Sick

48 comments on “Sick ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   10 March 2009 at 9:58 pm

   Hmm I read that earlier on stuff thinking that is a stupid thing to say. I’m not surprised you lot picked it up. The guy goes too far. Its fine to be tough on crime but his comments and actions simply are too much and he needs to keep his damn mouth shut.
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   10 March 2009 at 10:14 pm

   This guy’s a lawyer right?

   sheesh.

   I can’t actually think of a quote from an MP in NZ that is as flat out wrong on as many levels than that one. I’m sure there is one. But still. He’d be close to being an embarrassment in the GOP.

   What he is saying in effect is that assault by other prisoners is part of the sentence. That’s not stupid, or at least, if it is stupid, that’s the least of it’s problems.

   Classical Liberalism. Good one.
3. Byron 3

   10 March 2009 at 10:53 pm

   I don’t use the word ‘hate’ for politicians, its an emotional word not suited to the political world, but there should be a word that can convey “I venomously disagree with and am in fact disgusted by this man.” Someone like this having a seat in parliament makes living in New Zealand something I’m almost ashamed of, to share a country with the people who would elect this type of person.
   I thought one of the few advantages of the election result would be being spared the embarrassment this country had with its xenophobic foreign minister, but now we have David Garret, I can’t decide which is worse.

   Captcha: 160 Hated
4. jimbo 4

   10 March 2009 at 11:03 pm

   He’s certainly not the type any of us want with any real power.

   He’s either a bit stupid in terms of appreciating the impact of what he’s saying, or else ACT has decided that appealing to voters with these sorts of extreme views is worth doing through one of their lower profile MPs.

   If the former, they need to train him up quick. If the latter, I think it’s silly politics and of no help at all on serious issues.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     10 March 2009 at 11:21 pm

     I suspect it’s something like the latter. I would have thought though that a party forged in the heady theoretical days of the eighties would understand the dangers of ‘capture’.

     As they say in Texas, Act has to dance with those what brung ’em.
   • illuminatedtiger 4.2

     10 March 2009 at 11:54 pm

     The latter. Hide would’ve reigned him in – the fact he didn’t and is completely silent on this idiot’s comments speaks volumes.
     • gobsmacked 4.2.1

       11 March 2009 at 12:16 am

       Yes. These comments were made in an ACT party press release. It’s not just an MP getting carried away with off-the-cuff remarks.

       The Associate Minister of Corrections – one Pita Sharples – has been notably silent too. His lifetime of principled campaigning on prison reform is going down the gurgler, and he’s just letting it happen without a word of protest. No mana there, Pita.
5. gobsmacked 5

   10 March 2009 at 11:04 pm

   Let’s continue with Garrett logic:

   If Liam Ashley hadn’t done anything wrong, he wouldn’t have been in the van, and so he wouldn’t have been attacked, and killed.

   Heads you’re a monster, tails you’re a victim.The SST will let you know which, afterwards.
6. Kevin Welsh 6

   10 March 2009 at 11:10 pm

   I wonder if this sicko’s twisted logic includes those on remand?
7. todd 7

   10 March 2009 at 11:38 pm

   while no one can condone any criminal acts.i once worked with a young guy who spent 4 years inside,he had many stories to tell of blow jobs,and anal sex and said that it was considered not unusual as they were only satisfying themselves and this guy even hated homos,go figure.
   • QoT 7.1

     10 March 2009 at 11:46 pm

     Yes, todd, “blowjobs and anal sex” is totally the same thing as cellmates assaulting and raping other cellmates.
8. Ianmac 8

   10 March 2009 at 11:39 pm

   I did hear Garrett on radio say that, and I thought that there are many in the country who would agree that if you are a crim you deserve everything that happens to you. He would say that life is far too cushy for crims and bunking up would serve you right. And there are many who would agree with him on a superficial basis- unless they themselves or a family member slips up. After all many in prison are not nasty violent thugs until prison teaches them how.
   • Killinginthenameof 8.1

     11 March 2009 at 12:29 am

     The public at large are unable to respond to law an order issues in anything but an emotional manner. In my opinion this is one of the single biggest problems facing politics in this country (unless your just fishing for votes, will expand on this below). Cue someone saying how would I feel if someone in my family was killed, and my response to this is I would be fairly upset, but the policies you are most likely to be advocating are more likely to end up with someone in my family being killed, how do you think I feel about that?

