Vet Council wants to cancel Leo Molloy!

[Chief Stipe]

Veterinary Council puts an ex-vet on a short leash | Free Speech Union New Zealand

www.fsu.nz

Why has the Veterinary Council put an ex-vet on a short leash? Someone who hasn’t even practised as a vet for over a decade?

The Veterinary Council has censured Leo Molloy, ordering him to pay $23,000 in costs more than four years after his conviction for breaching a suppression order.https://bitofayarn.com

But the courts have already dealt with this, so why is a professional regulator coming after him?

Did Leo disclose the home address of a sick Labrador? Selective breeding details? Client records? The vaccination status of a tomcat? No.

Did a member of the public, a past client, or a practising vet complain about Leo’s conduct as a vet? No.

His offence had nothing to do with treating animals, maintaining veterinary confidence, or professional ethics. This was personal speech, not a professional act.  

https://bitofayarn.com

Yet the Veterinary Council has taken it upon itself to, well, neuter, speech that falls far beyond the pens of 'permitted' opinion.

(Yep, the story is as ridiculous as my puns. 😸 ) 

The Veterinary Council is following the dangerous trend that we continue to see New Zealand regulatory bodies follow. If regulators can punish, and fine, professionals for off-duty speech, even decades after they last practised, then we have a much bigger problem than one outspoken ex-vet.https://bitofayarn.com

Six years ago, Leo Molloy posted on a racing community forum naming Grace Millane’s murderer, Jesse Kempson, while his name was suppressed.

Leo was convicted and sentenced to 350 hours of community service and a $15,000 fine.  https://bitofayarn.com

This isn’t even to mention the futility of Leo’s conviction in the first place.

International outlets published Jesse Kempson’s name with zero consequence. Google emailed it directly to New Zealand inboxes and got a polite warning. Multiple New Zealanders were cautioned but not prosecuted.https://bitofayarn.com

Leo remains the only person convicted and now the only person professionally sanctioned. It’s hard not to conclude that the Veterinary Council’s issue isn’t the conduct, but the dog that did the barking.

The inconsistency of enforcement reeks more of overreach than principle. Name suppression has become a joke, dished out liberally, limiting the public’s ability to know the details of a case, and the media’s ability to tell them.

Why are criminals, pedophiles, even murderers, being favoured over public safety and our crucial democratic values? 

https://bitofayarn.com

Now, six years after Leo’s breach, and more than a decade after he has even practiced as a vet, the Veterinary Council’s disciplinary lawyer argued that “professional obligations don’t end when we close the office door.”

But which part of Leo’s conviction had anything to do with his profession?

Professional bodies should focus on their role as skill-based watchdogs, not policing "un-vet'-like behaviour that happens to personally offend them.https://bitofayarn.com

According to our sources, the Veterinary Council has spent an excess of $45,000 to pursue this complaint. $45,000!

They need a wake up call.

Let’s send the message that we actually think more favourably of the veterinary profession if they aren't afraid to speak their minds. But that the Veterinary Council should stick to their remit: the skills and professional conduct of its members.

In 30 seconds, tell the Veterinary Council to stay in its lane. We’ve made it super easy. 

Let’s make sure they know that Kiwis won’t stand by while they’re on their high horse.

Regulatory overreach has become a consistent problem, whether against nurses, lawyers, academics, architects, or teachers, to name a handful. So now it’s vets? Who’s next?

Professional bodies seem less concerned about the skills and abilities of professionals, and more with what they say in private capacities.

That’s why we set up seven professional memberships, along with our standard membership, for: Academics, lawyers, public servants, teachers, healthcare professionals, media, and religious leaders.

We ensure professionals have someone in their corner.

We will not stand by while the would-be-censors decide they know best. Chip in here to support us to push back on regulatory body overreach; standards should ensure competence, not control speech or belief.

Jillaine Heather | Chief Executive

[Freda]

WTF....?

I've been on the wrong end of Leo's acerbic criticism,  many a time.  But this, if not a piss-take, is disgraceful. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Freda

[Murray Fish]

I could write a diatribe about the maggot that is Molloy! but instead, I asked Prof Deep Seek to share us a critique of the lead article and the actions of the said maggot!

 

Here is a critique of the article and a polemic response. The analysis first summarizes the article's core arguments, then presents a forceful rebuttal that challenges both the writer's framing and Leo Molloy's actions.

📜 Summary of the Article's Core Arguments

The article from the Free Speech Union argues that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's censure of Leo Molloy represents a dangerous case of regulatory overreach and an attack on free speech. Its main points are:

• Overreach Beyond Professional Remit: The central claim is that the Veterinary Council has stepped outside its proper role. Molloy was punished for a personal speech act—breaching a court suppression order on a racing forum—that had no connection to veterinary practice, animal welfare, or client confidentiality.

• Punishment for "Off-Duty" Conduct: The article asserts that professional regulators should not police personal behavior, especially for someone who hasn't practiced in over a decade and was retired. It frames the Council's action as an attempt to retroactively "house-train" him for unrelated conduct.

