Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

[Ms Piggy]

Dunno if anyone else has been watching it, I have. God it's good stuff! Anyway he was talking about the BIG lies we tell kids.

BIG lies we tell kids (Nigel Latta)

1. Life is fair.
2. Everyone gets a turn.
3. Everyone gets what they deserve.
4. It’s not about winning (it’s about taking part).
5. You’re special.
6. Everyone gets a prize.


“Birthday parties – we’re so terrified that a kid will feel left out that everyone has to get a present. Kids grow up with a huge sense of entitlement and the view that you get stuff in life for just turning up.”


“Genuine self-esteem comes from accomplishment, not from being told you’re making a good job when you’re not…Kids need to find out that you’re not always great at everything, that you don’t always win and that it’s okay to feel disappointed and bad if you lose. The moral of the story is: try again or try harder or try something else, we aren’t all special at everything.”


“What I say to my boys is this: Boys, you’re very special to me but those people think you’re annoying, be quiet.”


“Let’s be honest with our kids and not sugar coat it – we need to encourage them to do their best but be realistic about success or failure. Life isn’t fair so get used to it.”


"Be realistic…don’t try to insulate your kids from all failure and risk, they’re both parts of adult life and we need to learn how to cope with them. Don’t cotton wool your kids."

[Trudes]

It's a great show isn't it! It's really all just good old fashioned common sense, but it seems many people have forgotten how they were probably raised.
I've been a nanny for about 10 years and have cared for many kids, all different but all fundamentally wanting the same things; love, care, consistancy and boundaries. One thing all the parents I've worked for have said is that their kids always know where they stand with me, I'm happy to listen to what they want, but if I say no it means no, not keep nagging me until I give in. Not always easy, but worth it in the end, kids learn very quickly.

[peasea]

Dunno if anyone else has been watching it, I have. God it's good stuff! Anyway he was talking about the BIG lies we tell kids.

BIG lies we tell kids (Nigel Latta)

1. Life is fair.
2. Everyone gets a turn.
3. Everyone gets what they deserve.
4. It’s not about winning (it’s about taking part).
5. You’re special.
6. Everyone gets a prize.


“Birthday parties – we’re so terrified that a kid will feel left out that everyone has to get a present. Kids grow up with a huge sense of entitlement and the view that you get stuff in life for just turning up.”


“Genuine self-esteem comes from accomplishment, not from being told you’re making a good job when you’re not…Kids need to find out that you’re not always great at everything, that you don’t always win and that it’s okay to feel disappointed and bad if you lose. The moral of the story is: try again or try harder or try something else, we aren’t all special at everything.”


“What I say to my boys is this: Boys, you’re very special to me but those people think you’re annoying, be quiet.”


“Let’s be honest with our kids and not sugar coat it – we need to encourage them to do their best but be realistic about success or failure. Life isn’t fair so get used to it.”


Be realistic…don’t try to insulate your kids from all failure and risk, they’re both parts of adult life and we need to learn how to cope with them. Don’t cotton wool your kids.


He should have co-hosted with Sue Bradford for some balance.
:stupid:

[Headbanger]

I reckon if you buy into this new age PC parenting bullshit then you deserve weak spoilt kids. Shouldn't need a TV program to point it out.

I have noticed when I'm out with my boys I'm the only dad daring their kids to climb shit and then jump off it.

Getting them to race each other down steep hills is always a setup for a face plant and some chuckles.

I had them at a local park, They were tearing around, wrestling, rolling down the hills, They drew a crowd of kids (clean as a whistle) and parents who stood to the side watching them. Nearly made me sick.

I also tell my kids they suck at stuff when they lose, The oldest one did try that crap on me about how everyone wins, I shot that down quick, One winner son, everyone else is the loser.

[pete376403]

Dunno if anyone else has been watching it, I have. God it's good stuff! Anyway he was talking about the BIG lies we tell kids.

BIG lies we tell kids (Nigel Latta)

1. Life is fair.
2. Everyone gets a turn.
3. Everyone gets what they deserve.
4. It’s not about winning (it’s about taking part).
5. You’re special.
6. Everyone gets a prize.


“Birthday parties – we’re so terrified that a kid will feel left out that everyone has to get a present. Kids grow up with a huge sense of entitlement and the view that you get stuff in life for just turning up.”


“Genuine self-esteem comes from accomplishment, not from being told you’re making a good job when you’re not…Kids need to find out that you’re not always great at everything, that you don’t always win and that it’s okay to feel disappointed and bad if you lose. The moral of the story is: try again or try harder or try something else, we aren’t all special at everything.”


“What I say to my boys is this: Boys, you’re very special to me but those people think you’re annoying, be quiet.”


“Let’s be honest with our kids and not sugar coat it – we need to encourage them to do their best but be realistic about success or failure. Life isn’t fair so get used to it.”


Be realistic…don’t try to insulate your kids from all failure and risk, they’re both parts of adult life and we need to learn how to cope with them. Don’t cotton wool your kids.


But but but...doesn't this go all against the Official Social Workers Creed? Could you ever admit to admiring this and then hope to get a job with CYF?

[Genestho]

Brilliant stuff eh? Don't watch the show, but am familiar with his parent guide work! Love his no nonsense - get a grip approach!!
Should be standard issue though.

This whole birthday party thing is ridiculous, we played a few old fashioned party games this year!!!

OMG! There was only one winner!!! :shit:WTF!? :lol:

Wrapping our kids up in an unreal dreamworld does neither them, or us as parents any favours!!!

My neice got a wakeup call at 8, that life is unfair, and often we don't win if we don't strive for it.
Her whole life was over praised by her Mum, to the extent where she thought she was better than adults!!!

