Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
<i>So what are we to make of Herald editor Tim Murphy's refusal to talk to Colin Peacock of Mediawatch for the programme's report on the paper's campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill?</i>
If King unscheduled her scheduled interview - and if she cant defend her bill, because she doesn`t underrstand its implications - why should an editor have to defend something he didn't write - and you can bet he will not just be asked why he allowed those editorials, but he would be asked about the content as well. -
On BTW Danyl, both editorials were NOT written by Audrey Young. The first one was written by John Roughan.
-
Testcard - you neglected to mention that the Herald printed an apology to Tim Barnett.
Interesting to hear that Media watch stated that people outsdide Auckland havent had an opportunity to read the NZ Heralds front page editorials. This is crap. Anyone with an Intenet connection or who can walk into a public library can read the editorial.
-
Shep, not only charged underthe old law, convicted under it too, conflicting Bradfords assertion that this case is a good example of how the current law is working....
-
..oops, postedtoo quick... within the reasonable force defence pre- S59 amendment, so not a criminal act then
-
.. at the end of an incident, as I understand, Russell. At the end. Smack, smack,smack. And I never said those smacks were unreasonable force under Section 59 so, dont twist my words. Assault yes, but within the reasonable force defence, so not a criminal act.
-
I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.
-
Alex
I have changed my templates around a bit so yo will find the rinding crop cases here in the meantine
-
what I would say is click on the blue dot at the side of this blog post, as I have just posted a few mins ago that the "outcome" has nothing to do with anti smacking legislation.
-
Russell, before the S59 bill people were convicted for bruising via smacking. Perhaps not all of them - a jury is only as good as the evidence - Donselaar is the case that comes to mind. So although you may say that " I know very well thats not true", then how come Donselaar got a conviction?. Because he bruised his kid - just like this latest guy did. And that is assault. Except Donselaar did it in the process of smacking - this latest guy assaulted his kid before he smacked him. So I know very well that it *is* true. I can`t help it that some juries dont apply the law as well as others - and it was law I was talking about, not the juries' interpretation of it - which is what you have twisted it to be.