Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
You appear determined to argue taht a man who assaults his kids might be a decent father
And I argued that? Is that what you are saying I did?
-
And I argued that? Is that what you are saying I did?
actually, dave, you're right, you didn't, it was others. I confess I can't quite work out what you're arguing about anymore...
-
Thanks Paul..glad that's cleared up. You said.
I did say the judge believed the witnesses who claimed he'd punched his four-year old
Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?
-
Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?
I answered this very question some time ago by quoting and linking to Russell's comments about the judgment.
dave, I'm close to over this conversation. You appear interested in a pretty narrow point, a point which we'll possibly not ever isolate, a point which I don't share your enthusiasm for. Mason's been found guilty of assault. I believe the court's findings negate his protestations. I don't know that this case vindicates the section 59 amendment, no one case will I suspect.
I've struggled to understand the logic to your various points. I've assumed you feel the amendment to the law was not necessary. I don't agree. If your interest in this thread is to prove the redundency of the amendment based on this case, I believe you're wasting your time (more so if you want to misinterpret my arguments).
-
Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?
Try this Dave:
"I can understand that verdict and that it implies acceptance of the evidence of the people who were at the scene," Judge Crosbie told the jury.
Does this help, or would you like to try another way of minimising and obscuring the verdict?
You say on your own blog:
Granted, the evidence apparently was that Mason did punch his son ...
Okay ....
... but the court was told there was no evidence of injury to the face.
Do you want to listen to yourself for a moment? Are you seriously saying that the benchmark is immediate visible injuries? Do you want to get into some sick debate about how much facial bruising is enough?
Ad then you say of the main witness:
I wonder if this teacher was a supporter of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation?
Arrggh.
Dave, I'm calling you on this. You've got form. You happily enabled Barbara Bishop; you conveyed her nasty, self-serving account of what a court found was her participation in a disturbing assault on her teenage son. One bad enough to earn her nine months in jail:
The judge said he did not accept Bishop was remorseful.
"I watched you closely during the trial and I didn't detect remorse then, or now," he said.
He said Bishop had stated she did not think she had done anything wrong.
The judge said an aggravating feature was Bishop's previous convictions for violence, including one for attempting to procure the murder of a former husband.
And yet Bob McCoskrie allowed that woman to believe she was a hero. That's the meaning of the word "enabling".
And this part is grimly ironic:
However, Bishop said she gave him only a back-hand flick.
I wonder what her account of the subsequent assault on her daughter was?
And Dave you know this. You know that I've shared with you the witness of yet another of her children, which I'm not at liberty to share here. And still you stick with it.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
No all I am doing is to ensure you back up your so-called facts with proof. And it seems that since you cant, you`re gonna bail out. Perhaps next time you wont dress something up as fact when you have not the slightest idea whether it is true.
Now, just off to sort out my kids - one of them needs a good clip over the ear ( heh).
-
Something interestingfrom yesterdays Observer online.
Not posting for any specific reason, other than it seems relevant to the general discusson.
-
Perhaps next time you wont dress something up as fact when you have not the slightest idea whether it is true.
dave, that's plainly BS (it's also a tactic that only works in schoolyard disputes). If I thought there was something to be gained from this conversation, I'd persist, but you're determined to obfuscate in an attempt to minimise the fact that Mason's been found guilty. I'm simply not interested in arguing with a fool (and this is the conclusion I've drawn from your repeated foolish arguments).
-
Oh Russell, Ive jsut seen your veiled attack on me ( and the pithy response from the fool above who can't back up his statements). You you don't need to misrepresent me. Like MSM journalists, I did convey the account, but, like these MSM journalists, I have never "enabled" Bishop with respect to the assault on her son that you linked to. Ever. So appreciate it if you would amend that last comment to reflect that. You say "enabling" is making her out to be a hero. I never did that once, ever. And you know that - well, you__should__ know that. Why would I enable anyone? I was reporting an account, not writing for a tabloid. As I've said to you some time ago, I even noted that it was a one sided story as I was unable to get the other side because nobody would speak - and I did that because I believe balance is important. And no, I haven't " stuck with her". What makes her a hero? If you claim that McCoskrie made out Bishop to be a hero, why then did you imply that he - and For the Sake of Our Children Trust - has done so with Mason when they haven't even spoken with Mason. Mason is no hero. Ask Chuck.
