Garrett and McVicar partners in crime

36 comments on “Garrett and McVicar partners in crime ”

• Comments are now closed

1. jbanks 1

   21 September 2010 at 9:35 am

   It’s all John Key and the National Party’s fault.
   • Bored 1.1

     21 September 2010 at 9:40 am

     So you have noticed. Took a while DUH!
   • mickysavage 1.2

     21 September 2010 at 11:38 am

     Good attempted diversion.

     Anything intelligent to contribute to the debate?
2. Tigger 2

   21 September 2010 at 9:49 am

   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

     21 September 2010 at 2:30 pm

     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

       21 September 2010 at 3:21 pm

       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

         21 September 2010 at 4:35 pm

         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

   21 September 2010 at 9:49 am

   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

   21 September 2010 at 9:54 am

   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

   21 September 2010 at 10:10 am

   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

   21 September 2010 at 10:12 am

   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

   21 September 2010 at 10:31 am

   ‘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

   21 September 2010 at 10:50 am

   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.
   • Carol 8.1

     21 September 2010 at 11:03 am

     I think the chances of Rodney being rolled are high. Key was gesturing in that direction:

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674970

     Prime Minister John Key has said he could work with anyone as leader of Act – apart from Sir Roger Douglas.

     And Nat Rad news has just said that Hide said Garrett implied to him that he will be leaving parliament.
9. Lanthanide 9

   21 September 2010 at 11:02 am

   “of a dead baby”

   Actually it was a 2-year old child, not really a ‘baby’.
   • Blighty 9.1

     21 September 2010 at 11:04 am

     that’s OK then!
     • Lanthanide 9.1.1

       21 September 2010 at 1:08 pm

       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

         21 September 2010 at 8:25 pm

         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

           22 September 2010 at 3:08 am

           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

     21 September 2010 at 11:46 am

     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

       21 September 2010 at 3:14 pm

       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

         21 September 2010 at 5:00 pm

         Yes. The dead toddler.
         • Treetop 9.2.1.1.1

           21 September 2010 at 5:35 pm

           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

             22 September 2010 at 7:33 am

             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

     22 September 2010 at 3:07 pm

     So? Do you really think that makes the way the parents feel any better? Shame…
     Deb
10. deemac 10

    21 September 2010 at 12:22 pm

    and we still don’t know where the SST gets its serious funding from…
    • Olwyn 10.1

      21 September 2010 at 2:49 pm

      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

        21 September 2010 at 2:54 pm

        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

      21 September 2010 at 3:29 pm

      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

    21 September 2010 at 4:19 pm

    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

    21 September 2010 at 6:46 pm

    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

    21 September 2010 at 11:13 pm

    “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

1. The Standard: posted on 20 September 2010 at 9:15 pm
2. Lew: posted on 20 September 2010 at 10:09 pm
3. Lyndon Hood: posted on 20 September 2010 at 10:12 pm
4. Cosgrove slams McVicar’s role in Garrett affair « The Standard: posted on 23 September 2010 at 7:05 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS