Another day, another name suppression disgrace.
Somebody described as a ”high-profile radio host” was caught driving on Auckland’s North Shore with a breath-alcohol reading of 976, pretty close to 4 times the legal limit of 250 micrograms per litre of breath.
All we know is that this “high-profile radio host” is a woman. But she has permanent name suppression because the judge said she would suffer extreme hardship if her name was published.
You know, I doubt that very much. Would she lose her job? There’s no particular reason why she should if she’s still capable of doing it to the standard required.
What is the hardship? The embarrassment of having your name published?
I’m sorry but that is not hardship.
I had a drink driving conviction in 1999. From memory I was three times over the limit and copped a bit of media flak because my lawyer got me three months disqualification from driving instead of the mandatory 6 months, and a $700 fine.
This woman has been suspended for 28 days. Twenty eight days and permanent name suppression!
Her fine was $945. Considering the inflation of the last 24 years, her fine is much less than what my was.
It’s hardly a punishment.
In my case, the Sunday papers wanted a hit. There was no point in making excuses. I fessed up, even posed for a picture with the new bike I’d bought to get me to work.
The story disappeared.
I found then that honesty is the best way to diffuse a negative story about you.
But this name suppression lark is just becoming a joke, especially the permanent suppression.
First the kiddie porn collector in Wellington, now the drunk driving DJ in Auckland.
Add in the James Wallace saga before he was finally outed, and the nonsense surrounding this so called “political figure” in Auckland with his trial postponed till next year, and you have four name suppression cases inside a month where real justice has been done only once – and that took 5 years.
This country deserves better.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack where this article was sourced.
What is the hardship? The embarrassment of having your name published?
I’m sorry but that is not hardship.
I had a drink driving conviction in 1999. From memory I was three times over the limit and copped a bit of media flak because my lawyer got me three months disqualification from driving instead of the mandatory 6 months, and a $700 fine.
This woman has been suspended for 28 days. Twenty eight days and permanent name suppression!
Her fine was $945. Considering the inflation of the last 24 years, her fine is much less than what my was.
It’s hardly a punishment.
In my case, the Sunday papers wanted a hit. There was no point in making excuses. I fessed up, even posed for a picture with the new bike I’d bought to get me to work.
The story disappeared.
I found then that honesty is the best way to diffuse a negative story about you.
But this name suppression lark is just becoming a joke, especially the permanent suppression.
First the kiddie porn collector in Wellington, now the drunk driving DJ in Auckland.
Add in the James Wallace saga before he was finally outed, and the nonsense surrounding this so called “political figure” in Auckland with his trial postponed till next year, and you have four name suppression cases inside a month where real justice has been done only once – and that took 5 years.
This country deserves better.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
We live in a clown age where facts are trumped by feelings.
You are not allowed to hurt anyones feelings because, you know that is clearly wrong and you are being a bully.
That said if you did accidentally hurt someones feelings then the cancel mob will set upon you and demonstrate how it is done properly.
Of course - it is the public ignominy that IS the punishment for normally compliant citizens. The money and the restriction don't hurt all that much. Judges need to be made to be much more focussed in their reasoning for name suppression - it has become standard.
Post a Comment