Why no Victim Protection in this case?

The liberal crim huggers have been crying about victim protection as the reason for name suppression. TV3 also used some shrill liberal tart to explain exactly that the other night on the story about me.

The problem is that their argument is fallacious and fails on an examination of the facts. Today we have yet another example of the inconsistency of the courts.

An Auckland methodist minister has been charged with a sex offence against a teenage youth.

Kenneth Smith appeared in Rotorua District Court this morning accused of indecently assaulting the 17-year-old boy at a motel on January 10.

Sex Crime, victim, no name suppression. Perhaps the victim decided to waive name suppression. But here is the point. The very argument that people will go digging into the details of the victim is pure bollocks. here we have a lurid case of a Minister of a Church indecently assault a bloke. Now you can’t get more shameful than that and yet there isn’t any name suppression.

BUT and here is the kicker for the liberal panty-waists concerned about victim protection. The NZPA did exactly what any reporter would do. The didn’t mention the details of the teenager other than to describe him as that. But we all know who the creepy, disgusting Minister is. In actual fact you’d have to say the victim is far more protected than if the Minister had got name suppression because the story isn’t about a secret anymore. It is about a creep who took advantage of a position of trust.

Noone is going to go looking for the details of the victim, because we don’t care to know such details, we just want to know who the abuser is.