Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
(+) - you've nailed it!
The Cradle of Crossfire, yes.
Yes!
and is that Crescent a spanner in the works too...
: )
yrs
Ian Fidel -
Dave, your posts at 8.53pm and 9.45pm on Friday seem incongurous with your post at 5.45pm.
It may seem incongurous to you but given what I wrote on the 2nd line of the 8:53 post, it was obviously not incongruous. Or incongurous, for that matter, I suppose....
-
Paul,
sorry line 4/5 of post... not into analysing blog comments yuself but seeing as you mentioned it.... -
If it was good enough for her to relay that conversation in court (as I believe she did), surely it was good enough for her to tell cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. Then charges could have been pressed at that point before Mason blabbed to the media.
The police charged Mason after interviewing witnesses, which would seem to be proper. There was about two weeks between his warning (when he started complaining to the media) and the police bringing charges.
It's hardly their role to rush to get in a charge before the angry dad runs to the media and makes himself a cause celebre.
-
We'll knock the Jesus part out of him (not in that sense, Ms Bradford)
But not, presumably, whup the living bejeezus out of him. If I'm not mistaken, that's an Irish catholic thang.
-
..but that police officer <i> was</i> a witness - and she gave the evidence in court that nailed Jimmy for the punch.Surely that's enough for a charge ot be brought.
From what I know of this case - which is the same as anyone else who reads the media reports- I can't see why he Mason couldn't have been charged earlier. How long does it take for a cop to interview his workmate witness - or did it take the six cops that were at the scene some time to work out if the female officer cop was a witness that would back up any charges in court?
-
..but that police officer <i> was</i> a witness - and she gave the evidence in court that nailed Jimmy for the punch.Surely that's enough for a charge ot be brought.
Certainly, a police officer's evidence carries great weight in court, but the officer didn't directly witness the assault, the other witnesses did. They had to be interviewed.
Here's one of the first round of stories, with Mason playing the offended father after his police warning:
Mason says he is not angry with police as they were just doing their jobs and someone made a complaint.
"What I'm angry about is I have a history of child beating and I'm not a child beater. That's why I'm fuming."
Police originally said they weren't laying charges. But they are now reviewing the case because of discrepancies between the Mason's story and the witnesses.
...
But inspector rick jury says there are discrepancies between the man's account and those of a witness.He says until the review has been completed, police will not be commenting further.
You can join the chorus of muttering if you like, but forgive me if I think the intention is to distract from what actually happened.
-
Shapeshifter shock...
...and makes himself a cause celebre.
Oh My God - he used a Club?
next someone will be saying he Box ed his ears
or have I tangled my threads...?I'd best beat it, beat it, beat it...
Yrs
M. Jackson -
But not, presumably, whup the living bejeezus out of him. If I'm not mistaken, that's an Irish catholic thang.
That's how you knock religion in, you silly.
-
Speaking of enabling, TVNZ knew about kicking reports the DomPost.
During the meeting, the TVNZ managers agreed to help Veitch find a lawyer and one of those managers later told police: "We said it wasn't our concern, it was not an employment matter for us."
When the Veitch story broke, TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis said he had just learnt that Veitch and Ms Dunne-Powell, a former TVNZ employee, had been a couple.
TVNZ's minutes from the meeting with managers, later supplied to police, showed Veitch had identified Ms Dunne-Powell by name and said that they were partners when the assault took place.
Managers had not been told Ms Dunne-Powell was kicked repeatedly and suffered a broken back, Mr Ellis had said. The managers had deemed the incident a private matter and handled it appropriately prompting the prime minister, Helen Clark, to say she was "deeply concerned" at how the broadcaster had handled the saga.
I suspect the word is meant to be "accordingly" rather than "appropriately," to be fair. However, you may recall ex-employee Ralston's take on CEO Ellis's knowledge of that meeting and what the Broadcasting Minister should be asking about it.
Last week, Ellis, who says he had no prior knowledge of the alleged domestic assault, revealed three of his senior managers and a company lawyer met Veitch, at his request, on December 17 last year to discuss what Ellis says was "a serious personal issue". Present were Ellis' second-in-command, the head of television Jeff Latch, the head of news and current affairs Anthony Flannery, the head of corporate affairs Peter Parussini, and an unnamed news and current affairs counsel.
The first question for Mallard must be; how did all these heavyweights come to be present when, presumably, no one but Veitch had any idea of the content of what would be discussed, other than it was a "personal issue"?
To have the head of television present for a meeting with a presenter means someone knew the discussion would be very serious indeed.
To have a lawyer present implies someone knew weighty legal issues would have to be evaluated.
To have the company's top spin doctor present means someone had to have realised there was potential reputational damage looming for the company. To have that line-up of individuals present, simply to hear an employee talk of his relationship issues, does not ring true.
-
I asked him your question.
I didn't have a question.
-
but the officer didn't directly witness the assault
But you've just linked to a report that says "The incident was witnessed by a school teacher and an off-duty police officer who reported it to police.
She either witnessed it or she didn't. If the off duty police officer witness reported it to the police, she must have at least been the person who could have given the police the info that would be required to press charges - which they eventually did.
I'm not muttering, or providing a distraction for what happened, because I believe Mason could have been charged with assault for what he did a lot earlier than he was, as opposed for police to initially treat it as a S59 discretion case..
