Thu, 16 Apr 2009 3:20p.m.
As soon as Veitch pleaded guilty today I did a trawl through our online archives for the stories we have on him.
There were hundreds. Not just news stories but a whole host of commentators condemning Veitch or praising Veitch depending on their viewpoint.
The questions they wanted answers to were revealing.
Did Veitch do it? If TVNZ attempted to cover up the allegations against the sports broadcaster, was the organisation morally bankrupt?
At first the knives were out, but soon the tide turned. People started to feel sorry for Veitch – he’s a good Kiwi bloke was the line, he loves his sport and now he looks terrible.
Will he regain his television career? Is it fair for Veitch to wait so long for a trial? Was the loss of his career punishment enough?
A noticeable change in tack as the sports broadcaster’s image went from the wrong-doer to the wronged.
Veitch is commendable in pleading guilty to avoid the strains of a trial on his victim Kristin Dunne-Powell.
But had Veitch not had the capacity to pay her compensation, an act which the judge took into account during sentencing, and not been an ‘all-round good bloke’ would his sentence have been as light?
I cannot help wondering what the people who say sentencing is too light for certain offenders may think of Veitch’s punishment.
Will the Sensible Sentencing Trust come out and say Veitch should have been given a prison term?
Or is it just incomprehensible to us to see such a big sports fan jailed.