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.

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

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.

Name him, so what if he is a so called celebrity/comedian, :evil:

Assuming the media hype is correct( lets face it I wouldn't be surprised if they were way off the mark) I struggle to see how you can have a sexual incident with a 2 yr old by *accident* drunk or not.

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.

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

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.

The court has heard all the evidence (possibly evidence not coming out in the court as well) and have decided to grant suppression. I would accept that as I figure they know more about it than me. I therefore don't want to know who it is and therefore the name of the child also.

the flip side is that every comedian is now suspected as being the guy & they have now said he has never performed live, done stand up or toured anywhere. what does that leave, comic writer?

probably cracked a joke or two on some obscure programme

Pretty obvious who it is if you google it. Not good.

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)

Alternatively all the innocent comedians like Mike could get together and make a list of the people that it is not

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.

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

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.

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.

Nooooope. Would and will only leave my kids wif my family or best friends.

For all you know it could be one of them. Not in this case but if you look at the bigger picture and there is another case it could be because you would not know their name

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.

"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.

My daughter works as a probation officer and its even hard for her to find out such information....

There are other problems too ---nimby for instance. In the us there are very few places they can live when they get out as who would want them. They all ended up in that town where the kidnapped child was found. Not as easy as it seems some times.