Friday, April 01, 2005
Christian Heritage Party, former leader the Rev Graham Capill
Interesting to see one of the foremost representatives of the Religious Right in New Zealand named and convicted as a pedophile. The NZH reports the judge as saying the offending was "not at the serious end of the scale", whatever that means. Interfering with a kid under 12 is interfering with a kid under 12, I would have thought.
A late entry for "tosser of our times III" perhaps? It will be interesting to see if a bit more rough justice comes his way. Just look at that jaw.
A late entry for "tosser of our times III" perhaps? It will be interesting to see if a bit more rough justice comes his way. Just look at that jaw.
Comments:
I withdraw my bid for Braces and now see Capill as the clear leader for 'tosser of our times'. For someone who said it was the breakdown of the family unit (implying the rise of homosexual rights at the same time) which was a cause of the increase in child abuse, I see this as just sick.
Ten years ago I actually met him and his wife a few times and he would have been the last person I would have suspected to have done this.
The only positive I can see from the whole thing is that he has fessed up and pleaded guilty and has not made his victim had to relive the nightmare in court.
I hope he gets at least 3-5 years in jail.
Dinkas
Ten years ago I actually met him and his wife a few times and he would have been the last person I would have suspected to have done this.
The only positive I can see from the whole thing is that he has fessed up and pleaded guilty and has not made his victim had to relive the nightmare in court.
I hope he gets at least 3-5 years in jail.
Dinkas
# posted by 
: 1 April 2005 at 14:57
: 1 April 2005 at 14:57
Not tosser, gents. Call him what he is - cretin. Sanctimonious cretin.
"Not at the serious end of the scale"? I wonder how the 12-year old feels about that. Cretin.
Cheers. wiremu1306
"Not at the serious end of the scale"? I wonder how the 12-year old feels about that. Cretin.
Cheers. wiremu1306
# posted by : 1 April 2005 at 15:24
: 1 April 2005 at 15:24
I guess the victim wasn't who we thought it was last week dc_red. Otherwise they may well have kept name suppression.
hint: family
hint: family
How did he get to be a Police prosecutor + how many people did he send down for the same offences as he pleaded guilty to?
I'd also like someone to confirm how close Capill was to the National Party in the early MMP days.
I'd also like someone to confirm how close Capill was to the National Party in the early MMP days.
# posted by : 1 April 2005 at 18:17
: 1 April 2005 at 18:17
The victim was 8 years old at the time of the offending. No other details can be released and a few journalists debated long and hard as to whether they'd even mention that much for reasons of not revealing the victim's identity. The law states victims of sexual offending have permanent name suppression and this can only be lifted if the victim chooses to have it withdrawn (very rare).
I've dealt with Capill many times over the past 7 years, and while I disagreed with his politics, he was OK to talk to. This offending comes as a huge surprise, not just to me but also to almost everyone who knows him. Just goes to show you never can tell. As posted in the GNZDG forum I suspect he may escape a prison sentence. If that happens it will be unfortunate.
I've dealt with Capill many times over the past 7 years, and while I disagreed with his politics, he was OK to talk to. This offending comes as a huge surprise, not just to me but also to almost everyone who knows him. Just goes to show you never can tell. As posted in the GNZDG forum I suspect he may escape a prison sentence. If that happens it will be unfortunate.
was wondering whether his "prominent position" would lead to bonus "unscheduled prisoner admistered punishment" on top of what is usually metered out to sex-offenders in our prisons?
# posted by : 2 April 2005 at 13:23
: 2 April 2005 at 13:23
I loved this quote the most:
"I don't see anything funny in seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein in bed with Satan having it off. If this is Bill Hastings' image of New Zealand the way he wants it, he can get himself another job." [Capill] Demands the chief censor resign over designating South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut R16. - 1999.
Yamis: the Capill family opposed name supression being lifted, it was Graham Capill that did not. Bill Ralston apparently sent out block media e-mails urging the national press not to name his relationship with the victim because that would have prevented Capill's name suppression ever being lifted.
