New Zealand Conservative

I'm listening on the radio to people phoning up, largely in support for William Roache, aka Ken Barlow (RIP, 2013) of Coronation Street. This is in reaction to being arrested on two counts of rape of a child (I use the common terminology here) 40 years ago. From what I gather, being arrested in the UK can just mean "we want to talk about a credible accusation", but the media certainly makes it sound more serious than that. It may have been recent comments in defense of Jimmy Savile and colleagues on Coronation street that also have been recently accused of sex abuse: “But things were different in the Seventies. People were more tactile. You did things that today are regarded as wrong." He's right in that regard, things were very different in the seventies, and we are now judging events by different standards and different attitudes, which is partly why so many people come forward years afterwards. However, even with different standards, such things have ...

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is in trouble with the NZ Government (Sunday Star Times, A2, April14) You see, the NZ Government believes it is important to release known pedophiles into the community and then move them around in secrecy so as to allow them to have a greater chance of re-offending on the hapless public. [ like here ]   Of course, this isn't a page one story, and the focus is on reporting on the actions of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, not broadcasting NZ Government policy on hiding and protecting pedophiles. The interesting thing is that the man doesn't even appear to have legally obtained named suppression. Without any evidence to say otherwise, in spite of requests for this information from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, the government has sided with the pedophile without any sort of due process. Not only that, the government believes that making payouts to pedophiles is more important than victim compensation. He's already received $15,000 and i...

I see that progress is very, very slow in the secular institutions that are still keen to hide offenders from the public eye, perhaps to shuffle offenders from one place to the next, and to use name suppression as a means to protect the accused, at the expense of the victims. Story 1: Dr has sex with rape victim Patients deserve to know the name of a Canterbury GP who had sex with a teenage patient 25 years ago, a Christchurch judge has ruled. A 16 year old girl had been RAPED by some-one, and this Doctor was asked to treat her. He used his position of authority and trust to initiate sex with her instead. At least twice, according to the report. Can we really believe that was all, and can we really believe there was only one case?  If there were no name suppression,  other victims may have stepped forward by now.  And who else knew? Perhaps colleagues and superiors knew something? And just to prove the secular system is tough on sex crimes - a mere $1,000 fin...

Hmmm The lawyer of a former national figure facing indecent assault charges has told a court the charges had ''destroyed his client''. Defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton said in his opening statement to a Nelson jury today, the sexual assault charges had come out of the blue for his client. Th defendant in this case first appeared in court in January 2010 . As the link shows he is an ex MP. He has of course name suppression as does another ex MP currently before the court for Pokie machine fraud . The name suppression thing we have done before - but my question is why has it taken over fourteen months from the former national figure's first appearance in court for the case to come to trial? It's all very murky and not really a case of "Justice being seen to be done".