Exactly. Who decides someone isn't vulnerable without knowing the background of the case and the person's state of mental health? The person could be in the verge of suicide and having their case broadcast to the whole world might push them over the edge. Its so wrong. And Douchebag Plunket would still gloat.
Thanks so much for these links. Aside from the ethical issues, doesn’t this seem like an administrative nightmare for the courts? The first one mentions reporters being able to pass notes to confirm what’s appropriate during court or asking clarifying questions after court. I don’t understand what benefit having exceptions for “non-vulnerable” people could have for anyone aside from an abusive person or organization?
To be honest, I reckon the court system is an administrative nightmare generally, and there’d be only so many Family Court specific cases that would generate significant media interest for questions to be raised, so possibly not that much of an issue. As to non-vulnerable exception, I think the administration of justice is almost always in the public interest, so you have to get over that first
Oh I’m sure it’s already an administrative nightmare. It would have to be a whole addition to the story if it wasn’t!
I certainly do not think the courts are efficient or logical in ways they do things, it just seems like this is an oddly nuanced thing to even have rather than what David had originally thought and been taught.
For your last point about the administration of justice, do you mean being able to identify those in Family Court cases who have caused harm is in the public interest?
Nah, I mean court reporting and reporting on justice in any court is within the public interest without a good reason for it not to be- part of the fundamentals of justice and that it needs to be seen to be done
First time commenter, recent subscriber, and just now, t-shirt purchaser. Brave would seem like the right word to me, and I imagine many others too. There will be ghastly people that listen to Plunket's poison but yuck who cares what they think? You'd think the folks assessing whether someone was vulnerable might perhaps have questions for the person being protected, rather than just roll over for the person they deserve protection from.
Very good point! (& welcome to the land of Worms ..) As per someone else's comment, how would they know that a reporter who is not "brave" like David, is not suffering from mental health issues and publicity might push them over the edge? Pretty basic to check with them ...
Well, David, if you are Mr Brave (and you most certainly are!) then Sean is clearly a mix of Mr Wrong, Mr Nonsense and Mr Grumble... those 3 combined = Mr F*^k Knuckle!!
Love your work, always. Please keep being your non-vulnerable, brave self!!
Üff Da. What the fuck? How?? It’s always the most minute provisions that he uses to twist the knife. Utterly gross. What do they even have to gain? Shit stirring? What’s the goal?
Fuck. I’m sorry David.
Being brave shouldn’t preclude you from basic privacy
Wow😳what a shocker. Regardless of how brave you are David (we already know this, you have a track record of consistent bravery) a rich backer makes all the difference to a skeezy prick like Sean. The right phone calls, the best lawyers, some fancy hoop jumping. To bad he didnt finally get some consequences for his shit spinning, but I bet you got right under his skin like a brave little worm and made him very itchy, and that's excellent👍
To be fair, right wingers and their thuggish trolls have behaved with complete consistency ie. laws only matter as long as they fit in with their agenda.
I think this is a key point. If you’ve seen the doco and heard that there is a case involving Mr Organ against Mr Farrier ( the brave) then you can easily work out who the vulnerable person is (who lives in Whanganui) We all did! So it could be argued that Plunkett has identified the person... if you wanted to spend more money on legal battles. What I’m reading from the guidelines are that it’s such a grey area, and that the judge has such discretion, journalists shouldn’t tread here without the $$$and legal to back them up. The key issue here is that the courts got played by Organ, and as plunkett’s followers pointed out to him at the time...so did he. He might have got off... but suspect his sponsors paid a hefty price for this stray bullet.
I feel so sorry for all the other non-vulnerable people who will now get named by “journalists” like Plunket. Sure as eggs what they will consider vulnerable isn’t what most people would and it’ll be open slather now that they’re emboldened. I don’t feel sorry for you of course, because you’re Brave™️.
Since reading this I have your voice saying "David Farrier, Brave Boy" on a loop in my head in the style of your 3 News/ Nightline signoff. So, thanks for that, I guess.
In a completely unironic way David, I think you are a very brave man. Please keep doing what you do!
Thankyou. Much aroha your way!
Now I feel like I really need to know what qualifies a person as vulnerable? And who gets to decide? Seems very very open to interpretation....
Definitely not me because I am BRAVE.
OMG I can hear you saying this! 🤣👍
Exactly. Who decides someone isn't vulnerable without knowing the background of the case and the person's state of mental health? The person could be in the verge of suicide and having their case broadcast to the whole world might push them over the edge. Its so wrong. And Douchebag Plunket would still gloat.
And the Family Court Act. Last subsection is interesting: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1980/0161/latest/DLM2061207.html
Thanks so much for these links. Aside from the ethical issues, doesn’t this seem like an administrative nightmare for the courts? The first one mentions reporters being able to pass notes to confirm what’s appropriate during court or asking clarifying questions after court. I don’t understand what benefit having exceptions for “non-vulnerable” people could have for anyone aside from an abusive person or organization?
