| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 115057 | 2010-12-30 19:57:00 | Name Suppression | lordnoddy (3645) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1165714 | 2010-12-30 19:57:00 | www.nzherald.co.nz Just because you're famous doesn't change the fact you broke the law! Your opinion anyone? |
lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1165715 | 2010-12-30 20:06:00 | It stinks. I think household names or celebrities deserve even more publicity. These are the people we look up to. We should know what they are really like. |
tut (12033) | ||
| 1165716 | 2010-12-30 20:09:00 | Doing things has consequences, if it was any of us, we'd be shamed in front of the people we knew, this is just pricks being rich and powerful. They may not quite be above the law, they still seem to manipulate it.. +1 to what tut said. Let's play a game, "Name and Shame"... Who's a 46 year old celebrity household name in NZ... John Campbell seems to fit the bill... Any more ideas? |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1165717 | 2010-12-30 20:43:00 | has anyone checked whaleoil yet? | plod (107) | ||
| 1165718 | 2010-12-30 20:50:00 | Who's a 46 year old celebrity household name in NZ... John Campbell seems to fit the bill... Any more ideas? + 1 going to have to watch Campbell Live tonight eh! |
lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1165719 | 2010-12-30 20:53:00 | + 1 going to have to watch Campbell Live tonight eh! That's going to be difficult. :) |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1165720 | 2010-12-30 21:04:00 | has anyone checked whaleoil yet? Whale oil? |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1165721 | 2010-12-30 21:05:00 | That's going to be difficult. :) If you can't make the news, make the news? :p There's motive for ya. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1165722 | 2010-12-30 21:05:00 | While I disagree with name suppression for just because they are famous, surely it can't be an issue unless they are found guilty? The person has only been charged but not tried. Our justice system prides itself on judging people innocent until proven guilty. Let the courts judge. There have been examples, in the past, where people have been charged with a crime, found innocent, but have had to live with the stigma for some time afterward. If they were not identified initially, that may not have happened. |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 1165723 | 2010-12-30 21:08:00 | While I disagree with name suppression for just because they are famous, surely it can't be an issue unless they are found guilty? The person has only been charged but not tried. Our justice system prides itself on judging people innocent until proven guilty. Let the courts judge. There have been examples, in the past, where people have been charged with a crime, found innocent, but have had to live with the stigma for some time afterward. If they were not identified initially, that may not have happened. In that case everyone not found guilty should be given name suppression. Anonymity till the guilty verdict is read out, I mean. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||