Marc Ellis' TV career rooted

[Pixie]

Ha Ha what a twat.TV execs say he is persona non grata :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[scumdog]

Had two Jaffas down here in Queenstown that got pinged for having ecstacy pills, told the judge they bought them at a party and 'thought they were herbal-high pills' (yeah right!!)
Judge obviously didn't believe them 'cos he said "hmm, at $60 a tablet you would have to have thought they were more than aherbal high"

Still got 'discharge without conviction' because their lawer said 'as one of them was a real-estate agent it could affect his reputation and the other being a musician a conviction could put his overseas travel at risk" WTF??
Frikkin Jaffas!!!!
Obviously got too much money if they'll pay $60 for herbal high pills.

And you KB types though cops got shown favouritism??

Where was that lawyer when Ellis and co. needed him???

[bane]

Does anyone actually care that Mark Ellis uses e?

Its not like he's been an anti drug campaigner or anything. In fact given some of his antics on Sports-cafe etc, I would have been bloody surprised if he wasnt using something...

[Jackrat]

Does anyone actually care that Mark Ellis uses e?

Its not like he's been an anti drug campaigner or anything. In fact given some of his antics on Sports-cafe etc, I would have been bloody surprised if he wasnt using something...

Yeah yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but he got caught,,,,,an that's the greater crime.
Next thing will be News boy getting a nose transplant :whistle:
An we'll all act suprised,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Zed]

Ha Ha what a twat.TV execs say he is persona non grata :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Good job! I reckon all celebrities should have to go through regular drug testing...would soon create many opportunities for more honest, law-abiding citizens to have a go at stardom! :spudguita

[bane]

...would soon create many opportunities for more honest, law-abiding citizens to have a go at stardom! :spudguita

what are ya saying Matt? not hanging out for your 15 minutes by any chance? ;)

[Blackadda]

There's no EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE in Charlie's ...........................well not anymore. heeeeeeeeeeeeeee's resigned!

Yeah Right!

[Ixion]

Had two Jaffas down here in Queenstown that got pinged for having ecstacy pills, told the judge they bought them at a party and 'thought they were herbal-high pills' (yeah right!!)
Judge obviously didn't believe them 'cos he said "hmm, at $60 a tablet you would have to have thought they were more than aherbal high"

Still got 'discharge without conviction' because their lawer said 'as one of them was a real-estate agent it could affect his reputation and the other being a musician a conviction could put his overseas travel at risk" WTF??
Frikkin Jaffas!!!!
Obviously got too much money if they'll pay $60 for herbal high pills.

And you KB types though cops got shown favouritism??

Where was that lawyer when Ellis and co. needed him???

Gotta agree. Here's me thinking possession of a class B drug was something pretty serious. Turns out it's less than a speeding ticket. So what's the tariff for class A - that's heroin , right , $600 ? or maybe the judge would get REAL heavy , given the evils of drugs and all, and fine him the full $1000 for class A. Pisses me off, here's the cops doing their job, without fear or favour, and then the useless prat judge gives them a slap in the face like that. Bought off ? not much ! Corruption comes in more subtle forms than a bag of used banknotes.

[ajturbo]

all i can say is ...... bugger!


i enjoyed his antics on TV...

i hope i will have the opportunity to be entertained by him again!!!:Punk:

[SuperDave]

Pisses me off, here's the cops doing their job, without fear or favour, and then the useless prat judge gives them a slap in the face like that. Bought off ? not much ! Corruption comes in more subtle forms than a bag of used banknotes.

Well that's just it right, cops spend their time and effort as well as our tax payers money to catch criminals and solve crimes only to have the judgement system to take a shit on them in the form of soft judges with hearts of gold.

But to be really honest in this case, who gives a shit if he is taking E or not - seems to me that there are far more serious 'crimes' than taking or possessing a couple of Ecstasy tablets.

[Zed]

Just read the write up in the NZ Herald from yesterday, and one aspect of the story that bugs me is that many people will be duped into believing that Marc made this one single mistake and bought these pills in an "error of judgment", when the truth be known he's probably been doping up for years!

He's only "genuinely sorry" because he got caught in the act, don't be fooled into thinking that he'll go clean from now on. :rofl:

Personally, I don't want this addict or any of his contemporaries entertaining me or my family, knowing that he's probably under the influence at the time. The words and actions of these junkie celebs are very influencial in the lives of their audience which is a danger to society IMO. Then again, if you're on drugs you'll totally disagree with me anyway - won't you. :nono:

[Skyryder]

Just read the write up in the NZ Herald from yesterday, and one aspect of the story that bugs me is that many people will be duped into believing that Marc made this one single mistake and bought these pills in an "error of judgment", when the truth be known he's probably been doping up for years!

He's only "genuinely sorry" because he got caught in the act, don't be fooled into thinking that he'll go clean from now on. :rofl:

Personally, I don't want this addict or any of his contemporaries entertaining me or my family, knowing that he's probably under the influence at the time. The words and actions of these junkie celebs are very influencial in the lives of their audience which is a danger to society IMO. Then again, if you're on drugs you'll totally disagree with me anyway - won't you. :nono:

Not me Zed. We agree on this.

Skyryder

[Badcat]

Just read the write up in the NZ Herald from yesterday, and one aspect of the story that bugs me is that many people will be duped into believing that Marc made this one single mistake and bought these pills in an "error of judgment", when the truth be known he's probably been doping up for years!

He's only "genuinely sorry" because he got caught in the act, don't be fooled into thinking that he'll go clean from now on. :rofl:

Personally, I don't want this addict or any of his contemporaries entertaining me or my family, knowing that he's probably under the influence at the time. The words and actions of these junkie celebs are very influencial in the lives of their audience which is a danger to society IMO. Then again, if you're on drugs you'll totally disagree with me anyway - won't you. :nono:

"addict" and "junkie", zed?
how can you make these judgements?
it's not like you to judge others.....
is someone with a 6pack an alcoholic?
where do you get off making calls like that?
what experience do you have with E and the people that use it to make your judgements look like anything more than ignorant puritanical righteous name-calling?

really dude, that's pretty unloving.

[SixPackBack]

We could replace Ellis with Tamaki.......but it would be bloody boring!
Drug use is bad , but the reality is that many entertainers use it. And without passing judgement on Ellis the truth is he is a well liked and very entertaining person, get rid of drugs and immoral behaviour from the entertainment industry and t.v would cease to exist......

[Zed]

...get rid of drugs and immoral behaviour from the entertainment industry and t.v would cease to exist......Yes it would be a big blow to the industry, but it wouldn't cease to exist mate, there is plenty of entertainment within the industry that's not immoral and filled with impurity like the stuff you watch and listen to!

[Zed]

"addict" and "junkie", zed?
how can you make these judgements?
it's not like you to judge others.....
is someone with a 6pack an alcoholic?
where do you get off making calls like that?
what experience do you have with E and the people that use it to make your judgements look like anything more than ignorant puritanical righteous name-calling? Those are loose terms for drug users, I think I got my point across though - drug usage isn't an overnight affair, usage is continuous. I did also use the word "probably" when talking about Marc using it for years. I've had enough first hand experience between the age of 16-23 yrs to know what I'm talking about Badcat, not to mention my Christian beliefs that came after that.


really dude, that's pretty unloving.Nah, I still love Marc's soul and want to see him prosper, but not through drugs!

Drug usage leads to crime and without making a huge *judement* call on him, I wouldn't be surprised if the rabbit hole goes quite alot deeper in his life and those of his associates.

What experience have you had with drug usage Badcat, declare if thou hast any understanding?

[Beemer]

I hate drugs, have never been interested in trying them and have no time for people who use them, but I think many people are being very hypocritical if they think it is only celebrities who use drugs.

Yes, Marc Ellis is stupid for taking drugs, but did anyone see Samuel L Jackson on Parkinson last night, talking about his cocaine use? To my mind, that is far more serious than buying ecstacy tablets in a club - but you can't deny he is a damn good actor. I am certainly not condoning drug use, but it's a fair bet that if you searched everyone in a nightclub on any given night, more than half of them would be in possession of E or something similar!

And I would bet that amongst these people are university students, doctors, lawyers, bank tellers, hell, probably even police officers for all I know. I hate that drug use is so prevalent, and I agree that it is likely Marc Ellis was not a first time offender, just a first time 'got caught', but should he lose his career over it? Will shares in Charlies magically rise now he is off the board? Will he fade into oblivion following this conviction? If it had been marijuana instead of E, would people be as horrified?

