Brian Edwards Media

Posts Tagged 'Brian Edwards Media'

Publish your own posts on Brian Edwards Media


Now that Judy and I are travelling free on the buses and the Waiheke Ferry, thanks to Winston’s wonderful Supergold Card, and our joints are afflicted by arthritis, and Alzheimer’s is just around the corner, we feel it’s time to let you do some of the work while we sit back in our rocking chairs sipping champagne.

So things are going to change at Brian Edwards Media. While we’ll continue to contribute our opinions, we want to open up the site to you, our esteemed audience.

In short, we intend to become publishers as well as bloggers. So we’re inviting you to submit original posts on any topic under the sun for publication on the site. You’ve got a readymade audience who can comment on what you’ve written in exactly the same way that they comment now.

Your post will remain at the top of our Home Page for as long as it continues to inspire comment from visitors to the site, or a more interesting or topical post comes along.

Your post can be as short as you like, but with a maximum length – unless we think it’s absolutely brilliant – of 750 words.

If you can supply copyright free photographs or other illustrations to go with your post, that would be good. If not, we’ll look for them ourselves.

The post will, of course, appear under your by-line.

As publishers, we reserve the right to edit, to accept or decline your post, and to remove any material which we consider offensive or defamatory.   

You should send your post by email to, including your name, address and telephone number.

Over to you.  Brian Edwards Media awaits your pearls of wisdom.


Michael Laws writes to Brian Edwards Media and I respond.

Earlier this evening (Friday), Michael Laws sent three comments to this site. Two were about what other people have said. The third was a direct reply to the two posts I have written about Michael’s column in last week’s Sunday Star Times, A Black Eye for Liberal Bleaters. What follows is Michael’s unedited comment and my response:


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.

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 were 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.