<< I CONDEMN THE CONDEMNERS ~ MAIN ~ ATTACKS ENCOURAGED >>

SYDNEY MORNING HANDGUN

Armed unilateralism catches on at the Sydney Morning Herald:

A Sydney Morning Herald employee has been charged after allegedly threatening another man with a handgun outside an inner-Sydney hotel.

A 25-year-old St Peters man was approached and threatened with the weapon on Elizabeth Street in Surry Hills about 5am (AEST) today.

Just around the corner from News Ltd. headquarters. Hmm.

A 34-year-old Redfern man attended Surry Hills police station about 1.30pm today where he was charged with assault and possessing a prohibited firearm.

But who is he? His bosses aren’t saying:

In a statement released late today, the company said it would provide the employee with whatever assistance was appropriate.

“Obviously the criminal justice process will proceed, and any assistance we can provide our employee to help him deal with personal issues, we want to do so,” the spokesman said.

He would not name the man or his job title.

And the SMH accuses the Howard government of evasiveness and secrecy! Mystery gunman is due in court August 14.

UPDATE. It’s (allegedly) my old mate (and former News Ltd. staffer) Stephen Gibbs:

A Sydney Morning Herald reporter allegedly pulled a gun on another journalist after an argument at an inner-city pub yesterday.

Stephen Gibbs, who writes about police and crime for the Herald, allegedly threatened Daily Telegraph sub-editor Steven Jackson with a silver revolver outside the Evening Star hotel, in Surry Hills, about 5am.

Not for the first time is a sub-editor (allegedly) threatened at the Evil Star, a venue at which Gibbs has a colourful (and usually friendly) history.

Posted by Tim B. on 07/22/2006 at 10:08 AM
  1. The equivalent SMH article merely refers to him as a ‘man’ and does not mention that he is one of their employees!

    Posted by ekb87 on 2006 07 22 at 10:28 AM • permalink

  2. Maybe street-by-street paramilitary patrol operations are part of the job description at Fairfax.

    Which makes me wonder… where’s Paul McGeough?

    Posted by splice on 2006 07 22 at 10:28 AM • permalink

  3. threatening another man with a handgun

    Are we sure that it wasn’t the other guy who had the handgun? Maybe he said, “Drop that gun, or I’ll kick you in the [censored]!” Still, it’s not very clear either way.

    BTW, I thought that there was no gun crime in Oz now, and certainly not amongst SMH journos and Lebanese youths, since the ban?

    Mind you, it certainly hasn’t worked out that way in Canada since spending $1B+ on a long-arms registry and having full handgun registration and limits since (I believe) 1924. It hasn’t stopped the bikers and Jamaican youths here at all, so I guess we’ll have to go the Aussie root route and have a complete ban for the safety of us all.

    Posted by andycanuck on 2006 07 22 at 10:29 AM • permalink

  4. Probably one of those dual-citizship Swedish-Australians that are causing so much trouble…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 22 at 10:49 AM • permalink

  5. And the SMH accuses the Howard government of evasiveness and secrecy!
    Hey, TB, get your priorities straight. The gov’t secrets only protect national security, whereas the SMH is covering something more important, its ass.

    Posted by stats on 2006 07 22 at 11:05 AM • permalink

  6. I didn’t realize how tough it might be to cancel a subscription to a newspaper in Austrlia.  Or was he merely “encouraging” people to become new subscribers?

    Posted by Pat Patterson on 2006 07 22 at 11:06 AM • permalink

  7. Oops, that should beAustralia,

    Posted by Pat Patterson on 2006 07 22 at 11:07 AM • permalink

  8. When the DC area snipers were out and about, most of the DC gas station people were armed with handguns.  Unofficially, of course.  DC’s ban on handguns is the most laughable thing about this place, and that’s saying a lot.  Three of our building’s maintenance men were fighting with The Shrub From Hell, and a car drove by, and a couple of yout’s inside pointed handguns at them…just for fun, as they actually didn’t fire.

    Posted by ushie on 2006 07 22 at 11:23 AM • permalink

  9. So is it standard practice in Oz media not to identify suspects? If so, that’s good. If not, then not identifying this guy because he’s an employee is a travesty. What’s the policy?

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 07 22 at 11:26 AM • permalink

  10. Maybe the man’s name was not printed because the dude had, y’know, a gun.  And might aim it at someone in the SMH.  Some folks go out of their way not to offend people who use guns to commit criminal acts. 

    I think the word is “appeasement”.  In this case, practiced on a local level, instead of global.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 22 at 11:39 AM • permalink

  11. My guess is that we’ll be reading the victim’s personal diary entries long before we get so much as the nickname of the perp.

