Ear “flicking” Dad prosecuted for assault
Most will recall how six police officers turned up when Jimmy Mason flicked his son’s ear for not acting safely on his bike.
Police have now announced he is being charged with two counts of assault.
Now we don’t know exactly what did happen. Was it just a flick on the ear or something more serious? What do the witnesses say happened? Was there bruising or bleeding?
This case will be closely watched. If Mason did just flick his son’s ears, then the anti-smacking law will be vilified. If on the other hand he seriously assaulted his son advocates of the law will claim this proves the need for the law. It may of course come down to a he said vs they said.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
The area where it happenned should be saturated by cctv’s.
Bit like Tau and Mallard, which we never got to see.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Nice to see the Press is presenting all the facts. THe charges are for assult on TWO people, assuming on two of his children but could have been another child.
Nice to see David that you pointed out this has nothing to do with S59 and all to do with prosecutions under existing law and depending on curcumstances he still would have been charged.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:29 am
How do you imagine this has nothing to do with s59?
January 30th, 2008 at 9:40 am
whats the bet he gets charged for one count and gets off on the ear flicking…
January 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
“…this has nothing to do with S59 and all to do with prosecutions under existing law”.
Despite two years of ad nauseum debate, select committee hearings, etc, it still amazes me how many muppets there are vis-a-vis the s59 debate.
JD, this case epitomises the whole debate on s.59 and DPF is quite correct in his observations.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
If there was a serious assault it could have been prosecuted under section 59 which only allowed reasonable force. It would have been then up to the jurors to define if the force was reasonable or not. So the old law would have worked perfectly well.
However under the new law no force is reasonable. So I’m sure our children can sleep contentedly in their beds knowing that if their parents so much as touches or flicks them they can expect a visit from no less than six police officers.
A better recipe for producing disruptive and defiant children would be difficult to devise.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I’m almost certain that JD’s comments are not his own, but rather those of the police who stated on One News last night that regardless of s59, they would have prosecuted Mason anyway – which I thought was a total load of bollocks. If s59 had not gone through Parliament, then this would not be: A. be making news; B. be of any interest to the Police.
It was either sloppy jounralism or misjudgement by the Police.
Worse still about all these cases of s59 is that we are forced to endure Bradford’s swarmy face every time telling us that yes, its true, we are all safer because of her. It makes me sick.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am
He will be found guilty as there is no defence for s59. I consider it a test case and pressure was probably put on the police to prosicute ,probably by the female teacher, my 10c worth. Bradford will now say the bill is working as it should , but dont worry about stupid pighunters ,dumb boat skippers and teenagers who have sex with 11yos, These cases arnt in the public interest and just show the police are under a political thumb,and thats sad.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Could bloggers help me here.
If the father is found guilty will he be allowed to visit Aussie or the USA. I recall, sort of, that their Arrival Cards ask you to disclose all sorts of naughty, or supposedly naughty, activities.
My nephew had a short visit to Melbourne. He disclosed his nefarious past and got a free trip to the Melbourne cop shop while waiting for the next seat available on a return flight to N.Z.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
DPF says: “If on the other hand he seriously assaulted his son advocates of the law will claim this proves the need for the law.”
But the police are saying they would have prosecuted under the old law anyway. So it sounds as if it was serious and the new law is irrelevant to the issue one way or the other. Either way, the new law was unnecessary.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Why doesn’t National promise to do something about an incompetent and politically corrupt police force. Not only are the police very selective about which MPs they charge but it appears that they are influence by the government on how they enforce the anti-smacking legislation.
The police were meant to use discretion. Like all of us I do not know the full facts but if the father did much more that flick his son on the ear why has it taken this amount of time to make a decision?
There needs to be some consistency. Welfare of children should come ahead of pleasing the government of the day.
It is an outrage that this father is charged yet a 21 year old who impregnated a 13 year old girl is not charged and the Commissioner for Children defends the police in not charging this sexual predator. This young man started having sex with her long before she was 13.
We also have the case of the hunter who left a 2 and a 5 year old in his car while he went hunting for 2 hours. The 2 year old got lost in the bush and this sparked a search that would have cost thousands if not for volunteers. I would not be surprised if the police did not know the hunter. I do not know if this is the case but I do know of others where the police have covered for off duty officers and their mates.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
A bystander wrote to the Press after this incident, and apparently Mason was making a spectacle of himself, ranting and raving, his sons were quite intimidated by their father losing the plot, and he intimidated onlookers as well. I’m guessing verbally and with gestures. Waving a clenched fist is also assault, I think…
January 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Tauhei Notts, they only knew because he told them so it’s pretty much tell them nothing and with a plane load going through immigration they’re not likely to check. But the US, thats a different story and my advice would be to don’t even try to enter.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
My lovely wife was at The Warehouse the other day – Master Monty (3) decided to pack a tantrum. Normally he would have got a whack on his hand to settle him (and often distracts him from the tantrum so works effectively)
She did consider giving him a smack – but feared for being the victim in a similar prosecution. The tantrum carried on for the next ten minutes till wifey had finished shopping – much to her embarressement and the embarressment of Master Monty’s two sisters.
