Unacceptable

164 comments on “Unacceptable ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Steve Pierson 1

   19 September 2008 at 10:50 am

   Before anyone argues that you can’t be seriously hurt by being hit by a vehicle at low speed (as if that somehow makes intenionally hitting someone with your vehicle OK) we should remember Christine Clark http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/40734
2. Phil 2

   19 September 2008 at 10:50 am

   A picture tells 1,000 words… and that picture tells a version vastly different to Newzblog’s story.

   I suspect that the real truth will be similar to the ‘unprovoked assault’ Max Bradford dealt out to a student at UC (?) in the late 90’s.
3. Billy 3

   19 September 2008 at 10:55 am

   That can’t be James’ sign. It contains no errors of spelling or grammar.
4. Tim Ellis 4

   19 September 2008 at 11:00 am

   SP, this is a nonsense. I don’t think you do yourself a lot of credit by repeating it.

   “Local activist James Sleep was today exercising his democratic right to protest when he was approached by an entourage of 4WDs carrying Wairapara MP John Hayes and John Key.

   So we are to believe that James Sleep was minding his own business, perhaps sitting down on a park bench eating his sandwich, when this “entourage” of vehicles jumped off the road, and started veering towards this park bench where James Sleep was seated?

   Looking at the photo, it would seem that at this moment, coincidentally, James Sleep just happened to conveniently have a “SLIPPERY” banner to wave in front of the vehicle entourage, which was so determined to run him over.

   Sleep attempted to get out of the way however he soon found himself being propelled backwards by the force of Hayes’ car. The car continued to accelerate for 20 metres until bystanders forced him to stop.

   Or is the more likely scenario, just possibly, that James Sleep decided to stand in front of a moving vehicle, refused to get out of the way, and the vehicle slowly nudged him out of the way? If Sleep was standing in front of the vehicle for twenty metres, as the article says, then he doesn’t seem to have made any effort to get out of the way. He simply tried to cause a nuisance. Does he really think we’re stupid? If the car was travelling at anything more than 10 kph, then he would have been run over.

   Sleep described the incident as frightening and thought he was going to be run over.

   Then there is a lesson to be learned. If you don’t want to be run over by a car, don’t stand in the middle of the road inviting a vehicle to hit you.

   When the car stopped Sleep was aggressively tackled onto the ground by a male escorting Hayes.

   It may have been a DPS officer escorting John Key. If Sleep had tried the same stunt with the Prime Minister’s vehicle, he would have received the same treatment. Yet the sequence of events doesn’t stack up. If this vehicle was trying to mow Sleep down, and Sleep was using his best efforts to get out of the way of the vehicle, why is it that he failed to get out of the way, yet somebody else from Hayes’ group managed to rush in and “aggressively tackle him to the ground”?

   The rest of your baseless claims about intimidation don’t really dignify a response SP. I can understand why James did this: he’s 17 years old. He’s prone to do silly and outrageous things. You’re a lot older than that SP, so you should be mature enough not to encourage him from such silly behaviour.

   [so,it was ok for john hayes to drive his car into someone because he was in the way? SP]
5. Gustavo Trellis 5

   19 September 2008 at 11:00 am

   And no authorisation statement…
6. Scribe 6

   19 September 2008 at 11:02 am

   I don’t care how desperate for power you are or how heated an exchange gets, in our country resorting to violence over political differences is never acceptable.

   I totally agree. As I’m sure Trevor Mallard does…

   Was James on private property doing his little jig in front of a 4WD?

   [for the sake of argument say it was private property, would that make it ok to drive into him, Scribe? Because I haven’t seen that provision in the Crimes Act ‘it’s illegal to drive into someone unless they are in your way or it is on private property. SP]
7. Inventory2 7

   19 September 2008 at 11:06 am

   So it WAS James Sleep that Newstalk ZB was talking about yesterday – screaming abuse at John Key – interesting…..
8. lukas 8

   19 September 2008 at 11:13 am

   Im guessing the tag that refers to Sleep in the list of tags for this articles is f#*kwits?
9. Inventory2 9

   19 September 2008 at 11:14 am

   threadjack
10. coge 10

    19 September 2008 at 11:17 am

    If someone stepped in front of a Clark motorcade, what do expect would happen SP? Diplomatic protection would rightfully interpret it as a threat. Do different rules apply to young Mr Sleep?

    [coge, moronic, take your argument to its logical conclusion and violence is justifised against any protestor who comes near a politican or anyone who comes near them for that matter. The PM and other ministers face protestors regularly including Cullen just the other day and most of the caucus at the Labour conference. Being a protestor does not make you a threat and it certainly doesn’t justify driving a vehicle into someone. SP]
11. r0b 11

    19 September 2008 at 11:19 am

    SP, this is a nonsense. I don’t think you do yourself a lot of credit by repeating it.

    So when Tim isn’t advocating shutting down left wing activists on line, or putting Kiwi lives at risk in Iraq for a trade deal (that wasn’t going to happen anyway), he’s here trying to rationalise away the dangerous use of a vehicle to intimidate a protester.

    Then there is a lesson to be learned. If you don’t want to be run over by a car, don’t stand in the middle of the road inviting a vehicle to hit you.

    That’s right – don’t try and exercise your right to free speech – that’s just asking for it isn’t it.
12. Patrick 12

    19 September 2008 at 11:21 am

    coge – there is a bit of a difference between being removed by the DPS and almost being run over by a redneck MPs 4WD.

    Sure, we don’t know all the facts, but it looks like there were a few witnesses, I hope James takes this up with the police.
13. Tim Ellis 13

    19 September 2008 at 11:25 am

    r0b, when you want to debate seriously and honestly rather than throwing mud and starting flame wars, then I will respond. In the meantime, [deleted, lay off the personal stuff and try to respond to points raised, all the while remembering you are trying to defend the right to drive a vehicle into someone who is in ones way. SP]
14. Bryan Spondre 14

    19 September 2008 at 11:28 am

    “the forces of established power have attempted to intimidate the Left into submission for generations”

    Really ? And the EFA wasn’t ?
15. r0b 15

    19 September 2008 at 11:28 am

    So Tim, you’re not here trying to rationalise away the dangerous use of a vehicle to intimidate a protester? You had some other purpose for your comment?
16. Steve Pierson 16

    19 September 2008 at 11:37 am

    Bryan
    A) do two wrongs make a right (which seems to be what all the righties are arguing so far)

    b) no, it wasn’t.
17. travellerev 17

    19 September 2008 at 11:37 am

    Well,

    I can see the wave of human compassion emanating from the crowd here.
    A 17 year old kid gets pushed by a big 4W for showing a “slippery” sign in a situation were this is not needed. If they had stopped for a while or engaged (like politicians should do) with this young man they would have either made the young man look silly and themselves mature. But no, how dare this young kid call a spade a spade in their faces.
    Bang, a little nudge with my big 4W will teach him a lesson for speaking up, how dare he.

