Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
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
He was a fucking idiot ,maybe he panicked, but still we are looking for a good family resolution here.
We want that family to be strong and how will naming them help them achieve that, in fact it's their name too. The journalist wouldn't do that to their own kids name, surely ?
-
Hehe....
Fancy me saying that in the "Stop the Enabling" thread.
-
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... 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.
I'd generally agree but for two factors:
- in this case the debate hasn't strayed unworkably far from its origins, and
- others can find the argument instructive, even if some of the antagonists choose not to keep good faith.I got a bit carried away above, and apologise, but others are making good points which are worthwhile to read, whatever Chuck's reaction or nonreaction to them.
-
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.
So no evidence then. Thought not.
-
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... 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.
I'd generally agree but for two factors:
- in this case the debate hasn't strayed unworkably far from its origins, and
- others can find the argument instructive, even if some of the antagonists choose not to keep good faith.Right, where's my notebook? First we'll come for Sam F ;)
Good points Sam and I agree in principle. Dammit.
-
Jeremy, a very sensible suggestion. They is no disagreement that Mason's parenting skilled left much to be desired.
Yeh, we agree on that Chuck.
A kid falls off a bike, gets hurt and his supervisory adult gets angry about the accident and then tries to bloody hurt him further.It is way offline on what any generation constitutes good parenting .It pisses me off and I respect the people who reported him.
Having said that I don't want him exposing his kids to unnatural attention because that just seems a flawed resolution.We could know about the case and still make a good working of it. And it may speed up the ability to reform men who haven't got their head around why violence is so important to control.Our laws are fundamentally reform based aren't they? He shouldn't have a tabloid option.
-
He shouldn't have a tabloid option.
But it's hard to know how to do it if the guy has loudly cultivated press attention before even being charged, and even had himself photographed with his children, and then doesn't apply for name suppression.
-
And Jimmy Mason needs to be given the space and time to appreciate all the fucking stunning research that has been done over the years in the quite literally amazing science of the first period of childhood. He needs to see the new theory of the kid, a theory that seems to be based on large doses of that oldfashioned motherfucker , "commonsense"".
These kids are gonna take over ther world.
-
But it's hard to know how to do it if the guy has loudly cultivated press attention before even being charged, and even had himself photographed with his children, and then doesn't apply for name suppression.
Sure, I see your point. Probably involves some sort of lawwriting , my weak subject.
...but i don't have the law written I just saw a hole in the performance of the present law. Why create unnessary tension just for a tabloid option that invaribly delivers levels of emotion to the case that become bigger than the crime itself. The press aren't beyond a bit of regulation.In fact worldwide tabloid journalism is pretty sick. Public stalkings of 3 year old children, that's their new and latest low.
And while on the golden news subject the David Bain case has a jury. When they make a decision release the debate on us but stop the dripfeed that knocks real news off our screens.
-
The press aren't beyond a bit of regulation.In fact worldwide tabloid journalism is pretty sick. Public stalkings of 3 year old children, that's their new and latest low.
What will they do next - kicking down toilet doors?
-
What will they do next - kicking down toilet doors?
You deserve to know DeepRed.
Someone somewhere has just written that down on a piece of paper and put in the "new ideas" box. Let's get these lights shining.
-
A kid falls off a bike, gets hurt and his supervisory adult gets angry about the accident and then tries to bloody hurt him further.It is way offline on what any generation constitutes good parenting .It pisses me off and I respect the people who reported him.
I've been fuming about this all day. I'm not sure exactly why. It could be that I've been close to overwhelmed by a couple of stories of horrific child abuse in NSW of late or because my wife's due to give birth to our second child very soon. It could be both and the fact that PAS is a remarkable place for reasoned and thoughtful discussion; often passionate, but almost always reasoned.
By contrast, Chuck Bird's an unremarkable troll. Easily ignored but for the fact that he's trying to minimise an act of genuine violence against a four year old - the same age as my middle kid (don't try the math, mine's a slightly complicated family). No. Fucking. Way.
I'll accept that some believe phyical discipline can be part of good parenting, I don't. I'll also admit that I've, regretably, administered literally a couple of smacks... but none of this can in any way justify what Mason did.
A punch, pushing around a two-year old who's had a bicycle accident, these are indefensable acts of violence and Chuck's defences are ridiculous. Questioning what the jury heard, what witnesses said, the apolication of the prior or amended laws... these tactics divert attention from what is a simple matter. It is not acceptable for a parent to discipline their children in this manner. Not ever. Kudos to all those who intevened and the Police for prosecuting.
-
I've been fuming about this all day. I'm not sure exactly why.
Which was my response last night, but possibly because I get so sick of hearing about child abuse weekly. Several stories in the papers this week.Horrific stories. and for some fuknuckle to wander in here to contemplate whether or not, it's ok to have a go at a defenseless child is abhorrent. Especially someone trying to advocate corporal punishment.
-
Paul Williams: Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault
Oh yeah? How can that be when he admitted the pulling of the ear and pleaded not guilty to the count, which was pulling the ear and punching in the face? And was it you that said you used to be a law student?
