Garrett and McVicar partners in crime

Written By: - Date published: 9:15 am, September 21st, 2010 - 32 comments
Categories: act, law and "order" - Tags: , , ,

Garth McVicar is head of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He stands for tougher sentencing  and zero tolerance for criminals.

David Garrett has a conviction for assault, lied to a Court in order to escape a conviction for stealing the identity of a dead baby in order to fraudulently obtain a fake document and, according to the Herald today, could now face further criminal charges for perjury.

So naturally McVicar is backing Garrett to head up a new hard-line law and order party:

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said dozens of the trust’s supporters had called in support of Mr Garrett, and they had expressed interest in a Garrett-led independent party with a law and order focus.

He said he had discussed this with Mr Garrett before last week’s events.

“He was happy where he was at with the Act Party, but obviously things have [now] changed significantly.”

You couldn’t write this stuff.

Garth McVicar is the man responsible for putting this disgusting criminal in Parliament in the first place in a sordid back room deal between the Sensible Sentencing Trust and ACT.

Like Hide, he sheltered Garrett and hid his secrets from the public. He was even a character witness who helped keep Garrett out of jail for his disgusting crimes.

Now he wants Garrett to lead his new proxy party. Like Hide, McVicar’s stained reputation is now completely shot.

32 comments on “Garrett and McVicar partners in crime”

  1. jbanks 1

    It’s all John Key and the National Party’s fault.

  2. Tigger 2

    So these people who call themselves ‘victims’ are happy to rally around a man who stole a dead baby’s identity and who, through name suppression, gagged the grieving family from speaking about his horrific crime? And it is horrific. Identity is someone we own. It is ours. It is our life.

    Would be delighted to see them all coagulate into some hard-line teeny mob. The unappetising fat is easier to dispense with when it congeals.

    • Rex Widerstrom 2.1

      The unappetising fat is easier to dispense with when it congeals.

      Agreed. If this happens it’ll strip away all the subsidiary reasons people have for turning a blind eye to Garrett and McVicar and their doings. Those who like / don’t like Rodney / Heather / Sir Roger / paying no tax / bright sports coats etc will be able to be honest about these two without worrying about damaging the status of anyone or anything else.

      Those who angrily defend Garrett under the guise of defending Act will be dragged into the light of day… because the “SS Tea Party” (hey Garth, you can have that one for free) will be competing for votes.

      Those that are left holding the McVicar banner will be exposed as being in the game because they, like Garrett, are “both drawn to and repulsed by the pathology of anti-social and transgressive behaviour” as Finlay McDonald elegantly puts it.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

        Quoting linked article

        It also demands a certain level of emotional detachment, given the human tragedy being exploited for personal entertainment or gain.

        That’s the actions of a psychopath. Doing something damaging for personal gain/enjoyment and the complete lack of empathy/conscience.

        • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.1.1

          I’ve seen it said in several articles that Garrett evidently told police he applied for the fake passport due to “delusions of grandeur”.

          That’s different to the “youthful prank” line run by Hide and Garrett himself. I’ve had a hand in a few highly orchestrated youthful pranks myself (including one that made headlines for a few days in the 80s but I won’t go into here. Suffice to say the only person upset was Mr Plod. Oh, and Anne Hercus) and it was entirely due to the fact I was a dickhead.

          “Delusions of grandeur” can often be a symptom of psychopathology though. Could Garrett actually be self aware on some level?! 😯

  3. Zee 3

    The Sensible Sentencing Trust was always about hoodwinking victims to push hardline rightwing talking points, paid for by those who need to dumb down democracy and keep good people busy shoring up what’s left – in my opinion.

    I therefore welcome Garrett new deeper association with the SST, maybe people will finally get a clue that victim rights start and end with citizen rights, and seperating them only harms us all in the long run.