Headbanger - try being the only Mum being interactive. I've been teaching my son to skateboard:blink: I'm learning myself :lol:Hope I don't loose my teeth

[peasea]

But but but...doesn't this go all against the Official Social Workers Creed? Could you ever admit to admiring this and then hope to get a job with CYF?

I think its the 'Creed Of Working Socialites' or COWS for short.

Helen, step forward please.

[mynameis]

But Mummy said I was special.

[98tls]

Hes not bad eh,still laughing about "fat kids" ie "hello there fat cause you feed them to much".

[onearmedbandit]

Excellent common sense show. Like someone above said we shouldn't even need it on TV, but ah that's the day and age we live in.

[FJRider]

I have the DVD set to record it automaticlly... even if I'm watching it ... :laugh:

[ajturbo]

WTF???????????????

they are LIES ????????????????????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo:beer:

[ajturbo]

I reckon if you buy into this new age PC parenting bullshit then you deserve weak spoilt kids. Shouldn't need a TV program to point it out.

I have noticed when I'm out with my boys I'm the only dad daring their kids to climb shit and then jump off it.

Getting them to race each other down steep hills is always a setup for a face plant and some chuckles.

I had them at a local park, They were tearing around, wrestling, rolling down the hills, They drew a crowd of kids (clean as a whistle) and parents who stood to the side watching them. Nearly made me sick.

I also tell my kids they suck at stuff when they lose, The oldest one did try that crap on me about how everyone wins, I shot that down quick, One winner son, everyone else is the loser.
you the MAN!!!:banana::2thumbsup:clap:

[Ms Piggy]

But but but...doesn't this go all against the Official Social Workers Creed? Could you ever admit to admiring this and then hope to get a job with CYF?

It's an interesting comment Pete but I don't believe it goes against the SW Creed at all....well not mine anyway! :) And cos I don't work for CYF I don't know what their overall beliefs are, but the CYF social workers I know I think would agree.

[Ms Piggy]

I reckon if you buy into this new age PC parenting bullshit then you deserve weak spoilt kids. Shouldn't need a TV program to point it out.
What Nigel Latta was saying is that all the 'over praising" stuff was an attempt to make sure kids have good self-esteem - so the intentions were good but what it's done is lead to a whole lot of young people (Generation Y) with a "the world owes me a living" attitude.

[Headbanger]

What Nigel Latta was saying is......

Yeah, I get it, Its a simple message after all:whistle:

[Usarka]

Today's most critical parenting tool.....

http://www.packright.co.uk/media/gbu0/prodsm/bubblewrap-small.jpg

[Goblin]

Missed it last night but I agree with the guy...as per my sig line.

[The Stranger]

Missed it last night but I agree with the guy...as per my sig line.

I believe you already have a pretty good handle on this stuff Goblin.

[MIXONE]

I love it and watch every week.It reinforces that my wife and I are doing the right thing by our kids.Yes they have had broken bones and stitches but they also know that sometimes life will bite you on the bum!
I'm probably also the most un pc kids sports coach because I teach the kids that sport is fun and the most fun of all is winning!It seems to work because the kids keep coming back and the parents,mostly,support this.
Mumble,mumble pc crap, mumble...

[The Stranger]

God it's good stuff! Anyway he was talking about the BIG lies we tell kids.


Then they get to school and have to contend with the lies our teachers tell our kids.


Gravity does not exist because the earth spins.
The sun doesn't burn gas.
There is no English treaty.

[Winston001]

But but but...doesn't this go all against the Official Social Workers Creed? Could you ever admit to admiring this and then hope to get a job with CYF?

Um...not sure where social workers come in?? They deal with the kids who have not been mollycoddled.

Anyway, the modern parenting approach (which is also followed by schools) is aimed at establishing self-esteem in a child. I don't know when this started - probably early 1990s and it's a follow-on from Dr Spock's ideas of the 60/70s.

I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing. There are plenty of miserable bitter adults in the world who would have benefited from kindness and encouragement when young.

[Usarka]

I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing.

Depends how high you are building it.

[tomobedlam]

. I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing. There are plenty of miserable bitter adults in the world who would have benefited from kindness and encouragement when young.

It not about not building a child self-esteem. Disappointment, getting hurt and losing are all part of life, children need to learn to deal with that. It's about building a child's self-esteem through them actually achieving something and not just participating

[MSTRS]

I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing. There are plenty of miserable bitter adults in the world who would have benefited from kindness and encouragement when young.

Of course it's not a bad thing. But the child needs to earn that self-esteem. That means failing at stuff. As well as succeeding.
How many of today's children will end up bitter, eventually, once adult life has delivered enough knocks for them to realise that they are not special/important? Because those grown-up kids will have not have learned the skills of coping with disappointment.

[Genestho]

I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing. There are plenty of miserable bitter adults in the world who would have benefited from kindness and encouragement when young.

No-one can say praise is a bad thing. It's a beautiful thing!

Kids are like flowers and praise is like water.

However overpraise where it's not warranted; ie lashings of "you're better than everyone at whatever you do darling" when it's just not true...or
Prizes for all, encourages kids to believe they get something for nothing.

All we achieve is to set up the child, for the big fall in "The Real World" beyond....

I advocate offering truth and acceptance when things don't go as planned.
Earning self satisfaction and self respect, rather than having it handed on a plate.

I've seen the trouble first hand, and unless you head it off at the pass, the result is being dragged down a few pegs, later rather than sooner, with the hurtling realisation of truth!:weep:

[The Pastor]

the shows pretty common sence really isnt it?

[Usarka]

I loved his line " I think you're special, but those people over there think you're loud and annoying..." :killingme

[MisterD]

Today's most critical parenting tool.....


Yeah, that keeps my little 'un quiet for ages pop-pop-popping...yes, I did understand what Usarka really meant.

[MisterD]

the shows pretty common sence really isnt it?

It is, I find it interesting when he give techniques names...all this time I've been practicing the "SAS" sleep training technique and I never knew it until he told me...

[The Pastor]

It is, I find it interesting when he give techniques names...all this time I've been practicing the "SAS" sleep training technique and I never knew it until he told me...
i havnt watched the show, whats the SAS sleep training thing? close eyes?

[sunhuntin]

What Nigel Latta was saying is that all the 'over praising" stuff was an attempt to make sure kids have good self-esteem - so the intentions were good but what it's done is lead to a whole lot of young people (Generation Y) with a "the world owes me a living" attitude.

from time to time, i will venture into the parenting board on tardme. its amazing how many parents have "gifted" kids, just cos this one rolled over at x months old, and this 3 year old can write their name etc etc.
hell, the twins mum used to look after were able to spell and write not only their names but scores of words, they could read unaided, and do some basic maths, they could recite the alphabet without mistake. they werent gifted, they had someone dedicated to educating them before they went to school.
ive seen so many kids who arent allowed to be kids. one boy i used to babysit wasnt allowed to roll down hills! wtf... thats the most fun of all!
i like that advert for the bread... 'we're playing cowboys and local idiginous [sp] people' lmfao.

[James Deuce]

Nigel Latta needs (yet) another beating around the back of the bike sheds.

[tri boy]

Few years back, a mates 4yr old "darling lil boy" thought it was a great game to throw potatoes at adults while they were chatting to each other. (the adults, not the potatoes).
So the lil prick hurled a spud at me, which struck me on nose. (good throw for a 4yr old actually). Fuck it hurt. So I picked up the spud, (potato, not the kid), and hurled it into his guts.

Well, you would of thought I had cut the lil buggers throat. Mums n dads abused the shit out of me n demonized my actions.
Funny thing was, me and that lil shit became great mates. He would show me his drawings, want to build forts and ride in the truck with me.
Fuck the PC world.
That kid learnt that for every action he took, there might be a counter action that works against him.

[Winston001]

Essentially I agree with Nigel Latta and everyone here but its healthy to look at the other side of the issue - later.

I've been through this parenting period with my children who are now entering their teens. I haven't actually seen evidence of kids set up to fail by over-praise. In fact I'm struggling to think of even one example.

What I do see is spoilt kids but they were around when I was a kid too. Nothing new about that.

Raising our children was frustrating at times - I often said "we can't wrap them in cotton wool..." and tried to make them take risks. My wife was having none of that because mothers protect their children, so no surprise there. Other mothers were the same.

Its worked out so far. But my kids are winners anyway. School leaders, competitive gymnasts, good manners, so maybe don't fit the mould which Nigel Latta is talking about.

[MSTRS]

The cream will rise to the top, anyway. It's just that (all) the rest would like to believe that they are cream too. When they are not.
*old fart's voice* Back in our day, sonny, we knew our place. And it was the place that we earned for ourselves, once we'd got too old for the children should be seen and not heard. We never got anything handed to us on a plate, except dinner.

[The Stranger]

BIG lies we tell kids (Nigel Latta)



So how many kids has Nigel Latta raised and how did they turn out?
Surely this is the proof of the pie.

[short-circuit]

Then they get to school and have to contend with the lies our teachers tell our kids.


Gravity does not exist because the earth spins.
The sun doesn't burn gas.
There is no English treaty.


Fuck what school do your kids go to?

[yungatart]

So how many kids has Nigel Latta raised and how did they turn out?
Surely this is the proof of the pie.

He has two little boys (about 6 and 9 I think).
As for how they turned out, time will tell I suppose, but we have raised our kids pretty much the way he is advocating and they are all great...and no, I don't think I'm biased at all :whistle:

[The Stranger]

He has two little boys (about 6 and 9 I think).
As for how they turned out, time will tell I suppose, but we have raised our kids pretty much the way he is advocating and they are all great...and no, I don't think I'm biased at all :whistle:

No, I don't think you are either.
Just so often see bullshit being spouted by idiots who haven't been there themselves. We had a fair little shit round our place one time. Got a crack from me and told never to come back for fooking with my car after many polite cautions and a few not so polite too. Found out later his mother took the positive parenting night class at the local school. He found out what positive parenting was when I got hold of him alright.

[Fatt Max]

Great show all round.

I met a bunch of ladies that worked in a kindy a few weeks ago, they were all completley stressed and strung out over the expectations and threats put on them by these PC orientated parents fuelled by the pointless and crap 'Parenting' help books that the green party suggest you read.

I did like the bit when the clown guy sighted Remuera as the worst place for kiddies parties....rich kids eh, their parents can afford a whole library of that crap.

Bling for the show....

[Genestho]

Great show all round.

...pointless and crap 'Parenting' help books that the green party suggest you read.....

I wonder if that's often the handicap, parents so busy reading books and watching super nanny that their own commensense is watered down?

[Ms Piggy]

Nigel Latta needs (yet) another beating around the back of the bike sheds.

Huh? What do ya mean Mister?

[Ms Piggy]

Okay, some interesting comments. I'm particularly interested in the comment about parenting (or more specifically what Nigel Latta is saying) being common sense...I reckon for some parents it's not.