Unlike you or McCoskrie ( apparently), my view - relayed consistently on my blog - is that Mason was equally guilty of both parts of the count. But I have no proof, it is my opinion. I only raised the possibility if it could be one account of the other as others were emphasising one of the two counts to the charge - you the punch and McCoskrie the ear flick. Solely on media reports p while the Yes Vote people were erroneously saying teh Masoin case was a test of the anti-smacking legislation.
You can't minimise a guilty verdict, and I never did, even though you claim that I did. I actually said on my blog I believed he was guilty all along. You can't be "half guilty" any more than you can conclusively say that a punch was what did Mason in without talking to at least one of either the judge, jury, witnesses or accused. And, as far as I am aware, you haven't dome that. It is you who should be ashamed of yourself. But next time you are in Welli give me a call and we can have a drink.
-
Oh Russell, Ive jsut seen your veiled attack on me ( and the pithy response from the fool above who can't back up his statements). You you don't need to misrepresent me. Like MSM journalists, I did convey the account, but, like these MSM journalists, I have never "enabled" Bishop with respect to the assault on her son that you linked to. Ever.
Dave, here's what you wrote, when you dismissed the victim as a "brat".
You weren't "conveying" it: you stated it all as fact.
-
dave, precisely which statement have I not backed-up? I assume you mean this statement:
Perhaps ScottY, but given that he admitted a punch and he was found guilty of an assault, it's not unreasonable to think the jury, which determines matters of fact not law, thought the punch relevant. This wasn't a hard case, from what little I've read, I think Bird and his mates are wasting their time defending this man.
Which you initially took issue with and then realised I did not say the punch was admitted in court. I clarified by clearly noting Russell’s reference to the judge's favourable comments about the witnesses’ accounts.
dave, the media and Russell noted the admission was made to witnesses and also that the Judge accepted the evidence of the witnesses:
This is so unbelievably disingenuous, I can barely convey my contempt for it.
But I'll try: The judge made a point of observing that the jury had accepted the evidence of witnesses. The witnesses said Mason punched his four year-old in the face with a closed fist, and was unrepentant it about after the fact.I drew the unremarkable conclusion that Mason’s guilt, despite his PR and plea, suggests the court believed the witnesses when determining the facts of the case. I simply don’t see how this is confusing or contentious.
Contrast this with your various twists and turns which include both saying you think Mason did punch his kid but railing against anyone who’d suggest the punch was relevant to the conviction.
-
Are you seriously saying that the benchmark is immediate visible injuries? Do you want to get into some sick debate about how much facial bruising is enough?
In this case he should advocate for parents to carry around phone books. Urban legend has these well used in police cells to beat up prisoners without leaving a mark.
Now, just off to sort out my kids - one of them needs a good clip over the ear ( heh).
Haha!
Oh no wait, that wasn't funny, that was rather inappropriate, I got confused.
-
Here's the transcript of Bob McCoskrie's 2005 radio interview with the "Timaru lady".
There are various villains conjured, mostly CYFS, but it's clear enough that Bob thought the only victim was the woman concerned.
He later denied that Family First had ever championed the woman. This was a extremely disingenuous, given that he had done so personally, before forming Family First.
And here's Bob again, describing as a "good parent" and a victim of the law the man who threw his eight year-old son around so violently that the boy's mother took photographs of the bruising and a relative took it to police. And this is after the evidence in court and the conviction.
As the judge said to that man:
Judge Anthony Walsh said the man might have had a legal defence in the past, but that no longer applied.
"One time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now ... You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected."
And the police prosecutor:
"It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.
"The family have said that it wasn't the first time," he added.
Here's another story about that one, featuring our new friend:
The court action has prompted internet calls for the amendment to be scrapped. Andy Moore at section59.blogspot.com wrote that the father had gone "just a little bit over the top" but the case didn't warrant police action.
But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, a vocal critic of the amendment, conceded that any case resulting in bruising should be investigated. But he would not say whether he thought the Masterton case was a reasonable use of force.
