Second chances

77 comments on “Second chances ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dr Terry 1

   4 October 2012 at 7:09 pm

   I am unsure that my memories are correct, but I have an idea Tyson has already had more than one “second chance”.
   • QoT 1.1

     4 October 2012 at 7:20 pm

     Well, there was also that whole “biting off an opponent’s ear” thing, and I’m sure plenty more. But come on, Dr Terry, rich/famous people surely deserve as many second chances as they need for us to forget they’ve ever done bad things!
     • Kotahi Tāne Huna 1.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 10:31 pm

       Oh, he bit off an opponent’s ear????? Why didn’t you say so?????? Breach of the rules of gentlemanly fighting don’t y’know, what!
2. Tangled up in blue 2

   4 October 2012 at 7:24 pm

   I agree with Tamihere and Jackson regarding Tyson. He’s a good role model not because of what he was (his past actions are terrible) but because of how he has turned his life around.
   • QoT 2.1

     4 October 2012 at 7:28 pm

     Do you thus agree he should get special privileges which other convicted rapists, who may also have turned their lives around, would not get from our Government (or other governments around the world) because they’re not famous?
     • Tangled up in blue 2.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 7:49 pm

       I think that anyone with a historical conviction, who has served their time, can show they’re reformed and haven’t re-offended since; should be allowed into NZ. So in answer to your question, no Tyson shouldn’t get a privilege that others don’t, but that doesn’t mean I think he shouldn’t be allowed in just because the Govt. discriminates against those who are not famous.
       • GregJ 2.1.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 8:34 pm

         This would be the Mike Tyson who has just maintained on New Zealand Television that: “I didn’t do the crime” (with respect to the rape conviction), has a subsequent drug conviction from 2007 and in a 2011 radio interview made crude and violent descriptions of interracial sex in relation to Sarah Palin – so not actually reformed then and certainly no role model for anything.

         There are consequences to your actions and in his case I see nothing that indicates he has made any serious attempt at contrition or reform which should mitigate against those consequences – the visa should never have been issued in the first place.
         • Tangled up in blue 2.1.1.1.1

           4 October 2012 at 9:11 pm

           Yeah he has overcome drug addiction. And afaik he hasn’t had any kind of assault charges sexual or otherwise since his rape conviction. I don’t think that you can say he’s not reformed based on a radio interview.
           • QoT 2.1.1.1.1.1

             4 October 2012 at 9:15 pm

             Really? You think someone already convicted of sexual violence who says,

             “Glen Rice is a nice, mellow, docile man, non-threatening guy,” he said. “You want someone like Rodman — yeah baby! Let’s get that donkey in here now. [laughter] Just imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping. Yeehaw!”

             … sounds like someone who’s “reformed” from sexual violence?

             Bearing in mind he said that only a year ago.
             • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

               4 October 2012 at 10:34 pm

               Risque, close to the bone, edgy!
           • GregJ 2.1.1.1.1.2

             4 October 2012 at 10:28 pm

             Hmmm – you appear to be unaware of the conviction for assault in 1998 and the plea deal in 2004 for a fight in 2003. Perhaps this might help: Mike Tyson’s Rap Sheet

             I’m not sure you really understand the nature of addiction (I’m not sure Tyson really does either) – 2 years “clean” is really only the beginning of a lifelong process – despite drug treatment following the 2007 conviction (which he was given credit for in the sentencing) by 2009 (by his own admission) he was in a hotel room with alcohol, cocaine and 7 women Tyson’s-undisputed-truth

             Tyson clearly has mental problems (I think he has been diagnosed as Bipolar) but he has a continued pattern of problems with violence, drugs and sex and I think he has a long way to go before he can be seen as being “reformed” or “rehabilitated” or turning his life around. I don’t see anything yet to convince me New Zealand laws and regulations should be set aside to allow him a visa or that any visit to NZ would be of benefit to him or the people he may be speaking to. Show me a consistent pattern of a number of years of changed behaviour and language, treatment and therapy, speaking out in his own country against drugs, violence and sexual violence then I might think it appropriate to consider showing him compassion and exempting him from the regulations on visiting our country.
       • framu 2.1.1.2

         5 October 2012 at 8:19 am

         “I think that anyone with a historical conviction, who has served their time, can show they’re reformed and haven’t re-offended since; should be allowed into NZ”

         what you suggesting is what already happens – you apply for a visa – you specify what crimes you have commited and when. Your then put through the assesment criteria – if you pass (with some discretionary wiggle room) your in.

