Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Bottom is a Magic Place

156 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • dave crampton,

    what I would say is click on the blue dot at the side of this blog post, as I have just posted a few mins ago that the "outcome" has nothing to do with anti smacking legislation.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Alex

    I have changed my templates around a bit so yo will find the rinding crop cases here in the meantine

    http://big-newsdummy.blogspot.com/search?q=riding+crop+case

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    Palmer now walks around the Wellington waterfront after a hard day's thinking in a mid-grey suit and running shoes.

    Good sensible man.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Alex Coleman,

    Thanks Dave.

    So just to be ultra crystal clear then, you would agree that this case had a good outcome, that the police the wife and the judge all acted properly and that the various people saying that it is an example of "good parents" being "victimised" are wrong then?

    I'm a bit confused by your focus on the bruising vs the smacking thing. The bruising, surely, is just one piece of evidence that an assault took place. He was convicted of assault, not 'bruising' afterall. The smacking was part of that assault, I think you will find.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 207 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I have changed my templates around a bit so yo will find the rinding crop cases here in the meantine

    And you're still presenting as fact an account of the tying-up and assault of the second son (entirely demonising the son, naturally) that has been directly contradicted by an independent witness.

    I know you have a lot invested in this woman, but surely it's time to admit that she's a bloody disaster, and that is not a safe home.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.

    Well, you should stop describing the "light" smack that somehow happened in the middle of an incident that you say would have been an assault even under Section 59.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    .. at the end of an incident, as I understand, Russell. At the end. Smack, smack,smack. And I never said those smacks were unreasonable force under Section 59 so, dont twist my words. Assault yes, but within the reasonable force defence, so not a criminal act.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Farrar is giving political comment, and he's a national party whatsit right? So the byline should be National Party Flunky or whatever.

    Yes, Kyle, just as Sir Geoffrey should be identified as 'rich c**t lobbyist and big ticket Labour donor' if you want to throw around inflammatory language like that. So I'd stick to 'whatever'.

    And I don't know if you've been paying attention over the last thirty or forty years, but Geoffrey Palmer regularly provides legal commentary on enormously politically contentious issues. Whether the quality of his discourse is enhanced by labelling him as a 'Labour Party Flunky or whatever' is really dubious.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11852 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    ..oops, postedtoo quick... within the reasonable force defence pre- S59 amendment, so not a criminal act then

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    You know, I bet people would get really upset if someone was to get convicted for blowing up the Dom Post building and then a left-wing publication were to use the headline:
    Dom Post attacker "guilty" of terrorism

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    .. at the end of an incident, as I understand, Russell. At the end. Smack, smack,smack.

    Hmmm. Here's the relevant part from the court story:

    Becoming frustrated, the father grabbed his son's clothes at the shoulder and pulled him on to the bed.

    The father then flipped the boy over his knee and smacked him three times on the bottom with an open palm, before roughly sitting him back up.

    The eight-year-old had bruising to his shoulder, the court was told.

    So he was angry enough to grab the boy hard enough to cause bruising, calmed down instantaneously to administer three light, sensible smacks, and then got angry in time to "roughly" sit the boy up again? Do tell.

    I rather suspect the judge didn't parse the incident to quite that extent.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Dave I'm coming in late but you're saying the guy who admitted he lost it, bruise his kid when grabbing and smacking him (in your opinion) used reasonable force?

    Cindy Kiro said he would have been charged under the old law & from what was described I think she's right.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Fascists are Faggots

    Ernst Rohm was.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I hope nobody finds that offensive :-)

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    There are not many people Cambell towers over but Bob Mc is one.

    Just watched Bob praised the support the family got but not the conviction. Realising he undermined his raison d'etre he desperately added Mallards punch & Chris Kahuis bail.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Yes, Kyle, just as Sir Geoffrey should be identified as 'rich c**t lobbyist and big ticket Labour donor' if you want to throw around inflammatory language like that. So I'd stick to 'whatever'.

    No, just saying that it'd be a good start if the media were to label commentators for the job they're doing when they're commentating.

    If Farrar is commenting as part of his job with the national party, then 'National Party XXX' would seem to be a good tag to use.

    If Palmer is commenting as part of his job with ChenPalmer, then 'Lawyer, ChenPalmer' would seem a good tag to use. Not a tag relating to what he did 17+ years ago.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6157 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Shep, not only charged underthe old law, convicted under it too, conflicting Bradfords assertion that this case is a good example of how the current law is working....

