Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And what you're going to get is local govt which is quite wrong but couched in fashionable terms.
So then you'll be happy, yeah?
Then language being used is unfashionable and ineffective. Calls to burn the capitalist citadel might resonate with a small number of people, but if political leaders want to effect real change they have to engage with the political centre, where most people reside.
Ranting and raving might make people feel better, but it won't achieve squat.
-
Chuck, you have previously posted that it's not known whether the jury believed Mason punched his son, or whether they found him guilty for the "flick".
By your own argument he might have punched his son in the face.
And now you say this:
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father.
So a father who may (according to you) have punched his son in the face is a good father?
Jesus wept.
-
And as I can't even spell the word "lawyer", I should immediately be struck off.
-
four dead white males and a lawyer
Which proves what exactly? Why mention the appointment of a laywer? Isn't it possible there might be a whole heap of, um, legal stuff to sort out?
-
I'm glad someone has finally posted something critical. I was afraid to put my head above the parapet.
I've read quite a few silly press releases from the Greens about the whole supercity thing. On a lot of issues I happen to agree with the Greens. I just wish the Greens would tone down the inflammatory language on this issue. The numerous references to "them" and what "they" are going to do sounds more like 1930s class-warfare rhetoric.
There are plenty of good reasons for a supercity, and plenty of potential problems with one. So rather than simply demonise each other we could, you know, talk to each other?
-
Scott Y. Like Russell you appear to be uninformed regarding the history of this case. The post I wrote was based on what was reported at the time, which was that Mason had simply flicked his boy on the ear. The allegations of "punching in the face" and swearing have only just surfaced.
That doesn't excuse what you wrote. You leapt to the defence of a man accused of hitting his child, without knowing the facts (and you call me uninformed?). And you didn't just report the "facts" as they were known. I refer to the second paragraph of your blog post (the bit about "tyranous usurpers", which is itself a form of assault - on the English language). And now you look like a fool.
And your pal Chuck continues to question the severity of the assault, by suggesting that maybe Mason was found guilty of the "flick" and not the punch, or that maybe there was no punch, or that maybe the punch was a "light" one.
So it's hard to take you or Chuck seriously when you claim to be against child abuse. Especially as you've devoted an entire blogsite to advocating the right to assault children.
-
OMG! Chuck's now getting his mates to start posting.
You would think someone who's been made to look a fool would keep his head down for a while. Instead he posts a link to remind us of the foolish things he said about the Mason case.
-
Go away Chuck.
I second that.
Chuck, you complain about the personal abuse directed against you here, but the moment you joined this discussion you started to throw insults. You're still making a complete fool of yourself by railing agaiinst the "Left" and all its supposed evils.
I for one don't care if you're feeling victimised by our insults. You lost all right to play the victim when you helped Wishart smear Peter Davis.
And finally, there are some music videos in this PA post you should watch. Please take the messages in them to heart.
-
Dave, I've listened to the audio.
When the Yes Vote spokesperson mentioned that the law had passed its first test, it was after mentioning that some people might have thought that punching was reasonable force. Her choice of words may have been unwise, but she did not say that Mason would have been acquitted under the old law. Nor did she say the case was all about section 59.
Also look at the Yes Vote website, including the quote I referred to above.
Compare this with Family First's McCoskrie before the trial, who expressly linked it to the new law:
I think everybody has been waiting for a case like this to go before a judge so we can get a new interpretation of the law. It's an uncertain law, which is the worst part of it. Some say it totally bans smacking and some say it doesn't
And then Famly First issued a press release to further push its anti-section 59 agenda.
You really want to compare Family First with the Yes Vote?
You said:
I don't really think that groups like Family First and For the Sake of our Children - whom RB opposes - are "enabling" abuse
Here's McCoskrie again, before the court case:
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie was astounded to be told Mason had been charged. "That's amazing," he said.
And that attitude isn't enabling abuse?
-
Dave, I couldn't see anything on the Yes Vote site to back your claim. Apologies if I missed it. Can you link to it? Or provide some other evidence?
Because this is what Yes Vote spokesperson Deborah Morris-Travers said:
“Now that all the evidence has been heard in a court, this case can be seen for what it is - a serious assault on a child and not the “poster-boy” cause for opponents of the law that was widely portrayed. Arguably, this case never had anything to do with Section 59, given it involved a simple assault.