Sensible Sentencing Trust: a bunch of liars

20 comments on “Sensible Sentencing Trust: a bunch of liars ”

• Comments are now closed

1. just saying 1

   28 August 2010 at 12:58 am

   I’d love to be proven wrong but I’d bet big bucks that Labour won’t set the media right.
   I thought I saw footage of Goff at the conference. Puts his attendance at the ‘fairness at work’ rally in a different light, if he doesn’t actually support the SST.

   anti-spam – omits
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     28 August 2010 at 8:50 am

     “I thought I saw footage of Goff at the conference.”

     And then I opened my eyes and it was all a dream.
   • Jenny 1.2

     28 August 2010 at 10:28 am

     I agree with you ‘Just Saying’.

     Irish, if this sort of thing is not stamped out, some unionists will be claiming that the CTU’s Fairness at Work campaign has the endorsement of the Labour Party, on the flimsy grounds that some Labour Party MPs were seen attending the Fairness at Work rallies.
2. comedy 2

   28 August 2010 at 7:58 am

   Don’t be stupid if Labour came out against the SST it’d be spun that they don’t support the victims of crime……… best they just STFU
   • Tigger 2.1

     28 August 2010 at 8:03 am

     Agreed. The SST is neatly hidden behind people with real losses and real tragedy. Why pick a fight you will lose? Better to nail Collins on why she seems so proud of our prison numbers if crime is actually going up?
   • Ari 2.2

     28 August 2010 at 12:37 pm

     Because somehow the SST is the only organisation that includes or represents victims of crime… *headdesk*
     • simon 2.2.1

       30 August 2010 at 8:40 am

       Last time I saw a criminal case being tried there was still a prosecution to put forward the side of the victim… I’m assuming this is what was going to be the case when I was pestered to provide a victim impact statement when some guy was unlucky enough to crash into my car. I had explained to the police quite clearly that I wasn’t interested in being part of charging the guy with dangerous driving. so I’m hoping the police weren’t so rigorously fighting for my “victim’s rights” that they missed the fact that I didn’t want anything done.

       Why would involving people who are emotionally invested in the crime aid justice? Shouldn’t justice be impartial as a basic requirement of being fair? Will the families of criminals who are likely to live without them for years, if sent away for a serious crime, going to get representation in court? Why not? Are they not an innocent party that are going to be impacted, in the same way that the family of a victim of crime are an innocent party? What is the mechanism that promotes the family of the victim’s feelings above the family of the criminal?
3. The Voice of Reason 3

   28 August 2010 at 9:13 am

   Good on you, Irish. A quick scan of the news reports on the SST conference reveals a couple of other media reports that also took the Trust at their word. I bet the NBR or the Herald won’t be honest enough to alert their readers to the error. Certainly not if it means exposes McVicar as a bullshitter.

   I’m with comedy on this one. Better for Labour to let this one slide, at least publicly. There is no profit for them in being seen to be having a go at the SST, even if it is just to get the truth out. As I said on the original post, better to just hope for a few votes from deluded SST supporters. No harm done.

   Here’s John Minto’s take on the conference. Note, he also thinks it was ‘sponsored’ by Labour.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/frontline/4067652/What-Key-should-have-said-on-crime
   • IrishBill 3.1

     28 August 2010 at 10:12 am

     Yeah, in retrospect, you’re probably right. I’m pretty angry I fell for the SST’s claim though. Perhaps I need to take a less punitive view of the matter.
     • Bunji 3.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 6:40 pm

       A less punitive view? The SST certainly wouldn’t agree with that sentiment…
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     28 August 2010 at 12:19 pm

     It’s possible to get the truth out without being confrontational.
4. Bill 4

   28 August 2010 at 11:15 am

   I guess the SST were just doing a reasonable job of spinning when they sold endorsement as sponsorship? Why did Labour acquiesce to them holding their conference in parliament again? And why is it that Darien Fenton says Labour MPs were upset, while Cosgrove says Labour didn’t object?

   I take it that Cosgrove’s “parliament is actually owned by the people.” justification means that the next time there is an anarchists conference, Labour will be pushing for the doors of parliament to be thrown wide open in the name of democratic participation? Nah. Thought not.

   Labour will continue to agree that any of us ‘owners of parliament’ who have the temerity to actually turn up there should get arrested or ushered away.

   That aside. Am I the only one who finds it disquieting that major social democratic parties are running scared of a well funded but rag tag bunch of right wing malcontents?
   • The Voice of Reason 4.1

     28 August 2010 at 11:36 am

     I’ve been to a couple of left wing events in Parliament, Bill and I have no problem with the quid pro quo that requires. The SST may be clueless about how to minimise crime and solely focussed on bringing the old testament into the sentencing phase of the judicial process, but the fact remains that they have a small, but significant constituency, are represented in Parliament by the MP David Garrett and have sufficient political clout to be able to organise their conference in the way they did.

     The great thing about the lie about Labour’s endorsement is that it shows how tenuous their grip on the ACT Party is. As the third leg of that wobbly stool, they must be very nervous about their future representation in the house. Claiming Labour is a sign of their insecurity and their failure to galvanise broad support.
5. BLiP 5

   28 August 2010 at 11:28 am

   For a lobby group, and particularly one as corrupt as the SST, to falsely claim it has the support of a political party like this is a travesty of democracy.

   I’ve told you a billion times, Irish, don’t exaggerate.
   • IrishBill 5.1

     28 August 2010 at 11:44 am

     Yeah well I was a little angry.
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 11:58 am

       Nothing wrong with anger, IB. You’ve every reason to be pissed off with the SST, as indeed have their supporters. At least you can do something positive about it, as your fellow fenian John Lydon suggests:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPj-8_wOZcA
       • IrishBill 5.1.1.1

         28 August 2010 at 1:01 pm

         Aw. Johnny looks so young.
   • Ari 5.2

     28 August 2010 at 12:50 pm

     I have to agree that implying the SST has any interest in democracy as opposed to popularism is indeed exaggeration. 😉
6. Jum 6

   28 August 2010 at 6:59 pm

   I listened to Celia Lashlie today. She decries the throw them in prison and throw away the key method. She prefers the catch ’em young and walking alongside women and children to empower them to withstand the scum that surround them.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 27 August 2010 at 12:29 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS