See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
"David Tamihere faces jail recall"
I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
on TV.
The Parole Board was not going to be stirred into any quick action by
Corrections over this - this incident is hardly going to be a threat
to the public. It was purely a mistake on David Tamihere's part - he
was invited on the flight by TVNZ and just did not realise it was
going to be a parole breach. Corrections should treat it as such and
get over it. If Corrections persist in bringing this to the Board in
April, I hope the Board tells Corrections where to stick it.
Something Correstions and Parole Board had better sort out if they had
not done so - what would be the situation if he had flown over the
'prohibiterd' area on a regular Air NZ or similar flight? Does that
mean he has to ask the airline if the flight path is over that area
and if so get permission from Corrections? How silly.
By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
"David Tamihere faces jail recall"
I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
on TV.
The Parole Board was not going to be stirred into any quick action by
Corrections over this - this incident is hardly going to be a threat
to the public. It was purely a mistake on David Tamihere's part - he
was invited on the flight by TVNZ and just did not realise it was
going to be a parole breach. Corrections should treat it as such and
get over it. If Corrections persist in bringing this to the Board in
April, I hope the Board tells Corrections where to stick it.
Something Correstions and Parole Board had better sort out if they had
not done so - what would be the situation if he had flown over the
'prohibiterd' area on a regular Air NZ or similar flight? Does that
mean he has to ask the airline if the flight path is over that area
and if so get permission from Corrections? How silly.
By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
Click here to Reply
 |
- show quoted text -
2008 knife-killing of a boy in South Auckland, and you are a loud and
shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
parliament David Garrett.
|
- show quoted text -
being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
Pendantic pack of little dicks aren't they
|
- show quoted text -
Over-sensitive seems to be the public mood at present - stirred up by
Nat supporters keen to find someone to blame for the number of
desperate families finding it difficult to stay away from crime as a
paying lifestyle. It is the new "politically correct" to "bash a
beneficiary", ad call for longer sentences..
|
On Mar 3, 11:44 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd
I have nade one comment only on this - a few days ago, and I merely
implied that he was not a real victim.
> and you are a loud and
> shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
> parliament David Garrett.
For instance when? I actually has a row with him on justice matters
early 2009.
When you post this sort of crap and use an army of nyms it is little
wonder no one takes you seriously.
- show quoted text -
implied that he was not a real victim.
> and you are a loud and
> shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
> parliament David Garrett.
early 2009.
When you post this sort of crap and use an army of nyms it is little
wonder no one takes you seriously.
|
> So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't. > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
|
On 03/03/12 22:57, peterwn wrote:
>
> See:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
He was sentenced to life. What the hell is he doing out on parole? He>
> See:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
should still be in the slammer.
>
> By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
>
Yeah, right!> By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
>
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.
The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
|
On Mar 4, 11:39 am, Enkidu <cliffp@bogus> wrote:
> On 03/03/12 22:57, peterwn wrote:
> >> See:
> >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
> > "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> He was sentenced to life. What the hell is he doing out on parole? He
> should still be in the slammer.
Read the Sentencing Act, mate. If you do not like the Sentencing Act> On 03/03/12 22:57, peterwn wrote:
> >> See:
> >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/
> > "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> He was sentenced to life. What the hell is he doing out on parole? He
> should still be in the slammer.
as it relates to murder and life imprisonment, go and see your local
friendly MP.
See:
http://www.legislation.govt.
and orher related sections.
|
- show quoted text -
>
It's only because of people like you who sympathise with the criminals
that such silly legislation is in place.
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
frenzied knife killing was "not a real victim." You expressed support
and sympathy for the boy's killer.
And you have the gall to come here and say that you are no "crim
lover".
Unfortunately for you, your words can and will be held against you.
>
> > and you are a loud and
> > shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
> > parliament David Garrett.
>
> For instance when? I actually has a row with him on justice matters
> early 2009.
