Poster child for smacking your children
Sailor Sam
religionofpeas
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3194498/One-bad-call-at...
She certainly deserved a lot of smacks.
apairateef
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh>
Newsgroups: nz.general
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:53 AM
Subject: Poster child for smacking your children
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3194498/One-bad-call-at-11-and-life-became-a-mess
It's the sexual abuse, lack of discipline and boundaries and drugs and
alcohol that she should be a poster child for - get it right
S
religionofpeas
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sailor Sam" <hiho...@merry.oh>
>
> Newsgroups: nz.general
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:53 AM
> Subject: Poster child for smacking your children
>
>
> It's the sexual abuse, lack of discipline and boundaries and drugs and
> alcohol that she should be a poster child for - get it right
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why should drugs and alcohol get a bad name? It's her that decided to
rampantly pour them into herself, not the drugs and alcohol.
Sailor Sam
Did you, per chance, have a read of the article?
Sailor Sam
"lack of discipline"
"largely to escape hidings at home"
Toia found kids who "all had the same kinds of problems. We just didn't
want to go home. We all looked after each other".
religionofpeas
Yes, I read the article.
apairateef
"Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh> wrote in message
news:hh8jva$epl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> apairateef wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh>
>> Newsgroups: nz.general
>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:53 AM
>> Subject: Poster child for smacking your children
>>
>>
>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3194498/One-bad-call-at-11-and-life-became-a-mess
>>
>> It's the sexual abuse, lack of discipline and boundaries and drugs and
>> alcohol that she should be a poster child for - get it right
>>
>> S
>
> "lack of discipline"
>
> "largely to escape hidings at home"
DISCIPLINE does not always mean SMACKING...DUH *rolls eyes*
> Toia found kids who "all had the same kinds of problems. We just didn't
> want to go home. We all looked after each other".
At some stage...most kids 'don't want to go home'...because ALL kids
rebel...not just ones that are abused..and note, ABUSED does NOT include an
appropriate smack now and then. Some of us can tell the difference between
abuse and a smack. That's my final in put in this thread because we all
have differing opinons and this is going to spiral into one of those never
ending threads.
S
Sailor Sam
>
> "Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh> wrote in message
> news:hh8jva$epl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> apairateef wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh>
>>> Newsgroups: nz.general
>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:53 AM
>>> Subject: Poster child for smacking your children
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3194498/One-bad-call-at-11-and-life-became-a-mess
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's the sexual abuse, lack of discipline and boundaries and drugs and
>>> alcohol that she should be a poster child for - get it right
>>>
>>> S
>>
>> "lack of discipline"
>>
>> "largely to escape hidings at home"
>
> DISCIPLINE does not always mean SMACKING...DUH *rolls eyes*
Could you do yourself a favour, and have a think about the threads intent...
>
>> Toia found kids who "all had the same kinds of problems. We just
>> didn't want to go home. We all looked after each other".
>
> At some stage...most kids 'don't want to go home'...because ALL kids
> rebel...not just ones that are abused..and note, ABUSED does NOT include
> an appropriate smack now and then. Some of us can tell the difference
> between abuse and a smack.
And those that cant should get off scot free, sure sure.
That's my final in put in this thread
> because we all have differing opinons and this is going to spiral into
> one of those never ending threads.
>
> S
Good, f0ff.
John Cawston
Are there any NZ criminals who weren't sexually abused as children?
JC
>
> S
Gib Bogle
Apparently they didn't help much, though.
Geopelia
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hh8m99$p0e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
But how many sexually abused children don't become criminals?
And how many children don't realise that what happened could be called
sexual abuse, until they grow up and some social worker tells them?
A _L_ P
A L P
Kerry
Probably won't read this one for meaning either
Geopelia
"Br. Scooter" <br.sc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qsdgj51gl2f20l184...@4ax.com...
> On , , Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:10:59 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
> know
> were sexual abuse until they were told about them, please?
Think about how children were brought up years ago, and what social workers
today might make of it.
John Cawston
A good introduction to eugenics and euthanasia, and maybe more.
JC
Brian Dooley
I have, many times.
>and what social workers today might make of it.
>
Surprise me - what would they make of it?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Geopelia
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:p2lij55hr6uejluke...@4ax.com...
What wouldn't they make of it? Just look at what happened to Peter Ellis.
Brian Dooley
I'd rather not.
Geopelia
> On , , Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:08:24 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
> Peter Ellis is a convicted child molester.
> Until he is retried or pardoned the fact, no matter how inconvenient to
> the
> conspiracy believers that he was fitted up, the conviction remains.
>
There should be a proper inquiry.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On , , Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:08:24 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>I don't see the connection.
>Peter Ellis is a convicted child molester.
>Until he is retried or pardoned the fact, no matter how inconvenient to the
>conspiracy believers that he was fitted up, the conviction remains.
Exactly.
Such mass hysteria has been seen before - e.g. Salem in the USA is
one of the most famous instances. This one was accompanied by a
travesty of a trial with only extracts of biassed interviewing of
children being allowed to be shown to the jury. Hopefully social
workers of tday woul recognise the danger of yet another miscarriage
of justice. To their shame both National and Labour MPs have refused
to recognise the injustice done; pretending that because Ellis is no
longer in gaol that the case should not be looked at again.
Lyndon Watson
> "John Cawston" <rewar...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > But how many sexually abused children don't become criminals?
> And how many children don't realise that what happened could be called
> sexual abuse, until they grow up and some social worker tells them?
I would be cautious about believing anything this one claims. The
article reeked of self-serving argument and plain lies - she claims,
for example, that she has not hurt the various victims of her many
crimes, even those to whom she did bodily harm. She also claims that
she "deserves" to be treated as a decent person - without telling us
what she has done to deserve this.
It is apparent from her own account of her life that she set out from
an early age to defy her parents and other authority, and to prey on
others. And now she wants us to feel sorry for her. . . .
LW
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On , , Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:41:19 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>Everything is political. If the politicians, of whatever stripe believe that the
>conviction was correct then there isn't a faeces hope in hades of getting an
>inquiry.
>Anyway it is far too long ago to get any kind of accuracy of honesty from either
>side if there was an enquiry.
>Look at the travesty of the Bain retrial.
>Imagine the 3 ring circus if Ellis was retried?
>Now his mother is dead he should come out and admit his guilt.
There is sufficient evidence relating to the poor (appalling)
interviews of children that was not allowed to be shown to the jury to
justify a pardon. Muldoon arranged a pardon for Arthur Allan Thomas as
a result of additional evidence.
Geopelia
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:659nj59hsbbs4j97o...@4ax.com...
A pardon is for a guilty person who is let off.
A person who is not guilty is exonerated or something.
Our legal posters would know what it should be called.
Lyndon Watson
> <Rich80...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > There is sufficient evidence relating to the poor (appalling)
> > interviews of children that was not allowed to be shown to the jury to
> > justify a pardon. Muldoon arranged a pardon for Arthur Allan Thomas as
> > a result of additional evidence.
>
> A pardon is for a guilty person who is let off.
> A person who is not guilty is exonerated or something.
>
> Our legal posters would know what it should be called.
Acquitted. But if a convict has been through all the appeal steps
without success and yet manages to persuade the Crown to exercise its
preogative in his or her favour, all the Crown can do is pardon,
regardless of guilt. So in that case an innoent person may be
pardoned rather than acquitted.
LW
Geopelia
"Lyndon Watson" <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:b68d37d4-b683-4a2b...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
LW
So there would actually have to be a retrial for a person to be found not
guilty, like the Bain case?
Lyndon Watson
> "Lyndon Watson" <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> > A person who is not guilty is exonerated or something.
>
> > Our legal posters would know what it should be called.
>
> Acquitted. But if a convict has been through all the appeal steps
> without success and yet manages to persuade the Crown to exercise its
> preogative in his or her favour, all the Crown can do is pardon,
> regardless of guilt. So in that case an innoent person may be
> pardoned rather than acquitted.
>
> guilty, like the Bain case?
In most cases, yes. The appeal court can overturn a conviction and
order a permananet stay of proceedings, which has the effect of a
acquittal without having to go through a retrial, but in any case it
has to be a Court that does it. A Crown pardon technically does not
amount to a declaration of innocence, and how people take it will
depend on their views of the case - as we have seen in the Thomas
case. Bain could come out of the process with a acquital because he
is to be tried again (or he could be convicted again).
LW
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On , , Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:08:23 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>In every trial there is a picking of the evidence by the prosecution to make
>their case as waterproof as possible.
>That is the way of lawyers.
It was my understanding that the defence was refused permission to
show it - and fromteh transcripts now publicly available it appears
that even an hysteria-ridden jury would have spotted that the children
were led int ehir answers, and that the answers shown had been
carefully selected from some bizarre stories.
>
>>Muldoon arranged a pardon for Arthur Allan Thomas as
>>a result of additional evidence.
>
>Muldoon did it merely to curry political favour.
>When will you ever get get rid of the idea that politicians do things out of the
>goodness of their hearts. They don't have hearts. They would never have gone
>into politics if they had heats, normal feelings or consciences. They do
>everything according to a calculated reckoning of what it will do for them
>either in monetary terms or according to the amount of political favour it will
>curry.
>Politicians are even lower than car salesmen, lower than insurance salesmen,
>even lower than childmolesters when it comes to ethics or conscience. They have
>none at all.
>The only other form of low life that they equal are lawyers and when you
>consider the number of lawyers involved in politics then you can see the nadir
>to which they have sunk.
>
>I believe that Thomas knew who killed the Crewes and I don't believe it was Len
>Demler. The story that the conspiracy theorists try and cobble together to make
>Len Demler fit the killer is patchy and unable to be substantiated.
>I believe that Thomas' wife at the time fed the Crewe baby.
>The rapidity that she had her self divorced from Thomas once he was imprisoned
>was one point that not many people picked up on.
Geopelia
LW
He's been found not guilty. Isn't that an acquittal?
Is there really going to be another trial now?
Lyndon Watson
> "Lyndon Watson" <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> order a permananet stay of proceedings, which has the effect of a
> acquittal without having to go through a retrial, but in any case it
> has to be a Court that does it. A Crown pardon technically does not
> amount to a declaration of innocence, and how people take it will
> depend on their views of the case - as we have seen in the Thomas
> case. Bain could come out of the process with a acquital because he
> is to be tried again (or he could be convicted again).
>
Has he? I thought that his conviction had been overturned but no stay
of proceedings ordered. That is not a finding of not guilty, merely a
finding that his conviction was unsafe because of new evidence or
defects in the original trial.
> Is there really going to be another trial now?
That's up to the prosecutors. They seem to be determined to go ahead.
LW
Geopelia
LW
(I'm talking about Bain)
At the trail recently, didn't the jury find him not guilty? Doesn't that
end the matter? Or has there been a law change?
Lyndon Watson
> (I'm talking about Bain)
>
> At the trail recently, didn't the jury find him not guilty? Doesn't that
> end the matter? Or has there been a law change?
Sorry, I think you're right. I've not really followed the case but,
now that you mention it, I seem to remember a retrial being held and
that he was acquitted. So that is the end of the matter unless the
Crown appeals on some issue of law (they have no right of appeal
against the jury's finding of fact). The time for appealing might
have expired by now, I don't know.
Kerry
> On , , Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:08:23 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>
>
>
> children, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:11:56 +1300, Br. Scooter <br.scoo...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On , , Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:41:19 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>
> >>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:24:53 +1300, Br. Scooter <br.scoo...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On , , Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:08:24 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking your
>
> >>>>>"Brian Dooley" <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:p2lij55hr6uejluke...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:58:53 +1300, "Geopelia"
>
> >>>>>>>"Br. Scooter" <br.scoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:qsdgj51gl2f20l184...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>> On , , Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:10:59 +1300, Re: Poster child for smacking
> >>>>>>>> your
>
> >>>>>>>>>"John Cawston" <rewar...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:hh8m99$p0e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>>>>>> apairateef wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sailor Sam" <hiho...@merry.oh>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Newsgroups: nz.general
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:53 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Poster child for smacking your children
>
> their case as waterproof as possible.
> That is the way of lawyers.
>
> >a result of additional evidence.
>
> When will you ever get get rid of the idea that politicians do things out of the
> goodness of their hearts. They don't have hearts. They would never have gone
> into politics if they had heats, normal feelings or consciences. They do
> everything according to a calculated reckoning of what it will do for them
> either in monetary terms or according to the amount of political favour it will
> curry.
> Politicians are even lower than car salesmen, lower than insurance salesmen,
> even lower than childmolesters when it comes to ethics or conscience. They have
> none at all.
> The only other form of low life that they equal are lawyers and when you
> consider the number of lawyers involved in politics then you can see the nadir
> to which they have sunk.
>
> I believe that Thomas knew who killed the Crewes and I don't believe it was Len
> Demler. The story that the conspiracy theorists try and cobble together to make
> Len Demler fit the killer is patchy and unable to be substantiated.
> I believe that Thomas' wife at the time fed the Crewe baby.
> The rapidity that she had her self divorced from Thomas once he was imprisoned
> was one point that not many people picked up on.
>
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
Pat Booth always reckoned Jeanette Crewe killed her husband then
killed with remorse killed herself. Her father helped to cover that
fact. Len Demler apparently told him
Theres no evidence against Thomas, or his wife