Friday, September 17, 2010

David Garrett and the ACT Party (comments)

In recent news it has come out that David has been a naughty boy in the past. How serious is this? Naturally the press have been having a field day in going in to every little detail.

There are thought were the most interesting/insightful/amusing comments made on the articles on the website:

RichMac said: "If it's good enough for the court to discharge him without conviction and permanent name suppression who are we to conduct the witch hunt? Leave him alone."

John said: "While I may not like Mr Garrett and I certainly don't favour the Act Party, I don't condone the media and public habit of "hunting and shooting down" public figures for minor transgressions.

"Be fair, look at the specific charge in this case and the resulting $10 fine. It arguably was self defence and even though he was convicted the magnitude of the fine indicates it was not serious. Why would anyone want to put themselves forward for public service in this petty environment?"

Davedog thought the conviction had been blown out of proportion. "We are not talking about some malicious criminal act here, we are talking about a confrontation that escalated, someone's work against someone else's, and a dubious conviction in a 3rd world country."

And Hugh wrote: "We have a Minister of Work & Income who was on benefits, so why not a spokesman for Law & Order who has an assault conviction? The best gamekeepers are reformed poachers as the saying goes.

Wayne reckoned "perhaps the mindless "three strikes and you're out" law Mr Garrett was pushing for offers some help to us in determining whether he should still be the ACT spokesperson for law and order. By my count that's two strikes against him in the last day. One strike to go, David."

Ray offered a slightly different view. "Maybe David Garrett, in proposing his "three strikes", has carefully planned so as to have one up his sleeve?"

korknutt said: "That's two strikes so far Mr Garrett. Hope your policy works and can keep you on the straight and narrow from now on."

PR said:

Is the NZ Herald guilty of breaching the permanent name suppression granted to Mr Garrett?

Even if Garrett had told Parliament what he had done the suppression order would have meant that no on could have reported that? Parliament TV could not have broadcast it etc.

So do we expect to see a mass of broadcasters prosecuted for breaching name suppression order. This has since been lifted at Mr Garretts request but the media were reporting it long before that.

Are the NZ media going to continue to breach the court order and publish the name of the dead child, and add further stress to the family?

William said: "Whats David Garrets REAL indentity ? (....if hes' done it once!)"

KC said: "A leader and deputy pairing of John Boascawen and Heather Roy (the order to be voted on) will go a long way to restoring the member and public faith in the Act party. Anything less is a Rodney Hide farce and we have already seen to much of that."

overdahz said (in reference to Rodney Hide would be beaten in Epsom if National put up a strong candidate): "The obvious candidate is the National MP who lives in the Epsom Electorate - John Key."