Mostly, I'm talking about the consequences for the child, of a criminal conviction of a parent who has smacked.
That's how the failure to prosecute spousal abuse used to be rationalised. Consequences for the battered wife (and the kids) might be be even worse if the husband were convicted.
Stranger things have happened.
No, they haven't.
Hey, Giovanni what do you think of Cunliffe calling Judith Collins a trout?
What, you think my name is Petronius all of a sudden? Why are you asking me?
But since you are, and without being fully aware of the connotations of the term in NZE, I'd have to say it was a demeaning and stupid word to use. I could revise downwards once somebody explains to me what it was even supposed to mean.
Let's imagine we did as Graeme suggested: we rang RadioLive endlessly, to tell them how offensive what they did to Amy was, how wrong and offensive their views on rape were.
We don't need to imagine it: the single people I've been trying to reach more insistently during the whole thing was RadioLive, and I encouraged others to do the same. Not a peep from them. Ever.
And obviously if the offending comments were removed we'd reach an irony singularity.
The wild-west atmosphere along with the many angry and unmoderated male voices creates a space in which most women don't feel safe.
Some of the comments have been extraordinary. They speak more of the men who wrote them than anything else, of course - but still.
Then you should read it again.
Not what he has said.
Indeed, but Hubbard lives in his own world in which I'm evil.
OK Graeme, here’s a question. Do you believe that structural inequality – of the type that privileges some voices over others – exists?
Sorry, missed it.
[Assuming I know what the term means] Yes, I do.
The evidence of the post strongly suggests that you don't. But at an even more basic level, I find your inability to conceive of how advertisers *already* shape public discourse quite astonishing. As I wrote in my post, the fact that the near totality of our media rely entirely on advertising revenue means that the message we see and hear are subject to commercial - and not public interest - imperatives, which is why broadcasters are strongly incentivised to offend, exclude, cause controversy. That anyone should think that this is in fact a state of purity to be preserved borders on the grotesque.
I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.
And about your fascist roots.