The Gates thing.

Smack both their heads together and you'd be lucky to come up with one half-wit.

I've voted, have you?

One invalid ballot went in the mail first thing this morning.

Graeme pointing out that not being convicted isn't the same as saying the act isn't a criminal act.

Agreed. It's not what I meant to argue however. My point is that amendment does not make smacking your child a strict liability offence, so to say all parents who smack their…

I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor assaults on the rugby field to be criminal.

I think this is getting there...

I'd re-word that to say something like: I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor incidents of pushing or hitting on the rugby field to be a criminal level of…

There's a difference between doing something wrong and being convicted of a crime. I suspect most New Zealanders would readily call the convict…

The amendment does not criminalise ordinary every day parents,

Yes it does, in…

You're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, surely you're also innocent if you've not even been charged?

You are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean you are innocent.

You're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, surely you're also innocent if you've not even been charged?

put that idea to the test.
if you shoplift a can of coke and don't get caught, are you innocent of shoplifting?

if you run over a cyclist and no body sees…

Not guilty, in that you haven't been convicted; but convicted or not, charged or not, parents who lightly smack have broken the law.

That's a different point to the one you made earlier. You said:

Bradford may have wanted to make parents who lightly smack their children criminals (although I…

It removes a defence, yes. It exposes parents to the risk of a charge, yes. But you're not guilty of a crime simply because you "lightly smack"; it's not a strict liability offence and the Police have discretion over laying charges.

Not guilty, in that you haven't been convicted; but…

undermines parental rights

Here we go again. Just where does this "right" to hit your children come from? And why are you so concerned about it?

I don't accept that my interpretation of the amendment automatically makes parents who "lightly smack" criminals. It removes a defence, yes. It exposes parents to the risk of a charge, yes. But you're not guilty of a crime simply because you "lightly…

I don't see how scenario 1 applies at all: Bradford et al removed the defence because they wanted criminal chargest/convictions to not be avoided simply cause the assailant was the parent of the victim.

Bradford may have wanted to make parents who lightly smack their children criminals (although I believe…

Could you mean, "passing a law that exposes people whom you think are (minor) criminals criminals, and allowing that the full force of the criminal law not be brought into play in circumstances the Police consider meet guidelines and in which the public has an interest."

If you do, then,…

There is obviously a place for prosecutorial discretion in a crimnal justice system.

Agreed and the guidelines and public interest are significant factors in the exercise of this discretion.

I also think there is a difference between:…

It simply is not the solution people like to think it is.

Thus my preference for actually using the words "light smack".

Just for the sake of argument: what do you think of this definition of an allowable 'corrective smack'?

I think it is workable. Do you?

An occasional light slap might not cause permanent trauma, but 50 light slaps a day for a year might.

Plus let's not forget the negotiated smack with a ruler followed by cuddle that came up a little while ago. That was disturbing on so many levels I quickly lost count.

Workable?

The difficulty with trying to set an acceptable standard is that you would need to not just define the type of acceptable action, but also the amount of force to be used, and the frequency of use.

An occasional light slap might not cause permanent trauma, but 50 light…

Just for the sake of argument: what do you think of this definition of an allowable 'corrective smack'?

– Open hand only (no punches, no implements)

– Must be on the arm/hand, or legs/backside

– Does not cause bruising

Workable?

Sounds a bit too close to "make sure you don't…

There are other examples of petty assault that don't involve consent. Here's an example of an assault that Parliament would surely…

– Open hand only (no punches, no implements)

– Must be on the arm/hand, or legs/backside

– Does not cause bruising

Workable?

Objections range from a lack of legal clarity (we'll all have our own idea of what "transitory and trifling" means, won't we?) to the fact that it still allows…

I think a better point is that the entire game of rugby consists of actions that would be considered assault off the field.

More explicitly so with boxing! But I think there are laws in NZ that cover actions that would otherwise be assault, such as a tackle in rugby,…

Similarly, Evander Holyfield almost certainly anticipated having his head punched a few times when he stepped into the ring with Mike Tyson. But he probably wasn't thinking that the fight would end with his ear missing.