Bennyasena
"I don't see anything funny in seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein in bed with Satan having it off. If this is Bill Hastings' image of New Zealand the way he wants it, he can get himself another job." [Capill] Demands the chief censor resign over designating South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut R16. - 1999.
Yamis: the Capill family opposed name supression being lifted, it was Graham Capill that did not. Bill Ralston apparently sent out block media e-mails urging the national press not to name his relationship with the victim because that would have prevented Capill's name suppression ever being lifted.
Bennyasena
# posted by : 4 April 2005 at 11:57
: 4 April 2005 at 11:57
Wow, people get rather emotional about child abuse. If Capill had murdered someone, which I reckon is a worse crime, I doubt if the reactions would have been this strong.
I can understand the judge saying his offending was at the less serious end of the scale. After all, there is a huge difference between patting a young child on his/her bare bottom, and ramming an erect penis into a child's underdeveloped vagina or anus for a frenzied f*ck session, as some pedophiles have done.
You can't compare Capill's offending with the case a few years ago of a young boy found wandering in an orchard with his pants missing and bleeding from his anus because some homosexual couldn't control himself.
I can understand the judge saying his offending was at the less serious end of the scale. After all, there is a huge difference between patting a young child on his/her bare bottom, and ramming an erect penis into a child's underdeveloped vagina or anus for a frenzied f*ck session, as some pedophiles have done.
You can't compare Capill's offending with the case a few years ago of a young boy found wandering in an orchard with his pants missing and bleeding from his anus because some homosexual couldn't control himself.
# posted by : 6 April 2005 at 12:02
: 6 April 2005 at 12:02
Anonymous- I prefer someone at public address (Graham Reid)'s description of what is not serious...
Meeting someone in a bar who looks 18 and turns out to be 16.
That's the less serious end of the scale. Not stroking an 8 year olds genitals on more than one occasion.
That's just plain sick in the fucken head.
You are probably right regarding the murder not being seen so seriously though that is often dependant on motives, circumstances and such like.
What he has done here was premeditated and took place on more than one occasion with a defenceless person.
Meeting someone in a bar who looks 18 and turns out to be 16.
That's the less serious end of the scale. Not stroking an 8 year olds genitals on more than one occasion.
That's just plain sick in the fucken head.
You are probably right regarding the murder not being seen so seriously though that is often dependant on motives, circumstances and such like.
What he has done here was premeditated and took place on more than one occasion with a defenceless person.
Wasn't Graham Reid at all it was Damien Christie. Here's what he wrote and when I think of non-serious 'sexual crime' this is similar to what I usually have in mind...
"Whereas Capill, who on a number of occasions touched up an eight year old girl while she lay in bed, is remanded on bail. The learned judge says his offending was "not at the serious end of the scale."
Okay, I know what he's getting at, but this is an eight year old girl we're talking about. 'Not at the serious end of the scale' is "she looked eighteen, she was drinking in a bar, but turns out she was fifteen". When the kid is eight, there is no "light end of the scale". Graham Capill, you're a paedophile."
"Whereas Capill, who on a number of occasions touched up an eight year old girl while she lay in bed, is remanded on bail. The learned judge says his offending was "not at the serious end of the scale."
Okay, I know what he's getting at, but this is an eight year old girl we're talking about. 'Not at the serious end of the scale' is "she looked eighteen, she was drinking in a bar, but turns out she was fifteen". When the kid is eight, there is no "light end of the scale". Graham Capill, you're a paedophile."
Graham Capill did you get what you wanted from these children? Did they satisfy your needs??? SICK -
# posted by : 13 June 2005 at 17:47
: 13 June 2005 at 17:47
The power of "can do anything and getting away with it" is so cool. nz is the place to be.
you go mr. capill!!
you go mr. capill!!
# posted by : 15 July 2005 at 03:16
: 15 July 2005 at 03:16
Post a Comment