         What has happened in the tyson case is that he DIDNT fit the criteria so a special ministerial dispensation was granted – then revoked

         The discrimination was in MTs favour, the same as with anyone who gets a pass from the minister
         • Tangled up in blue 2.1.1.2.1

           5 October 2012 at 2:40 pm

           What has happened in the tyson case is that he DIDNT fit the criteria so a special ministerial dispensation was granted – then revoked

           Ok fair enough. I didn’t realise that the ministerial part was only for people who don’t meet the criteria. I (mis)took this from Key’s statement that it wasn’t unusual for immigration officials to “let in other people with similar convictions who were in New Zealand for short periods”.
           • framu 2.1.1.2.1.1

             5 October 2012 at 4:09 pm

             “I (mis)took this from Key’s statement”

             he he – your probably not the only one on all manner of things 🙂

             I think the confusion arises in that exceptions to the rule are regularly made for all sorts of people with all sorts of backgrounds ranging from legit to highly dubious – but by ministers.

             Immigration officials and staff can only apply the policy – and then if people arent happy with the result they then go cap in hand to the minister.

             A fact that is overlooked by pretty much every journalist every time you see those “oooh immigration are being mean again!” stories.
             Its usually a case of the person in question having whatever policy they are applying under accurately administered (because thats all immigration are allowed to do) but the result being a good story (ie: a crap outcome)
   • idlegus 2.2

     4 October 2012 at 7:52 pm

     so do you agree with willie jackson that because the girl turned up in tysons room wearing a nightie & that tyson could have “any women he wanted” that she was somehow ‘asking for it’ & “what was she expecting?” which is basically jacksons argument on radiolive the last couple days. pretty appalling in my veiw. i actually saw the ‘tyson’ movie recently, & i ended up liking the man, but that doesnt change the fact he is a covicted rapist. (jackson also supports veitch & clint rickard, ffs)
     • Tangled up in blue 2.2.1

       4 October 2012 at 8:01 pm

       No I don’t agree with that at all. That’s appalling. And if you have a link to back up that Willie said that, it would be great. Cheers.
       • idlegus 2.2.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 9:07 pm

         the radiolive site has the show online, i heard it today between 1:30-2pm (then the political show), but he def said that in that half hour block, check it out. also yesterday after 12 before 12:30 he was saying the same things (i had to turn the crap off). he doesnt actually say ‘she was asking for it’ but he certainly implies it but everything else he def said (“what was she expecting”, “wearing a nightie”, “what if a woman turns up to your hotel naked” & other justifications.)

         sorry if this reply comes up twice, having some problems replying here.
         • idlegus 2.2.1.1.1

           4 October 2012 at 9:21 pm

           http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio.aspx from 1;30 onwards.
           • Tangled up in blue 2.2.1.1.1.1

             5 October 2012 at 2:43 pm

             Thanks. To me that came across as Willie speaking from the context of OJ’s aggressive defense team had they represented Tyson.
   • AsleepWalking 2.3

     4 October 2012 at 8:02 pm

     He has turned his life around when he uses his fame to speak out against sexual violence, and he makes sizeable donations to rape organisations around the world.

     Serving time and becoming a vegan hardly qualifies as “turning your life around” but I’m sure those around him are glad their ears and small children are relatively safe now.
     • weka 2.3.1

       4 October 2012 at 9:00 pm

       +1
   • weka 2.4

     4 October 2012 at 9:04 pm

     “He’s a good role model not because of what he was (his past actions are terrible) but because of how he has turned his life around.”

     Even if he had turned his own life around (which he hasn’t), unless he makes amends to his victim he shouldn’t get a second chance, and all other ways in which he might be a good role model are negated. 
3. Jokerman 3

   4 October 2012 at 8:04 pm

   ” show me the money” !

