Complaint against TVNZ's Breakfast upheld

29 Nov 2009 08:04p.m.

James wrote:

Criminologists are responsible for this mess!!!! Scott, what planet are you on. Crime is seldom committed by criminologists - though I am aware of one offender in NZ who subsequently became a criminologist. Even he would tell you that crime is caused by a number of factors - parents addicted to alcohol and drugs, psychological and sexual abuse by parents, violence inflicted on children by parents, emotional neglect by parents, abandonment by parents, the presence of (male) step-parents in the family home, poverty, lack of education, parents in prison, social and emotional alienation, alcohol and drug addiction of the offender, mental health prtoblems, colonialism, etc, etc.

29 Nov 2009 07:57p.m.

ADAC wrote:

Scott. I have never attacked the victims of crime. Neither did Mr Brooking who made the complaint to the BSA. He didn't even complain about McVicar. He complained that TVNZ broadcast an item that was unbalanced. It was unbalanced - no one else was consulted....What's don't you understand about that?

29 Nov 2009 02:02p.m.

Scott wrote:

ADAC - You are a great one for twisting words around and not reading what I have writeen before. It is the PC brigade, including criminologists who have just come out of University who got us into this mess in the first place.
Secondly, you should get the dvd from the SST - you may learn something.
Instead, you blindly attack the victims of crime, as if they have not suffered enough yet.
I wonder if you are one of these lawyers, or criminals whose party is about to end, because the public is getting pretty fed up.
The SST stands for sensible sentencing, together with a raft of plans to make society safer.
You keep saying McVicar but he has single handedly done more for victims than anyone else in this country. He is the one victims turn to in their darkest hour. No, ADAC, you should be deeply ashamed.
As far as the BSA is concerned, they can either apologise to the victims of crime, or face me bringing the correspondence to date to a far more public level.It is simply not logical to say that they do not support Mr Brooking's view but nevertheless uphold the complaint, so that a fresh out of Uni criminologist can have his say, or a lawyer who is perhaps ripping off the legal aid system anyway, or a lawyer who thinks that beating an old man to death with a weapon was just to knock him out.
In a way, you do not even deserve to be answered but that is what actually feeds this PC madness - the silent majority has already spoken but not listened to yet.
Finally, nobody compelled you to listen to Breakfast - you could have turned the tv off!
Just one more thing, though, every time a program shows one of your PC nutters, they better make sure that they also interview Garth, although I fear that he will run out of time then, as that has happened all too often! Shame on the BSA for not ensuring a balance both ways.

29 Nov 2009 06:28a.m.

Lynette wrote:

The only reason prison doesn't work is that violent and cruel offenders don't fear it. Let's face it - why do you clean your teeth? To prevent tooth decay! Why do you eat when you're hungry? So you don't die of starvation. Why do you not cross the road in heavy traffic? So you don't get run over. Think about it! Almost every human activity is carried out either to avoid unpleasant consequences or to make life better.
So....why do you not commit a crime? So you don't go to jail..... Ha! Committing crime is just about the only human activity that many people do simply because there are no serious consequences.
Since a young man was killed for writing graffiti on someone else's property, graffiti has disappeared from the area - proof that harsh penalties work - if they are genuinely harsh. Will anybody take note? Of course not - too many unsympathetic and unkind people don't care about the suffering of victims but drool all over the cruel and the violent offenders in our midst. What kind of people can't imagine, or care about, the unimagineable agony suffered by an elderly man beaten with broom handles, but 'understand' the viciousness of the girls who did it? That's the sick element in our society - not organisations such as Sensible Sentencing, it's the only organisation with the brains or courage to stand up to the vicious thugs that far too many softies want to kiss and cuddle up to.

28 Nov 2009 08:38p.m.

ADAC wrote:

Cynical writes: “theft of war medals - 9 years; beating the crap of a war veteran - 8 years and 10 months; some murder convictions even less. So, the worse your crime is, the more discount you get under the present system. And thus you argue that we should not listen to the victims of these serious crimes.” Unfortunately, McVicar argued against the establishment of a Sentencing Council. Labour proposed this in it’s last year in power to bring more consistency into sentencing. National dropped the idea – so inconsistent sentencing continues. Maybe you should blame McVicar for that problem. By the way, I have never argued that we should not listen to victims – just that we should not be forced to listen to McVicar - and not be allowed to listen to anyone on the subject. I would recommend that TVNZ interview a criminologist or psychologist about sentencing. Why does TVNZ compel us to listen to a farmer rather than someone who actually knows something about penal policy.

28 Nov 2009 07:49p.m.

Adac wrote:

Scott writes "It is a sad day when victims of crime are labelled right wing, and by upholding the complaint, the BSA has condoned this." You clearly don't understand the function of the BSA Scott. All the BSA has condoned is the right for other points of view to be heard in its programming - not just McVicar's. The BSA has a fairly limited role - to assess complaints against standards of balance and fair play in the media. Since you expect fairness for victims, surely you must also expect TVNZ to provide balance and fairness in its reporting. Or do you only want Garth McVicar to be heard?

28 Nov 2009 01:50p.m.

cynical wrote:

ADAC - theft of war medals: 9 years
beating the crap of a war veteran: 8 years and 10 months.
Some murder convictions even less.
So, the worse your crime is, the more discount you get under the present system. And thus you argue that we should not listen to the victims of these serious crimes.
You think that academic solutions are the way, whilst in the meantime, defence lawyers think that assault with a weapon on an old man was only to knock him out. In his own home! And that is but the tip of the iceberg! As long as the legal system does not recognise the Right to live and live unassaulted, then this madness will continue. It is not just a simplistic solution about sentencing, even though the sentencing in many cases is hardly consistent. It is this PC crap you argue which is the creator of the problem. If you want a solution, begin to listen to the victim. And if a victim was truly right wing, they would argue for less sentencing so that they can hunt the bastard down and do to them what they did to my family. I know it happens in the world - if you are rich enough you can afford it. Put that in your next paper, for a better understanding of the term right wing.

28 Nov 2009 01:22p.m.

Scott wrote:

ADAC - It is a sad day when victims of crime are labelled right wing, and by upholding the complaint, the BSA has condoned this. They say that they do not share the view of Mr Brooking, so why uphold the complaint? Nowhere in their ruling do they distance themselves from Mr Brooking's comment. They do not have to explaing their reasoning either, so all I can assume is that nobody cares about the extra hurt to the victim. You talk about models and studies and no doubt these will help you when you become a victim. Because you do not want the help of the SST, that is clear. You simply do not care for the rights of the victim, or you would not talk such utter rubbish. By the way you opened the debate, I take it that you do not even have all the official information from the SST, otherwise you would have been better informed, and not make such outrageous statements. I see in your first posting that crime cost so much in dollars. What you fail to do is quote the cost in human terms. If career offenders would not have been paroled, more victims would have been alive. You simply do not see it. All you see is theory, that if we place the criminal on a pedestal that eventually the days of crime will be over. Well, that criminal will not think twice to hurt you. It is then, after you lay terribly injured, or dead, that you can say to him that you have papers proving that he can mend his way.

27 Nov 2009 10:56p.m.

ADAC wrote:

In what sense does SST have anything to do with victims? Its philosophy is to impose longer sentences on offenders. McVicar wants to put them into chain gangs and let them bake in the hot sun. Who knows? Next the SST will be wanting to cut off the hands of those who steal. This is how religious fundamentalists like the Taliban operate. Such an approach doesn't help the victims of crime one iota - unless they are misguided Christian fundamentalists that believe in an eye for an eye. That kind of primitive reactionary response was abandoned by civilised societies a long time ago. McVicar preaches a philosophy of revenge which is so far removed from true Christianity, he should be ashamed to call himself a Christian. However, the point of Brooking's complaint was that TVNZ only presented McVicar's vengeful ideas about how to deal with crime - ideas which thousands of research papers have proved make no difference to re-offending rates. TVNZ is required to provide balance in its stories. There are many other ways to assist victims and reduce crime. The story didn't mention any of these and didn't bother to consult anyone who actually has qualifications in penal policy - so TVNZ failed the broadcasting standard requiring balance and objectivity.

26 Nov 2009 09:04a.m.

Scott wrote:

I am in contact with the BSA, because I believe that they have given credibility to the likes of Brooking, whilst ignoring all research as to what the SST stands for. Their disregard for the victims of crime to date is astonishing. So far, they think that they can just fob me off, but that shows even more that they condone the comments of Brooking. I have called for an apology to all the victims of crime, but the BSA "does not have to justify its ruling".
In doing so, it commits a cardinal sin to the Human Rights of Victims, and only supports complaints from one person.
If the BSA is not answerable to anyone, does that means we have found our God and is his name "Brooking"?