The ability to use reasonable force has limited the options available and in some ways this example demonstrates why I hope the law gets repealed and the referendum is so important. At least then the people can get a chance to speak their mind (and Sue will be unemployed and out of parliament when it happens so that will be a positive)
January 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hey people- YOU VOTED FOR AND GAVE YOUR ELECTORAL SUPPORT TO THE PEOPLE WHO PRODUCED THIS LEGISLATION.
The horse was out of the stable the instant you conceded political power to such a group of power seeking ideologues. Small insignificant government is the only answer, and in the end, the only way you will escape the maneuvers of these totalitarians and zealots. What will it take to allow you to come to this realization? How long will you keep voting yourselves into tyranny and servitude?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am
A bystander wrote to the Press after this incident, and apparently Mason was making a spectacle of himself, ranting and raving, his sons were quite intimidated by their father losing the plot, and he intimidated onlookers as well. I’m guessing verbally and with gestures. Waving a clenched fist is also assault, I think…
The initial story reported that six police officers attended the incident – and thus far the only person who’s described the assault as an ‘ear-flicking’ is the accused.
The police do make some strange and terrible mistakes on a regular basis, but as has been pointed out this is a test case and I imagine it was looked at pretty closely before they made a decision to prosecute.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
What has Sue “my bill” Bradford’s response been to this case? I’ve missed her ugly mug telling us how she has single-handedly saved the children of Aotearoa.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Off topic, but have the police decided whether to prosecute the hunter who left his two children, aged two and five, alone for two hours? or were there mitigating circumstances?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am
What’s the bet this is a face-saving prosecution by the police after the outcry that 6 of them turned up to the incident – not to help – but to berate the man for flicking his child’s ear.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Flick a child’s ear and get charged by police with assault.
13 year olds “bully” 13 and 14 year olds at Hutt Valley High School and get suspended, until a mother complains to the police and then a little reaction occurs.
This wide spread “bullying” in schools is a recognised fact of life according to the chairman of the board of trustees.
“Bullying” in this case was an assautt under the Crimes Act !961, but the police don’t bring this charge. Why not?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
” A bystander wrote to the Press after this incident, ”
Well that’s it. Lets hang the bastard then. No way the writer of that letter could have been anyone but a totally honest objective observer without any political views whatsoever on the merits of this legislation and most likely without even the slightest political connections to the Labour Party. Probably doesn’t even know who Sue Bradford is.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I agree with Chuck Bird, why are the police not going after the guy who had sex with the young girl?
Why not prosecute the hunter who left his children in the car?
Why no action on bullying at Hutt School?
No wonder nobody has any faith in the police, they are doing more important things:
- policing revellers at the rugby 7
- pursuing innocent people for crimes they did not commit eg Peter Ellis, why they bought the prosecution is beyond me
- chasing burglars (irony)
- reducing child homicide (yeah right!)
January 30th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Like all of us I do not know the full facts …
Nice to see you’re not letting that stop you.
but if the father did much more that flick his son on the ear why has it taken this amount of time to make a decision?
Unlike the pro-smacking commentariat, Chuck, the police do not enjoy the luxury of passing instant judgement. They have interviewed witnesses and found “discrepancies” between their account of events and that of Mason’s — to the extent that they have now laid two charges of assault.
The police inspector responsible told Newstalk ZB this morning that he hoped people would see there were “two sides to the story”.
Perhaps the usual suspects could wait to hear the evidence before further vilifying the police, but I’m not holding my breath.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“What’s the bet this is a face-saving prosecution by the police after the outcry that 6 of them turned up to the incident – not to help – but to berate the man for flicking his child’s ear.”
Quite possible. The heirarchy of the Police Force is infested with politically correct Labour Party/ Klark sycophants. They will do what is necessary to minimize the effect of any issue that has the potential to be electorally damaging to Helen Klark.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Russell Brown is correct of course. The police have no discretion. That was one of the arguments why we had S59. But that’s gone. Any kind of restraint of the children is now sufficient reason to prosecute.
But I’m happy to announce that if you’re a Labour MP the police will still not find it in the public’s interest to prosecute you.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“Perhaps the usual suspects could wait to hear the evidence”
I agree. Instead perhaps of relying on letters to the editor from “bystanders”.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
You would be very very lucky to get 1 cop if your house was burgled
January 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Good comments here, but how much is getting thru to the deadheads who, as Redbaiter says, gave these people the electoral mandate? And how much is getting thru, in the MSM, about the corruption of the Police Force, and I don’t mean, top cops getting outed as sexual predatores and dealt with, that is good and necessary, but I mean the utterly inconsistent way in which prosecutions are brought or not brought on “child abuse/assault” cases, and on the indiscretions of Politicians, among other things.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Our current political “establishment” stands for the criminalisation of parents who smack their kids, but the screwing over of kids is a cause that they are busily advancing by hook or by crook. And how consistent is this?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Russell Brown is correct of course. The police have no discretion.
