Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Not so much ironic as outrageous

98 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    my main point is that the scenario is WAY more complex than you painted in your origional post. which was the basis of you somehow calling certain people proxy paedophiles.

    The way it looks to me is that even if they do have an informal confession, the police don't have evidence, from either the father or the family members.

    As Chuck has pointed out on other forums, they could seek a DNA test of the baby, but I don't think they have the right to forcibly take one if the mother refuses.

    Hence, Cindy Kiro's speech about conspiracies of silence.

    I'm also minded tat the author of the HoS story is Steve Cook, who is not always an ethical champion in pursuit of the story.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I'm presuming people are not taking Chuck too seriously , but I'll keep an eye on it.

    Looks like the commentators were already doing that for you. Chuck's made his point now, that he's against paedophilia. The extension that thinking of adjusting the law could only be conceived of by childless paedophiles is unlikely to impress anyone. Personally, I remember being 15 and the laws 'protecting' me from the cute 16 year old girls in my class seemed all fucked up then, and the impression has lasted. I have a son, and I bet when he's 15 he'll feel just the same.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • andrew clive,

    This is my first time posting here.I'm with "Chuck Bird" on this he is frank & to the point . It is time New Zealand turned itself around and stopped letting vocal minorities & this government put everyone in a straitjacket.
    Thats exactly what the anti smacking bill does . To "Russell Brown" & others who dont support democracy , shame on you, 83% dont agree with your opinion ! The "silent majority" are standing up & being counted , thats exactly what people are doing right now in signing a petition against the "anti smacking legislation".
    For more of a balance & accuracy on the subject of "anti smacking legislation" have a read of this post which fairly challenges many of "Russell Browns " editorial inaccuracies.

    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/horse-whip-woman-sent-to-jail/

    auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 37 posts Report Reply

  • andrew clive,

    to: Russell Brown >>Twisting the truth because you don't agree with something is the worst kind of journalism...Your attack on the good reputation of "Bob McCoskrie" is cowardly & without merit.

    auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 37 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    A name in speech marks? God, RB, you really are making a splash when you become a quote, eh?

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Personally, I remember being 15 and the laws 'protecting' me from the cute 16 year old girls in my class seemed all fucked up then, and the impression has lasted. I have a son, and I bet when he's 15 he'll feel just the same.

    But when you would have been 15 there were no laws protecting you from cute 16 year old girls. Nor were there any laws protecting you from 46 year old women with varicose veins. there are now, because unlike Chuck, our contemporary law makers are not focusing on the nuts and bolts of sexual abuse, they consider the psychological affects and regardless of gender. This is relatively new and difficult thinking for ranters like Chuck, I suppose.

    I read about Scientology when it came up a few threads back. The most offensive thing about there defensive tactics. Is the way they start calling there opponents pedophiles. There excuse might be that they've been brain washed within a religious cult...

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    to: Russell Brown >>Twisting the truth because you don't agree with something is the worst kind of journalism...Your attack on the good reputation of "Bob McCoskrie" is cowardly & without merit.

    Andrew, did McCoskrie champion this woman via his radio show and elsewhere -- and then run for cover and pretend it had never happened when it became impossible to deny that she was an abusive parent?

    Or didn't he?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Oh, and Andrew, I read the linked blog post, which describes this woman as "a saint in my books" and tries to shift blame for her actions onto the state, her children, etc, etc.

    It's all enabling nonsense. But this part is just astonishing:

    That is in vast contrast to this case, where an early guilty plea was laid on what she did do.

    Andrew, she chose to go to trial and was found guilty by a jury. And even then:

    The judge said Bishop appeared unremorseful and believed she had done nothing wrong. He noted Bishop had previous convictions for violence, including one for attempting to procure the murder of a former husband.

    Exactly what planet does the author (you?) get his "facts" from?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Personally, I remember being 15 and the laws 'protecting' me from the cute 16 year old girls in my class seemed all fucked up then, and the impression has lasted. I have a son, and I bet when he's 15 he'll feel just the same.

    Steven has noted that until recently the law was sexist in that women could do stuff to boys and get away with it more than men could do stuff to girls. Not the case any more.

    I believe the situation in reality is that between the ages 12 and 15, if both 'kids' are in a relationship and their ages are relatively close together, the police have a policy of not charging. One of those "let's only prosecute when it makes sense" rules that the police have this annoying habit of applying.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Steven has noted that until recently the law was sexist

    I'd rather say the law reflected a rather naive society.

    I think the intention of the the repeal of section 56 was to gesture that totalitarian control of children by adults is psychologically harmful.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Steven - I'm pretty sure it's still there :-)

    **56 Defence of land or building**

    Every one in peaceable possession of any land or building, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him therefrom, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3205 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    56 Defence of land or building

    Can I use temporary discalclia as a defense?

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Graeme, I take it that the reasonable force in removing people 'therefrom' has a similar policy of police good sense? The number of people I've seen getting hurt (receiving 'bodily harm') whilst being expelled from bars is quite a lot, but I've seldom heard of any prosecutions. Is that because defence of land quickly turns into defence of the person when the person being removed fights the 'reasonable force', and the bar for reasonableness is lowered?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    The number of people I've seen getting hurt (receiving 'bodily harm') whilst being expelled from bars is quite a lot, but I've seldom heard of any prosecutions. Is that because defence of land quickly turns into defence of the person when the person being removed fights the 'reasonable force', and the bar for reasonableness is lowered?

