Tony Veitch and the power of redemption

Written By: - Date published: 8:40 am, October 21st, 2015 - 124 comments
Categories: crime, Media, radio, Social issues, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , ,

There has been some social media chatter about recent comments by broadcaster Tony Veitch.  Six years ago he was sentenced to nine month’s supervision, a $10,000 fine and ordered to perform 300 hours community service after pleading guilty to injuring with reckless disregard his former partner.

The contents of the police file are chilling.  Please note that many of the allegations were not tested.  But it does appear that the complainant had her back broken by the assault which he pleaded guilty to.  Clearly the level of violence was high.

The recent eruption occurred after Veitch shared a post on Facebook showing Welsh referee Nigel Owens with the words: “Not a punch just a push of the fist”, referring to an incident in the recent All Blacks v France game. Veitch added the comment “Haha still don’t get it…”

There was apparently some negative response to the joke which I have not read.  Veitch then posted this comment.

Tony Veitch facebook comment

The lack of sensitivity and personal insight is utterly appalling.

Chloe Ann King posted  this perfectly weighted response on Veitch’s Facebook page (h/t Paul):

Hey dude I guess some people are just utterly bewildered by your lack of personal insight and ability to reflect? You broke your partners back in four places and still, you have done no work to give back to places like women’s refuge or in anyway indicated you are remorseful. In fact you are making out, as if, you are the victim. You aren’t. You are a violent offender who got away with his crimes and have faced almost no consequences. What message do you think this sends to the public? And if a bit of verbal abuse is upsetting you maybe you could take some time to think about how it must have felt for Dunne-Powell when you hit and abused her? There is no courage in what you have done. You have no mana.

Green MP Marama Davidson had this response:

Allowing abusers with violent pasts to rebuild their lives, to honestly and deeply own what they did, to be forgiven by themselves and their victims, and to humbly rebuild their lives and commit to non-violent futures is essential in healing our country of the appalling rate of domestic violence.

Your comment Veitch shows none of this. None. You are NOT a victim here. You really aren’t.

Bomber Bradbury has posted on the issue.  Generally he talks about the need to protect the right to freedom of speech although he says that victims of social media pile ups should then try to understand why it has occurred and the cause of that anger.  Fair enough.

But he launches into this weird attack on Stephanie Rodgers and uses a six week old tweet as evidence.  He insults her competence and describes her as a failure.

For the record Stephanie still has a logon for the Standard and her posts are welcome.  Also for the record in my view she is one of the most talented political bloggers in the country and is capable of analysing and dissecting issues, particularly issues involving gender, in a way that few others are able to.

Clearly previous events have caused disagreement between Stephanie and Bomber.  But like Veitch perhaps Bradbury should try to understand what has occurred before attacking.

124 comments on “Tony Veitch and the power of redemption ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    21 October 2015 at 8:50 am

    Bradbury got given 4.5 million chances by Kim Dotcom to prove he was anything more than a delusional blowhard who gets the time right twice a day. He failed; so see ya later bro.

    As for Veitch, his big problem is his continual insistence at portraying himself as the victim because of the consequences of his assault. As it turns out, he hasn’t suffered many consequences at all – the obsequious slimeball still has a prime time radio show. But somehow, being reminded of his crime, and being taken to task for his utter lack of remorse beyond self-pity, makes him a victim. Go figure.

    • Ross 1.1
      21 October 2015 at 10:42 am

      I don’t see any evidence of Veitch portraying himself as a victim.

      He’s saying he’s received plenty of abuse. I’d like to think nobody is excusing that. Nobody gets to say it’s OK to abuse someone. Those that are attacking Veitch seem to be missing this point.

      • maui 1.1.1
        21 October 2015 at 11:12 am

        Berlusconi and Cairns are advertising for cheerleaders, maybe you want to apply?

      • McFlock 1.1.2
        21 October 2015 at 12:48 pm

        Since when is the truth “abuse”?

      • Anno1701 1.1.3
        21 October 2015 at 1:04 pm

        IMO there are plenty of situations when it is MORE than OK to abuse someone…

        this may well be one of them !

        • Ross 1.1.3.1
          21 October 2015 at 5:48 pm

          According to the head of Netsafe, some comments directed at Veitch constitute abuse and could constitute cyber bullying. It’s ironic that nobody here wants Veitch to be a victim but that is exactly what he is becoming.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/73226311/is-the-backlash-to-tony-veitchs-facebook-comments-cyberbullying

          • McFlock 1.1.3.1.1
            21 October 2015 at 6:00 pm

            He doesn’t actually say what the problem is.

            What comments? I doubt any of the quotes in the article come close. Telling the truth when it is relevant doesn’t really seem all that abusive, to me.

