Holmes likes a dramatic phrase, and his opening comment is indicative of this…

“It is over. His battle is lost. Tony Veitch’s career and perhaps his life lie in ruins this weekend.”

Holmes goes on to reveal how shocked and amazed all of Veitch’s friends and colleagues are, how Veitch has so suddenly lost everything.  As far as I am concerned, the last part of that sentence is telling.  Veitch like Holmes, is/was a celebrity, known because he was on tv, not because he was a philanthropist, a great inventor or for his wonderful contributions to society, but because he was a sports journalist with a pretty face.  Like all celebrities, his fame was in the hands of his public.  Holmes and his colleagues would do well to have a reminder as to how fickle the general public can be. 

“I do not remember a more savage, more frenzied, more complete media consumption of anyone in the public eye. I do not recall anything as ruthless, as relentless, as coldly pitiless. In fact, I believe, and I am not alone, that Tony Veitch has been the victim of a highly organised campaign.”

And here we hit the crux of the matter, Holmes begins his thinly veiled attempt to smear the victim. 

“There are serious questions. What happened that night? What are the facts? Why did it take the woman well over two years to complain to police? This is of fundamental importance. Why did the whole sorry saga start in a newspaper? Why did it take it so long to emerge? And why now?”

Evidently he’s no Sherlock.  It doesn’t take much imagination to conject that perhaps somewhere amongst Kirsten Dunne-Powell’s friends and acquaintances, is a person who believes that Kirsten did the wrong thing.  Someone who thinks that $170,000 is nothing compared to what Veitch got away with.  Or perhaps it was Kirsten herself?  Last week Veitch in the Holmes interview, admitted that he’d had subsequent contacts with Dunne-Powell following the assault, making it seem as though following his “lashing out” they were on friendly terms.  Then we had the revelations that he left her laying on the floor for up to 6 hours, that she approached him for money and made serious demands after he kept attempting to negotiate a lower number.

“I do not minimise the evils and brutality of domestic violence. Men who bash their families serially are contemptible brutes. Yet, as the kinder part of my heart tells me, those men are victims too, victims of their inner selves and the lives that led them to it.

But this has been a carefully orchestrated plan to end a career and the life a man has built. A valuable broadcasting performer has been taken out of two prime broadcasting slots, the Radio Sport Breakfast Show and One News. Instead of us seeing justice, we may have been seeing revenge. Instead of journalism, we may have seen commerce.”

Holmes states he doesn’t minimise the evils of domestic violence, then proceeds to do exactly that.  If Holmes had Derek Fox on his show for an interview about the allegations of domestic violence against him, how sympathetic would Holmes be on air? Do you think Holmes would see Fox as a victim of his inner self and former life? No, I can’t see the self proclaimed hard hitting interviewer who chased Dennis Connor off set showing his sympathetic side at all.

A valuable broadcasting performer has completely lost his value and you can’t tell me that there isn’t a queue of young journalists with equal or greater talent, just waiting for an opportunity to spread their wings.  No doubt dying to become the face of TV sports, wanting the love and attention of the people of NZ.

“Did events in Tony Veitch’s life provoke them?”

You betcha events in Tony’s life provoked them, he allegedly beat a woman into a wheel chair!  What really annoys me, is that Holmes thinks it’s awful that Veitch can’t defend himself for fear of incriminating himself.  To me that’s self explanatory, if he’s going to incriminate himself by speaking up, then obviously the odious little man is guilty!

The rest of Holmes article is self serving, trying to extract pity for himself and others who are friends, colleagues and acquaintances of Veitch, it’s been a harrowing time for them.  Interestingly, he expresses not one jot of empathy for the victim in this matter, a woman who was beaten and kicked to the point of hospitalisation.

To my mind, this self serving pile of poo, Holmes has penned is yet another nail in the coffin of Veitch’s career.  You cannot defend the indefensible.  There is no excuse and whether or not there is a conspiracy against Veitch, his own actions were the cause.  Holmes should shut his trap, before the people who allow him, his lifestyle and fame, turn on him too.

It’s now Friday and there is no word of Ma Xin Xin.

The media are somewhat critical about the lack of information coming forth from the Police.  So far all that has been said is that the premeditated nature of this crime, has lead Police to conclude that this was not a random act.   A statement to reassure the public that some crazed Paedophile isn’t snatching little girls as the opportunity arises.