    And here the response is just more of the same. Gee I wonder why most Kiwi’s don’t trust National. Were was John Key at the time? Did he come out of his car to tell his colleague off. Neh, I bet he stayed in his car smiling “slippery”. Yuk.
18. Scribe 18

    19 September 2008 at 11:38 am

    At this time of the year, media follow MPs around all the time. If this was anything more than a gentle nudge to get someone out of the way, it would be all over the newspaper. The photo at Newzblog shows a photographer, with the type of camera that a newspaper photog would use. This is an absolute beat-up.

    Wasn’t there an incident in Dunedin last year of someone protesting against a Labour MP being assaulted?

    [ah, the ‘it didn’t happen’ defence. sorry scribe, but in the full pic, which i’ve cropped, you can see a person with a tv camera. So, that’ll be interesting viewing. SP]
19. rave 19

    19 September 2008 at 11:38 am

    Metaphorical
    Hard to stop gas guzzling garishly branded macho machine with prospect pm in passenger seat driven by thug into adolescent protester quick of mind and foot under slippery conditions, stops.
20. Brett Dale 20

    19 September 2008 at 11:38 am

    Oh boy you guys are really desperate now. Actually it’s not his democratic right to stand in the middle of the road, blocking a car, thats illegal. he can protest all he likes, on the footpath. But doing what he is doing is illegal.

    What a jackass, but thats the kind of pathetic stunt that the left gets off on.

    [and so its ok to drive into him? actually, he’s standing in a driveway. you’re still arguing that two wrongs make a right. SP}
21. monkey-boy 21

    19 September 2008 at 11:41 am

    You’d have to have a heart of stone to read this without smiling.
22. Scribe 22

    19 September 2008 at 11:42 am

    Were was John Key at the time? Did he come out of his car to tell his colleague off.

    He was probably reading documents in the back seat and never looked up. He didn’t know what was going on…
23. Santi 23

    19 September 2008 at 11:43 am

    Bugger, where are you when you want the accelerator to fail?

    [you mean brakes and you’re on the verge of being banned for such disgusting remarks. SP]
24. toad 24

    19 September 2008 at 11:43 am

    “…an entourage of 4WDs carrying Wairapara MP John Hayes and John Key…

    Any of these, I wonder?
25. Steve Pierson 25

    19 September 2008 at 11:43 am

    Mostly, the rightwing counters are pretty predictable – hence my first comment here about risk of injury. i was expecting people to say ’tis just a wee bump, harden up’ but you’ve surprised me with the ‘it was ok to drive into him’ line. I think our righties who have made knee-jerk reactions need to take a breath and realise they are attempting to justify driving a vehicle into a guy who is no physical threat.
26. John Stevens 26

    19 September 2008 at 11:45 am

    James Sleep has a Homer Simpson moment. Stop jay walking you moron.
27. Dom 27

    19 September 2008 at 11:45 am

    Drivers always have to exert extreme caution when dealing with protestors in their path. This sounds like it could have been a case of a bad judgement call on the part of those in the vehicle (Sleep should have been dealt with appropritely before the vehicle advanced in any way – that’s just common sense) and this may have put someone’s life in danger when it didn’t need to be.

    Re John Stevens – actually Homer is well known for his inventive and successful protest tactics so your comparison is actually a compliment.

    LOL I originally read “by a male escorting Hayes” as ‘by male escort Hayes”. I can’t imagine Hayes having much luck in that profession…
28. Santi 28

    19 September 2008 at 11:46 am

    The pious and devout SP wrote: “I don’t care how desperate for power you are or how heated an exchange gets, in our country resorting to violence over political differences is never acceptable.”

    How convenient. Have you forgotten your hero Trevor Mallard and his violent temper?

    [lprent: So you agree santi. John Hayes or whoever was driving should be brought up on assault and dangerous driving charges? ]
29. Inventory2 29

    19 September 2008 at 11:46 am

    You make a lot of accusations Steve:

    *National activist Cameron Slater launches disgusting attacks on every leftwinger whose name he can get hold of with National research unit help
    *the Nats launch vexatious EFA complaints against every leftwinger who dares voice opposition to them
    *gangs of young Nats have gone around Auckland destroying Labour Party hoardings
    *and threats have been made against a number of leftwing activists including myself by National’s bully-boys

    Doubtless you have proof of all this.

    PS – me – threadjack?
30. Tim Ellis 30

    19 September 2008 at 11:47 am

    Get a grip, SP. I was responding to r0b’s ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation against me. I didn’t attack him personally. I said if he wanted to debate honestly like an adult, instead of personally attacking me, then I would happily engage with him.

    You made a wrong call on that one.

    I also notice your tendency to edit people’s comments as part of your argument, rather than post a unique comment of your own. This makes it difficult to respond to those comments.

    If somebody deliberately gets in the way of a vehicle, as James Sleep has, and screams abuse at the vehicle, as James Sleep has, and refuses to move, as James Sleep has, on private property, as James Sleep has, then it is legitimate for the vehicle to gently move forward, as Hayes’ vehicle has. I don’t call that assault. For you to call that assault SP is just whining nonsense. It is also legitimate for somebody to physically remove somebody who is inviting injury to themselves, as James Sleep was.
31. higherstandard 31

    19 September 2008 at 11:55 am

    Clearly this young man was trying to point out that the road was slippery – however he must be of very limited intellect to do so with a sign in the middle of the road in front of oncoming traffic.

    Eve dear in response to your question

    “Were was John Key at the time?”

    You should know – he was on the phone to the money men, plotting the overthrow of all non anglo saxon controlled countries, buying futures in depleted uranium and putting makeup on the 666 birthmark on his forehead.
32. IrishBill 32

    19 September 2008 at 11:57 am

    No Tim, it is legitimate to issue a trespass notice and call the police. That’s how sensible and civilised people deal with these situations.
33. r0b 33

    19 September 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I was responding to r0b’s ad hominem attacks

    I’m critical of your views, yes, but I haven’t “attacked” you in any way personally Tim (it was you that did that).

    You seem to me to be trying to rationalise away some very nasty stuff here, and an attempt to portray that as a personal attack is just smoke and mirrors on your part, trying to deflect from the issues.

    For you to call that assault SP is just whining nonsense.

    Charming. None of us were there Tim, none of us saw it. It’s a police matter now, they can decide if it’s “whining nonsense”, afraid your vote doesn’t count.
34. lprent 34

    19 September 2008 at 12:01 pm

    IV2: I don’t know about the research unit, but WhaleOil has made numerous baseless allegations about me, companies that I’ve worked for, my family, this site, the people who write on it, and just about everything under the sun.

    To date he hasn’t managed to ‘prove’ anything except that I’m a Labour activist, that this site is likely to have union supporters writing for it, and that my niece is an activist. It looks ‘sod is showing that he is just the plausible deniable ‘dirty’ end of the National party.

    Hell it’d be hard to find a left-winger who he hasn’t attempted to bully at some stage. In this case I seem to remember Whale producing some photo-shopped porn images with James Sleep’s head on it.

    Perhaps John Key should issue a statement denying that the National Party has anything to do with the bloated bully.

    BTW: Does anyone know why his site is dead at present? Did he try to fix the security flaw that ‘sod found and broke the system? Or has he started listening to legal advice?