-
I think he was referring to Mason admitting the punch to the officer at the time, not his eventual plea.
-
dave, the media and Russell noted the admission was made to witnesses and also that the Judge accepted the evidence of the witnesses:
This is so unbelievably disingenuous, I can barely convey my contempt for it.
But I'll try: The judge made a point of observing that the jury had accepted the evidence of witnesses. The witnesses said Mason punched his four year-old in the face with a closed fist, and was unrepentant it about after the fact.
Moreover, Mason's not guilty plea did not stop the jury from determining his guilt. That you see his post hoc denial as more plausable than the Judge's, the jury's and the court's ruling is simply not credible and, frankly, these aren't difficult points to follow.
I was a law graduate 15 years ago dave and I never profess great legal knowledge (I think it was scottY who mentioned I was at law school first, I don't know that I have made mention of it) but it's not needed in this instance. I doubt anyone's distracted by your obfuscation over this matter (I'm not even curious about why).
-
Oh yeah? How can that be when he admitted the pulling of the ear and pleaded not guilty to the count, which was pulling the ear and punching in the face? And was it you that said you used to be a law student?
Because it's possible to say "yes, I did that thing, but no, it wasn't the crime of assault."
The issue of the punch was used in the evidence that convicted Mason was a contested fact, yes, but do you dave have any knowledge of why Mason and his lawyer pled not-guilty
I don't either, but I can think we can eliminate such things as a "it wasn't me wot dun it" not-guilty plea. I would be curious to know if the reason for pleading not guilty was a "no, I didn't do what they say I do" plea, or a "what I did wasn't assault" plea.
Of course, it also could've just been a "this is a good way to get some media attention" plea as well.
-
I would be curious to know if the reason for pleading not guilty was a "no, I didn't do what they say I do" plea, or a "what I did wasn't assault" plea.
Of course, it also could've just been a "this is a good way to get some media attention" plea as well.
I suspect it was a: "Oh fuck, if I keep saying it's nobody's business but mine if I face-punch my kids, I'm gonna get convicted fer sure" plea.
-
Dave, I am really disappointed you've bought in this equivocation bullshit.
-
do you dave have any knowledge of why Mason and his lawyer pled not-guilty
No, like everyone here I don't. But parents in control don't give their kids a " bloody good flick". To me that sounds like more like assault than prevention or discipline. He admitted the ear pull ( called it a "flick" ) and the punch to witnesses but not the punch in court. I actually thought Paul said that he believed Mason admitted the punch in court. So no equivocation bullshit Russell. (Good, thats cleared up, then). I'm actually wondering if he was found guilty on both aspects of the count - the ear pull and the punch - but given that both are wrapped in the one count, we have no way of telling without getting inside info. .
And I agree with Russell that had Mason not blabbed to the media before he was charged he may well have got name suppression . Instead, he blamed police for " administering the amended child-discipline law' ( and the police did comment on the police discretion at the time) and all the anti smackers and pro smakers pricked up their ears, and as Mason no doubt believed he wouldn't be charged, he blabbed to the media. Then he got charged after witnesses were interviewed because it was no longer deemed inconsequential. That's when all this section 59 nonsense discussion should have stopped - because clearly it had nothing to do with the case - but it in fact elevated.
-
And I agree with Russell that had Mason not blabbed to the media before he was charged he may well have got name suppression . Instead, he blamed police for " administering the amended child-discipline law' ( and the police did comment on the police discretion at the time) and all the anti smackers and pro smakers pricked up their ears, and as Mason no doubt believed he wouldn't be charged, he blabbed to the media. Then he got charged after witnesses were interviewed because it was no longer deemed inconsequential. That'swhen all this section 59 nonsense discussion should have stopped - because clearly it had nothing to do with the case - but it in fact elevated.
Reading that I agree that he made it pretty difficult. So yeh I'm just saying name suppresion would have stopped this circus.
-
No, this would have stopped the circus:
A woman cop was walking past at the time, and spoke to Mason. According to the media report of the court case published on Stuff on Tuesday, Mason told her at the scene that he punched his kid. If it was good enough for her to relay that conversation in court (as I believe she did), surely it was good enough for her to tell cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. Then charges could have been pressed at that point before Mason blabbed to the media.
-
Yeh, I blame the police for making him punch his 4 year old in the face.
-
A woman cop was walking past at the time, and spoke to Mason. According to the media report of the court case published on Stuff on Tuesday, Mason told her at the scene that he punched his kid. If it was good enough for her to relay that conversation in court (as I believe she did), surely it was good enough for her to tell cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. Then charges could have been pressed at that point before Mason blabbed to the media.
I agree.
-
...surely it was good enough for her to tell [the] cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her.
Oh come on Dave... now your speculating.
Maybe she did. Maybe this is just the kind of circumstance - law change or not - whereby the police don't quickly lay charges. Maybe there were other reasons she didn't state what was told at the exact time... who knows? Whatever.
It is fair to say this isn't a case that actually relates, one way or other, to s59. People from either side may agree on that.
In as much as it has been related unnecessarily to s59, Mason did himself no favours.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.