     There is separation that is largely ignored, over all the goal is to prevent harm to other people, seems simple enough huh? When it comes to crime, social policy is supposed to keep me safe in the first place, but once a crime has been committed against me, once that person is in prison it is obvious that social policy has failed. At this point the focus must shift onto preventing them committing further crime, and quite frankly, all moral judgments about how this is to be done must go out the window. By this I do not mean ignoring their human rights, I mean I don’t give a shit if it takes flat screen tv’s and underfloor heating, I don’t care what some punitive angry bible bashing racist talk back calling fuckwit thinks things were like back in his day, I don’t care that they get a slice of Christmas cake on Christmas day, or that there is plants planted around the prison. The sole consideration must be reducing the chances that they will re offend (any one notice how easily McVicar managed to slip recidivist into common dialect, sounds so much more evil doesn’t it?)

     The simple truth of the matter is that most criminals do not think they will get caught, there would be a huge drop in crime if they did. Mr Garret, it doesn’t matter how horrible you make prison’s, if they don’t expect to go there, its irrelevant. And I am not advocating for an authoritarian police surveillance state, I just think there should be more police, better trained who are paid more.

     And this is all a science, back in the good old days when you could beat your disobedient wife and children does not matter, there is a science to the behavior of these people. There is no sky fairies, no magic, no mystery in their minds, there are a few who cannot be rehabilitated, but many (if done properly) who can.

     The cynic inside me may say it doesn’t really matter. The public doesn’t really care about crime, if they did they would know that its going down (and don’t give me that bullshit about violent crime going up, that’s been explained a hundred times over, without any other refutation than “no”), it;s all about perception really. By making prisons harsher and sentences longer, it looks like National is doing something positive, people feel safer, as crime is so uncommon in the scheme of things, that an actual increase in crime is unlikely to effect them. This some what mirrors the cynical bull shit that we get out of the SST, and the poor grieving families that they exploit when given half a chance, they place their warm fuzzy feeling of revenge as far far more important than keeping me safe from crime.

     Its all just another feel good, media managed, all show no substance, waste of everything that has become so synonymous with this National government.
   • Snail 8.2

     11 March 2009 at 2:58 pm

     Might we call this the rape of rehab..?
9. Tom Mathews 9

   11 March 2009 at 12:15 am

   I have to admit I rarely agree with a post on The Standard in its entirety. This one hits the spot though.

   What a disgusting thing for Garrett to say.
10. Steve Withers 10

    11 March 2009 at 12:47 am

    ACT is only in Parliament because of Epsom. Ask them what they think of it. They probably LOVE it! There will be thousands of people there who know next to nothing about almost everything and prisons will be one more for the list.
11. Jum 11

    11 March 2009 at 12:52 am

    Gobsmacked
    Excellent point – I wonder how any first timer’s family would feel about that, or even how a prison sentence would have turned out locked in a cell with a human nightmare.

    Byron
    The descriptive word you may be looking for is ‘recoil’ as from a snake oil charmer, venemous, repulsive.

    Garrett is basically the hemlock icing on a rat poison cake.

    For the last nine years, I felt positive about my country, people were being helped, and I just felt good about being a New Zealander.

    Then National came in.

    Now it’s the same feeling I had with Douglas and the ramming through of bad policy before people realised what was happening. My country has a nasty aura about it now.

    At least now the people who convinced themselves that National was a blue ‘Labour’ government, will have to accept that KeyNAct was lying.

