But that is typical of this govt and their departments.

    No one should be working 7 days a week and under huge stress. Both employers are scrambling and ducking for cover.

    As for Mallard demanding a report, he is guilty of violent behaviour and was never charged. So any words that come from his lips, should be laughed at.

    I don’t condone Veitch’s behaviour at at all, but the handling of this has been disgraceful.

    At the time his partner entered hospital, the police should have been informed.

    When the Nats get elected, hopefully they can sort out these pathetic govt depts and get some decent accountability.

  44. Matthew Pilott 44
    14 July 2008 at 2:56 pm

    The Tony Veitch affair should have been dealt with by the police and his employers at the time of disclosure…

    peanut – so under a National Government, employers would be forced to act in case of personal criminal or civil matters, presumably by regulation. mate, that’s some odd fusion of “nanny” and police state, I don’t think you know what National is about at all.

    Seems no one does these days.

    Edit – you are also against doctor-patient confidentiality, by the sound of it. Much as I dislike what I percieve National to stand for, I won’t have you writing such lies about them, I doubt National has any cause to be against one of the central tenents of the health system.

  45. Policy Parrot 45
    14 July 2008 at 3:43 pm

    “When the Nats get elected, hopefully they can sort out these pathetic govt depts and get some decent accountability.”

    Sure, because that is exactly what they did last time, when they weren’t selling them off, of course.

  46. Billy 46
    14 July 2008 at 3:59 pm

    FFS, peanut, how are the police supposed to deal with a crime in the absence of a complaint?

    The really interesting part of this story is the employment law angle. Potentially, we have an employer wanting to sack someone for something unrelated to the performance of his job. Do I expect all you lefties to come screaming to Veitch’s defence if that’s the outcome? Up the workers!

  47. Quoth the Raven 47
    14 July 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Dean – What about Gerry Brownlee.

  48. Draco TB 48
    14 July 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Edit – you are also against doctor-patient confidentiality, by the sound of it. Much as I dislike what I percieve National to stand for, I won’t have you writing such lies about them, I doubt National has any cause to be against one of the central tenents of the health system.

    The doctors would have informed the police as, IIRC, it is required for them to do so if there is evidence of assault. The police would then have asked the victim if she wanted to lay a complaint. Exactly what happened when I ended up in hospital after an assault (although that was 20 years ago so the rules may have changed).

    IMO, in this case the Public Interest should have ruled and the police should have investigated and charged whether she wanted to lay a complaint or not. The problem with this is where you draw the line – do you legislate a minimum amount of damage done to the person(s) or do you leave it to police discretion? Of course, now that he’s publicly admitted to the assault the police should charge him.

    Potentially, we have an employer wanting to sack someone for something unrelated to the performance of his job.

    He’s public figure in a broadcast medium so actions like this directly affect his job which is to get an audience. What do you think people are likely to do when they see his face on TV now? Maybe not watch the program anymore? Maybe not watch that channel or even stop watching that broadcaster altogether?

  49. Dean 49
    14 July 2008 at 6:06 pm

    “Dean – What about Gerry Brownlee.”

    What about him? The article you linked to tells how he had to pay out because of assault charges. Sounds like justice was upheld to me.

    Now, are you going to take off your idealogical hat and admit that violence has been perpetrated by the hands of politicians and/or supporters of all flavours? Or are you going to pretend that a smash in the face is somehow worse when it’s a tory hand delivering it?

  50. dad4justice 50
    14 July 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Isn’t it so funny that the Mallard Mauler can’t get answers from TVNZ. Give em an upper cut clever trevor, winny will say it didn’t happen.

  51. George Darroch 51
    14 July 2008 at 6:50 pm

    “lprent: The Standard is a program running on a machine.”

    That’s how it seems sometimes. Perhaps that’s why you’ve tried to shoehorn a tragic story about intimate violence into an attack on the National Party.

    [lprent: Huh? I haven’t written any such post. Oh I see. This is a variant of the pig-fucker technique that the ‘sod loves so dearly.

    Take a 2 week ban for incorrectly attributing this post to my authorship. If you wish to argue in public then I’ll make it longer or even permanent. Contemplate the wisdom of annoying a sysop in their domain.]

  52. Billy 52
    14 July 2008 at 8:40 pm

    He’s public figure in a broadcast medium so actions like this directly affect his job which is to get an audience.

