Brian Edwards Media

More Vileness from Michael Laws

This is really not a new post. It is a follow-up to the previous post. It consists of a piece written by Marilynn McLachlan, a blogger and the mother of a boy with Asperger’s Syndrome,  in response to Laws’ column,  A Black Eye for Liberal Bleaters, in last week’s Sunday Star Times.

Marilynn emailed the post to Laws, who responded by email. I really can’t recall reading anything as contemptible, as lacking in human charity or understanding,  as that response.

You can read Marilynn’s post, Laws’ response and Marilynn’s further reply at  It’s important that you do. If you ever had doubts about the odious nature not only of much of Laws’ writing, but of the man himself. those doubts will be soon erased.



  1. Doubts erased.I could barely believe it.Is this media works policy?

  2. Laws has form. Here’s an email exchange I had with him on Tuesday.


    I read your piece in the SST. It saddened me.

    Can I suggest you watch this piece on Aspergers Syndrome. Informative and empathetic.

    My daughter has Aspergers.

    She’s wonderful.

    I’ve love to introduce her to you one day.

    I’m hoping we could broaden your view on this.


    Bernard Hickey

    Michael Laws
    to me

    Get over it: Aspergers is not an excuse to steal.
    Why don’t you read the article properly.
    The police are still charging Smith, i note, and the family have no difficulty with that.

    BE: Thanks Bernard. Sometimes you have to call a spade a bloody shovel. The man is a total waste of space.

  3. Hi Brian. Have you read the article on Michael Laws and Marilynn McLachlan I wrote for today? Is relevant to the story, I guess!

    Mr Laws has called me ‘illiterate’ and a ‘liar’ in the comments section. So far.



    BE: Thanks Dan. If Radio Live had any sense of social responsibility they would take Laws off the air. But then ratings are ratings!

  4. Laws. An old English word for certifiably insane tragic twat. Who knew?

  5. Watching Law’s is like watching something terribly sad and tragic as it spins on it’s own petard…desperately trying to get away from itself but trapped like a Karmic moth ever screaming more bile as it feels it’s own torture..apologies to macheavelli and Hieronymus Bosch !.

  6. Sadly, by commenting here I would be giving Laws views oxygen. Suffice to say that the paper appears to be in terminal decline and the only way one will eventually be able to read his bile is to type in a URL. (That is, of course, assuming that Jim Mora doesn’t make him a panelist)

  7. Michael Laws is an angry, and dishonest man who is filled with more hate than most people could even begin to comprehend.

    One can only hope that one day soon, he will lose the ability to spread his anger, hate, and lies. In the meantime New Zealanders can breath a sigh of relief in that it appears he has given up any hope of a return to National Politics – as was his plan last year.

  8. BE:”But then ratings are ratings”!

    One of your nail clippings must have lodged itself under the N key, resulting in a Typo. Surely you mean “Rantings are Ratings”. These days it seems that so many prominent, ultra conservative New Zealanders are getting dog shit on their shoes and then putting both their feet in their mouths.

  9. Laws migrates from O’Reilly to Beck status… perhaps he will suffer the same fate.

  10. I’m usually not one to advocate that much violence, but in this case all the media people complaining about Laws can avail themselves of a simple remedy – punch Laws in the face at the earliest opportunity. After all, being in the media means they’ll have a much greater likelihood of chancing upon this piece of slime in the course of their day-to-day business. If Mr. Law’s wishes to inhabit a zone beyond the ken of decent men, then let him discover the consequences of his actions. Personally, I would regard a conviction for whacking Laws in the face as an object of some pride.

    If words fail to impress, then there is nothing like backing them up with a bit of action.

    BE: Tom, I understand but can’t endorse the thought.

  11. That picture of him, looks chillingly Luciferian.

  12. No Merv, he looks more like the naughty Capuchin monkey in denial about helping himself to a grape.

  13. Doesn’t Lhaws like a little biffo? He might enjoy an assault and the publicity too much Tom – plus its his ‘thing’ to advocate violence – best leave him to it. Words are where he loses.

  14. What’s the difference between Laws and Charlie Sheen?
    Not a lot.. as we watch them both slowly self-immolate in a mental train wreck of their own ego-driven making.
    Clayton Weatherston and Laws both apply the same narcissistic argument to back up their logic.

    BE: Edited. Sorry, your last sentence was potentially defamatory.

  15. Although Mr Laws shouldn’t have sent that email, my interpretation would not be that he was directly blaming the mother for her child’s affliction, but rather was implying that some parents can be a bit of a pain (for want of a better word). They can become a little obsessed themselves (which is understandable), and a little bit precious and attention seeking. What Mr laws might have been trying to say was that these parents make the situation a lot more stressful than it need be. Some of these parents seem to believe that we should take their suffering into account before we say anything. It’s not a very realistic expectation.

    I thought this press release from Autism NZ was odd.