-
...surely it was good enough for her to tell [the] cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. - Dave
Oh come on Dave... now your speculating._ Steve
I thought that was a question. My bad.
Mason panicked . My guess is he was fighting the label "childbeater" and thought Christine Rankins New Zealand would deliver him from the overbearing hands of the law . Dumb move.Having read more about him in this thread I concede name supression was an option he destroyed himself.
-
Dave C, I've been trying to follow your recent posts, but I confess I am struggling to understand what your issue is.
Maybe the police could have pressed charges earlier. So what?
Are you really so sure Mason would have sought name suppression if he'd been charged earler? I saw him on TV after the verdict, and he didn't look like he was shying from the cameras. In fact he seemed to be almost enjoying the publicity. -
My "issue" if you could call it that is that many people have been looking at this case through the window of it being a test case for the section 59 legislation - including the police initially - when clearly it was not the case. And some people, even now, still maintain that this legislation was " tested" as a result of the Mason case. They are even spouting out the lies saying that in light of this case, the legislation makes things clearer for judges and juries.
That's false. It doesn't.
-
Dave, I believe Mason himself probably positioned it as a "test case" by lying to media that he had lightly corrected his child rather than punched him in the face.
-
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, you appear to be fighting against something that hasn't been said here
Actually, that thought occured to me as well.
My "issue" if you could call it that is that many people have been looking at this case through the window of it being a test case for the section 59 legislation - including the police initially - when clearly it was not the case.
I think Russell has already dealth with this upthread. From the fragments we have had reported and from the Judge's direction, it seems at least as likely that rather than invoking that specific s59 discretion, the Police chose not to prosecute early because they took Mason at his word that his actions did not even meet their pre-s59 thresholds for prosecution - until other witnesses contradicted his version.
They would have subsequently conducted their usual investigation process to a robust evidentiary standard, knowing by then that Mason's speedy media blurting and the recent s59 debate would increase scrutiny. We do not know whether they had grounds to be satisfied that his children were not at further imminent risk during their investigation, but otherwise a couple of weeks doesn't seem like a huge time compared with other investigations. I presume they also had their usual murders, beatings and boy racers to attend to.
-
Dave C, I'm sure you're right about what some people have said, but they've not said it here (disclaimer: I don't have the energy to check all 16 pages). Except, perhaps, Mr Bird.
-
dave, you appear to be fighting against something that hasn't been said here//I presume they also had their usual murders, beatings and boy racers to attend to .
Yes which is why I was surprised that six cops turned up to say hello to Jimmy Mason - seven if you count the police "witness". Perhaps the whole station turned up. I'm not "fighting" against anything, although I did disagree with Joshua at 11:19 May 20 when he said said, " this case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws." Another commentator said that one could speculate that the only reason Mr. Mason ended up in court was because the "culture shift" implied in the repeal of Section 59 empowered a bystander to intervene and to call the police, where once they would have said and done nothing.
What rubbish! And l though I do think it was a little strange that the media, the Yes Vote people and Family First have looked at this case as a test of the anti smacking laws, when it clearly isn't. Sure, RB never said it was, but he linked to people who did, one of whom is supposedly enabling child abuse. I don't really think that groups like Family First and For the Sake of our Children - whom RB opposes - are "enabling" abuse, just like I don't see how the Yes Vote people - whom RB supports - can imply that this case is something that a reasonable force defence would have acquitted Mason of a few years ago, and say point blank that therefore the law has passed a very important test with the Mason case. That's a fallacy.
Both sides have said inaccuracies but RB goes to greater pains to point out inaccuracies in people who agree with McCoskrie, more than the people who agree with the position taken by the Yes Vote.
-
Yes which is why I was surprised that six cops turned up to say hello to Jimmy Mason - seven if you count the police "witness". Perhaps the whole station turned up.
Why on earth would you be questioning the decision of an experienced policewoman there on the spot?
The location is very near the Christchurch police station, so it would have been easier for them to come out than if the disturbance had been in, say, Linwood, but I find it hard to believe she'd have deliberately wasted her colleagues' time.
And I can't see cause for quote marks around "witness". The officer was a witness to what she saw and heard on her arrival.
Dave, what, exactly, are you implying?
-
Also, what Sacha said.
-
I believe Mason could have been charged with assault for what he did a lot earlier than he was, as opposed for police to initially treat it as a S59 discretion case.
What do you think this is? The Police will come and get/charge you whenever they feel like. It's not like they need your permission and should be there in a timely manner. Jesus Christ on a stick!
-
Why on earth would you be questioning the decision of an experienced policewoman there on the spot?
I'm not. And that's obvious. Why would you say that FF are enabling child abuse, but at the same time promote a group whose spokesperson says that the law has passed a very important test with the Mason case, when your post says that the judge said it was not to be seen as a test of the law change -and you agreed with him.
-
Dave, I couldn't see anything on the Yes Vote site to back your claim. Apologies if I missed it. Can you link to it? Or provide some other evidence?
Because this is what Yes Vote spokesperson Deborah Morris-Travers said:
“Now that all the evidence has been heard in a court, this case can be seen for what it is - a serious assault on a child and not the “poster-boy” cause for opponents of the law that was widely portrayed. Arguably, this case never had anything to do with Section 59, given it involved a simple assault.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.