Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
The other two assault counts related to Mason picking up both boys (including the two year-old, who he had previously told reporters was "drifting in and out of consciousness" after crashing his bike) while on their bikes and slamming them down. I imagine there would have been a lively debate as to whether that was assault.
Possibly not assault, but if he's correct that the younger one was drifting in and out of consciousness... Possible concussion + violent movement + sudden stop = stupid fuck.
For those wondering what kind of fowl Chuck is
Oooh. And here's me thinking he was just some dick. He's _that_ dick.
-
Russell, I will deal with the issues of the court case before commenting on your out of context character assignation.
There are three possibilities regarding Belinda Payne’s evidence. She could be telling the complete truth, she could be embellishing her story or she could be mistaken.
I think it reasonable to assume if an adult male punched a young boy on the face with even a moderate amount of force there would be some mark or bruising. Most reasonable people would be sceptical of the claim but may not dismiss it.
I do not know what angle or distance Belinda Payne witnessed the incident. Do you? It may be possible that Mason clenched his hand in a fist and held his first two fingers back with his thumb and moved his hand towards his son’s ear before releasing his fingers.
Unlike you and most on your blog I do not have a closed mind on the issue. I will be watching with interest what Mason has to say on the Sunday Show this Sunday.
Where we do agree is if the incident was reported correctly is that Mason needs to learn some better parenting skills. There is no excuse for a parent to be using foul language as reported on your blog. If a parent has lost control they should not be using physical discipline for the purpose of correction. If Boscawen’s bill is drawn and goes to a Select Committee I may make a submission to restrict any smacks to the lower body. A flick on the ear will do no harm – a hard clip on the ear could.
-
Unlike you and most on your blog I do not have a closed mind on the issue. I will be watching with interest what Mason has to say on the Sunday Show this Sunday.
So why do you keep mentioning the length of time the jury took to reach its verdict? You're clearly convinced Mason's done nothing wrong and that the "evil" section 59 amendment has done for him.
If Boscawen’s bill is drawn and goes to a Select Committee I may make a submission to restrict any smacks to the lower body. A flick on the ear will do no harm – a hard clip on the ear could.
So a punch in the guts would be okay? A kick in the nuts? Why are you so obsessed with the right to beat children?
-
"HOMOSEXUALITY - Buy One, Get One Free! Today Only!"
One? Why do you think we call 'em faggots? Cause they come in big bundles!
out of context character assignation
Russell, is there something we should know? Have you been seeing Pollyanna on the side?
-
Why are you determined to think that he was convicted for ear-flicking, and completely unable to see that hitting anyone in the face (With or without enough force to bruise, it matters not) is assault?
Simon, thank for your civil post. I think I have explained much in my post to Russell. I will reconsider this issue after I see Sunday.
My main concern is the legislation that undermines parents not Mason. Howeverthe Courts sometimes get things wrong. The case of David Daugherty would be a good example. When DNA showed he did not rape his 11 year old neighbour they came up with the theory he may been with another offender. The police will sometimes twist things to get a conviction.
-
Chuck: You mainly seem to have an issue with the witnesses. They have sworn, under oath, that they saw Mason strike his son in the face.
We have testimony from a police officer that Mason told her he hit his son in the face.
I'm struggling to find where you see the problem, unless you believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to procure conviction against a 'good' dad, even if it means witnesses lying in court?
p.s: I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that could hit you hard enough in the face to warrant an assault charge without leaving a bruise.
-
There are three possibilities ... could be... could be... could be .... I think it reasonable to assume .... Most reasonable people .... I do not know .... may be possible that ...<quote>
That's a lot of equivocation. When you have three witnesses who have gone under oath, on pain of perjury, to say they saw and heard something, there is indeed still a chance that it's wrong. But, y'know, the parsimonious assumption here is that they're probably telling the truth.
And why would we trust the father's testimony here? At the time, we have a reliable witness (policewoman) saying he admitted punching the child; after-the-fact mental revisions of his actions are not entirely unexpected. I'd expect most people to deny it if they really lost control and belted their kid across the chops. Particularly if they weren't just talking about this in front of their mates, but the whole bloody nation.
<quote> There is no excuse for a parent to be using foul language as reported on your blog.
FFS, they're either going to learn it from me or in the playground at school. I swear as part of a loving framework of correction. It's the act of a responsible parent, after all.
-
Damn, forgot to close off the first quote there. Apols.
-
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that could hit you hard enough in the face to warrant an assault charge without leaving a bruise.
To take this away from the implicit threat above: I can testify that I've recently been kicked repeatedly in the face, in a manner which both hurt immensely and didn't leave any bruising. The assailant was my 2-year old daughter, who wasn't keen on getting out of the bath and got a couple of lucky kicks in. Extremely painful but no marks.
-
My main concern is the legislation that undermines parents not Mason.
Yes, parents who beat their children. If it undermines them then good.
The police will sometimes twist things to get a conviction
And yet you have no evidence the police have done anything wrong. Which leads us to question what your real beef with the guilty verdict is.
-
Thank you Jack - I was not attempting to threaten Mr Bird at all, merely trying to point out that assaults can happen, and not leave visible marks.
I do apologise if I came across aggressively. I was trying to point out that if, for example, I were assaulted but did not bruise, I would still hope for a conviction.
A poor choice of words.
-
My main concern is the legislation that undermines parents not Mason.
My main concern is the little citizens but I'm a communist slacker hippie.I know no better. Mason got caught in the crossfire observation of a cop and a passerby. Highly unusual but particularly damning in court.
My only problem is why name him. That family and the legal ramifications surely are best dealt within that family and its advisors. I mean many men will just fight the shame of being labelled publicly when really this should be a time of reflection and control.