Sheffield-steel, which is better for SS-approved street justice?
>
> When you post this sort of crap and use an army of nyms it is little
> wonder no one takes you seriously.
killer, and you pour filth on the memory of his victim, and then,
ludicrously, you come back and state that you are "no bleeding heart
crim lover".
And to compound your foolishness, you still have the hide to make an
idiotic and unsupported claim about my credibility. Anyone who has
read your pompous but vacuous little homilies will be aware of it, but
it obviously needs to be reiterated: you are someone without a sense
of compassion or a smidgeon of shame.
|
On Mar 4, 11:30 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd
supporter of David Garrett?
> > When you post this sort of crap and use an army of nyms it is little
> > wonder no one takes you seriously.
>
> Really? Who are YOU to judge that?
This is my opinion, so eat that.
> > > and you are a loud and
> > > shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
> > > parliament David Garrett.
>
> > For instance when? I actually has a row with him on justice matters
> > early 2009.
>
> Really? What was the substance of the argument---German-made or
> Sheffield-steel, which is better for SS-approved street justice?
Answer the question, mate? When have I stated that I am a shameless> > > shameless supporter of the grave-robber and ex-ACT member of
> > > parliament David Garrett.
>
> > For instance when? I actually has a row with him on justice matters
> > early 2009.
>
> Really? What was the substance of the argument---German-made or
> Sheffield-steel, which is better for SS-approved street justice?
supporter of David Garrett?
> > When you post this sort of crap and use an army of nyms it is little
> > wonder no one takes you seriously.
>
> Really? Who are YOU to judge that?
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
The Crown has an interest in there being a minimal number of unsolved crimes.
The Crown has a history of fitting up people for crimes they did not commit, and for acting as a predator towards the commoners.
|
On Mar 3, 10:57 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> See:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
> basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
> on TV.
Contrast this with the Bailey Kuriki: multilpe bail breeches involving> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
> basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
> on TV.
assualts, drug and alcohol use, and he was still repeatidly let out on
bail. Tamahere flys over the coromandel (harming no person or
property).
|
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
Corrections, is about to perhaps punish him for something another arm of the
government, TVNZ, funded and probably suggested.
|
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <co...@solder.ath.cx>
wrote:
Who says they did? And was that significant anyway? Would it have
changed a decision?
wrote:
- show quoted text -
changed a decision?
|
On Mar 5, 2:51 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> Who says they did?
Have you followed this case at all?>
> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> Who says they did?
- show quoted text -
|
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Questions too hard for you JohnO?
wrote:
- show quoted text -
|
On Mar 5, 5:01 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
No, Dickbot. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the case and it's
aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
- show quoted text -
aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
|
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I didn't realise Labour were invovled in the case, or even that there
was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
differetn views on this case? Do tell!
wrote:
- show quoted text -
was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
differetn views on this case? Do tell!
|
On Mar 5, 5:52 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
> differetn views on this case? Do tell!
Stupid question from a stupid person so it doesn't get an answer.
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 5, 5:01 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 5, 2:51 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> >> >> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> >> >> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> >> >> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> >> >> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> >> >> Who says they did?
>
> >> >Have you followed this case at all?
>
> >> >>And was that significant anyway? Would it have
> >> >> changed a decision?
>
> >> Questions too hard for you JohnO?
>
> >No, Dickbot. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the case and it's
> >aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
> >'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
> >suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
> >doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
> >world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
>
> I didn't realise Labour were invovled in the case, or even that there
They aren't, you poor confused little person.>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 5, 5:01 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 5, 2:51 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> >> >> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> >> >> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> >> >> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> >> >> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> >> >> Who says they did?
>
> >> >Have you followed this case at all?
>
> >> >>And was that significant anyway? Would it have
> >> >> changed a decision?
>
> >> Questions too hard for you JohnO?