Drugs are drugs, whether they are heroin or marijuana, and if people think that celebrities and television presenters are all holier-than-thou people who never touch illegal substances, then your favourite movie must be Mary Poppins! I bet a lot of so-called christians are drug users too - especially the ones who go to confession and admit their sins in the belief they can slip into heaven while no one's looking - yeah, right!

[Kickaha]

Drugs are drugs, whether they are heroin or marijuana, and if people think that celebrities and television presenters are all holier-than-thou people who never touch illegal substances, then your favourite movie must be Mary Poppins!


What about Alcohol then? it could be argued it's responsible for a damn sight more death, injury, crime etc, ah sorry that's ok that one's legal

[onearmedbandit]

Ho hum - storm in a tea cup material. Love reading some of the comments posted - not!

[Zed]

And I would bet that amongst these people are university students, doctors, lawyers, bank tellers, hell, probably even police officers for all I know. I hate that drug use is so prevalent, and I agree that it is likely Marc Ellis was not a first time offender, just a first time 'got caught', but should he lose his career over it?

Drugs are drugs, whether they are heroin or marijuana, and if people think that celebrities and television presenters are all holier-than-thou people who never touch illegal substances, then your favourite movie must be Mary Poppins! I bet a lot of so-called christians are drug users too - especially the ones who go to confession and admit their sins in the belief they can slip into heaven while no one's looking - yeah, right!So you are saying that you hate the drugs but have accepted the usage of them by people who influence your life and that of your family? If you have kids aren't you concerned that the likes of doctors and teachers are using drugs and may be diagnosing incorrectly and teaching unethical practises to them? I'm sure you are, but isn't accepting this behaviour part of the problem with our world?

I am not apologising for taking the hard-line, 'against the grain' voice on this issue - lets clean up our society...if you want to make this world a better place to live in that is.

It's obvious that you who reply to my posts like to think you can justify your argument by taking the religious angle and using it against me...shame on you for judging me, this issue isn't about Christianity!

[Ixion]

Well that's just it right, cops spend their time and effort as well as our tax payers money to catch criminals and solve crimes only to have the judgement system to take a shit on them in the form of soft judges with hearts of gold.

But to be really honest in this case, who gives a shit if he is taking E or not - seems to me that there are far more serious 'crimes' than taking or possessing a couple of Ecstasy tablets.

[shrug]. Personally, I don't really care if he takes the stuff or not. Figure what stuff people use is their own business, except maybe for P and similar, because it seems to turn those using it into raving nutters. I don't care what drugs you do (including alcohol) so long as it just makes you wibble quietly in the corner.

But what pisses me off is the attitude of the judges. On the one hand, we have speeding. Get done for doing 160kph and the learned judge can pretty well be relied on for an Old Testment denunciation of your monstrous wickedness and iniquity. And you'll be BUYING a bus ticket

But here, someone charged with class B possession, on the face of it a more serious offence than excessive speed, and he gets the bus ticket slap .

Either change the law so that Class B possession is an instant fine (or abolish it as a crime altogether, if you want, I don't really care) , like minor speeding, or have the judges change their sentencing.

If I were one of the cops involved I would be mightily pissed off and disillusioned.

[Beemer]

So you are saying that you hate the drugs but have accepted the usage of them by people who influence your life and that of your family? If you have kids aren't you concerned that the likes of doctors and teachers are using drugs and may be diagnosing incorrectly and teaching unethical practises to them? I'm sure you are, but isn't accepting this behaviour part of the problem with our world?

It's obvious that you who reply to my posts like to think you can justify your argument by taking the religious angle and using it against me...shame on you for judging me, this issue isn't about Christianity!

Crap, I don't justify my argument by taking the religious angle, I am just saying that many christians (you don't have to count yourself amongst them) are the biggest hypocrites in the world! Take the Mafia for one - lovely Catholic family there.

I don't accept the use of drugs by people who influence the life of me and my family (and I don't have kids - if you'd read any of my other posts you'd realise I hate kids), what I am saying is that it should be one law for ALL. Why should a university student or a lawyer or anyone else who is caught with drugs be treated any differently to a so-called celebrity? Would Joe Anonymous, theatre nurse of Anytown, have his name splashed all over the news? No, because most people wouldn't give a flying fuck who he is - but should HE keep his job when he could be responsible for your life one day? Marc Ellis's crime is no more or less a crime than anyone elses and everyone should be treated the same way. I'm certainly not advocating leniency because he is a 'star', but I'm also saying he shouldn't be treated harsher for his crime when others aren't exposed to the same media interest.

