Hard News: See you Latta, Bob ...
139 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Key doesn't seem to realise that there's a difference between his position (on an issue) as the representative of the government and his personal opinion. He's forever answering the latter when being questioned on the former.
Ahaa, But John Key campaigned on the slogan "I am ambitious for new Zealand" Now he has New Zealand, he will do what he damn well pleases with it, so there.
-
Which I find rather ironic given how relaxed everyone around here was with Clark proffering an instant opinion on absolutely everything...
Ahaa, But Helen Clark is a politician, John Key is a money trader, a much narrower field of expertise.
-
I'll just say that there's no magical tipping point where a lie becomes the truth through sheer repetition.
So now every time someone prominent is quoted in the media, we have to assume it's inaccurate until proven otherwise?
That sounds like it could get a little messy, Craig.
-
3410,
Which I find rather ironic given how relaxed everyone around here was with Clark proffering an instant opinion on absolutely everything...
... as prime minister. As far as I recall, when she proffered a personal opinion she would generally identify it as such.
Meanwhile, what part of "the law works as it stands, we're not repealing it" is Key saying (repeatedly) in Martian?
I think this illustrates the point:
Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that's acceptable. It is up to individual parents to decide how they're going to parent their children ... Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.
It contradicts the law. If the quote is not accurate - and is there anyone but you, Craig, who's suggesting that it isn't? - I expect we'll see a correction within hours.
-
Craig, if Key believes he has been misquoted (as per the "I'd love to see the gap widen" comment) he's more than capable of saying so. Until I hear otherwise from the great legislator, I'll resume my light smackings....
-
I'll just say that there's no magical tipping point where a lie becomes the truth through sheer repetition.
It was a comment made a press conference in front of umpteen journalists, which three different papers from three different companies have all reported. Let's bag the Herald for the umpteen things they do a crap job on, rather than dutifully reporting what the PM says?
-
Having heard Latta on the so-called "pillowfight" case I noted upthread, I've just heard Latta discuss it on bFM.
Family First slated the police in support of a man with an extensive history of domestic violence and an armed robbery conviction. In pursuing that support, they minimised and flat-out lied about the facts of the case. And guess who got their story told by TVNZ news?
These people sicken me.
-
"It does occur to me that he'd be better off dispensing light smacks to errant Cabinet ministers."
..and,in the case of Gerry Brownlie, light snacks?
-
Oh, I get it, he's obese. It's funny 'cos it's true!
-
So now every time someone prominent is quoted in the media, we have to assume it's inaccurate until proven otherwise?
That sounds like it could get a little messy, Craig.
Yes, indeed. But it's even messier when The Herald fabricates quotes, doesn't bother subjecting people like Bob McCoskrie to basic fact checking, and pulls new broadcasting standards out of it's editorial arse.
I'll stop presuming the Herald is fiction until proven otherwise when it stops giving me ample cause. As the proverb goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (and all the rest), shame on me.
-
More notably, this same story features PM Key basically giving parents carte blanche to go back to smacking their kids provided it's "light". Which is not what the law Key voted for actually says, but apparently he, not Parliament, is the supreme authority on such matters
Exactly. If he actually said that, the Herald should've been right up in his grill about it. I thought Key had handled things very well until I read that. Perhaps he's a friggin' idiot after all.
Haven't we been repeatedly told it wasn't an "anti-smacking" law?
Why is there is concern that the PM has said light smacking is okay (read lawful) if the law we passed wasn't about smacking at all?
-
Which is not what the law Key voted for actually says, but apparently he, not Parliament, is the supreme authority on such matters.
He is functionally the supreme authority. The law is subject to police prosecution except when the offence is so “inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution" and it is the government that instructs the police on the nature of relative inconsequence.
-
Maybe the debate will go on so long that eventually the media and public will just get tired of it and subsequently sideline the noise-makers due to lack of interest
I think that will happen. Nothing's going to change if (a) John Key or (b) Labour lead government. Which probably takes us to 2014 and the legislation having been in place for seven years.