            • Ross 1.1.3.1.1.1
              21 October 2015 at 6:37 pm

              I presume the comments on Veitch’s facebook page.

              • McFlock …
                21 October 2015 at 10:37 pm

                Ah. So you’re taking it on faith.

                • Ross …
                  22 October 2015 at 9:48 am

                  Well, there’s been more than 2000 comments there, so yeah I’m assuming that some are beyond the pale. The fact that the head of Netsafe has mentioned abuse and cyber bullying should be a strong indication that some commenters have over-stepped the mark.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    22 October 2015 at 10:42 am

                    The abusive bullying started up immediately. It was aimed at those who made observations about Veitch’s behaviour, and it was authored by his “fans”.

                    So there you go.

                    • Ross …
                      22 October 2015 at 1:33 pm

                      I’m sure there has been fault on both sides.

                      I’d have thought that with over 2000 comments, most would not be supportive of Veitch.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 October 2015 at 1:36 pm

                      I suggest you read the selection published by Women’s Refuge before you go pretending some sort of equivalence.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 October 2015 at 12:23 pm

                      So assuming that there has been “fault on both sides”, not just the examples from “Veitchy” supporters that have been collated by WR, the question remains as to why netsafe is worried about the feelings of a partner-basher and not the women who have been threatened online for simply telling the truth about his past.

      • Grindlebottom 1.1.4
        21 October 2015 at 1:20 pm

        I don’t see any evidence of Veitch portraying himself as a victim.

        Look again:

        “I have worked my ass off to re build my life and career and learn from what was a hideous relationship!”

        To me, that implies, “it was her fault”.

        • JeevesPOnzi 1.1.4.1
          21 October 2015 at 3:18 pm

          BS- it implies nothing of the sort. It was a hideous relationship and she may well have been the main protagonist in its hideousness, or not. He was violent to her and that’s wrong, but for too long people have decided that if a man hits a woman somehow its more wrong than a man hitting a man. If I was being a complete public a-hole and a guy punched me- do you think everyone would gather around me and say “What an animal! He had NO RIGHT to do that to you”…

          No, they wouldn’t.

          Don’t hit anybody, ever.

          I am reminded of the Aussie comedian who said:

          “Don’t tell me there’s never a reason to hit a woman… I can think of 17 right off the bat.
          Sh*t you could wake me from a coma and I could reel off nine!”

          • McFlock 1.1.4.1.1
            21 October 2015 at 3:44 pm

            Some people would.

            But if a young bodybuilder beat up an old man then most people would say exactly that, even if the old man had been “the main protagonist”. Because relative power in the confrontation counts too. Especially if it’s someone you claim to care about.

            As for the rest of your comment… dissonant much?

          • Tracey 1.1.4.1.2
            21 October 2015 at 4:45 pm

            broke her back …

        • Ross 1.1.4.2
          21 October 2015 at 4:10 pm

          Well, it doesn’t imply that to me. It implies he’s worked hard to make himself a better person. Maybe he could have said “dysfunctional relationship” but then there’d be those reading certain things into it.

          Personally I think there’s a lot of faux outrage when you consider that Veitch was commenting on a game of rugby.

          • Grindlebottom 1.1.4.2.1
            21 October 2015 at 4:28 pm

            I got no sympathy for him mate. Never have had.

          • Tracey 1.1.4.2.2
            21 October 2015 at 4:47 pm

            worked hard to get his old life back after breaking a womans back in anger. no evidence in his words he has become a better person…

            otherwise he woukd have written that he had worked hard to address his anger issues to ensure he never inflicted that kind of harm on any person again. but he didnt.

            • Ross 1.1.4.2.2.1
              21 October 2015 at 5:45 pm

              You mean every time he makes a public comment he ought to talk about his previous relationship? His wife might feel just slightly uneasy about that.

              • Tracey …
                21 October 2015 at 5:52 pm

                when he talks about not understanding how a push isnt a punch he needs to understand that while the irony is beyond his ability to self reflect others wont miss it.

                • Ross …
                  21 October 2015 at 5:58 pm

                  As the head of Netsafe says, some of the comments directed at him constitute abuse and may constitute cyber bullying. Why would anyone give him the chance to be the victim?

                  If he’s so despicable, why give him the time of day?

                  “Cocker said people had the right to express their opinion online but when it crossed into abuse, it meant other’s rights were being impinged upon.

                  He was worried important issues, such as domestic violence, weren’t being given a fair discourse because of poor internet behaviour.

                  ‘It’s a really serious topic, it needs public debate and does need to be publicly discussed, and social media provides opportunity but the use of abuse and harassment shuts down that debate.'”

                  • McFlock …
                    21 October 2015 at 6:04 pm

                    Don’t we have a law against that now?

