Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bestiality's gross (much more so when it's used to degrade women, which doesn't seem to have been the case here)
My, you are trusting, Russell, or is that naive? If it's similar to the video I saw many years go (of course!), appropriately entitled Animal Action 2, then I doubt that is the case. Yes, most of the *actors* were male and some appeared to be wearing wigs for some reason. But there were one or two females doing certain ahem things with dogs. Enough said.
-
Must have caught you on a bad day, then. :)
-
"I generally only get angry when someone brings my family into it"
Or when someone disagrees with you.
-
> ron, I agree with you about the Christchurch crèche business but I don't see its relevance.
He apologised after Bazley's report was released because he had no other option. But he did have the option in the other case and he chose to remain silent. He has never apologised to the women creche workers. What does that say about the guy?
-
As for Howard Broad and his *sincere* apology on behalf of all women, well, I don't believe it for a second. Let's recall what Lynley Hood published on Scoop on April 5 2006.
"On Thurs 1 October 1992, Detective Inspector Howard Broad of Christchurch announced to a packed press conference that four women child care workers had been arrested in the Christchurch Civic Creche case [Press, 2 Oct 92]. He named the women and described the shocking charges they faced jointly with the already-demonised Peter Ellis (who had been arrested 6 months earlier):
“They [three of the women] are accused of sexually violating a boy by having unlawful sexual connection with him; indecent assault on the same boy, who was then aged three and four; Indecent assault on another boy, then aged three and four; and indecent assault on a girl, then aged three and four.
“The fourth woman ... is charged that jointly with Ellis she wilfully did an indecent act in the toilets at the creche some time between April 1, 1989, and October 31, 1991.”
The charges against the women were dismissed pre-trial. My research [A City Possessed, 2001] established that the allegations were the product of the ritual abuse hysteria sweeping Christchurch at the time. Police officers in the grip of this hysteria made the grossly unprofessional mistake of treating rumour and innuendo as established fact.
Howard Broad’s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers.
Since then, calls for a commission of inquiry into the creche case have been rejected by government. Consequently, none of the officials involved have learnt anything from the mistakes made. Indeed, because they have never had to admit to making any mistakes, many of them have repeated he same mistakes, over and over again. With Howard Broad’s appointment as the country’s top police officer, there is a real risk that ongoing damage caused to the fabric of New Zealand society by sex abuse hysteria and false allegations will continue unabated".
-
From the NZ Herald 3 April:
* Twelve police officers were found to be victims of false allegations
* Twenty police officers were charged and acquitted
* Two police officers were charged and committed suicide
* 129 officers had complaints made against them that were not
upheldSo potentially quite a few false alegations of sexual abuse. Yet it's now been revealed that Dame Margaret Bazley wanted to conduct an unscientific survey of supporters of alleged rape victims, presumably so she could obtain the maximum amount of dirt on the police.
Bazley is fortunate that the inquiry was held behind closed doors. Any other bad decisions by her are unlikely to be revealed. She is not required to answer questions about her report and it's not subject to the Official Information Act. Convenient.
-
From Stuff earlier today:
Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
"CYFS seems to have so much power," said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.
She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.
Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove "reasonable force" for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.
Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.
She says she asked: "If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police - would you have to come out and investigate?"
The answer was yes.
Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.
Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.
She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that's when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.
"That's the bit that scared me - having CYFS on your doorstep," Mrs Elliott said.
"I've got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.
"A light smack for correction is not abuse," she added.
Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.
He said it would be "difficult to say, categorically" if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.
However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said reported assaults on children would "almost invariably" end up with CYFS.
"If a parent admits to smacking a child, that's clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported," he said.
Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be "basically mandatory".
Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.
Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.
"Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault," Mr O'Connor said.
"Police are not going to go around looking for it," he added.
Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.
"The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do."
-
Rodgerd: "I'm not allowed to wander about my workplace swiping my colleagues' arses".
One would hope that you wouldn't need to, though why you compare a 2 yeard old child with your colleague is beyond me. You probably don't spoon feed your colleague or tell him he must be in bed by 7.30 either. Enough said.
"So hitting children improves their behaviour.."
Well, there's a fair bit of research to show that smacking can change kids' behaviour, apparently for the better. I'm not sure about hitting though. Of course, smacking is just one tool - some of the anti smackers seem to think it is the ONLY tool.
"Irrelevant because... you say so? So we shouldn't look at other countries and ask how we measure up and see what we might learn from them? Simply announce that our world-leading rates of child abuse are nothing to worry about and do nothing?"
Well, I agree we can learn from other countries...if we want to. For example, several countries which permit smacking have the lowest rates of child deaths in the Western world, as low or lower than the often-quoted Sweden. Maybe there is absolutely no relationship between a ban on smacking and low rates of child abuse?
You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating child abuse with smacking. I thought we'd moved well beyond that.
-
Bart wrote: "currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse".
I'm not sure what you base that comment on unless of course you regard smacking as child abuse. I imagine that police try to prosecute all cases of child abuse, as long as there is sufficient evidence.
BTW, I think you'll find that child abusers, when caught and charged, are usually convicted. Of course, there is the odd one that isn't but that applies to every crime. But that doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for changing the status quo.
-
"They're the ones calling Katherine Rich and threatening her children; they're the ones posting nasty comments on a range of sites and fantasing about killing Sue Bradford and publishing MPs' home addresses on CYFS Watch".
Russell, you've identified TWO or maybe THREE individuals. Nice distraction from the issue though.