The only exception would be if:
a: National move on to Phase 2, Key gets rolled and his successor needs populist collateral to cover his attack on ordinary people's living standards.
b: Goff's desparation takes Labour further to the populist right. -
and it is the government that instructs the police on the nature of relative inconsequence.
Serious question, Angus: You sure about that? I thought police discretion regarding prosecution was exactly that -- and it's constitutionally and legally rather dodgy for any Government to be issuing "instructions" on that score. They either spell it out in legislation or stay the hell out of it, I thought, but am quite happy to be told otherwise.
On a tangent, I thought both National and Labour should have been prosecuted over alleged breeches of campaigning rules after the 2005 election. While I certain found the Police reasoning for not doing so unconvincing, to put it mildly, it was their call to make. (Also discretion they've proved they're totally unfit to have.) And I don't think anyone could seriously claim any species of political interference in the decision.
-
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"
I really hate that Schopenhauer quote, it misses out that fact that all lies also pass through those first two stages.
Attributed to Carl Sagan:
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-
I think that will happen. Nothing's going to change if (a) John Key or (b) Labour lead government. Which probably takes us to 2014 and the legislation having been in place for seven years.
I think it's way too early to be sure. Public feeling on smacking isn't going to go away. It's a very far-reaching law change, if followed through to the letter, and the way it's managed by the current government is going to continue to be of interest to a huge chunk of NZers. If they're still lightly smacking their kids for correction, feeling safe because John Key is relaxed about that, they haven't really changed at all, and the 'bring back the smack' crowd will continue to have a sympathetic following.
Strikes me that it's actually quite a cunning position of Key's, from a tactical point of view. If he runs a line that the government isn't actually going to actively prosecute the law as it is writ, then for smackers it's another reason to vote National - because there is no guarantee Labour will do the same if they get back in. But at the same time, there's no point of attack for the anti-smackers, because the law is technically in their favor, and National aren't changing it.
-
"As the proverb goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (and all the rest), shame on me." - not according to Bush
-
PS I thought it might be the child discipline law which transformed me into an ex-lurker :)
I'm tempted to see this as evidence to the contrary to your view that things will blow over. But welcome in from the lurking cold anyway, Julie. Looking forward to more :-)
-
Graeme:
- Smacking *is* assault, like any unwanted physical contact, right?
Sensibly, the police and courts might consider (in line with the Prosecution Guidelines) that the conduct doesn't "merit the attention of the criminal law", for instance.
But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't hit, slap or punch anyone of any age, the law says so, and you can be prosecuted for hitting people if the circumstances warrant. The "lightness" or otherwise of the smack might be a factor pointing to that, but might not be, if for instance the parent's behaviour and resistance to change is worrying to the agencies involved.
-
They either spell it out in legislation or stay the hell out of it, I thought, but am quite happy to be told otherwise.
The change of law means that no longer do we have an independent judiciary deciding what is "reasonable" punishment of a child. Now a government department decides what punishment of a child appears "inconsequential".
-
I thought police discretion regarding prosecution was exactly that -- and it's constitutionally and legally rather dodgy for any Government to be issuing "instructions" on that score.
I was just researching this, and *think* that prosecution is a Royal (e.g. governmental) Prerogative in NZ. A lawyer would know.
If our law is the same as the UK, then the government has the ability to jump in in their size 9's and stop any prosecution, as the UK AG did last year in the BAE bribery case.
This is of course pretty unacceptable (and way more important than smacking). We should, IMHO, have a legal framework for prosecution that removes any governmental discretion, at least on individual cases.
-
Strikes me that it's actually quite a cunning position of Key's
And "Cunning" is not a trait that I appreciate in a Prime Minister, I would rather see consistency, compassion and an understanding of the responsibilities of being in that position.
Cunning may work for a money trader but a cunning, smiling assassin is not a good look for a Prime Minister. -
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.
Isn't that a Gershwin tune?
-
Angus: are you suggesting that every single complaint on any offence must end up in front of a court?
-
I'm tempted to see this as evidence to the contrary to your view that things will blow over. But welcome in from the lurking cold anyway, Julie.
I did say "maybe"! Ever the optimist, but thanks for the welcome :)
Oh, and it isn't that cold out there at all, sort of warm and safe ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.