   Thus were they stained with their own works: and went a whoring with their own inventions.
   -Book of Common Prayer, Ps 106:38

   (personally, i was “Bad” too)

   🙂
4. AsleepWalking 4

   4 October 2012 at 8:07 pm

   Surprised you didn’t comment on Tyson’s meathead manager on the news last night. Urgh. What a smug bastard he is assuming that Kate Wilkinson would just roll over again…sorry about the pun.

   Watch it if you want to get pissed off. http://www.3news.co.nz/Mike-Tysons-visa-cancelled/tabid/418/articleID/271306/Default.aspx
   • QoT 4.1

     4 October 2012 at 8:55 pm

     That’s most likely because I avoid the TV news where possible, AW.
5. BM 5

   4 October 2012 at 8:26 pm

   The Tyson rape case was always a bit suss.
   I remember at the time, the so called victim said she wouldn’t have pressed charges if Tyson had just apologised.
   Any woman who was genuinely raped wouldn’t just brush it off with an apology.

   There was also the fact that this woman had made false rape allegations before, personally I think the guy got railroaded.
   • QoT 5.1

     4 October 2012 at 8:47 pm

     Any woman who was genuinely raped wouldn’t just brush it off with an apology.

     Guess what, BM, you don’t get to speak for the reactions of every single individual on the planet.

     And we’re still talking about someone with, as GregJ has pointed out, a continued history since serving time for rape, of violence and sexually violent language. So I’m sure you’re totally right, he’s gentle as a kitten and could never hurt anyone.
     • BM 5.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 8:55 pm

       On a positive he’s one of the best boxers the world has ever seen, his hand speed and power was out of this world.
       One of the only boxers I’ve seen that was quick enough to make up his punching combinations on the fly, the guy had the reactions of a cat.
       • QoT 5.1.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 8:56 pm

         Well, you’re right again, that totally means he should get an exemption from obeying NZ law.
       • BloodyOrphan 5.1.1.2

         4 October 2012 at 9:03 pm

         So why’d he bite someones ear off bud?
         • Urban Rascal 5.1.1.2.1

           5 October 2012 at 11:31 am

           He saw red reacting to Hollyfield’s headbutting in the previous fight and three headbuts in the ear biting follow up match.

           In the fight Tyson can be seen calling on the ref to sort out the headbutting but was ignored.
           This was a fight that Tyson was only in for the money, his drug habit had all but destroyed his finances and he had no intention of boxing again. Which gives atleast an understanding why he reacted the way he did. In his eyes Hollyfield was a persistent dirty fighter, the ref wasn’t following the rules and he had nothing to lose.

           Through his later career Tyson made a habit of being as animalistic and domineering in his persona as possible, I think that the drugs had a particular effect on his personality (possibly developed a disorder). Especially if you see interviews before his manager passed away.

           But his documentary is one of the most interesting I’ve seen showing the conflicted life he’s lived. Going from Standover thug – the worlds greatest boxer – criminal – druggie – reform.

           I can’t say I disagree with following the rules, but I think alot of people could benefit from seeing his talk. And personally I support him in his road to redemption.
           • BloodyOrphan 5.1.1.2.1.1

             5 October 2012 at 2:59 pm

             He’s not a role model I’d want anyone too see on stage.

             I remember those fights and Tyson spent most of his time looking at the ground, so it was a ploy at best.

             There’s no reform in bragging about street fighting, which is still a big part of his promo.

             He’d be off too the pub afterwards?, dinner and wine?, do we want his attitude on our streets?
             They’d be better off with Tua or Cameron in my opinion, good civilised boxers.
   • Chris Miller 5.2

     4 October 2012 at 9:08 pm

     Are you a woman who’s been raped before?

     Many women who’ve been raped would brush it off with an apology. That’s because the justice system is fucked up. Going to the police can be just as traumatising as the original rape.
     • QoT 5.2.1

       4 October 2012 at 9:17 pm

       +1

       Not to mention how often we’re told “oh, the rapist just didn’t realise she wasn’t into it” or “oh but they were drunk, they didn’t mean to” or how our society basically conspires to convince women that it wasn’t “really” rape and probably her fault anyway.
   • Jackal 5.3

     4 October 2012 at 9:48 pm

     What a load of bullshit BM.