Nuclear Teeth vs the Real Meal (may be NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9EjHpAtYUc

The best counter may be the one made earlier (by Kyle, I think). Sports people – especially rugby players – get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv cameras.

Although this analogy falls down somewhat when you take into account that all the people…

I'd note that this line is also that adopted by Family First ... They don't want to defend what was happening under the old law any more that most people here.

Well, they've got a very strange way of showing it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say…

Sports people – especially rugby players – get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv cameras.

Now excuse my ignorance of the game with balls but as I understand it, if a fight is deemed against the rules, there is disciplinary action, which, is…

So you'd have favoured a change to Section 59 that dramatically reduced latitude in the meaning of "reasonable force"? Because I think it's quite clear that abusive parents have been able to use the defence.

Yes. I think I was reasonably clear at the time this was all happening that…

Parliament surely never intended that a person who shoved another in an inconsequential manner (say during a rugby field scuffle) should be hauled before the courts...

There is obviously a place for prosecutorial discretion in a crimnal justice system. I also think there is a difference between:

1. passing a…

My point was that I didn't really like being referred to by Russell as a pro-smacker ...

I wasn't meaning to refer to you personally.

1. That I did not think that a light smack was sufficiently serious that the criminal law should be implicated in dealing with it; and

…

I suggested I was an anti-smacker who opposed the amendment to section 59 on the Crimes Act for other reasons

Graeme, would you agree that there are other incidents that take place in society which the law makes criminal, but which, if parliament was to debate/vote on them, it would…

the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.

I think this is a argument which leads to no victory point.

Even if parliament did amend laws but then not want them to be enforced, which is a matter of debate...

Laws will be interpreted…

Is it possible Graeme might re-state his point, I'd appreciate it?

My point was that I didn't really like being referred to by Russell as a pro-smacker, indeed, I suggested I was an anti-smacker who opposed the amendment to section 59 on the Crimes Act for other reasons:

1. That…

the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.

That's Graeme making the point, a page or two back.

Neither he nor Dave mean that parliament doesn't want the legislation as a whole enforced **at all*, just that they don't really want anyone to be…

I think so, and I think Graeme's making it in good faith. It certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. But, as I explained, it was trumped for me by other factors.

Hmmm, I fear I am missing something. I've re-read the thread but can't easily identify a…

To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.

I think so, and I think Graeme's making it in good faith. It certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. But, as I explained, it was trumped for me by other factors.

How so? Section 59(4) was only stuck in at the last minute as a compromise. Or perceived compromise. Because I can't see it actually changes a thing. Though as political moves go, it was smart.

Exactly. Now unless Graeme's making a different point, which I don't quite get, I think…

To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.

The best counter may be the one made earlier (by Kyle, I think). Sports people – especially rugby players – get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv…

To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.

How so? Section 59(4) was only stuck in at the last minute as a compromise. Or perceived compromise. Because I can't see it actually changes a thing. Though as political moves go, it was…

And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.

Heh, opinion. Yet earlier you tried to portray your comments as being like that of a mainstream journalist…

Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?

To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.

The best counter may…

Heh. Very tempted to link a certain son by Ian Dury and the Blockheads... thwack..

Hilarious.

OK I dont mind disagreeing with people but I don't tolerate that. If thats the stuff Russell tolerates in his blog, and he doesnt delete it, then I don't engage with such idiots.

It was unnecessary, and I deleted it. That does not reduce my disgust with what you've said.

And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.

No Dave, you sided with an abuser against her child. That's what it's about.

To be honest, I…

Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.

Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?

From YouTube

Heh. Very tempted to link a certain son by Ian Dury and the Blockheads... thwack..

Ah yes: "This boy is a brat."

And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.

Except that there's discretion to pursue prosecution in s. 59 and other cases.

Which doesn't change the fact that light smacking on the hand, for example, is a criminal assault.

Perhaps I've misunderstood Graeme's point?

I think what Graeme's saying is that no one in parliament seriously considers that a…

Ah yes: "This boy is a brat." Aren't they all?

