National Radio calls S.S.Trust a “Victims’ Advocacy organization”
16 posts by 7 authors
 |
 |
National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
organization”
9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
daughter’s killer, ever since the murder. “Garth has been there for me
a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
Most of us are by now inured to the S.S. Trust’s cynical and depraved
manipulation of vulnerable parents; however, the really concerning
aspect of this news item was to hear the newsreader refer to the S.S.
Trust as “the victims’ advocacy organization.” Those who remember the
brutal and sustained campaign of vilification mounted by McVicar and
the S.S. Trust against a slain boy in South Auckland, and recall the
ridicule and abuse they heaped on the boy’s mother and family, will be
mystified as to why Radio New Zealand’s copywriters call them
“victims’ advocates”.
Or does Radio New Zealand, like Mrs Marceau, have its scripts written
for it by someone from the S.S. Trust?
organization”
9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
daughter’s killer, ever since the murder. “Garth has been there for me
a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
Most of us are by now inured to the S.S. Trust’s cynical and depraved
manipulation of vulnerable parents; however, the really concerning
aspect of this news item was to hear the newsreader refer to the S.S.
Trust as “the victims’ advocacy organization.” Those who remember the
brutal and sustained campaign of vilification mounted by McVicar and
the S.S. Trust against a slain boy in South Auckland, and recall the
ridicule and abuse they heaped on the boy’s mother and family, will be
mystified as to why Radio New Zealand’s copywriters call them
“victims’ advocates”.
Or does Radio New Zealand, like Mrs Marceau, have its scripts written
for it by someone from the S.S. Trust?
Click here to Reply
|
On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
> organization”
> 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>
> The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
> bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
> Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
> daughter’s killer,
Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
> organization”
> 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>
> The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
> bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
> Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
> daughter’s killer,
> ever since the murder. “Garth has been there for me
> a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
> pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and> a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
> pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
comfort for victims of serious crimes.
>
> Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
> not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
> or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
Well, Mo, I do not share your suspicion.> Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
> not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
> or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
>
Crims have their advocates in the form of the "Rethinking Crime and
Punishment" organisation. Trouble is for them is no one seems to be
listening. These 're-thinks' were tried in the 1950's to 1970's and
did not seem to work. Very few people want to try again methods that
failed dismally.
|
On Nov 12, 12:17 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> was a tad
confused:
by someone in the S.S. Trust) was issued precisely to make that very
point. What Breen did was to remind people of the true nature of
McVicar and his (de-registered charity) Trust.
> >
> > ever since the murder. “Garth has been there for me
> > a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
> > pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
>
> Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and
> comfort for victims of serious crimes.
Read the rest of the post, my friend. You obviously missed the part
where Breen reminded you of the S.S. Trust's provision of support and
comfort for the perpetrators of violent crime. Or are you trying to
wish that embarrassing fact away?
assaulter and sexual harasser David Garrett? Which organization
advocated for and defended the killer of 15-year-old Pihema Cameron in
2008, and then foully abused his grieving family? Are you suggesting
it was Rethinking Crime and Punishment?
>
> Trouble is for them is no one seems to be listening.
You mean YOU don't care.
>
> These 're-thinks' were tried in the 1950's to 1970's and
> did not seem to work. Very few people want to try again methods that
> failed dismally.
And letting maniacs loose on the streets with knives is the answer, is
it?
confused:
> On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
> > organization”
> > 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>
> > The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
> > bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
> > Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
> > daughter’s killer,
>
> Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.
Read the piece carefully: the press release (obviously written for her> > organization”
> > 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>
> > The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
> > bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
> > Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
> > daughter’s killer,
>
> Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.
by someone in the S.S. Trust) was issued precisely to make that very
point. What Breen did was to remind people of the true nature of
McVicar and his (de-registered charity) Trust.
> >
> > ever since the murder. “Garth has been there for me
> > a hundred percent of the way,” insisted Mrs Marceau. “He’s never
> > pushed himself, the trust, nothing.”