I agree with Ixion, I am not personally offended if someone I don't know does drugs, but the punishment should fit the crime. No doubt the calls would be the same if he'd been caught shoplifting. The judges can't sentence them to jail or force them to go into rehab, so it is almost a waste of time bringing the cases to court. What did he get fined - $300? I bet it cost more than that for the court sitting. If he'd been riding a bike without an L-plate his fine would have been $400 - so where is the justice in that?

I don't 'accept' drug use any more than I accept someone drinking to excess (before you start, I drink, but in moderation and I never drink and drive) and/or beating up their partner. If I personally knew someone who was taking drugs, I would speak up or let the police know. But when it is someone I have never met and only know through their entertaining antics on television, I say give him a break. Yes, punish him for his crime, but then let him get on with his life.

Edit: now even Lana Coc-Croft has been implicated in this drug ring and Starship Hospital is reviewing its association with her for fundraising! Who will be charged next, Judy Bailey? And when you look at the fine that guy Henderson got, and his involvement was much bigger, it makes you realise that the laws are outdated and urgently need reviewing. Wonder which political party will have the balls to tackle that in election year?

[Badcat]

Those are loose terms for drug users, I think I got my point across though - drug usage isn't an overnight affair, usage is continuous. I did also use the word "probably" when talking about Marc using it for years. I've had enough first hand experience between the age of 16-23 yrs to know what I'm talking about Badcat, not to mention my Christian beliefs that came after that.

Nah, I still love Marc's soul and want to see him prosper, but not through drugs!

Drug usage leads to crime and without making a huge *judement* call on him, I wouldn't be surprised if the rabbit hole goes quite alot deeper in his life and those of his associates.

What experience have you had with drug usage Badcat, declare if thou hast any understanding?

i have a good working knowledge zed, and i'm a sober family man (second child 1 week old). a good enough knowledge not to call someone a junky or addict because they bought some pills.
you obviously know your stuff about religion, but relax on the condemnation, dude - your ignorance is painful.

ken

[SixPackBack]

Yes it would be a big blow to the industry, but it wouldn't cease to exist mate, there is plenty of entertainment within the industry that's not immoral and filled with impurity like the stuff you watch and listen to!

You have no idea what i watch or listen to......another brainless comment Zed!

[oldrider]

Personally I don't care what Mark Ellis does (Freedom of the individual) as long as he does not harm or influence me or any one else.
He Knew the risk and decided to take it, foolishness in my book but that's the law.
"we" own the law."We" are all accountable for it's outcomes.
If you don't like the law, help change the the law makers. You get a chance every three years.
If your people get out voted accept, it that's democracy. Work harder to change it next time.
Personally I prefer the political right to the political left but look who's there, the peoples choice. I have to accept it. We live in a democracy.
It is the inconsistencies in the application of law and justice that pisses me off. Unfortunately that probably will not change even if the law and lawmakers do. (left or right). Cheers John.

[Skyryder]

Crap, I don't justify my argument by taking the religious angle, I am just saying that many christians (you don't have to count yourself amongst them) are the biggest hypocrites in the world! Take the Mafia for one - lovely Catholic family there.

I don't accept the use of drugs by people who influence the life of me and my family (and I don't have kids - if you'd read any of my other posts you'd realise I hate kids), what I am saying is that it should be one law for ALL. Why should a university student or a lawyer or anyone else who is caught with drugs be treated any differently to a so-called celebrity? Would Joe Anonymous, theatre nurse of Anytown, have his name splashed all over the news? No, because most people wouldn't give a flying fuck who he is - but should HE keep his job when he could be responsible for your life one day? Marc Ellis's crime is no more or less a crime than anyone elses and everyone should be treated the same way. I'm certainly not advocating leniency because he is a 'star', but I'm also saying he shouldn't be treated harsher for his crime when others aren't exposed to the same media interest.

I agree with Ixion, I am not personally offended if someone I don't know does drugs, but the punishment should fit the crime. No doubt the calls would be the same if he'd been caught shoplifting. The judges can't sentence them to jail or force them to go into rehab, so it is almost a waste of time bringing the cases to court. What did he get fined - $300? I bet it cost more than that for the court sitting. If he'd been riding a bike without an L-plate his fine would have been $400 - so where is the justice in that?

