Most of us believe in redemption and atonement… But the timing, the nature and the semantics of Sam Uffindell‘s apology for his role in a gang that beat a younger kid (reportedly) with wooden bed legs, has left much to be desired. The victim seems pretty clear about the motivation behind Uffindell’s apology, which came out of the blue 22 years after the event:

Uffindell wanted to apologise, which after some consideration, the victim agreed to. At the time, he said he would never forgive the boy who hurt him, but forgave the man Uffindell had become.“But then a few months later I sat down to watch the news on the couch with a beer and there he was, running for Parliament,” the victim said. “I felt sick.”

At the time of the apology, Uffindell had told the victim that “not a day had gone by” when he didn’t think about it. He also mentioned how “sickened” he would be if anything similar ever happened to his daughters. “I believed him,” the victim reportedly said. “But seeing [the television announcement] made me feel his apology wasn’t genuine, he was just doing it to get his skeletons out of the closet, so he could have a political career.”

For someone supposedly motivated by compassion for the victim, Uffindell ‘s language was revealing. His choice of words (a) minimised the severity of the attack and (b) was mainly about his own feelings, and not about the victim’s experience.

“It was one of the silliest, stupidest things I’ve ever done. I really regretted it….”

Reportedly, Uffinbdell has also mentioned that the whole incident has been hard on him. Had the attack been part of a pattern of bullying in which he had been involved? Three times on RNZ this morning Uffindell responded to that query by attributing the attack to the “rough and tumble” environment of Kings College at the time. Hmm. If a gang attack occurred in Otara, would anyone feel OK if the gang leader just put it down to the “rough and tumble” nature of life in south Auckland? Probably not.

Moreover, if a gang member subsequently labelled his violent actions as having been “silly” and “stupid “ would that seem like an expression of sufficient remorse for the impact upon the victim ? Maybe not. If the Mongrel Mob said they now felt “silly” and “ stupid” after a group of them attacked someone in their bed, that comment mightn’t pass muster as evidence in mitigation. On that point Uffindell has denied any memory of using weapons himself:

The former Rabobank executive denied a suggestion from the victim that he beat him with wooden legs from his bed, saying he had “no recollection of using anything other than my fists”.

Even if only some of Uffinbdell’s pals carried weapons, the victim – a smaller child who says he suffered extensive bruising and cartilage damage – was subjected to a surprise attack at night by a pack of four considerably older offenders. Since then, has Uffindell used his teenage actions to warn against the evils of school bullying and the sort of gang pressures that can culminate in violence? Not so far.

Instead, Uffindell used his maiden speech in Parliament to rail against gangs and their “growing culture of lawlessness, lack of accountability, [and] sense of impunity…” He also attacked the current government for its alleged ”rejection of personal responsibility.” Really. Uffindell now sits in Parliament as a fully patched member of the National caucus. As a result, National has little credibility when it calls for a crackdown on gang violence, and on youth offending.

Footnote: King's College hasn’t covered itself with glory, either. Its comment to Stuff was utterly inadequate. 

King’s College headmaster Simon Lamb confirmed the attack took place, while distancing the school’s current staff and administrators from the 1999 incident.“The issue referred to in the Stuff article was a matter which the college dealt with 22 years ago,” he said in an email. “Since that time, the college has not been involved in any follow-up activity with those involved, including the recent discussions reported in the article. “The college does not wish to comment further on the article.”

So… King’s has accepted no responsibility for that alleged “rough and tumble” culture of the time, and made no use of the incident to denounce school bullying in any form, then or now. Weirdly, Kings also cited its lack of subsequent follow up work as if that helped to clear itself of any residual stain on its reputation. Funny that Kings should try to distance itself with that “22 years ago” comment, and by mentioning the staff turnover since then. Whenever it suits schools like Kings College to do so, they’re usually very keen to tout their history and traditions, and to stress the continuity of the chain of command from way back then, right to the present day. Not this time.

Footnote Two : No surprise that Christopher Luxon has endorsed Uffindell and praised him for the way he has “fronted” the issue and expressed such “tremendous” sympathy for the victim. Well… As far as the wider public was concerned, Uffindell didn’t “front” until after he had been sprung by Stuff’s reporting – and he only shared the fact he had been expelled from school with National Party insiders, and not with the voters of Tauranga. Plus, his sympathy looked a lot more like self- pity than a victim-focussed approach to his actions.

The language involved has been pretty repulsive. Can we please call a halt to privileged white males offering it as almost a badge of honour when they ”front” and “own” their past misdeeds, and seemingly expect their expressions of regret and remorse to be taken at face value and applauded– even though it is these formalities that enable them to retain their access to the perks of public office. In such circumstances, “sorry” really isn’t the hardest word.

Soft on crime

No doubt, the National Party will keep on preaching the need to come down hard on less privileged young offenders who do the same sort of things. Less than a month ago, National’s Police spokesman Mark Mitchell was denouncing the “very permissive environment” created by the Labour government whereby “youth offenders are allowed to go out there and assault the Police, and members of the public.” Not to mention Mitchell also claiming that:

“This soft-on-crime government and Police Commissioner have allowed this permissive, policing-by-consent, no-consequences, alternative-actions model to become a petri dish for the fermentation of… a tsunami of youth and juvenile offending.”

Hey, I guess those particular youth offenders just didn’t say ”sorry” afterwards for being so “stupid,” and neglected to mention how hard the offence had been on them. In which case no doubt, Mark Mitchell and Christopher Luxon would have said hey that’s OK, and good on you for fronting and owning it.

Footnote Three: Uffindell has exposed National’s chronic problems with the vetting and selecting of its candidates. Todd Barclay, Jake Bezzant, Aaron Gilmore, Jami-Lee Ross, Andrew Falloon, Hamish Walker etc. Not all of this can be blamed upon Peter Goodfellow. It looks a lot more like a deliberate and ingrained preference for a certain kind of slippery candidate.

© Scoop Media