The Police have also released a statement in answer to the media criticism stating that their number one priority is the safe return of Ma Xin Xin to her family, when they have information that they believe is critical for the public at large to know, they will release it.

Sounds sensible to me.  But continued critcisim is having an effect… This from Sky Kiwi’s website

Albany resident Rose Zhang said: “There seems to be more questions than answers to this case. Like why … haven’t the police released more details such as the picture of the vehicle involved or description of the man who kidnapped Xin Xin?”

Perhaps because the only witness was an 8 year old child who described a silver car and a masked man Rose?

The media, having nothing official to report are now reporting speculation.  So called associates of Ma Jian are said to have been turning up at a prior home, asking for money owed.  There’s talk of Triads, questions as to whether Xin Xin’s father Ma Jian arranged the abduction because Xin Xin was not allowed to go visit her paternal grandparents.  Someone has even suggested that the abductor was Chinese because little Xin Xin cried out in Mandarin for help.

None of this is productive.

Yes, we all feel for the family.  We all want to know that Xin Xin has been safely returned to them and I’m sure that somewhere inside us all, we want to know the reasons why this happened.

But at what cost?

Are the interests of the public to be put above the life of a child?  Does our interest outweigh her safety?

I for one am confident that should the Police require the help of the public, they will ask for it.  They have assured us this was a premeditated crime, allaying our fears is a requirement, but that should be sufficient.  Unless of course, they have someone of interest to locate or a sighting.

Meanwhile all we need to do is keep our eyes open for the little girl in the top left of this screen.

Xin Xin Ma has been safely returned to her family following a Police Operation, the details of which have yet to be released.

Noreen Hegarty

Police Media Officer.

That’s the Police media release that came out at 5:41pm last night. (source NZ Police)

At 2pm yesterday afternoon Tony Veitch released the following statement:

I have tendered my resignation to TVNZ and The Radio Network today.

I need to take stock of my life and spend time with my family before I make any decisions about my future. At the time I undertook counselling and am still continuing to do so. It has been a great help. I am extremely grateful for the love and support of my family and friends.

I would ask that people now respect the agreement Kristin and I made to keep our personal affairs private. At all times I have been honest with my employers and at all times I have tried to do the right thing for everyone. TVNZ has been my life, I have loved my job. There have been a lot of statements made that are untrue which make it untenable now for me to continue in my current roles with TVNZ and the Radio Network.

I would like to thank both TVNZ and The Radio Network for their ongoing support. I would also like to thank the many individuals who have reminded me of their belief in me at a time such as this. It gives me strength for the future. (source NZ Herald)

So it’s taken over a week but both parties in this affair have done the right thing, Kristen Dunne-Powell has laid a complaint and Tony Veitch has fallen on his sword.  What astounds me is that once the matter became public, both chose to try to weather the storm so to speak.

What would have been the outcome with regards to public opinion had Veitch taken the sword falling option in the first instance? You’d think those inside the media would be a little savvy wouldn’t you?

I’ve read that Paul Holmes drafted the initial snivelling statement that Veitch read out to the media throng last week.  I believe it too.  The whole “me, me” flavour of the statement reeks of Holmes and his over inflated ego.

Colleague and friend Brendan Telfer describes Veitch as a broken man and accused media rivals of playing a huge part in Veitch’s fall from grace, suggesting that Veitch “should be judged by the courts, not the media!” Quite true, only, he wasn’t going to be judged by the courts was he? In fact he paid $170,000 to Kirsten Dunne-Powell in order to escape being judged at all, didn’t he?

It is nice to see however, the media go after one of their own like a pack of ravenous pit bulls for a change.

TVNZ has taken Veitch of their Olympic reporting team, it remains to be seen as to whether or not he will retain his employment with either broadcaster.  Their knowledge, limited or not and lack of disciplinary action at the time, will have an effect on future disciplinary action.

Police have meanwhile launched an investigation into the affair.

Veitch has given an interview to his fellow Radio NZ colleague Paul Holmes (biased much?).  According to Stuff, the tape of the interview includes off the record comment which the Police are interested in.  Holmes is refusing to discuss the matter but it is expected that the tape which was handed back to Holmes following it’s transcription, will be the subject of a search warrant.  It’s current whereabouts is unknown. 