I don't 'accept' drug use any more than I accept someone drinking to excess (before you start, I drink, but in moderation and I never drink and drive) and/or beating up their partner. If I personally knew someone who was taking drugs, I would speak up or let the police know. But when it is someone I have never met and only know through their entertaining antics on television, I say give him a break. Yes, punish him for his crime, but then let him get on with his life.

Edit: now even Lana Coc-Croft has been implicated in this drug ring and Starship Hospital is reviewing its association with her for fundraising! Who will be charged next, Judy Bailey? And when you look at the fine that guy Henderson got, and his involvement was much bigger, it makes you realise that the laws are outdated and urgently need reviewing. Wonder which political party will have the balls to tackle that in election year?

I don't believe that the names you have mentioned have been treated (in law) any different than anyone else. They have placed themselves in the public domain for their own personal gain. I don't have a problem with that. If they can make a living through endorsments, TV entertaining, the speaking circut or whatever good on 'em. But by doing so they have become public figures and if they get themselves in the shit then they become news. They can not have it both ways: depend on public recognition along with a law abiding personia for their paycheque and anonymity if they become a news item.

Skyryder

[Beemer]

I don't believe that the names you have mentioned have been treated (in law) any different than anyone else. They have placed themselves in the public domain for their own personal gain. I don't have a problem with that. If they can make a living through endorsments, TV entertaining, the speaking circut or whatever good on 'em. But by doing so they have become public figures and if they get themselves in the shit then they become news. They can not have it both ways: depend on public recognition along with a law abiding personia for their paycheque and anonymity if they become a news item.

Skyryder

I agree, but the fall out has been huge compared to the crime - Joe Anonymous buys E off an undercover officer, gets a $300 fine and probably that is the end of it. Marc Ellis does the same, gets the same penalty, but also receives extra punishment in the form of publicity and threats of losing his job. Yes, he did put himself in the public eye by being a celebrity, but is it really news? Only if you believe that news also includes who's sleeping with who, who has the biggest bank balance and who's the latest 'star' of Shortland Street. As the judge said in the Henderson case, he escaped a fine because the size of the fine would not be any punishment, but he donated $10,000 to a drug agency to appease his conscience. Since then business pundits have come out and said publicly that the conviction will do nothing to hurt his business because his drug use has no bearing on his ability to do business.

What annoys me is that if this had been an All Black, his name would still be suppressed - double standards are rife in New Zealand.

[onearmedbandit]

If I personally knew someone who was taking drugs, I would speak up or let the police know.

Not trying to start a debate here, but would this apply to someone who say has a quiet toke at home? Someone who puts in a hard days work and just wants to relax in the comfort of his/her own home.

[Skyryder]

Not trying to start a debate here, but would this apply to someone who say has a quiet toke at home? Someone who puts in a hard days work and just wants to relax in the comfort of his/her own home.

Can't answer that one but a quiet toke in the privacy of one's home 'should' be nobodys buisness.

Skyryder

[Biff]

Does anyone actually care that Mark Ellis uses e?


Nope. Each to their own.


Who is Mark Ellis?

Edit - just Googled - I know who he is now. Great TV personality - damned shame if this ruins his career IMO.

As far as I'm concerned as long as whoever does whatever doesn't effect myself or my fambly, or innocent poeple, then I've no problem with anyone doing any low risk drug (such as grass or E - not shite like heroin or P - that's just plain nasty shite). The biggest risk faced by society by the use of E is people getting over effectionate and telling you that they love you. Ban alcomahol, then watch the crime rate fall. Make E legal, and watch the pregnancy rate rise.

[riffer]

What annoys me is that if this had been an All Black, his name would still be suppressed - double standards are rife in New Zealand.