Yeah, I think "enabling" is the word.
-
He also seems to have made a practice of hitting his children around the head, according to his older kids.
But remember: he's a good father. </quote>
Russell, is that an exact quote or you taking journalistic licence as usual?
When I was young I got strapped and possible sometimes with maybe not good enough reason. Nonetheless he was a very good father. I think there would be very many people feel the same as me – possibly even you.
Mason may have used excessive force even if S59 was in place. Sadly due to the law change we will never know. I repeat he MAY have used excessive force. Even if he did use excessive force that does not in my mind make him a bad father. The fact that he MAY have used excessive force does not make him a bad father.
If the likes of Bradford and other anti-smacking fanatics were genuinely concerned about the welfare of children they would have been happy with a compromise like the Chester Burrows proposed amendment. Having law that the vast majority of the parents respect is very important. If someone was convicted under the old law there would often be social sanctions. Many people will think someone convicted under the new law are themselves victim of the meddling State.
Many of the people who objected to the new law were doctors, lawyers, police and other professionals. I suspect some might have even been more intelligent than you.
You have not explained what makes you think that you know more than 80% of good parents? Do you think like Bradford that the masses are gullible and easily misled?
-
But remember: he's a good father.
Russell, is that an exact quote or you taking journalistic licence as usual?
Chuck, for goodness sake, it's a quote from your post this morning :
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father.
I'm afraid you're far too crazy to have an actual discussion with ...
-
Even if he did use excessive force that does not in my mind make him a bad father. The fact that he MAY have used excessive force does not make him a bad father.
Christ on a stick! This guy is just totally batshit crazy.
-
Christ on a stick!
Didn't the Romans do that already?
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll get me coat. -
I think the "good parent" thing is a bit of a red herring, really.
Mason presumably loves his kids, and for all his bluster, thinks he's doing the right thing.
But he seemed positively proud of that phrase "angry dad mode" as a description of his public loss of control and clearly regarded hitting and kicking his children as the best way of providing guidance.
Simon Mercep's alarmist line about how Mason could be facing two years in jail was yet another stupid diversion from the core of what happened: a father lost the plot in public and threw his small kids around and hit one of them. He was sufficiently off the hook for a police officer to call for backup.
Frankly, I don't mind if he gets diversion, so long as he gets some help with that anger and stops acting it out on his small children. Or, at the very least, starts recognising it as a failure of his own parenting and not some sodding badge of honour.
I really cannot understand why anyone would think otherwise.
-
I'll get me coat.
That's something that Jesus wasn't s'posed to have, init?
-
Or, at the very least, starts recognising it as a failure of his own parenting and not some sodding badge of honour.
I really cannot understand why anyone would think otherwise.Possibly because he really is ignorant and knows no better, then the attention that followed (which he seemed to enjoy) gave him confidence to argue.I notice that the likes of those arguing for the right to hit their children seem very pleased to fight for the right, when I wonder why they wouldn't be more interested in educating others of alternatives, which to me would actually help us as a society , rather than perpetuating the idea of any aggression towards others. But that's just me.
-
That's something that Jesus wasn't s'posed to have, init?
inri.
-
But that's just me.
Nah, not just you.
-
Frankly, I don't mind if he gets diversion, so long as he gets some help with that anger and stops acting it out on his small children.
Diversion is not a possibility.
Diversion happens very early on in the process, and basically results in the police dropping the charges.
The equivalent post-trial 'sentence' is a discharge without conviction. It seems unlikely in this case.
-
He also seems to have made a practice of hitting his children around the head, according to his older kids.
Russell, the quote above that was highlighted is obviously I was referring to. I did not hear either of his older children state that Mason made a practice of hitting his children around the head”. Show us where they stated that in those. Proof me wrong.
What is the matter? Are you unset that when I quoted the judges comments I proved you wrong? You do not know any more than I what the jury decided regarding the alleged punch to Seth’s head as you claimed. Show that you are a man and not a child and admit you are wrong.
-
Show that you are a man and not a child and admit you are wrong.
It's that or a 'light' punch to the eye, eh?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.