From what I have seen of the interview, it’s more excuses…

“Imagine yourself in the worst possible situation with your partner,” the sportscaster told Herald on Sunday. “Something terrible had happened and we both knew that. This was a Sunday night. After about three hours of being with her at the hospital I had to go and jump on Radio Sport for a radio show for a couple of hours.” (NZ Herald)

All I am hearing is “me,me,me”  Poor little Tony, he had to go to work for a couple of hours…what about poor Kirsten?   At that point he though she only had bruising. Charming, so he beat the living crap out of his former partner, went to the hospital with her and before she was fully diagnosed, he went to work.  He couldn’t even ring in sick and remain with her why? I’d contend that he went to work because he was already in denial and cover up mode….

And Veitch says he always expected the incident to come out…

“And every single time my phone rang, I would think ‘this is it, this is the day’. And the phone call came on a Sunday, and hour and a half before I did One News and I was nearly vomiting on the news.” (NZ Herald)

Again with the Me me me…

But hey, the one bright spot for Veitch is if it hadn’t have happened, he wouldn’t have gone to counselling…

“I would not have learned how to have a relationship and I would not have fallen in love and I wouldn’t be married now. I would be alone.” (NZ Herald)

Another “Me” statement.

But he’s contrite and he’d do a domestic violence campaign in a flash!

Well excuse my cynicism, but what makes Tony Veitch think he is qualified to appear in a Domestic Violence campaign?  The fact he beat his former partner, paid her hush money and is sorry that the incident has been exposed is hardly true contrition.

“One thing I hope out of all of this, I hope that New Zealand gets the message.” (NZ Herald)

Oh yes, WE have the message, the question Tony….is have YOU got the message?

“Bernie (Helensville) Todays editorial has missed the point. Tony Veitch is not a role model. His is is a public persona to sell commercials (as with all others).
He has destroyed the commercial value of his persona and destroyed his credibility by “the cover-up”. If the little coward had a shred of decency he would/should have resigned.”

“Voice of reason (Henderson) I can’t believe the amount of people who are making excuses for Tony. It explains why New Zealand has such a poor record on domestic violence. If he had committed this crime, (and yes guys it is a crime to put your partner in a wheel chair) went to court and paid for his crimes then perhaps we should move on. However he used his money to escape justice, meet a new partner and carry on with his life. Whilst the victim suffered. We all like to go on about how we need more rights for the victim and less for the criminal. What about the rights of the victim not to be pressured and bribed into keeping quiet. A lot of readers here seem to favor the rights of the criminal to have a successful career and live in peace. Times up Tony.”

Veitch’s apology was hollow, as I previously noted, it should have started and ended with, I’m sorry, I was wrong.  Instead Veitch excused his actions as a result of being under pressure, working two jobs, being on medication.  He also added he’s had counselling since then.

If he was under pressure in 2006 from working two jobs, what’s he under now that his abuse has been spread all over the media? If Zoe Halford is smart, she’ll keep the number for Women’s Refuge handy and ensure she’s constantly near a phone to call 111.

If it’s not good enough for a celebrity to be in the public eye having assaulted his partner, what about an MP?

The Maori party apparently knew all about Derek Fox’ past when they offered him the chance to stand.  Considering Maori are disproportionately represented in Domestic Violence statistics, I am appalled.  Perhaps they need a reminder…

Maori Party leader Tariana Turia said

“I’m totally intolerant of violence, I don’t mind telling you that, but I also believe that the way to stop violence is to support [people] to get the right help and then to support them after, and that’s what the party intends to do.” (source NZ Herald)

Mr Fox said he had done things in his past he regretted, but had spent years since trying to contribute positively to society.

A former un named partner reveals a historic fist fight, during which she defended herself but came off second best.  She has confirmed that she was not hospitalised as a result but had asked Mr Fox not to stand for parliament in 1999 and again this year, fearing their history would become news.

Fox’ candidacy for the Ikaroa-Rawhia seat currently held by Parekura Horomia is subject to a formal complaint by another(?) former partner Atareta Poananga.  The complaint is described as a “waste of time” by party co leader Dr Pita Sharples.

Hmmm historic or not, it’s not ok!

Not living up to our supposed expectations?  I don’t know him, why should I care?  Thinking we might care is the height of arrogance.  Seriously he’s a talking head, what he does isn’t earth shattering, he never had my respect to lose.

As for his heartfelt apology….

Well I’ve always been under the impression that anything said after, “I’m sorry, I was wrong” is merely an excuse. 

And excuse himself he did…. 

the incident happened when he was at his “lowest ebb”           

“I broke and lashed out in anger”

He blamed work stress at the time for the incident and said he had been on medication.