    I’d like to know before I pronounce the site as dead and gone in a post. Hopefully we’ll see the end of the bloated one as well. What is always funny is watching the right blogs attempting to use his smears while keeping their hand sort of clean.
35. Pascal's bookie 35

    19 September 2008 at 12:01 pm

    r0b didn’t misrepresent you Tim. That’s a lie.

    Your problem is that you are so damn proud of your transparent sophistry that you think you are fooling people with it. When you get called out and asked whether you stand by what your pretty words mean, you moan that we are arguing semantics. As if the meanings of words don’t matter, and that people are being harsh on you for trying to find out what the hell your position actually is on anything.

    Yawn mate. It’s boring.
36. Steve Pierson 36

    19 September 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Tim
    a) your comments are thoughtful but too long so everyone just skims them

    b) it is not legal to drive into someone, even if they are in your way, even if they are on private property. A vehicle is a very dangerous thing to be hitting a person with, it can kill. You do not have the right to put someone else’s life in danger except to protect the life of yourself or others. That’s the law.

    c) it is assault, learn the definition of assault

    Tim, you’re a reasonable guy. I honestly want you to take a moment and think about the behaviour you are saying is ok. Remember, an action has to be justified by the situation at the time of the action, not by the outcome, which can’t be known when the decision to act is taken – James wasn’t injured but Christine Clark was killed in a similiar situation. You are saying that if Sleep had been seriously injured or killed that would be ok because Hayes was justified in driving into him in the situation.
37. Billy 37

    19 September 2008 at 12:04 pm

    I know it’s a very secondary issue but I agree with Tim that it’s be better is authors posted comments on comments in separate comments, rather than inside the original comment. It makes it easier to track on the side bar.
38. Dancer 38

    19 September 2008 at 12:06 pm

    This is the sort of situation that John Key really doesn’t need to have happen. He should ensure his MPs don’t get themselves caught out like this. I’d imagine he’ll get cross if it distracts from whatever message he was there to promote! i agree with travelrev that a better tactic is to engage that get into a situation which can be (or portrayed as being) intimidatory. and you’d think the one young man holding a sign would not be a difficult situation to resolve peacefully…
39. Brett Dale 39

    19 September 2008 at 12:09 pm

    If your going to stand in front of a moving car, its likely that you will be hit, thats if if he was hit at all, we just have some left wingers blogger’s word.

    What an idiot.

    [brett, i know you don’t ‘do’ details but look at the pic or the uncropped one on Newzblog. James is standing on a driveway and the vehicle is stationary or nearly so when the pic was taken. I know you’re now faling back on ‘hayes didn’t mean to hit him’ but that’s just not correct. SP]
40. higherstandard 40

    19 September 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Why haven’t you got the same picture up as at the newzblog site which appears to show as dancer says above the better tactic of engaging with this troubled young chap.
41. bill brown 41

    19 September 2008 at 12:12 pm

    I know it’s a very secondary issue but I agree with Tim that it’s be better is authors posted comments on comments in separate comments, rather than inside the original comment. It makes it easier to track on the side bar.

    So you agree with Tim that he should talk in gibberish?
42. lprent 42

    19 September 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Brett: Have you read the road code recently? Perhaps you should do a refresher..

    As an aside, one of the downsides of having numerous young relatives is that you get involved in helping them with their drivers licences.
43. Scribe 43

    19 September 2008 at 12:14 pm

    hs,

    Why haven?t you got the same picture up as at the newzblog site which appears to show as dancer says above the better tactic of engaging with this troubled young chap?

    I think any rational person (you included) already knows the answer to that question.
44. rjs131 44

    19 September 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Its a pity this site wasnt so quick to criticise Trevor Mallard for using violence last year.

    [there was no Standard back then was there? We started in mid-August, when was the Mallard-Henare thing? SP]
45. higherstandard 45

    19 September 2008 at 12:17 pm

    What me rational damn you eyes sir – no one said you had to be rational to comment on this site.

    Ye Gods I’ve turned into D4J.
46. Bill 46

    19 September 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Leaving the rights and wrongs aside for a moment. Never, never, NEVER stand in front of a vehicle. If they move forward, even slowly, your shins get jammed under the bumper and you get pole axed on to the back of your head.

    Obstruction should be done in a seated position. Always. Apart from avoiding serious injury or even death from landing on the back of your head, the driver will not bank on you moving out of the way should he/she move forward. So they won’t move forward.
47. Gustavo Trellis 47

    19 September 2008 at 12:19 pm

    While it’s silly to mess around with vehicles, I don’t doubt there is probably another side to this story.
48. Go The Right 48

    19 September 2008 at 12:23 pm

    I really find this story Pathetic and you guys need to get a reality check!!. If you are stupid enough to stand directly in front of a vehicle like that on private property you deserve everything you get coming to you.

    What is more important is the low level bottom feeding tactics Labour are employing to try and stay in power.

    Imagine the out rage from this Blog if we had young Nats exercising their democratic freedom with signs like BUTCH or CHILDLESS everywhere Helen Clark went.

    These Tactics will backfire on Labour as the Public want an Election fought on Policies and Principles not personality smears.

    If you want to go down the Slippery Route did you hear Cristine Rankin on One ZB this morning . This interview could not have been better for an Incoming National Government.

    Saying she had always supported Labour until this Government came in which is a Lesbian Women’s Government with its own agenda.

    It has stuffed New Zealand over a nine year period. Our Social agencies are in crisis mode because of their Social Engineering.

    She didn’t fit in because she wasn’t the Lesbian Stereotype that Heather Simpson and Helen Clark wanted in Government agencies.

    Steve Mahre wasn’t a bad guy but had tremendous pressure put on him by Clark and Simpson to get rid of her.

    Her book is out today must buy it should be a great read showing the meddling that is going on in our Government Departments.

    Crosby Textor must have planned this interview because it was so damming of this Government the timing was fantastic. It generated so much talk back
49. monkey-boy 49

    19 September 2008 at 12:26 pm

    I mean I’m sure Young James was merely doing a public service. He’d detected some hazardous road conditons, and simply took it up himself to warn passing motorists, when this psychopathic right-wing nut-bar attempted to murder him in broad daylight.
    The driver and passenger, having unsuccessfully attempting to suppress their mirth for close on a quarter of an hour, eventually mustered enough fortitude to crack open a bottle of bubbly and stuff a ten-dollar note into Jame’s top pocket, while they waited for the ambulance.
    “He wouldn’t have lived anyway..” giggled Key to the dismayed ambulance crew; “His eyes were too close together…”
    Bastards.
50. Tim Ellis 50

    19 September 2008 at 12:26 pm

    SP wrote:

    James wasn’t injured but Christine Clark was killed in a similiar situation.

    .

    No, it wasn’t a similar situation, Steve. Christine Clark died after a vehicle rammed into a group of protesters. The risk to James Sleep was minimal.

    The facts you have presented are not facts. James Sleep was causing a nuisance. He did not try to get out of the way, as you said. Rather, he tried to stay in the way of the vehicle. It simply isn’t consistent to say he was trying to get out of his way, yet somebody else had to “aggressively tackle him to the ground” to get him out of the way.