    Trouble is NAct is clever. It knows that in three years, people will have got used to ‘nasty’ and when Key promises good things in the 2nd term just as Douglas did, same as Richardson did, people will believe because they want to and we’ll have the same wanton destruction of New Zealand as the right perpetrated in the 80s and the 90s. Yes, back on that again. When NAct only want to live in the last century, we can expect only last century thinking.

    Garrett is a gift. He is one of our future advertisements for the next election. I’m looking forward to it already.
    • Tigger 11.1

      11 March 2009 at 9:30 am

      Thanks for that post Jum. It makes me feel less alone. I’ve been feeling a sense of powerless and hopelessness as I watch a country I’ve been proud to part of turning sour and nasty in the past few months.

      I feel like I’m in some Twilight Zone world where people think rape is okay and building a country-long cycleway is (a) a way out of recession and (b) will only cost $50 million.

      The mainstream media are complicit in allowing this to happen by not asking questions. Not only do I expect them to ask the hard questions, I expect them to ask questions full stop but even that appears beyond most of our journalists today.

      And I too am comforting myself with the fact that governments fall. We all know it’s not happening tomorrow but it will happen. And that’s a day I am looking forward to.
12. keith 12

    11 March 2009 at 7:04 am

    from gingercrush: “Hmm I read that earlier on stuff thinking that is a stupid thing to say. I’m not surprised you lot picked it up. The guy goes too far. Its fine to be tough on crime but his comments and actions simply are too much and he needs to keep his damn mouth shut.”

    right so you dont actually disagree with what he’s saying, just that he should be more media savvy so as not to get rumbled? You’re worse than he is, GC.
    • gingercrush 12.1

      11 March 2009 at 1:47 pm

      Don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t agree with what he said whatsoever. It was a stupid thing to say. One can be tough on crime without actually being pathetic. Too bad Garret isn’t one of them. That was all I was implying there.
13. Janet 13

    11 March 2009 at 8:05 am

    It annoys me that people like David Garrett think that people who commit crimes are sort of sub-human ‘other’ beings so deserve what they get. But what about all the fraudsters and corrupt businesspeople who are mates of the ACT lot and are also criminals? Does he care about them? (or do they go to nice comfortable prisons?)
14. Stephen 14

    11 March 2009 at 9:14 am

    wtf
15. vto 15

    11 March 2009 at 9:29 am

    What a complete ignoramus. I’m going to the act website right now to …
16. BLiP 16

    11 March 2009 at 9:35 am

    David Garrett – the Alf Garnett of New Zealand politcs. His views are abhorrent and, for a lawyer, indicate a poor understanding of justice – people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

    Hahahah – Captcha: national unplanted
17. MikeE 17

    11 March 2009 at 9:38 am

    Hes not a classical liberal. He’s a fucking redneck.

    I’m an ACT supporter through and through, but Garret goes WAY too far.

    The idea that its somehow ok for someone to get anally raped in prison for a drug offense sickens me to the core.

    He’s an embarressment.
    • Felix 17.1

      11 March 2009 at 11:08 am

      So as an “ACT supporter through and through” I expect you’ll be pretty keen to hear your leader, Rodney Hide, publicly stating that Garrett’s views are not those of the ACT party.

      I expect you’ll be contacting the party and insisting that he does so, lest he lose your loyal support.
      • MikeE 17.1.1

        11 March 2009 at 12:24 pm

        Pretty much.
        • Felix 17.1.1.1

          11 March 2009 at 3:56 pm

          Good for you. I’m not a fan of ACT but I do have some sympathy for the genuine liberals among you who have had this crap foisted upon you by the leadership.
18. vto 18

    11 March 2009 at 9:50 am

    ha ha, just sent my 2c off to Garrett and Hide. No doubt some fob off reply will be wending its way back shortly.
    • Matthew Pilott 18.1

      11 March 2009 at 10:00 am

      Let us know, vto, & good on ya. Frankly, I’d rather not give ACT feedback so this muppet can keep repelling people, but good on you – good to see your 2c going the other way when required 🙂
      • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1

