 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
David Harcourt
Administrator
| Joined: | 12 Jul 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1074 |
|
Posted: 12 May 2007 01:21 am |
|
I was thinking this morning about the David Bain case and asking myself why I had ever supposed he was guilty (it now seems that he was not, all along) and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the answer in my case is the same as that given by a (papably dumb) neighbour of the Bains in Dunedin:
I thought he was guilty because everyone else said he was.
"Everyone" here meaning several juries and courts of law, including the Court of Appeal.
It's a fascinating case from many points of view, not the least of which is the fact that it seems that our Court of Appeal (whose membership includes one of the two truly brilliant people I know) may have been asking itself (and answering) the wrong question altogether. This was:
Is David Bain guilty?
whereas what it should have been asking:
Has there been a miscarriage of justice here?
All of which, coupled with the crass behaviour of the head of the Supreme Court, "Dame" Sian Elias, throughout her tenure of office, makes one hope that a National Government will restore the right for New Zealanders to appeal to the Privy Council, and will at the same time abolish the Supreme Court, which is plainly nothing more than an exercise self-aggrandisement by the New Zealand judiciary.
Attached Image (viewed 64 times):
|
David Harcourt
Administrator
| Joined: | 12 Jul 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1074 |
|
Posted: 12 May 2007 01:38 am |
|
Anyway, the Bain case has been a bit of a shock for me, because I like to believe that I think reasonably clearly, and here is evidence that I don't.
And it hasn't been the only evidence of this kind lately.
Like most of the rest of us, I suppose (except you, gentle reader: I exempt you from these strictures), whether I believe what people say tends to be coloured by my perception of the person concerned.
In a way, this is simply a means of saving time. I know, for example, that the newspaper columnist Rosemary McLeod ran out of anything interesting to say a number of years ago, and that her schtick *, to use a Yiddish term, is to say what any middle-aged woman who is very troubled about her appearance would be likely to say to her hairdresser or manicurist, but to say it in a very, very pungent way. This is something which successive editors of the Dominion Post have imagined readers want to see in the paper, God save them.
Another example is Laila Harre, the decorative trades union official with the ghastly nasal voice and proto-Marxist views who Radio New Zealand (who else, I hear you cry?) uses as a regular "commentator" on life, the universe, and everything. Trying to guess what Harre will think and have to say about any political issue is about as exciting as blowing your nose, only much less rewarding.
The value of such people in one's life is that they can provide reliable compass points when unfamiliar issues come up. If you know that Laila Harre or Rosemary McLeod believes this or the other thing, there's no need to waste time getting to the bottom of it: you know that the truth can be depended upon to be somewhere else.
* "Schtick": "A characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention: waiters in tropical attire are part of the restaurant's schtick."
- Dictionary.com
The decorative but dotty Laila Harre. How Jim Anderton stood her and Matt McCarten for as long as he did is probably as great a mystery to Anderton as it is to the rest of us:
Attached Image (viewed 64 times):
|
David Harcourt
Administrator
| Joined: | 12 Jul 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1074 |
|
Posted: 12 May 2007 01:48 am |
|
And so it has been recently with Kim Hill, Michael Laws and Tom Scott.
If they say it's south, I know which way north lies.
If they say it's down, up it has to be.
If they say it's black ... well, you get the idea.
And yet, and yet ...
* Recently Radio New Zealand introduced a new station identifier. At frequent intervals a male Maori voice was heard to say, breathily: Radio New Zealand: sounds like us while in the background bird song played. This was awful stuff, even for Radio New Zealand, where awfulness is treated as if it is in short supply. Amazingly, Kim Hill took the piss out of this, playing the sound of a lawn mower behind the station's approved voice track. I was confronted with an incredible truth: Hill is sometimes right! No longer can I fix on what she is saying and head off in the opposite direction, confident in the knowledge that I am on course.
* Michael Laws is another ever-dependable lighthouse; one who can always be relied upon to direct every passing vessel onto the rocks. If he says it is so, one knows that it is not, and can immediately adjust accordingly. But wait. What Laws has been saying about the gangs, and the ineffectuality of successive governments over decades when it comes to dealing with them, has to be right, doesn't it? Damn! Another fixed point in my universe toppled.
* And it seems that even Tom Scott can sometimes get it right. Yes, Tom Scott, the insect in the armpit of the body politic; the person who makes us pray that Edmund Hillary will live for a hundred and fifty years, so that we and the generations who come after us will be spared Scott's eulogy ("I knew Sir Edmund very well, of course, and would have climbed Everest with him, had I not been in kindergarten at the time...").
Tom Scott gets it right for a change:Attached Image (viewed 68 times):
|
David Harcourt
Administrator
| Joined: | 12 Jul 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1074 |
|
Posted: 12 May 2007 03:05 am |
|
So what's next?
* Will Paul Holmes make some significant contribution, at real personal cost, towards the welfare of someone else (anyone will do), and disdain to attempt to extract publicity from this action?
* Will Michael Cullen be caught in a moment of genuine humilty - admitting, for example, that he's a shallow, smarmy little smart arse who wasn't bullied enough at school? (Judging by the weekend's news, this seems particularly unlikely: he has announced that he wants to be Minister of Finance and/or Labour's finance spokesman in 2008, and forever afterwards, notwithstanding the fact - obvious to everyone except himself, it would seem - that he is now Labour's single largest liability. "To infinity - and beyond!" with Michael Cullen ...)
* Will Winston Peters concede that he's a nasty, bloated, bigoted, vain little man, and go back to his wife and children promising (and meaning it) to change his ways forever and behave like a grownup in future?
* Will Ari Williams admit that he's a gormless oik, and apologise to his team mates and the rest of us for his appalling performances this year?
After recent events, anything is possible. Watch this space!
Ari Williams, a recent photograph:
Attached Image (viewed 55 times):
|
Current time is 03:24 am |
|
|
|
|
|
