I think there is too much celebrity name suppression. But sometimes name suppression is justified.
I think Whaleoil (Cameron Slater) is an idiot and his reported breaching of a suppression order designed to protect an abused kid is just unfair.
The Herald on Sunday is not much better.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 at 3:55 pm and is filed under blogs, comms & IT, inequality, journalism, justice, law and order, national. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Sorry for the poor typing on my last post, my laptops keys are a bit iffy
@Chris R – damn it, I’ve been off the planet all day, making mistakes, I hardly slept last night.
Still like your post
Trevor, I’m confused why you’re deleting comments that are arguing against your point. I thought you would be up for a healthy debate?
Have a good look at the comments Andrea. Many argue against my point. Some are very abusive, personal, obscene or off thread and they get edited or deleted. But as a general warning any further comments on our moderation policy which has been debated several times in the last six months can wait until there is a specific post inviting just that. Otherwise they will be deleted as off thread. Trevor
Whaleoil..details of the Capill case are well known in ChCh.
Trevor..calling people names when you are a senior politican is not a good look. Most of your readers don’t live in that kind of world.
Don’t want to labour a point but I figure it is all in the interest of the general public debate and the public-right-to-know MSM wanting to keep us “informed”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-accused-in-cop-hit-and-run-bailed/tabid/309/articleID/136817/Default.aspx
Andrew
“Put it this way – as a lawyer, how happy would you be to have a left-wing version of Mr Slater sitting on the bench deciding matters of contract law that could cost your client a ton of money? Would you be confident of a reasoned judgment that accurately reflects both the law and its common sense application to the facts? If not, then why trust him to decide matters regarding when it is right/not right to expose names to the public eye?”
Oh for goodness sake why don’t you just walk right into the closing door?
Look at the current Supreme Court and their recent detailed reading of “parliamentary intent” into taxation law.
Logie97
I can swear right now that I have NEVER read Pundit unless there is a link there.
They can look at their stats I guess and see that from Hong Kong there are very few if any hits.
There seems to be a lot of name suppression and suppression in general here…!