Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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 you're determined to obfuscate in an attempt to minimise the fact that Mason's been found guilty. I'm simply not interested in arguing with a fool (and this is the conclusion I've drawn from your repeated foolish arguments).
-
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?
I answered this very question some time ago by quoting and linking to Russell's comments about the judgment.
dave, I'm close to over this conversation. You appear interested in a pretty narrow point, a point which we'll possibly not ever isolate, a point which I don't share your enthusiasm for. Mason's been found guilty of assault. I believe the court's findings negate his protestations. I don't know that this case vindicates the section 59 amendment, no one case will I suspect.
I've struggled to understand the logic to your various points. I've assumed you feel the amendment to the law was not necessary. I don't agree. If your interest in this thread is to prove the redundency of the amendment based on this case, I believe you're wasting your time (more so if you want to misinterpret my arguments).
-
And I argued that? Is that what you are saying I did?
actually, dave, you're right, you didn't, it was others. I confess I can't quite work out what you're arguing about anymore...
-
Deborah Coddington's column about Christine Rankin is worth reading.
That's the first time I've found myself thinking Coddington's both right and/or reasonably expressed a considered view. This para I particularly agreed with:
But actually, it's her ignorant dismissal of others' ideas that makes her unsuited to the Families Commission. It has nothing to do with her marital status. Her own behaviour this past week has demonstrated she's totally unsuitable.
-
dave, Chuck and Andy, I think we can now simply agree to disagree. You appear determined to argue taht a man who assaults his kids might be a decent father, I think that is obscene. The rest, the debates about which evidence was compelling and the particular charges he faced, are nothing other than distractions.
-
Michael Laws endorses Lee; poor women, she didn't deserve that.
And is this a statement about Michael's own career:
So Lee may not win Mt Albert. But she's entertaining. She is feisty. She looks good. And she has a personality primed for political incorrectness. And none of these things is bad.
-
Oh FFS, this is ridiculous. Dave, what's the point of your obsession with which element of the assault tipped the jury? The guilty verdict proves Mason's various denials and PR bullshit didn't stand up to the scrutiny of a criminal court case.
What's astounding is that the fulminations of the media matter somehow in this discourse. Unless Mason appeals and has the conviction overturned, I think it's safe to assume that the witnesses evidence regarding the four-year old being punched by his father was germane to the conviction.
-
dave, you appear to be fighting against something that hasn't been said here - some disagreement about what Mason should have been charged with.
My argument was, and remains, with Chuck Bird and anyone else who'd argue that Mason's not guilty for the acts he's admited. My frustration is with the suggestion that (a) his admissions in court were different from those out of court (b) he plead not guilty (c) we don't know what the jury thought about each element of his assault. I'm reliant on the the fact of his conviction and what's been reported in relation to the judge's comments.
As you note, I didn't say he'd admitted the punch in court, I did say the judge believed the witnesses who claimed he'd punched his four-year old - a despicable act.
Thanks for the typo correction too, "congruous" is a word I mispronounce...
-
dave, your posts at 8.53pm and 9.45pm on Friday seem incongurous with your post at 5.45pm. I take it your churlish challenge at 5.45pm was just a brain-fart?
-
dave, the media and Russell noted the admission was made to witnesses and also that the Judge accepted the evidence of the witnesses:
This is so unbelievably disingenuous, I can barely convey my contempt for it.
But I'll try: The judge made a point of observing that the jury had accepted the evidence of witnesses. The witnesses said Mason punched his four year-old in the face with a closed fist, and was unrepentant it about after the fact.
Moreover, Mason's not guilty plea did not stop the jury from determining his guilt. That you see his post hoc denial as more plausable than the Judge's, the jury's and the court's ruling is simply not credible and, frankly, these aren't difficult points to follow.
I was a law graduate 15 years ago dave and I never profess great legal knowledge (I think it was scottY who mentioned I was at law school first, I don't know that I have made mention of it) but it's not needed in this instance. I doubt anyone's distracted by your obfuscation over this matter (I'm not even curious about why).