Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 Newer→ Last
-
emotive, Russell emotive.
And that's your response? I'm disgusted.
-
Can I suggest now that dave really is simply a troll and we might treat him as such?
Next you will be suggesting that Graeme Edgeler be treated as a troll because he does not follow the party line and label all those who oppose this legislation as pro-smackers. This label is dishonest unless you accept that all those who lobby for a woman’s right to choose as pro-abortion.
I note no one has a problem with parents who involve their children in a protest that includes breaking the law and puts their children at some physical risk.
-
Paul,
Your answer doesn't really address the second part of Graeme's comment that you quoted, though.
Except that there's discretion to pursue prosecution in s. 59 and other cases. It's not a unique discretion nor are the Police exercising a judicial function; they're not determining guilt or innocence, they're making a decision about whether the act meets the threshold.
I note Bradford's third reading speech specifically noted this:
The second significant amendment to the bill has been the one put forward just 2 weeks ago by Peter Dunne, which was agreed to by both Labour and National through John Key’s leadership. It encapsulates within the bill the long-established police discretion regarding the action they take when deciding whether to prosecute in very minor cases where there is no public interest in proceeding. This new provision simply affirms in law what is standard police practice under their existing prosecution guidelines, but I think it is useful in helping to calm some of the unnecessary fears that have been driven up by the bill’s opponents.
A similar point was made in the Select Committee report also.
We were advised that all prosecution decisions are guided by the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines. The guidelines state
that police must decide whether a prosecution is required in the
public interest.Perhaps I've misunderstood Graeme's point?
As for Dave, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a troll, but he doesn't argue in entirely good faith.
Perhaps, but dave's had a go at me and others at various points throughout this discussion, appears determined to ignore other points of view and is repetitively restating the same single point ... in bad faith as you say... what's the test for a troll exactly?
-
Next you will be suggesting that Graeme Edgeler be treated as a troll because he does not follow the party line and label all those who oppose this legislation as pro-smackers. This label is dishonest unless you accept that all those who lobby for a woman’s right to choose as pro-abortion.
Not at all Chuck, Graeme's contributions to this discussion have been challenging, thoughtful and respected others. I don't exactly know Graeme's views and don't feel the need for him to agree mine. What distinguishes disagreement from trolling is sophistication.
Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.
That's not what Parliament did dave. Read the debate, it's clear that they expected the law to be enforced. You're simply wrong.
-
emotive, Russell emotive.Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.
Ha! "Answer that" demands the avoider of tricky questions.
Let's look again at Dave unemotively, coolly, conveying a story about assault.
-
I note no one has a problem with parents who involve their children in a protest that includes breaking the law and puts their children at some physical risk.
There's actually some debate on the bridge crossing thread about safety issues, for all involved, but you don't seem like the type to refrain from pointless strawman-building. Good luck with that.
-
Let's look again at Dave unemotively, coolly, conveying a story about assault.
Ah yes: "This boy is a brat." Aren't they all?
Thanks to a witness, we now know what actually happened was that the "brat" was tied up, kicked and beaten in a vicious assault that only halted because a member of the public intervened. Both the woman and her husband were sent to jail for the assault.
Sadly, before the conviction she also assaulted her daughter, who also had to be removed from her care by CYFS. I know for a fact there's a long history of this, because another sibling contacted me personally after I wrote about it.
So what kind of twisted logic makes CYFS the villain and the abuser the victim?
-
That's not what Parliament did dave. Read the debate, it's clear that they expected the law to be enforced. You're simply wrong.
..yeah right. why have an out clause ( police discretion) if parliament wanted every reported discretion enforced? Some people.....
-
Ah yes: "This boy is a brat." Aren't they all?
What can you do
With a brat like that? -
Except that there's discretion to pursue prosecution in s. 59 and other cases.
Which doesn't change the fact that light smacking on the hand, for example, is a criminal assault.
Perhaps I've misunderstood Graeme's point?
I think what Graeme's saying is that no one in parliament seriously considers that a parent who gives their child a light smack for corrective purposes is engaging in a criminal activity. Before, they weren't. Now, they are.
...dave's had a go at me and others at various points throughout this discussion, appears determined to ignore other points of view and is repetitively restating the same single point ... in bad faith as you say... what's the test for a troll exactly?
Well, hectoring and arguing poorly ain't it. There's no hard and fast definition, but I think he is arguing an honest viewpoint overall.
-
Ah yes: "This boy is a brat."
And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.
-
From YouTube
Heh. Very tempted to link a certain son by Ian Dury and the Blockheads... thwack..
-
OK I dont mind disagreeing with people but I don't tolerate that. If thats the stuff Russell tolerates in his blog, and he doesnt delete it, then I don't engage with such idiots.
-
Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.
Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?
-
And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.
No Dave, you sided with an abuser against her child. That's what it's about.
To be honest, I can't see any point in continuing to argue these points with you.
-
OK I dont mind disagreeing with people but I don't tolerate that. If thats the stuff Russell tolerates in his blog, and he doesnt delete it, then I don't engage with such idiots.
It was unnecessary, and I deleted it. That does not reduce my disgust with what you've said.
-
Heh. Very tempted to link a certain son by Ian Dury and the Blockheads... thwack..
Hilarious.
-
Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
The best counter may be the one made earlier (by Kyle, I think). Sports people - especially rugby players - get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv cameras. Technically, they're committing an offense. No one seriously thinks most of these incidents should be drawn to the attention of police, let alone go to court. Yet no one thinks parliament should arrange a special defence.
-
It was unnecessary, and I deleted it. That does not reduce my disgust with what you've said.
As you should do with all of Dave and Chucks posts. They lower the tone. If I wanted to read Kiwiblogesque uninformed reactionary rubbish I would go to kiwiblurgh.
-
And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.
Heh, opinion. Yet earlier you tried to portray your comments as being like that of a mainstream journalist conveying the story, "reporting an account, not writing for a tabloid".
-
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
How so? Section 59(4) was only stuck in at the last minute as a compromise. Or perceived compromise. Because I can't see it actually changes a thing. Though as political moves go, it was smart.
We could debate whether Parliament should ever amend legislation to insert redundant provisions (God, wouldn't that be a tedious debate?), but it happens. Parliament passes bad or unnecessary laws all the time, often in haste. Dave may have raised the issue to "prove" that section 59's bad law, but it's a distraction.
-
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
The best counter may be the one made earlier (by Kyle, I think). Sports people - especially rugby players - get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv cameras. Technically, they're committing an offense. No one seriously thinks most of these incidents should be drawn to the attention of police, let alone go to court. Yet no one thinks parliament should arrange a special defence.
Well, again I might be missing Graeme's point, but there is nothing new in the discretion and its exercise depends on published guidelines, the chances of conviction and public interest. This example, the sports fracas, is probably covered by the limited public interest (possibly a matter for debate however) and the limits of evidence.
dave's said Parliament passed a law it didn't intend to enforce. That is wrong, simply wrong. If that's his best point, his argument's fatally flawed.
There's few strict liability offences, offences for which no defense is permitted, a few reverse onus laws i.e. possession to supply drugs and many many matters for which the discretion to prosecute or not is a matter for the Police. The amendment to s.59 makes it clear that police have a discretion, that's unremarkable.
Moreover, it is clear what Parliament intended, it's stated in the third reading debate. dave might do well to read it.
-
How so? Section 59(4) was only stuck in at the last minute as a compromise. Or perceived compromise. Because I can't see it actually changes a thing. Though as political moves go, it was smart.
Exactly. Now unless Graeme's making a different point, which I don't quite get, I think dave's argument is simply wrong.
-
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
I think so, and I think Graeme's making it in good faith. It certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. But, as I explained, it was trumped for me by other factors.
-
I think so, and I think Graeme's making it in good faith. It certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. But, as I explained, it was trumped for me by other factors.
Hmmm, I fear I am missing something. I've re-read the thread but can't easily identify a point that hasn't been addressed, most recently by ScottY.
Is it possible Graeme might re-state his point, I'd appreciate it?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.