                    Although there’s always the chance that someone could be charged with making half a dozen really abusive comments and their lawyer gets a deal to plead guilty to one relatively minor tweet…

                  • Tracey …
                    22 October 2015 at 10:48 am

                    I am NOT condoning the abuse of Veitch.

                    I am observing that he has over 100,000 “followers’, that he has a sports show on radio, that gives him influence, whether you and I think he should or not. He therefore either chooses his words more carefully, or sucks up the responses it provokes.

                    There is also the irony of his job on radio seemingly requiring him to make snap and sometimes unfounded judgments about sports people. he has a button he can push to stop push back on the radio.

                    Mostly, it is revealing, not just what he wrote, but how he got angry quite quickly about people pushing back, and how he lashed back by threatening deletions and displaying petulance. Not a big sign of the development of self awareness or anger management.

                    • Ross …
                      22 October 2015 at 1:38 pm

                      Well, yes he has quite a few followers the number of which he has no control over.

                      As for choosing words more carefully, that applies to everyone. You’ll recall that he commented on a rugby matter. Some people seemed to think that gave them the right to abuse him over a totally unrelated matter. It didn’t.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 October 2015 at 1:43 pm

                      In fact, it’s easy to delete comments from your Facebook feed. So much for having no control.

              • McFlock …
                21 October 2015 at 5:54 pm

                ffs, he should at least have the self-awareness to avoid jokes about what constitutes a punch.

                If people want an example of how to do it genuinely and in a manner that regains one much of the respect one had previously lost, George Wallace comes to mind.

          • dukeofurl 1.1.4.2.3
            22 October 2015 at 4:41 pm

            A Game of rugby? So it was about the style of play, or the tries or any other of the details of the game.

            OH NO. Its about interpretation of comments about an act of violence during the game. The referee ruled it wasnt violence and more like he fell into my fist.
            And Veitch comments called that into question, which got some responses regarding his personal situation.
            It was a long way from rugby to start talking about his new life away from something ‘hideous’

      • Tracey 1.1.5
        21 October 2015 at 4:44 pm

        he noted be had rebuilt his life after a hilorrendous relationship. reads like he feels like a victim rather than a person who chose to break someones back rather than walk away.

      • Morrissey 1.1.6
        21 October 2015 at 8:42 pm

        I don’t see any evidence of Veitch portraying himself as a victim.

        Open your eyes then.

  2. Sabine 2
    21 October 2015 at 9:10 am

    look clearly the only one responsible for the ‘hideous’ relation ship is the one who has had the stupid idea of having her back broken a few times. Why did she put herself in under his feet and in front of his fists. Why did she ask for it. Why did she stay. And do’t you know that domestic violence is as Kiwi as is aBQQ for Christmas and piss at 5 am to watch a rugby game.

    • Anno1701 2.1
      21 October 2015 at 1:07 pm

      just violence full stop is a large part of kiwi culture IMO

      be it in the home , on the field or on the roads, Physical, economic or spiritual we appear to love a bit of it..

  3. Shore Thing 3
    21 October 2015 at 9:16 am

    Tony Veitch is a disgusting symptom of upper class white male entitlement. He is the dark side of every Grammar Boy bully and every fading jock who sits in the boardroom seething about his diminishing libido.

    Bomber Bradbury is a bitter and narcissistic perma-student who sees the last of his limited relevance disappearing in the distance and he blames those younger and more useful than himself.

    Twin sides of male entitlement.

  4. vto 4
    21 October 2015 at 9:18 am

    oh the world of knee jerks and assumptions and talking past each other

    the planet continues to turn

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5
    21 October 2015 at 9:19 am

    It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that Veitch escaped harsher sanction for his admitted offending as a result of his status, I wonder whether his lawyers argued that the loss of that status was punishment enough.

    I also wonder whether his recent behaviour shows that he failed the court ordered course he attended.

    Bradbury’s attempt to exploit Veitch’s behaviour to attack Stephanie Rodgers is all class 🙄

    • nadis 5.1
      21 October 2015 at 9:54 am

      Favourable outcome is probably more due to his ability to hire better lawyers than most violent offenders can.

  6. Al66 6
    21 October 2015 at 9:22 am

    Just another moron with either minimal insight (low intelligence) or attempting to minimise or normalise his CLEARLY VIOLENT behaviour. The fact he appeared surprised charges were laid at all is testament to his mindset that his actions were acceptable. The fact the Police dropped the charges suggests they also are partially culpable. How anyone could trust the accuracy of any of his comments is highly questionable. He would make a good National candidate in the current political environment!

    • nadis 6.1
      21 October 2015 at 9:58 am

      AI66 – you are wrong, police didn’t drop charges. i don’t see why you blame them for what Veitch did.

      Veitch pleaded guilty to the most serious charge that police and prosecutors took to court.

