"Ear Flick" Dad

[EJT]

Well looks as though there was more to this story than meets the eye - as you would expect. Another case of the opinion of the media leading to hysteria and ill informed opinions. What I can't understand is why the Herald still calls him the "ear flick father" and the case a test of the anti smacking law. The fuckwit punched his son in the face with a closed fist. He would have been charged under the old law.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573340&pnum=2

And he doesn't exactly appear contrite at what he did.



"Witness Belinda Paine, who was crossing the bridge, told the court she saw Mason shouting at his children.

She said Mason yanked his son's ear and hit him in the face with a clenched fist.

Mason, a father of six, denied this.

He told the court he had entered "angry dad mode" after his younger son banged his head following a bike crash.

The court was told the boy was visibly injured after the crash.

After taking the boys and his younger daughter on to the bridge, Mason said, he lifted and dropped the younger boy's bike with the child on it to give him a "brake and pedal lesson".

"I was pretty irate," Mason said.

"I wasn't slamming. but I wasn't being gentle."

He told the court he grabbed his older son by the hair above his ear to stop the child because "he was adamant he was going to have a bike ride".

Mason denied he had punched his son.

He said he told police he gave the boy "a bloody good flick" because he was "being a prat".

He told the court he said to police: "I didn't punch him because if I did he'd look like him [his younger brother]" the two-year-old who injured his eye in the earlier crash.

Senior Constable Andrea Trenchard, who was crossing the bridge at the time, said she heard the defendant repeatedly say "f...... listen" to his children.

She said Paine alerted her to the incident.

Trenchard said Mason then told her: "I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady [Belinda Paine] can mind her own business."

[Skyryder]

Just watch this guy turn into a model parent when they do a tv segment on him.


Skyryder

[98tls]

Surely if the guy punched his kid in the face there would be evidence of said punch that the police would have taken photos of as in every domestic violence case.Buggered if i know,i have no problem with giving a kid a thick ear but the others over the top.

[oldrider]

Not able to "constructively" comment on this caes but the children look bloody healthy and well cared for to me! :niceone:

I suspect the PC smacking brigade are out in full force, pity they dont put their time into exposing "real" child abusers. :doh:

[doc]

Think its the usual opinion of the masses formed by what they read. Remember when 9/11 reporting stated 50,000 had been killed in the initial reports.

There is more to this than what you read. He wasn't being a role model in this incident.

[FROSTY]

Looks like the very case the cops need to throw this rediculous law out on its friggin ear.
Its pretty simple and clear cut. a child punched in the face by an adult is going to show bruising at the very least a red mark.
I must admit as dad to a bunch of competative kids I have a mental image of the situation. If a clip behind the ear is indeed what happened I don't know I would have acted different.

[Skyryder]

If this dipstick is going to let his kids take two wheelers into the city he's got no one to blame but himself if they get a bit boistrous on their bikes.


Skyryder

[JimO]

my kids all had a clip on the ear, dont do it any more because i would get one back, now they just want the car/bike/20 bucks

[Laxi]

freakn pc crap, my 8yo son trys telling me I'm not allowed to smack him, see what that gets him, if the guy did hit him with a closed hand, then he should have the book thrown at him, how ever if it was just a smack then whats this country come too when you cant disipline your child, in 15 years time we're going to have some real aholes on our hands who have grown up thinking/knowing they are untouchable

[u4ea]

Doesn't that law say that if it is to stop the child from harming themself then it is appropriate? There is no real definition other than police discretion. A freinds 4 yr old (at the time )spilt a large box of clothes powder on the floor. He was going through a stage of tipping out shampoo bottles etc. She smacked his butt. I got a phonecall as she was hysterical worrying cyfs will now take her son! I said Im sure if you read the fine print on the box it clearly states it has dangerous chemicals in it. The law is an ass. Sue Bradford is an asses ass.....

[Winston001]

I despair. For more than a year (since Feb 2008) this has been a famous test case for all the people who want the right to assault their kids - and call it discipline.

Just as a reminder of what was said at the time, here is the thread - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&highlight=ear+christchurch

So - a jury of 12 citizens convicted this man. Of assaulting his child. And now its being claimed as an example of why the anti-smacking law is wrong????? The tortured logic to reach that position is..........ok, words fail me. :doctor:

[98tls]

The true result of the anti smacking bullshit is yet to come,the endless undisciplined children of today will further stretch our over worked court system in years to come,far more than the real cases of child abuse have in the past/present and the reality is it will have made fuck all difference to those that have indeed been abused,if anything just a longer wait whilst the court deals with the pc bullshit.

[oldrider]

I despair. For more than a year (since Feb 2008) this has been a famous test case for all the people who want the right to assault their kids - and call it discipline.

