Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

63 year old man ???


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Dark Beau said:

Two things are pissing me off tonight.

1) A friend of my being charged for doing something on behalf of all decent living beings. 
2) The adverts on this site, especially the unsolicited, undesirable type.

?

 

 

 

If you purchase a subscription you can have no ads.  It does cost to provide this site.

  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dark Beau said:

Two things are pissing me off tonight.

1) A friend of my being charged for doing something on behalf of all decent living beings. 
2) The adverts on this site, especially the unsolicited, undesirable type.

?

 

Are you referring to the 63 yo.? If so just take this in. No one is above the law. Don't like the law then make submissions. 

What we have got here is an individual who for 15 years has been one of the internets worst bullies. The personal insults have carried on even after being relieved of almost $200K. Most of us haven't the time or resources to challenge him. He has made a mockery of the internet laws regarding privacy and just common decency.

Now he figures that  he is on a populist agenda which will create publicity. Thats the style go with popular agenda and marginalise others. I guess thats what people who frequent drinking or dining holes thrive on. Makes them feel special by denigrating a minority. The classic method employed by bullies. 

I have watched with dismay the antics of this 63yo for long enough. The guy is smart and he has got all the standard rhetoric. You people are "non achievers" you people are "jealous". you people are etc etc. But quite frankly he is just a child.

  • Like 8
  • Champ Post 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, curious said:

 

I did purchase a subscription I thought. I am still getting the ads. What am I doing wrong?

Same.   Especially on the Android.  I get a complete page blocking everything,  I can't remove it and have to turn everything off and start again.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Centaur said:

Are you referring to the 63 yo.? If so just take this in. No one is above the law. Don't like the law then make submissions. 

What we have got here is an individual who for 15 years has been one of the internets worst bullies. The personal insults have carried on even after being relieved of almost $200K. Most of us haven't the time or resources to challenge him. He has made a mockery of the internet laws regarding privacy and just common decency.

Now he figures that  he is on a populist agenda which will create publicity. Thats the style go with popular agenda and marginalise others. I guess thats what people who frequent drinking or dining holes thrive on. Makes them feel special by denigrating a minority. The classic method employed by bullies. 

I have watched with dismay the antics of this 63yo for long enough. The guy is smart and he has got all the standard rhetoric. You people are "non achievers" you people are "jealous". you people are etc etc. But quite frankly he is just a child.

All fair points. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, curious said:

Thanks for sharing that young fella

 

morning! old fella!! hope you are traveling ok! :)

ps, I  did forget to add, 63, Retired!  current thinking for things racing is me to be very  vulture like!  lol, thinking time dealing with muck and decay and death cay pay!!!! 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right-thinking people are naturally disgusted at the behavior of the individual convicted of Grace Millane's murder.

NZ has unique law when it comes to  name suppression.  We might not like it but sometimes there are good reasons. When people breach suppression laws thinking they are punishing the wrong do-er - they may end up creating collateral damage in the form of someone else whose rights are trampled on in the process - someone who most certainly does not deserve for this to happen.  There is nothing heroic or admirable in breaching suppression in this case.  And taking such action certainly does not make the 63 y/o (whoever it is) a good or righteous person.

I am content to stay within the law and let matters run their course.  And that position is most certainly not because I have any sympathy for that person who was convicted for that heinous crime.  My father used to always say to us kids "fools & bairns should never see a job half done".  I'm well past being the latter & I try not to act like the former.  I am prepared to be patient.  I believe all will be revealed in the fullness of time. 

Seasons greetings to you all. 

J.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Jess. 

The other thing too, is that sometimes in these God awful events, there are young kids involved/associated or related to the low life scum, obviously through no fault of their own. School aged kids can be pretty nasty too eachother sometimes, and different kids can react differently. Especially if they got hassled enough just for sharing the same surname or being related to the low life... 

RIP Grace and thoughts to her family. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right,  IMO, Rusty and Jess.

I see on the other channel,  a poster maintaining that there is a ' moral obligation to break the law if it is wrong or unjust '  to force society to debate that law - with the purpose of putting it right,  I assume.  I don't disagree entirely with the sentiment that made that comment -  however,  that same poster has denigrated [ fiercely ]  people who DO break the law,  with the comment that the rule of law must be upheld, if you don't like it,  lobby to change the law.    

Can't have it both ways.   There is a reason,  as stated,  for name suppression and we just have to accept that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Freda said:

Quite right,  IMO, Rusty and Jess.

I see on the other channel,  a poster maintaining that there is a ' moral obligation to break the law if it is wrong or unjust '  to force society to debate that law - with the purpose of putting it right,  I assume.  I don't disagree entirely with the sentiment that made that comment -  however,  that same poster has denigrated [ fiercely ]  people who DO break the law,  with the comment that the rule of law must be upheld, if you don't like it,  lobby to change the law.    

Can't have it both ways.   There is a reason,  as stated,  for name suppression and we just have to accept that.

Yes I agree lobby to change the law.

However in some cases evidence is suppressed and leaking information is the only way to get some justice. Evidence in the Grace Mullane case was not suppressed and justice was running its course.

Wikileaks although acting in violation of some countries laws is acting to seek justice and that would appear the difference.

Even so vote for "prick of the month" goes to Scott Morrison. Off  on overseas vacation whilst Australia burns.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2019 at 1:52 PM, The Centaur said:

Yes I agree lobby to change the law.

However in some cases evidence is suppressed and leaking information is the only way to get some justice. Evidence in the Grace Mullane case was not suppressed and justice was running its course.

Wikileaks although acting in violation of some countries laws is acting to seek justice and that would appear the difference.

Even so vote for "prick of the month" goes to Scott Morrison. Off  on overseas vacation whilst Australia burns.

 

yes another hand on a firehose would have made a...difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Ironic that the 63 yr old businessman has name suppression!  I wonder if anyone who names him will get charged!

"A well-known Auckland businessman charged with breaching a court suppression order for the man who murdered Grace Millane has been granted suppression himself.

The 63-year-old man..."

"When the Herald asked if the businessman wished to comment on the court proceedings he replied: "I've got no interest in talking about it. I've got no interest in talking to you, you clearly have no idea what's going on. So the answer is no, no, no, no."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ironic that the 63 yr old businessman has nane suppression!  I wonder if anyone who names him will get charged!

"A well-known Auckland businessman charged with breaching a court suppression order for the man who murdered Grace Millane has been granted suppression himself.

The 63-year-old man..."

"When the Herald asked if the businessman wished to comment on the court proceedings he replied: "I've got no interest in talking about it. I've got no interest in talking to you, you clearly have no idea what's going on. So the answer is no, no, no, no."

Yip I think that's called ironic isn't it?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...