>
> Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and
> comfort for victims of serious crimes.
where Breen reminded you of the S.S. Trust's provision of support and
comfort for the perpetrators of violent crime. Or are you trying to
wish that embarrassing fact away?
>
> > Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
> > not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
> > or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
>
> Well, Mo, I do not share your suspicion.
>
> Crims have their advocates in the form of the "Rethinking Crime and
> Punishment" organisation.
Which organization loudly defended the grave-robber and doctor-> > Many people will share my suspicion that this statement was concocted
> > not by Mrs Marceau, but by Louise Parsons, Phil Kitchin, Peter Jenkins
> > or one of the S.S. Trust’s other spin doctors.
>
> Well, Mo, I do not share your suspicion.
>
> Crims have their advocates in the form of the "Rethinking Crime and
> Punishment" organisation.
assaulter and sexual harasser David Garrett? Which organization
advocated for and defended the killer of 15-year-old Pihema Cameron in
2008, and then foully abused his grieving family? Are you suggesting
it was Rethinking Crime and Punishment?
>
> Trouble is for them is no one seems to be listening.
>
> These 're-thinks' were tried in the 1950's to 1970's and
> did not seem to work. Very few people want to try again methods that
> failed dismally.
it?
|
On 12/11/12 12:17, peterwn wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a �Victims� Advocacy>
> On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> organization�
>> 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>>
>> The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
>> bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
>> Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
>> daughter�s killer,>>
>> The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
>> bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
>> Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
> Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.
>> ever since the murder. �Garth has been there for me>> a hundred percent of the way,� insisted Mrs Marceau. �He�s never
>> pushed himself, the trust, nothing.�
> Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and
> comfort for victims of serious crimes.
>
What rot. The "Sensible Sentencing Trust" is not a "victims" advocacy> comfort for victims of serious crimes.
>
organisation. It is and always has been very much on the side of the
perpetrators of crime.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
On Nov 12, 3:07 pm, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com.cliffp.com> wrote:
> > Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and
> > comfort for victims of serious crimes.
>
> What rot. The "Sensible Sentencing Trust" is not a "victims" advocacy
> organisation. It is and always has been very much on the side of the
> perpetrators of crime.
>
Example, please, Cliff.> > Definitely sounds like an organisation which provides support and
> > comfort for victims of serious crimes.
>
> What rot. The "Sensible Sentencing Trust" is not a "victims" advocacy
> organisation. It is and always has been very much on the side of the
> perpetrators of crime.
>
|
- show quoted text -
hundreds of other examples if you look.
On their site they say "The Sensible Sentencing Trust was formed in
March 2001 by a small group of motivated people with a passion and a
vision to help create a patriotic, crime free New Zealand through the
promotion of personal responsibility". In other words, the poor
criminals lack "personal responsibility" so it is not their fault.
Later in their manifesto they say "We realise that harsher penalties
alone are not the complete answer". That implies that they want to
reduce sentences, or introduce "empowerment programs" or similar nonsense.
Also "The Trust is absolutely committed to reducing violent crime
through community awareness, education and research". So they want to
raise our awareness of violent crime (as if we didn't notice that our
cars are being stolen and people are walking off with our stuff). They
want to *educate* us about crime committed against us by the ratbag
criminals! It's our fault we have been burgled or beaten up so we have
to be educated. I think society is already aware of violent crime and we
don't need to be educated about it. Research into violent crime is
pointless if you don't have a plan to reduce it.
They should be agitating for tougher prisons, tougher sentences and
institutions with no exit doors, not promoting 'community awareness and
education'.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
On Nov 12, 10:20 pm, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com.cliffp.com> wrote:
>
> >> What rot. The "Sensible Sentencing Trust" is not a "victims" advocacy
> >> organisation. It is and always has been very much on the side of the
> >> perpetrators of crime.
>
> > Example, please, Cliff.
>
> SST has been on the side of the government in the Dotcom saga.
(gasp!) you mean to say that the Government is a 'perpetrator of>
> >> What rot. The "Sensible Sentencing Trust" is not a "victims" advocacy
> >> organisation. It is and always has been very much on the side of the
> >> perpetrators of crime.
>
> > Example, please, Cliff.
>
> SST has been on the side of the government in the Dotcom saga.
crime'
Not too surprising that SST is on Government's side here since there
were victims of his earlier offending before coming to NZ.
> There are
> hundreds of other examples if you look.
I do not call a victim of offending who loses his rag and clobbers an> hundreds of other examples if you look.
offender as a 'perpetrator of crime'. Such victims do not wake up in
the morning and think 'who am I going to clobber/ rob/ rape/ etc
today' which is what *real* crims do.
>
<snip>
> They should be agitating for tougher prisons, tougher sentences and
> institutions with no exit doors, not promoting 'community awareness and
> education'.
>
If you think you know how to run SST better than the present trustees,> institutions with no exit doors, not promoting 'community awareness and
> education'.
>
mate, then why not get involved with SST and help run it better.
|
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
http://www.stuff.co.nz/
Just as the government uses sensational cases to distrct from its
economic failures ("when in a hole. bring Laura Norder to the
microphone"), the SS Trust is using cheap marketing tricks to prey on
victims grief for the self-promotion of individuals. Presumably it is
a "Trust" for tax reasons - there certainly do not apper to be any
beneficiaries from their actions.
|
On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:20:00 PM UTC+13, Enkidu wrote:
> SST has been on the side of the government in the Dotcom saga. There are
> hundreds of other examples if you look.
>
> On their site they say "The Sensible Sentencing Trust was formed in
> March 2001 by a small group of motivated people with a passion and a
> vision to help create a patriotic, crime free New Zealand through the
> promotion of personal responsibility". In other words, the poor
> criminals lack "personal responsibility" so it is not their fault.
That isn't what personal responsibility means. Personal responsibility is responsibility for the person in the same way that personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the person (aka jurisdiction in personam). In law the term person designates status, so saying that someone is a person when they are not is a form of slander, or libel if it is in writing.> SST has been on the side of the government in the Dotcom saga. There are
> hundreds of other examples if you look.
>
> On their site they say "The Sensible Sentencing Trust was formed in
> March 2001 by a small group of motivated people with a passion and a
> vision to help create a patriotic, crime free New Zealand through the
> promotion of personal responsibility". In other words, the poor
> criminals lack "personal responsibility" so it is not their fault.
The first principle of the empire is that a false accusation may be used to arbitrarily deprive someone of their freedom without penalty to the libelant.
1. If he (plaintiff) summon him (defendant) into court, he shall go. If he does not go, (plaintiff) shall call witnesses. Then only he shall take him by force. If he refuses or flees, he (plaintiff) shall lay hands on him. If disease or age is an impediment, he shall grant him a team (of oxen). He shall not spread with cushions the covered carriage if he does not wish to.
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/
Or as the SST would have it:
"Anyone accused of a violent offence should not be granted bail, full stop."
http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/
Non citizens are not afforded protection, as reflected in SST policy:
1. To represent New Zealanders who believe that the over-riding responsibility of the criminal justice system is to protect law-abiding citizens from criminal behaviour and satisfy victims and the community that justice has been done, making New Zealand a safer place.
http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/
|
- show quoted text -
>
> Just as the government uses sensational cases to distrct from its
> economic failures ("when in a hole. bring Laura Norder to the
> microphone"),
Just as other pollies, Forest and Bird, Greenpeace etc etc do all the> Just as the government uses sensational cases to distrct from its
> economic failures ("when in a hole. bring Laura Norder to the
> microphone"),
time. Seems it is only bad if National is accused of doing it.
> the SS Trust is using cheap marketing tricks to prey on
> victims grief for the self-promotion of individuals.
Cite the case of a victim who SST has helped who is complaining about> victims grief for the self-promotion of individuals.
being preyed on. Most crime victims would be very appreciative of
SST's support. For example SST and like minded people (such as Stephen
Franks) provide support and assistance for victims preparing their
impact reports, attending parole hearings etc. This is all part of a
caring society. If you or a 'nearest and dearest' had the misfortune
to be the victim of a serious crime you would soon be whistling a
different tune.
> Presumably it is
> a "Trust" for tax reasons - there certainly do not apper to be any
> beneficiaries from their actions.
It is not a charitable trust - they were denied charitable status> a "Trust" for tax reasons - there certainly do not apper to be any
> beneficiaries from their actions.
because their strong 'advocacy' role. As far as I can see it is a
private trust. If they convince IRD they are 'not for profit' (ie
similar status to sports clubs etc) they would get a limited tax
exemption on investmernt income (eg bank interest).
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:02:09 -0800 (PST), empedocles economopolis
<empedo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 12:17 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> was a tad
>confused:
>> On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
>> > organization”
>> > 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>>
>> > The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
>> > bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
>> > Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
>> > daughter’s killer,
>>
>> Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.
>
>Read the piece carefully: the press release (obviously written for her
>by someone in the S.S. Trust) was issued precisely to make that very
>point. What Breen did was to remind people of the true nature of
>McVicar and his (de-registered charity) Trust.
Sounds like self praising yourself. Breen <empedo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 12:17 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> was a tad
>confused:
>> On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:> National Radio: Sensible Sentencing Trust is a “Victims’ Advocacy
>> > organization”
>> > 9 a.m. News, National Radio, Monday 12 November 2012
>>
>> > The grieving mother of murdered teenager Christy Marceau has made a
>> > bizarre press statement, announcing that Garth McVicar and the
>> > Sensible Sentencing Trust have supported her, rather than her
>> > daughter’s killer,
>>
>> Just where, Mo, did Mrs Marceau draw such a comparison.
>
>Read the piece carefully: the press release (obviously written for her
>by someone in the S.S. Trust) was issued precisely to make that very
>point. What Breen did was to remind people of the true nature of
>McVicar and his (de-registered charity) Trust.
|
- show quoted text -
Bird and Geempeace trying to distract rom, and how?
As toother politiciansit is fair to say that most governments will
have some news or prposals they keep for a 'convenient moment' - but
in National's case it is realy getting quite blatant.
> Seems it is only bad if National is accused of doing it.
hard to tell which are the political distractions from the ideas put
forward seriously
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/
and
http://norightturn.blogspot.
and
http://norightturn.blogspot.
>> the SS Trust is using cheap marketing tricks to prey on
>> victims grief for the self-promotion of individuals.
>Cite the case of a victim who SST has helped who is complaining about
>being preyed on. Most crime victims would be very appreciative of
>SST's support. For example SST and like minded people (such as Stephen
>Franks) provide support and assistance for victims preparing their
>impact reports, attending parole hearings etc. This is all part of a
>caring society. If you or a 'nearest and dearest' had the misfortune
>to be the victim of a serious crime you would soon be whistling a
>different tune.
>> Presumably it is
>> a "Trust" for tax reasons - there certainly do not apper to be any
>> beneficiaries from their actions.
>It is not a charitable trust - they were denied charitable status
>because their strong 'advocacy' role. As far as I can see it is a
>private trust. If they convince IRD they are 'not for profit' (ie
>similar status to sports clubs etc) they would get a limited tax
>exemption on investmernt income (eg bank interest).
|
- show quoted text -
>
> Breen
|
On 14/11/12 09:54, peterwn wrote:
>
> Cite the case of a victim who SST has helped who is complaining
> about being preyed on.
>
Counselling victims is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. The>
> Cite the case of a victim who SST has helped who is complaining
> about being preyed on.
>
only really 'sensible' sentences are punitive ones. The ones that deter
the offender from offending in the first place. Prisons should be made
tougher and forbidding places, not family-friendly holiday camps.
Minimum rations, no TV, no access to the outside world. Rehabilitation
should not be the focus of prisons. Punishment should be. Bring back the
treadmill and whips.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
- show quoted text -
No comments:
Post a Comment