Posts by Chuck Bird
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell, as you pointed out in your dishonest personal attack on me I once voted for Labour. Fortunately as most people mature to where they accept that other people have the right to hold views other than themselves. I was most impressed to see the Letter to the Editor by Dr Brian Edward’s condemning the students’ abuse of Melissa Lee. Brian Edwards is a bit older than you so I guess there is hope for you yet.
I do not share David Farrar’s Libertarian view on many matters relating to homosexuality. Nonetheless we can have discussion over drink and agree to disagree and discuss other matters. I have also shared a drink with Lindsay Perigo. His knows my views on militant homosexual activists. He agrees with me on a number of points. Not all homosexuals think the same way. Some opposed the Civil Unions legislation. This upsets some left wing homosexuals to the extent that they threaten to OUT them for not towing the party line.
I will get back to the topic of parental rights which you diverted from to launch a personal attack. My view on corporal punishment is not extreme. Eighty percent of the voters opposed the law change. I collected signatures at tables on the footpath, at sporting events and door to door. Some just signed while others expressed their reasons for opposing the law change. They came from all backgrounds and races. Many who signed would have been traditional Labour voters. These peasants that the militant Left are meant to represent are a lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. They know the difference between a smack on the legs and a punch to the head.
Very few if anyone would agree that a punch to the head is acceptable. That includes me, Bob McCroskie and others who you vilify and slander. I stated on your blog that if I have the opportunity to make another submission on this legislation I would recommend that hits, slaps or clips to the ear be banned. That does not stop others with your encouragement claiming that I condone a light punch to the head. This is a lie.
I am a member of the ACT Party. Many in the ACT Party follow a Libertarian line particularly on matters homosexual. I take a more conservative line and oppose such things as homosexual adoption. To many on the Left that makes me a homophobe. Many in the ACT Party including some homosexuals know my views but are able to carry on a discussion without personal abuse. Adults know how to agree to disagree and do not drag something up someone said three years ago on an unrelated matter.
You stated my age on your blog. That is not a problem. Why not tell us your age and when you think you will act your age. At least the university students have an excuse for drowning out Melissa Lee.
-
And yet you have no evidence the police have done anything wrong. Which leads us to question what your real beef with the guilty verdict is.
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.
-
My only problem is why name him. That family and the legal ramifications surely are best dealt within that family and its advisors. I mean many men will just fight the shame of being labelled publicly when really this should be a time of reflection and control.
Jeremy, a very sensible suggestion. They is no disagreement that Mason's parenting skilled left much to be desired.
-
Russell, you misrepresent my motive over the Davis DVD. I heard Clark on the morning radio threaten to dish dirt on Brash if he did not stop calling Labour corrupt. The threat was repeated by other Labour MPs. I was incensed and emailed Mallard. Labour carried out their threat. Some people believe you should not respond to such things. I believe you fight fire with fire. We have now found out the dirt was obtained by stolen emails.
Please explain why the Left think it is okay to launch into personal attacks but they cry foul when it happens to them?
Why is it okay to talk about Christine Rankin’s private life but not the private lives of Labour political appointees?
-
Why are you determined to think that he was convicted for ear-flicking, and completely unable to see that hitting anyone in the face (With or without enough force to bruise, it matters not) is assault?
Simon, thank for your civil post. I think I have explained much in my post to Russell. I will reconsider this issue after I see Sunday.
My main concern is the legislation that undermines parents not Mason. Howeverthe Courts sometimes get things wrong. The case of David Daugherty would be a good example. When DNA showed he did not rape his 11 year old neighbour they came up with the theory he may been with another offender. The police will sometimes twist things to get a conviction.
-
Russell, I will deal with the issues of the court case before commenting on your out of context character assignation.
There are three possibilities regarding Belinda Payne’s evidence. She could be telling the complete truth, she could be embellishing her story or she could be mistaken.
I think it reasonable to assume if an adult male punched a young boy on the face with even a moderate amount of force there would be some mark or bruising. Most reasonable people would be sceptical of the claim but may not dismiss it.
I do not know what angle or distance Belinda Payne witnessed the incident. Do you? It may be possible that Mason clenched his hand in a fist and held his first two fingers back with his thumb and moved his hand towards his son’s ear before releasing his fingers.
Unlike you and most on your blog I do not have a closed mind on the issue. I will be watching with interest what Mason has to say on the Sunday Show this Sunday.
Where we do agree is if the incident was reported correctly is that Mason needs to learn some better parenting skills. There is no excuse for a parent to be using foul language as reported on your blog. If a parent has lost control they should not be using physical discipline for the purpose of correction. If Boscawen’s bill is drawn and goes to a Select Committee I may make a submission to restrict any smacks to the lower body. A flick on the ear will do no harm – a hard clip on the ear could.
-
Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault
Paul, where is your source for the above claim?
-
A jury has found him guilty of assault for punching his four year-old son in the face.
A number of you have correctly pointed that I did not hear what the jury discussed. I might point out that neither did any of you including Russell Brown.
No one has been able to support his statement above. How do any of you know what evidence the jury accepted and what evidence they rejected?
I have not heard any allegation that there were any marks or bruising on the boys face so it should be obvious that he did not punch him hard in the face if at all.
It is possible that the jury believed that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face. It is possible that the jury did not accept that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face yet correctly under this legislation found him guilt of assault. Pulling someone by the hair is assault.
Unlike some I was on a jury. Some women who could not handle being rejected tried to fit some poor guy up for rape. The trail lasted three days but it took us less than half an hour to find the guy not guilty. If the case is clear you do not have to waste nine hours.
The case involving Mason was obviously not that clear. It is pure speculation to claim that the jury accepted that Mason punched his boy in the face.
Judging by the above comments the typical Left when unable to debate an issue first resort to embellishment and lies and when that fails then comes the abuse.
-
Right excuse me people but Chuck Bird why don't you piss off with your antagonistic crap. "The liberal left". Fuck off.
Sofie, you are an excellent argument for MPs to support John Boscawen’s private members bill.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
Did your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap?
-
Gareth, that is possible but very much speculation. However, it is equally possible that they quickly decide on the two that they found him not guilty on. They could have then either taken the time deciding if he punched his son with a closed fist in the face - I assume their was no brusing and/or deciding if he should be found guilty because of pulling his son's hair and flicking or pulling his ear which he clearly assault.
i still think if it was clear he punched his son in the face they would not have taken nine hours.
If the police officer was breaking up a left wing protest I am sure many on this blog would consider the possiblity that she embellished the facts.
It would appear Mason was none to polite. She could well have embellished her story.
It does not seem possible that Mason punched his son in face with any force or there would have been brusing.
I have not closed my mind on this issue. I will be watched the Sunday about Mason with interest.