      • McFlock 6.1.1
        21 October 2015 at 12:54 pm

        that police and prosecutors took to court

        Yes. That’s the point. Except “most serious” was “only”, and the only one they took to court was one of the most minor of the seven that he’d originally been charged with.

        Expensive lawyer promising drawn-out defence = plea deal

  7. Psycho Milt 7
    21 October 2015 at 9:25 am

    His truculent inability to recognise that perhaps he isn’t the victim of an unjustified campaign of persecution would be comical if the subject matter weren’t so serious. He comes across like a character invented by Rik Mayall for a comedy act.

  8. Ad 8
    21 October 2015 at 9:28 am

    Stephanie will take that as a badge of honour from that guy. The Left’s very own digital bully.

    Through her union work and beyond, Stephanie Rodgers does more good for the left’s cause than Martyn Bradbury has ever done in his life.

    The point is, people like Stephanie keep going. They keep calling it.
    And so long as she’s supported, she always will.

    • Karen 8.1
      21 October 2015 at 9:52 am

      +1 Ad

    • mickysavage 8.2
      21 October 2015 at 9:53 am

      Agreed.

    • lprent 8.3
      21 October 2015 at 12:16 pm

      Ditto.

      For the record – I probably wind up disagreeing with Stephanie even more than I disagree with Bomber. But it is about things that aren’t particularly ideological. From my viewpoint they are more about operational issues rather than anything else.

      But I’m a hard headed stubborn old cynical codger with very limited time and patience, sarcastic tendencies, and a strong tendency to not turn the other cheek. Actually I am far more inclined towards verbally parting a different set of cheeks with the toe of my boot – as Bomber found out. But I’ve never had to get close to that stage with Stephanie. She deals with it in kind and without getting into it.

      Many people tend to run into my skepticism frequently, especially when it comes to operations on this site of volunteers. Needless to say Stephanie and I have always had clashes about we respectively feel is important to expend effort on. But those things aren’t important in the overall scheme of things. They are just people disagreeing about the importance of various tactics and strategies.

      For the record Stephanie still has a logon for the Standard and her posts are welcome. Also for the record in my view she is one of the most talented political bloggers in the country and is capable of analysing and dissecting issues, particularly issues involving gender, in a way that few others are able to.

      Exactly. People come and go as authors, moderators, and admins here, as much due to burnout as anything else. But, with one exception, I don’t remove logins. They just revert to author after a few years. The biggest problem is authors remembering what their password was.

  9. marty mars 9
    21 October 2015 at 9:31 am

    veitch has dull eyes – and his lack of insight into his own offending is chilling.

  10. ianmac 10
    21 October 2015 at 9:37 am

    To be fair the “victim” was wheelchaired a few hours later to the hospital exit as most patients are, then walked to her ride home. In spite of “having her back broken in four places.” Not excusing violence against a woman but the facts have to be true.

    • Karen 10.1
      21 October 2015 at 9:54 am

      Really Ianmac?
      I’d have expected better from you.

    • Ad 10.2
      21 October 2015 at 9:55 am

      What exactly is your point about Veitch’s conviction in law?

      What also is the relevance of your comment to the post?

      • Anne 10.2.1
        21 October 2015 at 10:16 am

        I think ianmac was pointing out that he abused her (which is a serious offence as anyone who has been abused would testify to), but the extent of her actual [physical] injuries weren’t as serious as has been promulgated.

        I think that is the aspect Veitch himself has probably clung to… but all it did was cloud his judgement over the seriousness of the fact he abused her. I’m not defending the bastard – having had personal experience of the mental trauma abuse (in all its various forms) can have on a victim.

        • dukeofurl 10.2.1.1
          21 October 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Even so this is the really really nasty bit:

          “Ms Dunne-Powell pleaded with Veitch to call an ambulance but he said “I’m not having an ambulance come to this house.”
          But the show must go on:

          “He eventually took her to the Auckland Emergency Department at 4am, leaving her there at 6am due to work commitments.

    • weka 10.3
      21 October 2015 at 9:59 am

      how do you know that ian? Do you know what diagnosis and prognosis she had? Long term effects? Lots of people have damage to their bodies that aren’t visible to those passing by.

      • ianmac 10.3.1
        21 October 2015 at 10:19 am

        It is true that Veitch assaulted the woman. For that he was rightly punished but the original accusation like broken back in 4 places was not substantiated.
        I am not defending Veitch just pointing out that exaggeration is not fair to anyone. It is used to make the assault seem worse than it may have been.
        I support totally “That it Not Alright.”

        • maui 10.3.1.1
          21 October 2015 at 10:50 am

          Punishment was community service and getting his job back. Rightly punished?

