Roast Buster 2 – nothing learned from Roast Buster 1


respect women  300 x 170-thumb-300x170-14395

I’m not even sure where to begin with this…

Warnings for Roast Busters II
Police have let school boys off with warnings after they performed lewd acts on drunk girls and posted pictures online.

The case involved senior boys from an unnamed New Zealand secondary school plying young girls with alcohol and recording sexually degrading acts, before uploading the images to a private Facebook page.

New Zealand Secondary Principals’ Association executive member Patrick Walsh, chairman of a high-powered Government group to counter cyber-bullying among school students, is dismayed no one was prosecuted.

Walsh, who declined to reveal the school involved, was told of the incident by the principal of the teens’ school.

“The boys had a competition where they would get young girls drunk and they would dangle their genitalia over their faces and take photos,” he said.

…you would have thought after the horror of roast busters 1 and the callous attitude the Police exhibited in that fiasco that they would have taken a very strong stand on teenage boys getting young girls drunk and taking sexually assaulting them by dangling their genitals in their unconscious forms.

You would have thought.

Yet here we have the police exercising their descretion in favour of the boys, not the drunk girls who have been humiliated and abused.

We need to ask some question…

Are these boys from a rich school?

Are these boys wealthy?

Why are the Police protecting the boys and not the girls?

Have the Police learned nothing from Roast Buster 1?

What does allowing these boys to get away with this say to men and society about abusing drunk women?



  1. If they were brown, they’d be in jail by now. But palangi boys are privileged. They do no wrong.I don’t go out at night anymore, I don’t feelsafe.

    • Brown Girl:”If they were brown, they’d be in jail by now. But palangi boys are privileged.”

      As I recall, at least a couple of the boys involved with the roastbusters case were brown.

    • I wish I could contradict that statement. Have no doubt though that if the brown guys were the rich and privileged it would be the other way around.

  2. Name and shame the toerags, along with their school.

    Privilege or not, socio economic status should play no part in deciding the outcome of the penalties for this type of abuse.

    The law is for everyone. In this situation, the police should do their job and make sure the dirty, disrespectful little perps are charged with abuse and sexual assault of the victims!

  3. Not to take any blame whatsoever from the boys who behaved so appallingly, I don’t understand how we live in a world where young girls are in a position to be coerced into getting drunk in the first place.

    I would expect most young girls (and boys) to be supervised, whether at home, school or sports/events. The way the story is told, the girls were passive victims, who drank what they were told and then were so comotosed that they couldn’t stop the boys from abusing them. Maybe we need to look at the messages we send to young girls about how to keep themselves safe. Girls today seem to be getting messages that they should be sexually desirable and attractive to boys. The message seems to be that they get validation when males want them.

    The girls are not to blame, but we should educated them to recognise predatory behaviour when they come across it, and to say no. We should also have some education on the dangers of alcohol. In NZ society sex and alcohol go together. I spoke to a woman the other day who said she had never had sex sober. She was in her 30’s.

    • Oh FFS just stop with your victim blaming. Stop focussing on the behaviour of the girls involved in this situation. If you do that, and that’s what middle NZ likes to do, then you ignore the behaviour of the boys.

      What they did was criminal. It was sexual assault. The girls committed NO crime and are in no way responsible for the crimes committed against them.

      Your language is victim blaming and minimising of what those boys have done. You start out by “not to take away any blame whatsoever from the boys who behaved so appallingly….” and then completely focus on the behaviour of the girls. Which DOES exactly take away focus from the boys behaviour and so shifts blame. Stop.

      “The girls are not to blame, but”… that “but” is problematic. Stop it.

      Just stop bloody victim blaming NZ!!!! So damn sick of it.

      Those boys did what they did because they knew they would get away with it, because they know that in cases of sexual assault on young people and women NZ public will focus on the victims behaviour and so shift blame for the crime onto victims. They did what they did because they are socialised to see girls and women as sexual objects for their satisfaction, not really full human beings.

      When people focus on the behaviour of victims they unwittingly play into the hands of abusers. And help them get away with it. So stop doing it.

      <a href=""This should explain why better than my words can.

      • Using that logic you would criticise the Sophie Elliott Foundation for blaming the victim. I personally prefer to educate women in the skills they need to be safe. You, however don’t want to talk about that. Pity, because lives could be saved.

        • I don’t know anything about the Sophie Elliott foundation and so I’m not going to comment on that specifically.

          Any “advice” and “campaigning” which is focussed entirely on behaviour of victims is doomed to fail.

          You didn’t watch the video I linked to did you. Watch it. You may learn something.

          We don’t try to reduce the rate of burglary by admonishing home owners and tenants to install more locks and security systems. While these are a good idea it’s not used as a stick to beat them up with.

          When I was burgled no one, not even the police who visited and investigates, told me it was my fault, that I had to take “at least some responsibility” for the burglary because the burglars obtained entry via a window which had a broken lock. I was not told it was my fault because I didn’t use “common sense” and install an alarm in my home. I was not told it was my fault at all precisely because I had committed no crime. The crime was committed by the people who burgled my home.

          But our discussion around sexual assault and rape is entirely different as your initial comment displays so perfectly. Most of the time the discussion focuses ALMOST ENTIRELY on the victims; their behaviour, their clothing, their past sexual history, even their jobs.

          Rape and sexual assault is a cultural crime, it is not a biological imperative for males to rape and sexually assault others. If we don’t address what it is in our culture that leads to rape and sexual assault we will not reduce it.

          It’s a pretty simple concept really.

          again, watch the video

  4. I am interested to know the police logic for a warning. There were laws enacted to ensure that the police could take a case with a hostile witness in the case of rape and domestic violence but not sure that has ever been used. The proof appears to be photographs on a Facebook page and even if these are deleted they can be recovered. So even if the photographer can not be identified there are boys that can be. If the police have issued warnings they have an idea of who the perpetrators are! Or is Pat Walsh lying about the issue for some sort of political gain?

Comments are closed.