    I cannot comprehend why so many cannot see that efficient working democracies cannot live on the extremist edge. Where single issues meet patently simplistic solutions. Harsher laws without any consideration to the consequences will (and has) led to higher crime, higher imprisonment, greater inequity, and as we are now finding in ChCh even when we have so many locked away, no let up of looters, and scammers.

    I ask you how can we have a sensible sentencing regime when the society has let so many see crime as the only avenue out of their predictament. The ‘have a go’ attitude gone horrible wrong. If SST had once ounce of moral fibre in it it would be demanding greater general income equality.

  4. Dave 4

    Is this for real? I had to check if there was a satire tag haha I do believe that memberships for both ACT and SST will dry up from the population, except the obscenely rich who have vested interests, and are not too fussed on ‘law and order’ I mean, its easy to feel secure in your Paratai Drive mansion with its gates, fences and security cameras. Even my mother, who gets quite grumpy and frothy at the mouth when she hears of stories that percolate around about prisoners getting playstations etc, she still believes rehabilitation is worth the effort and has given up supporting the SST.

    He deserves it, the lying duplicitous scumbag, in my opinion, McVicar and Hide are worse than Garrett in this matter, of all the hard core chest beating lawyers in the country, they chose this one?

  5. comedy 5

    Have you got a link to McDickars comments, I’m compiling a list of NZ vacuosities for publication a bit like Wisden for cricket but it’ll of course need to be the size of a telephone directory.

    Edit – OOOPS i see it’s in the body or the first link – crikey their PR is so good there could be a job in parliament for them

  6. ianmac 6

    Hide, Garrett, Mcvicar, all say how well the Strikes Act is in curbing the very worst criminals by locking them up for lifetimes. This is untrue of course. It is not just the 100 or so of the worst violent offenders. The list of offences which qualify for 3 Strikes is huge. So “they” are proud and we should be grateful. Huh?
    As for a new “Garrett-led independent party with a law and order focus.” That’s democracy – I suppose.

  7. M 7

    ‘I ask you how can we have a sensible sentencing regime when the society has let so many see crime as the only avenue out of their predictament. The ‘have a go’ attitude gone horrible wrong. If SST had once ounce of moral fibre in it it would be demanding greater general income equality.’

    Exactly. Even if these pricks have a thinly veiled hatred of minorities, women and the poor surely base level self-preservation would kick in. People can only be kicked/kept down for so long and then the rage may bubble up in violence or revolution and the tormentors may end up having their throats slit.

    It’s really no different to all the people who moan about the TOW gravy train – imagine if there had been no safety release valve for Maoridom’s grievances via the Tribunal, might there have been a civil war by now or Taliban-style guerilla “insurrection” everywhere?

    Gated communities? LOL! Only one way in and one way out – golden ghetto or potential prison?

  8. Ron 8

    I am SO looking forward to the Hard-Line-On-Crime Party forming and then disappearing without a trace. Outdoor Recreation Party, anyone?
    I am also looking forward to Rodney getting rolled, ACT returning to it’s roots and also disappearing without a trace.

  9. Lanthanide 9

    “of a dead baby”

    Actually it was a 2-year old child, not really a ‘baby’.

    • Blighty 9.1

      that’s OK then!

      • Lanthanide 9.1.1

        I’m not saying it’s ok, I just find it quite irritating that (some of) the media have kept reporting it as “dead baby” when the fact that it was a 2 year old child is widely known.

        Initially when the story was reported all we had from Garrett was that it was a child “born around the same time” and the initial reports all said “baby”. But now that it is widely known to be a 2-year old, further reporting should all known facts.

        captcha: lazy (it really is psychic)

        • JOHN 9.1.1.1

          i have a 2 old and he is a baby still…as for Hide i gave him the fingers on the auckland motorway the week of the last election,he lost it and did a lot of crazy driving to get in front of me and then drive with his head out the window looking back at me,while screaming abuse,he was in his smart car i was in a truck…i did think about running him over (to save tax dollars)
          but i was worried that dickhead roger would take his place 🙂

          • Zorr 9.1.1.1.1

            I have to agree with John here. My oldest is now 3 years old and if he were to die tomorrow he would be “my baby boy” forever. 2 years old is still very young and it can be very easy to forget that. I’m good with labeling a 2yo child as “a baby”

    • felix 9.2

      Lanth is correct.

