(17-01-2024, 03:34 PM)C_T_Russell Wrote: Absolutely pitiful way the greens handled the whole situation and as expected, they just play the mental health card.
Mind you, I dont expect anything different from them, they knew about this since the 27th.
She knew what she did was wrong, never realized Golriz was from Iran of all places.
Probably the best place for her, dont they chop off thieves hands over there?
This person was defending criminals over there, seems perfectly qualified for the job!
Good riddance I say, and if any of the rumors are true that another Green MP handed back the stolen goods on the 23rd to the retailer and apologized on her behalf, than the greens, have much much more to worry about.
Just glad that this party is not in power, what a shitshow it would be.
And to think there are people defending this kind of shit says everything about the green party and their voter base.

(17-01-2024, 06:13 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(17-01-2024, 03:34 PM)C_T_Russell Wrote: Absolutely pitiful way the greens handled the whole situation and as expected, they just play the mental health card.
Mind you, I dont expect anything different from them, they knew about this since the 27th.
She knew what she did was wrong, never realized Golriz was from Iran of all places.
Probably the best place for her, dont they chop off thieves hands over there?
This person was defending criminals over there, seems perfectly qualified for the job!
Good riddance I say, and if any of the rumors are true that another Green MP handed back the stolen goods on the 23rd to the retailer and apologized on her behalf, than the greens, have much much more to worry about.
Just glad that this party is not in power, what a shitshow it would be.
And to think there are people defending this kind of shit says everything about the green party and their voter base.

You're surely not claiming she should have a hand amputated - even for you, that would be stunningly out of proportion given the circumstances. And a particularly nasty suggestion.

I suspect that if we were subjected to a constant  stream  of hate filled abuse from ignorant, vicious people then we might also, eventually, react very badly & in a very out of character way.

The role of a lawyer IS to defend people regardless of their crime because in a  democracy (the system which allows us to freely express our views - much as we do in this forum) everyone charged with a crime is entitled to legal defence.

(18-01-2024, 03:54 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Interesting that various commentators (is this your business???) are now focussing on the stress and abuse and mental health issues as 'excuses' rather than explanations. Maybe they don't understand there is a difference.

Until of course they need them in their own lives.

(18-01-2024, 01:40 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: When can we expect to see the name/s of those responsible for giving this story to the media splashed across every newspaper in the country....?

Including their reasons for doing so, despite Gahraman being out of the country on a long planned trip, & despite the shop not wanting this made public, at least at that time.
I'm sure that would make extremely interesting reading...

(18-01-2024, 06:15 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(18-01-2024, 03:54 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Interesting that various commentators (is this your business???) are now focussing on the stress and abuse and mental health issues as 'excuses' rather than explanations. Maybe they don't understand there is a difference.

Until of course they need them in their own lives.

They seem to do that every time there's a situation where someone's been made literally ill by the vile behaviour of other people abusing them in one way or another - anyone might almost think they sided with the abusers.

Although of course he hadn't been abused, but I can't recall this reaction when Tod Muller resigned,citing stress, though I may have that wrong,

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300339973/todd-muller-resignation-followed-admission-about-anonymous-article

(18-01-2024, 08:15 PM)dken31 Wrote:

(18-01-2024, 06:15 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: They seem to do that every time there's a situation where someone's been made literally ill by the vile behaviour of other people abusing them in one way or another - anyone might almost think they sided with the abusers.

Although of course he hadn't been abused, but I can't recall this reaction when Tod Muller resigned,citing stress, though I may have that wrong,

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300339973/todd-muller-resignation-followed-admission-about-anonymous-article

"Of course he hadn't been abused".  What makes you so confident of that?  I'm pretty sure all high profile politicians are the targets of a huge amount of abuse, even if some face more than others.

But the huge difference between Muller and Gahraman is that Muller merely resigned due to stress whereas Gahraman committed multiple crimes.  Citing mental heath to explain a resignation is simply that: an explanation. Whereas citing mental health to explain a crime can logically be interpreted to be at least a partial excuse, despite protestations to the contrary. 

After all, Gahraman has shown herself to be completely without honour with regard to how she's handled this whole affair, given she only stood down when the allegations where made public (remember, she's known exactly what she did all along), and then only resigned when the video evidence was released. 

Also, some of you have, I think, placed far too much emphasis on the fact that she stood down rather than her being stood down.  Given all that has transpired, I think it very likely that it was a case of "stand down 'voluntarily' or else you will be stood down", and ditto to the resignation.

(17-01-2024, 06:13 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(17-01-2024, 03:34 PM)C_T_Russell Wrote: Absolutely pitiful way the greens handled the whole situation and as expected, they just play the mental health card.
Mind you, I dont expect anything different from them, they knew about this since the 27th.
She knew what she did was wrong, never realized Golriz was from Iran of all places.
Probably the best place for her, dont they chop off thieves hands over there?
This person was defending criminals over there, seems perfectly qualified for the job!
Good riddance I say, and if any of the rumors are true that another Green MP handed back the stolen goods on the 23rd to the retailer and apologized on her behalf, than the greens, have much much more to worry about.
Just glad that this party is not in power, what a shitshow it would be.
And to think there are people defending this kind of shit says everything about the green party and their voter base.

You're surely not claiming she should have a hand amputated - even for you, that would be stunningly out of proportion given the circumstances. And a particularly nasty suggestion.

I suspect that if we were subjected to a constant  stream  of hate filled abuse from ignorant, vicious people then we might also, eventually, react very badly & in a very out of character way.

The role of a lawyer IS to defend people regardless of their crime because in a  democracy (the system which allows us to freely express our views - much as we do in this forum) everyone charged with a crime is entitled to legal defence.

(18-01-2024, 07:02 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(18-01-2024, 01:40 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: When can we expect to see the name/s of those responsible for giving this story to the media splashed across every newspaper in the country....?

Including their reasons for doing so, despite Gahraman being out of the country on a long planned trip, & despite the shop not wanting this made public, at least at that time.
I'm sure that would make extremely interesting reading...

Will that make her less guilty?

Did you give the same consideration for Sam Uffendell?

(19-01-2024, 08:38 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: From my farcebook page, attributed to Sir Ian McKellen 'The only thing you can do about awful people is to not be one of them'.

(19-01-2024, 08:07 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Wow. But hey, immensely predictable.

If nauseating.

---

(18-01-2024, 07:02 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Will that make her less guilty?

Did you give the same consideration for Sam Uffendell?

No. Because nicking some clothes isn't quite in the same league as violently attacking someone.

Nor, as I note, were the outcomes of each scandal similar.

(19-01-2024, 09:18 AM)harm_less Wrote:

(19-01-2024, 08:38 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: From my farcebook page, attributed to Sir Ian McKellen 'The only thing you can do about awful people is to not be one of them'.

Also “Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

The modern equivalent is to 'Not feed the trolls'. Both seem like good reasons to not engage with the more ignorant posters that inhabit forums such as this one. If their deluded opinions fail to get any engagement their feedback loop disconnects.

(18-01-2024, 07:02 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(18-01-2024, 01:40 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: When can we expect to see the name/s of those responsible for giving this story to the media splashed across every newspaper in the country....?

Including their reasons for doing so, despite Gahraman being out of the country on a long planned trip, & despite the shop not wanting this made public, at least at that time.
I'm sure that would make extremely interesting reading...

Will that make her less guilty?

Did you give the same consideration for Sam Uffendell?

(19-01-2024, 11:15 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(18-01-2024, 07:02 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Will that make her less guilty?

Did you give the same consideration for Sam Uffendell?

The point being ignored is the motivation for breaking the story when whoever it was must have known she was out of the country & may also have known that the retailer did not want it made public at that stage.

Unless Sam Uffindell was subjected to similar constant abuse and also stepped down from his position, then its pointless to compare the two situations.

A quick check reveals he's still an MP...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Uffindell#:~:text=He%20has%20been%20a%20Member,by%2Delection%20in%20June%202022.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300951135/searching-for-sam-why-is-national-shielding-tauranga-mp-sam-uffindell-from-the-media

(19-01-2024, 11:45 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(19-01-2024, 11:15 AM)Lilith7 Wrote: The point being ignored is the motivation for breaking the story when whoever it was must have known she was out of the country & may also have known that the retailer did not want it made public at that stage.

Unless Sam Uffindell was subjected to similar constant abuse and also stepped down from his position, then its pointless to compare the two situations.

A quick check reveals he's still an MP...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Uffindell#:~:text=He%20has%20been%20a%20Member,by%2Delection%20in%20June%202022.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300951135/searching-for-sam-why-is-national-shielding-tauranga-mp-sam-uffindell-from-the-media

So what you want to do is shoot the messenger

(12-01-2024, 07:46 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: I think the whole business is just plain sad.

I am glad I stopped watching the news some weeks ago. If I could just drop the online news stuff my life would improve even more.

(19-01-2024, 02:26 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(19-01-2024, 11:45 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: So what you want to do is shoot the messenger

Interesting that you'd see it that way...

(19-01-2024, 02:48 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(12-01-2024, 07:46 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: I think the whole business is just plain sad.

I am glad I stopped watching the news some weeks ago. If I could just drop the online news stuff my life would improve even more.

(19-01-2024, 02:26 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: Interesting that you'd see it that way...

Your the one calling for them to be publicly named and their motivations put forward.

Perhaps their motivation was "I hate people stealing stuff" ?

(19-01-2024, 06:19 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(19-01-2024, 02:48 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Your the one calling for them to be publicly named and their motivations put forward.

Perhaps their motivation was "I hate people stealing stuff" ?

Yeah, that'd be it...because it couldn't possibly be "Oh look a woman succeeding in her career & now - after constant vile abusive harrassment -  she's made mistakes so lets destroy her."