What can you do
With a brat like that?

That's not what Parliament did dave. Read the debate, it's clear that they expected the law to be enforced. You're simply wrong.

..yeah right. why have an out clause ( police discretion) if parliament wanted every reported discretion enforced? Some people.....

Let's look again at Dave unemotively, coolly, conveying a story about assault.

Ah yes: "This boy is a brat." Aren't they all?

Thanks to a witness, we now know what actually happened was that the "brat" was tied up, kicked and beaten in a vicious assault that only halted because…

I note no one has a problem with parents who involve their children in a protest that includes breaking the law and puts their children at some physical risk.

There's actually some debate on the bridge crossing thread about safety issues, for all involved, but you don't seem like the…

emotive, Russell emotive.Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.

Ha! "Answer that" demands the avoider of tricky questions.

Let's look again at Dave unemotively, coolly, conveying a story about assault.

Paul,

Your answer doesn't really address the second part of Graeme's comment that you quoted, though.

Except that there's discretion to pursue prosecution in s. 59 and other cases. It's not a unique discretion nor are the Police exercising a judicial function; they're not determining guilt or innocence, they're making…

Can I suggest now that dave really is simply a troll and we might treat him as such?

Next you will be suggesting that Graeme Edgeler be treated as a troll because he does not follow the party line and label all those who oppose this legislation as pro-smackers. This…

emotive, Russell emotive.

And that's your response? I'm disgusted.

Your answer doesn't really address the second part of Graeme's comment that you quoted, though.

As for Dave, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a troll, but he doesn't argue in entirely good faith.

Out of curiosity: is it even possible not to be accepted as a guest columnist on the Herald? I'm thinking of putting myself forward for a series of contributions on how we should reintroduce serfage.

I'm seriously considering preemptively writing a response piece to Garth George and sending it in,…

And the anti-smackers who just don't think the…

Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? I ask that here

Wow. I'm truly staggered that you've voluntarily pointed to your commentary on a case that really provides a compelling argument for the removal of the Section 59 defence.

In one case,…

Perhaps Jimmy Mason needs to own his own behaviour a little more than he seems to want to.

And there's bugger all chance of that while his cheer squad keeps finding reasons why it's not his fault. __Feminists made him do it, your honour. Just a light punch. He's a…

they were treated in a way that even the research quoted here by the pro-smackers says is not good.

And the anti-smackers who just don't think the full force of the criminal law is the best way to change minds ... and the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing…

He's got a family and a wife and probably some issues to work through but I really don't know enough about what happened to pass judgment on him, and judgmental is what I read into some of the comments on here.

Like I keep saying, I just want the guy…

A law such as purposed by Chester Burrows or John Boscawen would stop verdicts by rogue juries.

Did you have any particular "rogue" jury in mind when you made that comment? Just wondering.

Is it demonstrably, indisputably harmful? That's not a rhetorical question; I thought the passive smoking issue was still in hot dispute.

I suspect something like passive smoking causes cancer is in dispute. That children of parents who smoke in the home are more likely to have asthma, be underweight as…

This stupid law makes it a lot more difficult to get someone like Mason to modify their behaviour to a behaviour that is acceptable to 80% of parents.

Christ. Good parenting isn't a democracy. Just because some proportion of the population think that something is good parenting, doesn't make it…

The verbal…

Candyman, Candyman, Ca....

Classic result.

This stupid law makes it a lot more difficult to get someone like Mason to modify their behaviour

Compared with what? You apologists piss me off – just how many people have been victimised so far by this terrible law change? Thought so.

Do you also accept that it shows very negative outcomes as a result of the kind of "discipline" dished out by Jimmy Mason and the others we've discussed on this thread?

Russell, you started this thread about Jimmy Mason so I will stick to Mason. I accept that Mason’s overall…

As for the position he's got himself into, well,

that position being taking 3 kids he couldn't manage through town with dangerous traffic,

And face it Rob, you turning up just after someone said "Section 92A" was quite funny ...

humor must be on a low ebb round you then…

while permitting police discretion on a law banning cigarette sales in supermarkets.

One problem with the "ban smoking" analogy is that, if we did have such a law (which we shouldn't) I doubt a defense would be allowed whereby they only smoked a small, "least harmful" amount and so weren't…

Is it that odd? I can't ever see myself smoking a cigareete, but don't think it should be illegal. I can't ever see myself smacking a child, but don't think it should be illegal.

Smoking inside your house, with your children around, is demonstrably, indisputably harmful to them, even if…

I'm not going to hate him for the position he got himself into, I'm not going to adopt his behaviour either, and won't condone it but I'm not going to see it in black and white evil either. its about education,

As I've said before, my overwhelming interest in Mason…

Mason may not be a "bad man" in some wider sense, but he is a person who committed assault.

I'm not sure anyone here is arguing he should be the subject of hatred "for the position he got…

You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...

:) I have better things to be doing than getting into a bitch fight on this topic but its an interesting read to see the debating skills go down.

personally I think you're a curse but its your site…

by a lawyer claiming something like

my concern here was not so much what the lawyers said but in how it is used in media in an emotive way.

if I was to get punched in the face by mason I would expect at least a broken nose and some…

You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...

That's actually a bit creepy. Candyman, Candyman, Ca....

Under the old law, couldn't "reasonable force" have been argued in this case, by a lawyer claiming something like "the strike to the face was not even sufficient to cause bruising – therefore the amount of force used was not unreasonable. That is the…

Personally I think that the amendments to S92 will facilitate our transition into the 21st Century and .....
Oh wait. Wrong thread. Easy mistake, eh?

You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...

not all researchers of your persuasion conclude in their research that light smacking leads to child abuse

Read the above Dave. Perhaps you'll understand my "persuasion" then.

Heh. I guess, with your rather odd comparison with smoking, you mean?

Is it that odd? I can't ever see myself smoking a cigareete, but don't think it should be illegal. I can't ever see myself smacking a child, but don't think it should be illegal.

Smoking inside your house,…

Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?

Sorry, hadn't realised you were that far out of it.

And, to be clear, I do understand your point. My personal preference would be for fewer laws, enforced as they're written down. To some extent, the…

ps I'm pro anti smacking bill.
I think no amount of physical violence should be used against kids, but what is the difference between violence and force. is it intent?

reason I ask is when you colour this quite strong man's…

Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?

Heh. I guess, with your rather odd comparison with smoking, you mean?

Oh wait. Wrong thread. Easy mistake, eh?

It seems worthwhile to point out that not all researchers see the clear and obvious demarcation between smacking parents and abusive parents that you and Graeme saw in the longitudinal study.

Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?

If you are going to link research, link some decent ones.

Most studies have weakneses. I didn't claim the study was definitive, but I don't believe it was as worthless as you say.

The association between frequency of smacking and abusive punishment seemed alarming to me.

As MedPage noted:

Dr.…

Man that's cynical.

Yeah, having to read the drivel from the likes of Crampton, Dexter and Bird have that effect on me.
I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your trustworthiness. I'll have you know that I hold lawyers in high esteem, honest.
;-)

I don't believe your words of praise had dismissive quotation marks then.

Yeah, people shouldn't use dismissive quotation marks just to suit their case. Ain't that right Dave?

seven if you count the police "witness". – Dave Crampton

Studies can show links to anything if you want it to. You may not have read that study you linked but, the sample was taken from just two states and is hardly representative, as the study itself points out.... Studies have to be reliable, valid and transferrable to carry…

But Heather to the rescue anyway :-)

... do you have any evidence of even the existence of such a competition and if so, what the outcome was? because the only thing I can find is your Scoop story. I would have thought a stunt like this would have hit the MSM at some point

Man that's…

Yes, that head/tails competition did exist. I can remember listening to some of it. MoreFM tried it and several similar (e.g. heads = trip / tails= wedding dress destroyed) in early 2008. Not a lucky one, as most of the time result was tails. It did hit MSM at…

Spanking has been, and still is, a common method of child discipline used by American parents.

But mothers who report that they or their partner spanked their child in the past year are nearly three times more likely to state that they…

They also waste hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on helping children/families and take away media attention from real charitable organisations that could desperately use it.
And support people like C Rankin when they call for these organisations to be boycotted.

Russ:

Yes, Graeme, those things were…

They also waste hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on helping children/families and take away media attention from real charitable organisations that could desperately use it.
And support people like CRankin when they call for these organisations to be boycotted.

When I was kid I tried to…

Family First ... have done NOTHING to justify their existence.

Justify to whom? It's not like they're taxpayer funded...

And I happen to really like their campaign for family dinners.
"What your kids really want for dinner...is you!" is a great message.

And this response to an ill-conceived More FM…

I'm not demeaning what they do

That was after you said:

Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous…

I'm not demeaning what they do, You're being a bit silly now....

Yes you were, and no I'm not ...

Have you ever met anyone from Barnaodos?

Not that it means anything , but yes, I know Murray Edridge and get on with him pretty well, actually. I'm not demeaning what they do, You're being a bit silly now.... Yes, I've no doubt the prevalence of the most low-impact corporal…

I was aware that the study I quoted did not claim that a smack had positive benefits.

Do you also accept that it shows very negative outcomes as a result of the kind of "discipline" dished out by Jimmy Mason and the others we've discussed on this thread?

Because that…

So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it ...

I believe you're confusing those agencies with the For the Sake of Our Children Trust.

Have you…

Save the Children and other agencies that deal directly with child welfare backed the removal of the S59 defence and now support the "yes" vote in the referendum

So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in…

Um, I think you'll find that the Herald article was quoting the Otago Uni psychologist as saying that not one of the thousands of international studies was inconsistent with this study's findings

Probably not this research which Russell raised in 2007, by the Children's Issues Centre at the University of…

There you go, the kids were well adjusted even without being smacked as preschoolers. So why are you so obsessed with wanting to smack children, Chuck?

Steven, I am not obsessed with wanting to smack children anymore that the majority of those who oppose this bad piece of legislation that…

As the Herald story says, this research 'refutes' thousands of international studies. Which is interesting, but doesn't make it correct.

Um, I think you'll find that the Herald article was quoting the Otago Uni psychologist as saying that not one of the thousands of international studies was inconsistent with this…

Despite my years in student politics etc I've never been arrested or even cautioned.

Clearly you weren't doing it right. Twice. Twice I tell you!

There's also the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study.

People wave that around a lot. There's some things to be aware of in relation to…

... that gets you into some weird territory.

it's not that we're drinking...?

It's how we're drinking ...

"It's not that we smack – it's how we smack" would be a decidedly odd public information campaign.

But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.

Yeah, I kinda felt the same ;-)

But it does seem to me that it's characteristic of bad smackers to believe they're good smackers. One thing I think the last couple of pages has helped…

As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.

No. Rather, you use the study to determine what bad smacking is. Then you ban that .

But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.

In short, don't take a high…

About as good, or better, was the conclusion.

Possibly slightly better, in one, albeit robust, study. As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.

if you separate the most low-impact corporal punishment from the rest, your results improve to the point where they're about as good as not using corporal punishment at all.

About as good, or better , was the conclusion.

And yet we still make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment'.

Like, more effective than changing the law.Here in New Zealand parents like Mason aren't exposed to education campagns to the extent of changing behavior, just the effects of the law, because that's what Sue Bradford and her friends wanted to emphasise.

However convenient it is to demonise Bradford and her…

No, not “non-perfect parents; Parents disposed to abuse. No all “non-perfect” parents are disposed to abuse.

And according to Baumrind, those disposed were inclined to be easily frustrated or had a controlling nature. They were supposed to self-diagnose and self-regulate themselves into not smacking.

[Insert Tui billboard here.]

As Gershoff…

The high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse does not imply a causal link as Gershoff seemed to suggest when she said, “Child abuse in any form is a tragedy and deserves our best prevention efforts, and thus…

you whack any animal often. you get a fearful cowed beast – or a sullen vengeful one.

Or, as the case may be, a sullen vengeful Bird.

Baumrind is always cited by pro-smackers — there are very few supportive studies available to them. You don't hear so much of the criticism by other researchers that appeared in the same journal.

She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly…

She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly…

I am sure you are not really a bad person. You just appear to have a few hang ups more than likely form you childhood.

Chuck, this isn't the forum for you. I think that's been clear for a while but that kind of ridiculous baiting just doesn't cut it.…

I suggest that instead you read Tapu Misa's brilliant column on the topic.
I don't expect that it will actually get through to you, but one can only hope

Russell, I had actually read before you pointed it out. I happen to disagree with her in that article. In the…

Despite my years in student politics etc I've never been arrested or even cautioned. I was detained as a young fella when caught out applying the five-finger discount however...

I got bashed with a long baton once (although the police swore the whole incident never happened, that they were never…

I want to be like him when I fully grow up.

I always think it nice when one looks up to their elders.

I was detained as a young fella when caught out applying the five-finger discount however...

My version of detained at 16 was, underage, sitting on the bottom…

Now I am a model citizen.

You even make models!

The equivalent post-trial 'sentence' is a discharge without conviction. It seems unlikely in this case.

Duh. That's what I meant. I think the judge has indicated he was prepared to consider it.

You are a loon, and I do not have the time or patience to run your errands.

I suggest that instead you read Tapu Misa's brilliant column on the topic.

I don't expect that it will actually get through to you, but…

inri.

Irrie :)

Show that you are a man and not a child and admit you are wrong.

It's that or a 'light' punch to the eye, eh?

He also seems to have made a practice of hitting his children around the head, according to his older kids.

Russell, the quote above that was highlighted is obviously I was referring to. I did not hear either of his older children state that Mason made a practice of hitting…

Frankly, I don't mind if he gets diversion, so long as he gets some help with that anger and stops acting it out on his small children.

Diversion is not a possibility.

Diversion happens very early on in the process, and basically results in the police dropping the charges.

The…

But that's just me.

Nah, not just you.

That's something that Jesus wasn't s'posed to have, init?

inri.

Or, at the very least, starts recognising it as a failure of his own parenting and not some sodding badge of honour.
I really cannot understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Possibly because he really is ignorant and knows no better, then the attention that followed (which he seemed to…

Mason presumably loves his kids, and for all his bluster, thinks he's doing the right thing.

But he seemed positively proud of that phrase "angry dad mode" as a description of his public loss of control…

Christ on a stick!

Didn't the Romans do that already?
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll get me coat.

Even if he did use excessive force that does not in my mind make him a bad father. The fact that he MAY have used excessive force does not make him a bad father.

Christ on a stick! This guy is just totally batshit crazy.

But remember: he's a good father.

Russell, is that an exact quote or you taking journalistic licence as usual?

Chuck, for goodness sake, it's a quote from your post this morning :

On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a…

He also seems to have made a practice of hitting his children around the head, according to his older kids.

But remember: he's a good father.

Russell, is that an exact quote or you taking journalistic licence as usual?

When I was young I got strapped and possible sometimes with…

There are various villains conjured, mostly CYFS, but it's clear enough that Bob thought the only victim was the woman concerned.

He later denied that Family First had ever championed the woman. This was a extremely disingenuous,…

Are you seriously saying that the benchmark is immediate visible injuries? Do you want to get into some sick debate about how much facial bruising is enough?

In this case he should advocate for parents to carry around phone books. Urban legend has these well used in police cells to…

Perhaps ScottY, but given that he admitted a punch and he was found guilty of an assault, it's not unreasonable to think the jury, which determines matters of fact not law, thought the punch relevant. This…

Perhaps next time you wont dress something up as fact when you have not the slightest idea whether it is true.

dave, that's plainly BS (it's also a tactic that only works in schoolyard disputes). If I thought there was something to be gained from this conversation, I'd persist, but…

Not posting for any specific reason, other than it seems relevant to the general discusson.

Now, just…

Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?

Try this Dave:

"I can understand that verdict and that it implies acceptance of the evidence of the people who were at the…