I'm sure there's loads of different reasons but who teaches parents how to be "good" parents? Anyway, that's off the topic but it''s something I often ponder.

Carry on.

[Ms Piggy]

I defy anyone to say that building a child's self-esteem is a bad thing. There are plenty of miserable bitter adults in the world who would have benefited from kindness and encouragement when young.

I think someone might have said this but I didn't get the feeling Nigel Latta was poo pooing building children's self esteem by being positive and encouraging them but he was proposing that building self-esteem isn't about telling children everything they do is wonderful and perfect...although I'm not quite sure where you find the balance. I mean ya don't want to be slamming a kiddie every time they bring you 1 of their bits of art or woodwork.

[Fatt Max]

I wonder if that's often the handicap, parents so busy reading books and watching super nanny that their own commensense is watered down?

Think you have got it there mate. It's really fashionable to be good at 'Parenting' rather than being good parents. All this media being thrown at mums and dads restrictes their ability to express themselves as individuals as well as the kids (whom, lets face it, are compressed to conform into such tight lines that they could end up becoming cartoon characters).

My parents laugh like fuck at all this carrying on, they brought up me and my bruvver with no books, focus groups or fucking Remuera Coffee mornings. They were skint for most of the time but we were always ok. My dad encouraged us to be good at sports and take a loss as well as a win. Me mum used to bollock us like fuck if we even thought about disagreeing with a teacher.

PC parenting, it can fuck off really...put the kids before someones ego.....

[The Stranger]

Okay, some interesting comments. I'm particularly interested in the comment about parenting (or more specifically what Nigel Latta is saying) being common sense...I reckon for some parents it's not.

I'm sure there's loads of different reasons but who teaches parents how to be "good" parents? Anyway, that's off the topic but it''s something I often ponder.

Carry on.

I never read a parenting book. Do people really need to be taught this stuff?
The way I learnt to parent was to take my cues from my parents and what worked and didn't work there. That and treat kids with lots of love and the same respect as I would expect in return.

Not rocket science.

The truely sad thing is when you see a 5 or 6 year old who has a higher intellect than their parents. You just know there is going to be trouble, but what can you do?

[Ms Piggy]

I never read a parenting book. Do people really need to be taught this stuff?
The way I learnt to parent was to take my cues from my parents and what worked and didn't work there. That and treat kids with lots of love and the same respect as I would expect in return.

Not rocket science.

Yeah but what if you had parents that sucked and didn't give you love and respect?

I think all the myriad of books out there is information overload myself! But then I learn by doing not by reading.

[The Stranger]

Yeah but what if you had parents that sucked and didn't give you love and respect?

I think all the myriad of books out there is information overload myself! But then I learn by doing not by reading.

Then you have a reallll good handle on what doesn't work. and know you need to be doing the opposite.

[Dave Lobster]

Yeah, that keeps my little 'un quiet for ages pop-pop-popping...yes, I did understand what Usarka really meant.

That is what he meant, wasn't it???


I wonder if that's often the handicap, parents so busy reading books and watching super nanny that their own commensense is watered down?

Most of the parents I see out and about don't look as if they could write their own name, let alone read a book about parenting.

[Ms Piggy]

Then you have a reallll good handle on what doesn't work. and know you need to be doing the opposite.

Hmmmmm, if only it always worked that way eh.

[The Stranger]

Hmmmmm, if only it always worked that way eh.

I knew well enough what I wasn't going to do to my kids. Lessons from my childhood taught me those things.

[Ms Piggy]

I knew well enough what I wasn't going to do to my kids. Lessons from my childhood taught me those things.

That's awesome that it worked that way for you but I suspect because NZ has such a high rate of child abuse that not everyone learnt that same lesson.

[The Stranger]

That's awesome that it worked that way for you but I suspect because NZ has such a high rate of child abuse that not everyone learnt that same lesson.

Not taking issue with you Ms Piggy. Obviously I have a different opinion, but I really don't get it. Perhaps I guess to understand I would need to be abused to comprehend how that would impact one's thinking.
To me getting a frequent hiding for having long hair when I was young ensured I kept my hair long.
I swore my kids could do what the hell they liked with their hair.
All but my daughter chose short hair. That is to me but one example of how a negative reinforcement of my youf made me change my tactics for my kids.
My kids have never been made to tidy their rooms - ever. When they were old enough to reason I simply pointed out the reasons for and against having a tidy room and they choose.

[peasea]

Common sense, it'll never catch on.

[Dave Lobster]

Common sense, it'll never catch on.

Too much legislation around for that to happen.

[Ms Piggy]

Not taking issue with you Ms Piggy. Obviously I have a different opinion, but I really don't get it. Perhaps I guess to understand I would need to be abused to comprehend how that would impact one's thinking.
Yeah I think that's it actually.

I honestly don't get it either - why some people abuse their kids. But then awful things happen everyday. And then there's parents like you who have chosen to turn the table on some of the bad things happened to you as a kid. Nice work!

[Genestho]

Common sense, it'll never catch on.

A salute!
To an old friend commonsense, who left a long time ago!

[Winston001]

I wonder if that's often the handicap, parents so busy reading books and watching super nanny that their own commonsense is watered down?

Confession time - I'm one of those losers. We have a shelf-load of books by Christopher Green, Steve Biddulph, Penelope Leach, Celia Lashlie, Ian Grant etc. My wife and I went to parenting seminars whenever they available.

We joined a playgroup of other mothers resulting in strong friendships for my wife and an instant set of "brothers and sisters" for our children. These kids are still friends 10 years later, as are the parents.

And now I discover my 14yr old son is a delinquent. :wacko: Apparently he (and two mates) have been "yarding" which involves jumping over back fences at night to see how many properties you can get through. Once.

I'm going to search his room for heroin tonight.

How could I have gone so wrong.......:gob:

[Ms Piggy]

How could I have gone so wrong.......:gob:

It's called being human! ;)

[Number One]

"you’re very special to me but those people think you’re annoying, be quiet.”

:lol: I like that and it will most definitely come in handy :shutup:

I keep missing this show - damn and bugger it but good to have read about some of it on here - couldn't agree more with those 'lies'

[Winston001]

It's called being human! ;)

Just jokes. In fact I'm secretly proud he's being a bit bad because he's a fine lad who is never in trouble.

[Ms Piggy]

I keep missing this show - damn and bugger it but good to have read about some of it on here - couldn't agree more with those 'lies'

We're recording it so I can sling ya a copy when it's all done if ya like.

[Number One]

We're recording it so I can sling ya a copy when it's all done if ya like.
That would be great actually! Thanks chick

[The Stranger]

Just jokes. In fact I'm secretly proud he's being a bit bad because he's a fine lad who is never in trouble.

Of course. Rebellion etc is a very necessary part of the journey.
I would be more concerned if a child just did what they were told all the time.

[PrincessBandit]

Of course both my children are incredibly talented and gifted. They take after me.
hahahahaha

But seriously, they are! No no no no, really seriously...I've never been one for going overboard on praising kids every little effort. They have to learn that effort, in life, is par for the course and doesn't automatically earn them special notice. On the other hand, I would never tell my kids they suck at something or that they're a "loser" because they didn't "win" (words used by someone in an earlier post).

Kids have to learn early that not everyone is going to fawn over them and pander to their ego. What hope do those kids have of learning about integration and how to get on with others when they remain the centre of their universe and parents indulge that mentality?

[The Stranger]

Kids have to learn early that not everyone is going to fawn over them and pander to their ego. What hope do those kids have of learning about integration and how to get on with others when they remain the centre of their universe and parents indulge that mentality?

Have you discussed your ideas with your darling brother per chance?

[PrincessBandit]

Have you discussed your ideas with your darling brother per chance?

Well, not really, on two counts: (1) he's big enough and ugly enough to make his own decisions now and (2) he's not my offspring - the thought is just too disturbing for words. I need a drink now. Damn you! :eek:

Oh, and trust me, mum NEVER pandered to any of us 3 kids. She was a pretty strict lady.

[Forest]

My mate came over last night with his wife and their two rug-rats (a three yo boy and a five yo girl).

What amazed me was that they were constantly trying to reason with the kids i.e. do this because , don't do that because XYZ.

WTF? A three year old isn't capable of responding to reason!

Consequently I now have a large Ribena stain on my yellow couch. :mad:

[MSTRS]

My mate came over last night with his wife and their two rug-rats (a three yo boy and a five yo girl).

What amazed me was that they were constantly trying to reason with the kids i.e. do this <behaviour> because <complex reason>, don't do that <behaviour> because XYZ <complex reason>.

WTF? A three year old isn't capable of responding to reason!

Consequently I now have a large Ribena stain on my yellow couch. :mad:

And that, folks, is precisely why it is the parent's job to control their kids. With a firm 'order' ("No!"?), followed up with another ("I said, NO!!!"), perhaps removal of whatever is causing the problem...and backed up by some sort of appropriate (physical) punishment for non-compliance.

[Winston001]

My mate came over last night with his wife and their two rug-rats (a three yo boy and a five yo girl).

What amazed me was that they were constantly trying to reason with the kids i.e. do this because , don't do that because XYZ.

WTF? A three year old isn't capable of responding to reason!

Consequently I now have a large Ribena stain on my yellow couch. :mad:

Ah. Ok. The positive parenting model isn't easy to get right. The principle is the parent gives a simple explanation to the child saying why a behaviour should stop. So its "No, do not take the drink away from the table because it might spill." as opposed to "No, stay at the table" without any explanation.

No still means No. Giving an explanation fills out the command and lets the child understand the consequences.

Where it goes wrong is very young children will then embark on an endless argument of "Why...???" while the tolerant and well meaning parent tries to engage in logic. You can't with most 3 yr olds.

So one command with very simple explanation, then if disobeyed act. Remove the drink, remove the child, whatever. In positive parenting the parent is still the boss.

Of course I never fell into the trap of arguing with 3yr olds, oh no.....:shutup:

[Winston001]

Just musing about the concerns expressed in this thread. I liked what Nigel Latta presented.

Positive parenting is not easy. The old Victorian style of command parenting where children were seen and not heard was a lot easier. Engaging with your children is hard work, trying to find simple age-appropriate explanations, simple choices (3 is the limit), consequences for disobedience. Much easier to say shutup and give them a smack.

The badly behaved children whom we all see are the result of inadequate parenting. IMHO such children are often spoilt. That is not the childs fault. A parent who had a repressive upbringing may overcompensate by putting no limits or restraints on the child. That is not positive parenting, its a transfer of power to the child.

I firmly believe in explaining stuff to children - and listening to them. Then as the parent you decide.

I am a far far better parent for having learned positive parenting ideas than if I'd stumbled along trying to emulate and correct my own (good) parents ideas.

[James Deuce]

I'm thoroughly sick of formulaic approaches to child rearing. I'm especially sick of the fact that everything I do is wrong. So I've stopped listening.

Nyah.

[Winston001]

I'm thoroughly sick of formulaic approaches to child rearing. I'm especially sick of the fact that everything I do is wrong. So I've stopped listening.

Nyah.