    He was also screaming abuse at the vehicle.

    I believe the risk of injury to James Sleep was remote. Is it ever justifiable to continue driving? I believe it is. Just two days ago Michael Cullen was in a vehicle that had protesters pounding on it. He was chased through a field by those protesters. If Cullen’s safety had been endangered, then the vehicle would have been justified, in my view, to drive on. Did Cullen’s vehicle stop when protesters were pounding on it? I don’t know the answer to that. I suspect not.

    Could there have been a better way of handling the situation? Probably. A more creative solution might have been to grab a hose, and say: “Hey, James. You’re welcome to protest there, but we’re washing the car now, so be aware that if you continue to stand in front of the car, you’re likely to get wet.”

    As it stands it’s a beat-up by a dramatic, attention-seeking stunt-artist who risks his own safety to make a political point.
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    19 September 2008 at 12:27 pm

    I was reading Phil K. Dick last night, and read the Great Argument:

    1) god doesn’t exist
    2) and anyway he’s stupid.

    Brett Dale does even “betterer”:

    1)If you stand in front of a car you’re going to be hit by it
    2) And he probably wasn’t hit by it anyway.

    What an idiot.

    “I think any rational person (you included) already knows the answer to that question.”

    Yeah Scribe, it’s better that someone tried to talk to him first before hitting him with a vehicle. Like a good ol’ bar fight, the “what the F#(& are you looking at” before fists go flying. Very compelling, Scribe.
52. Matthew Pilott 52

    19 September 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Oh crap, Rob’s back. Dull as ever. Rob – please, for the love of god, stick to talk back.

    Tim, you must have been there. In what capacity were you in attendance?
53. Steve Pierson 53

    19 September 2008 at 12:31 pm

    hs, it’s the pic, just cropped for space.. still no justification for driving into him
54. Inventory2 54

    19 September 2008 at 12:33 pm

    lprent said “Hopefully we’ll see the end of the bloated one as well. What is always funny is watching the right blogs attempting to use his smears while keeping their hand sort of clean.”

    That’s REALLY funny bro – you smear a guy, then castigate the right for…smears!
55. higherstandard 55

    19 September 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Watch out Steve your pants are smoking
56. Matthew Pilott 56

    19 September 2008 at 12:36 pm

    “Watch out Steve your pants are smoking”

    What happened to you? Dog eat your wit?
57. Bill 57

    19 September 2008 at 12:38 pm

    HS

    “I believe the risk of injury to James Sleep was remote.”

    You are very wrong. Read my comment above (12.18)

    If you don’t believe me, try it for yourself. Get someone to move a car at you at say 3 or 4 km/h…even less. I strongly recommend you wear a hard hat though.
58. higherstandard 58

    19 September 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Indeed the same one that ate Winston’s homework.
59. Brett Dale 59

    19 September 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Is their any video footage of this, or is it just a pic of some idiot standing in front of a moving car.

    [brett, you’re hardly one to go round calling people idiots. The word ‘their’ is the third person possessive. SP]
60. Inventory2 60

    19 September 2008 at 12:39 pm

    [there was no Standard back then was there? We started in mid-August, when was the Mallard-Henare thing? SP]

    Must try harder. Mallard appeared in Court on 3 December 2007

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/12/putting-duck-before-beak.html

    [but when did the altercation take place? SP]
61. higherstandard 61

    19 September 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Bill I am not Tim
62. higherstandard 62

    19 September 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Or am I ?
63. r0b 63

    19 September 2008 at 12:42 pm

    The facts you have presented are not facts. James Sleep was causing a nuisance. He did not try to get out of the way, as you said. Rather, he tried to stay in the way of the vehicle.

    You seem very confident in describing events that you didn’t see Tim. Either you are completely making stuff up, or you have talked to someone who was there. Which is it?
64. Phil 64

    19 September 2008 at 12:43 pm

    it’s better that someone tried to talk to him first before hitting him with a vehicle

    That’s exactly what the Newzblog photo shows. There’s another dude about to pull James out of the way of what is, clearly, a stationary vehicle.
65. Quoth the Raven 65

    19 September 2008 at 12:43 pm

    The righties mentioning Mallard again. Mallard hit another politician not an ordinary New Zealander. This is just another attack on ordinary New Zealanders actively participating in our democracy, from a National MP just like Gerry Brownlee’s assault and Max Bradford’s.
66. bill brown 66

    19 September 2008 at 12:43 pm

    “He was also screaming abuse at the vehicle.”

    So the defence will be:

    “We were protecting the honour of the SUV”?

    Oh and clever how you can see the screaming on the photo, Tim.

    Or do you know more about the incident than you’re letting on?
67. John Stevens 67

    19 September 2008 at 12:44 pm

    When is Len Richards ging to be charged?
    November 9th perhaps.
    Pot kettle black here boys, double standards for all to see here.
68. Go The Right 68

    19 September 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Monkey Boy

    Believe you should get the audio copy of the Christine Rankin interview on One ZB many people I am sure will want to hear it. Put it on your Blog not likely to be put on The Standard for obvious reasons.
69. Bill 69

    19 September 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Yeah HS. Should have been highlighted for Tim. And 3-4 km/h is probably too fast. Hey-ho.
70. Dom 70

    19 September 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Actually, putting yourself in front of a vehicle is a very effective form of protest. This guy isn’t idiotic at all – I’d say he was brave and dedicated to his cause – can’t fault that.
71. Matthew Pilott 71

    19 September 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Tim: “The risk to James Sleep was minimal.”

    “I believe the risk of injury to James Sleep was remote. Is it ever justifiable to continue driving? I believe it is.”

    “As it stands it’s a beat-up by a dramatic, attention-seeking stunt-artist who risks his own safety to make a political point.”

    Well he wasn’t really risking his own safety, because the risks were minimal, right Tim? Although if his account is correct while the risk was minimal at the outset, dangerous actions led to that risk being severly hightened. for the record, which one of your two points of view are you going to choose to stand by anyway?

    “Did Cullen’s vehicle stop when protesters were pounding on it? I don’t know the answer to that. I suspect not.”

    You reckon he jumped from a moving car? Batman he ain’t.

    You also reckon that a car can keep moving if there’s a risk to the occupants. Last I drove through, Wairarapa isn’t quite Kandahar or Joburg, though I’d hesitate to stop in Levin after dark.

    So you think one 17 year old with a sign saying “slippery” constitutes a danger to Key and Hayes? If not, you accept that them moving forward and hitting Sleep was not a good choice of action. So stop trying to defend it.

    If you do think they were in danger, then perhaps he ain’t PM material after all, huh?

    “That’s exactly what the Newzblog photo shows. There’s another dude about to pull James out of the way of what is, clearly, a stationary vehicle.”

