For Immediate Release:
What Telecom has done is criminal
Sensible Sentencing Trust say Telecom's $2 million 'abstain from sex' campaign was not sensible and would have missed
the goal by a mile.
Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar said some say that’s its good Telecom aborted the idea… others say they should have let
the idea live.
“Our most famous hooker obviously supported the idea. Unfortunately it was too late and he participated in an ill
conceived game plan. With the media and public out cry over what is a subjective and harmless PR cock-up, many sections
of the community think what’s all the fuss, while others think what a waste.
Spending $2million funded by their customers would have achieved what?
What’s the difference between this waste and say a finance company gone wrong or a waste of someone’s life at the hands
of a murderer?
Sensible Sentencing Trust works hard for every dollar it gets. Appreciates where it comes from and is incredibly careful
how and where it’s put to use. Just $300,000 of Telecom’s budget would do so much to help victims of serious crime and
their families. Many of who are probably Telecoms customers.”
This waste of money is criminal said Mr. McVicar.
“With the recent media scrum over the Telecom campaign it seems there is more coverage and public outcry over this than
say when someone gets murdered or a repeat offender gets paroled before his sentence is served.
We know that 60% of criminals will reoffend and cause incalculable long lasting damage to innocent people, while rape
and unspeakable mayhem runs riot all-round us the best Telecom can do is fund a disastrous ‘abstain’ campaign.
This seems to be an incredibly bad decision from Telecom. We need to ask, are they a recidivist offender when it come to
marketing? Or were they simply off their game?
Telecom reacted and aborted the campaign because the public, their customers were out raged but the cost to the taxpayer
(or in this case, Telecom the customer) has not been measured. If it was, and you put a dollar value on the damage, New
Zealanders would be outraged. And the captains of Telecom would take notice.
Sensible Sentencing Trust supporters were also out raged at escalating violent crime but this government has caught the
ball and gained significant yards on the opposition who are still displaying very poor handling skills.
On a strictly limited budget Sensible Sentencing Trust has lobbied and harangued this Govt resulting in some amazing
legislative changes, such as”:
• Three Strikes [Violent offenders]
• Life without parole for worst killers
• Greater Police powers to take DNA samples
• $50 Offender Levy
• Review of Bail laws
• Review of Legal Aid
• Confiscation of proceeds of crime
• Victim Rights legislation
• National Victims Centre
• Prison reforms: Private / Container prisons and reintroduction of work in prison
• New drink driving legislation
• Increase of Police numbers
• Fight on P & Gangs
• Car crushing legislation
• Welfare Reforms
• New culture sweeping through Wellington and the country that is supportive and empathetic to victims of crime.
Imagine what we could have done if Telecom had spent their money on backing Sensible Sentencing and funding an all out
onslaught on crime?
In a recent poll conducted by research specialist Pauline Colmar [but sponsored by SST] a vast majority of over 1000 New
Zealanders polled clearly established that Sensible Sentencing Trust was a clear favourite.
Question 1. “Are prison sentences given in New Zealand for violent crimes, such as murder and rape, too short, about
right or too long?”
Length of Violent Crime Sentences
Too short 72.8
About right 18.8
Too long 1.6
Don’t know 6.8
The majority of New Zealanders (73%) think prison sentences given for violent crimes, such as murder and rape, are too
Question 2. “Is the level of violent crime in New Zealand getting worse, is it about the same or is it getting better?”
About the same: 26.2%
Don’t know: 4.7%
An overwhelming two thirds of New Zealanders think that the level of violent crime is getting worse.
Question 3. “Are punishments given in New Zealand for Youth Offending such as graffiti, vandalism, and petty theft too
soft, about right or too hard?
Too Soft: 61.4%
About right: 27.4%
Too hard: 1.8%
Don’t know: 9.4%
Once again most New Zealanders [61.4%] think punishment given is too soft with only 2% thinking they are too hard.
Question 4. Cumulative versus concurrent sentences: “If a person commits three crimes and is sentenced to one year
prison for each crime, should their total sentence be for 3 years or for 1 year?”
Prison Sentences Added or Served At Once
3 years (added) 85.9
1 year (served at once) 8.8
Don’t know 5.3
Almost all New Zealanders (86%) think that if a person commits three crimes and is sentenced to one year prison for each
crime that their total sentence should be for 3 years. Just 9% of New Zealanders think the sentences should be added and
1 year served.
Question 5. “Should DNA be recorded for any person arrested for a crime?”
DNA Recording if Arrested
Don’t know 5.4
Sentences Added or Served At Once
The majority of New Zealanders, 71%, think DNA should be recorded for any person arrested for a crime.
Mr. McVicar said Telecom would obviously get a better bang-for-their-Buck by investing in a winning team that had the
vast majority of New Zealanders backing a line-up that is very much on top of its game.
“Like the All Blacks, Sensible Sentencing Trust enjoys phenomenal support; we are New Zealand’s largest privately funded Victim advocacy and justice reform organisation. Our goal is a ‘Safe New Zealand’ so future generation
can walk the streets and enjoy our No.1 sport without fear of violence.”
“Is Telecom accountable for such a P R debacle? Obviously a question they will abstain from answering.” ENDS