Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
All as we have to do is put the perfect parent Russell in charge of the world and we will have utopia. Like Mason I do not claim to be a perfect parent. I wonder if Russell has adult children if they will look up to him as Mason's did.
What a sad little man you are.
-
<i>A guilty verdict does not prove he punched his boy.</i>
In this case, as reported by the media, it doesn't prove he didn't either. From the media accounts we just don't know because it two actions were wrapped in the same count. We can only speculate that he did- which is what Russell has done. He could be right, he could be wrong.
-
Scott Y. Like Russell you appear to be uninformed regarding the history of this case. The post I wrote was based on what was reported at the time, which was that Mason had simply flicked his boy on the ear. The allegations of "punching in the face" and swearing have only just surfaced.
Tony, "these media types" have got it right.
see: http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844 -
Oh FFS, this is ridiculous. Dave, what's the point of your obsession with which element of the assault tipped the jury? The guilty verdict proves Mason's various denials and PR bullshit didn't stand up to the scrutiny of a criminal court case.
What's astounding is that the fulminations of the media matter somehow in this discourse. Unless Mason appeals and has the conviction overturned, I think it's safe to assume that the witnesses evidence regarding the four-year old being punched by his father was germane to the conviction.
-
You can assume. Just dont state it as fact if you dont know it is fact. And you dont. And Mason is appealing. Now, don't quote me on that, I don't know if it is a fact, I just heard his wife say it on the TV.
-
Just watched Sunday. Pretty one sided going for the sympathy vote for Mason.
What did he say about the face punch?
Was he asked about the statement to the police officer where he admitted hitting one of his children? Is he claiming it's a false statement by the officer?
-
3410,
Oh FFS, this is ridiculous.
I'll say. There is no legitimate reason to question this conviction. The only reason we're still talking about this is that the pro-smackers just can't bring themselves to admit that they were too stupid to get the full facts before supporting the guy in the first place.
-
Was he asked about the statement to the police officer where he admitted hitting one of his children?
Smacking one of his toddlers in the face, you mean? Curious that the supposed perpetrator would confuse a rimshot on a cymbal with a kickdrum to the chops. I suppose it's understandable to minimise one's own wrongdoing, and interviewers should know to take that into account.
But who expects so-called journos to do actual research rather than regurgitating press releases from Family "Integrity", McCockrie and co? They ought to feel ashamed. Maybe a few official complaints to TVNZ about misleading and biased coverage would help?
Or we could send Jimmy round to play the triangle. That'd learn em.
-
Quite, 3410.
I think many of those campaigning against the law change, such as Family First, were happy to see this case being portrayed as a 'test case' on s59. They were hoping this would show the law was an ass, because the police had felt the need to charge someone for 'flicking his boy's ear'.
Then it turned out the charges were reasonable; witnesses saw him punch his kid in the face, and another witness said he admitted this action.
However, we're stuck with the case being seen as a test for s59. Only now they don't want it to be seen that way, and in fact are a little embarrassed that they encouraged it as a cause celebre, and so now they're getting somewhat petulant.
-
Russell, I hope I haven't put you to too much trouble asking for a reference of your claim that I profess to be a Christian soldier.
-
Don't hurry people, Andy. I'm still waiting for Dave to explain why he used quotation marks around the word "witness":
seven if you count the police "witness".
...and I asked that a lot earlier than you.
-
The guilty verdict proves Mason's various denials and PR bullshit didn't stand up to the scrutiny of a criminal court case.
No, the guilty verdict doesnt prove that at all in this case. I wish you wouldnt act so ignorant. PR is not evidence.Denials and admissions in courtr are pleas. And dDenials and admissions do not come into it when you have broken the law and have no real defence. Whatever the plea he was guilty. Go back to sleep.
-
Dave's views about the Mason case are elaborated here.
-
Chuck B:
Many in the ACT Party including some homosexuals know my views but are able to carry on a discussion without personal abuse.
Try telling that to the Log Cabin Republicans who tried the same thing.
3410:
I'll say. There is no legitimate reason to question this conviction. The only reason we're still talking about this is that the pro-smackers just can't bring themselves to admit that they were too stupid to get the full facts before supporting the guy in the first place.
How much longer can they defend the indefensible?
-
Russell, I hope I haven't put you to too much trouble asking for a reference of your claim that I profess to be a Christian soldier.
To be honest Andy, it seemed too facile a question to warrant an answer.
Had I intended to present the phrase as a direct quote from you I would have placed it in, you know, quotation marks.
I didn't do that. So you can take it as my characterisation of you and your motivations, based on a reading of your blog.
I hope I made that simple enough.
-
Scott Y. Like Russell you appear to be uninformed regarding the history of this case. The post I wrote was based on what was reported at the time, which was that Mason had simply flicked his boy on the ear. The allegations of "punching in the face" and swearing have only just surfaced.
That doesn't excuse what you wrote. You leapt to the defence of a man accused of hitting his child, without knowing the facts (and you call me uninformed?). And you didn't just report the "facts" as they were known. I refer to the second paragraph of your blog post (the bit about "tyranous usurpers", which is itself a form of assault - on the English language). And now you look like a fool.
And your pal Chuck continues to question the severity of the assault, by suggesting that maybe Mason was found guilty of the "flick" and not the punch, or that maybe there was no punch, or that maybe the punch was a "light" one.
So it's hard to take you or Chuck seriously when you claim to be against child abuse. Especially as you've devoted an entire blogsite to advocating the right to assault children.
-
The following are link to the Sunday documentary in two parts.
http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-may-24-2009-2745693/video?vid=2755377
http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-may-24-2009-2745693/video?vid=2755378
About four minutes along in the second part the reporter states the judge told the jury “that they could decide there was no punch to Seth but still find Mason guilty for pulling Seth’s ear.”
This proves conclusively that Russell’s claim that the guilty verdict proves the jury believed or accepted that Mason punched Seth in the head is baseless.
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father. He is certainly not a perfect father. I was certainly not impressed with language he used towards his children. It is not the language I have ever used to my children or would ever consider using towards my grandchildren if they in my care and misbehaving.
Having said that the use of bad language does not make him a bad father when one takes into account his interaction with his children and what his adult children and wife had to say.
-
Good grief. So he took a two year-old he has previously said was "drifting in and out of consciousness" and slammed him down on his bike three times?
-
Chuck, you have previously posted that it's not known whether the jury believed Mason punched his son, or whether they found him guilty for the "flick".
By your own argument he might have punched his son in the face.
And now you say this:
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father.
So a father who may (according to you) have punched his son in the face is a good father?
Jesus wept.
-
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father. He is certainly not a perfect father. I was certainly not impressed with language he used towards his children. It is not the language I have ever used to my children or would ever consider using towards my grandchildren if they in my care and misbehaving.
Yes. It was the language that he used that was the problem. Everything else was good fathering.
-
dave, Chuck and Andy, I think we can now simply agree to disagree. You appear determined to argue taht a man who assaults his kids might be a decent father, I think that is obscene. The rest, the debates about which evidence was compelling and the particular charges he faced, are nothing other than distractions.
-
3410,
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father.
Maybe so. He struck me, so to speak, as a brute.
BTW, did he not, in that interview, admit to kicking his children?
-
BTW, did he not, in that interview, admit to kicking his children?
He also seems to have made a practice of hitting his children around the head, according to his older kids.
But remember: he's a good father.
-
If he were a mother, now that would be a whole different matter, y'understand.
-
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father
I think it's an indictment of NZ television that they think its ok to provide a platform for thugs and abusers like this.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.