• Inconsistent and Futile Enforcement: The writer highlights the inconsistency in enforcing the suppression order. International media published the name without consequence, and others in New Zealand were only warned, making Molloy the only person convicted and professionally sanctioned. This is presented as evidence that the action is vindictive rather than principled.

• Broader Chilling Effect: The case is framed as part of a dangerous trend where regulatory bodies punish professionals for their off-duty speech or beliefs. The article warns this turns professional bodies into "wardens of conformity" rather than "guardians of competence".

⚔️ A Polemic Response

Part 1: Against the Writer – A Dishonest Champion of Chaos

The writer of this article is not a defender of liberty but a merchant of grievance, wrapping a calculated agenda in the tattered flag of free speech. The piece is a masterclass in intellectual dishonesty, employing a strategy of omission and emotional manipulation worthy of the most cynical lobbyist.

First, the writer deliberately obscures the gravity of Molloy’s crime. This was not a mere "personal speech" act akin to a spicy Facebook opinion. It was a deliberate, knowing, and repeated breach of a High Court suppression order during the most sensitive phase of a murder trial—while the jury was still deliberating. The article's cutesy puns about "neuter[ing] speech" and "the dog that did the barking" are a grotesque attempt to minimize an action that the courts—and the Veterinary Council—rightly identified as striking at the heart of judicial integrity.

Second, the writer feigns confusion about the regulator's role with the disingenuous question, "which part of Leo’s conviction had anything to do with his profession?". Professions like veterinary science are granted the privilege of self-regulation in exchange for maintaining public trust. A criminal conviction for undermining the court system is not a private matter; it is a profound breach of the ethical compact any licensed professional holds with society. The Council’s lawyer was precisely correct: "Our professional obligations don't end when we close the office door". The writer’s argument would reduce professional ethics to a mere technical manual, applicable only during business hours—a ludicrous and dangerous proposition.

Finally, the article is a transparent fundraising and recruitment tool for the Free Speech Union. It is no coincidence that the polemic seamlessly transitions into a promotion for their "professional memberships" for teachers, academics, and others. The writer is not analyzing a case; they are manufacturing a martyr to fuel a pre-existing campaign against any form of professional accountability that touches on expression. This is advocacy disguised as journalism, and it deserves to be called out as such.

Part 2: Against Leo Molloy – The "Altruistic" Vigilante

Leo Molloy’s attempt to paint his actions as "altruistic" is a staggering work of self-justification that insults the public’s intelligence and the memory of Grace Millane.

Molloy claims he was motivated by "frustration and what I perceived to be injustice". This is the logic of a vigilante. He appointed himself judge, jury, and publisher, deciding that his personal fury overrode a court order designed to ensure Kempson’s right to a fair trial on subsequent charges. His statement that the murderer "needs a bullet" reveals the true, violent heat of his emotion, not cool altruism. He didn't start a reasoned debate about suppression laws; he doxxed an accused man to an online forum of 2,500 people during live legal proceedings.

His plea that this has "no connection to veterinary practice" is equally hollow. The Veterinary Council’s mandate is to "maintain trust in veterinary professionals". Trustworthiness is not a divisible trait. A person who willfully sabotages a legal process because he disagrees with it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law—a quality utterly incompatible with a profession entrusted with controlled drugs, animal welfare, and client privacy.

Molloy was not a brave truth-teller oppressed by the system. He was a man who broke a clear law, was rightly convicted, and is now facing the entirely predictable professional consequences of that conviction. His status as a retired veterinarian is irrelevant; he chose to remain on the register, subject to its rules. His saga is not a parable about censorship, but a simple lesson in cause and effect: if you publicly and proudly break a serious law, you should not be surprised when your professional body takes a dim view of your fitness to belong to it.

To sum up, the article cynically distorts a case of professional accountability into a free speech crisis, while Molloy cloaks his reckless disregard for the justice system in the mantle of public-spiritedness. Both positions deserve not just critique, but contempt.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

I could write a diatribe about the maggot that is Molloy! but instead, I asked Prof Deep Seek to share us a critique of the lead article and the actions of the said maggot!

 

Here is a critique of the article and a polemic response. The analysis first summarizes the article's core arguments, then presents a forceful rebuttal that challenges both the writer's framing and Leo Molloy's actions.

📜 Summary of the Article's Core Arguments

The article from the Free Speech Union argues that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's censure of Leo Molloy represents a dangerous case of regulatory overreach and an attack on free speech. Its main points are:

• Overreach Beyond Professional Remit: The central claim is that the Veterinary Council has stepped outside its proper role. Molloy was punished for a personal speech act—breaching a court suppression order on a racing forum—that had no connection to veterinary practice, animal welfare, or client confidentiality.

• Punishment for "Off-Duty" Conduct: The article asserts that professional regulators should not police personal behavior, especially for someone who hasn't practiced in over a decade and was retired. It frames the Council's action as an attempt to retroactively "house-train" him for unrelated conduct.