        11 March 2009 at 10:26 am

        Yep, Good for you vto. I’d do the same but for, a) I don’t want to have to pretend to be a ‘concerned supporter’ and b) I don’t trust them with my email. 😉
        • vto 18.1.1.1

          11 March 2009 at 1:00 pm

          ha ha, reply back from garrett. it is in exactly the same vein as this and all the rest of his commentary.

          its hard to tell if he is serious or not given his seemingly complete lack of understanding
          • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1.1

            11 March 2009 at 5:27 pm

            Ha. the man is in serious need of a nickname, amoungst other things. Perhaps we could have a bipartisan mockathon.

            The member for the 14th century perhaps?
            David garrote?
    • Chris S 18.2

      11 March 2009 at 11:48 am

      Good on ya, vto – let us know if you get a reply!
19. Brett Dale 19

    11 March 2009 at 10:23 am

    I dont see much wrong with that statement

    “The fact is if you don’t want to be assaulted – or worse – by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime.’

    Basically he is saying, if you don’t want to go to jail, don’t commit a crime.
    • Felix 19.1

      11 March 2009 at 11:09 am

      No, he’s saying that it’s ok to rape criminals.
    • BLiP 19.2

      11 March 2009 at 11:35 am

      What about those who don’t commit a crime and still end up in jail?
    • killinginthenameof 19.3

      11 March 2009 at 5:10 pm

      Basically Brett im saying, there is about a 1 in 56,000 chance that you will be murdered in the next 12 months, if you dont like it, leave, if you wont leave it’s your own fault if your murdered.
20. Lew 20

    11 March 2009 at 2:00 pm

    vto: Guest post!

    L
    • vto 20.1

      11 March 2009 at 5:43 pm

      Lew, guest post? You mean his reply to my email? Thought about similar but too risky re personal and anon connection. Not worth it.

      P’s b, thoughts re a nickname? He just comes across as a neanderthal.

      It seriously amazes me that this idiot can say something like this and pretend to have some credibility. And that act keep him? Sheesh, I quite like some of their policies but you have to wonder about their judgment in letting a bozo like this in. And they would have known he was like this beforehand too…

      Mind you, similar with most parties. They all seem to acquire the odd idiot.
      • Lew 20.1.1

        11 March 2009 at 7:57 pm

        vto,

        Lew, guest post? You mean his reply to my email? Thought about similar but too risky re personal and anon connection. Not worth it.

        Fair enough. I suppose those of us who want a personalised bit of invective can email him ourselves.

        L
21. teitei 21

    12 March 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Typical sick fuck baldheads. Need a fucken bullet.

    [Tane: That’s well over the line. Banned permanently.]
    • gingercrush 21.1

      12 March 2009 at 3:34 pm

      Nevermind
22. the sprout 22

    12 March 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Garrett seems to think the judicial system is infallible.
23. Rodel 23

    14 March 2009 at 10:09 pm

    Shudder to think that this fool could have any influence over govt policy.All because tories in Epsom saw a chance to have 2 right wingers – and they caused this twit to be in parliament.Let’s face it. No one else in New Zealand really wanted or voted for Hide and his idiots. Something’s wrong somewhere in the system.
24. Killinginthenameof 24

    19 March 2009 at 8:22 am

    Anyone heard Garret on the news this morning, asking why the Austrian courts are only taking 1 week to deal with Joseph Fritzel but 3 months to deal with the David Bain re trial?

    Does he not know the difference between an inquisitorial system and an adversarial one? Garret being a lawyer I find that hard to believe, is he just being (in the loosest sense of the term, and most definitely for lack of a better term) intellectually dishonest, or is he just lying.

Links to post

1. Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » What David Garrett really thinks: posted on 16 March 2009 at 11:30 am
2. It’s got to be the woman’s fault at The Standard: posted on 22 June 2009 at 11:59 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS