Three people have been charged over the robbery of the Rose Cottage Superette in Sandringham where a worker was stabbed to death. Photo / Hayden Wooward
Three people have been charged over the robbery of the Rose Cottage Superette in Sandringham where a worker was stabbed to death. Photo / Hayden Wooward
Suppression ease
It appears all too easy for perpetrators of serious crimes, e.g. murder, grievous bodily harm, assault with a weapon, to obtain name suppression. As it was in the case of Janak Patel’s alleged murder. Such suppression should not so readily be granted. Unfortunately for the public, there aresome eight conditions under which suppression can be given. Given the obscenity of this crime, the public has a right to identify the alleged offender; even at the risk of “an unfair trial”. To suggest naming an offender distorts the jury process not only insults the jury but ignores the delay before the offender actually comes to trial; this may be months, or more, in NZ. How, then, does naming now prevent a “fair trial” later? It is a commonly-held belief that suppression is for the rich. Could we possibly suggest that here, were it to be true? Perhaps we should return to the pre-1921 days when name suppression only occurred for those under 16 years, and first offenders, or where victims of sexual assault may be identified. Time to rethink the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which some critics (lawyers and others) suggest makes obtaining name suppression too easy here. Janak’s relatives deserve better. B.R.M. Frost, Morrinsville.
Crowd-pleasing
Emma Mackintosh (NZ Herald, November 25) provides a lucid history lesson in her detailing of an individual charismatic dictator’s ability, in words and manner, to manipulate an entire population into believing in him (Adolf Hitler) and all he stood for — invoking Germany’s national interest as trumping human rights, social and world order, and decency. Her comments about “comparing our history with today’s social media feed” are extremely pertinent, considering our current return to a world that has become ominously similar — wracked by social, political, and economic unrest and disruption — as it was then. Ironically, we see the same mis- and disinformation “phenomenon” she analyses as a major catalyst then, repeating itself today — this time influenced by our own “Murdoch/Fox News-type” columnists, across all our media — inciting similar “yelling and screaming” from their seduced reader/listenerships. Are we learning from history? Or repeating the worst of it? It’s up to us — all of us — as to which way we want to go. Clyde Scott, Birkenhead.
The controversy about the “entrenchment” of legislation ensuring the continued public ownership of our water supply (NZ Herald, November 29) misses the point. “Constitutionality” is secondary. Commitment to public ownership is the primary issue here and should be demanded of all parties in Parliament before the election. We all remember, far too painfully, what John Key and National did to our power supply, expressly against the declared wishes of most of us. Stan Jones, Hamilton.
Parallel universe
Reacting to the Rose Cottage Superette fatality, the Prime Minister stated in Auckland on Monday that “youth crime” is much lower than in the past and added that ram raids during November were down 83 per cent compared with August. Cherry-picking statistics and the clever use of words cannot hide the reality that we are experiencing an unprecedented crime wave that is reaching across and impacting all communities and regions in New Zealand. The Herald recently reported that just one retailer alone, Glengarry Wines, has been hit by 42 ram raids and burglaries, most over the last 18 months. Living in the real world, the overwhelming silent majority of law-abiding citizens have had their patience sorely tested. No amount of fancy political rhetoric is going to appease the situation and it’s time for this Government to show leadership, resolve, and a fresh initiative to address this burgeoning crime wave. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers.
Anu Kaloti, the president of the Migrant Workers Association, urged people not to politicise the tragic death of Janak Patel out of respect for his mourning family. Only our gracious PM showed the proper respect with her customary grace and compassion. She then spelled out evidence-based responses and assistance for dairy owners. At times of crisis, she always rises above the venal responses of Luxon and Seymour. No wonder she is admired worldwide and at home. Roger Laybourn, Hamilton.
Migrant Workers Association president Anu Kaloti. Photo / George Block
Too soft
I am flabbergasted at the assertion by the Prime Minster that her Government has not been soft on crime. Every morning we wake to news of more overnight ram raids and burglaries of retail stores. It is beyond a joke and the measures announced should have been in force years ago. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The majority of these crimes seem to be committed by young people who Jacinda Ardern believes are responsible and mature enough to vote. If they are caught, these young offenders are referred to Youth Services. So, old enough to vote, then old enough to be treated as adults by the justice system. Melanie Corbett, Westmere.
Hard time
The catchcry “soft on crime”, recently resurrected by the National Party, is now being bandied about by anyone with a beef against this Government. What exactly do these people want? Do they want a police state where almost everything is controlled by the police? Or do they want to bring back capital punishment? Do they want taxpayers’ money to barricade all dairies? Do they want young ram raiders locked up with thugs and murderers? While we all sympathise and mourn the death of Janak Patel, the punishment in this country for his alleged murderer, who is an adult male, will be totally different from that of the young kids who are doing the ram-raiding. Violent crime, which is peddled nightly on entertainment media, has its roots in poverty and poor parenting. It has long been proven that severe punishment is not a deterrent. Sue Rawson, Tauranga.
