Party host twit makes arse of himself during televised interview
Mikey 11 comments
If you saw this on TV the other night, let me be among the first to say that not all Australian teenagers dress like nit wits, have the communication skills of a numskull, and suffer from mild retardation.
The twit you see in this video is your typical young extrovert and it's easy to tell he has a bright future ahead of him. A party he hosted saw his neighbours terrorised and $20,000 dollars in damages caused. He says he is sorry, but his 'apology' is too insincere to take seriously.
Cast your vote now: Idiot? Or Innocent?
Frodo Muggins
Tuesday 15th January 2008 | 09:04 PMAre all australian reporters as hot as her?
Rodney
Tuesday 15th January 2008 | 09:28 PMJJJ ran an interview with some of the people who went and put a little perspective on it. None of these people had any idea who he was, they just gatecrashed his party.
I understand he didn't take the glasses off, because he was trying to hide his identity. None the less, he did come out looking like a petulant child.
We've all had a party before while the folks were out. What this guy did wrong was advertise it on mySpace. Then a bunch of idiots pitched up (whom he didn't know) and trashed the street. While he did have a party, he does have a point - strangers did the damage, not him. The law does imply they should be hunted down and charged.
Everyone blames this guy and says he has to take responsibility for the damage as he passed out the invite and to a large extent, that's correct. So let me ask this - how come when S11 or Resistance hold a protest, which turns destructive (for example at Rio Tinto's offices), they don't have to pay for the damage to property, because the protesters weren't under their direct control? In that situation, the police had to try to find the people responsible and never turned their legal guns on Resistance. Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
So I cast my vote as "innocent idiot". He's a complete tool but if we apply the same standard to him as we apply to large organisations who can afford legal teams, then you have to say innocent.
Franken
Tuesday 15th January 2008 | 09:57 PMI understand what you are saying but there's just one problem Rodney. By advertising his party on the most popular social networking site for teenagers he essentially made it an open party for anyone to attend. It's no different to putting a sign outside saying "party inside - come on in". So by that definition he is responsible for anyone who attends and their actions. I want to say he should have had the foresight to see that but judging by his performance in that video I doubt he could spell the word.
If the party was invite only and it was gate crashers who did the damage then sure I will agree he is innocent because the damage would have been done by people who weren't even supposed to be there.
In the end it turns out he's just a brainless moron who didn't think about his actions and now his parents are faced with a $20,000 fine. If he were my kid he would be getting a summer job and paying that off.
Rodney
Tuesday 15th January 2008 | 10:14 PMFranken, you're right he's a brainless moron (and that'd be one hell of a summer job for a kid to pay of $20k after taxes) but the protests I spoke about were open invites, as well. The even advertise them on the radio.
Now I understand there's a fundamental difference between a protest and a party but what concerns me here is the kid is essentially being forced to pay because he cannot (legally) defend himself, where as large organisations can - so when their functions result in destruction they are not charged.
No question the kid's a tool but it should be one rule for the rich and powerful and poor together...
Jake
Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 09:13 AMThis guy is a little shit. Clearly an idiot, but innocent (so far as best evidence says to date) of inciting the riot.
Apparently the sunglass thing was to keep some sort of annonymity.
He is the kind of guy you just want to accidentally trip over near and in the process, accidentally plant an uppercut.
If I lived in the area, I would be doing my darndest to ensure the family was forced to sell.
Jasmin
Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 01:50 PMHis name is Corey Delaney and he has been arrested
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/16/2139572.htm
Mark
Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 04:23 PMNot sure how they can ask him to pay the $20k damages, sounds like a threat to coax the kid into making a public apology. Other cases have seen this tactic work, but this time the kid maintained his smartass attitude in front of a national audience when others may "cave" and act decently.
This just demonstrates the terrible journalism that A Current Affair produces. I wish I'd heard the triplej version.
Brill
Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 08:01 PMThe host made and arse of herself more. But shes hot so forgiven ::--)))
andrew
Thursday 17th January 2008 | 12:07 AMprobably a spoilt brat and my vote IDIOT though there would be other choice words..he didn't sound appologetic and the interviewer was to easy on him..
carly da croc
Monday 7th April 2008 | 12:06 AM5th option: legend!
his advice for other kids wanting to have a party while their parents are away? "get me to do it for you."
on being told to have a good long hard look at himself: "I have, everyone has, they love it."
classic!
Anders
Tuesday 15th January 2008 | 09:01 PMYou left out 3rd and 4th options: Loser or Dickhead