Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I dont look at it in terms of "fault" But if you really want to, I would say it was the mans "fault" that he bruised the child, and his partners " fault" that he was prosecuted.
Had he not bruised the child there would have been no prosecution - which was my point. So the action of smacking is irrelevant. Had he not have smacked the child, but bruised him,and teh pic was flicked around, he would have still been convicted - so S59 has nothing to do with this case.
Thats because to bruise a kid before the S59 bill is not any more or less against the law than it is now.
-
Russell, Ive just seen your post.
My blog headline was written last night - I dont usually change headlines when I update posts ( as I have done twice today - so go back again) , however I did mention the DomPost sensationalist headlinewritten <i> after </i> the article was subbed.
Anyway, I`m not after the court documents. Never said that. Suffice to say if there was no bruise on the boy - which was not caused by the smacking - there would have been no reporting, no pic taken and no conviction.Finally my point is this: had there been no amendment of S59, there would still have ben a conviction. Perhaps if the woman and her huysgand werent having a few difficulties there would not have been a pic taken and passed around.
In other words, the bottom many be a Magic Place ( to you anyway Russell) but it wasnt the bottom contact that led to the conviction, therefore this conviction does not indicate that the law is working, meaning Sue Bradfords comments are ignorant.
-
Meaning they should have got it right the first time, right? Meaning they should have redrafted a new bill earlier on, right and listened to a few people, right?
I did use the word "debacle" ...
-
The New Zealand child most at risk of homicide is less than one year of age, male, and Maori. The child is most likely to have died from battering, sustaining head and other fatal bodily injuries inflicted by one or other of his parents.
Add to that " and the child's mother and his father are either not married or nor living together".
-
Well, one would assume Coddington cant spell xenophopia - she certainly can't spell xenophopic, anyway....
Well done, Tze, Charles, Keith et al. Coddington has been well and truely walloped - 'Coddingtonwallop', if you will..
-
I have done a couple of posts on the amendment, I think this is about just two issues, none of which are to do with smacking.
They are political achievability and the intent of Parliament. The bill was always going to be politically achievable but I don't think it would have reflected the intent of Parliament as many Labour Mps were voting for something other than their conscience ( intention).As the bill was going to be passed anyway, the amendment is a better option. Labour would have thought of it ages ago and should have done it then. National, which supporting the amendment, should have also decided to vote against the bill. My oppositoin for the bill is greater than my supporkt for the amendment.
And yes, Russell, the Timaru Lady probably wont agree. But then again she may, I haven't asked her.
-
Actually Kyle, the position that is up for grabs is the first elected woman PM who was not supported by the state for the majority of her life.
-
Actually RB, I am surprised that bloggers have provided precious little commentary about macroeconomic policy rather than soft political opinion lately, given recent events. In particular, questioning ( or supporting) Reserve Bank independence on monetary policy, balancing that with Government direction of fiscal policy and whether the instruments used in such policy decisions are appropriate given that OCR rates haven't greatly reduced aggregate demand for housing. Economics and Politics are linked and recent events are a classic example as to how they are linked.
-
... if that is a fact, of which you don't know. There are things about the history of this boy which are probably suppressed by the courts now, that I cant repeat, that are no different to any other brat who has similar interactions with law authorities. Actually, I can't understand why the MSM has ignored the fact that this woman's nose was broken. It's a material fact, and the MSM knows about it. Perhaps if the kid didn't break his moms nose he wouldn't have got such a hiding. Why don't the MSM question why this kid wasn't prosecuted for assault with intent to injure if they really wanted to do their job properly? In fact, Russell, why haven't you questioned that? If you were a woman and your nose was broken by your son, ( I have been told that this nose had had previously been broken by someone who was convicted of assault) would you have been more concerned about your nose or more about your son getting a hiding by your partner who was taking such action to stop him beating you up?
The younger boy is scared of CYFS. I am not saying it is wrong for CYFS to be concerned, or even involved with this family, its just that I think CYFS could have handled the various interactins with this family better, thats all. Finally I havent implied that the grandmother is "in on it" - all I have said is that the grandmother was the CYFS caregiver who smacked the boy while in her care - yet CYFS did not jump and down about that, did they?
-
.. which means I do appreciate why the mother stood by..having now taken into account cirumstances, ( a good thingto do sometimes) perhaps it is reasonable after all in a situation when you dont want to be beaten up again. Russell, what are your thoughts on this given your earlier comment.