Safety measures
I have enormous sympathy for these retailers who are continually being bombarded by young (for the most part) thugs who think they can just help themselves to whatever they want. I also have huge sympathy for the families of these people who are targeted, particularly the poor young man in Sandringham. However, I do wonder why everyone considers it to be the job of the Government to provide all these retailers with their safety measures. Surely that is their own responsibility to ensure that their premises are as safe as possible. If an elderly person is living alone and feels unsafe enough to need, for example, a screen door or outside lights, are they able to go to the Government to get it paid for? I don’t think so. We all need to be responsible for our own safety, and not expect continual handouts from the Government, which ultimately taxpayers are paying for. Trish Heikoop, Pakuranga.
If I was a retailer, I would not be waiting around for a government handout, I would have bought a fog cannon myself, months ago. It would be cheaper than having to pay higher insurance rates covering loss of stock and damage to my premises. Tony Barnett, Pukekohe.
Flow of support
The Government spends more on superannuation than all other benefits put together. Half of all recipients do not own a home and are paying rent. They are paying from 40 per cent to 80 per cent of that government money to landlords. Huge sums of public money intended to help old people pay for food and other basics of life are ending up in the pockets of already well-off people. On top of that, the Government hands out more than two billion a year to landlords in the form of the accommodation supplement — the tenants get it only on the condition that they give it to the landlords. There is a vast flow of taxpayers’ money from the poor to the well-off. Isn’t it time we put a halt to this and instead directed government money to those who actually need it? Susan Grimsdell, Auckland Central.
Degrees of separation
Once hallowed bastions of learning, why have we allowed tertiary institutions to become the factories of the 21st century? The only difference being universities churn out graduates instead of widgets. It doesn’t help that, in New Zealand, the funding model is flawed because it encourages volume and student debt. The greater the number of students on your roll the more funding you get and the larger the mountain of indebted students become. Boris Sokratov, Campbells Bay.
Short and sweet
On governance
Electocracy is a form of representative democracy where citizens are able to vote for their government but cannot participate directly in governmental decision-making. What we have now. Democracy, rule of the people, is what we had. Ian Doube, Rotorua.
On election
Thank you all you journalists, commentators, et al. for telling us so often who will win the election next year. Saves me thinking, and perhaps I won’t even feel I need to vote. J. A. Mills, Whangārei.
On speeds
The Government cannot manage a few renegade children but treats the whole population as children with ridiculous traffic control measures. Graham Steenson, Whakatāne.
On National
A message of hope to National supporters having concerns about their current leader’s performance. There is still time for at least two leadership changes before the next election. George Collins, Tauranga.
On entrenchment
The only laws that should be entrenched are ones preventing current parliaments from passing laws that tie the hands of future parliaments. Jeremy Hall, Hauraki.
Entrenchment of Three Waters? Don’t worry. Labour will back down. This is its “Look! It’s a squirrel!” distraction to get race-based “co-governance” through. Stewart Hawkins, St Heliers.
On crime
Bring back three strikes! Harsher penalties! Boot camps! Good old National dusting off the old playbook! Gary Ferguson, Epsom.
Investing in a commercial property and then receiving below-market rent for it is a perk? Rob M.
I wouldn’t call renting an office (from whoever owns it a perk). And to call $140,000 spread over six MPs (or $23,333.33 per head) creaming it is a bit over the top. Mind you, talking about this stuff is a diversion from what is happening in Parliament, I suppose. Colin L.
I cannot help but think there would be significant cost savings for the taxpayers if we just bought offices and had them dedicated to the elected MP at the time. What is more concerning is political parties actually have property investment arms. This is an absolute conflict of interest having political parties in power making decisions that affect entities set up to turn a profit. Mark W.
Amazing how, a decade ago, National put the heat on Labour for their office rental arrangements. As we now discover, courtesy of a change in parliamentary rules, National has also indulged their faces in the public trough just as much. Wonder how much they sucked out over time? Wonder if it was at least equal to, or more than Labour? Let’s face it, National are a joke. I mean, come on, so much for the responsible party, so much for the party of integrity, so much for the high moral ground. Because now we know National were/are just as bad. And worse, the biggest offenders of National sit at the top of the tree: Luxon and Goldsmith. Sure Mahuta is there, but I don’t see Ardern, Hipkins, Parker, Davis, etc. National can’t hope to win an election with this sort of carry-on, U-turns, flip-flops on flip-flops, etc. Timothy T.
Just confirms that politicians are first and foremost looking after themselves. Their so-called care for the country is a myth. Pim V.