Nah Jim, you're just normal - parents are never right according to their children. :D

[ynot slow]

You have to set the boundaries with kids,if not they learn at kindy or school the hard way lol.Knew a kindy teacher,her first job at discipline was you can't smack them,but can squeeze their wrists etc,they soon understand.Usually it is simple,don't do it because if you place your hand on the stove it will burn like this(mum showing her burnt legs she recieved as a kid).

My kids learnt quickly,put your toys away inside or outside when finished as it takes less time,especially when they wanted to go to the park.Also if I was mowing the lawns the first time I mowed a toy(plastic not metal)they learnt to tidy up.Never had to tell them twice,once explained they knew,and they mostly did as asked,but 3yr olds are cute sort of.

As for sport,yep teach them winning is better than losing,but giving it a go is paramount.When at primary school my brother was a good athletic kid,he was in the school relay at 10ys when others were 12-13yrs(convent went to form 1)and anchor for the 4x100mts relay,mum said if you guys win I'll shout you all milkshakes from their dairy,turned out first time in 10yrs the school won,and did for next 3years.

[Forest]

A quick follow-up to the story about the Ribena stain.

I have just posted my friend a very large wooden spoon.

[Pussy]

When some parents say "Little Tarquin is just expressing himself" as an excuse for their kid being a little shit... why can't I express myself with a boot up Tarquin's clacker??

[wbks]

I'm curious as to why people so visciously oppose the anti - smacking stuff? Do you think your kids will grow up "wrong" because you didn't smack them?

[PrincessBandit]

I'm curious as to why people so visciously oppose the anti - smacking stuff? Do you think your kids will grow up "wrong" because you didn't smack them?

Thread hi-jack, thread hi-jack!!! lol

I'm all for allowing kids to be creative in their learning - in their own homes, not mine! If parents allow their miniature Michaelangelos to draw all over the walls in their house to express themselves I have no problem with that at all. I do have a major problem with them thinking they can do it in my house.

Teaching respect for other peoples things is important. While the expression that people like to bandy around here "Respect is earned, not a right" may hold true in the adult world, it has to be taught to children.

[ynot slow]

Mind you mostly kids are an absolute image of their parents at functions.If the parents have no idea of boundaries,how the hell are kids supposed to know them.

Never recall getting belted,sure probably got the odd smack but obviously learned from mistakes.

[Ms Piggy]

I firmly believe in explaining stuff to children - and listening to them. Then as the parent you decide.
I hear what you're saying about making the effort and taking time with your kids when it comes to discipline but surely not everything requires negotiation/discussion? Sometimes it's simply a firm "No" (hidden message being: because I am your parent and what I say goes) is sufficient.

[James Deuce]

I hear what you're saying about making the effort and taking time with your kids when it comes to discipline but surely not everything requires negotiation/discussion? Sometimes it's simply a firm "No" (hidden message being: because I am your parent and what I say goes) is sufficient.

Yeah, but not in public; someone will ring CYF.

[Ms Piggy]

Yeah, but not in public; someone will ring CYF.

Would they really? Cripes!

[The Stranger]

I'm curious as to why people so visciously oppose the anti - smacking stuff? Do you think your kids will grow up "wrong" because you didn't smack them?

How many kids are you raising wbks?

It's far less cruel and more effective and more efficient.
My kids were given a choice from an early age and opted for a smack over time out. Time out was viewed as a form of rejection, smacking was punishment.
That said, it was not a very frequent occurance. Speaking to them on the referendum a few days ago, they couldn't remember having been smacked and I can't remember a specific instance. However, the threat of a punishment is so much more powerful than the punishment itself and they knew it was always a possibility, even without a parent making or intimating a threat, thus because it was an option it didn't need to be used.
Interestingly the 3 of them that are old enough to vote say they will vote in favour of smacking - and that's from people who have just been through it not that long ago.

[Pixie]

so how many kids has nigel latta raised and how did they turn out?
Surely this is the proof of the pie.

...........251

[Pixie]

Found out later his mother took the positive parenting night class at the local school. He found out what positive parenting was when I got hold of him alright.

Meh, positive parenting.

Parenting has to be balanced - if you don't attach both electrodes there's no effect

[Winston001]

I hear what you're saying about making the effort and taking time with your kids when it comes to discipline but surely not everything requires negotiation/discussion? Sometimes it's simply a firm "No" (hidden message being: because I am your parent and what I say goes) is sufficient.

Agreed. When you are tired, coping with cooking/laundry/phone plus young children, calm explanations go out the window.

[Winston001]

....While the expression that people like to bandy around here "Respect is earned, not a right" .....

Yeah and I find that attitude very odd. My approach is the exact opposite. Every person is worthy of respect until they do something to lose it. You don't earn respect - you are due it by being a member of the community.

The busdriver, the shop assistant, the cleaner, all of these people are worthy and entitled to be treated with respect. Life becomes much kinder with this point of view.

[Ms Piggy]

I'm curious as to why people so visciously oppose the anti - smacking stuff? Do you think your kids will grow up "wrong" because you didn't smack them?

:Offtopic: And I'll choose to say nothing cos even though I do hold a strong opinion this thread is about other stuff.

But I just have to say that the referendum question is not worded well at all :shutup: Ooooppps! Did that sneak out! As you were!

I popped my vote in the post just 30 minutes ago. :innocent:

[James Deuce]

I popped my vote in the post just 30 minutes ago. :innocent:

Seriously, what's the point? I'm a fine one for insisting that people vote but the question is a false dichotomy.

What precisely are you voting for and what kind of sane reason could you give for ticking either yes or no to that question?