     Desiree Washington never said an apology would make it OK, with Tyson’s own chauffeur and the physician who examined her the next day corroborating her side of events. Dr. Thomas Richardson testified that Washington’s wounds were consistent with those caused during rape and were unlikely to have been inflicted any other way.

     Tyson wasn’t just convicted of rape, he was convicted for two counts of criminal deviant conduct as well. To even consider him viable to come to New Zealand because of his celebrity status is ludicrous! Even with letter’s of support, Wilkinson looks rather stupid in granting the visa in the first place.

     The Immigration Act 2009 (PDF) states:

     Excluded persons

     15 Certain convicted or deported persons not eligible for visa or entry permission to enter or be in New Zealand

     (1) No visa or entry permission may be granted, and no visa waiver may apply, to any person—
     (a) who, at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this section), has been convicted of an offence for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more, or for an indeterminate period capable of running for 5 years or more.

     The only reason a special direction by the Minister can be made in such cases is if the applicant is needed for criminal proceedings here. Special dispensation can apply unless any other provision in the Act expressly says otherwise, which section 15 (1)(a) clearly does.

     Therefore Tyson shouldn’t have been given a visa in the first place. You cannot ignore the law just because Tyson, a convicted rapist, wants to tour the motivational speaking circuit to make some cash, presumably because he’s now a washed up boxer destined for the scrap heap.

     It’s another instance of ignorance of the law by a National MP… But what else is new?
6. Colonial Viper 6

   4 October 2012 at 9:41 pm

   20+ years after you badly screw up, served the time that society and the justice system demanded, had your career implode, got made (and rightly so) a global object of ridicule, you still better not use unapproved or sexist language because that will simply prove that you are basically still sexually violent and rotten to the core as the day you went to prison.

   After all even if you die at 100 years old, you’re still nothing more than a 100 year old rapist.
   • McFlock 6.1

     4 October 2012 at 10:01 pm

     Petty much.
          
     If you rape someone, continue denying the offending for 20-odd years, get a drug conviction in the meantime, but claim you’re a pacifist vegan… yeah, that’s what immigration controls are for.
   • QoT 6.2

     4 October 2012 at 10:22 pm

     Bullshit, CV. All it shows is that, at the very least, you are completely un-conscious of how fucking inappropriate that kind of thing is, especially for a person with your past. And, therefore, probably at least a bit of a tool, if not someone who by your own words still has no problem with sexual violence.

     But please, do try to completely mischaracterise my post, which is actually about the rhetoric around “second chances” and the contemptibility that being rich and famous means you get a pass for your actions which other people wouldn’t.

     Why is it okay for all the other convicted-rapists-turned-vegans to be eternally judged by their actions but not Mike Tyson?
     • Colonial Viper 6.2.1

       4 October 2012 at 11:51 pm

       Its a simple principle of justice even for you to grasp: criminals who have done their time and punishment as required by their society and the laws of the land they live in should be permitted to rejoin society in peace to continue their lives productively. Without having to meet your standards for nice language, turning into an angel, etc.

       Why is it okay for all the other convicted-rapists-turned-vegans to be eternally judged by their actions but not Mike Tyson?

       Eternal Judgement is for God, or for the Universe, QoT. Not for you.

       All it shows is that, at the very least, you are completely un-conscious of how fucking inappropriate that kind of thing is, especially for a person with your past. And, therefore, probably at least a bit of a tool, if not someone who by your own words still has no problem with sexual violence.

       You deem me “unconscious”? So what the fuck are you, “enlightened”? Prey tell, did someone certify you with this or did you just certify yourself?

       And what exactly do you mean “especially for a person with my past”? Nice bit of character assassination there. You got a shiny clear past I guess, unlike the rest of us. Comes with the territory of being the High Priestess exercising Eternal Judgement over others, right?

       But of course, that’s what you do best when you take on the mantle of High Priestess. All I can really say in response is FUCK OFF you don’t have holy writ despite what stars you might think you were born under.
       • McFlock 6.2.1.1

         5 October 2012 at 12:18 am

         “Rejoin society”?
            
         Since when was Tyson a kiwi? 
         • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1

           5 October 2012 at 12:21 am

           Tyson needs to obey the laws of the land mate, regardless of which land he is in. If as a convicted criminal, he is not permitted into NZ according to our law, he should not be allowed in.