-
Russell, you misrepresent my motive over the Davis DVD. I heard Clark on the morning radio threaten to dish dirt on Brash if he did not stop calling Labour corrupt. The threat was repeated by other Labour MPs. I was incensed and emailed Mallard. Labour carried out their threat. Some people believe you should not respond to such things. I believe you fight fire with fire. We have now found out the dirt was obtained by stolen emails.
Please explain why the Left think it is okay to launch into personal attacks but they cry foul when it happens to them?
Why is it okay to talk about Christine Rankin’s private life but not the private lives of Labour political appointees?
-
Paul, my name (Scott Yorke) isn't private any longer, since its all over my blog site... My friends and I had too much to drink one day and decided to field a joke candidate. I drew the short straw. I ran against you. I was probably more pleased at your victory than you were, because the mere possibility of winning it terrified me.
That was my first and last foray into the murky world of politics.
I checked your link and remember it all well. Student politics was always a mix of earnestness and ridiculousness, I probably needed more of the latter...
@Chuck, whatever. I can't muster the energy to re-read and challenge your various statements. You want to defend a man who has been convicted of assaulting a four year old. I can't think of a single good reason to listen to you further.
-
So Chuck, you keep an open mind on things and don't jump to any conclusions and are saying that anything could have happened here, we just don't know. That even though there is consistent evidence in one direction, a jury decision, and a judge that agreed, we still don't really know. Right?
So you keep an equally open mind on every criminal case ever? No guilty judgement ever is reliable?Oh, and this completely open mind extended to that Davis DVD right?
-
My only problem is why name him. That family and the legal ramifications surely are best dealt within that family and its advisors. I mean many men will just fight the shame of being labelled publicly when really this should be a time of reflection and control.
Jeremy, a very sensible suggestion. They is no disagreement that Mason's parenting skilled left much to be desired.
-
My only problem is why name him. That family and the legal ramifications surely are best dealt within that family and its advisors. I mean many men will just fight the shame of being labelled publicly when really this should be a time of reflection and control.
Here's the thing ... This could have been a minor assault case. Mason would probably have got name suppression if he'd gone for it.
But he did the opposite: he went out and gave his version of events to any journalist who would listen, before he was even charged. And his version (I am a loving father and this insane law has got me a police warning for merely flicking my son's ear) was faithfully relayed by pretty much every media organisation. The usual suspects piled in behind him.
Then the police interviewed witnesses and, for reasons that are now obvious, decided to charge Mason with assault. Cue more outrage.
So Mason's only headline news because he chased the headlines himself.
I don't think this assault should see anything like a custodial sentence imposed, but, as in past cases, if it means he gets help with what is clearly a dangerous anger problem, then the system will have done its job.
-
Some people believe you should not respond to such things. I believe you fight fire with fire.
So in other words, you saw something done that you thought was wrong and despicable, and decided to respond by taking a great big dump on your own patch of moral high ground?
Why is it okay to talk about Christine Rankin’s private life but not the private lives of Labour political appointees?
There's been quite energetic debate here on this, if you actually read more than you needed to push your own political barrow. But you're quite happy to stick with a mythical single entity called
The Left
Ah, that's right. Because anybody who objects to your gay-bashing is just a tentacle of one big red octopus, and they would never speak out against muckraking in general, right?
Gb2TBR. Please.
-
Why is it okay to talk about Christine Rankin’s private life but not the private lives of Labour political appointees?
Davis is not a political appointee. I do not see how photographic "evidence" of alleged homosexuality has anything to do with politics. (sorry if I have the wrong idea here - not terribly aware of the situation and surrounding events).
But hey, I hug men. I have a partner (who is 31 weeks pregnant, btw. We're not married, so I'm probably going to hell for it). Does that make me gay? Gay-friendly? Maybe I've just some close friends that I don't see often? I sure hug my brother whenever we're in the same city.
I would hope that if my partner ever entered politics that people wouldn't attempt to publish photos of me hugging a friend to discredit her.
And, re: Rankin - I believe a lot of people here have said that Rankins private life has very little to do with her suitability for the job - and were subsequently disgusted at the media coverage. These are people from both sides of the spectrum. The one point of difference, I might add, is that Rankin is a public figure, Davis was not. (Not excusing what was said, but I fail to see how you might be outraged about the Rankin non-story when you personally attempted to stir something similar with Davis).
-
And yet you have no evidence the police have done anything wrong. Which leads us to question what your real beef with the guilty verdict is.
Scotty, when someone is stupid enough to argue with and challenge the police as Mason was the police often will embellish their evidence or story.
-
Gb2TBR. Please.
Good-bye to the Business Roundtable?
Amen to that brother.
-
A brief history of Gb2 (NSFW). TBR.cc is Ian Wishart's The Briefing Room, a blog and emergent Christian conservative hivemind.
-
But hey, I hug men.
Wait, hugging someone means you're having sex with them? No wonder I was so bloody tired after Foo Camp.
-
Scotty, when someone is stupid enough to argue with and challenge the police as Mason was the police often will embellish their evidence or story.
And you've got evidence of this right? Evidence to support Police corruption to prosecute an otherwise fine Dad. You're flailing. Go back to kiwiblog where innuendo and BS are standard fare.
-
If I may...
There are a handful of posters on PA who regularly show up to further their agendas without any intention of engaging in honest, open-minded debate on the subject at hand.
You know of whom I speak.
This tends to lead to a general upping of the hostility levels due to the amount of *headdesk* they generate. Meanwhile the course of the debate often gets lost in the fracas that inevitably results.
I propose simply ignoring any posts these egotistical dickwads cough up and get on with the business at hand. We can't, and shouldn't really, ban them, but if we fail to engage or acknowledge them they're likely to wander off to some rancid corner of the net where they're amongst their own kind.
</wishful thinking>
Post your response…
This topic is closed.