[Ms Piggy]

Seriously, what's the point? I'm a fine one for insisting that people vote but the question is a false dichotomy.

What precisely are you voting for and what kind of sane reason could you give for ticking either yes or no to that question?

Yeah I know what you're saying Jim - I did consider not voting at all but then I decided to vote because feel so strongly about this particular topic. I guess for me (just me, not saying this applies to anyone else before someone has a conniption) not voting would equate to me not caring about the issues and I care deeply about the issues around his topic.

Personally I would have preferred if the question had been clear cut - there is a very good article written in the June newsletter for Wellington Community Law Centre that explains why on several different levels the question is poorly worded (can email it to ya if you like).

It's a pity actually because the referendum won't really be conclusive, in my opinion.

So Jim - why aren't you voting?

[James Deuce]

So Jim - why aren't you voting?

Simply because the question poses a false dichotomy.

[Ms Piggy]

Simply because the question poses a false dichotomy.
Could you expand please? Sorry I been studying all day and the brain is full of fuzz :confused: I think I know what ya mean though.

[James Deuce]

The question posed has, to put it mildly, more than two possible answers, most of them neither "yes" nor "no".

If you don't believe in smacking, then neither available answer illustrates your point of view.

[The Stranger]

The question posed has, to put it mildly, more than two possible answers, most of them neither "yes" nor "no".

If you don't believe in smacking, then neither available answer illustrates your point of view.

I'm a simple man Jim, give us an example will ya please?

[The Stranger]

Personally I would have preferred if the question had been clear cut - there is a very good article written in the June newsletter for Wellington Community Law Centre that explains why on several different levels the question is poorly worded (can email it to ya if you like).


I wouldn't mind that please if I may.
Shall Pm you my email address.

[Trudes]

In the same boat as you here Jim. I'm all for "vote or shut up" but this one had me stumped, and yep due to the shit wording of the question I will not be voting. I believe there are better ways of disciplining your kids than smacking them, however I don't believe that those who do use this form of discipline should be prosecuted for it, however I also don't think the section 59 repeal should be scraped as I don't believe beating the crap out of your kids to be a justifiable form of punishment/use of force. So I can't vote yes because I don't think parents should be prosecuted for using reasonable force (a smack) to discipline their kids, however I wouldn't vote no either as I worry that if this referendum gets enough no votes the people who are pushing this thing will then start petitioning to have the section 59 repeal changed/scraped so that people can go back to beating the crap out of their kids and using reasonable force as an excuse (which is actually what the section 59 repeal is about, not anti-smacking at all....). I'm sure none of that made any sense.

[James Deuce]

I'm a simple man Jim, give us an example will ya please?
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Define "good parental correction". You can't.

Define "smack". You can't.

Well, you can define both of those but the definitions will probably amount to about 3.1 million in number for each.

The question is couched in terms of "belief" and insinuates a point of law without naming it or specifically objecting to or supporting that unnamed regulation.

The question does not provide an outcome if people favour yes or no.

[cowboyz]

ok.. truth be known i only got throught the first couple of pages but the general concenous is that what this guy is preaching is very very easy stuff and all about common sense.

Righto- how did we get here then? If it is *that* simple and that *common* why is this guy making a crapload of money out of telling people it?

[Trudes]

Because many parents have gotten soft, try to be their kids friends instead of a role model and disciplinarian, can't say NO to their kids just in case it makes them sad and try to wrap them in cotton wool. Or something like that. :shutup:

[The Stranger]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Define "good parental correction". You can't.

Define "smack". You can't.

Well, you can define both of those but the definitions will probably amount to about 3.1 million in number for each.

The question is couched in terms of "belief" and insinuates a point of law without naming it or specifically objecting to or supporting that unnamed regulation.

The question does not provide an outcome if people favour yes or no.


Of course one can't define "good parental correction" surely that must turn on the circumstances must it not? Is there any other way to skin the cat?

Similarly a smack might, however could they not clarify this in leglislation. I always assumed we were voting on intent, not a proposed law and that there would be normal processes involved - including drafting and objections etc for the law, hence is the law or it's punishment relavent?

Assuming you can interpret the intent ok, how do you believe it should have been worded?

[Ms Piggy]

I wouldn't mind that please if I may.
Shall Pm you my email address.

Done and done.

[James Deuce]

Assuming you can interpret the intent ok, how do you believe it should have been worded?

There is no intent to interpret. The question says nothing and the outcome is nothing.

I'm with Trudes. The referendum is unnecessary.

[The Stranger]

Done and done.

Well I must say, the last paragraph was certainly the most pertinent - and it shows the whole way through. To infer "good" in the context of the question is akin to a "good hiding" and therefore inappropriate shows some pretty desperate bias.

His proposed "clear and neutral" question of
"Should children be entitled to the same protection from physical assaults as everyone else enjoys?"
Absolutely reeks of bias. It doesn't allow for a "yes, but" position.

People should stop reading into it what is not there. There is NO rationale for NOT taking it at face value. Just answer the simple question before you - or not, your choice, but stop looking for reds under the beds.

[Trudes]

Oh why not? There are a huge number of people who have read whatever they like into the legislation that this stupid thing refers to. Most of the good folks who are dead against it have probably not read it. It isn't and never was an anti-smacking bill, the point of it is not to prosecute parents who give their kids a smack to discipline or remove them from harm by force, but to remove people using it as an excuse after they have beaten the snot out if their kid with a hunk of wood for instance.

[Jonno.]

i don't smack adults because they aren't my children, but then who gives adults time outs? What's next timeouts are banned because some people lock their kids in their room all day as a timeout.

