Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dave C, I'm sure you're right about what some people have said, but they've not said it here (disclaimer: I don't have the energy to check all 16 pages). Except, perhaps, Mr Bird.
-
Dave C, I've been trying to follow your recent posts, but I confess I am struggling to understand what your issue is.
Maybe the police could have pressed charges earlier. So what?
Are you really so sure Mason would have sought name suppression if he'd been charged earler? I saw him on TV after the verdict, and he didn't look like he was shying from the cameras. In fact he seemed to be almost enjoying the publicity. -
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.
So no evidence then. Thought not.
-
My main concern is the legislation that undermines parents not Mason.
Yes, parents who beat their children. If it undermines them then good.
The police will sometimes twist things to get a conviction
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.
-
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.
So why do you keep mentioning the length of time the jury took to reach its verdict? You're clearly convinced Mason's done nothing wrong and that the "evil" section 59 amendment has done for him.
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.
So a punch in the guts would be okay? A kick in the nuts? Why are you so obsessed with the right to beat children?
-
Can I suggest we all burn incense to remove the stink of Mr Bird's recent presence?
-
You're right in saying we don't know what the jury was thinking, but Chuck and Bob's equivocation is pretty far-fetched.
Agreed. Chuck and that Family Fists' spokesfool have tried to use this case to show that the current law doesn't work. Their argument appears to be based solely on the fact that the jury took a while to deliberate.
I didn't hear any of the evidence directly, and I'm always cautious about what the media reports on a case, but I was not at all surprised by the verdict.
If these pro-beating folk want to use this case to prove the law's an ass, then let 'em. Because most people probably think the guy got what he deserved.
-
Missed this - yes. I was part of the first intake and did do student politics (a fair bit of it, too much some would say). Contact me offline if you'd rather keep you name private.
Paul, my name (Scott Yorke) isn't private any longer, since its all over my blog site. I'd change my user name if I could, but then I'd have to start all over again with my post total, and I'm getting closer to 300 now...
I was the same year law as you, but you probably remember me from the student president election in the early '90s (was it 92? 93? God, I can't remember). My friends and I had too much to drink one day and decided to field a joke candidate. I drew the short straw. I ran against you. I was probably more pleased at your victory than you were, because the mere possibility of winning it terrified me.
That was my first and last foray into the murky world of politics.
-
I should clarify that I wasn't defvending Chuck at all when I said we don't know what the jury thought. He was trying to link their lengthy deliberations to the possibility that the jury found him guilty because of the flick, not the punch.
My point was that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and only the jury truly knows what the verdict was based on.
I personally suspect it was the punch that nailed the guy, but it's basically informed speculation still. It really doesn't matter, and I don't see what difference it makes.
-
Chuck is right that we don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict.
He's misguided, though, to keep banging on about the lack of evidence of a punch and to insinuate the jury found him guilty because of a "mere ear-flick". He talks of mere speculation, then speculates himself.
Anyway, Paul, did I go to Waikato University with you? Law School? And I may have encountered you during my brief but disreputable foray into student politics.