    Then, Draco, you’d better get ready for the taxpayer to write little Tony a big cheque. Because that’s looking like the only way they’re going to get rid of him, given that they knew and took no action seven months ago.

    Will that sit well with you guys looking for stronger “work rights”?

  53. Tane 53
    14 July 2008 at 9:16 pm

    George, how’s Lynn done that? Surely you’ve read the thread above.

  54. Quoth the Raven 54
    14 July 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Dean – Of course I’ll admit it and I’m none too concrened about it. I merely brought it up because you mentioned some labour activist in the same manner as you’re now decrying.

  55. Lew 55
    14 July 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Billy: “Will that sit well with you guys looking for stronger “work rights’?”

    Yep. If Veitch’s known actions are deemed to have been sufficient to trigger whatever `disrepute’ provisions are in his contract, then they should have been exercised then – if by failing to act then people neutered TVNZ’s ability to enforce those provisions now, then the fault for lies squarely on them. (And this is over and above any moral or ethical opprobrium due them for protecting a wife-beater, if they had reasonable cause to believe he was one).

    What was Veitch to do – terminate his contract absent his employer’s insistence? Perhaps – but he can’t be blamed for not doing so when it was his employer’s contract to enforce.

    L

  56. QoT 56
    14 July 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Guys, I hate to derail the conversation further, but I have to side with Anita here.

    It is incredibly disingenuous to talk about “lack of centralised editorial control” and “independent posters”. At the end of the day, The Standard isn’t just a happy agglomeration of random individuals.

    I have previously tried to explain it thus: when a post is made, I don’t think of it as “a Steve Pierson post which just happens to be on The Standard”. It is, at the very least, representative of what a post on The Standard should look like, and the issues which The Standard as a whole wish to address.

    So when the only posts on The Standard to do with the Tony Veitch affair are a) a springboard into “John Key sucks Part MMXVIII” and b) a springboard into “National and the Sensible Sentencing Trust suck” … well, then readers of The Standard are going to think, right, The Standard is treating this issue as one of how much National/John Key sucks.

    I get that individual writers here aren’t a hive mind and don’t agree on every detail of every issue. I get that it adds a lot of responsibility to say, “As writer X on The Standard, my views are going to be inherently linked to writer Y’s, and as a blog we are collectively seen to represent Z”. I get that there’s no big kahuna making the rules and setting the agenda. But The Standard is still a brand, and you have to acknowledge that your individual, autonomous posts are taken by readers as indicative of what The Standard brand represents.

    Example: when the Tony Veitch issue was newly broken, and no one had yet covered it on The Hand Mirror, one of that blog’s writers noticed and decided to remedy it; because The Hand Mirror is the kind of blog that *should* be commenting on that issue.*

    *stargazer is welcome to tell me to stfu.

  57. Lily 57
    7 September 2008 at 9:22 am

    Tony veitch is lucky he is a white celebrity, and is married to a millionaires daughter and after all the evidence has been disclosed, he still has Paul Holmes willing to give him a character reference. I know that if he was the normal Joe Blow on the street , part maori, tattoos and this same situation had occurred Paul Holmes and Tony Veitch would be asking for him to put behind bars. Some may say oh but he paid her hush money???? 100 k hardly enough for breaking her back in 4 places and even then she had to beg for the payment ? loss of earnings. hospital bills in America he would expect to pay over a million dollars or more for 7 counts of assault and breaking her back. So Mr Veitch still sleeping with your wife?. with a jury to decide your fate is not what other countries would give you. Like rape laws Mr Veitch you had no right to assault her there are other ways to deal with conflict breaking her back is not one of them. You may fool some people, but not me or my contemporaries. Tony I have worked with rapists and violent men in prison you are no different to them you are a man filled with rage behind that smile?. you need help and a spell in prison would not hurt you at all.
    You should pay dearly for how you treated Kristin, the same law that applies to that every day Maori/ European on the street Mr Veitch should in all fairness apply to you.

    Lets hope that the rights of woman can be upheld in our courts .. Zoe well she can say all she likes she is not the one with a broken back ala Tony if she was she would be having her day in court as well ? the stalking issues Tony could have reported her to the police like any other citizens would have. The size of the hush money is laughable in my opinion.

    Good luck Kristin all power to You 🙂