millsy6.1
I emailed McVicar and flat out asked him if he supported lynching.Unfortunately he never replied back to me.McVicar is an intolerant hateful bigot who will not be happy until people are hanging from lamp post.If you are not white middle class and Christian, then you deserve nothing less than exterminationMorrissey6.1.1
I think a legal challenge could be made to the status of the S.S. Trust as a charitable trust. Surely McVicar’s defiant support for the killing of a boy and his repeated demeaning remarks about the victim and the victim’s family are a violation of the mission statement and constitution of the S.S. Trust.In 1985, two lawyers managed to stop an All Black tour of apartheid South Africa by using the New Zealand Rugby Football Union’s own constitution to argue a tour would be in violation of that constitution, and would therefore be illegal.It seems perfectly feasible that the S.S. Trust’s own barbarous public statements could be used against it, and see it wound up.Kevin Welsh6.1.1.1
They are no longer a charitable trust.- What are they now then? A murderers’ advocacy and support trust?
- Can you not read?
- I guess Garth McVicar’s dreams of power have evaporated with Act’s self destruction. Good job! Can you imagine that horrible weasel in our halls of power… shudder! What we don’t need in this country is a group of white businessmen telling us that Maori’s should get the longest sentences available and then advocate for white murderers of young Maoris to get leniency. There should be a law against double standards based on racism. Let’s rename them the Sensible Sentencing (of any other ethnicity but mine) un-Trust.
- I read many quotes by the S.S. Trust (AKA Garth McVicar) vociferously supporting the killing of a teenage boy, and expressing support for a convicted grave-robber.So please enlighten us: is it or is it not a murderers’ advocacy and support trust?
- I couldn’t give a flying fuck what they, but what they are not is a CHARITABLE TRUST, Mr Fucking Thicky. That status has been revoked.
Luxated…
Kevin, they still call themselves the ‘Sensible Sentencing Trust’. Right on the top of the website, so what seems to be your main bone of contention here is moot.- Ahhh, no.Morrisey stated in his original message: “I think a legal challenge could be made to the status of the S.S. Trust as a charitable trust. Surely McVicar’s defiant support for the killing of a boy and his repeated demeaning remarks about the victim and the victim’s family are a violation of the mission statement and constitution of the S.S. Trust.”No legal challenge is required because they are not a Charitable Trust. Is it finally getting through?
- Kevin, I understand what you’re saying and I understand your point about what Morrisey originally said.However at least my reading of it is that Morrisey was indulging in some black humour after his first post, which you didn’t seem to be cottoning on to. Of course I could be reading Morrisey’s comment wrong but that’s the context of my previous post.Either way, confusion reigned and all got wet.
The Voice of Reason…
Indeed it has. The Senseless Sentencing Trust dropped the charitable status so they would not be subject to any outside scrutiny. In other words, to remove transparency, to hide in the shadows, to be unaccountable to anyone but McVicar.
Lanthanide6.2
If you took the time to type this up, thanks very much.At work I can’t listen to mp3s or view youtube, so when someone links to something like that I have no way of knowing what the real content is. When I get home from work there are so many more interesting things to be doing that I never listen to the mp3s or watch the youtube vids. So thanks for typing that up here.As an aside, I think this is a big challenge facing google – how do you index and search for content that is embedded in audio and video formats? More and more news reporting on the web is included in video content, and becoming unsearchable.
National Radio, Tuesday 8 March 2011, 3.10 p.m.