October 16, 2025 • 7 mins
I can't think of much worse than being labelled a child abuser, a child pornographer. It's such an abhorrent, vile, aberrant perversion of a crime. All crime is evil. But when it involves children, there's something particularly sickening about it.
Those who collect images of babies and children being sexually abused, in my opinion, are as culpable for the torture of these children as the men and women who actually inflict the damage. They deserve a special place in hell. And let's face it, the next world may be the only place where true justice will be delivered, because justice doesn't often get delivered in this world.
.css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from news Talks,
he'd be I.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Can't think of much worse than being labeled a child
abuse or a child pornographer, such an abhorrent, vile, aberrant
perversion of a crime. All crime is evil, but when
it involves children, there's something particularly sickening about it. Those
who collect images of babies and children being sexually abused
(00:33):
and my opinion, are as culpable for the torture of
these children as the men and women who actually inflict
the damage. They deserve a special place in hell. And
let's face it, the next world may be the only
place where true justice will be delivered, because justice doesn't
often get delivered in this world. Last month, a member
(00:55):
of an affluent New Zealand family convicted of having extreme
child abuse material gave fifty thousand dollars and a bit
of change to charities day of days before he was
due to be sentenced. The judge worked out his sentence
this way, a starting point of five and a half
years imprisonment with no mitigating features to his offending. So
(01:19):
five and a half years I think that's a bit light,
given that without creep sick creeps like him, there wouldn't
be an industry and child abuse. But there we go.
So five and a half years is the starting point.
Then we get a twenty five percent discount for the
early guilty plea five percent for remorse, ten percent for
rehabilitation attempts, said, fifty one on one counseling sessions, and
(01:41):
isn't he lucky he comes from an affluent family so
he can afford them. There was a further three percent
reduction to represent the donations he made for previous good character.
There was another five percent discount, and the judge also
outlined his long history of mental unwellness ya reckon Adhd
(02:04):
and referred to a traumatic incident the man had suffered.
For these factors, his sentence was reduced by a further
eight percent, an overall discount of fifty six percent. He
ended up with two years and five months in prison
and he'll be out in no time. The man was
automatically placed on the child sex offenders register. So that's good,
(02:25):
isn't it, Because then you'll be able to find out
who he is and if he's going to be working
around children again, or if you decide to take up
with him. Because he seems like a well presented, educated man,
and you're single, and he's single, and oh then you
find out he's on the child sex offenders register. But no,
the man's name, his family's name, and their high profile
(02:47):
company were permanently suppressed. As we all know, nature are
bores a vacuum, and human nature are bores a vacuum
when it comes to information on offenders from prominent families.
So if the court won't name him, the internet will.
And it doesn't matter if they get the wrong person,
(03:08):
because hoots, why the internet's the wild Western No one's accountable.
The Court's not going to give us the right person. Well,
buger it. We'll just go out and we'll name everybody,
anybody and everybody, even if they're not forty six, even
if they're not in prison, We'll just name them anyway.
I simply do not believe anything I read or see
(03:31):
on the socials. Mainstream media gets it wrong and gets
it wrong all the time. But at least we are accountable.
If we go out and name Waynwright or Matt Mowbray
as the prominent New Zealander with child abuse material, we
have to retract. We have to expunge the content off
the internet. We have to apologize, we have to pay
(03:52):
enormous fines. Spreaders of disinformation on the net don't have
to do a thing. And so anyone and everyone can
be named and shamed. And if you come from a
prominent or an affluent family and a member of your ilk,
your social cohort has received name suppression while you're in
(04:14):
the firing line. Same if you're a prominent sports person,
I mean they use the term prominent sportsman or prominent
sports person if you've once played pickleball for a master's
age group tournament and nooser, you know, I mean they
use it for just about everybody and everything. So anybody
who's ever played sport at any level, you know, as
suddenly could be included as a prominent sports person. In
(04:39):
the case of this child abuser, wain Wright and Matt
Mowbray have already had to come out and declare they
are not and have never been in any way linked
to anything to do with child arm. They've got nothing
to do with it. Both of them have been named
through social media despite the fact that neither of them
is in fact forty six and neither of them is
in fact in custody. You think that might be a
(05:01):
stumbling block for those on the net, but no. Both
of them have also come out and said people convicted
of sexual offenses against children should never ever have name suppression,
and they should not. They are quite right on that.
I think name suppression is used far too often. I
can understand it being used in the early days of
(05:23):
center of a trial when somebody has been charged. It
gives people time to tell the family or do whatever
it is they have to do, but then once they're sentenced. No,
I think the bar is very low for permanent name
suppression right now. And if you are convicted of sexual
offenses against children, why why should you have name suppression.
(05:47):
There are far fewer affluent families than there used to
be given the cost of living crisis. It brings it
down to a very small pool of people, so the
wild speculation will continue. So the courts have got it
wrong when it comes to suppression. But people should also
have a really healthy skepticism of anything that is said
(06:08):
about anyone on social media, especially with the rise of
AI generated stories. I simply do not believe anything until
I've tested about three or four different sources, or until
I'm stepping over the people who are supposed to be
involved in the illicit act, or you see the court papers.
(06:28):
It's getting harder and harder to trust anyone or anything.
And while we have the name suppression being applied willy nilly,
way too liberally, this kind of rank disinformation is going
to be spread, you know. And it's fine when it's
(06:49):
somebody else, But what about when you you're the subject of
the TikTok rumors? How do you defend your name when
you haven't done a thing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from news Talks,
he'd be I.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Can't think of much worse than being labeled a child
abuse or a child pornographer, such an abhorrent, vile, aberrant
perversion of a crime. All crime is evil, but when
it involves children, there's something particularly sickening about it. Those
who collect images of babies and children being sexually abused
(00:33):
and my opinion, are as culpable for the torture of
these children as the men and women who actually inflict
the damage. They deserve a special place in hell. And
let's face it, the next world may be the only
place where true justice will be delivered, because justice doesn't
often get delivered in this world. Last month, a member
(00:55):
of an affluent New Zealand family convicted of having extreme
child abuse material gave fifty thousand dollars and a bit
of change to charities day of days before he was
due to be sentenced. The judge worked out his sentence
this way, a starting point of five and a half
years imprisonment with no mitigating features to his offending. So
(01:19):
five and a half years I think that's a bit light,
given that without creep sick creeps like him, there wouldn't
be an industry and child abuse. But there we go.
So five and a half years is the starting point.
Then we get a twenty five percent discount for the
early guilty plea five percent for remorse, ten percent for
rehabilitation attempts, said, fifty one on one counseling sessions, and
(01:41):
isn't he lucky he comes from an affluent family so
he can afford them. There was a further three percent
reduction to represent the donations he made for previous good character.
There was another five percent discount, and the judge also
outlined his long history of mental unwellness ya reckon Adhd
(02:04):
and referred to a traumatic incident the man had suffered.
For these factors, his sentence was reduced by a further
eight percent, an overall discount of fifty six percent. He
ended up with two years and five months in prison
and he'll be out in no time. The man was
automatically placed on the child sex offenders register. So that's good,
(02:25):
isn't it, Because then you'll be able to find out
who he is and if he's going to be working
around children again, or if you decide to take up
with him. Because he seems like a well presented, educated man,
and you're single, and he's single, and oh then you
find out he's on the child sex offenders register. But no,
the man's name, his family's name, and their high profile
(02:47):
company were permanently suppressed. As we all know, nature are
bores a vacuum, and human nature are bores a vacuum
when it comes to information on offenders from prominent families.
So if the court won't name him, the internet will.
And it doesn't matter if they get the wrong person,
(03:08):
because hoots, why the internet's the wild Western No one's accountable.
The Court's not going to give us the right person. Well,
buger it. We'll just go out and we'll name everybody,
anybody and everybody, even if they're not forty six, even
if they're not in prison, We'll just name them anyway.
I simply do not believe anything I read or see
(03:31):
on the socials. Mainstream media gets it wrong and gets
it wrong all the time. But at least we are accountable.
If we go out and name Waynwright or Matt Mowbray
as the prominent New Zealander with child abuse material, we
have to retract. We have to expunge the content off
the internet. We have to apologize, we have to pay
(03:52):
enormous fines. Spreaders of disinformation on the net don't have
to do a thing. And so anyone and everyone can
be named and shamed. And if you come from a
prominent or an affluent family and a member of your ilk,
your social cohort has received name suppression while you're in
(04:14):
the firing line. Same if you're a prominent sports person,
I mean they use the term prominent sportsman or prominent
sports person if you've once played pickleball for a master's
age group tournament and nooser, you know, I mean they
use it for just about everybody and everything. So anybody
who's ever played sport at any level, you know, as
suddenly could be included as a prominent sports person. In
(04:39):
the case of this child abuser, wain Wright and Matt
Mowbray have already had to come out and declare they
are not and have never been in any way linked
to anything to do with child arm. They've got nothing
to do with it. Both of them have been named
through social media despite the fact that neither of them
is in fact forty six and neither of them is
in fact in custody. You think that might be a
(05:01):
stumbling block for those on the net, but no. Both
of them have also come out and said people convicted
of sexual offenses against children should never ever have name suppression,
and they should not. They are quite right on that.
I think name suppression is used far too often. I
can understand it being used in the early days of
(05:23):
center of a trial when somebody has been charged. It
gives people time to tell the family or do whatever
it is they have to do, but then once they're sentenced. No,
I think the bar is very low for permanent name
suppression right now. And if you are convicted of sexual
offenses against children, why why should you have name suppression.
(05:47):
There are far fewer affluent families than there used to
be given the cost of living crisis. It brings it
down to a very small pool of people, so the
wild speculation will continue. So the courts have got it
wrong when it comes to suppression. But people should also
have a really healthy skepticism of anything that is said
(06:08):
about anyone on social media, especially with the rise of
AI generated stories. I simply do not believe anything until
I've tested about three or four different sources, or until
I'm stepping over the people who are supposed to be
involved in the illicit act, or you see the court papers.
(06:28):
It's getting harder and harder to trust anyone or anything.
And while we have the name suppression being applied willy nilly,
way too liberally, this kind of rank disinformation is going
to be spread, you know. And it's fine when it's
(06:49):
somebody else, But what about when you you're the subject of
the TikTok rumors? How do you defend your name when
you haven't done a thing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.