Any luck there @R93?
All the usual linch mob on here are throwing him to the wolves already but I cant find any reference to his lethal threat if there ever was one.
Any luck there @R93?
All the usual linch mob on here are throwing him to the wolves already but I cant find any reference to his lethal threat if there ever was one.
@veitnamcam
He called them something in a letter written to them. If they then disseminate it, that cannot be rationally used against him, even if Mel Aitken's logic is otherwise valid (which it isn't).
Same as if I go to person X in private and call him a paedophile to his face - he can't make that out to be slander or libel, and it's only HIS problem if he chooses to go round telling people what I accused him of at our meeting.
No mate. Haven't heard anything from home but no doubt will in the next few days when I get there.
I have a mate that is part of this group of anti 1080 types. I will get hold of him when I get home.
He gets judged all the time on his looks and ideas yet is one of the most stable blokes I know. He is just passionate about what happens to him and his family's future..... Go figure.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
@ebf
Sarcasm about someone's rights is unwise at best, especially when you add a qualifier when pointing out that our legal system is solid.
We all sing the same tune once we're on the receiving end ourselves, but by then the boat is gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfInFVPkQs
This explains it
Only time will predict what happens to this chap in regards to his FAL. We wouldn't know half the facts.
Don't forget these types are always being dragged down...just the way the top lot want it.
And for the record, agree it must be sorted through the courts.
A shame this has an overlay of the divisive 1080 issue. This may confuse things (talking of not seeing the wood for the trees) and should not obscure that this is essentially a matter of a FAL holder who claims to be law abiding and who was stripped of his right to have firearms on questionable grounds. 1080 should not prevent any shooters' organisation from coming to his legal aid.
It is for the courts to decide of course and everything we say here is purely conjecture including this.....
The feeling I get is that this has been put on him because he was being a pain in the councils arse. And that they know it wont stick but it will cost him a lot of time and money to defend his innocence while of course having the inconvenience of not having a FAL and all the media attention discredits him further regardless of the outcome.
Meanwhile we the taxpayer pay for the ensuing debarkle.
If he is found not at fault and on the evidence we have been provided he should be I sincerely hope those pressing charges are forced to pay his legal costs and compensation from their pockets not the public purse.
In that case, if he is found to have actually made threats that have not been published, then first I hope he recieves more than a wet bus ticket, and two I would like to see stuff ACTUALLY report an accurate article for a change. From what I understand, there is a lot of flexibility / understanding / tolerance from the police on the west coast as they understand that tensions are running hot there and they are trying to keep the piece.
I think the biggest debacle in this is everyone is up in arms over something STUFF has published when we should all know now, that if the truth is what you seek, you won't find it there.......
I personally doubt the cops would take a license over the use of the words Terrorist in a letter. But I fully expect STUFF is happy quoting the words that will provide click bait rather than publishing what was ACTUALLY written.
What evidence has been provided? Why should anything be provided to anyone other than the people directly involved?
Or should the guy's licence be given back, or not, on the basis of media reports and the opinions of those, including me, that know fuck-all about the case?
@systolic
Don't totally disagree with you, but knowing a little does not equate to knowing f...-all.
It's part of a democracy that things get published, with varying accuracy and completeness, and people make up their minds as far as they can based on that. This puts a restraint on everyone, to behave better.
And no, no-one says he should have his license back, that is going to be decided by the court now.
The heat is on the police's decision, and we are all now looking to what happens in court. It is also helpful that we now watch the courts and have their actions reported on - this is also an element of public accountability resulting in judges being less likely to show deference and to stick to law and facts - we are all human, and our true character is what we are like when no-one is watching - that's why it's better that everyone is watching.
Its ok @Cordite he is clearly so deep in the legal system he forgot how to read kiwi
Hard not to have feelings about it either considering this year is clocking out so far with tahrmageddon, Cunter's, 1080 bullshit, police ultra-vires policy, licensing issues, anti semi-auto bullshit, importing issues, FAL holder's under scrutiny, creating division between the shooting community, biased unfair reporting by the mainstream media on firearms and DELIBERATE spreading of false information - Did i mention police ultra-vires policy already?
2.5 months to go, stand fast.
Christmas?
@veitnamcam till the end of the year. Considering the year so far... I needed a rant.
Didn't anyone listen to the totally appropriate link I posted 'Know your rights' by the Clash? ( he asks disappointedly) Anyway to quote from my teenage idols - " you have the right to free speech as long as you are not dumb enough to actually try it"
Ido know for a fact there is a very complex DOC Vs anti 1080 courtcase in the pipeline in the greymouth court .the day of my proceedeings 1/10/2018 it was mentioned in the morning admin session ,and also my cousoin and his wife were in court to support the two anti1080 guys who apparently were being done by DOC.
DOC also had some weird legal counsel setup with one lady supervising??the other lawyer??who told the judge hes rated grade 3 excellent....
?this has come about because of courts being sick of assorted Govt dept legal beagles so this bloke told the judge.
Mel Aitken aint exactly the Rose ofTralee in my eyes -Iwas privvy to an incident where IMHO I she adopted a pretty flexi attitude in regards to a retired coppers request which did not turn out well.