Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's the transcript of Bob McCoskrie's 2005 radio interview with the "Timaru lady".
There are various villains conjured, mostly CYFS, but it's clear enough that Bob thought the only victim was the woman concerned.
He later denied that Family First had ever championed the woman. This was a extremely disingenuous, given that he had done so personally, before forming Family First.
And here's Bob again, describing as a "good parent" and a victim of the law the man who threw his eight year-old son around so violently that the boy's mother took photographs of the bruising and a relative took it to police. And this is after the evidence in court and the conviction.
As the judge said to that man:
Judge Anthony Walsh said the man might have had a legal defence in the past, but that no longer applied.
"One time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now ... You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected."
And the police prosecutor:
"It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.
"The family have said that it wasn't the first time," he added.
Here's another story about that one, featuring our new friend:
The court action has prompted internet calls for the amendment to be scrapped. Andy Moore at section59.blogspot.com wrote that the father had gone "just a little bit over the top" but the case didn't warrant police action.
But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, a vocal critic of the amendment, conceded that any case resulting in bruising should be investigated. But he would not say whether he thought the Masterton case was a reasonable use of force.
Yeah, I think "enabling" is the word.
-
Oh Russell, Ive jsut seen your veiled attack on me ( and the pithy response from the fool above who can't back up his statements). You you don't need to misrepresent me. Like MSM journalists, I did convey the account, but, like these MSM journalists, I have never "enabled" Bishop with respect to the assault on her son that you linked to. Ever.
Dave, here's what you wrote, when you dismissed the victim as a "brat".
You weren't "conveying" it: you stated it all as fact.
-
Gah - have to run back to uni & then a meeting... Everybody stay right there & don't post too much!
Tui billboard.
-
Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?
Try this Dave:
"I can understand that verdict and that it implies acceptance of the evidence of the people who were at the scene," Judge Crosbie told the jury.
Does this help, or would you like to try another way of minimising and obscuring the verdict?
You say on your own blog:
Granted, the evidence apparently was that Mason did punch his son ...
Okay ....
... but the court was told there was no evidence of injury to the face.
Do you want to listen to yourself for a moment? Are you seriously saying that the benchmark is immediate visible injuries? Do you want to get into some sick debate about how much facial bruising is enough?
Ad then you say of the main witness:
I wonder if this teacher was a supporter of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation?
Arrggh.
Dave, I'm calling you on this. You've got form. You happily enabled Barbara Bishop; you conveyed her nasty, self-serving account of what a court found was her participation in a disturbing assault on her teenage son. One bad enough to earn her nine months in jail:
The judge said he did not accept Bishop was remorseful.
"I watched you closely during the trial and I didn't detect remorse then, or now," he said.
He said Bishop had stated she did not think she had done anything wrong.
The judge said an aggravating feature was Bishop's previous convictions for violence, including one for attempting to procure the murder of a former husband.
And yet Bob McCoskrie allowed that woman to believe she was a hero. That's the meaning of the word "enabling".
And this part is grimly ironic:
However, Bishop said she gave him only a back-hand flick.
I wonder what her account of the subsequent assault on her daughter was?
And Dave you know this. You know that I've shared with you the witness of yet another of her children, which I'm not at liberty to share here. And still you stick with it.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Did anyone else hear David on Radio Live yesterday morning, flushed with civil disobedience?
-
-
I reread my way through all of this thread before writing this (please, please, compliment me on my sincerity, and my effort, because, really, those things ought to count) ...
As we used to say back in the day, maximum respect.
-
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.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 … 2279 Older→ First