           (I never suggested that he should be btw).
           • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1.1

             5 October 2012 at 12:28 am

             Ok, so you’re not talking about Tyson. Just some hypothetical guy who committed a rape 20 years ago.
                  
             In that case,yeah, I have no problem with your rapist rejoining society after doing his time. But if he still spouts the same attitudes, denies his offending and does other shit in the meantime, do you think he should be held up as an inspirational example for others? Hell, I wouldn’t even go to his store or watch a programme he fronted, let alone encourage schoolkids to copy his example.
                  
             Or are you talking about someone who owns their offending, stays legal, and preaches peace and understanding? 
             • Colonial Viper …

               5 October 2012 at 12:35 am

               In that case,yeah, I have no problem with your rapist rejoining society after doing his time. But if he still spouts the same attitudes, denies his offending and does other shit in the meantime, do you think he should be held up as an inspirational example for others?

               The guy was a terrifying and spectacular boxer. People I know who train still love watching his fights. But where did I even suggest that the bastard was an “inspirational example for others”??? I simply said that he’s done his time and his punishment.
               • McFlock …

                 5 October 2012 at 12:41 am

                 He’s done his time and his punishment. Rejoined his society. Seems to be prospering. So… what was your point again?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   5 October 2012 at 12:43 am

                   Hmmm? No point. Just pressing random keys occasionally forms whole sentences by chance.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 October 2012 at 12:45 am

                     Didn’t think so. Bate thy rage, bate thy manly rage…
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 October 2012 at 12:47 am

                     I really didn’t want to be the one to point this out to you, but “rage” should never be qualified with a gender descriptor because women can excel and achieve at rage just the same as a man can.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 October 2012 at 12:51 am

                     Shakespeare. Henry V.
                        
                     Seemed strangely appropriate. 
                          
                     Although “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interr’d with their bones” could be equally valid. 
                          
                     Gotta love the Bard, but that’s another thread. 
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 October 2012 at 12:53 am

                     You can’t be quoting the bard mate. That shit is full of outdated, sexist, gender biased language from another century. If it is to be taught in schools, it must always be from gender neutral editions.

                     But yeah, it is good stuff.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 October 2012 at 1:03 am

                     One of the nice things about Shakespeare is that most of his characters had well-developed points of view, so portrayals say more about the cast and directors than they do about the play. For example, Shylock can be a conniving Jew or a maligned figure of tragic pathos. Othello similarly. Female characters are frequently smarter than all the male characters put together (Portia comes to mind). 
                           
                     But I think your parodied critique of his works shows more an ignorance of gender politics than the plays themselves (never really read the sonnets). 
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 October 2012 at 1:18 am

                     shows more an ignorance of gender politics than the plays themselves (never really read the sonnets).

                     Yes, I suppose only a few qualified people with the right attitudes can participate in such a discussion. Sorry.

                     As an aside, in the real world yesterday, I was discussing a hypothetical situation involving a (male dominated) profession. Some smart ass piped up and criticised me for using the pronoun “he” instead of “she”, apparently because there were now a few females in the industry.

                     IMO it’s they who were ignorant of gender politics mate.

                     btw they didn’t impress anyone, as their interjection basically fucked the conversation.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 October 2012 at 1:24 am

                     Were you talking about a specific individual, or stuff like “each worker should ensure he does x”?
                                 
                     It’s not too difficult to use inclusive language, which is probably the point they were trying to express. And it might mean that better workers stay longer if they happen to be in an excluded group.  
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 October 2012 at 1:29 am

                     It’s not too difficult to use inclusive language, which is probably the point they were trying to express.

                     I was slightly tempted to make exactly the same point about the Bard, but thought better of it as it might reveal some ignorance of gender politics.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 October 2012 at 1:34 am

                     Apart from the fact that he was writing 400 years ago, not talking in plain language yesterday.
                            
                     And indeed, quoting him [vaguely] correctly has stimulated a discussion on inclusive language, rather than being a mere discarded comment.
                        
                     And so to bed. 
       • QoT 6.2.1.2

         5 October 2012 at 5:41 pm

         Oh for fuck’s sake, CV, it was the editorial “you” referring to Mike Tyson, not you personally, and frankly if you weren’t so fucking determined to read everything I write about rape as a blanket statement of misandry you’d have understood that.
7. muzza 7

   4 October 2012 at 10:04 pm

   Here we go again….just waiting for the Assange debate to fire up again FFS.

   Mike Tyson is possibly one of the most interesting minds one could end up in a conversation with.

   You’re talking about a guy, who grew up in a violent world you have no idea about, who became the youngest heavyweight world champion in history, of a violent, corrupted sport, who was then exploited throughout his career, and adult life, ongoing even now.

   Tyson is a victim of how this world (post cus d’amato, or possibly even including), will pray on a kid, exploit him, and spit him out, only to try rinse some more out of him when he is no longer of real use…

   Could Tyson be a positive role model, absolutely he could be, is he a role model, maybe, maybe not. I don’t pretend to have enough information to judge whether or not he might be reformed, seemingly the author does!

   Chris Brown, Rihanna, both victims of sorts to exploitation by the entertainment industry which peddle them just like a dealer peddles crack – Hey but its all glamourous right, these kids have got nothing to worry about, nothing bad every happens in hollywood…

   Tony Veitch, yeah well, that probably more closely represents a side of our country which people want to sweep under the mat, but needs to be brought out into the open, as a relevant example of our rotten society.

   Do any of the above deserve a “second chance” – Well I guess that depends on whether or not you like putting the boot into those who are victims, by exploiting them even further! – (not applying this comment to Veitch,)

   This article could have been much better, if only it had some substance!
   • QoT 7.1

     4 October 2012 at 10:27 pm

     Seeing as there’s hardly an outpouring of “give Assange a second chance” rhetoric muzza, I kinda fail to see how it’s relevant.

     And I’m going to keep asking this: is Mike Tyson seriously the only person from an abusive background who achieved some “good” things (because being from a violent background and then becoming a world champ in a specific type of violence is apparently a redeeming feature), did some terrible things, and then claims to have “reformed” (while still denying the crime he was convicted of) in the world?

     Why does he get the pass that no one else gets?

     Why aren’t volunteers from the Life Education Trust out writing letters for all the convicted rapists-turned-vegans out there who can’t get visas into NZ?
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       5 October 2012 at 12:09 am

       Why does he get the pass that no one else gets?

       Clearly because its, as you contend, a world run for ROWD’s by ROWD’s. (Rich Old White Dudes).

       And Tyson fits perfectly. Well 50%. Close enough.

       Why does he get the pass that no one else gets?

       Evidence please. Evidence backing your assertion that no other rapists-turned-vegans apart from Tyson have ever got passes. Coz otherwise you’re just making convenient shit up.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

         5 October 2012 at 12:28 am

         Oh yeah, since It was Kate Wilkinson who gave the OK to Tyson, I suppose you would Eternally Judge her as just another incompetent, easily led (and unconscious) woman in the ROWD machine taking her orders from ROWD’s right?
       • QoT 7.1.1.2

         5 October 2012 at 5:42 pm

         Oh shit, this news just breaking: people who don’t tick every box of privilege can still have privilege, and there’s a whole bunch of interesting thought around why it’s a lot easier for men of colour to gain celebrity in physical pursuits, but hey, ignore that because you want to paint me as a scary man-hater.
     • muzza 7.1.2

       5 October 2012 at 7:38 am

       And I’m going to keep asking this: is Mike Tyson seriously the only person from an abusive background who achieved some “good” things (because being from a violent background and then becoming a world champ in a specific type of violence is apparently a redeeming feature),

       Im not saying he did good things, my contention was simply that MT was/is a victim. Becoming a world champion boxer only served to heighten the risk he was under to exploitation, and we can see how this has worked out for him. I would not call being world champ a redeeming feature of any sort myself, it was exploitation which combined with his natural talent which him there.

       did some terrible things, and then claims to have “reformed” (while still denying the crime he was convicted of) in the world?

       Perhaps he didn’t do it, which is why he continues to deny, ever thought of that? I would not pretend to be to 100% certain he did, or did not! How can anything which happens around a world of criminality, “wealth”, corruption and exploitation, actually be possible to be certain about? Yes he is convicted, but still denys it, perhaps there is good reason for that!

