| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 54953 | 2005-02-26 23:26:00 | All Black Named | Obelix (752) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 328545 | 2005-02-27 05:47:00 | Well I think we should all just get over it and watch the rugby this season without getting all worked up over who it may have been. It's the business of the family and no-one else. This 'All Black ' and his friendly judicary has sent a clear message to every wife abuser and a huge pool of impressionable youth that you can pound on your wife/ partner and get away with it with some "counselling" Haven't watched rugby for years ever since it became a entertainment franchise staffed by hypochondriac, prima donna nancy boys. This just makes it worse. Bring Back Buck |
the highlander (245) | ||
| 328546 | 2005-02-27 05:55:00 | This 'All Black ' and his friendly judicary has sent a clear message to every wife abuser and a huge pool of impressionable youth that you can pound on your wife/ partner and get away with it with some "counselling" Haven't watched rugby for years ever since it became a entertainment franchise staffed by hypochondriac, prima donna nancy boys. This just makes it worse. Bring Back Buck No beating about the bush with you Highlander :D I like the nancy boy bit. Bring back Pine Tree more like it. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 328547 | 2005-02-27 09:06:00 | Well I think we should all just get over it and watch the rugby this season without getting all worked up over who it may have been. It's the business of the family and no-one else. I must disagree Manicminer. If it was purely the business of the family we'd have laws which say " No-one shall assault another - except if its a spouse, de facto partner, child, sibling, or near relative by blood or marriage, in which case its alright, go right ahead" Of course its our business. Everyone, married or otherwise deserves protection. Too much violence is hidden because we turn a blind eye. Assault is assault. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 328548 | 2005-02-27 09:31:00 | And just a comment on the perennially misunderstood issue of name suppression. Firstly, name suppression is rare. But the public, most of whom never have any reason to enter a court-room, believe it is common. This is because the media, almost in a fit of petulance, make a song and dance about it. Secondly, there is interim name suppression, which is more common. But this only lasts until the case is over. The courts handle about 25,000 cases a year. Final suppression, in the case of guilt is rare. So this AB is damned lucky. Thirdly, reasons: A disproportionate consequence after conviction, as compared with other offenders. Eg. loss of job or career. Effect on others: inevitably innocent people such as children can suffer when a parent is publicly named. Other kids, parents, and even teachers can be callous. Sexual offences almost always have suppression of all parties names for protection of the victims. Medical: you are all likely to know people of diminished mental abilities. Intellectually handicapped or mentally disturbed. No public good is served by them being named - but quite possibly a lot of harm can be done to the individual and those who continue to help them. I think this case is an example of a disproportionate effect on the offender. And his employer NZRFU. Personally I think he should have been named. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 328549 | 2005-02-27 11:03:00 | Do you guys actually know what took place? Find me an article which suggests anything along the lines of "giving hif wife the bash." In fact, I think you will find he was discharged without conviction? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, there are more important things in the world than a sensationalised news story worthy only of Woman's Weekly. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 328550 | 2005-02-27 11:05:00 | Part of his contract(which is no doubt worth considerable dollars) with the NZRFU would be to a positive role model for the sport and his country and would have sanctions written into it for bringing the game into disrepute either through his actions on or off the field . Buggered that one up didn't he ? What about all the other all blacks who have pregnant wives. Name suppression for this maggot tars them with same shame. Any "man" who hits women is a coward, any "man who hits a pregnant woman" is cowardly pond scum. Jesus... get some perspective... where has it been suggested he has ever hit his wife? Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 328551 | 2005-02-27 11:18:00 | Jesus... get some perspective... where has it been suggested he has ever hit his wife? Lo. Ah yes,he went to court to explain rules of rugger to judge. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 328552 | 2005-02-27 11:33:00 | Ah yes,he went to court to explain rules of rugger to judge. Comprehension obviously isn't your strong point? Read my question again - "Where has it been suggested he hit his wife?" Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 328553 | 2005-02-27 12:15:00 | Oh, right. Are you saying he only pushed her strongly? | agent (30) | ||
| 328554 | 2005-02-27 12:19:00 | "Jesus... get some perspective... where has it been suggested he has ever hit his wife?" the Highlander is my user name but if you want call me that who I am I to protest ? Perspective hmm. Take it from the perspective of a scared pregnant female on the recieving end of a proffesional national icon. Hit, wrestle, force, physically threaten, intimidate whatever semantics you wish to disguise it by. A guy who projects force/violence/aggression onto a pregnant woman in any way is a lowlife and is indefensible under any circumstances. And from my perspective I get real toey on the subject since my daughter got the same treatment (while pregnant) from her partner a while back and almost lost the baby. |
the highlander (245) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||