        • Ross 10.3.1.2
          21 October 2015 at 10:56 am

          Well, according to “Dunne-Powell’s victim impact statement, read during Veitch’s trial before the Auckland District Court, she said his kicks to her back while she was lying on the ground caused her spine to fracture in two places, and that she was forced to use a wheelchair and crutches.”

          http://www.scout.co.nz/Tony-Veitch-slams-commentators-for-bringing-up-troubled-past/tabid/511/articleID/10116/Default.aspx

        • weka 10.3.1.3
          21 October 2015 at 11:06 am

          Ok, but I’m asking you were you got this from?

          To be fair the “victim” was wheelchaired a few hours later to the hospital exit as most patients are, then walked to her ride home. In spite of “having her back broken in four places.”

          • ianmac 10.3.1.3.1
            21 October 2015 at 11:26 am

            That was reported after her overnight stay in hospital. It was not refuted.
            And according to the victim impact statement as Ross wrote above that was from the victim’s point of view but do you really think that for breaking a woman’s back in “four or two places” would only get community service and $10,000 fine?
            I repeat that I am not defending Vietch. Just proposing that if we are to denigrate people it should be on the basis of known facts rather than rumour and distortion. (Unless it is a dodgy politician.)
            Don’t really want to go there but if you read in the paper that a person had been so sentenced, you would no doubt say that assault on a woman was wrong. Bastard. And so would I.

            Remember we are opposed to the Whaleoil sort of character destruction using half truths and innuendo.

            • Sacha 10.3.1.3.1.1
              21 October 2015 at 11:43 am

              Journalist Paula Penfold has a concise response for you:

              “When I interviewed Kristin Dunne-Powell a few years ago, she showed me her X-rays.”

            • Sacha 10.3.1.3.1.2
              21 October 2015 at 11:45 am

              “do you really think that for breaking a woman’s back in “four or two places” would only get community service and $10,000 fine?”

              Given how our ‘justice’ system favours the wealthy and well-connected, yes. The guy not only hired a top lawyer but a PR agent, ffs. Clearly got his money’s worth looking at those rushing to defend his character both at the time and now, six years later.

            • weka 10.3.1.3.1.3
              21 October 2015 at 1:27 pm

              So, I have a disability. And I have people make ill informed judgements about me routinely, based on what they see, and on hearsay. Sometimes that’s not a problem (people are entitled to their own stupid), but sometimes it has very distinct, bad, real world effects on me as a disabled person. It’s a form of discrimination. You cannot make informed judgements about people’s disability based on simply looking at them.

              What you are saying sounds to be like hearsay. It was a news report from years ago and without a link there is no way to look at if it was accurate or not.

              Add to that the fact that people’s body’s break in unusual ways. A broken in four places (or two places ) back sounds terrible, wouldn’t she be paralysed etc. But I think that ‘broken back’ isn’t a medical term, it’s a lay persons term, and we have no idea what it actually means. For instance, we don’t know how much pain she was in, or if any damage was missed in A and E that became apparent later. Or if she recovered from the actute injury but has had chronic problems (back injuries are very tricky to heal from). That she could walk and this means her injury wasn’t that bad is also not a medical assessment, it’s an ill-informed, prejudicial judgement on someone.

              The thing that’s happening around this latest episode is that there is lots of discussion about Veitch, his lack of remorse or making ammends, his ability to rebuild his life etc. But bugger all about the woman and her reality. I’m sitting here thinking about how that damage to her back may have affected her all these years and may still (and that’s not even getting to the other effects of the abuse). In the absence of her story, which is really the only way we could form a real opinion, I think it’s better to just assume we don’t know and not make any judgements about her injuries at all.

              (plus what Sacha has said about the court process).

        • dukeofurl 10.3.1.4
          21 October 2015 at 1:22 pm

          This is a more accurate detail

          ““As a result of the assault the Complainant received a traumatic haematoma, a sprain to the sacroiliac ligament andB two fractures to the spine which were causative of an on-going nerve problem.”- Police File

          This based on the medical report from the A&E, after Veitch refused to have an ambulance come to the house.Im sure that the two fractures were diagnosed from x-rays

          “A fracture or dislocation of a vertebra can cause bone fragments to pinch and damage the spinal nerves or spinal cord.”
          Which seems to be the case for his victim.
          ” Many fractures heal with conservative treatment; however severe fractures may require surgery to realign the bones.”
          http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PE-SpineFract.HTM

          That she didnt require surgery isnt indicative of not substantiated injuries

        • dukeofurl 10.3.1.5
          21 October 2015 at 1:42 pm

          Whos exaggerating:
          As a result of the assault the Complainant received a traumatic haematoma, a sprain to the sacroiliac ligament and two fractures to the spine which were causative of an on-going nerve problem.”