      We can’t know for certain the developmental stage of the deceased, but the term “baby” most often refers to a child who does not yet walk or talk. This would not include most 2 year olds.

      The most appropriate term is “dead toddler”.

      • Treetop 9.2.1

        The issue is not whether the child was an infant, a toddler or a preschooler. The issue is that Garrett transgressed against the rights of this young child.

        • felix 9.2.1.1

          Yes. The dead toddler.

          • Treetop 9.2.1.1.1

            A Chronological Overview of Human Development

            1. Prenatal period: Conception to birth
            2. Infancy and toddler period*: First 2 years of life.
            3. Preschool period: 2 to 6 years of age.
            4. Middle childhood: 6 to 12 or so years of age (until the onset of puberty)
            5. Adolescene: 12 or so to 20 years of age.
            6. Young adulthood: 20 to 40 years of age.
            7. Middle age: 40 to 65 years of age.
            8 Old age 65 years of age or older

            *Some prefer to describe as “toddlers” children who have begun to walk and are approximately 1 to 2 years of age.

            David R. Shaffer Sixth Edition

            • travellerev 9.2.1.1.1.1

              So yes, the dead toddler.

              Captcha: concept. That’s what it is really isn’t it. the idea that it is OK to take the identity of a very young vulnerable child which died well before it’s years leaving it’s parents in a timewarp of hurt wondering how their child would have grown up had it lived and using it to further some, possibly malignant plan inserting in the grief stricken world of it’s parents a possible future of their child they would never had envisioned. In other words their stolen child’s identity is their child gone bad. How cruel, and unforgivable and how very typical for a sociopath such as Garret.

              Nitpicking about how young the child was when it died is just another variant of cruelty. Well done L. Asshole.

    • Vicky32 9.3

      So? Do you really think that makes the way the parents feel any better? Shame…
      Deb

  10. deemac 10

    and we still don’t know where the SST gets its serious funding from…

    • Olwyn 10.1

      No we don’t, nor whether the funding would carry over to the political party, should they get one off the ground. We could end up with a well-funded, extreme right wing, foaming-at-the mouth party, while a far less well funded, purified ACT party slides into oblivion.

      • Lindsey 10.1.1

        However, there is a bit more transparency about where political parties get their $$$ than private trusts. Another reason why the SS (very apt initials) Trust won’t be a political party any time soon.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      That is a major question and one that needs to be answered. I’m pretty sure that McVicar has his reasons for keeping it secret and that those reasons aren’t innocent.

  11. tc 11

    I reckon the SST is backed by the well heeled US rednecks brigades who seem to have no end of funds by tapping into that large angry base of theirs…..apparently they have both kinds of music….country and western.

    Garrett/SST what a lovely couple….maybe Wodney can perform the civil union and ‘redneck monthly’ can do a colour pullout supplement…..awww cute.

  12. millsy 12

    Gee I wonder what the policies of a SST party would be?

    Hmmm….

    1) Legalisation of lynching
    2) Recriminalisation of homosexualty
    3) Ban divorce
    4) sterilize solo mothers
    5) sterilize anyone who is undesirable
    6) rename the police force the ‘SS’ and give them guns and nice black uniforms
    7) Bring back the birch!
    8) Ban adultery
    9) Bring back conscription

  13. Roger 13

    “Garth McVicar is head of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He stands for tougher sentencing and zero tolerance for criminals.”

    Correction…Garth McVicar is head of the Redneck Sentencing Trust. He stands for tougher sentencing (unless you are white and rich/similar to Garth) and zero tolerance for (poor/Maori or Polynesian) criminals.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago