Is Russell Strickett of Ellerslie guilty of being a dick?

From today's New Zealand Herald:

For non-New Zealand readers, I should explain that the David Bain story is one of those "convicted of killing his family, then aquitted fourteen years later and now wants compensation for his ruined life" stories that keeps the boring people in pubs and talk radio talking.

Let's analyse Russell's letter to see why it annoys me so much.

• Firstly, did I miss an important election where Russell was elected to "King of the New Zealand Idiots Who Must Therefore Have His Letters Published"? Why did this particular letter published in the paper? Is the New Zealand Herald really that desperate to fill the letters page at the moment? A picture of a dog turd could have been more insightful commentary on the David Bain case compared to this nonsense. No link to the Herald from this blog post, as punishment for even publishing this.
• Secondly, from which part of Russell's arse did he pull out 70% as a figure needed to carry a motion. Why not the normal 50% used in a democracy? Why such a high number? Why load the dice against the motion? Is he some kind of dictatorial douche-bag who is trying to rig the referendum before it's even held? I bet 70% of the population aren't in favour of Asset Sales, but they're going ahead. Would he support a 70% referendum on going ahead with Asset Sales?
• Next, why is this not a secret ballot? This referendum requires that each person's vote be recorded, so that Russell Strickett and his ilk can personally harangue them later if they disagreed with him, like the fascist bully boys I suspect them to be.
• Next, why is the referendum only to be funded by people who vote a certain way? That would actually load the election further, since in addition to worrying about lunatics haranguing them, they could end up paying for a referendum that only Russell Strickett wants if they are in the 69% "minority". If he wants it so much, why doesn't he pay for it out of his own fucking pocket?
• Where do these idiots come from, that they think that voters with no detailed knowledge of the case should be allowed to capriciously decide who gets justice and who doesn't? Do they really want to live in a society where the unfair rules are made up as we go along by idiots for idiots, to keep idiots on talk radio happy, or do they prefer an imperfect system that weighs facts and makes balanced decisions that sometimes we'll disagree with, but which overall work out to be as fair as reasonably possible?

Overall, from close analysis of his letter, it seems to me that Russell Strickett seems to be against David Bain receiving compensation, and desperate to make sure everyone else agrees with him by pain of a financial penalty. 

I would send my letter below to the Herald, but they require a real name and address, and quite frankly, I'm scared Russell Strickett might not be the only person in Auckland with funny ideas about what constitutes "justice":

To sort out the issue of whether Russell Strickett is a stupid dick incapable of processing complicated justice matters sensibly, once and for all, maybe there should be a national referendum based on the electoral roll. After all, it affects every right-thinking New Zealander.
If 1 per cent of the electoral roll agree that Russell Strickett is a dick, then he will be have "dick" tattooed on his forehead.
The cost of the referendum could be paid for by those who are either Russell Strickett or his family and friends.
For those who don't think Russell Strickett is a dick, they will be tattooed too, cos I'm capricious like that.
If the vote is less than 1 per cent in favour of Russell Strickett being a dick, then lots of people will still have thought carefully about whether Russell Strickett is a dick, and the cost of the referendum would still be paid by Russell Strickett because if he's silly enough that he doesn't understand how democracy or justice systems work, then he's probably mug enough to pay up.