| Whatisitgood4atwork | 21 Oct 2009 5:49 p.m. PST |
Medals recovered. Thief jailed. Happy endings all round. link |
| Top Gun Ace | 21 Oct 2009 5:57 p.m. PST |
Glad to hear he was convicted, but sounds like he got off way too easy to me….. |
| Irish Marine | 21 Oct 2009 6:44 p.m. PST |
I first thought it was like a dude from the Viet Cong until I read the link. |
 John the OFM  | 21 Oct 2009 8:00 p.m. PST |
It's a fair sentence, if 7-11 actually means 7-11. |
| Arteis | 21 Oct 2009 11:46 p.m. PST |
This is in New Zealand, not America – so 7-11 year will probably mean a helluva lot less than that, sadly. |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 22 Oct 2009 3:19 a.m. PST |
The headline states: 'Medals theft man jailed for at least seven years'. The seven years being the non-parole period. I think that means pretty much what it says. If he keeps out of trouble in jail the minimum period is likely to also be the maximum. But 7 years is a long time in my book. |
| Jemima Fawr | 22 Oct 2009 6:13 a.m. PST |
If this happened in the UK he'd probably have got 7-11 hours community service… |
| Redroom | 22 Oct 2009 6:29 a.m. PST |
Convicted of 50 other crimes too… Guy is a real winner, glad they left his name off to protect his rights. |
| John the OFM | 22 Oct 2009 6:47 a.m. PST |
Arteis, even in the USA, 7-11 is more of a guideline, a suggestion… |
| The Black Tower | 22 Oct 2009 9:28 a.m. PST |
In the Uk many criminals don't even get that for murder! |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 22 Oct 2009 6:17 p.m. PST |
"Convicted of 50 other crimes too… Guy is a real winner, glad they left his name off to protect his rights." Under NZ law, name suppression is never granted to protect a convicted person. It is granted to protect other people involved in the case; either victims, family or associates. I do not know why it was granted in this case. Name suppression is rarely permanent – the only cases I can think of are rapists where naming them would lead to identification of the victims. The suppression is usually granted for a fixed time then reviewed by the courts. |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 22 Oct 2009 9:43 p.m. PST |
Or, having just reread the article, I notice another man is facing trial in connection with this. Perhaps revealing this guy's name could be prejudicial in that case. In any event, the name suppression would not have been granted to protect the convicted man's rights. |
| Supercilius Maximus | 24 Oct 2009 10:49 a.m. PST |
Toe rag. One can only hope he bends over in the showers at the wrong moment. As a former lecturer, who has always noted the excellent linguistic skills of Kiwis visiting the UK, I couldn't help noticing the comments by the director of the museum:- "In my mind this is a crime that shocked the nation, who were so angry that anyone could have the audacity to commit this heinous crime. "This crime has tore the heart out of every New Zealander," he said. "The effect of this crime on me and my staff was traumatic. Sleep failed me."
Is it normal to reach the rank of colonel in the NZ armed forces with this standard of English?
|
| Failure16 | 25 Oct 2009 3:40 p.m. PST |
I don't know. Is it possible he was either misquoted, or that the fault lies with the reporter/editor/printer? |
expands his 15mm modern building collection.