Just as a reminder of what was said at the time, here is the thread - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&highlight=ear+christchurch

So - a jury of 12 citizens convicted this man. Of assaulting his child. And now its being claimed as an example of why the anti-smacking law is wrong????? The tortured logic to reach that position is..........ok, words fail me. :doctor:

So Winston001, you think that those kids look like beaten downtrodden victims of assault, battery and child abuse? :nono:

You look all right and you are nice to talk to and you ride bikes, fun to be with at rally's even, what happend? :rolleyes:

Were you badly potty trained or something! :doh:

We waste time and resources on these cases but the real child abusers just keep on keeping on seemingly "UNCHECKED" untill it's too bloody late! :brick:

[Brian d marge]

That guy should be hung drawn a quartered , for being DUMB,

kids doing stupid shit , ( normal , doesn't stop until they reach 43 ish not sure yet )

he grabs oldest and roughly manhandles him ( normal ) looks to me like he didn't punch his son ( definition of a punch? ) he repreatedly denied a closed fist punch, ( benefit of the doubt )

but he DID strike the oldest ( seems like a twat round the back of the head )

BUT the DUMBEST thing he did was tell a white middle class female to F%% off. ( this lot get their panties in a twist over nowt )

what he should have done is said to kids; wait till you get home ........

My kids have 3 chances starting with a reasoned polite request. and finishing with......( well a theatrical paddling )

There is no argument ( I am the Law ) , reasoned debated will be entered into and a " I m sorry is the get out of jail card

This started the moment they opened their eyes , is constant, fair and never changing , you get busted you suffer the consequences , dont like it cry me a river ...the rules don't change

I have 2 well behaved, out going ( lots of support by dad ) boys

If i remember this anti smacking bill right , it actually didn't remove the parents ability , but is added to ?? ( want for a better word ) discretion of the police. As in this case he pissed Ms PMS off and she made a case of it ( ASSUMING HE DIDN'T USE A CLOSED FIST - if he DID they he get his rewards and deserves it !)

Kids if done right are easy as to look after , just a look from Daddy settles thing down, and a Hug from mum when they F""#ed up and it hurts

Stephen

[Badjelly]

Well looks as though there was more to this story than meets the eye - as you would expect. Another case of the opinion of the media leading to hysteria and ill informed opinions. What I can't understand is why the Herald still calls him the "ear flick father" and the case a test of the anti smacking law. The fuckwit punched his son in the face with a closed fist. He would have been charged under the old law....

...and possibly acquitted. I opposed, and still oppose, the law change, but its advocates did point to several cases in which parents appear to have gone over the top in punishing their children, by almost anybody's standards, but were acquitted.

[Winston001]

The true result of the anti smacking bullshit is yet to come,the endless undisciplined children of today will further stretch our over worked court system in years to come,far more than the real cases of child abuse have in the past/present and the reality is it will have made fuck all difference to those that have indeed been abused,if anything just a longer wait whilst the court deals with the pc bullshit.

You've struck the nail on the head. That is exactly the concern of most people who oppose the change of the law. The answer is - "discipline" does not require physical striking of a child. There are many other ways.




We waste time and resources on these cases but the real child abusers just keep on keeping on seemingly "UNCHECKED" until it's too bloody late! :brick:

John, I agree but despite the concerns of many people about the change, nobody has been convicted for a simple "smack". No more police resources are being used than previously.

Our deeper problem as a society is those families where physical harm is dished out to defenceless kids daily. They aren't going to change just because of the law. So in that sense the change to Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 is ineffective.

I do not have an easy answer or even understanding of why parents harm children. The new law is supposed to make the vast majority of good parents think about other ways of disciplining.

[Skyryder]

What started out by the anti smacking proponents that a gentle smack on the bottom is part of correct parenting and should in no way be legislated against. This gentle smack has now been incorporated by the same anti smacking proponents to include 'hitting' your child in the face as being an acceptable part of good parenting. I can come to no other conclusion too those who are in support of James Mason and believe that he should never have been charged let alone convicted. He was found guilty of ‘pulling his sons ear and ‘hitting’ him in the face.’ This to a FOUR YEAR OLD BOY. The jury got this one right.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Doesn't that law say that if it is to stop the child from harming themself then it is appropriate? There is no real definition other than police discretion. A freinds 4 yr old (at the time )spilt a large box of clothes powder on the floor. He was going through a stage of tipping out shampoo bottles etc. She smacked his butt. I got a phonecall as she was hysterical worrying cyfs will now take her son! I said Im sure if you read the fine print on the box it clearly states it has dangerous chemicals in it. The law is an ass. Sue Bradford is an asses ass.....

Yes there is.


The legislation allows for a smack in this kind of situation.

New Section 59

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

The anti smacking label is just a crock. There is no anti smacking legislation in this country. It is nothing but a smokes srceen put in place by those that believe God has given the parent the right to inflict pain on their children for any reason whatsoever.


Skyryder