17 January, 2010

On the naming of names

This is worth a read.

I don't often agree with Michael Laws and even in that column I would like to give him a whack around the ear with a paw. He does make some very good points about the ridiculousness of name suppression and the damage it can to do completely innocent parties.

His description of Bloggers still deserves a slapping (and I know exactly where his carpark space is) but I will be nice and not use my claws.

12 January, 2010

The trouble with Name Suppression

The following is the coded version of the name of someone accused of kiddy fiddling:

00110100 00111001 00110010 00110000 00110110 00110001 00110110 00110011 00110110 00110011 00110111 00110101 00110111 00110011 00110110 00110101 00110010 00110000 00110110 01000100 00110111 00111001 00110010 00110000 00110110 00111000 00110110 01000110 00110111 00110101 00110111 00110011 00110110 00110101 00110010 00110000 00110110 01000100 00110110 00110001 00110111 00110100 00110110 00110101 00110010 01000011 00110010 00110000 00110100 00110010 00110110 01000110 00110110 00110010 00110110 00110010 00110111 00111001 00110000 00110000

...or is it.

That is one of the problems with name suppression. If that is a name subject to a suppression order I could be in deep trouble if caught. On the other hand how do you or I for that matter, know?

I have seen what may be the code posted by Whaleoil. Since I didn't see it at the source, on Whaleoil's blog, I don't know for sure.

All I know was it was a name and bit of googling pulled up several entries for a former Member of Parliament beyond that I have no idea.

Whether you agree that name suppression is over used or not that sort of rumour mongering is potentially damaging to the person named. If you still don't get what I mean decode that sentence with name above.

Just copy and paste here then copy, go to the hex page and paste here.

Remember this:
Name Suppression prevents trial by media and gossip monger and protects the victim and family of the accussed in one case.
Not suppressing names allows "naming and shaming" and prevents more victims and allows other existing victims to come forward.

Take you pick.

03 January, 2010

Once there was a nut tree with similar DNA....

In April 2008, the final piece of the jigsaw fell into place when Reekers was caught stealing a salami from a supermarket in West Auckland. After he was convicted and discharged for theft, police gained an order compelling Reekers to provide a DNA sample, which matched the sample found with Jamieson. Reekers pleaded guilty to murder when he appeared in the high court last month and will be sentenced in April. It was the first time familial DNA had been used to solve a murder in New Zealand,....
.....Bishop said her brother was denying the murder at that point. "I said to him, `were you on drugs and you can't remember?' He didn't answer me – I knew then." She had spent the Christmas before his arrest with her brother, but at no point did he give any indication that he was harbouring a secret or under pressure. "I don't know how he lived with it, keeping it to himself." She said her elderly mother was devastated and had a nervous breakdown. Bishop has also had a breakdown and is on medication. She is having flashbacks to the killing of her husband, Morton Bishop, at their home in One Tree Hill, Auckland, in 1973.
Full article here

I guess sometimes the nuts don't fall far from the tree.

I wonder how many nuts will fall out of other criminal's family trees if they are given a good shake with a DNA sample.

De Bunking - coming soon?


A two year old manages to suffocate himself climbing/falling off a top bunk. His family has spoken out in order to help prevent another tragedy.

It seems that the safety standards for bunks are under review again. one of the ideas considered is to limit the use of a top bunk to children 12 and over.

What kind of bollocks is this?

Bunks are used by every family who has to house two kids in a room that is only a double in real estate agent speak.
Hint: a true double bedroom can hold two single beds, two tallboy chests of drawers while still being able to open the wardrobe, bedroom door and windows and not climb over any furniture to do so.

Eldest kid, has been sleeping in a top bunk since the age of 4, a bunk that doesn't meet current safety standards at that. It has no safety rail and they stopped using the ladder years ago. The worst thing that happened was that she fell out one night (she has only fallen out 3 times in 10 years) and landed on her sister. It was such a thumping impact that neither girl woke up even though the adults in the next room did.

Exactly how much cotton wool do we want to wrap kids in?

Another hint: 2 years old is a bit too young to put any kid in a top bunk.