You people don’t really live in the real world, do you?
Inspector Gary Knowles, this morning:
“We’ve taken a pretty realistic approach to the new legislation. In each of the cases that come across my desk, we look at it based on its merits. We look at the severity of the assault, the circumstances surrounding it and then a decision is made.”
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=131432
January 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
As a parent, if I was in Mr Mason’s shoes and was trying to deal with a hurt toddler while an older sibling was being difficult, and was (allegedly) mildly physically disciplined as a result, I’d also get very angry if I was subsequently confronted with the spectre of no less than 6 cops.
Just think of the message that has been sent to the 2 children in this case.
I, along with many other NZers, will watch this case with interest.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I thought there was more to this case that Mr Mason’s account.
Will be interesting to see the evidence the police have.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Me too Sonic, but it would be interesting to note against whom the 2 assaults are alledged to have been made, and if one or both are police.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Then you would be a fool. Your anger would not work in your favor.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Then you would be a fool. Your anger would not work in your favor.”
Just go on supplicating yourself.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well as one of his kids was, by his own account, injured I think we can asume that he did not thump his injured child.
The fact that there ended up being six police at the scene does suggest an officer put out an alert that there could be trouble.
However we are speculating, I just hope that those above leaping to judgement do not end up with egg on their face.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Ben.
We all know that anger is not an appropriate response. If Mr Mason did no more than flick an ear to gain the attention of his son, then I would argue that sending 6 cops would also not be an appropriate response.
Another question. Did the cops offer assistance given that one of Mr Mason’s children was injured?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Get fucked, troll. By someone else, for once.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“However we are speculating”
YOU are speculating dimwit. There’s only one of you (as far as is known), and I do not believe there is one reader here ( as dull and mindless as some of them are) who would delegate the expression of their opinions to a dipshit like you.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Get fucked, troll. By someone else, for once.”
Hmmm, was that anger?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Ratbiter, I mentioned yesterday that I could not be bothered with your ravings at the moment and would not respond.
You do look a bit pathetic screaming for attention you are not going to get.
plunk.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
We don’t know what happened. Police respond to calls in ways that are not easily predicted in advance. They are scattered about the place. They may have been close by, so why not? They may have all been in the same van.
They may, they could. We just don’t know. Why not wait to see?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Now who’s supplicating themself?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Russell, you have progressed a little from childish name calling. Like 80% of the population who oppose this attack on parents and families I am pro choice not pro smacking.
Do you consider those who favour liberal abortion laws pro abortion?
Are you capable of addressing the relevant issues that John (10:21am) and I raised?
In the case of the pig hunter who left two young kids in the car for two hours a decision to charge him should have been made the morning after the young boy was found.
What more facts are needed? The police are either incompetent or corrupt. Do you support child neglect?
I make no apology for condemning paedophiles and those who protect them and this includes the police involved in the case of the 21 year old who impregnated a 13 year old girl and the Commissioner for Children.
Do you support the police not charging this young man?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ben,
Many people are waiting to see how this case transpires. If it ends as a win for Mr Mason, it will be the death knell for the repeal of section 59.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I bet the father did lose his rag when 6 cops turned up to breate him about flicking his child’s ear.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“You do look a bit pathetic screaming for attention you are not going to get.”
Funny, would have sworn that such attention was what you just delivered in your usual self contradictory style. You’re always saying you will ignore people, but you never keep your word.
You just don’t care about such things. (keeping your word).
There’s only one thing that motivates you, (and so many other like leftist zealots) and that is your obsession to impose your political views on those who don’t want a bar of them.
Its the kind of thinking that leads to the legislation that is the subject of this thread.
Your real problem Sonik is the growing resistance to the cultural domination of socialism. Things are going to get worse for people like you. Your ignore list is going to grow. How sad that will be.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
From Sue Bradford’s mouth,
“The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues, sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem”.
So her law was designed to criminalize good parents.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Basically the cops need to get some test cases in the courts on s59 situations so everybody is fair game until then. Remember,this atheist dominated government is set on taking away parental rights and allowing a generation of undisciplined children to grow up in a society of fatherlessness,moral bankruptcy ,easy access to drugs and state schools being expected to nanny students along rather than their parents.NZ needs a wake up call in the form of a Key lead govt doing stuff not producing endless reports and hui on the problems
January 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Who knows? It may just be a common assault case and the flicking of the ear is an irrelevant aside. We’ll see.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“Now who’s supplicating themself?”