          Like most bone fractures they can and do heal without surgery. But it could have been much much worse, compared to say rib fracture.
          Its still a substantial assault, and the victim says it came from being kicked. Im sure the hospital people would agree noting other injuries to buttocks.

          • ianmac 10.3.1.5.1
            21 October 2015 at 3:01 pm

            Fair enough. That sounds much more authoritive. I accept the actual information.

            • Ergo Robertina 10.3.1.5.1.1
              21 October 2015 at 5:50 pm

              Why did you put quote marks around victim in the first comment, and why the hell were you commenting at all if you didn’t know what the case involved?
              It’s sad that well-meaning posts on this kind of topic seem to become a magnet for misogynists.

  12. Clean_power 12
    21 October 2015 at 11:19 am

    Tony Veitch, a man who has learnt from his mistakes. A good man!

  13. repateet 13
    21 October 2015 at 11:23 am

    Not a defence of Veitch but:
    “Please note that many of the allegations were not tested. But it does appear that the complainant had her back broken by the assault which he pleaded guilty to. Clearly the level of violence was high.”

    Someone I know shoved a guy in a scuffle who died when his head hit the kerb.
    The victim was dead, as dead as a person would be after being attacked with boots to the head and knives to the body.

    Same result in both situations. Because of the results, and with only that knowledge would it be true to infer, “Clearly the level of violence was high.”

    Past that, Veitch can’t help himself. He seems to not have the maturity, wisdom or personality type to actually ‘get it.’ Some of the characteristics which make him eminently suitable for the job he has are at the same time the most risky.

    Yet also the perverse world that he (and his employers) are in, means any attention is good.

    • dukeofurl 13.1
      21 October 2015 at 1:24 pm

      Sounds a one off thing.
      For Veitch it was a long series of assaults at a number of locations, and eventually a visit to A&E ( after he refused to allow an ambulance to be seen at his house).
      A&E x-rays showed the spine was fractured in 2 places

    • McFlock 13.2
      21 October 2015 at 1:46 pm

      Was your acquaintance charged with half a dozen other scuffles?
      Did your acquaintance try to render first aid, or show any concern at all immediately after the scuffle?
      To this day, is the focus of your acquaintance’s regrets about that incident focused on how horrible life has been for your acquaintance, with no consideration for the deceased or the bereaved family?

      Sometimes, people break easily. Hell, I used to work security, so there but for the grace of god, and all that. But people shouldn’t be “scuffling” with their partners, and if they do they should at least bloody well show concern when they damage their partner to the point of hospitalisation.

  14. Rosemary McDonald 14
    21 October 2015 at 12:33 pm

    And well worth a watch.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_sBFDmQKOI

    and,

    • Ross 14.1
      21 October 2015 at 12:40 pm

      Veitch says in that video that his attack was “out of character” but that doesn’t seem to have been the case. One can only hope that he’s addressed his issues now.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2427247/Tony-Veitch-police-file-released

      • Rosemary McDonald 14.1.1
        21 October 2015 at 1:04 pm

        I intended for his victim’s Impact Statement to have priority…oops…failure in posting.

        Betwixt the two declarations….

        Why oh why do these perpetrators have to seek the limelight?

        That, I don’t get.

        • dukeofurl 14.1.1.1
          21 October 2015 at 1:32 pm

          Rosemary is called narcissism. He needs to be adored and when someone close to him doesnt he strikes back. Unless he has looked deep into his soul on this it will likely happen again. The denial indicates he still has some issues, but its unlikely hes a full blown narcissist.

          “Narcissism – A set of behaviors characterized by a pattern of grandiosity, self-centered focus, need for admiration, self-serving attitude and a lack of empathy or consideration for others.
          “Children, spouses, friends, lovers – those closest to the Narcissist – are not considered individuals in their own right by the Narcissist – but rather extensions or, in the worst cases, the property of the Narcissist. “

          • Anne 14.1.1.1.1
            21 October 2015 at 3:31 pm

            …its unlikely hes a full blown narcissist.

            More likely the product of a spoiled childhood with an enormous belief in his entitlements.

            I had experience of a full blown narcissistic person and they have an obsession to be able to control other people. They will go to bizarre lengths to achieve that control. In some ways they are similar to psychopaths because they have no empathy or compassion for their victims and the damage they are causing them in the process.

          • Rosemary McDonald 14.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2015 at 4:01 pm

            “Unless he has looked deep into his soul on this it will likely happen again.”

            Big problem, right there.

  15. Hadassah Grace 15
    21 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

    This is spot on. I’m all for second chances, but Veitch has done nothing to deserve his.

    I wrote a blog about this, which explains his crime in detail, as well as its relevance today, and what we can do about it. http://hadassahgrace.tumblr.com/post/131550431361/who-the-hell-is-tony-veitch

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    21 October 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Posted this link yesterday but it especially applies here.

    • Tracey 16.1
      21 October 2015 at 4:57 pm

      thanks draco t’bastard

    • Lara 16.2
      21 October 2015 at 6:57 pm

      Brilliant. I love that one.

      If baboons can change from a violent to a non violent culture, then surely we humans can too.

      Too often we are presented with violence as somehow inherent, biologically inevitable. And those of us on the receiving end of it are told it’s our responsibility to avoid it. That there’s little else we can do.

      To which I call BULLSHIT.

  17. Gangnam Style 17
    21 October 2015 at 3:00 pm

    “Thankfully, she’s a truly incredible person. She’s now happily married, owns her own company, and works with several groups to try and reduce domestic violence in NZ. That’s a lot more than Veitch can say.”

    From this http://hadassahgrace.tumblr.com/post/131550431361/who-the-hell-is-tony-veitch

  18. Tracey 18
    21 October 2015 at 4:52 pm

    kia kaha stephanie

    bradbury is all about bradbury, you are all about the challenge that is confronting those who allow the status quo to harm the vulnerable. those who can find a way to attach you over this veitch issue must feel fucking threatened. so you are doing something right. 😆

    keep on trucking

  19. Tracey 19
    21 October 2015 at 5:00 pm

    male and female victims of violence rarely have their dream jobs and life within 4 to 5 years of their abuse.

    food for thought?

  20. Paul 20
    21 October 2015 at 5:14 pm

    Veitch’s victim Kristin Dunne Powell delivers her victim statement

  21. Gangnam Style 21
    21 October 2015 at 5:21 pm

    Now Netsafe are asking ppl to stop picking on Tony Veitch I just heard on the radio…

    • McFlock 21.1
      21 October 2015 at 5:40 pm

      yes, it reminds me of senselss sentencing’s response when Emery knifed that graffiti-ing kid.

    • Ross 21.2
      21 October 2015 at 6:41 pm

      There’s a difference between criticism and abuse. There is no need for abuse and it’s counter-productive.

  22. rhinocrates 22
    21 October 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Veitch is proud of his followers on twitter and points to them to counter his critics. For your information, here is a sample of the kind of support he gets. “Eat a dildo” and “feminist cunt” are typical if you don’t want to read it directly.

    https://twitter.com/womensrefugenz/status/656401665885536257

    Are Netsafe complaining about this?

    (Here’s a clue: NO)

  23. Vaughan Little 23
    21 October 2015 at 7:13 pm

    this is a bullshit social media beatup.

    mccaw was pushed with a fist, not struck. however, the refs line was funny. I been beaten up a few times in my life but I’m not taking this personally. to make this about domestic violence is a hell of a long shot. this is about sport, it’s about low level violence between men. if the dude had kicked mccaw in the back and some quip came out about it, I bet Veitch would have thought “oh shit, better leave that one alone”

    twitrage makes the pr industry understandable, and that’s quite a feat.

    • Gangnam Style 23.1
      21 October 2015 at 8:03 pm

      I think it was more his ‘I am the victim here’ defence of his comment where he mentioned his ‘hideous relationship’ that got ppl worked up. & hardly a media beat up, the media are supporting him, otherwise he wouldn’t have a job.

      • dukeofurl 23.1.1
        22 October 2015 at 4:29 pm

        Theres a bit of media rivalry too.

        ZB is part of the NZME stable ( NZ Herald) while the TV3/radio network are the competition.
        You can see one outlet not saying much with the other runs with it.

        First rule of NZ media: dont shit in your own nest.

  24. One Two 24
    21 October 2015 at 8:01 pm

    The digital world mirrors the physical world on many levels

    360 degrees of uglyness with this particular reflection

  25. Tony Veitch 25
    21 October 2015 at 10:17 pm

    The last word?

    You have no idea how disconcerting it is to read your name being disparaged on this blog – and to know the prick deserves every word of condemnation.

    Oh, he’s sorry he kicked his girlfriend – of course he is – he’s sorry he got caught, he’s sorry his reputation was tarnished, he’s sorry he had to undergo such dreadful punishment. But he wants to put all that behind him because, hell, has he suffered, don’t you know.

    Any adverse comment, he’s brought upon himself, so he should just keep his head down and live with it.

  26. peterlepaysan 26
    21 October 2015 at 11:52 pm

    In context it was just a push in the face with a closed fist.
    It was not a punch.
    End of story.

    OBTW I have always detested Veitch.

    The so called social media commentary was completely out of order. It reveals an extremely ugly side of the commenters who appear to be closet garth mcvicar supporters and candidates for guards of australian detention camps.

    The guy made a straight forward comment about an incident in a rugby match (who cares?).