To be honest, I reckon the court system is an administrative nightmare generally, and there’d be only so many Family Court specific cases that would generate significant media interest for questions to be raised, so possibly not that much of an issue. As to non-vulnerable exception, I think the administration of justice is almost always in the public interest, so you have to get over that first
Oh I’m sure it’s already an administrative nightmare. It would have to be a whole addition to the story if it wasn’t!
I certainly do not think the courts are efficient or logical in ways they do things, it just seems like this is an oddly nuanced thing to even have rather than what David had originally thought and been taught.
For your last point about the administration of justice, do you mean being able to identify those in Family Court cases who have caused harm is in the public interest?
Nah, I mean court reporting and reporting on justice in any court is within the public interest without a good reason for it not to be- part of the fundamentals of justice and that it needs to be seen to be done
There’s some guidance here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/media-guide-for-reporting-the-courts-and-tribunals-edition-4-1/appendices/10-6-appendix-f-media-guide-for-reporting-in-the-family-court/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20participants%20considered%20vulnerable,and%20Property%20Rights%20Act%201988
This is what I came to ask. Definition seems to be pretty key, no?
When my cats are brave, they get a special little treat. I assume something similar applies here?
(This does suck though. Sorry David.)
First time commenter, recent subscriber, and just now, t-shirt purchaser. Brave would seem like the right word to me, and I imagine many others too. There will be ghastly people that listen to Plunket's poison but yuck who cares what they think? You'd think the folks assessing whether someone was vulnerable might perhaps have questions for the person being protected, rather than just roll over for the person they deserve protection from.
Thanks, Nick. And kudos on your Substack, too. I've enjoyed reading.
Very good point! (& welcome to the land of Worms ..) As per someone else's comment, how would they know that a reporter who is not "brave" like David, is not suffering from mental health issues and publicity might push them over the edge? Pretty basic to check with them ...
Welcome aboard!
Well, David, if you are Mr Brave (and you most certainly are!) then Sean is clearly a mix of Mr Wrong, Mr Nonsense and Mr Grumble... those 3 combined = Mr F*^k Knuckle!!
Love your work, always. Please keep being your non-vulnerable, brave self!!
Obvious mistake. Mr. Brave is basically a doppelganger. Could have happened to anyone
(This is absolute bullshit)
The resemblance is uncanny.
Üff Da. What the fuck? How?? It’s always the most minute provisions that he uses to twist the knife. Utterly gross. What do they even have to gain? Shit stirring? What’s the goal?
Fuck. I’m sorry David.
Being brave shouldn’t preclude you from basic privacy
How? Because I am brave, Kate!
The BRAVEST OF THE BRAVE! No problem here, you see, because David is so very Brave
Loving the Uff Da...I’m in MN and say it often
It’s an essential Minnesotan-ism! Man, I love this state!
Oh fer sure dontcha know
I didn’t even realize how often I say “oh fer shur” until I saw it written that way! I’m cackling over here!
Ahem “Brave”
Wow😳what a shocker. Regardless of how brave you are David (we already know this, you have a track record of consistent bravery) a rich backer makes all the difference to a skeezy prick like Sean. The right phone calls, the best lawyers, some fancy hoop jumping. To bad he didnt finally get some consequences for his shit spinning, but I bet you got right under his skin like a brave little worm and made him very itchy, and that's excellent👍
To be fair, right wingers and their thuggish trolls have behaved with complete consistency ie. laws only matter as long as they fit in with their agenda.
It was my understanding that ALL names are suppressed so as to prevent identification of vulnerable people?!
I hope the Whanganui Family Court haven't cocked this one up.
YES. Correct. There were other vulnerable people involved. And that alone should have meant no one was named - including me.
I think this is a key point. If you’ve seen the doco and heard that there is a case involving Mr Organ against Mr Farrier ( the brave) then you can easily work out who the vulnerable person is (who lives in Whanganui) We all did! So it could be argued that Plunkett has identified the person... if you wanted to spend more money on legal battles. What I’m reading from the guidelines are that it’s such a grey area, and that the judge has such discretion, journalists shouldn’t tread here without the $$$and legal to back them up. The key issue here is that the courts got played by Organ, and as plunkett’s followers pointed out to him at the time...so did he. He might have got off... but suspect his sponsors paid a hefty price for this stray bullet.
I feel so sorry for all the other non-vulnerable people who will now get named by “journalists” like Plunket. Sure as eggs what they will consider vulnerable isn’t what most people would and it’ll be open slather now that they’re emboldened. I don’t feel sorry for you of course, because you’re Brave™️.
Kia Maia, Mārohirohi, be brave,be bold,courageous, valiant but mostly brave. Keep going David
Brave Dave! There is a book called Superworm. You are the Superworm and they are the evil wizard lizard and don't worry we will always rescue you. :)
Hip hip hooray for Superworm!
Brave Dave. That should be on the next. T-shirt!
Yes!
I’m really sorry David. This is awful. It’s not justice and I’m really gutted for you and for everyone else the system lets down. Arohanui e hoa.
I guess it’s okay to harass you then since you’re so brave. Who decides how brave you are though? Seriously gross behavior anyway you look at it.
Since reading this I have your voice saying "David Farrier, Brave Boy" on a loop in my head in the style of your 3 News/ Nightline signoff. So, thanks for that, I guess.