The point is NZers need to get angry. It is necessary to encourage this outcome in order to counter the politically correct ideas disseminated by the left and designed to make the population docile and malleable. An objective they have succeeded in beyond their wildest dreams. Legislation like this needs to be used to generate a tipping point, where the citizenry finally rise up, stick their heads out the window and scream out-
“We’re sick of this bullshit, and we’re not going to take it any more”..!!
BTW, there’s no such word as “themself”…
January 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Let us not forget that the new s59 played no part in the decision on whether or not to arrest him – what s59 does is take away ONE possible defense he can use in court.
“This atheist dominated government”?!???
go NZ, doesn’t your Bible say something about not casting the first stone?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Personally I have to bend down to stick my head out most windows. Now I finally understand why you’re so angry at the world.
Don’t believe everything spell checkers tell you.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
http://stuff.co.nz/thepress/4379688a24035.html
Inspector Gary Knowles, the central city area commander, said the two charges of assaulting a child arose as a result of a review of the evidence after speaking to witnesses.
Two key words here : EVIDENCE, WITNESSES. Concepts that are distinctly lacking from the zany conspiracy theories being bandied about in this thread.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Now I finally understand why you’re so angry at the world.”
Yes of course. Redbaiter- insane marginalized zealot. Same old same old diversionary tactic designed to discredit the views of anybody who challenges the social dominance of the left. The real point is that more and more people are nowadays prepared to speak out, to rebel against the social mores you have silently and gradually put in place in order to silence dissent.
Wake up Benny. The old Stalinist ploys designed to undermine those who criticise you just don’t work anymore. Witness the revolt at this legislation. We’re winning. You’re losing. Eat that.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
RRM – sure does. But this government is the only one in NZs history to have mocked and abused for 3 years one tiny minority (EBs) so the public need alerting before the next election what utu to expect if they too speak out on Labours excesses -(God must be obeyed rather than men) – you follow me?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Are you capable of addressing the relevant issues that John (10:21am) and I raised?
I find it better not to pursue arguments by changing the subject, but if you must …
In the case of the pig hunter who left two young kids in the car for two hours a decision to charge him should have been made the morning after the young boy was found.
What more facts are needed? The police are either incompetent or corrupt. Do you support child neglect?
The most recent news stories indicate that the police are considering what if any charges they will bring in that case. Crazy as it sounds, I presume they are gathering evidence. It’s what police do.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Of course Len Richards remains un-prosecuted for punching a protester on Nationwide Television.
Mr Mason could well have protected himself from prosecution by being a member of the ruling class and ruling party.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
If the shoe fits….
January 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
If Mason is to be believed he did nothing more, and possibly less, than David Cunliffe was alleged to have done in an Auckland shopping mall.
How did the left respond to that allegation? Why, shoot the messenger of course.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“However we are speculating, I just hope that those above leaping to judgement do not end up with egg on their face.”
Yep, there’ll be some nice quotes to pull of this thread once the case has been heard. BTW – DPF
Interesting – when was this established as fact? Do we just take the word of the accused at face value? Very sloppy stuff mate. But then again why be reasonable when you can lead your unruly mob in another round of kiwiblog hysterics?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
The repeal of section 59 removed a legal defence that could be used in court once someone had already been charged with assault and was now defending themselves. The police point out that he would have been charged regardless of the law change. That’s because the repeal changed things in the courtroom, not on the street.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
RB: “We’ve taken a pretty realistic approach to the new legislation.”
Of course RB, I didn’t deny that. I designed the new process flow for the police. First step is “Labour MP involved?” If so, that ends the process with “Not in the public interest to prosecute.”
January 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Thank you Ryan Sproull, you explained exactly what the majority don’t understand…
Everyone repeat after me: “I could always have been charged for smacking my kid”
January 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Roger, what has been established by the debate here is that we do not know all the facts and both sides of the debate are eagerly awaiting the outcome.
It is part of the process of debating these issues that one must hypothetically assume an outcome to opine in this forum. It certainly is not helpful to lable those who partake in the debate as some sort of Unruly Mob. Why not do yourself some credit and debate the issue.
With that in mind, given the alledged actions of David Cunliffe, and the lack of information on the incident, should the police now open a file, investigate the issue and interview witnesses, as would appear to have been done in the case of Mr Mason?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Ben Wilson: Don’t believe everything spell checkers tell you.
But do trust in your dictionary. Self is singular. In which case the word would be yourself. Otherwise it is themselves, for the plural. Not that it matters on the internet.
I would be interested in seeing why the police felt it necessary for 6 officers to turn up. My suspicion is that the father, being accused of child abuse by a witness who felt it necessary to report a flick on the ear, reacted angrily when confronted by the police and thus escalated it to the point where additional officers were required. Or maybe there was a communications breakdown and six officers in the area happened to respond to the same callout.
Who knows? Until more is known a lot of this remains pure speculation.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“I just hope that those above leaping to judgement do not end up with egg on their face.”
Bullshit Sonic
Like me you can’t wait for the details of this case to be made public so the eggs start dropping
I cant believe people are still stuck on the word “flick”
yeah right
January 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Roger,
As an example of taking the information from accused at face falue, I give you Helen Clark.
************************************************************
PM backs minister in child smacking row
10:35AM Monday July 02, 2007
By Audrey Young
David Cunliffe
David Cunliffe
The Smacking Debate
* MP in smack row
* CYFS files on smackers
The Prime Minister has come to the defence of Cabinet minister David Cunliffe who is embroiled in a controversy over whether he smacked his 2-year son at a mall.
A witness at New Lynn mall claims to have seen Mr Cunliffe smack his child on the hand to punish him for having hit another child, according to the lobby group Families First. The group strongly opposed the anti-smacking bill passed by Parliament.
Mr Cunliffe’s version is quite different: “My 2-year-old was pulling at a little girl,” he said in a statement.
“I pulled his hand away and calmly told him not to do that.”
Prime Minister Helen Clark said she was astounded that what she calls an extremist organisation had chosen to drag a small child into the debate, simply because the child’s father is an MP.
Miss Clark said Mr Cunliffe acted within the law, but she expected opponents of the anti-smacking legislation would still make an issue of it.
“I can imagine that these obsessed people will look for ways of making vexatious complaints,” she said.
************************************************************
January 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Pascal, the Oxford dictionary says ‘themself’ sometimes makes sense. Singular was necessary since I was only talking about one troll. I also don’t know what gender the troll is, so I can’t use himself or herself. I was not talking to them, so ‘yourself’ also doesn’t make sense.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Themself. pronoun. [third person singular] (informal) used instead of “himself” or “herself” to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
usage:
The standard reflexive form corresponding to they and them is themselves. The singular form “themself” has been used recently to correspond too the singular use of “they” when referring to a person of unspecified sex, as in “helping someone to help themself”. However, “themself” is not regarded as good English, and “themselves” should be used instead. For more information, see usage of “they”.
usage of “they”:
It is now widely held that the traditional use of “he” to refer to a person of either sex is outdated and sexist; the alternative, “he or she”, can be clumsy. It is now generally acceptable, therefore, to use “they” (with its counterparts “them”, “their” and “themselves”) instead. This is especially the case where “they” follows an indefinite pronoun such as “anyone” or “someone” (“anyone can join if they are a resident”). In view of the growing acceptance of “they”, it is used in this dictionary in many cases where “he” would have been used formerly.
Don’t say I never do anything for you fucking people.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Here is a press release from the kiwi party about the referendum
Found at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0801/S00232.htm
Bradford should welcome Referendum
Wednesday, 30 January 2008, 12:52 pm
Press Release: The Kiwi Party
Press Release 30 January 2008
The Kiwi Party
“Bradford should welcome Referendum”
Petition organiser Larry Baldock announced today that after a successful weekend of signature gathering the total for the petition to hold a referendum has now reached over 280,000. I think we can pretty much dismiss any doubts that a referendum will be held, he said.
Sue Bradford has repeatly claimed recently that the majority of New Zealander’s now support her law change. If she really believed her own spin, she would have no cause for concern about the referendum would she?
She has repeatedly claimed the petition has been inspired by religious fanatics and fundamentaists. These are tactics both she and the PM have resorted to describe anyone who opposes their social engineering agenda.
It is utter nonsense, and insulting to the hundreds who have signed up to help and the tens of thousands who have signed the petition to suggest that they are all religious extremists. If Sue Bradford would have the courage to spend just one day out with us on one of our collection tables she would fairly rapidly be able to adjust her delusional views concerning the popularity of her bill.
Bob McCoskrie from Family First has been singled out often for the focus of their attacks. The truth is that the petitions are not organised by Family First or Bob McCoskrie. When I conceived of the idea to initiate the petitions for the referenda and Sheryl Savill and I decided to lodge our applications with the Clerk of the House, I sought the support of a number of organisiations in the planning and launcing of the campaign. These organisations and individuals included Tim Sisarich and Focus on the Family, Christine Rankin and For the Sake of our Children Trust, Bob McCoskrie from Family First, Garth McVicker and the Sensible Sentencing Trust as well as a wide range of Church Leaders and other community based organisations. About 5 months ago Craig Hill began an organisation called Unity for Liberty with the purpose of assisting in collecting signatures to achieve the referendum and has launched several successful campaigns to mobilise volunteers. More recently Muriel Newman has promoted the petitions on her website and urged her readers to get involved in her NZCPR weekly newsletter.
What Sue Bradford and the PM can be assured of is that there will be a referendum.
ENDS
January 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
It really upsets me that this country is turning this way. I knew Jimmy Mason as a kid. I would play with his older sons. Never met such a nicer guy before.
But it makes me angry that my partner and I can go into central christchurch for a few. Accidently walk through a fight. My partner get beaten to a pulp and put in hospital. No police, no charges, nothing. But someone disciplining their child for their own good has to go through all of this. Who is paying for all of this nonsense?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’d like to see a referendum on this as well, just to put it to bed once and for all
January 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Oh, please. A referendum at this point, in this level of hysteria and misinformation? Might as well have a referendum on whether or not the country should be renamed Edmundhillaria.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Ryan: Don’t say I never do anything for you fucking people.
Heh! See what I said about the Internet. I learned something new today. Thanks Ryan, and apologies Ben. I’d never heard / seen it used that way. Guess I must be at least as old as Redbaiter then!
January 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Fuck Edmundhillaria, let’s be Heathledgerland
January 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Its merely whether you’ve been educated in a traditional schooling system or one of the post modernistic socialist indoctrination camps.
Key phrases- “used recently” ( as ignorance has become more widespread)
“It is now widely held that the traditional use of ” (ditto)
“outdated and sexist” (ditto)
“It is now generally acceptable” (ditto)
“In view of the growing acceptance” (ditto)
“would have been used formerly” (ditto)
BTW Ryan, whats the source??
January 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
The Police have the power and the duty to arrest anyone committing an assault. In this case I recall it being reported that an off duty Policewoman witnessed the incident. It was alleged that six other Police Officers attended the scene at which one assumes all relevant witnesses were present. If seven Police Officers were unable to decide whether the incident warranted the excercise of their power at the time an it took a leisurely review by an Inspector to make the decision then it might be a bit much to expect the alleged offender to consider all the repercussions before engaging in what seems to be a natural reflex action.
On the other hand their could be a previous criminal history which may be relevant.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I’m still a bit sore about my spurned attempts to rename Auckland to Vonnegut City.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
BTW Ryan, whats the source??
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 11th edition (2004). Working 40 hours a week with one of these babies in front of me is just one of the many reasons (the… wait… PLETHORA of reasons) that the ladies find it so hard to resist humping my leg.
My professional opinion is that “themself” should be avoided.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Russell, I can hardly believe your reply. I was well aware that the police are considering what if any charges they will bring in that case. What more evidence do the police need? It is against the law to leave a child under 14 unsupervised. If someone left a child in car while they rushed in to the dairy for under five minutes the police could use their discretion and not charge the parent or gather more evidence like if they have been warned about neglect in the past.
I wonder if even any of your left wing supporters on this blog support your position that the police need more time to decide whether to prosecute on an open and shut case like this.
I notice you have ignored my other question regarding the 21 year old who impregnated the 13 year old. The police are not even considering laying charges. Do you support these pedophile supporters?
I wonder if anyone else thinks I am changing the subject?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“Who is paying for all of this nonsense?”
Generally, the productive sector. They don’t like it much but they’re outvoted by amoral thieves and bludgers. (The productive that remain in NZ that is.)
January 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Before getting to excited the police have been quoted as saying that he would have been charged regardless of the law change. This sounds like something that goes beyond ear flicking. I also got the impression (and no more) that the charges relate to OTHER conduct. We shall see.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
It is against the law to leave a child under 14 unsupervised.
If that is so, then some of my best childhood adventures would be illegal! I was always up trees, cycling, or messing around at the beach & the bush. I suppose some kids need more supervision than others.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
ropata, how about a 2 and a 5 year old left in a car for 2 hours?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The thing the lefties are incapable of understanding is where this will take us, and how ruinously expensive it will be.
I’ve already mentioned the appalling effect of removing corporal punishment in schools (34% increase in expulsions in the first year, rising so dramitically after that, that the MOE regularly released guidelines compelling teachers to lower the standard of conduct they were prepared to accept etc).
It was a disaster in schools, so hey, great idea, let’s force it onto parents. Then when it’s a disaster with our families, then hey, another good idea that Cindy Keo is already promoting, which is A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WATCHING AND TAKING PART IN EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE RAISING OF YOUR CHILD, AND DECIDING WHAT YOUR CHILD NEEDS/WANTS ARE ETC.
If you think that’s rediculous, you are right. But it is in the works. Cindy has been working on this for the last two years. All she needs to finish justifying it is a lot more badly behaved and neglected kids.
In New Zealand. Unbelievable. The meddling of this government knows no bounds.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I think 2 hours is a long time and unacceptable. Especially if your caregivers are in the pub. I would hate groceries so much I would stay in the car. That would be for an hour.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Russell, I can hardly believe your reply. I was well aware that the police are considering what if any charges they will bring in that case. What more evidence do the police need?
If they’re going to court, they might wish to interview the father and mother and perhaps the children, determine whether this is a pattern of behaviour and so on. The fact that you feel no investigation is necessary does not determine police procedure.
I notice you have ignored my other question regarding the 21 year old who impregnated the 13 year old. The police are not even considering laying charges. Do you support these pedophile supporters?
I had to go and look up the case; it was reported last year. And no, where would you get the idea I supported the decision? On the basis of the report (am minded that it is the work of Steve Cook) I agree with Rape Crisis: it seems outrageous that the 21 year-old has not been charged after confessing, even if family members (presumably including the girl herself) have refused to speak to police.
I’m also glad that CYF intervened and took the girl out of her mother’s care.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
kelly, are you say that it is accpetable to leave a 2 and 5 year old in a car for 1 hour for any reason? How old are you? Are you are parent? Did you vote labour or the greens?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It is an outrage that this father is charged yet a 21 year old who impregnated a 13 year old girl is not charged and the Commissioner for Children defends the police in not charging this sexual predator.
Chuck, you’re just making stuff up now. These are the first two paragraphs of the HoS story:
“Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl – even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.
“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.”
What you believe in your head and reality are not always the same thing …
January 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Ha! I am a mother. I dont think that it would be appropriate to leave two kids of that age in the car, for that long. All I’m thinking is, there is always different scenarios, different ages and times. You cant generalize these things.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
<i>If Mason is to be believed …</i>
Look, I know that all you have to do to be believed around here is whack a kid, but it is evident that police found, in their words, “discrepancies” between Mason’s story and the accounts of multiple independent witnesses, including an off-duty officer.
Is that really <i>so</i> hard to grasp?
[DPF: I agree on the surface there seem to be differing accounts. However to what degree we do not know. It will be an interesting case, assuming it goes to trial]
January 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
And no! I did not vote labour or greens. God.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Bogusnews Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“The thing the lefties are incapable of understanding is where this will take us, and how ruinously expensive it will be.”
Actually, Bogusnews, this comes as a shock when you first discover it, but many lefties bloodywell KNOW that what they are doing is ruining society, AND that it was designed to do so. Do some research into Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt school of Neo-Marxism, and the “long march through the institutions”. Basically, lefties are either in on the plot up to their eyeballs, or they are dupes.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Russell, I am glad you are familiar with the story. Kindly tell me what I am making up. The comments by Kiro just prove what many of us know. She does not give a stuff about the welfare of children.
The are people serving life in prison with less evidence against them that there is against this low life.
The wall of silence is not relevant. The man confessed to having sex with a minor. If he changes his story they can do a DNA test. The case against this man would be open and shut. It might be more difficult to get a case against the parents or caregivers of the girl but it does not look like the useless police are even looking into it.
I am interested in anyone else who support the police, Kiro, and Russell on this one.
Kelly, your second post explains things better. I basically agree with you.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“Do some research into Antonio Gramsci”
Which of his works is your particular favourite?
You are aware that he wrote most of his stuff in prison (under Mussolini) so he wrote in code, hence his work can if you are unaware of the actual circimstances under which it is writte, appear conspiratorial.
I know that passages of his have been meat and drink to some of our more conspiracy-mad rightists, but as I said if you were writing about Marxism while in a fascist prison, you might try and be a little vague too.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Bogusnews: “A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WATCHING AND TAKING PART IN EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE RAISING OF YOUR CHILD, AND DECIDING WHAT YOUR CHILD NEEDS/WANTS ARE ETC.”
If I am following your drift correctly more children with find their way into Government care because of failed parenting, smacking for instance?
Wasn’t it reported as an unintended consequence of Sue Bradford’s Bill Foster parents were resigning from the responsibility of child care?
More children requiring care, fewer carers…I see problems ahead.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Russell and/or anyone
Why is it that despite the 21 year old man confessing to police they have decided not to lay charges? Why have they not charged the child’s parents as well?
Surely, this is totally inconsistent with the position taken on the Christchurch smacking incident.
Further, why was the hunter who put his children at risk not charged?
There seems to be a complete lack of any rational approach, I do not disagree with charging Mason and taking it before the courts if the facts warrant it, but at the sametime why are these other cases not being prosecuted? This is what the police have to clarify. It is the appearance of double standards and lack of a rational approach that apalls me!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Russell, I am glad you are familiar with the story. Kindly tell me what I am making up.
Er, the bit about Cindy Kiro “not giving a stuff about the welfare of children”?
For goodness sake man, it appears the story only made the press because she raised it in a speech slamming the way abusers are protected by those around them.
But can I have some of whatever it is that you’re on for the next Big Day Out? I’m pretty sure I could handle it.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
But can I have some of whatever it is that you’re on for the next Big Day Out? I’m pretty sure I could handle it.
You claim you do not like to pursue arguments by changing the subject. What have homosexual issues like big day out got to do with child abuse. perhaps you think there may be a link.
You accused me of making things up in a post with the time 3:13. Kindly show me in a post previous to that where I made things up.
I made the comment about Kiro after your earlier comment so the comment in the later post is not relevant. Do you understand the logic?
In regards my comment on the social parasite Kiro that is a matter of opinion not fact. As a journalist you should understand the difference.
In any case a left wing journalist is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Chuck you’re awesomely awesomely special. Kiro obviously was saying there was a problem in this case. I think you may have misunderstood her comment (and a few other people’s).
What have homosexual issues like big day out
I think you explained your personality right there and we need not talk to you any more…
January 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
You claim you do not like to pursue arguments by changing the subject. What have homosexual issues like big day out got to do with child abuse. perhaps you think there may be a link.
Chuck, thank you. I’m struggling to finish a column and my office is too hot, but you have made me smile. Awesome.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I signed up just to laugh…
January 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
David the only people I misunderstand are retards. The issue of the Big Day Out was raised by Russell not me.
If you are unable to understand that when there is an open and shut case of an adult having sex with a minor that person should be prosecuted?
If you cannot understand that and/or are soft on paedophiles you should get off this blog and find one more appropriate to your needs.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Do you know what a straw man is Chuck? Or is this just a freaky coincidence
January 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Utu go NZ, no dear boy not from the Greens,
but the EB mob having a crack at the Maori
party would be interesting.
Hone kicking EB arse up and down a drive
would be my bet.
Hmm,would section 59 apply ?
January 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
the key to understanding this case is that an off duty officer was one of those who called in the on duty police officers who initially attended the incident.
off duty officers do not lightly put their colleagues through the turmoil such a case would so obviously have (and has) created.
the man who has been charged will (hopefully) have his day in court where he can challenge the evidence the police think they have. his assertions to date do not align with the fact he has been charged. a courtroom is the place to filter the evidence and assess who is right, and who is culpable, etc.
we will also find out whether it is an assault case that would always have been prosecuted whether or not S59 had been amended last year. the police have already said they would have prosecuted anyway.
let’s wait and see.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
To sign the petition, go to http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html
Just print it, sign it, send it.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Just since nobody has explicitly pointed this out to Chuck just yet… um… the Big Day Out is this strange modern invention called a popular music festival. It is an event at which popular musicians of the day are called upon to sing or, if you like, play things called “songs” or “tunes” to an audience. I’m not sure it has much at all to do with being gay, unless you’re aroused by the sight of large numbers of sunburned sweaty teenage boys.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Finn, thanks for pointing that out. I made a factual error and confured it with Gay Day Out an event where Helen and her friend Judith, Carter and Barnett go to to help get homosexual votes.
I mistaken thought Russell was trying to wind me up as he had no answer to the police not prosecution the young man who impregnated the 13year old girl.
I am glad to accept you are rihgt on that point Finn. I am you agree I am right ion condemning the police inaction as well as Cindy Kiro’s
January 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The incident reportedly took place at the Bridge of Remembrance which is about 50 metres from the main police station makng it possible for plod to just look out the window and assess the attendance requirement. To send 6 officers suggests that a case of burglarly had just been reported ensuring the exodus to attend a less complex matter with more fun, no risk and requiring the mass brain of our illiterate plods to fail to ascertain actual events thus having to refer the matter to higher PC authority were a dubious decision will probably cost the taxpayer dearly and plod another notch down the ladder of public credibility.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:29 am
It’s open to challenge that this prosecution is in the public interest and consideration that the police are abusing their power in seeking a prosecution over a triviality which parliament sought to excuse. The will also face criticism for calling out 6 police. They will also have to explain how the severity of the crime has escalated from cautionary. My only conclusion is that this prosecution is meant to bring fear to parents that the police are in control. The police will still have that even if they get told off in Court.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
LOL, BDO is a homosexual issue. If it wasn’t a homophobic mistake it would have been really witty.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Ben, do you support all the demands of the Maori Party? If not, does that make you a racist? I am not arguing for a repeal of the Homosexual Reform Act. I am not calling homosexuals faggots etc. However, I am strongly opposed to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby that are mainly left wing. People who cannot debate an issue without terms such as racist, sexist or homophobe show their own bigotry.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:25 am
This is for Monty – who’s wife thought twice about smacking a three-year-old having a tanrum. Monty said she normally smacked but out of fear of getting into trouble she had to wait 10 minutes for the tantrum to finish. Let me explain. Smacking is negative attention. It reinforces the behaviour. It is standard practice to ignore a toddler’s tantrum and give them NO ATTENTION for it – the behavior dies very quickly after that. Yes I did that with my children. They seldom had a tantrum after I used the ignoring strategy and I had to do the same as Monty’s wife a couple of times. However Monty’s wife has up to now been consistently smacking for a toddler tantrum and her child is now three. To me – smacking isn’t a good resource for discilpining children – people are just used to it!!