I would beg to differ. And present my evidence below:

<table border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td valign="top">FULL NAME

</td> <td valign="top">Marc Christopher Gwynne Ellis

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">BORN

</td> <td valign="top">Friday, 8 October 1971 in Wellington

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">AGE

</td> <td valign="top">33

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">PHYSICAL

</td> <td valign="top">1.78m, 82kg

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">POSITION

</td> <td valign="top">Utility back

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">LAST SCHOOL

</td> <td valign="top">Wellington College

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">RUGBY CLUB
(First made All Blacks from)

</td> <td valign="top">Otago University

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">PROVINCE

</td> <td valign="top">Otago

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK DEBUT

</td> <td valign="top">Wednesday, 24 June 1992
v South Australian Invitation XV at Adelaide
aged 20 years, 260 days

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">INTERNATIONAL DEBUT

</td> <td valign="top">Saturday, 20 November 1993
v Scotland at Edinburgh
aged 22 years, 43 days

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">LAST TEST

</td> <td valign="top">Saturday, 24 June 1995
v South Africa at Johannesburg
aged 23 years, 259 days

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK TESTS

</td> <td valign="top">8 (0 as Captain)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK GAMES

</td> <td valign="top">12 (0 as Captain)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">TOTAL ALL BLACK MATCHES

</td> <td valign="top">20 (0 as Captain)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK TEST POINTS

</td> <td valign="top"> 55pts (11t, 0c, 0p, 0dg, 0m)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK GAME POINTS

</td> <td valign="top"> 43pts (8t, 0c, 0p, 1dg, 0m)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">TOTAL ALL BLACK POINTS

</td> <td valign="top"> 98pts (19t, 0c, 0p, 1dg, 0m)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">ALL BLACK NUMBER

</td> <td valign="top">926

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">
(http://stats.allblacks.com/images/blank.gif)</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[Big Dave]

Bet he's glad he's not in Bali.

[Big Dave]

I would beg to differ. And present my evidence below:



And that's really the problem - thus he's a role model and a person of great influence - one who some would seek to emulate - and ultimately, bunging any chemicals unregulated into your system is a bad thing.

[Drunken Monkey]

Time for some of you to try some recreational drugs. You seem a bit uptight. It might help change your outlook on life.

[Beemer]

He's not a current All Black and hasn't been for 10 years, not like the one who beat his pregnant wife and got name suppression because it could hurt his career.

As for my comment about reporting drug taking to the police, if someone was smoking dope in their own home and not hurting anyone but themselves, let them go for it. But having said that, I don't associate with people who smoke dope so I doubt this scenario would come up in my circle of friends. If they were stealing to support a habit or manufacturing (or growing) drugs in their own home, sorry, but I'd be making that call.

As for Marc Ellis being someone to look up to and emulate, Dave, have you EVER watched his shows? He's an idiot! Okay, he's an entertaining idiot, but he's not exactly someone most people would aspire to be!

[Big Dave]

Time for some of you to try some recreational drugs. You seem a bit uptight. It might help change your outlook on life.

Some recreational drugs make the uptight moreso.
I feel sorry for the guy - we were neighbours for a while and both had thunderbirds - his had 4 wheels - but he always stopped and said g'day.

He's a role model and worked for his media fame - under the spotlight - do the pills when it's all over ffs.

[Big Dave]

Dave, have you EVER watched his shows? He's an idiot! Okay, he's an entertaining idiot, but he's not exactly someone most people would aspire to be!


Truth....no, I haven't watched a whole show. Don't mind looking at her for a minute, but I'm TV intolerant.
Jnr reckons he's great.

[spudchucka]

Well that's just it right, cops spend their time and effort as well as our tax payers money to catch criminals and solve crimes only to have the judgement system to take a shit on them in the form of soft judges with hearts of gold.

But to be really honest in this case, who gives a shit if he is taking E or not - seems to me that there are far more serious 'crimes' than taking or possessing a couple of Ecstasy tablets.
My guess is thats what the judge probably thought too. Would be different if there was any suggestion that he was dealing in the stuff.

[scumdog]

What about Alcohol then? it could be argued it's responsible for a damn sight more death, injury, crime etc, ah sorry that's ok that one's legal

Quite right K., I am quite able to turn myself into a right dick on alcamahol - but as you say, at least it's legal.
However I don't get violent BUT I have seen so much mayhem and violence from people under the influence of alcohol, at times I have thought it should be law to have to pass a test before being allowed to drink booze!

[Lou Girardin]

Had two Jaffas down here in Queenstown that got pinged for having ecstacy pills, told the judge they bought them at a party and 'thought they were herbal-high pills' (yeah right!!)
Judge obviously didn't believe them 'cos he said "hmm, at $60 a tablet you would have to have thought they were more than aherbal high"

Still got 'discharge without conviction' because their lawer said 'as one of them was a real-estate agent it could affect his reputation and the other being a musician a conviction could put his overseas travel at risk" WTF??
Frikkin Jaffas!!!!
Obviously got too much money if they'll pay $60 for herbal high pills.

