Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
<i>The Herald again demonstrated they don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda by calling the face-punch the ear-flick dad</i>
Just like they called the riding crop lady the horse whip lady..
-
looked up gruntle but it is not in the Oxford. Wonder what a gruntle looks like?
It's well-known to be an avian species, the egg-yolk of which is a key ingredient in Formula 86 Delayed Action Mouse-Maker. Can't think how the Oxford could have missed this.
-
@pfj - if you are a member of that subcommunity, and you haven't had "well-meaning" types express that opinion to you in concerned tones, either directly or through various forms of media, how about canvassing experiences from a few other people in said subcommunity? You might be surprised.
@Emma - thanks for clearing up that little misconception, and (almost) everyone else for listening.
I love the Kushiel books too (ok, sometimes a bit overblown, but hey, that's fantasy - it's a lot less trite than most), but yeah, didn't really get into any of Carey's other stuff.
-
"Contempt for commenting on what the jury did or thought? It's not contempt. It's freedom of speech.
Quite. Even rank idiots have that right."
Buggar, but it is in Fiji right? That place where it's the dry season & there is sun, sand and the warm sea to swim in. Ahh Fiji the way the world should be (OK, it shouldn't be, but nice to think of some place warm tonight :p).
-
So, not just thinking of Southland, then?
-
The Herald again demonstrated they don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda
When did laziness and stupidity become a "political agenda"?
-
When did laziness and stupidity become a "political agenda"?
I really must resist the temptation to say 'they are conservative values'. Isn't that what laissez faire is all about? But no, I really can't write that. So nevermind.
-
Incidentally, I think there may have been issues above between 'offence' as in legal-definition-of-a-crime and 'offence' as in an particular illegal incident.
-
So nevermind.
Yes nevermind. ;)
-
I really must resist the temptation to say 'they are conservative values'. Isn't that what laissez faire is all about? But no, I really can't write that. So nevermind.
Do try, but I'll stick to my position that the problem with The Herald isn't that it's got a political bias in either direction (though I'm sure there are plenty of folks on both nut-wings who will strenuously beg to differ), but that it's miserably under-resourced and not particularly interested in journalism as opposed to keeping their readers in a pleasurable state of blind terror. And while I'm no fan of Messers Garner and Espiner Minor, you've got to acknowledge they're thoroughly non-partisan if you want your intelligence insulted.
-
A question about the smacking law for y`all.
Are there pockets of society that would say a punch in the face is reasonable force and that is why the law was changed?
-
Incidentally, I think there may have been issues above between 'offence' as in legal-definition-of-a-crime and 'offence' as in an particular illegal incident.
I reckon something like that was going on. But that was fun. Thanks.
-
A question about the smacking law for y`all.
Let's call it something other than the "smacking law". I prefer to call it section 59 of the Crimes Act. That removes all of the problems with labelling the law as something it isn't.
Are there pockets of society that would say a punch in the face is reasonable force and that is why the law was changed?
Yes. Read the Herald's Your Views if you wish to be enlightened/appalled.
-
Let's call it something other than the "smacking law". I prefer to call it section 59 of the Crimes Act. That removes all of the problems with labelling the law as something it isn't.
Not section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act?
Section 59 of the Crimes Act used to mean that smacking ones children was legal (... if the force was reasonable in the circumstances, etc.).
The section that now means that it is illegal is section 194.
-
Smacking someone is applying force to them. In certain circumstances - those formerly laid out in section 59 of the Crimes Act - that force fulfilled the requirements of the defence of "parental discipline", and was thus not illegal, did not amount to an offence, and was not criminal.
Thanks for this, interesting way to walk through it.
One point (that I couldn't see covered but apologies if it was) is the "steer" away from prosecution in the act. Does this count as a "defence"? Or if the action is considered not to fall within the stated defences of s59 BUT is considered inconsequential by Police (or whatever the wording is) have you committed an illegal act and just not been prosecuted for it? -
Not section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act?
I suppose the point I was trying (badly) to make is that the debate has been over the removal of the reasonable force defence under the old section 59, and its replacement with a very limited defence in section 59. So section 59, as substituted by section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act, is the section that everyone is discussing.
But point taken.
-
Paistley, I think I had this same argument with Graeme last year, and I might have to admit that he's correct, though not very loudly and not when lots of other people are around.
Possibly something to do with him having a superior legal mind to me, not surprising given that he's a lawyer and I am not.
I ended up at the point of "if something is illegal then a justice system that knows all and makes the 'perfect' legal decision will convict you of it." Clearly that wasn't the case with some smacking before the changes to the law, so that smacking can't have been illegal.
-
Sid Gruntled
It's well-known to be an avian species, the egg-yolk of which is a key ingredient in Formula 86 Delayed Action Mouse-Maker.
I believe Gruntle eggs are also used in the new-fangled mess-free Rolled Dhal... which is very nice with Frying Naan...
yrs
"Red" Lentil-AsanythingGet out in that kitchen...
Are there pockets of society that would say a punch in the face is reasonable force and that is why the law was changed?
I believe the halls of Parliament sometimes ran red when putsch turned to shove
yrs
Trey Mal-Aardman -
Please excuse another Herald-related diversion: Brrr!
What's Autumn? Heck it's cold. Nothing like diving into the deep-end. Winter's really set in. Our coldest months are normally June+July so we did get an early start this year.
BTW: Makes you think about this Global Warming thing too . Or doesn't it?With sea ice in the Antartic having been increasing at the rate of 100,000sq km per decade since 1970, it's not surprising we are starting to see earlier and colder winters...but you won't have read about it or seen it on TV News or other main stream media in NZ. Why?
Leighton Smith would be the one exception.
Global warming at its finest. If it gets any warmer, we will all freeze to death. If you can't confuse them with science, baffle them with bull ship. People will believe anything they want to believe, whether it is right or wrong. The end of the world is neigh.
-
One point (that I couldn't see covered but apologies if it was) is the "steer" away from prosecution in the act. Does this count as a "defence"? Or if the action is considered not to fall within the stated defences of s59 BUT is considered inconsequential by Police (or whatever the wording is) have you committed an illegal act and just not been prosecuted for it?
The steer away from prosecution - which may indeed be overstating the legal effect of the provision - is not a defence. You've got it exactly right - smacking is illegal, but if police decide not to prosecute someone for it there is an illegal act ... just one that wasn't prosecuted.
-
Thanks Graeme. Which interestingly makes the referendum question less insane than I originally held - they are arguing to get rid of that effect (illegal but not prosecuted) for this ill-defined "good" correction.
Still a stupid question but at least I can see that angle now... -
The end of the world is neigh.
Are the horsemen of the apocalypse on their way?
-
Russell, I have been following this closely as I can from a distance. It appears the media have not covered this case very well. It is unclear if the witness took the stand and was cross-examined. One thing that I have noticed is that on none of the blogs has anyone even pro smackers as you call them would justify punching a child in the face.
I would be most surprised if even one juror though a punch in the face was not a clear case of assault. If the evidence was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Jimmy punched his son in the face it should not have taken them one hour let alone nine hours to reach a verdict. A guilty verdict not prove he hit his son in the face let alone punched him with a closed fist. Flicking one’s ear is assault as is pulling one’s hair or pulling their ear.
When the liberal Left do not like someone they find it very easy to embellish the story or even out and out lie. Just look how the Herald lied about Christine Rankin dancing with the man who is now her husband at a function she attended me left early and did not dance.
Do not get me wrong. If the story about Mason is true in other regards like his language his behaviour left a lot to be desired. If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
-
If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
There were three charges laid, two of which they found him not-guilty of. It seems more likely that there was discussion, investigation and contention around these than it being a vast left wing media conspiracy that somehow infiltrated a jury room and judge and convinced them to find him guilty.
-
If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
Chuck, neither you nor I have heard directly the witness evidence, so we can't assess its strengths or weaknesses. Who know why the jury took 9 hours? Maybe it wasn't clearcut initially to them whether Mason punched the boy. Maybe some on the jury believed his version of events. Or maybe one of the jurors initially thought it was okay for someone to punch his son in the face and had to be talked around by the other 11.
The point I'm trying to make is that we just don't know what the jury were thinking, so why would anyone try to draw conclusions from the length of their deliberations?
Unless of course the person trying to draw those conclusions had such a visceral hatred of the current child discipline laws that they became blinded to that obvious fact.
When the liberal Left do not like someone they find it very easy to embellish the story or even out and out lie.
Comrades, we have a reactionary in our midst! Call the Politburo and tell them class enemies have infiltrated our organisation!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.