Posts by KevinHicks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I feel much better now after discovering that, at least for once, we can laugh at another country's stupidity.
-
I certainly do not think child beaters should get off with a slap with a wet bus ticket. thats why I said it has changed my opinion of the law a bit. What will help now if the relativity of the sentences is carried out there is no way that anyone in the country will be able to clock up 40 convictions and still be walking around to kill babies or rape dutch tourists. So perhaps we are getting somewhere - time will tell.
The demographic I was referiring to had nothing to do with race or how they look - it has to do with the history of person you will see in the news reports when they are found guilty and the full facts come out - go google it and you will see. Since serious child beating behaviour is quite predictable we have the opportunity of preventing it by close supervision of those in the "demographic" who have responsibiilty for looking after children. Just logic really.
-
russell, Deborah, I am saying I don't know enough facts to put this sentence in perspective.
A first time offender drunk driver who runs from police but gives themselves up before they dause an accident would be extremely unlikely to get anything like 9 months supervision, to put this sentence in perspective.
If this guy is a first offender therefore I would argue that it is over the top relative to other sentences, but it is difficult to say not being totally familiar with the case.
If he was already known to the police/cyfs etc, it would seem a bit lenient and I hope 9 months "help" fixes his problem.
The sentence for this guy has a smell of politics about it but we may eventually find out more detail.
-
After reading this I have very slightly modified my view against the anti-smacking bill. However as usual our MSM does not give us enough information to know if he is in the right demographic to be a real risk to his child, which we as a society are rally trying to deal with.
History of:
Multiple violent offending - unknown but permanent name suppression would suggest not
[welfare dependence] - he came home from work
Dysfunctional family/home situation - doesn’t sound like it
Alcohol and/or drug dependence - unknown
Intergenerational criminal behaviour/family violence - unknown
Multiple cyfs intervention - unknownso historically this sentence would seem way over the top when people who have histories of multiple violent offending/multiple cyfs intervention and finally kill or maim their child get about 2-4 years.
I can only hope that this is an indication of the judiciary's hardening attitude to violent crime and the next time a child murderer comes before this judge they will get 25 years non-parole as they deserve.
-
Oh here we go - people who disagree with you are living in the twilight zone. Nice, but typical tactics I would expect from a labour stooge organization set up for the sole purpose of "to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics." [Remember citizens for Rowling?]
And I had such high hopes for an organization called "coalition for open government" - I thought "now we're getting somewhere" but sadly no.
The point is that these two bills (the appropriations bill and EFB) actually reinforce the corrupting influence of big money in politics - the corrupting influence of all our lovely money the incumbent politicians are sitting on - and, as we all know there's always more where that came from!
-
Sorry to hijack but remember the protest tomorrow midday Wellington.
Lindsay reminded me that white ribbon day is coming up on the 25th to protest violence against women (very worthy).
It gave me an idea - not only wear a gag on the protest tomorrow, wear a black ribbon for the death of democracy as well.
-
I wish you guys would stop criticising the Sensible Sentencing Trust and actually talk to them or work with them for a long term solution to crime. They are not rednecks or fundies or self promoting like some other groups you mention and we agree on.
Sensible Sentencing does a lot of work with victims of crime and in helping draft legislation with political parties across the board. TYhe idea that they are hand em high rednecks has been promoted by other self perpetuating self interest groups like the childrens commission.
Come out of the ivory towers and have a look and you'll see. Or worse wait and do nothing until violent crime it happens to you and you will whistle a different tune.
Oh and it looks like the Sociology department of Auckland University has joined the self promotion camp.
-
There is a problem in NZ of almost anyone being able to start a pipi foundation and essentially the only rule that applies is they have to put in an audit. appart from that there seems to be little to control what the directors are allowed to pay themselves, how much can be speant on further fundraising and what % can be spent in overheads. The political spectrum is littered with them so its a real EEO activity. Our beloved gov tried to tighten up on them but got howled down, but hopefully siometime they will take another look.
At present I expect some of those organisations will come along for the ride with us "silent majority" types who I hope believe in science and rational thought.
Rusell has shown that pushed to far he will also rail against the nutbars at the other end of the political spectrum. There are other nutbars round too such as people who search throiugh school rubbish bins to prove that McD bad, sandwich pretty or who make immigrants go on diets before they're allowed into the country but do not apply the same standard of "disease clensing" to those infected with HIV or TB. So perhaps you could add anti-fat to your list there eh?
And I do feel genuinely sorry for someone who cannot tell the difference between the nanny state and a pressure group.
-
Fair cop simon g. I don't agree with him in this case and if he hates it so much I fail to wee why he would want to give them such good publicity. I know its by Anke and I have no problem with people expressing their views I just thought it amusing that (a) its a frivolous topic and (b) all she does is attack the messenger instead of debating it anyway as you guys will be the first to criticise usually.
Enough of the free speech stuff though as you and I both know that many people, me included, are only a few well chosen blog entries from being up for $100K plus legal bills if not a bit of time in the slammer for telling the truth about something if we really set our mind to it.
-
Great, the more the merrier. And champers at the end of it, or is the liquor ban still in place?