“I know what I did was wrong and it will never happen again,” he said.

There is no excuse for what he did, not because he is a so called celebrity, but because there is no excuse for assaulting anyone, ever.  Especially to the point of allegedly breaking their back, causing a head injury and hospitalising them.

What he did falls under the Crimes Act, a Serious possibly even a Grievous Assault. Now that he has confessed, he should be charged and I am glad that the Police are indeed looking at charging him.

As for the pay out.  Who cares what he paid her? Not me. 

I just can’t understand what type of woman accepts payment for her silence after being assaulted to that or any degree.

On Saturday 5th July and estimated 10,000 people marched in South Auckland against crime.  The march was organised by Peter Low of the Asian Anti Crime Group.  The results of which are quoted below.  Initially I thought it was just another media beat up, but I am flabbergasted to discover that no, Mr Low’s remarks were not misinterpreted or misreported, this nutcase actually believes he has a right to act as a criminal for “the right reasons”.

The east Auckland importer said if authorities tried to stop his vigilantes looking after their own, then the AAG would consider hiring local triads to protect his people from violent attacks. “We are a vigilante group and are training now,” he told the Sunday News. “We are training people in hand- to-hand combat and how to handle situations. I want this group to be legalised. If they [the police] don’t allow it, that’s when we might have to employ triads to protect our community,” he said. (source www.stuff.co.nz)

Mr Low, 55, said he had been organising his team of vigilantes for months but brought forward the start date because of the recent violent deaths of three Asians.

“The police and laws in New Zealand are a joke, and when we live in a society where the police and the law cannot protect us we have no choice but to do everything we can to protect ourselves.”

PETER LOW: No, they act as a security and this is in our community. We might get people from the Australia, we may get people from Singapore, Malaysia or China and Vietnam, we don’t know.  But I got money I can do anything. I can hire them as my security, I can hire them as my bodyguard. I’ve been thinking this for long time.(Source The World Today Australia)

I got money, I can do anything?

Peter Low seems to be saying, that while crime is perpetrated by Maori, Pacific Island and European’s it is unacceptable, but if it’s perpetrated by Asians, it’s ok!

I wonder how Mr Low would have responded had a local Maori business man stood up and stated “We might have to employ Black Power/The Mongrel Mob/Headhunters etc to protect our community and act as personal bodyguards? 

I have friends from various parts of Asia, a Chinese friend tells me that the service the NZ Police provide to Asians, eg Asian Liaison Officers, Providing a interpreters and actively recruiting Asian Police Officers, is far more than the Police in China provide not just to Europeans living there, but to their own people.   Meanwhile, Singapore is known world wide as a Police State.  India on the other hand, is known for corruption within it’s Police and Justice system. 

NZ is on the other hand, relatively free of corruption, our Police are overworked and stretched to say the least and I agree our Criminal Justice System is soft on criminals.  However, there are avenues of protest and action that do not involve contracting criminals to act on our behalf. 

Ás the blurb for the story says “In Australia, there have been calls for government intervention – for a ban on advertisements of some nappies, for example, for fear that paedophiles might find them arousing.”

Banning nappy (diaper) advertisements in case a paedophile gets off on them? That’s going a bit far isn’t it? But hang on…Where do we stop?  Do we even need legislation?

PETER OVERTON: Catharine Lumby is Professor of Media Studies at the University of NSW and a member of the Advertising Standards Board.

CATHARINE LUMBY: As a parent of a six and eight year old, what deeply concerns me is that my children will get the message that their bodies are dangerous. That they can somehow provoke child sexual abuse by what they wear or what they don’t wear.

PETER OVERTON: What about a child in a catalogue in a bra or underpants?

CATHARINE LUMBY: I don’t see that as sexual.

PETER OVERTON: But what does a paedophile see that image as sexual?

CATHARINE LUMBY: Peter, if we start running society because of paedophiles and in relation to what paedophiles think, I think were going down a very dangerous path.

PROFESSOR LOUISE NEWMAN: I think if this sort of images attracts even one paedophile to a preschool – then we have a significant issue.

CATHARINE LUMBY: Are we going to cave into these people? Are we going to start running society according to their way of seeing the world. No, we’re not on my watch. And I don’t want my children being sent that message. It makes me furious.

(Source 60 minutes transcript)

The “tween” market, girls aged between 7 and 12, according to this story, represents a 10 billion dollar market.  Whether or not our daughters are being bombarded with sexuality through the media of advertising, it occurs to me that those 10 billion dollars are not paid out by girls aged 7-12 years old.