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    <quote>I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.<quote>
    But it doesn't stop you spouting off with your ideologically based argument.
    The fact is that we now have a workable law that addresses child abuse. You, on the other hand seem to advocate defence for the abuser against defence of the defenceless. But let's think of the children EH?

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4633 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Dave so we're in agreement that the law (old or new) worked as intended and with help for the family for a long term positive outcome?

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    We can't really know whether this case would have been reported, prosecuted or result in a conviction under the previous law. But we if we accept Dave's assertion that it would, that makes the Family Integrity blog pretty scary.

    It's Christian sadists a-go-go over there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Dave said...

    Anon,

    The police did not prosecute because ofteh smack, they prosecuted because ofa brused that was on a dofferent part of the body to where the boy was smacked.

    Fronm the little we know of this case, I would have thought that you could have at least got that bit correct.
    Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:56:00 PM NZDT
    New Zealand Conservative

    This Dave is an intellectual giant eh. Is it "our" Dave?
    Am I being unfair?

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4633 posts Report Reply

  • Alex Coleman,

    I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.

    Neither do I what?

    You are the one that claims to know that he would have been convicted under the old law. If I was his lawyer under the old regime I would have told him to take his chances with the jury, You would only need one whaleoil/Bob McC/Copeland/destiny churcher on the jury and he'd walk.


    What I do have no idea about yet is whether not you agree:

    that this case had a good outcome, that the police the wife and the judge all acted properly and that the various people saying that it is an example of "good parents" being "victimised" are wrong?

    It would seem to follow from your reasoning, (that the bruising means assault, that he would have been convicted under the old law, and that the repeal has made no difference in this case) but you seem reluctant to say it. Which I find to be weird, and indicative of something that I can't quite put my finger on.

    Maybe if I had a non-bruise inducing taser I could get an answer out of you and avoid an assault charge. Or something. But I don't, and it's against my principles anyway.

    So I'll drop it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 207 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    One other thing, the debate on both sides seems pretty ill informed - charges for assault are not bought under s59 and the arguments I have listened to and read seem to espouse ill founded ideological views based on where one wants to appear on the left/right liberal/fascist spectrum labels.

    Until case law develops around what one considers a section 59 situation to be it will not be apparent to anyone of us how the courts will interpret this legislative change in relation to prosecutions bought for assaults on children by parents. With the removal of the defence of "parental discipline" the Courts will in successful prosecutions establish/create by the judgements a going rate/scale.

    Overtime there will be some perverse situations that develop where parents will be wrongfully prosecuted - though these are not to the fore just yet. s 59 could even become irrelevant - based on the way the courts apply the existing law as it relates to assaults in situations where children are assaulted by their parents.

    There has not been a big rise in child abuse notifications to protection agencies since the legislation was passed. There has been a spike in family violence notifications NZ Herald 17.11.07. The spike is probably a result of awareness from the Not Ok campaign and public interest around the "mass debate" on s 59 issues.

    What the new s 59 does is remove the defence of reasonable force in parental control situations where force is used for the purposes of correction. Under s 59. force is still permitted to be used against children by parents in s 59 (1) (a) through to (d) - read it.

    The new section 59 does not create the power for any government agency to walk into anyone’s home and remove children from parents - this power comes from elsewhere, not s 59, and this power already existed before the s59 change.

    The Masterton case would likely be a charge for assault under s9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 which deals with minor assaults, more serious assaults are covered under s 194 of the Crimes Act.

    Sue Bradford called this "my bill" when interviewed on TV tonight. I want parliamentarians to be more objective and less egocentric. The new s 59 is not a great thing creating a great new safe environment for children or a terrible thing demonising parents - it is just another legislative thing.

    Where it matter most nothing is likely to happen some children will still be beaten to death by people in the parental role - with the exception of a series of TV Advts I have seen nothing that addressess real issues - these issues don't even seem to make the debate.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1182 posts Report Reply

  • KevinHicks,

    I certainly do not think child beaters should get off with a slap with a wet bus ticket. thats why I said it has changed my opinion of the law a bit. What will help now if the relativity of the sentences is carried out there is no way that anyone in the country will be able to clock up 40 convictions and still be walking around to kill babies or rape dutch tourists. So perhaps we are getting somewhere - time will tell.

    The demographic I was referiring to had nothing to do with race or how they look - it has to do with the history of person you will see in the news reports when they are found guilty and the full facts come out - go google it and you will see. Since serious child beating behaviour is quite predictable we have the opportunity of preventing it by close supervision of those in the "demographic" who have responsibiilty for looking after children. Just logic really.

    Auckland • Since Sep 2007 • 67 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.