    Ah, that’s better Phil. So they stopped, had a chat, then consciously decided talking isn’t going to work, let’s do negotiation by LandCruiser.
72. Tim Ellis 72

    19 September 2008 at 1:01 pm

    r0b, James Sleep’s admission was that he was trying to get out of the way of the vehicle, but that it kept advancing on him for 20 metres. It is not credible that he was trying to get out of the way. The photo evidence shows a stationary vehicle, with a person encouraging James Sleep to move.

    I have also read a report that James Sleep was screaming abuse at the vehicle. To my mind, when somebody stands in front of a vehicle preventing it from moving on, screaming abuse at the vehicle, refuses to move when requested by somebody to do so, that is causing a nuisance.

    James Sleep and Steve Pierson would have us believe that James is just an innocent boy going about his democratic right to protest. He wasn’t. He was causing a nuisance on private property and trying to martyr himself. If there was a risk of injury, then the risk of injury was one that he was bringing onto himself by standing in front of a vehicle. He was trying to martyr himself.
73. James Sleep 73

    19 September 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Very interesting comments. The same ol’ right-wing, knee-jerk response.

    For starters: I was on public property. I was standing on the road engaging with a member of the media. Mr. Hayes came around the corner, followed by John Key. He saw my sign, he didn’t stop driving. He went straight at me, and did so at a consistent speed, which gave me no time to move. His window was down and you could hear Mr. Hayes telling his driver to keep driving. I was unable to move to the side – the reason for this was that if I had tripped (considering the speed he was going) I would have been under his wheels. I had to go with his car, backwards. At the same time journalists and members of the public were banging on his car telling him to stop. He told his driver to continue. The bottom line is this: I had no intention of stopping the motorcade – any normal person would stop and beep their horn to warn somebody in their way that they were coming. In this particular incident that did not occur. The picture is after Mr. Hayes had stopped. I was moving off to the side of the road and out onto public land. Mr. Hayes had forced me onto private property. Mr. Hayes then got out of his car and told somebody to jump on me. The man in the picture on NewZblog is, at the time of the shot, running over to tackle me to the ground. He did exactly that (tackled me to the ground), then dragged me along the footpath. I was attempting to get out of the retirement complex, but he kept handling me. He forced me past John Key who was smiling smugly. I then left the premises.

    So, the bottom line is this:

    1) I had no intention of stopping the car
    2) I had no intention of going onto private land (Hayes forced me to do this)
    3) I was simply exercising my democratic right and engaged in a peaceful protest.

    The media can say what they like (not that there was much on the incident), I know what happened and I have laid charges with the New Zealand Police against Mr. Hayes, his driver and the man who assaulted me after the Hayes incident.
74. Steve Pierson 74

    19 September 2008 at 1:04 pm

    [sorry, james has provided his account now]

    Bill is right that standing in front of a vehicle is dangerous. Dom is right that it is an effective form of protest.

    None of this justifies choosing to drive into someone.
75. r0b 75

    19 September 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Tim: The facts you have presented are not facts. James Sleep was causing a nuisance. He did not try to get out of the way, as you said. Rather, he tried to stay in the way of the vehicle.

    r0b: You seem very confident in describing events that you didn’t see Tim. Either you are completely making stuff up, or you have talked to someone who was there. Which is it?

    Tim s. It is not credible that he was trying to get out of the way.

    So your answer then is that you are making stuff up? You are making confident statements of fact like the one above based on nothing more than your own intuitions? That would be remarkably Lame.

    Tim, have you spoken to any of the people involved in the incident?
76. Matthew Pilott 76

    19 September 2008 at 1:08 pm

    “I have also read a report that James Sleep was screaming abuse at the vehicle. To my mind, when somebody stands in front of a vehicle preventing it from moving on, screaming abuse at the vehicle, refuses to move when requested by somebody to do so, that is causing a nuisance.”

    Tim, at what point is it acceptable to drive a car into someone because they are being a nuisance? Just a nuisance, or someone who’s being a real pain?

    What would you say is a good speed for nuisance-removal, please give speeds for with and without bull bars. What about a crowd? Chuck on an extra 10 ks?
77. Inventory2 77

    19 September 2008 at 1:09 pm

    [but when did the altercation take place? SP]

    Steve – 24 October 2007

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472204

    [before i joined the collecive, sorry old boy. you can look at the archive if you want to see the coverage.. maybe you’ll find a key phrase that makes hypocrites of anyone who opposes MPs’ cars driving into people. SP]
78. Pascal's bookie 78

    19 September 2008 at 1:10 pm

    give ’em hell James.
79. Gustavo Trellis 79

    19 September 2008 at 1:15 pm

    James, what exactly were you protesting?
80. Killinginthenameof 80

    19 September 2008 at 1:15 pm

    The story behind this is that John Hayes is a redneck hick, to an even greater extent than Bob Clarkson. The Masterton is an inbred hell hole, and a cultural back water, seriously left behind most of the rest of the country in regards to whats decent. I hope Hayes gets dealt with appropriately, but in a local district court I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets off. Can someone at the standard in wellington please go to Key’s next press conference (ride their on your unicorn perhaps, just watch out for flying pigs) and ask him if its appropriate.
81. Tim Ellis 81

    19 September 2008 at 1:17 pm

    James, I wish your comment had been what appeared initially with the photo. Then we could have all had a good laugh at how silly this beat-up was and saved ourselves about 80 comments. Your evidence reads like it was coached by Brian Henry. Wonderful entertainment, but none of it credible.
82. higherstandard 82

    19 September 2008 at 1:19 pm

    James why aren’t you at school ?
83. Tim Ellis 83

    19 September 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Killinginthenameof, by James Sleep’s own evidence, John Hayes wasn’t even the driver. That makes him as culpable in this incident as the PM was during the speeding motorcade incident. I thought that was a complete beat-up then, and this is an even sillier beat-up now.
84. Matthew Pilott 84

    19 September 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Tim, his commentary is a lot more credible than your stating of the “facts”.
85. Vanilla Eis 85

    19 September 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Tim: By James’ evidence, Hayes was urging the driver on. I don’t remember anything in the trial against the officers in Helens motorcade about her laughing fiendishly as she cracked her whip and shouted “faster, FASTER!!!!111one!~”.
86. Pascal's bookie 86

    19 September 2008 at 1:25 pm

    No Tim, what’s silly is that you think you are a credible judge of what’s credible.
87. r0b 87

    19 September 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Tim, have you spoken to any of the people involved in the incident?
88. Gustavo Trellis 88

    19 September 2008 at 1:27 pm

    I do hope James responds to my question of what exactly he was protesting.
89. Steve Pierson 89

    19 September 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Gustavo, what does it matter?

    would it ok to hit him if he didn’t have a good reason to protest?
90. Steve Pierson 90

    19 September 2008 at 1:36 pm

    hs, they have the interweb at schools these days. he’s clearly written that during lunch time,
91. Brett Dale 91

    19 September 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Let this be a lesson for protesters or idiots, don’t stand in front of a moving car, and anyway we still haven’t seen any still footage or video footage of the car actually hitting him, we have just had some blogger who thinks hes going to make a impact on the election by writing about a incident that could of happen.
92. Pascal's bookie 92

    19 September 2008 at 1:42 pm

    He laid a police complaint Brett. So the story is, as they say, developing.
93. lprent 93

    19 September 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Brett: You are really determined to be an idiot today…

    James laid complaints to the police – that is a big step.

    There is a downside of laying charges when there isn’t one. It is wasting police time and they do charge regularly for it.

    Now since you obviously don’t understand the law – it is the exact equivalent of my offense “being a bloody nuisance” that I sometimes use for offenders here. They waste my time.
94. bill brown 94

    19 September 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Film at 6?
95. Gustavo Trellis 95

    19 September 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Steve, I’m just wondering where you draw a line between ‘protest’ and ‘character assassination’. I fully agree that protesting is a democratic right and should not be infringed upon, but a sign with no relevance to anything but character could be construed as merely harassment.

    I would like to point out that using a vehicle as with force is not something that is never cool, nor is man-handling someone. But I’m asking what sort of merits does a sign that simply says ‘slippery’ have as a political protest?
96. Scribe 96

    19 September 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Dom,

    Actually, putting yourself in front of a vehicle is a very effective form of protest. This guy isn’t idiotic at all – I’d say he was brave and dedicated to his cause – can’t fault that.

    What was his cause? If he was holding up a sign saying “Save the Whales” or “Abortion kills”, that would be a protest. “Slippery” is not protesting anything.

    James,

    Why wouldn’t the media report this incident like they did Pete Hodgson’s assault in Dunedin? (She actually was protesting something, by the way.) If what you claim happened is true, this would have been a great story.
97. randal 97

    19 September 2008 at 1:51 pm

    fatboy hayes has always been a bully and looks like he is going to lose his seat this election anyway. nobody likes him.
98. higherstandard 98

    19 September 2008 at 1:54 pm

    You chaps really are determined to defend buffoons.

    James states –

    “The man in the picture on NewZblog is, at the time of the shot, running over to tackle me to the ground. ”

    Post the whole picture and let everyone make up there mind, and while you’re at it how about pictures of him being run over, tackled and dragged along the footpath.

    He sounds like a new version of Sue Bradford in her days of hissing and spitting during protests and then claiming police brutality when being removed.
99. Steve Pierson 99

    19 September 2008 at 1:57 pm

    hs, go to newzblog, i just cropped the image on newzblog for space
100. Scribe 100

     19 September 2008 at 2:01 pm

     If James Sleep is the future of the Labour Party, it will an interesting few decades for our kids to observe.
101. radar 101

     19 September 2008 at 2:02 pm

     If someone had tried this in front of the Prime Minister’s car they would have been mowed down at 170kph and Helen would have claimed ignorance.
102. IrishBill 102

     19 September 2008 at 2:10 pm

     I see you have all ignored my point that the proper way to deal with such a protest is to issue a notice of trespass (this can be verbal) and call the police.

     If the protester is still blocking the way when the police turn up they are warned and if they continue to refuse to move are arrested.

     This is standard procedure in any protest situation and ensures nobody is harmed or opens themselves up to charges of assault.

     Is this too hard to understand?
103. Scribe 103

     19 September 2008 at 2:15 pm

     IB,

     I see you have all ignored my point that the proper way to deal with such a protest is to issue a notice of trespass (this can be verbal) and call the police.

     What was he protesting? This wasn’t a protest; it was causing a nuisance.

     IrishBill says: I could equally claim that your commenting was nuisance but I’m sure you’d be upset if I banned you (or ran you over for it)
104. Gustavo Trellis 104

     19 September 2008 at 2:24 pm

     It also appears he was in the street – we can’t trespass them from there! Damn crafty lefties 😛
105. Brett Dale 105

     19 September 2008 at 2:30 pm

     I find it interesting that the blogger wrote, he tried to get out of the way, yet judging by the photo, he seems to be doing his best to stand in front of the moving car.

     I hope the police charge him with wasting Police time.
106. James Sleep 106

     19 September 2008 at 2:50 pm

     Sorry – Have just been to an election debate in the school hall in which John Hayes told the audience that the National Party will not promise to raise the minimum wage when they are in office, he said “we believe in tax cuts, not the minimum wage”

     Anyway, to answer your questions about what I was protesting. Mr. Key was opening a retirement home. At this particular event I was attempting to make attendees aware of the irony behind his attendance. It was the National Party who cut superannuation in the 90s, and it was National’s deputy leader, Bill English, who was quoted in the media last year saying that the Labour-led Government is being too generous in its support for retired New Zealanders.

     The sign I was using had on one side, “We would love to see wages drop” – So I was also calling on Mr. Key to reveal his hidden agenda.
107. randal 107

     19 September 2008 at 2:52 pm

     I hope they arrest john keys for inanity!
108. Matthew Pilott 108

     19 September 2008 at 2:55 pm

     “I find it interesting that the blogger wrote, he tried to get out of the way, yet judging by the photo, he seems to be doing his best to stand in front of the moving car.”

     I find it interesting you read it and yet failed to comprehend that this photo was taken after the truck had pushed him back. If you read it again, do you think you’d be able to identify the passages you subconsciously blanked out earier, and maybe start to understand the process by which your selective comprehension occurs?

     Scribe – are you now the arbitrary judge of what denotes a protest in New Zealand? That sucks.

     If someone was holding a ‘right to life’ sign I’d consider them a nuisance, given that debate has hopefully been consigned to the dark ages from whence it belongs. However I accept that to some people, it’s something to legitimately ‘protest’ about. I wouldn’t want to make an arbitrary call on it though, unlike yourself.

     You remind me of the official protest zone they had in Beijing. “Sorry, you can’t protest – it will be a nuisance”.

     How about if the sign said “Untrustworthy”? Would that be ok with you? “Liar”? “Scoundrel” (in the spirit of International Talk Like A Pirate Day)? “Wet Blanket”?
109. Gustavo Trellis 109

     19 September 2008 at 3:00 pm

     Cheers James, guess the photo doesn’t do your message justice.

     I’m not sure what John Key has to do with the decisions of Bill English and the mid-nineties National, but that’s just me. The police will make the call here, I guess. ar
110. James Sleep 110

     19 September 2008 at 3:00 pm

     “I find it interesting that the blogger wrote, he tried to get out of the way, yet judging by the photo, he seems to be doing his best to stand in front of the moving car.”

     Read my previous response before making such a comment. I said “The picture is after Mr. Hayes had stopped.”

     I was moving over to the side (yes, with my sign up – so what?) and planned to leave the private land that Mr. Hayes had forced me onto. The man in the NewZblog picture stopped me in my bid to do this as he tackled me to the ground a couple of seconds later.
111. Scribe 111

     19 September 2008 at 3:02 pm

     Scribe – are you now the arbitrary judge of what denotes a protest in New Zealand?

     No, thank goodness. If James was holding a “Raise the minimum wage” sign or a “Don’t sell state assets” sign, I personally (not on behalf of New Zealand) would consider that a protest.

     “Slippery” and “We would love to see wages drop” don’t seem like protests to me (not on behalf of New Zealand).
112. Crank 112

     19 September 2008 at 3:42 pm

     This is hillarious.

     They could of course have just knocked him down then forced through some retrospective legislation allowing the running over of irritating teens when they got into power.

     Not sure how unpopular that would be.
113. Inventory2 113

     19 September 2008 at 3:47 pm

     lprent said “James laid complaints to the police – that is a big step.”

     So did John Minto’s wife when Len Richards assaulted her with a megaphone at last year’s Labour Party conference, in front of half a dozen police officers and captured on film by both One News and 3News. Her complaint didn’t make a hell of a lot of difference did it?
114. Pat 114

     19 September 2008 at 3:50 pm

     James Sleep – are you OK? SP said you were shaken, and shock can be quite delayed, so make sure you take it easy for the rest of the day.

     Tackled to the ground? Was there full use of the arms? If not this is definately a penalty offence.
115. Robinsod 115

     19 September 2008 at 3:57 pm

     Pat – you’re a creep. As in you creep me out. And I’ve got an exceptionally high tolerance for creepiness which only goes to show how big a creep you are…
116. Crank 116

     19 September 2008 at 4:00 pm

     What is interesting about this situation is you have a guy who the law says isn’t competent enough to vote trying to publicly influence the voting of those that are.
117. Billy 117

     19 September 2008 at 4:04 pm

     So James Sleep is like the Brethren then, Crank?
118. Crank 118

     19 September 2008 at 4:12 pm

     I don’t think the law says the Bretheren are not competent enough to vote Billy.

     Also not sure James has a prediliction for vast quantities of scotch either…Oh my god I like scotch, I don’t much care for Labour and the Greens and my wife is quite ugly. Maybe I am a Bretheren.
119. Brett Dale 119

     19 September 2008 at 4:15 pm

     Yeah right James, Your a real hero!, but guess what buddy, your story doesn’t add up. Read what you just wrote, and I suggest if you want credibility, you better change your story quick.
120. rolla_fxgt 120

     19 September 2008 at 4:16 pm

     Protest is usually legitimate, but there is a point when idiocy becomes too much, like standing in a driveway where cars come through (as it seems James Sleep was from what I’ve gathered).

     Lets put this in another way, say you’re driving along & you come up to a set of lights, its green for you & then some idiot decides to walk against the red man & walk in front of you, you hit him. Should you be charged with vehicular assault? I think not, most of us would be annoyed at the idiot for walking out in front of us, and yes I think 99.9% of the population would check he was okay too. But personally, i’d be having the idiot who walked out in front of me charged, with obstructing a road, criminal nuisance, and wilful damage.

     This situation with James Sleep is similar, he was in the wrong! He could of easily stood to the side of the entrance, or on the footpath, but no, he choose to stand in the way. He’s an idiot pure & simple.
     Yes the driver should of slowed down, but at the end of the day everyone including James Sleep needs to take responsibility for their own actions, and as the instigator James needs to take the most responsibility & man up & admit he was in the wrong.
121. r0b 121

     19 September 2008 at 4:26 pm

     He could of easily stood to the side of the entrance, or on the footpath, but no, he choose to stand in the way. He’s an idiot pure & simple.

     Yes, getting in the way makes you an idiot every single time doesn’t it. Like this idiot here:
     http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/tiananmen-square-1989.html
122. randal 122

     19 September 2008 at 4:30 pm

     It doesn’t matter one iota what James Sleeps motives or intetions were. It is still unlawful to drive over someone in a motor vehicle. If you thickos cant understand that then there is something wrong with you. If Bully Hayes and Slippery John are so impatient and so lacking in COOL that they couldnt wait then they have no credence whatsoever as rational human beings.
123. Brett Dale 123

     19 September 2008 at 4:44 pm

     So far we have one side of a ever changing story, and the story doesnt add up, read his version of events again, word for word, I hope this goes to court, because James is about to be caught out.
124. Brett Dale 124

     19 September 2008 at 4:52 pm

     Randal there is no evidence of anyone running over anyone, the only thing I see is some idiot standing in front of a car, nothing else.
125. Hoolian 125

     19 September 2008 at 5:00 pm

     [Hoolian got a ban some time back because his behaviour was too hateful but I thought I would let this through just to remind us about the nasty strain of toryism that used in infect our threads. SP]

     Oh this is the great load of bollocks I have ever read.

     I can hear the crowing at Princes St Labour now: ‘Oh James Sleep, what a martyr. Good on him for standing up against the big bad wolf!’

     And James would reply to his groupies (which is a limited group of people at the best of times): ‘Oh yes, I was really “shaken”. That bad ol’ John Key: he huffed and he puffed and made me wet myself, but hey I got a good photo op. I’ll use this new-found fame to start up another Facebook group.”

     And Princes St Labour will coo and cry, and Clinton (with his cheerleading costume on) will pat Sleep on the back, while writing wicked things about John Key and how apocalyptic his party is. And then come November, no one will care and National will win – because politics is more than just the sad little, narrow-minded focus of the Standard, Sleep and Steve/Clinton Smith.

     How pathetic. A small part of me wishes that Hayes had run him down, just so we could have a bit of authenticity here – some bruises might have made Sleep’s story a tad more credible.

     Not that I believe it for a second. What a total load of tripe.

     No wonder this is huge “unacceptable” news on the Standard (which is all Clinton’s world consists of) but no where else. Sleep is a tiresome attention seeker – it’s a shame we’re such a tolerating society.
126. higherstandard 126

     19 September 2008 at 5:02 pm

     The only way this thread could get any more inane would be a diatribe from Eve on 911.
127. Matthew Pilott 127

     19 September 2008 at 5:04 pm

     Brett – I’ve told you before that being angry isn’t a substitute for intelligent. You’re doing it again.

     (Here’s a clue – the photo isn’t there to convince you, or provide ‘evidence’. That you think so just demonstrates what I’m saying)
128. lprent 128

     19 September 2008 at 5:13 pm

     Crank:

     What is interesting about this situation is you have a guy who the law says isn’t competent enough to vote trying to publicly influence the voting of those that are.

     Haven’t you seen the Greens main ad yet? You’re voting for them as well….

     I always remember being on leave from the army at age 18 (licensed to kill on command). I came up home, voted, and got picked up for underage drinking because I was too young to drink in a bar.

     Later that year (still 18) as a student, I had to take a leave of absence from my part-time bar job to come up to Takapuna to be convicted of underage drinking.

     Don’t tell me you expect the law to make sense……
129. Brett Dale 129

     19 September 2008 at 5:15 pm

     Well Matthew of course the photo isn’t there to provide evidence, but if James want this to go to court, he needs evidence not just his word, and judging by what he has written here and elsewhere, his word just doesn’t add up.
130. Billy 130

     19 September 2008 at 5:23 pm

     Not 911, HS. But I think it may be possible that Hayes’ car is made of depleted uranium.
131. Crank 131

     19 September 2008 at 5:38 pm

     “Not 911, HS. But I think it may be possible that Hayes’ car is made of depleted uranium.”

     And dont forget fuelled by dead babies.
132. travellerev 132

     19 September 2008 at 5:58 pm

     Billy and HS,

     Threads go bland if stupid people pummel smart people to converse on an inane level in case the stupid people get all upset if someone challenges their limited world view. You should be proud of yourselves or alternatively get over yourselves you sad sacks of shit. Ridicule is the last resort of the intellectually lazy.
133. Billy 133

     19 September 2008 at 6:02 pm

     Hey Ev,

     In that little homily are you the smart person? Am I the stupid person?

     And well done on not mentioning 911.
134. Steve Pierson 134

     19 September 2008 at 6:04 pm

     We’v seen four unfortunately very predictable lines of argument from the Right on this thread:

     a) It didn’t happen

     b) ok, it happened by it was an accident

     c) ok it was intentional but it was just a wee bump

     d) ok, it was a serious incident but Sleep deserved it

     I think Brett Dale has argued all of these mutually exclusive positions.

     but remember these are just excuses, reflexive attempts to mitigate the incident because the ones in the wrong are on their side.
135. Billy 135

     19 September 2008 at 6:09 pm

     Yeah Steve, I’m regretting not sticking with stuck with Len Richards’ “it never happened” line.

     FFS, little Jimmy got exactly what he was after. He would have been thoroughly disappointed if he hadn’t been run over. And, by chance, he had spelled his sign right, so everything was working in his favour.
136. Tim Ellis 136

     19 September 2008 at 6:21 pm

     Steve, I’ve thought long and hard about this very serious and very complex issue, which no doubt will be pivotal to the result of this election, and will almost certainly see John Hayes’ 3000 vote majority reversed, despite the opposite trend everywhere else. I agree with IrishBill. The vehicle shouldn’t have proceeded. James Sleep’s evidence has been compelling and convincing. In that vein, he reminds me of a young Winston Peters, in fact.

     I agree with James Sleep’s argument that despite John Hayes not being the driver of the vehicle, he should be charged with not just dangerous driving, but also attempted murder. There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about giving Winston Peters a fair trial at the Privileges Committee, but in this case I think the evidence is so overwhelming that putting John Hayes through the court process would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. He should just be sent straight to jail.

     Or alternatively John Hayes could have just thrown eggs at James Sleep until he got out of the way.
137. Brett Dale 137

     19 September 2008 at 6:25 pm

     Yeah Steve, imagine wanting all the facts from all sides, before you make up your mind?

     Something the left or mainly the extreme left is incapable of doing.
138. Steve Pierson 138

     19 September 2008 at 6:31 pm

     brett. i know what you mean, you’ve made up your mind at least four different ways on this topic today alone
139. travellerev 139

     19 September 2008 at 6:33 pm

     Billy,

     You are the sack of shit in the story. Get used to it.
140. Billy 140

     19 September 2008 at 6:39 pm

     Good-oh.
141. Brett Dale 141

     19 September 2008 at 6:55 pm

     Steve:

     The more sides we see the better decisions we make.

     You really need to read Jame’s Version of events again.
142. randal 142

     19 September 2008 at 7:21 pm

     did somebody say hayes has a deleted cranium?
143. Pascal's bookie 143

     19 September 2008 at 7:48 pm

     randal wins. (again)
144. Ted 144

     19 September 2008 at 7:49 pm

     [lprent: deleted. Is that you dad?. ]
145. higherstandard 145

     19 September 2008 at 9:22 pm

     huzzah worst thread ever.

     Thanks Eve dear
146. theodore steel 146

     19 September 2008 at 10:07 pm

     I’d like to go on the record, as a rightie, saying that if James’ version of events is true (and I’m not saying they weren’t, but it is true in the heat of an event like that memories arent always 100%) it is appaling behavious on Haye’s part. If it is true, he should be publicly censored by John Key and the National Party. And I am sure will also face the suitable penalties from the justice system.
147. redfish 147

     19 September 2008 at 10:50 pm

     “I find it interesting that the blogger wrote, he tried to get out of the way, yet judging by the photo, he seems to be doing his best to stand in front of the moving car.’

     How can you tell the car is moving or that James was standing still? It’s a photo.
148. Brett Dale 148

     19 September 2008 at 11:36 pm

     redfish:

     If the car was moving james would be seriously hurt.
149. Pascal's bookie 149

     20 September 2008 at 12:00 am

     theo, good man.
150. Jared 150

     20 September 2008 at 1:19 am

     Evidence? All we have seen is a one sided view from an anti-national protester. James has made a complaint to the police, and ill be eager to see the result. But I have an awfully funny feeling James will not be vindicated, nor will the driver be charged. Someone is spilling alot of bullshit at the moment, and I think the smell is coming from James’s way. Not only are the claims ludicrous, but his overall demeanour suggests he out of anyone is not to be trusted.

     Also, I take offence to your criticism about Tony Ryall’s comments. Ryall has genuine concern that the DHB is going to overly emphasis “good news” in the build up to the election, and considering previous issues about Labour promoting government departments to go around election funding laws, Ryall has a real issue.
151. Scribe 151

     20 September 2008 at 1:13 pm

     travellerev,

     Ridicule is the last resort of the intellectually lazy.

     Then,

     You are the sack of shit in the story. Get used to it.

     Need I say more?
152. Matthew Pilott 152

     20 September 2008 at 2:03 pm

     I see stuff has a story about it.

     Randal does indeed win here!
153. roger nome 153

     20 September 2008 at 6:26 pm

     This thread has been absolutely hillarious. You get the feeling that, had john key’s goon pulled out an oozy and mowed young Sleep down, there would still be some right wing idiots here defending the Nat’s actions. Way to discredit yourself guys!
154. roger nome 154

     20 September 2008 at 6:29 pm

     ‘yourselves’ that is. btw, where has the edit function gone?
155. Better Dead Than Red 155

     20 September 2008 at 8:31 pm

     I really dunno what to say about Labour using a young mentally handicapped person to attack the Nats. It either sad, ironic or appropriate. The latter most likely.
156. Killinginthenameof 156

     21 September 2008 at 4:04 pm

     Better Dead Than Red
     September 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm

     I really dunno what to say about Labour using a young mentally handicapped person to attack the Nats. It either sad, ironic or appropriate. The latter most likely.

     John Hayes isn’t young ,hes a senile dinosaur.
157. Billy 157

     21 September 2008 at 4:06 pm

     …pulled out an oozy…

     Don’t be vile RN.
158. randal 158

     21 September 2008 at 4:37 pm

     grow up billy
159. Scribe 159

     22 September 2008 at 6:17 pm

     Any word on the police investigation? Has the video shown up anywhere?
160. lukas 160

     26 September 2008 at 12:32 pm

     so, did this actually happen? I have not seen any coverage of this anywhere? Can James inform us if charges are going to be laid?

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: The Standard Week: 12-19 September: posted on 19 September 2008 at 12:52 pm
2. It’s going to be a long election campaign … « Ideologically Impure: posted on 19 September 2008 at 2:38 pm
3. James Sleep Blocks Nat MP in name of “Awareness” « Something should go here, maybe later.: posted on 20 September 2008 at 11:19 am
4. The Standard 2.01: Questioning politicans: posted on 22 September 2008 at 9:41 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS