Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A kid falls off a bike, gets hurt and his supervisory adult gets angry about the accident and then tries to bloody hurt him further.It is way offline on what any generation constitutes good parenting .It pisses me off and I respect the people who reported him.
I've been fuming about this all day. I'm not sure exactly why. It could be that I've been close to overwhelmed by a couple of stories of horrific child abuse in NSW of late or because my wife's due to give birth to our second child very soon. It could be both and the fact that PAS is a remarkable place for reasoned and thoughtful discussion; often passionate, but almost always reasoned.
By contrast, Chuck Bird's an unremarkable troll. Easily ignored but for the fact that he's trying to minimise an act of genuine violence against a four year old - the same age as my middle kid (don't try the math, mine's a slightly complicated family). No. Fucking. Way.
I'll accept that some believe phyical discipline can be part of good parenting, I don't. I'll also admit that I've, regretably, administered literally a couple of smacks... but none of this can in any way justify what Mason did.
A punch, pushing around a two-year old who's had a bicycle accident, these are indefensable acts of violence and Chuck's defences are ridiculous. Questioning what the jury heard, what witnesses said, the apolication of the prior or amended laws... these tactics divert attention from what is a simple matter. It is not acceptable for a parent to discipline their children in this manner. Not ever. Kudos to all those who intevened and the Police for prosecuting.
-
Scotty, when someone is stupid enough to argue with and challenge the police as Mason was the police often will embellish their evidence or story.
And you've got evidence of this right? Evidence to support Police corruption to prosecute an otherwise fine Dad. You're flailing. Go back to kiwiblog where innuendo and BS are standard fare.
-
Paul, my name (Scott Yorke) isn't private any longer, since its all over my blog site... My friends and I had too much to drink one day and decided to field a joke candidate. I drew the short straw. I ran against you. I was probably more pleased at your victory than you were, because the mere possibility of winning it terrified me.
That was my first and last foray into the murky world of politics.
I checked your link and remember it all well. Student politics was always a mix of earnestness and ridiculousness, I probably needed more of the latter...
@Chuck, whatever. I can't muster the energy to re-read and challenge your various statements. You want to defend a man who has been convicted of assaulting a four year old. I can't think of a single good reason to listen to you further.
-
Don Brash?
(Voted for Civil Unions at the first reading, but voted against them once he'd become leader of the National party in order to snuggle up to the Brethren)
I entirely agree. Brash's self-styled gentlemanly politics was a sham. He claimed to be a moral man, above politics even, but his record is full of blatant hypocrisy.
-
Anyway, Paul, did I go to Waikato University with you? Law School? And I may have encountered you during my brief but disreputable foray into student politics.
Missed this - yes. I was part of the first intake and did do student politics (a fair bit of it, too much some would say). Contact me offline if you'd rather keep you name private.
-
Chuck is right that we don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict.
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 wasn't a hard case, from what little I've read, I think Bird and his mates are wasting their time defending this man.
-
It is possible that the jury believed that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face. It is possible that the jury did not accept that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face yet correctly under this legislation found him guilt of assault. Pulling someone by the hair is assault.
Lightly in the face? You're not for real are you? Chuck, my tolerance for what you're saying is limited. Very limited. Sadly, NZ has a pretty poor record of child abuse. It needs addressing. Parental attitudes to physical discipline are part of that. Anyone who punches a four year old, lightly or otherwise, should be prosecuted for assault.
Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault - you want to quibble about what the jury determined were the relevant facts? I think you'll find it hard to argue that they didn't consider that a punch was administered. A first year law student understands the need for both actus reus and mens rea. Are you suggesting the punch wasn't the act for which Mason was convicted?
I honestly hope you have minimal contact with children.
-
Chuck, seriously now, bugger off back to kiwiblog yeah. You've nothing constructive to contribute, you're disinterested in others' opinions and you've said enough elsewhere to make your views well known. What could you possibly hope to achieve here? Mason's reputation isn't going to be rehabilitated by you.
-
Fair points Joe. Just thought it worth noting that some church folk do great things beyond just worrying for others' immortal souls.
-
There's a reason why I'm uncomfortable with religious groups running social services....
I'm in and out of this conversation, but I hope we'll all acknowledge that many church groups do fantastic charitable work (as do many lay-groups). It's also worth noting that the NZ Council of Christian Social Services, the peak body for church service providers, is also a particularly effective lobby group and has been for a long time.