    One reason might be that people don't often complain to the police :-)

    And those who do, and then have bouncers questioned might just have flat denials backed up by other bouncers and insufficient evidence to prosecute.

    You're largely right about the latter effect too. If you fear for your safety, or the safety of others the level of force that is deemed reasonable is raised.

    On to other 'fun' defences:

    60 Discipline on ship or aircraft

    (1) The master or officer in command of a ship on a voyage or the pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight is justified in using and ordering the use of force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline on board his ship or aircraft if he believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary, and if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

    Cue horror that children face less discipline from their parents than passengers or ships or aircraft do from masters of ship on voyage, and pilots of aircraft in flight...

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3205 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    What about children on planes and ships?

    One reason might be that people don't often complain to the police :-)

    I know a few who have, after receiving some grievous injuries, but the matter was not even investigated. It seems that if you punch someone out the back of the pub hard enough that they become unconscious, then you get a memory defense.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'd rather say the law reflected a rather naive society.

    Well that too. But I'm sure that we can come up with a list of things in our history that were both naive, and also as it turns out, sexist.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The number of people I've seen getting hurt (receiving 'bodily harm') whilst being expelled from bars is quite a lot, but I've seldom heard of any prosecutions.

    There was one a while ago - guy got thrown/dropped down stairs while being removed. I can't remember if it was a successful prosecution, or a complaint at that stage.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    There's not many other contexts where getting thrown down a flight of stairs wouldn't constitute attempting to injure with intent. I'm yet to meet the guy who threw himself down a flight of stairs.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Yes. I only vaguely remember it, but I seem to recall there was some dispute as to whether he was just thrown, or if he was drunk, struggling with the bouncers, and then fell down the stairs (and quite possibly they made very little attempt to catch him).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    but I seem to recall there was some dispute as to whether he was just thrown, or if he was drunk, struggling with the bouncers, and then fell down the stairs (and quite possibly they made very little attempt to catch him).

    My goodness... is it only me? Or did others have Messrs Blumsky & Brownlee come to mind?

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    I'm yet to meet the guy who threw himself down a flight of stairs.

    that only brings one of the two gentlemen above to mind.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I seem to recall there was some dispute as to whether he was just thrown, or if he was drunk, struggling with the bouncers, and then fell down the stairs (and quite possibly they made very little attempt to catch him).

    That's a bit like splitting hairs over whether someone died because you punched them, or because their head hit the ground. You shouldn't tussle with people at the top of a flight of stairs, and if you are going to manhandle them down the stairs they should be well under control. But of course you can always claim that you feared for your own safety when you get in a fight on stairs.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    There's alot of violence out there. I've always thought that Stereo-Gram song was about me and drunks from all walks of life giving it a go.

    I was 1 of 4 bouncers escourting a Uni Lecherer down some stairs who in one breathe said "I'm a pacifist, next time I see you in town I'm goin stab you".
    He was in his 40s/30s the girl that left with him wasn't & he's still working hard to educate the yuf today.

    Kyle I got caught up in something very much like your senario. Thankfully the complainant was in the Cops Rugby Team which went along way to dismiss his character and his complaint.

    The thing is drunks often comply initially but then once the walk to the door starts or some fresh air hits them they realise they're leaving & fight. Yes that means they shud hve been kicked out earlier in the night. Crowds and wet surfaces doesn't help in the battle against gravity either.
    These two went through the crowd like two migthty kauri falling down a mountain. Only one was hospitalised and 1st aid was given straight away. But the stories that came back were incredible, bashing his skull on the concrete ... you name it

    His cousin came in a month or so latter and when I pointed to the cnr of bar he was pissing in things calmed down alot.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • andrew clive,

    Russell Brown & others who share his minority views are seeking idealism from "systems" that were already in place that quite adequately protected young people from been abused, sure it was'nt a perfect system ...No system is,...only the jury who delivered their not guilty verdict on the first case prior really know the full story behind what actually happened... i dont see russell and others of the "woolly jumper brigade fraternity" jumping up & down about the very flawed "prison" , "bail" & "justice systems " we have in this country.
    Section 59 was fine as it was before been bastardised by bradford , kiro & co into a system that criminalises loving parents giving their kids a smack. Russell Brown & others have probably never known what its like to be dealing with a child who has severe behavioural problems. After all , Russell exactly what would you have done if your own teenage son came swinging at you with a baseball bat?It's all very well for people on these columns to sit & judge situations from a comfortable armchair while quaffing on wine totally divorced from another world of reality.

    auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 37 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Russell Brown & others have probably never known what its like to be dealing with a child who has severe behavioural problems. After all , Russell exactly what would you have done if your own teenage son came swinging at you with a baseball bat?It's all very well for people on these columns to sit & judge situations from a comfortable armchair while quaffing on wine totally divorced from another world of reality.

    How silly. Do you know anything about Russell's children? If they come at you with a bat you don't need s59 defense any more. And do you know anything about any of the other writers here? Your comment sounds like there's more than a little alcohol involved.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.