>
> >No, Dickbot. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the case and it's
> >aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
> >'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
> >suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
> >doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
> >world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
>
> I didn't realise Labour were invovled in the case, or even that there
> was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
> differetn views on this case? Do tell!
|
- show quoted text -
way, wouldn't you?
I mean, just to be consistent.
|
- show quoted text -
> you would have to support him all the
> way, wouldn't you?
>
> I mean, just to be consistent.
small army of sock puppets in some failed attempt to fool people that
you are not a sad obsessed loner.
|
- show quoted text -
and aggressive supporter of one convicted knife-killer, yet you seem
devoid of the same sympathy when it comes to another convicted (but in
2009 found NOT guilty) killer.
That's not simply inconsistency, that's hypocrisy of the most vicious
kind.
|
- show quoted text -
> yet you seem
> devoid of the same sympathy when it comes to another convicted (but in
> 2009 found NOT guilty) killer.
>
> That's not simply inconsistency, that's hypocrisy of the most vicious
> kind.
seeing and understanding the blindingly obvious.
|
On Mar 6, 8:51 am, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:31 pm, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 8:21 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 5, 8:20 pm, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 5, 5:52 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >On Mar 5, 5:01 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >On Mar 5, 2:51 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> > > > > > >> >> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> > > > > > >> >> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> > > > > > >> >> Who says they did?
>
> > > > > > >> >Have you followed this case at all?
>
> > > > > > >> >>And was that significant anyway? Would it have
> > > > > > >> >> changed a decision?
>
> > > > > > >> Questions too hard for you JohnO?
>
> > > > > > >No, Dickbot. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the case and it's
> > > > > > >aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
> > > > > > >'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
> > > > > > >suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
> > > > > > >doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
> > > > > > >world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
>
> > > > > > I didn't realise Labour were invovled in the case, or even that there
>
> > > > > They aren't, you poor confused little person.
>
> > > > > > was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
> > > > > > differetn views on this case? Do tell!
>
> > > > > Stupid question from a stupid person so it doesn't get an answer.
>
> > > > Assuming Bain DID do it, JohnO,
>
> > > You can safely assume so.
>
> > > > you would have to support him all the
> > > > way, wouldn't you?
>
> > > Of course I would not, you dribbling imbecile.
>
> > > > I mean, just to be consistent.
>
> > > You could be consistent and post from one identity, instead of using a
> > > small army of sock puppets in some failed attempt to fool people that
> > > you are not a sad obsessed loner.
>
> > Let's skip the abuse and cut to the chase, JohnO: you have been a loud
> > and aggressive supporter of one convicted knife-killer,
>
> No I have not.
>
> > yet you seem
> > devoid of the same sympathy when it comes to another convicted (but in
> > 2009 found NOT guilty) killer.
>
> > That's not simply inconsistency, that's hypocrisy of the most vicious
> > kind.
>
> Only to one such as you, whose manifest insanity prevents him from
> seeing and understanding the blindingly obvious.
My friend, spewing abuse like that invariably makes someone look bad---
and it's always the abuser.
Let's return to the issue: why do you not vehemently support David
Bain, Clayton Weatherston and David Tamihere just like you vehemently
support other killers?
> On Mar 5, 9:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:31 pm, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 8:21 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 5, 8:20 pm, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 5, 5:52 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >On Mar 5, 5:01 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:37:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >On Mar 5, 2:51 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:06:50 -0800 (PST), colp <c...@solder.ath.cx>
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >> >On Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:44:28 AM UTC+13, Katipo wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > So with a triple heart bypass operation and other illnesses he's still
> > > > > > >> >> >> > being hounded by a justice system that cannot admit they got it wrong ?
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> They are not admitting they got it wrong because they didn't.
>
> > > > > > >> >> >They got is wrong about the watch, for starters.
>
> > > > > > >> >> Who says they did?
>
> > > > > > >> >Have you followed this case at all?
>
> > > > > > >> >>And was that significant anyway? Would it have
> > > > > > >> >> changed a decision?
>
> > > > > > >> Questions too hard for you JohnO?
>
> > > > > > >No, Dickbot. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the case and it's
> > > > > > >aftermath would know about the significance of the watch. That you ask
> > > > > > >'who says they did' in reply to 'they got it wrong about the watch'
> > > > > > >suggests you are completely and utterly ignorant of the case. This
> > > > > > >doesn't surprise coming from a propaganda bot whose entire view of the
> > > > > > >world is fed to him through a tube from Labour HQ.
>
> > > > > > I didn't realise Labour were invovled in the case, or even that there
>
> > > > > They aren't, you poor confused little person.
>
> > > > > > was anything political about the case. Do Labour and National have
> > > > > > differetn views on this case? Do tell!
>
> > > > > Stupid question from a stupid person so it doesn't get an answer.
>
> > > > Assuming Bain DID do it, JohnO,
>
> > > You can safely assume so.
>
> > > > you would have to support him all the
> > > > way, wouldn't you?
>
> > > Of course I would not, you dribbling imbecile.
>
> > > > I mean, just to be consistent.
>
> > > You could be consistent and post from one identity, instead of using a
> > > small army of sock puppets in some failed attempt to fool people that
> > > you are not a sad obsessed loner.
>
> > Let's skip the abuse and cut to the chase, JohnO: you have been a loud
> > and aggressive supporter of one convicted knife-killer,
>
> No I have not.
>
> > yet you seem
> > devoid of the same sympathy when it comes to another convicted (but in
> > 2009 found NOT guilty) killer.
>
> > That's not simply inconsistency, that's hypocrisy of the most vicious
> > kind.
>
> Only to one such as you, whose manifest insanity prevents him from
> seeing and understanding the blindingly obvious.
My friend, spewing abuse like that invariably makes someone look bad---
and it's always the abuser.
Let's return to the issue: why do you not vehemently support David
Bain, Clayton Weatherston and David Tamihere just like you vehemently
support other killers?
|
- show quoted text -
as demonstrated by your obsessive compulsive behaviour and multiple
posting personalities.
>
> Let's return to the issue: why do you not vehemently support David
> Bain, Clayton Weatherston and David Tamihere just like you vehemently
> support other killers?
other killers' is just your own demented, ranting invention.
|
- show quoted text -
exactly?
>
>
>
> > Let's return to the issue: why do you not vehemently support David
> > Bain, Clayton Weatherston and David Tamihere just like you vehemently
> > support other killers?
>
> And here you display your insanity again.
abuse only makes the abuser look bad.
>
> This 'vehemently support
> other killers' is just your own demented, ranting invention.
killing of that child in Auckland are recorded in the Archives? Would
you like me to dig them up for you?
|
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
French rugby world cup defeat and referee conspiracy theory,
Palestine, Bruce Emery and many others.
I take it you accept your use of multiple personalities to support
yourself is a display of mental instability then.
>
>
>
> > > Let's return to the issue: why do you not vehemently support David
> > > Bain, Clayton Weatherston and David Tamihere just like you vehemently
> > > support other killers?
>
> > And here you display your insanity again.
>
> My "insanity"? As I recently pointed out, my friend, such vacuous
> abuse only makes the abuser look bad.
>
>
>
> > This 'vehemently support
> > other killers' is just your own demented, ranting invention.
>
> I invented nothing. Your bloodthirsty statements of support for the
> killing of that child in Auckland are recorded in the Archives? Would
> you like me to dig them up for you?
|
- show quoted text -
killings or the single incident in Auckland?
Or all of them?
|
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
systematic cheating by the home team in the biggest match of the last
four years? Of course you do.
>
> Palestine,
?? Protesting about massive, sustained, criminal violations of human
rights is a "hobby horse fixation"? Well, that's one way of looking at
it I guess. Maybe I should stay silent and pretend it doesn't happen---
like you do.
>
> Bruce Emery
I think you'll find my objection is less with Bruce Emery, who is
unlikely to kill again, and more with those who aggressively champion
his destruction of that child in 2008.
>
> and many others.
As I said, I could just turn a blind eye to these things, as you do.
Or I can make a fuss about them. I choose the latter option.
>
> I take it you accept your use of multiple personalities to support
> yourself is a display of mental instability then.
|
On Mar 3, 10:57 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> See:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
> basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
> on TV.
>
> The Parole Board was not going to be stirred into any quick action by
> Corrections over this - this incident is hardly going to be a threat
> to the public. It was purely a mistake on David Tamihere's part - he
> was invited on the flight by TVNZ and just did not realise it was
> going to be a parole breach. Corrections should treat it as such and
> get over it. If Corrections persist in bringing this to the Board in
> April, I hope the Board tells Corrections where to stick it.
>
> Something Correstions and Parole Board had better sort out if they had
> not done so - what would be the situation if he had flown over the
> 'prohibiterd' area on a regular Air NZ or similar flight? Does that
> mean he has to ask the airline if the flight path is over that area
> and if so get permission from Corrections? How silly.
>
> By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
Is flying overhead 'going there'? What if he flew overhead in a jet?
Say a scheduled service. Technically is there any difference?
> See:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
> "David Tamihere faces jail recall"
>
> I think Corrections is being unduly sensitive over this. I suspect the
> basic cause of their irritation is he accepted an invitation to appear
> on TV.
>
> The Parole Board was not going to be stirred into any quick action by
> Corrections over this - this incident is hardly going to be a threat
> to the public. It was purely a mistake on David Tamihere's part - he
> was invited on the flight by TVNZ and just did not realise it was
> going to be a parole breach. Corrections should treat it as such and
> get over it. If Corrections persist in bringing this to the Board in
> April, I hope the Board tells Corrections where to stick it.
>
> Something Correstions and Parole Board had better sort out if they had
> not done so - what would be the situation if he had flown over the
> 'prohibiterd' area on a regular Air NZ or similar flight? Does that
> mean he has to ask the airline if the flight path is over that area
> and if so get permission from Corrections? How silly.
>
> By the way, I am no bleeding heart crim lover.
Is flying overhead 'going there'? What if he flew overhead in a jet?
Say a scheduled service. Technically is there any difference?
|
- show quoted text -
"demented, ranting invention".
|
- show quoted text -
Your posts over a number of years show that you are generally balanced
and temperate in your pronouncements. I clearly (and foolishly)
mistook you for someone else--possibly Cawston or BrentC or Roger of
Finland. That's the danger you run when you hang out with, and even
worse, are seen to agree with lunatics and maniacs like those fools.
In March 2009 you contributed to many discussions, including "which
is harder - tennis or golf?" and "these 4 shits should be
euthanased". In January 2009 you saw fit to participate in a
discussion entitled "Would you accept fellation in public from this
woman?" This does raise a question about your judgement, and it might
be an idea to raise your mind out of the gutter occasionally. However,
I can find no evidence of your endorsing any killing, whether in South
Auckland or on a mass scale in Gaza.
So I apologize to you, my friend. You are no John Cawston, and you are
no Roger of Finland. You seem like a decent fellow.
HOWEVER....
Though I can't find any Cawstonian fantasies or bloodthirstiness, you
are guilty nonetheless of making this amazingly foolish statement...
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Clark sent NZ troops into Afghanistan. The Australian forces will
tell
you that Afghanistan has turned out to be far more dangerous than
Iraq.
Strange how neither you nor your mates whine about Helen sending
troops into harm's way in Afghanistan but you do moan that Brash
*might* have sent troops into a potentially less risky deployment in
Iraq.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's an appallingly ignorant thing to say, JohnO, and you no doubt
will feel ashamed.
No comments:
Post a Comment