As parents, we have the $.  If this ‘dangerous’ sexuality is bombarding our children, it’s because we allow it to. 

Ultimately what the Pipi Princess has in her toy box and wardrobe, is at my discretion.  Yes little girls want to be women, they want to wear bras, jewellery, perfume and make up, they want to emulate their Mum.  But it’s up to us as parents, to control that.  We don’t need to legislate, we need to parent.

Oh for the love of GOD!

I started smoking as a teenager, in spite of all the anti smoking rhetoric that was preached to me at school.  Want to know why?  Well perhaps they should carry out a survey asking teens, “How likely are you to do something, you are told specifically not to do?”

This is a stacked survey, offer four possible answers and count everyone who answers anything but the 4th as at risk?  What a joke!  Did they also account for the fibbers in the definitely not answers?

Perhaps we should survey everyone born in 1850 that had strained carrots as a baby, what they are all dead? Well gosh, let conclude strained carrots are fatal! 

When you come up with a survey that doesn’t stack the odds in their favour, I might start actually paying attention!

The story opens with Jodie arriving home from a girls night out, the house is all locked up and Brian, her husband remains stubbornly asleep on the couch as she is forced to break a window to get in.  Once inside we see him snuggling his bong.  Jodie’s house, clean when she went out, is trashed!  She’s pissed and quite frankly… I can identify with that.  Jodie begins banging things around and tidying up.  Walking from the living room to the kitchen, she slips on a puddle of water left by the open fridge door, drops the plates and wakes Brian.

An argument ensues, during which Brian reveals he is only staying “for the kids” and he thinks he is the only one who gave up his dreams in sacrifice for their home and marriage.  Brian has a gold 45rpm record, framed and on the wall.  Jodie starts throwing things at him, the glass bong shatters on the ground, then Jodie throws the gold disc, Brian struggles to save his prized possession, slips in the same pool of water and lands face down on a sharp bottom of the bong, cutting his throat.  Can we say poetic justice?

We flash back to the girls night out, Jodie and her four friends, Theresa (married to a cop), Denise (dressed in pink and pathologically up beat) and Gerri (single advertising exec) are discussing the ultimate way to leave your husband, for a bath gel ad Gerri is about to make.  Jodie reckons she’d like to leave Brian with a knife in his back… it’s the only logical choice, if she leaves him, she loses the house, he’s to lazy to leave her, the only way is to kill him!  The music stops and everyone in the restaurant looks at Jodie as her words echo in the silence…

Back to the scene of the crime.

Pathologically cheery Denise arrives with Jodies keys, Jodie is in a blue funk, she’s already called Theresa,  Denise steps into the house, spies the body and suddenly, all new take charge Denise arrives, full of practicalities, Jodie can’t possibly call 111, everyone in the restaurant heard her talking about killing Brian, this doesn’t look like an accident!

So thereafter we have the farcical body disposal.  Denise is very creepy, psycho even in a comical kind of way as they race around in the dead of night, Brian wrapped in an oriental rug, they run over the neighbours yappy little dog and pass through a Police check point.  I laughed till I cried.

This morning I read the somewhat limp review by NZ Herald critic Linda Herrick, who seems unable to clarify the difference between documentary and comedy.  She thought it lacked credibility and might have some potential as the relationships between the four characters develop.

What a wowser that critic is!

Sure it was unbelievable and at times, farcical.  I think it was meant to be, you see, it’s a comedy, not a documentary about what happens when you accidentally kill your slob of a husband and have to dispose of the evidence.  The Herald talks about domestic violence as if this comedic effort was an ad for it. That’s patently ridiculous and overly pc, Burying Brian is refreshingly un pc.

Fact is, Burying Brian gave me a laugh, I’ve had enough of bad news, docos and stupid obvious comedy.  I doubt there’s a woman alive that couldn’t identify with the frustration of coming home after seldom taken night out to find every dish you own used and your kitchen looking like Gordon Ramsey’s nightmare.  If it weren’t slightly farcical, it would be  Helen Mirren housewife serial killer or something.  Perhaps Linda Herrick is so inured to American comedy, she missed the subtleties.

Burying Brian looks set to become the new “Outrageous Fortune” to me.  Strident Jodie has elements of Cheryl West, without the drive and  Gerri definitely has Cheryl’s ruthless streak.