Hard News: A depressing day in court
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
In fact (as I understand it) the law will still permit reasonable force as an argument in some instances (e.g. when the child's behaviour is a danger to itself or others), just not for the purposes of "correction".
I agree, this from the Herald,
The judge told her she went well beyond what was deemed reasonable force to discipline her child.
-
3410,
re: Bill Bailey
His destruction of American Rock at the end of part 2 is v. funny. -
Holmes was the harbinger of the rot, that grandstanding merchant of emotional pornography. He was great for ratings, but bugger-all else
for sure, and he was one of Shook's most dedicated disciples. here's more on the guy, try looking at some of his publications some time and it'll become clearer how and why they do it. if you do though, keep a bucket ready.
-
merc,
Whiskey and cigarettes men always gawn do well.
-
No surprise corner: No Right Turn is better informed than the Herald editorial writers on the status of climate change policy.
No Right Turn, defending the Labour Government’s progress on climate change against the Herald’s editorial says ‘But we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and so these things take time.’
This highlights the fascinating contradiction amongst conservatives who protest about Nanny State, but demand a dictatorship.
Are they all a little thick or did their mother's smack them too much?
-
The problem with these overseas consultants is that it's like psychologist witnesses hired for court cases - you can basically just get the one that you want to agree with you and then pretend they're 'the expert', and as a consequence you're right. The thing, at least in a court case is that the other side get to bring in another expert to rebut them. No such luck here. But anyway - that's life and politics and how people retain their power, and it's hard to do much about that.
But the real issue though, is that we end up losing out own internal 'New Zealand' dialogue, about how and why we do things, and we wind up having practices that don't actually make much sense but are simply just 'how it's done'. You think the americans or the british bring in overseas consultants to tell them what to do? No fucking way. And I suspect that, to a large extent is why they're good: they have a strong sense of internal dialogue built up about how and why they do things, because they created that dialogue themselves. The systems they have in place, have evolved organically to suit their conditions, audiences and so forth. That doesn't mean it's going to work here or anywhere else. And even if it did, without the dialogue taking place before it, you don't have the people that truly understand the reasoning behind the decisions enough to be able to deal with change and evolve that system properly. All we end up with is a bunch of 'personalities' vying for power, rather than a proper debate of ideas and philosophy behind why things are how they are now and where we might want to continue growing in the future.
-
Hopefully the private equity people will leverage the Canwest business to the extent that they go bust. I'll miss Campbell Live, but apart from that any of their other output will be no great loss.
-
Hamboy: you are a sucker for punishment aren't you! Spurs and the NZ cricket team. Don't tell me you also follow the Warriors?
-
well said Peter.
-
A parent and child are in Foodtown, and the parent lightly smacks his/her child for disobeying a very important instruction. On the child's part it is willful disobedience and on the parent's part it is considered and done without anger. If someone sees this happen, could they report this to the police and will the parent be prosecuted under Labour's new law? Help me with the truth here; there's been so much misinformation from all parties.
Lets reframe this scenario ever so slightly ..
A child and elderly parent are in Foodtown, and the child lightly smacks his/her parent for disobeying a very important instruction. On the parents part it is willful disobedience and on the child's part it is considered and done without anger. If someone sees this happen, could they report this to the police and will the child be prosecuted under exsisting law?Hope this helps
-
Sonic said:
Indeed the situation is the same as being drunk in a public place, which is technically illegal. You could walk down Queen street on a Saturday night and report all the drunks you saw, the police would be obliged to "investigate: but I'm pretty sure no-one would get prosecuted.
It used to be illegal (when we had the Police Offences Act, rather than the Summary Offences Act). It no longer is, if you're intoxicated (incapable of properly looking after yourself because of alcohol or drugs) you can be taken to a detoxification centre while you sober up (but I understand none were ever actually designated).
-
Don't tell me you also follow the Warriors?
Na, they are an Auckland team and can't stand league.
Besides there is only so much disappointment one can handle and keep ones sanity. lol -
Spurs and the NZ cricket team
When you come from crusader's territory. They help you keep your perspective. he he he
-
Sunday began as a fit of hubris on the part of a former new chief, Heaton Dyer
Interesting! I think it also had something to do with TV3 getting the rights to both 60 Minutes and 20/20. TVNZ claimed not to care then and said their own Sunday show would allow them to tell their own 'NZ Stories'.
Of course this PR/Propaganda only lasted until the next buying round where they promptly gazzumped TV3 to buy 20/20. But the version we subsequently saw on TV2 was way more tabloid than the original US version of 20/20. It seems TVNZ just bought the brand and would throw in any old twaddle onto 20/20 - much of it from the UK tabloids ("My breast implant nightmare").
What infuriates me most about TV2's 20/20 is their "Internet funny" segment we they show some wacky clip lifted off YouTube. If it's an original content clip then okay (maybe) but the ignorami at TVNZ were showing grainy downloads of actual TV comedy skit shows. Why not ask the original show for a clip? Oh yes, then they might have to pay for it ...
Holmes was the harbinger of the rot, that grandstanding merchant of emotional pornography. He was great for ratings, but bugger-all else.
I agree with the first part but not so much the second. Still, I wince everytime I see him with that smarmy grin on the Dancing With The Stars promo. I also worry he'll kill himself if knocked out in the early rounds - his ego won't survive it.
-
Nobody important - it's not Paul Holmes ego, but his mana...
-
Holmes has already recieved his punishment in life; his grandeloquent departure from TVNZ and his obvious belief that his absence would wreck TVNZ has come to nought, as have his petulant attacks on Helen Clark would bring down her govenment.
The proof that no-one actually cared to watch him, and that he was not an opinion leader for "the people" that he thought must have been bitter blows indeed. I am happy for him to caper about on Dancing With The Stars, which seems the right sort of vehicle for his talents.
-
hmm Paul Holmes... Paul.. Holmes. that name sounds vaguely familiar. wasn't he that ozzie guy on telly who sell the tyres?
-
merc,
I've worked at places that would only source senior managers from,
1. Blighty, London Head Office
2. America, LA Head Office
I was a very bad machine.
Holmes is a nice person in person, think he may have the old personna split thing going on. -
Ridley said:
" Andrew S, there is rather a lot on this in these PA threads if you'd like to read through them here, and here are good places to start. But in short, the s59 bill doesn't impact on the likelihood of whether parents will be prosecuted, it just removes a particular defence for those the Police have decided to press charges against. There is as much chance of parents being charged now for the example you cite as there will be after it is passed. Suggestions to the contrary are all part of the bill's opponents' misinformation campaign.
Thanks Ridley, this seems to me the likely outcome from what I have read. Let's hope after the Bill is passed that common sense prevails for all parties. One issue though, why a new Bill when a Judge can already rule against the use of s59 as a defense if he/she considers abuse to have taken place. Still a bit fuzzy on that one!
-
merc,
It's about public notice, Judges take heed of this sort of thing, see today's Herald link in ? thread.
-
On the hitting kids thing, a recurring theme on talk-back is of parents who are against repealing Section 59 starting to talk about how their kids could dob them in for smacking them. Could happen I suppose, but it makes you wonder why, if a few good loving smacks produces nice respectful kids, why such parents are now feeling so threatened. Hah!
-
Yeah, I agree Colin. If it's got to that stage with a Parent/Child relationship where they are going to 'dob you in', then a smack is plain dumb.
-
It just makes me wonder how many other kids are out there having to put up with this sort of violent abuse from parents who are supposed to be putting theirkids' best interests first. This is a trully appalling case.
-
We need a 'Warrant if Fitness' for Parents...but who's going to be the Testers?
This 'horse-whip' lady is just a plain tragedy.
-
you seem funny Andrew...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.