Posts by Chuck Bird
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Chuck Bird. That article you linked to is a decade old."
And how is that relevant?
-
Russell, why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.
Non nan hating women can even look at the facts such as those below by Cathy Young, author of Ceasefire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v29/ai_20417670
-
<blockquote> which turned out to be no rumour. </blockquote>
John, have you any proof? Were you a witness or can you produce one?
Russell seems like double standard. Are you going to warn John Morrison about posting unsubstantiated rumours?
-
Russell, is Winston’s slime banned here as well? You are wondering why Helen keeps Peters and I am telling you. Many years ago I was in NZF. I thought Winston did quite a few good things and I still do. It is a real shame how his career will likely end. He had a lot of talent and potential. Getting back to when I was in NZF, I raised the issue of Helen and Peter’s strange marriage to Winston. Winston repeated the rumour I had heard before about Peter Davis editing a homosexual magazine while at university. Before you get your knickers in a twist I do not know if this is true or not.
The point I am making is that Winston has always been happy to dish dirt on his political opponents. If he feels rightly or wrongly that Helen has cut him loose and reneged on an agreement he will go feral at her – he will have nothing to lose.
On another point you made about Key’s first instinct was to lie I can hardly argue with you on that – I seen him on TV as well. However, that would probably be the first instinct of the majority of MPs of all parties. It certainly applies to Helen – would you like some examples?
I believe you have somewhat of a double standard regarding spreading baseless and malicious rumours. It is okay for the left to do so but not anyone else. Helen and her adviser Brian Edwards have repeatedly made the baseless and malicious allegation the National Party has started and spread rumours the Helen is a lesbian. I have yet to see one scrap of evidence to support this allegation.
The last time I heard National spread rumours was Muldoon in his comment about Moyle. He was no doubt pissed at the time. Labour agreed not to retaliate and both parties stuck to an unwritten agreement until Mallard with Clark’s approval made comments about Brash’s private life.
-
Russell, good on you for seeing the obvious something Labour has chosen not to do. Do you really not have any idea why?
Do you not think that the real reason Labour supports Winston is that Labour is scared Winston goes feral? Ian Wishart repeatedly asked Labour if Peter Davis got out of the US in a hurry on a diplomatic passport.
This may or may not be true but if it was not true why did Labour just say NO WAY instead of no comment. If it was true Winston as Minister of Affairs he would know something that could be very embarrassing for Labour.
-
Samuel, I am amazed at your reply especially for someone not hiding behind a pseudonym. The police should not consider charging the mother. They should charge the mother. That is of course if this article is accurately reported and the mother did have knowledge that her 11 year old daughter was have sex with a 19 year old young man.
I fail to see how anyone can say it is a complex issue on whether to charge a young adult for having sex with an 11 year old. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but frankly I think yours is a bit sick. If that is considered name calling I think it is well justified.
Does anyone else on this forum support Samuel? If so, please state if you are a parent. -
Noizyboy, the quote is below.
The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
When she gave that talk she did not tell the audience that the police had a confession. She was falsely giving the impression that the police did not have enough evidence to prosecute. As Commissioner for Children she should be pushing for the police to prosecute as is Sandz Peipi of Rape Crisis in the article.
I am still waiting for a reply from Kiro.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124
A link to my letter to her is above.
-
International Observer, you are roughly correct, I doubt if Goff being a parent floated this on his own initiative. The Labour Party uses others often to float or even promote ideas. We all know that under 16s are having sex but putting the official stamp on this further undermines parental authority as does this anti smacking legislation. It would also have the effect of having sex with a minor appear less serious that it is.
As I recall the proposal called for some sort of age difference. Let us say it was three years. Under present law if an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old the police may or may not prosecute. If the minor was say 14 the police certainly should prosecute not withstanding the present case we are discussing. Under proposed legislation the police could not prosecute in the first scenario. If the age gap was four years and the girl was 14 the boy would argue she was only a little under the age and the police would be less likely to prosecute than under existing law. This would work just like lowering the drinking age.
The proposed law would even make sex where there is a large age gap seem less serious. If a 28 year old has sex with a 15 year old it is considered serious as the minor is under the age of consent. Under the proposed law change the minor is below the age of consent under some circumstances. As a father and a grandfather I felt quite sick at the proposal.
In regard the prostitution law reform there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the number of underage prostitutes has increased. Some of this comes from within the industry.
Unfortunately, your link does not work. Would you please check it or cut and paste.
-
Russell, if it was not for a gang member we would not have the medals back. Shoud we thank him? It is not relevant that Kiro raised the issue in a speech. She is making excuses for the police in not prosecuting. See link below.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10478186
There has been a confession. Kiro not replied to my email to justify her position and explain why the police should not prosecute.
I expected your childish response. Typical of the left you are good enough at calling others names with little justification but cry foul when it happens to you.
Kyle, do you not remember this government floating the idea of lowering the age of sexual consent to 12? After a public outcry they quickly dropped the idea. When you consider the increase in underage prostitutes I think the term paedophile friendly government is justified.
Samuel, I know basically what is in the article that I linked to above. If you know anything about this case that justify the police inaction and Kiro’s support of the police’s inaction I would appreciate it.
It appears that Russell supports the police for reason he seems to be unable to articulate. What is you position?
I would also like to hear from other on the left who support Bradford’s ideologically driven anti smacking legislation? Do you support the police inaction and if so why?
-
Kyle, that arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me. First the left thinks they know better than the vast majority of parents on how to raise children. The anti smacking law was the final straw. A short while ago this paedophile friendly government passed legislation to remove any doubt that the State has the right to arrange abortions for underage girls. Amongst other things this helps older males get away with having sex with much younger underage girls. The new prostitution legislation has meant more underage girls on the street.
At present there is a situation where a 21 year old man impregnated a 13 year old girl. The sex started when she was 11. The man has admitted this. The police have declined to charge the man and according to the newspaper at the time was still carrying on with a sexual relationship. What message does this send to young men in their late teens or early 20s if they what sex with an underage girl or boy?
Cindy Kiro supports the police in their inaction and Russell Brown supports Cindy. In my books this makes them little better than paedophiles themselves.
Getting back to your reply. I do not need you tell give me a dictionary definition or “repeal” and “amend”. Do you know the definition of semantics?
It appears a waste of time to trying to engage the left in intelligent debate. All they are capable of is name calling, distortion and out and out lies. Mike Williams’ denial of Glenn’s donation of a 100k interest free loan is but the latest example.