And you KB types though cops got shown favouritism??

Where was that lawyer when Ellis and co. needed him???


Wouldn't have been a real estate agent with a name that sounds like bulgyarse would it?

I love the hypocrisy being shown by the media and some on this forum. 50% of NZ'ers under 30 have smoked dope, we have the highest usage rates of ecstacy and LSD in the world, and yet it's terribly 'shock, horror' when someone gets caught with a few tabs?
It's time people grew up.
BTW Zed, ecstacy is not addictive. So it's hard to be a junkie on it. Which, BTW, normally refers to heroin addicts.

[scumdog]

Wouldn't have been a real estate agent with a name that sound like bulgyarse would it?

Yeah, now that DOES ring a bell Lou, unfortunately last weeks newspapers are gone so I can't check readily but have a look at Otago Daily Times & Southland Times for last Tuesday/Wednesday Court news (I think).

[Lou Girardin]

Yeah, now that DOES ring a bell Lou, unfortunately last weeks newspapers are gone so I can't check readily but have a look at Otago Daily Times & Southland Times for last Tuesday/Wednesday Court news (I think).

Wouldn't surprise me. Does he still socialise with some rent-a babe on his arm, so that people won't think he's gay?

[Lou Girardin]

And that's really the problem - thus he's a role model and a person of great influence - one who some would seek to emulate - and ultimately, bunging any chemicals unregulated into your system is a bad thing.

I'd imagine he'd regulate it to one tab at a time.

[scumdog]

Wouldn't surprise me. Does he still socialise with some rent-a babe on his arm, so that people won't think he's gay?

Dunno about the rent-a-babe but he WAS with a musician 'friend' when he went to the party and it was 'their' room that the tabs were located in.

[enigma51]

I say fuck him for not sharing!

[Lou Girardin]

I say fuck him for not sharing!

I'd say he'd be glad to.

[Wolf]

As for Marc Ellis being someone to look up to and emulate, Dave, have you EVER watched his shows? He's an idiot! Okay, he's an entertaining idiot, but he's not exactly someone most people would aspire to be!
I agree in part - I don't think he's entertaining...

I think Ellis is a total dork. I don't even find him entertaining - always turn of the TV when he and Ridge have one of their stupid shows. And Sports Cafe is total shit as well - they're all dicks IMO. I wouldn't want to be like any of them and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would.

But, for all I think Ellis is a wanker, I have never heard it reported that he has spoken out in favour of drug taking (even though I never watch his shows, I'm sure it would have hit the news if he had said anything like it) in any public medium. So how does the revelation that he's been taking E on the sly constitute "influencing the public"?

The entertainment industry is filled with drug users, very few of whom widely publicise the fact - they perform (act, sing, play instruments etc) and entertain us but their drug use is not promoted as a cool way to live. The only time we hear about it is when they get caught and the media goes ballistic (and if the truth were known we'd probably find a lot of the overly-moralising tabloid journalists and editors are into drugs as well).

Some greasy little paparazzo snapping a photo of Buck Studleigh doing a couple of lines of coke within the marbled walls of his Beverley Hills mansion and spreading it around the rags does not constitute an attempt to "influence the hearts and minds" of impressionable fans on Studleigh's part.

And does anyone honestly believe that your average fan who idolises a TV or Sports star (who publically promotes a wholesome and clean lifestyle) is suddenly, on learning that said star has been secretly doing drugs, going to decide to take drugs to "be like their idol"? The fan is more likely to feel betrayed - "I thought he was so cool, but now I find his wholesome image is all bullshit" - than inclined to emulate them.

Remember, these are people who put on a good face for the public - pure wholesome and healthy - in much the same way Beauty Show contestants are not permitted to tarnish the show's image by smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, doing drugs or associating with their boyfriends in public. They are not "promoting a drug-dependant lifestyle".

Honestly, who here has seen a famous actor speaking on behalf of themselves (i.e. not portraying a character) saying "Hey fans, you should really do drugs, they're really cool and will make you as popular as me" ?

Most of the ones who are public about drug use are those who have battled it, and they are hardly taking a "pro-drug" stance - e.g. Drew Barrymore is quite public about the fact she was on a lot of different drugs and has managed to get off all of them (except for cigarettes) - not exactly your Pro-Drug Poster Girl, is she? Running around saying how she has done everything possible to give up drugs and is glad she has succeeded.

