In a usual story. Baby beaten to death, no facts yet but at first glance looks typical - presumably a Maori mother living effectively as a baby factory with each baby fathered by a different munter; current munter beats one of the earlier munters' kids to death. You just assume this stuff based on the number of similar previous occurrences, and the likelihood of being wrong isn't great.
Unless you're a professional slow learner. Like "Children's Commissioner" John Angus, for example:
...Angus said New Zealanders were right to feel "a sense of shame" over the country's child abuse record.
Or "Families Commissioner" Kim Workman:
...Workman said that though attitudes towards abuse were changing, child abuse was "far more widespread" than acknowledged.
See, it's not "widespread," is it Kim? And it's not "the country's" child abuse record, is it John? The more you try and pretend that beating children to death isn't a crime that can be profiled in any way, that it is in fact randomly distributed in the population, the more you make yourselves look stupid and make conservatives look like people with a grip on the problem. Many of us have no enthusiasm for conservative solutions to this, but if you're constantly out there making non-conservatives look like imbeciles who are incapable of recognising facts that are staring them in the face, sooner or later conservative solutions are going to be adopted. Give yourselves a big pat on the back when that happens, you'll have helped enormously in achieving it.
Russel's double standard
4 minutes ago