Wee gripes: Bad looks

Written By: - Date published: 2:00 pm, September 23rd, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: Deep stuff - Tags:

Espiner the Younger wrote:

Hutch’s biggest mistake wasn’t reading and driving, in my opinion. It was reading and driving in a sign-written car with his name on it. Now, that is silly.

No. The problem is doing something dangerous and probably illegal (got to constitute reckless driving, surely). It’s not a ‘bad look’. It’s dumb and dangerous.

It is an empty, bankrupt analysis that sees our leaders’ actions only in terms of the impact on their popularity (‘good politics’/’bad politics’) rather than the substance.

It’s also the norm these days.

On a similar note, did you see those Sideswipe bits a couple of weeks back on Hide? Talking on his cell phone while driving, just a few days after he had voted to make it illegal.

Step-Dad State eh? Do as he says, not as he does.

13 comments on “Wee gripes: Bad looks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Cal 1
    23 September 2009 at 2:33 pm

    In the sideswipe blog I remember one reader saying they saw Hide talking on the phone and eating takeaway food whilst driving on the motorway.
    Step-Dad State – I like it a lot!

  2. TightyRighty 2
    23 September 2009 at 3:16 pm

    mmmmm, brings back memories of speed-gate doesn’t it.

  3. TightyRighty 3
    23 September 2009 at 3:48 pm

    if you get in an accident and the cops can prove that you were texting in the immediate period before your crashed it’s a dangerous driving charge. In this case, i think careless driving is more appropriate as no one was injured and there was no accident. of course going by the track record of cops vs politicians being charged over incidents like this, a cover up should be the first option, and failing that a scapegoat should be found. taking into account the fact that the guy has apologised and knows what a chump he looks like, therefore taking responsibility. in the interest of natural justice – no charges.

    • felix 3.1
      23 September 2009 at 3:56 pm

      So as long as no-one is hurt and you apologise, that’s that?

      Does this new rule apply to all crimes committed by all people where no-one is hurt or is it just for tv celebrities?

  4. Rex Widerstrom 4
    23 September 2009 at 4:02 pm

    To be fair to Espiner: big, bigger, biggest.

    Read it another way and he’s saying “Dumb: driving while reading. Dumber still: doing it in a vehicle that advertises your name and profession”. Rather like the bloke I used to observe regularly picking up prostitutes in Vivian St with his name, address, phone number and profession emblazoned on the side of his Austin 1800.

    What I would garotte Espiner for, however, is “Hutch”. What the…? Is this meant to indicate a chummy “I’m one of the in crowd” familiarity? An attempt to sound working class? (Hint: it’s working class Australians that make diminutives out of people’s last names. And usually compound the offence by adding a “y”).

    Just cut it out okay, Espy, mate?

    • ak 4.1
      23 September 2009 at 9:50 pm

      heh heh, nice one Widey 8) yar, the spinster’s a top cob of the keyster doncha know….and I hear hutchy was signing stuff for charity at the time…..talk about corrupt, we’ll never hear the end of it on kiwibog…

  5. TightyRighty 5
    23 September 2009 at 4:03 pm

    no felix, but where a precedent has been set, i think it should be all right to leave it. oh wait the last mp involved in something like this still hsn’t apologised. maybe charges should be laid due to the uniqueness of the situation.

    • felix 5.1
      23 September 2009 at 4:09 pm

      Can you write that again in plain english so I know who and what you’re talking about?

      • TightyRighty 5.1.1
        23 September 2009 at 4:25 pm

        don’t you understand words like precedent?

        • felix 5.1.1.1
          23 September 2009 at 4:34 pm

          I’d like to hear what this precedent is.

          Are you just being facetious or do you actually have one in mind? If so, spell it out in plain language without all the bullshit so we can see what you’re comparing this to and why. Then we can see if there’s a valid comparison to be made between this instance and whatever it is that you’re alluding to.

          Clear enough for you?

        • mickysavage 5.1.1.2
          23 September 2009 at 8:56 pm

          TR

          FFS

          She was not driving at the time.

          Of course if this was a Labour politician you could guarantee that some wingnut would want to commence a private prosecution against him or her.

          For me, well it was dumb but Hutchison at least apologised and admitted wrong and there are important issues such as climate change that demand our attention.

          Now if only Bill English could do the same …

  6. Adrian 6
    24 September 2009 at 11:24 am

    Clear this up for me, was Hide sitting in the back while his DRIVER was texting and eating takeaways. Throw the book at him!!!!. One day, the real reason why the police wanted to get Helen Clark out of Canterbury in a hurry will come out.