Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, this would have stopped the circus:
A woman cop was walking past at the time, and spoke to Mason. According to the media report of the court case published on Stuff on Tuesday, Mason told her at the scene that he punched his kid. If it was good enough for her to relay that conversation in court (as I believe she did), surely it was good enough for her to tell cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. Then charges could have been pressed at that point before Mason blabbed to the media.
-
do you dave have any knowledge of why Mason and his lawyer pled not-guilty
No, like everyone here I don't. But parents in control don't give their kids a " bloody good flick". To me that sounds like more like assault than prevention or discipline. He admitted the ear pull ( called it a "flick" ) and the punch to witnesses but not the punch in court. I actually thought Paul said that he believed Mason admitted the punch in court. So no equivocation bullshit Russell. (Good, thats cleared up, then). I'm actually wondering if he was found guilty on both aspects of the count - the ear pull and the punch - but given that both are wrapped in the one count, we have no way of telling without getting inside info. .
And I agree with Russell that had Mason not blabbed to the media before he was charged he may well have got name suppression . Instead, he blamed police for " administering the amended child-discipline law' ( and the police did comment on the police discretion at the time) and all the anti smackers and pro smakers pricked up their ears, and as Mason no doubt believed he wouldn't be charged, he blabbed to the media. Then he got charged after witnesses were interviewed because it was no longer deemed inconsequential. That's when all this section 59 nonsense discussion should have stopped - because clearly it had nothing to do with the case - but it in fact elevated.
-
Paul Williams: Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault
Oh yeah? How can that be when he admitted the pulling of the ear and pleaded not guilty to the count, which was pulling the ear and punching in the face? And was it you that said you used to be a law student?
-
A question about the smacking law for y`all.
Are there pockets of society that would say a punch in the face is reasonable force and that is why the law was changed?
-
<i>The Herald again demonstrated they don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda by calling the face-punch the ear-flick dad</i>
Just like they called the riding crop lady the horse whip lady..
-
And this is what made me so annoyed about the argument advanced in favour of the amendment. Using force against someone is only an offence if there is no defence, it s only illegal if there is no defences, and it is only a crime if there is no defence
And with this section of the Crimes Act there is now no defence. So it is an offence. But because the courts don't have the discretion to let someone off after the have corrected their child, it is effectively " illegal" only if the Police say so. So, if the Police don't think it is consequential, they are not compelled to prosecute.
-
isn't it time for journalists to take Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and my old chum Greg O'Connor off the speed dial until they STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
No. They just have to discern what is stuff that is made up and what is not made up -and publish accordingly. But, going by recent reports, the media can simply make stuff up by reproducing made up stuff other newspapers publish - and not just in news reports either.
-
WHats BDSM? Brown Doth Smack McCoskrie?
-
Tui billboard if it happened, but it didn't, sorry. She quite clearly said to Paul Henry
I didn't mean that in the context of what she may or may not have said to Paul Henry today. It's been her constant line for some time. So, Tui billboard. It did happen.
-
why on earth is the Herald's story this morning headlined 'Ear-flick' father guilty of assault. Wouldn't 'Father who punched son in the face found guilty of assault' be a more appropriate headline?
well, what Graeme said, but has the NZH done much appropriate lately - let alone accuracy - when any topic that is seen to be about smacking or Rankin - and they *do* want to sell papers.
BTW Bradford did claim that there is evidence that her law has reduced violence about children? Tui ad, anyone?