I do not condone drug use, but I cannot accept that some celebrity "role model"privately doing drugs constitutes corrupting the hearts and minds of NZ's youth. If they were running around like Nandor, saying "drugs are cool we should legalise them" it would be a different matter, but they're not. I think Ellis is a wanker, but I would not accuse him of "promoting drug use".

[Big Dave]

law to have to pass a test before being allowed to drink booze!

Ain't that the troof - I've worked with some editors and journos in the past that had a 'switch'. Great guys and a joy to work with, but at the commencement of the 4th pint they become 'instant arseholes'.
Doesn't help that i ride - therefore I don't drink except for the quiet one or two at home so I was always straight trying to deal with these jokers.

You have my sympathies on dealing with pissed idiots for a gig.

[Big Dave]

I think Ellis is a wanker, but I would not accuse him of "promoting drug use".

Accuse him of what you like - He's guilty by association.

[Phurrball]

WRT commentary in this thread regarding Ellis' sentence:

The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out a list of mandatory considerations that a judge must take heed of when sentencing an offender, these are in addition to any matters raised in the usual pleas in mitigation and aggravation that may be offered by counsel on each side. It isn't like the judge plucks a sentence out of the air in splendid isolation from the surrounding circumstances - including consideration of the collateral effects that a conviction would have on the offender.

Like it or not, I doubt any here would argue that naming a celebrity/sports star does not have a collateral effect on that person. That effect is much greater than the effect when 'Joe Nobody' is named. Judges do take this into account when sentencing.

Before climbing into me on this one - this is just what happens, I am not accounting for the judges' decisions. I imagine in this case that Ellis' career prospects will have taken a turn for the worse in a way that is probably more costly to him than any punishment a court could mete out - that, and he'll have all sorts of fun when travelling overseas. [or should that be 'trying' to travel overseas].

Re Zed's comments -
Personally, I don't want this addict or any of his contemporaries entertaining me or my family, knowing that he's probably under the influence at the time. The words and actions of these junkie celebs are very influencial in the lives of their audience which is a danger to society IMO. Then again, if you're on drugs you'll totally disagree with me anyway - won't you. :nono:

Firstly, it's called choice - if you don't want to be entertained by any given person, choose to be entertained by something else. It seems a little of a stretch to think that any person who has taken drugs is 'under the influence' all the time, any more than any person who has had a drink is drunk all the time. Lastly, is it not an entirely bad thing to have the odd high profile person fall from grace, only in that it gives us a chance to explain to our children something about the choices that person made; why these may have been wrong choices; what consequences that person will face; how to avoid finding themselves in the same position...

I personally don't care what the police, judges, lawyers, doctors, street sweepers, entertainers, sports stars, teachers etc do in their spare time; be they gay, taking drugs, putting on their socks before their underwear...just as long as it doesn't affect them in their professional role as affecting myself, my family, or other people requiring their services. Yes, this could include the ‘role model’ aspect - and that's the risk such a person takes with illegal activities - fall from grace, and your career is seriously hobbled, if not stuffed.

That's my $0.02...I think it's a justifiable position...

[Big Dave]

I personally don't care what the police, judges, lawyers, doctors, street sweepers, entertainers, sports stars, teachers etc do in their spare time;


I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

[scumdog]

I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

Add 'drunk' to my slogan of 'loud and uncouth' and does that make me a hypocrite??

[Big Dave]

Add 'drunk' to my slogan of 'loud and uncouth' and does that make me a hypocrite??

No - because as you said, drinking is not illegal - if you were having a smoke then busting stoners it would.

[Phurrball]

I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

BD - you left out my next bit in your quote! You put it better than I did; my language there was ham-fisted - but basically conflict of interest was what I was getting at as a threshold. Bottom line, most people are hypocrites to some extent...in a perfect world, one would avoid hypocrisy in the professional role, but we aren't in a perfect world...

If professionals want to risk a conflict of interest, that's their call...pretty silly to choose conflict I would think...Drugs and moral turpitude are somewhat different to 'crimes proper' IMHO in that they are victimless. I see no necessary conflict between dubious leisure activities and a professional role - so long as the 'DLAs' do not substantively affect the professional role.

Hmmm...does any of that make sense, sometimes I wonder...