       Why does he get the pass that no one else gets?

       I think you will find he gets a similar “pass” as many other (in)famous people who are controlled buy those who seek to exploit.
       • marty mars 7.1.2.1

         5 October 2012 at 9:32 am

         The conspiracy lense distorts as much as the celebrity lense muzza. Perhaps this perhaps that – that seems a neverending inward spiral to me.
8. Fish without a bicycle 8

   4 October 2012 at 10:32 pm

   Great article QoT YES – to show true remorse and a reformed character means standing up and saying what you did was absolutely wrong and making reparations. Just getting on with your life is not enough.
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 8.1

     5 October 2012 at 6:17 am

     saying what you did was absolutely wrong and making reparations

     +1 …and then, maybe, just maybe, you might be eligible for a “second chance”. Until then, not so much.
     • muzza 8.1.1

       5 October 2012 at 7:41 am

       Unless of course he didn’t actually do it…
       • McFlock 8.1.1.1

         5 October 2012 at 2:47 pm

         That’s why we have courts. Imperfect they may be, but they do shorten the odds somewhat. 
       • QoT 8.1.1.2

         5 October 2012 at 5:43 pm

         The odds on that are, shall we say … interesting.
9. gobsmacked 9

   4 October 2012 at 10:42 pm

   Willie Jackson’s comments are disgusting.

   If anybody doubts how offensive he was, they only need to listen to the Radio Live audio.

   It’s also offensive that Jackson is a self-appointed spokesman for “our people” in “South Auckland”. He is welcome to stand for office again (and lose again), but of course he prefers the comfort of talkback, unelected and unchallenged. He doesn’t represent Maori or South Auckland – he only misrepresents them. He is free to be an obnoxious apologist for rape, but he’s not entitled to claim that he speaks for anybody except himself.
   • marty mars 9.1

     5 October 2012 at 9:35 am

     + 1 – I get fucked off by that too.
   • joe90 9.2

     5 October 2012 at 11:21 am

     + 1

     What really irks me is that Jackson, who has done so bloody well for himself and his family and, in the past, those he’s represented, seems to be blissfully unaware that he’s throwing away his credibility from atop.
     • Jokerman 9.2.1

       5 October 2012 at 4:44 pm

       Yep.
10. BloodyOrphan 10

    4 October 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Bloody DeJaVu on this one, but good call to reject him,
    Last thing we need is him gettin into a street fight over here.
    Denial is not something you put on a pedestal.
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    5 October 2012 at 8:37 am

    Fark.

    “On a positive he’s one of the best boxers the world has ever seen, his hand speed and power was out of this world.”

    Lennox Lewis fucking schooled him when Tyson should have been in his prime as a fighter. He got beaten up because he was a one trick pony.

    Yeah, he came through the ranks brutally fast and knocked out a lot of good boxers. He hit hard and fast. But he was street brawler.

    “one of the best boxers the world has ever seen” my arse.

    Watch the Lewis fight.

    Other than that, what QoT said.

    Giving him points for ‘turning his life around’ is crap. He is in a position where turning his life around is easy compared to most other people with his past, and he hasn’t done a particularly stellar job at it.
12. Treetop 12

    5 October 2012 at 11:39 am

    A challenging childhood is no excuse for having a rape conviction.

    When it comes to a second chance admitting what you have done is taking responsibility for what you have done. It is then up to an individual on whether or not they have anything to do with you.

    Does having a conviction for rape make a person a rapist?

    I have strong personal views about rape because of the immense psychological and emotional damage it causes and that it is a serious criminal offence.
13. Jokerman 13

    5 October 2012 at 4:50 pm

    personal anecdote.
    ” troubled childhood, outlaw biker, never struck a woman, or forced myself on one that was not on board”
    personally, never understood the appeal of rape. (it would be here that I would curse rapists) but “losers” will have to suffice.
14. Jokerman 14

    5 October 2012 at 5:00 pm

    furthermore, the Jackson 5?
    Veitch-LOSER
15. captain hook 15

    5 October 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Is Tyson a nice guy?
    Does New Zealand need another rightwing spieler talking nonsense about “choice” and peddling their neo-lib drivel?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS