February 2010

Oh how funny

Tiger Mallard has definitely got to get this iPhone App, it is even named after him.

Do you frequently make bad-decision texts — the kind of texts that likely show up on Texts From Last Night? Well, then, you should probably download TigerText, a new iPhone app that will let you delete those digital mistakes from another person’s phone.

TigerText [iTunes link], which was released yesterday, could be a boon for cheating politicians and foolishly sexting teens alike, according to founder Jeffrey Evans, who claims that he named the app before the Tiger Woods scandal. “People text like they talk,” Evans told Time. “And some of the things they say, taken out of context, can come back to haunt them.”

In order to avoid said haunting, you may download this app and, upon texting your mistress/NSA buddy/boss (accidentally) the recipient will receive a prompt to install TigerText. After doing so, your mistress/NSA buddy/boss can read the text, but he/she/it won’t be able to store it. The text will then disappear from your phone and all servers. You can also set the text so that it will delete 60 seconds after being read — you know, like in Mission Impossible.

I wonder if Tiger can get a bulk discount for “Cancer” and “Mangrove”. If they had a Blackberry version the whole of parliament would be downloading it.

Name Suppression perspective from Canada

The Name Suppression debate has now reached Canada. What does the columnist think, Bring in Name Suppression or maintain their free and open court system?

It’s a rare week that goes by when someone doesn’t call our newsroom to rail against a system of justice that allows the publication of the names of people charged with crimes.

“You’ve got no right to have his name in the paper!” says the infuriated caller, and it can be tough to convince them that, in fact, we do have the right.

It’s nothing personal as far as the media is concerned, but it must feel intensely personal for the person whose face and name make it into print or onto the television screen.

And that’s understandable.

Most people would want to protect their identity if they could, if they’ve been charged with a crime.

It’s tough enough to explain things to your family and friends, let alone have the whole province know you’ve been charged with an offence, even if you are confident it’s all been one big misunderstanding and your name will be cleared.

“I think that in all honesty, regardless of the crime, names should not be released if it could hurt the rest of an innocent family,” Kay from St. John’s, N.L., wrote in response to my column on “Naming names” last week.

“There is something inherently wrong when a person charged with an offence such as sexual assault or any serious charge, is paraded, in handcuffs, and his/her picture is plastered on the front page of a newspaper,” wrote Gar from Mount Pearl.

“Is that person not presumed innocent until proven otherwise?”

Ok so we know that there is no such thing as name suppression in Canada.

Those are good points, and there are many others to be made in a debate that has been simmering not just in our neck of the woods, but in many jurisdictions.

But while some people here would like the names of the accused to be suppressed, in New Zealand they’ve been there and done that, and many people will tell you it just doesn’t work.

Yeah, like me.

But problems have arisen because the courts have a huge amount of scope when it comes to suppressing names, and the Law Commission doesn’t feel the policy is applied consistently.

“The current position in New Zealand is that the courts have a broad discretion to prohibit publication of names or identifying particulars of people accused or convicted of crimes …,” law commissioner Val Sims told The Telegram.

“The commission’s view is that this discretion is too broad, and can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency. We recommended that the scope of the discretion should be reduced, and specific grounds on which name suppression may be granted should be set out in legislation.”

The New Zealand Ministry of Justice is currently working with the Law Commission to draft a new bill simplifying criminal procedure.

Meanwhile, names are still being suppressed, and critics say the policy has led to a two-tiered system of justice.

I am astonished it takes so long to implement such a simple thing. The problem I suspect is that like all thing political, and this is political, is that there has to be a compromise. So the Law Commission is trying to make name suppression less available and at the same time increase the penalties for those who breach suppression. What will result is a dogs breakfast.

Stop Demand, an Auckland-based organization devoted to stopping sexual violence against women and children, was outraged this month when name suppression was granted to a prominent businessman after he downloaded more than 300,000 pornographic images over a two-year period, many of them of young girls. He was arrested and convicted after an FBI investigation.

The man was given four months’ house arrest and there is a permanent publication ban on his identity.

The founder of Stop Demand, Denise Ritchie, said granting sex offenders anonymity allows them to operate in secrecy.

“Given the sheer volume of images and the lengthy two-year period of offending, this man clearly has a sexual interest in young girls,” she told The Telegram via e-mail.

“The public, particularly caregivers and children in his community, are entitled to know who he is.”

I was outraged too, and now I have been charged with naming him. The public does have a right to know about creeps like this. The Judge does not know best.

Ritchie said public perception is that the well-connected can apply for and receive name suppression, while regular folks have to suffer the slings and arrows of publicity when they face criminal charges.

“In New Zealand, permanent name suppression has recently been granted to an ex-MP, an entertainer/comedian, a top level sports player, and a ‘prominent man’ in a provincial town, to cite some examples …,” Ritchie wrote.

“Lesser-known New Zealanders committing similar offences do NOT receive name suppression. The public disquiet rests largely on the issue that the law is not being applied equally to all New Zealanders and a sense that some courts are willing to protect the names of the ‘well heeled.’

“A system of justice should be – and seen to be – open, and one that is applied equally to all. Name suppression should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as (when) in doing so it would identify a sex abuse victim.”

As they say perception is reality, something that FIGJAM should start taking notice of.

Granting anonymity to some and not to others has led to virtual vigilantism in New Zealand, where at least one prominent blogger makes a habit of “outing” those who have been granted name suppression.

He is facing charges as a result, but remains committed to his cause.

“I think that the public have had enough and I am just tapping into what the public want,” Cameron Slater told New Zealand’s 3 News.

Just last month, his prominent Whale Oil blog identified a national figure charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Other critics of name suppression point out that by not naming suspects, a whole segment of society is unfairly tarred with the same brush.

The evil blogger. Fancy him running a vigilante action.

In November, the New Zealand Herald reported that a drunken entertainer who exposed himself and forced a teenage girl’s face into his genitals pleaded guilty but was discharged without a conviction and was granted name suppression because “(t)he judge said publicity would have a detrimental effect on his career and his record and ticket sales.”

Is this the kind of system we want?

Flawed but fair

Canada’s open justice system is not perfect. Some charges are publicized while others are not, depending on their severity or the perceived level of public interest.

People convicted in smaller centres in this province are less likely to have their cases publicized than those in urban areas because media organizations tend to base most of their reporters in larger communities.

Some crimes get high-profile coverage, while others wind up as brief news snippets in the paper or in radio or TV newscasts, depending on what other news has broken that day.

Occasionally, the media might inadvertently report that someone was charged, but not that they were later acquitted.

But the alternative is a closed or partially closed system – some would argue an elitist one – where justice for you and me may feel a whole lot harsher than for those with power or influence.

William Goodridge, a judge with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, says our system should be safeguarded and supported.

“The open court is a key component of our free and democratic society,” he wrote to The Telegram last week.

“Members of the public rely on the media as their eyes and ears, to comment or criticize. That role by the media is so, so important in our society. It is one of the key safeguards ensuring a ‘just society.'”

Those “eyes and ears” may not be infallible, but they do strive to be impartial, and that is far better than a system where judges can make decisions based not just on someone’s criminal record, but on their record sales.

When Labour foisted the Electoral Finance Act upon us they said it was to bring us in line with Canada, Australia and the UK. Almost the same argument can be made here. The UK and Canada either use name suppression sparingly or not at all.

New Zealand essentially now has a closed Justice system or at the very least a two tiered system. That must go. Having an open court is a key component for us to enjoy a free and democratic society.

Fake titties save woman

There is much to recommend fake titties but saving your life probably isn’t one of them.

A Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon says a woman’s size-D breast implants might have saved her life when a gunman opened fire at her office.

Lydia Carranza was working at the Simi Valley dental office July 1 when her co-worker, the gunman’s wife, was shot and killed.

Carranza was just a few feet away. She survived a gunshot to the chest, but the the bullet left a scar and deflated the implant.

“She’s just one lucky woman,” Dr. Ashkan Ghavami told the LA Times. “I saw the CT scan. The bullet fragments were millimeters from her heart and her vital organs. Had she not had the implant, she might not be alive today.”

Lucky she had that boob job.

An LAPD firearms instructor told the Times it’s possible the implant interrupted the velocity of the bullet.

“I don’t want to say a boob job is the equivalent of a bulletproof vest,” Scott Reitz told the Times. “So don’t go getting breast enhancements as a means to deflect a possible incoming bullet.”

Lisa Lewis is obviously safe from gunshot attack.

4 more charges

I have received 4 more charges, by email of all things.

They are for the Dirty Teacher, the Dirty Doctor and the ex-MP.

I’m not sure the summons is legal though because it was delivered by email. The Summary Proceedings Act doesn’t specify that email is a valid method of service.

I’d like to thank the Solitor-General, the Detectives and the Judges involved in laying these charges two four days before my next court date, I will now get far more coverage and be able once again to highlight the stupidity of the system and the Law. I’d also like to thank FIGJAM for waiting to amend the law because he didn’t want a “certain blogger to take the credit” when that should really go to the Minister of Justice.

That is now 9 charges just one more to go before I hit double figures.

Email from Marcia Murray

Here Piggy, piggy…..whoops!

You know you are…

…fucked when someone makes a Downfall video of your problems.


Keep defending it please Len

Len “Jump-Start” Brown, or more to the point his Labour lickspittle advisor Conor Roberts don’t seem to have noticed the change in the wind of public tolerance over expenses.

After a week of expense scandals and a Minister resigning, Len “Jump-Start” Brown has decided to keep the issue alive by jumping in the media and trying to justify a nice little jaunt up to Japan for him and the missus.

Manukau Mayor Len Brown is defending taking his wife on his sister-city trip to Utsunomiya City, saying it would have been an insult to his Japanese counterparts if he hadn’t.

Mr Brown, a candidate for the Super City mayoralty, is faced with controversy for spending more than $16,000 of ratepayer money to take his wife, Shan Inglis, and three staff to Utsunomiya.

Mr Brown said the Japanese mayor would have suffered a loss of “face” had Ms Inglis not travelled because both the Mayor and Mayoress of Utsunomiya hosted them.

What a load of shit, clearly “Jump-Start” knows very little of Japanese or almost any other Asian culture where women are virtually second class citizens, the kind that should be seen rarely and heard never.

“Jump-Start should stop making excuses and refund the $16,000 that he used to fly and accommodate his missus in Japan.

And while we are on about the cash, he must have used Business Class at least for that because any flight website you care to mention has flights from Auckland to Manukau at less than $3000. I don’t begrudge “Jump-Start” that though, after all he is frail man, but coughing to take the missus is over the top.

He should have followed the lead of the Prime Minister and paid for her-in-doors himself.


Weird searches

These are some of the searches getting to my site for this month.

double mastectomy pictures
olympian with name suppression
dead penguins
the penthouse
telecom the whale
$89 undies
concealed carry .40
mad butcher christmas club
the death execution


Tiger can't spell and now he can't add

hat tip Lukas Rants

We found out the other day that Tiger Mallard can’t spell Invercargill. Yesterday he couldn’t even count.

Mr SPEAKER: By my reckoning and from the advice I have received, the Labour Party has now used its 28 supplementary questions, and that is not counting the one where I gave the Hon Ruth Dyson the opportunity to repeat one of them—I did not count that one.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is relatively unusual and I am doing something that I have never done before. I am almost certain that I used five supplementary questions. My colleague the whip counted my asking five supplementary questions, which is what I was allocated. Your—

Hon Bill English: Can’t count.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That is the man who should have—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately, and that is the end of that point of order.

Not a good look especially when you are wrong.

For someone who is the oppositions chief education spokesperson his lack of numeracy skills are surprising to say the least. What is good for goose is good for the Tiger.

Let's get some perspective on Mining

Labour and the Greens are busy running around bleating about New Zealand unlocking some of the wealth in our conservation estate. Frankly New Zealand can’t afford NOT to access those minerals.

DPF caught out the Greens lying like an IPCC report saying that it was appalling that evil National and their Mining buddies are going to destroy the “most precious and significant land in New Zealand’s public conservation estate to be laid bare for mining.

Oh and don’t forget that “National have no mandate to allow mining in National Parks”. David “Rowling” Parker forgets that Chris “Koru Club” Carter authorised Pike River Mine smack in the middle of a National Park. That was ok by him then, he was in cabinet that approved it so he must have been.

I’m over their lies, aided and abetted by the anonymous Labour staffers cowards at The Standard I might add. So let’s look at the real numbers in a graphic that even the dumbest pinko and greenie felchmong can understand, with pictures. Why the national Research unit hasn’t already done this is beyond me, but here we go.

Mining in Conservation land

Mining in Conservation Land compared with New Zealand and the Greens fantasy.

As you can see we are talking about fuck all, something like 7 kilometres square. To put that in pictures for the simpletons it would be like mining some of the worst areas of Manukau, which is probably far better to do than keeping it the way it is.

Manukau vs. Mining area