    Posted by splice on 2006 07 22 at 11:41 AM • permalink

  12. All is revealedrivalCrime writer

    Posted by burrah on 2006 07 22 at 12:08 PM • permalink

  13. Oops, that should be:Crime writer pulls gun on News rival.
    Must be getting late.

    Posted by burrah on 2006 07 22 at 12:17 PM • permalink

  14. Now now. I think we need to consider the root causes of this. Who really ultimately is to blame?

    If there hadn’t been a 25 year old St Peters man outside the hotel in Elizabeth St., Surrey Hills at about 5 am, then there would not have been anybody for the Herald guy to threaten with a gun.

    Bloody NSW Police. Typical. They’ve charged the wrong bloke.

    Posted by geoff on 2006 07 22 at 12:20 PM • permalink

  15. Makes sense. If a food writer patronizes restaurants, and an auto writer drives, why wouldn’t a crime writer commit a crime?

    Posted by ErnieG on 2006 07 22 at 12:22 PM • permalink

  16. Obviously a slow news day on the crime desk.

    Posted by geoff on 2006 07 22 at 12:30 PM • permalink

  17. Ernie G — Dibs on the sex beat!

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 22 at 12:38 PM • permalink

  18. Hey, he didn’t shoot anybody, did he?  Typical pacifist, wave your gun around like a tough guy, but when it comes down to it…

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 07 22 at 02:23 PM • permalink

  19. Gun-wielding journalists! Fact-checkers carrying shivs! Bomb-throwing editorialists! It’s a rough & tough profession.

    Posted by paco on 2006 07 22 at 04:04 PM • permalink

  20. Don’t tell me that a newspaper story was written in such a way to obfuscate the facts rather than enlighten?  Say it ain’t so.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 07 22 at 04:34 PM • permalink

  21. “BANG, BANG, Stephen’s silver handgun,
    Shot holes into his head.
    BANG, BANG, Stephen’s silver handgun,
    Made sure that he was dead.”
    ——Lennon/McCartny/Smith/Wesson

    Posted by krinko on 2006 07 22 at 04:41 PM • permalink

  22. Since he’s a crime writer, this surely counts as “work experience”.

    Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 07 22 at 05:24 PM • permalink

  23. Clearly this was purposely done. Your mate wants to see the criminal justice system from the inside so he can better write about it. Very clever and rather bold of him. A bunch of guys drunk at 2am? Aussies? A gun? Hmmm. Nope. Can’t see any other reason for it. It’s a hoax.

    Posted by ekw on 2006 07 22 at 05:29 PM • permalink

  24. Media Watch anyone?

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 07 22 at 08:22 PM • permalink

  25. The Sunday Telegraph reports a Sydney Morning Herald spokesman as saying that the paper “would provide Gibbs with whatever assistance was appropriate”.I wonder just what “assistance” the Fairfax heirarchy would deem appropriate for an employee charged with assault and posession of a prohibited firearm particularly given that organisation’s Editorial distaste for those nasty handgun thingys and even for the people who possess them for legitimate purposes.

    Posted by Lew on 2006 07 22 at 08:33 PM • permalink

  26. Perhaps they could ‘provide assistance’ to the guy by informing him about the gun laws they supported the passage of that prevents owning a gun for self defence, let alone carrying concealed.

    Or perhaps they could provide assistance to all of us by supporting calls for a review of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement with a view to repealing some of the more punitive parts of it that haven’t done a thing for ‘public safety’.

    Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 07 22 at 09:24 PM • permalink

  27. It might be Dodge City rules for the SMH, but in their editorial yesterday:
    “... the time has come for Israel’s friends to call firmly for an end to its attacks.”
    Didn’t the time for Hezbollah to disarm come some time ago, and didn’t the UNIFIL three wise monkeys brigade go in there to keep things ...kosher?
    Blandly calling for the Lebanese to solve this problem and disarm the hezbies on their own is futile.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 07 22 at 10:26 PM • permalink

  28. Heh-heh, reminds my of late one night in a bar when the local paper’s court reporter took a swing at the police reporter and instead collected the legal aid solicitor. Justice all round, really.

    Posted by slatts on 2006 07 23 at 03:54 AM • permalink

  29. A 34-year-old Redfern man attended Surry Hills police station about 1.30pm today where he was charged with assault and possessing a prohibited firearm.

    Attended a police station?  I know you can attend a school or college.  But you can attend a police station?  I’ve never heard the word “attended” used in this fashion.  Strange thing the English language and its variant forms.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 23 at 09:02 AM • permalink

  30. #29, It means the cops couldnt/wouldnt find him.  So he rocked up at the cop shop coz he’s a good little boy.  Pity no real crims work that way…

    Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 07 23 at 11:30 PM • permalink

  31. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.