    Not only do I detest Veitch (for a variety of reasons) but I despise those who attacked him over the comment even more.

    Let us bring back witch burnings Let us destroy those who offend us.

    I am sure ISIS/ISIL/DAESH would find a happy recruitment ground in NZ among the blogophiles and twitterati. Hatred always seeks respectability.

    • maui 26.1
      22 October 2015 at 1:31 pm

      Ok, ignoring the initial punch comment for a moment, reread Veitchs blurb at the top. Is this the response of a reformed abuser? Someone who knows they’ve done wrong? Or have they got away with it fairly unscathed apart from the unwanted public attention. Hard to escape that if you want to work in the public eye though isn’t it. Chloes response above to him is bang on. Collectively society has let him off the hook, or at least the sports fans and people at the top.

  27. Vaughan Little 27
    22 October 2015 at 1:49 am

    you gotta skew it just so to get “I’m the victim” out of “hideous relationship”. talk about precooked attack lines…

  28. Another anonymous person 28
    22 October 2015 at 12:45 pm

    This all makes me ill, First up most all see violence as a gender issue, and usually as an issue of men harming women. Certainly all so called anti-violence campaigns, advertising and groups brainwash us that way while ignoring reputable research of this serious issue. I say putting this issue through a gender race or age filter shows that the main concern is gender race and age – not violence. Look in the news, women are offenders too. And anyone like me and my female abused kids who says so gets attacked swiftly and viciously. People including anti-violence white ribbon have attacked my most damaged daughter in full view of police doing the supporting sausage sizzle. Police give such hypocrites their silent consent for such public child abuse which by the way was female on female. Who recorded it. Did police? -yeah right. Shame on you all. For those who argue violence and abuse by gender do are themselves abusers.
    Also I believe that people learn and change. This idea that one assassinates one’s whole life someone for mistakes is not justice. Who among Vietch’s critics has not themselves made some mistake that hurt someone else? Come on lets hear from you?? I don’t justify any hitting or hurting, but it is a part of the human animal’s nature, just like telling lies, or greed. Oh and before the attacks are written do please note that I have suffered in the path of two female’s safety for over twenty years – so please don’t come back as so many do; and ask me why I don’t care about violence towards women. In fact I see little genuine care in the wider community for violence towards males, all of whom were conceived by, born to, educated by, morally trained by women and all too often without biological Dad.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1
      22 October 2015 at 1:00 pm

      91% of applicants for protection orders are women.

      Clutch at your beliefs any harder and they might pop.

      • Blue Boy 28.1.1
        22 October 2015 at 1:06 pm

        I don’t have belief in you, I’m just a nice girl.

        I do the right thing.

        But no I have no belief in you.

        Just letting you know-

        ‘Cause it’s simple darling, I gave you warning
        Now everything you own is falling from the sky in pieces
        So watch them fall with you, in slow motion
        I pray that you’ll find peace of mind
        And I’ll find you another time
        I’ll love you, another time

  30. Sacha 30
    24 October 2015 at 3:57 pm

    I don’t think this has been linked to yet – great blogpost reminding us of the history: http://hadassahgrace.tumblr.com/post/131550431361/who-the-hell-is-tony-veitch

    • Psycho Milt 30.1
      24 October 2015 at 5:15 pm

      From that post:

      He does say there’s no excuse for what he did, but then proceeds to give a bunch of terrible excuses…

      Just one choice quote from an excellent narrative that goes from one unbelievably crass face-palm moment to another. Reading it, I became less and less surprised that Veitchy and the PM get on so well together.

      • McFlock 30.1.1
        24 October 2015 at 5:30 pm

        I became less and less surprised that Veitchy and the PM get on so well together.

        I thought “ouch, that’s a bit harsh”, but then couldn’t figure out who was being hard done by, so you might be right there…

  31. McFlock 31
    24 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

    So Veitch is slowly learning how to make a genuine apology – he’s making all the right sounds this time.

    But assuming it’s simply a cynical case of “monkey see, monkey do”, is it a path to rehabilitation?

    If Veitch (or any self-absorbed tosspot) grows to habitually apologise genuinely, what are the chances that he wakes up one day and genuinely means it: apologises, owns it as part of his past, but also builds on that to avoid that behaviour and, as a public figure, help others with the same problem?

    The dark side is strong in this one, but it’s a nice thought that someone who pretends (out of his own self interest) to be remorseful one day accidentally wakes up as a functionaning human being…

  32. Human 32
    24 October 2015 at 9:26 pm

    Can you forgive someone for murdering your family members, because he was ‘hurt, confused, lost and lonely’ ?

    ‘hurt, confused, lost and lonely’ is that actually a good enough reason to murder the ones you are suppose to protect THE MOST?