• Inconsistent and Futile Enforcement: The writer highlights the inconsistency in enforcing the suppression order. International media published the name without consequence, and others in New Zealand were only warned, making Molloy the only person convicted and professionally sanctioned. This is presented as evidence that the action is vindictive rather than principled.

• Broader Chilling Effect: The case is framed as part of a dangerous trend where regulatory bodies punish professionals for their off-duty speech or beliefs. The article warns this turns professional bodies into "wardens of conformity" rather than "guardians of competence".

⚔️ A Polemic Response

Part 1: Against the Writer – A Dishonest Champion of Chaos

The writer of this article is not a defender of liberty but a merchant of grievance, wrapping a calculated agenda in the tattered flag of free speech. The piece is a masterclass in intellectual dishonesty, employing a strategy of omission and emotional manipulation worthy of the most cynical lobbyist.

First, the writer deliberately obscures the gravity of Molloy’s crime. This was not a mere "personal speech" act akin to a spicy Facebook opinion. It was a deliberate, knowing, and repeated breach of a High Court suppression order during the most sensitive phase of a murder trial—while the jury was still deliberating. The article's cutesy puns about "neuter[ing] speech" and "the dog that did the barking" are a grotesque attempt to minimize an action that the courts—and the Veterinary Council—rightly identified as striking at the heart of judicial integrity.

Second, the writer feigns confusion about the regulator's role with the disingenuous question, "which part of Leo’s conviction had anything to do with his profession?". Professions like veterinary science are granted the privilege of self-regulation in exchange for maintaining public trust. A criminal conviction for undermining the court system is not a private matter; it is a profound breach of the ethical compact any licensed professional holds with society. The Council’s lawyer was precisely correct: "Our professional obligations don't end when we close the office door". The writer’s argument would reduce professional ethics to a mere technical manual, applicable only during business hours—a ludicrous and dangerous proposition.

Finally, the article is a transparent fundraising and recruitment tool for the Free Speech Union. It is no coincidence that the polemic seamlessly transitions into a promotion for their "professional memberships" for teachers, academics, and others. The writer is not analyzing a case; they are manufacturing a martyr to fuel a pre-existing campaign against any form of professional accountability that touches on expression. This is advocacy disguised as journalism, and it deserves to be called out as such.

Part 2: Against Leo Molloy – The "Altruistic" Vigilante

Leo Molloy’s attempt to paint his actions as "altruistic" is a staggering work of self-justification that insults the public’s intelligence and the memory of Grace Millane.

Molloy claims he was motivated by "frustration and what I perceived to be injustice". This is the logic of a vigilante. He appointed himself judge, jury, and publisher, deciding that his personal fury overrode a court order designed to ensure Kempson’s right to a fair trial on subsequent charges. His statement that the murderer "needs a bullet" reveals the true, violent heat of his emotion, not cool altruism. He didn't start a reasoned debate about suppression laws; he doxxed an accused man to an online forum of 2,500 people during live legal proceedings.

His plea that this has "no connection to veterinary practice" is equally hollow. The Veterinary Council’s mandate is to "maintain trust in veterinary professionals". Trustworthiness is not a divisible trait. A person who willfully sabotages a legal process because he disagrees with it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law—a quality utterly incompatible with a profession entrusted with controlled drugs, animal welfare, and client privacy.

Molloy was not a brave truth-teller oppressed by the system. He was a man who broke a clear law, was rightly convicted, and is now facing the entirely predictable professional consequences of that conviction. His status as a retired veterinarian is irrelevant; he chose to remain on the register, subject to its rules. His saga is not a parable about censorship, but a simple lesson in cause and effect: if you publicly and proudly break a serious law, you should not be surprised when your professional body takes a dim view of your fitness to belong to it.

To sum up, the article cynically distorts a case of professional accountability into a free speech crisis, while Molloy cloaks his reckless disregard for the justice system in the mantle of public-spiritedness. Both positions deserve not just critique, but contempt.

Where did you get all that crap from?  Don't tell me it was AI generated!

[Murray Fish]

Just now, Chief Stipe said:

Where did you get all that crap from?

please expand on 'the crap' bit? 

feel free to speak on it!

[Murray Fish]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Don't tell me it was AI generated!

🤪 in the interest  of transparency ! I will tell you! yes!

And for the Record!  re the Free Speech Union  (how the fuck do those koonts name themselves a U...) is a reflection of a new nasty new form of rightwing politics  that has entered NZ. A group that is attractive to simple minds! Trace their roots! 

Edited 1 hour ago by Murray Fish
grammer

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Murray Fish said:

🤪 in the interest  of transparency ! I will tell you! yes!

And for the Record!  re the Free Speech Union  (how the fuck do those koonts name themselves a U...) is a reflection of a new nasty new form of rightwing politics  that has entered NZ. A group that is attractive to simple minds! Trace their roots! 

Really and you think AI algorithms aren't biased?

Regardless of what idealology you think the Free Speech Union follows don't you think they have a point in this instance?