Jump to content

Comedian with name suppression


lmsmith

Recommended Posts

So, what do you think? Should he be getting name suppression?

Sure, there's the argument that his daughter shouldn't be identified, but I can't help but think that all the hype about the name suppression makes it worse because everyone wants to know now, and everyone's talking about it.

Also, if anyone knows who it is (I'm pretty sure I know, but I'd like another person to confirm my findings!!) pls text me - 0211382053.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you realise that if anyone passes his name on that technically they have breached the suppression order and can be charged

not trying to be a wet blanket but would like to let you know

i don't agree with the suppression and to call this person a comedian is in itself a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a suppression order means that publication of the name is in contempt of court - one person telling another isn't publication, and therefore isn't a breach. It's a contentious point of law whether or not an individual saying the name on a forum is publication in breach of the suppression order - technically, if I was to say the name here, I would be defaming the person, but wouldn't be in breach of the order because my purpose was not to inform, but to discuss. It's a tricky point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard the girl was 4, and was in the mothers bed (his partner), he came home drunk and didn't know it was her. I have no idea how far the situation went - him even touching her (stroking her back) would have resulted in this outcome because the police have to press charges if a complaint is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im dead against nameing him if it is his daughter that has been the victum

I would ask a simple question... if you were his daughter would you want everyone to know?

OK shes only 4 but it would still be known when shes at school and kids wont forget... high school she will still be talked about.

If she wants to tell her close friends later on, thats her bussiness

Understand that my stance has got nothing to do with the father, just the daughter and any brothers and sisters as well as her mum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - the name suppression isnt so much for him but his daughter and her mother. Dead against naming on here too but like many out there, I know who he is. Hell the pictures shown of him on tv were not overly blurred and I think many may have got a fair idea of who he is from that as well if they had not heard earlier.

Yes the girl was 4 and he returned home drunk and it went a bit further than a simple touch but we shouldnt go in to that here anyway. Like I said, enough people know who it is. Career over for him now whether it was deliberate action or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I start my rant I need to say I would like to know when/if he is found guilty more because I am nosey than anything else...

You have all missed some of the biggest issues here!

What if he is innocent?

What if this is just the “partners” way of getting rid if him?

If his name is released will the child suffer?

In my opinion he should be named if found guilty. NZ needs a sex offenders register that anyone that is convicted is listed on (name suppression or not) and it should be available on a web page or at a local government office.

They also need to speed up the process for these types of offences and get people like this off the streets as soon as possible (or have their name cleared sooner)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a bit of a conflict with having name suppression and being on a register available to the public. He is still innocent and the innocent people involved should be protected, and I am sure that is what the court had in mind. If found guilty he would have more difficulty continuing with name suppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter who it is?

I for one would like to know because I would not like to support anyone that is a pedo. If I had the choice to go to a good show with a pedo and an average show without a pedo I would choose to got to the one without the pedo.

as said above: once he has been found guilty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a key part of our justice system is the name and shame, that's why for the majority of crimes court records are made public. Would you want a person who's mismanaged funds to look after your money (a la Hanover)? Would you want a person who has inappropriately touched a child looking after your kids? Would you want to support a musician who acts inappropriately with girls?

The 'prominent musician' is a prime example of where name suppression should be lifted - the victim has come out and told her story, and everyone knows who it is anyway.

I think having name suppression in a case where you are a celebrity or well known figure is a joke because many people know who it is anyway (and can therefore identify the daughter) and people are even less on his side BECAUSE he was granted name suppression.

Yes, Scottie, I agree that we shouldn't be on this wild chase with our pitchforks and burning torches until he has been proven guilty, however, police wouldn't have brought an indictment charge if they didn't think they had enough information to convict. This is a pretty serious charge, the maximum sentence is 14 years - I'm not sure simply saying 'I was drunk, I didn't know' will be enough for a not guilty verdict. My feeling is that he'll get rehab and a fine, probably be barred from being alone with kids under 12. If they do that, he's guilty, and officially becomes a sex offender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wat you dont know wont hurt you.

Also wont bother you.

(Unless the issues are directly yurs)

What you dont know wont hurt you but would you let your kids spend time with this guy? Remeber before answering that if name supression continues and he is guilty it could be the guy next door to you and you would be willing leaving your kids with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment he has not been convicted so he is entitled to justice like everybody else. It is not justice to ruin his life when he has not been convicted. That is what the courts are for. Most of the interest is the same as what sells all the rag mags rather than genuine concern for the victim who the courts were trying to protect by name suppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NZ needs a sex offenders register that anyone that is convicted is listed on (name suppression or not) and it should be available on a web page or at a local government office."

The problem with a list like in America is where teenagers get it on, one may be 14-15 the other 17-18 and all of a sudden the older one is classed as a sex offender and his / her life is ruined. Unfortunately there is no easy answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...