    Perhaps I’m missing something here? You could argue that the Minister shouldn’t have made such comments anyway, but the idea that she deliberately made them in full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, or that she would even categorise Mr Smith as one of the looters is very unfair, even dishonest. It seems that Mr Smith has been exploited by both sides of the debate, and continues to be so.

  16. Laws’ latest article and his subsequent response to Marilynn have been the final straw for me. Have just canceled my SST subscription.

  17. Just out of curiosity, how much would Laws get for each article he writes?

  18. Michael is paid $600 for each column he writes – according to him.

  19. Marilynns post to Michael Laws was entitled “Michael Laws can bite me” – I don’t think many people would respond charitably to one like that.

  20. 20

    Yes Steve, anyone who bit Michael Laws would no doubt suffer some kind of poisoning.
    The right wing and the red necks have as much right to expression as anyone else, however they often seem to lack a sense of where the line of good taste is, and then justify it by complaining about “PC gone mad”. It’s not PC, it’s good manners – something that Laws is sadly lacking. Vile.

  21. Dear Brian

    I’m very pleased that you have been prodded out of your liberal senility to mount ceaseless ad hominem attacks upon my person … you join Russell Brown as another who can’t debate issues but must insult first, second and third.

    I wrote a perfectly rational column as to why Asperger’s Syndrome is not an excuse for criminality. A point that Arie Smith’s family agree with: their issue was having him denied bail because of his special condition.

    You may bleat on all you like AND I note the irony of having your correspondents demand violence against me. I’d say “bring it on” but you would only complain that I was inciting you …

    As for the person ‘Dab’ from TV3 Nws … he did lie – my reply to the McLachlan lady was directed at saying she felt the perceived slight, not her son. The hyper sensitivity of such parents to Arie Smith being arrested … is ludicrous.

    One other matter: the other central point of my column was that unsubstantiated allegations had been directed against the Police alleging brutality. They remain unsubstantiated. But that’s the liberal mantra, I guess. The Police are always wrong.

    Cheers, sport.

    BE: Thank you, Michael. I appreciate your having responded to the two posts.

    ‘Ceaseless ad hominem attacks’ are not really my style. My first post was essentially a deconstruction of your column with a brief critique at the end. I agree that the comments from followers of this site were considerably less restrained and I would personally not have enjoyed being the object of such a barrage of, yes, often ad hominem criticism. But you are surely not so obtuse as to fail to recognise that both the content and the manner of expression of your column about this young man was both a provocation and an invitation to precisely the response which it has received from the vast majority of readers of this blog and of many other blogs. If you insist on using terminology like ‘rats, rodents, ferals prepared to feed on the misery of others’ to describe a young man with Asperger’s Syndrome; if you feel the need to write: ‘In fact, the published photos accentuated such feral features – an unusual angularity offset by a blackened eye and the demeanour of one who spends much of his life in the darkness'; and if you recommend that the same (or worse) violence meted out to Smith should be meted out to all looters – then you can scarcely expect to receive a measured response. Your columns make people very angry. It surely cannot be a mystery to you why this is.

    I don’t resile from anything I wrote in either post. There is a suggestion in your response to me and to others that we have misunderstood or misconstrued what you were trying to say. That, it seems to me, begs the question: is our understanding flawed or is what you write ambiguous or unclear?

    Finally, Michael, accusing others of ad hominem attacks is rich when it is part of your own stock in trade. You have perhaps forgotten that when one woman wrote to you to draw your attention to my first post and to seek an explanation of what you had written in your column, you replied, ‘Brian edwards is a sad old man who teaches people to lie … and gets paid for it.’ That is of course not merely untrue, it is precisely the opposite of everything we believe in and teach. It is also of course highly defamatory.

    In some ways I’m sorry that it has come to this. You have in the past written favourably about me; and I have on this site written approvingly about you. But so many of your recent columns have been so angry, so hate-filled and so cruel that it is just not possible to ignore them or to regard them as a temporary aberration.

  22. Oh, and one other thing … the Marilyn lady attacked me personally twice … once by email, once by blog. Not my views … me. I’d no idea who she was or what I’d done to earn her published and private emnity.

    And long before I had even replied to her hysterical argument that her son’s illness and Are Smith’s offending were somehow connected.

    Michael Laws

  23. And the Jacqueline woman is lying … never told her anything.

  24. ‘Dab’? Really? Wow.

  25. Not that it matters – but yes you did Michael. You told me that you get paid $600 dollars for writing that column every week.

    You are the liar Michael. Always have been. Always will be.

  26. PMSL…
    “ceaseless ad hominem attacks upon my person.”

    Maybe he needs to listen to his own Radio Live show and actually read the crap he writes about others. Seems he feels ‘upset’ or ‘offended’ when the crap starts flying in his direction.

    Also, if Jacqueline is lying…. sue her for defamation Michael. After all, $600 seems a bit on the LOW side for a column and haven’t you had a pay rise since then anyway?