The entitlement is strong in this one

Ex-All Black to lift name suppression

An ex All Black has decided that he wants to lift the name suppression he argued to hard so get quite a few years ago now. Back then, it was inconvenient for people to know he had stolen $152.50 in taxi chits from his employer. Now, it seems that he wants to sell his warts and all autobiography, so it would be much more convenient for the name suppression to be lifted. So he will just rely on his contacts, on his standing in the community, on the sense that he is after all a good bloke, “one of us, you know, old chap,” to get what he wants.

Funny how the well-positioned, well-paid and well-educated can arrange to keep their names out of the press when they want to, but discard the protection they once fought so hard to get once it becomes a nuisance. I doubt that that a junior clerk who helped herself to her employer’s resources would be able to keep her name hidden from the public. It’s much the same as the narratives around shoplifting. When a well-positioned, well-paid and well-educated person shoplifts, it’s kleptomania, but when a poor person shoplifts, it’s theft.

I suppose that his mates in the judiciary will help him out again, and lift that pesky name suppression. I doubt that it will make a difference: his identity was widely known years ago in any case.


12 comments on “The entitlement is strong in this one

  1. Carol says:

    Well, quite.
    Law prof Bill Hodge had much the same take on it as you.

  2. poneke says:

    The most egregious thing about this person is he is far more than an “ex-All Black.”

    He is a former member of Parliament, a sitting prominent member of a local authority, a former senior public servant, a former very senior diplomat, and a current public figure.

    As a journalist, I tried to convince my editor to take a court case to overturn the suppression order, on the grounds this public figure was again standing for election and the voters had the right to know his dirty little secret. But my request was declined.

    Nonetheless there can be few people — at least in Wellington — who do not know.

    • Deborah says:

      Yes. I *do* know who the person is, but I was unsure about just how much identifying information I could put out there… I hope you’re not landing me in the firing line there, Poneke.

      I’ve just put a number of words and phrases into the comment moderation filter, which unfortunately may capture more than just references to the particular person. I’m sorry if any comments get held up in moderation because of that.

  3. poneke says:

    I would not get you into the firing line, Deborah!

    On my own blog, I have his name, and the names of a number of other prominent public figures who have gotten name suppression for their crimes, similarly in my filter. One can never be too careful.

    The “former All Black’s” name was posted in the comments on Mr Farrar’s blog in January last year — until I alerted him. I was surprised he didn’t have the name filtered.

    I’d actually forgotten this chap was an All Black! Very odd the Herald used that as an identifier.

    • Deborah says:

      Many thanks for your care w.r.t. that, Poneke. And it was a very handy reminder to me that I should be putting his name and past and current job titles into the moderation filter.

  4. Daleaway says:

    I’m aware of a few warts this public figure may or may not choose to put in his warts-and-all autobiography.
    It will be interesting to see what his wart selection covers – but like many others I will of course be taking his book out of a library, rather than paying for it. (If it ever gets published, that is.)

  5. Julie says:

    Sheesh I must have had my head in the sand, I’ve got no idea who this is! Guess I’ll find out when the suppression lifts though. Does all seem a very cynical exercise.

  6. Carol says:

    “Nonetheless there can be few people — at least in Wellington — who do not know.”
    Well, I’m in Wellington and I don’t know. Clearly I need to get out more!

  7. poneke says:

    Taxi drivers always know who dunnit.

    It was a taxi driver who caught him.

    He signed a purloined taxi chit using a false name and the taxi driver said: “You’re not Joe Bloggs, you’re XXXXXX XXXXX!”

    And contacted the police.

    The perils of being a well known public figure.

  8. Mindy says:

    I wonder why people who are presumably well remunerated feel the need to do dodgy little cheats like this that end up costing them so much more. But you see it time and time again.

    • Gravey Dice says:

      I know – I have no idea what they hope to gain from it. Maybe they secretly want to get caught to add to their profile somehow. And maybe the name suppression is just to add to the whole drama.

      Actually – I don’t know who it is either, but there is only one person I can think of who is an ex-All Black, a former MP and a former senior diplomat.

      Question about name-suppression: Sometimes the suppression order is on all details that could identify the person, and sometimes it is just generic (presumably only a suppression order on only the name of the person). Does anyone know which version applies here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s