Today's cartoon from the Herald is rather pointed. And sadly I cannot insert it in this blog post for reasons unknown.
A friend pointed out to me on the weekend that by going for permanent name suppression this person has effectively undermined all the other things that they did right here (pleading guilty, apologising, making reparations to the victim). If he had fronted up, publicly, he could have actually done a lot of good. And I seriously doubt that his livelihood would have been destroyed without name suppression. After all he's an entertainer not a priest, right?
Please do respect the name suppression order in comments however as I'd hate to have to delete comments.
There has been some really worrying stuff in comments elsewhere about "what did she expect being out at 2am and dressing up like a 21 year old" - we still have a long way to go in this country.
3 comments:
This is so disappointing. As someone who spends her money according to her conscience, I find it depressing that this judge has felt the need to ensure I can't apply my conscience in this case.
I was also quite surprised at the offence pled guilty to, after reading the nature of what the guy actually did. When I heard "indecent act likely to cause offence" I assumed something like groping, not what actually occured. It sounded like he was getting off lightly with the conviction as it was, let alone with the name suppression.
It wasn't me.....
Post a Comment