[Trudes]

Adult time-out is called prison. If you lock your kid in a room all day then that could well be classed as neglect which is a form of abuse.

[Jonno.]

Exactly, it is akin to banning smacking to stop physical abuse. My understanding is the law removed the defence of reasonable force, effectively leaving it up to police and cyfs to use their discretion aka smacking is not legal. To me the question is obvious. IMO it should not be illegal to smack your kids in nz as part of good parental correction. Whether or how it pertains to the law is irelivant that isn't part of the question. Do you want smacking to be illegal yes or no.

[Trudes]

What exactly do you think they are going to do with the responses? "Thanks very much voting citizens of New Zealand, we love to waste tax payers money and this is another example". There is a reason for this referendum, think about it.

[The Stranger]

the point of it is not to prosecute parents who give their kids a smack to discipline or remove them from harm by force, but to remove people using it as an excuse after they have beaten the snot out if their kid with a hunk of wood for instance.

Really?
Beating the snot out if their kid with a hunk of wood has never been legal.
Has anyone tried using the old S59 as a defense for this? Was it successful?

[Trudes]

Really?
Beating the snot out if their kid with a hunk of wood has never been legal.
Has anyone tried using the old S59 as a defense for this? Was it successful?

A Napier father was found to be using "reasonable force" by a jury after hitting his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2cm which left linear bruising visable for days. A jury found it reasonable for a Hamilton father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm long lump on the girl's back. Sorry, can't tell you the exact dates, but this was using the old wording of S59 that they were using reasonable force on their children. There are probably many more but those were two that I had on my desk.

The problem is that what I may consider a smack is completely different to how someone else may see a smack. The force behind a smack I may give and the force of a 130kg man may give are also different, and remember this is being delivered to a child who we could easily be 4 times the size of. A slap to an adult's head may leave them with a black eye for a week but the same slap to a child could leave them brain damaged.
I was raised in a family were we'd get a hiding if you did something bad enough and not one time do I remember my Mum or Dad not being absolutely furious with us as they hit us. Now were they hitting me to teach me a lesson or because they were pissed off? I may have learnt a lesson, don't piss mum off, but I know that the reason I was getting hit was because mum was angry and this is her way of getting it out. So it has more to do with her feeling better than me learning a lesson.
I'm not allowed to hit the kids I look after, and believe me there have been times when the natural learnt instinct has made me want to, but because I can't I have had to keep my cool and use a different method of discipline. I don't even think about it any more, the kids get sent straight to time out, the situation is diffused and they get to cool off and so do I, and nobody gets hurt or fired.
I think the whole S59 repeal has hopefully made parents think before they just lash out in anger at their kids, and if they still decide to smack their kids then hopefully with a little less force.

[James Deuce]

It's a non-binding referendum based on a question that has no meaning irrespective of a "yes" or "no" answer.

That's my "face value" reading of it.

[Winston001]

A Napier father was found to be using "reasonable force" by a jury after hitting his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2cm which left linear bruising visable for days. A jury found it reasonable for a Hamilton father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm long lump on the girl's back. Sorry, can't tell you the exact dates, but this was using the old wording of S59 that they were using reasonable force on their children. There are probably many more but those were two that I had on my desk.

The problem is that what I may consider a smack is completely different to how someone else may see a smack. The force behind a smack I may give and the force of a 130kg man may give are also different, and remember this is being delivered to a child who we could easily be 4 times the size of. A slap to an adult's head may leave them with a black eye for a week but the same slap to a child could leave them brain damaged.
I was raised in a family were we'd get a hiding if you did something bad enough and not one time do I remember my Mum or Dad not being absolutely furious with us as they hit us. Now were they hitting me to teach me a lesson or because they were pissed off? I may have learnt a lesson, don't piss mum off, but I know that the reason I was getting hit was because mum was angry and this is her way of getting it out. So it has more to do with her feeling better than me learning a lesson.
I'm not allowed to hit the kids I look after, and believe me there have been times when the natural learnt instinct has made me want to, but because I can't I have had to keep my cool and use a different method of discipline. I don't even think about it any more, the kids get sent straight to time out, the situation is diffused and they get to cool off and so do I, and nobody gets hurt or fired.
I think the whole S59 repeal has hopefully made parents think before they just lash out in anger at their kids, and if they still decide to smack their kids then hopefully with a little less force.

Must spread reputation around etc..... :D

[Winston001]

Excuse me if I go on-topic for a moment.

One of the issues Nigel Latta criticises is the educational model that all young children are winners. Participation is everything, individual achievements are unimportant.

We've discussed this on here before and its something I have a problem with too. Life does produce winners and losers and children have to learn that. Apparently Kiwifern netball games have no score. To my mind that is ludicrous.

[The Stranger]

A Napier father was found to be using "reasonable force" by a jury after hitting his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2cm which left linear bruising visable for days. A jury found it reasonable for a Hamilton father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm long lump on the girl's back. Sorry, can't tell you the exact dates, but this was using the old wording of S59 that they were using reasonable force on their children. There are probably many more but those were two that I had on my desk.

The problem is that what I may consider a smack is completely different to how someone else may see a smack. The force behind a smack I may give and the force of a 130kg man may give are also different, and remember this is being delivered to a child who we could easily be 4 times the size of. A slap to an adult's head may leave them with a black eye for a week but the same slap to a child could leave them brain damaged.
I was raised in a family were we'd get a hiding if you did something bad enough and not one time do I remember my Mum or Dad not being absolutely furious with us as they hit us. Now were they hitting me to teach me a lesson or because they were pissed off? I may have learnt a lesson, don't piss mum off, but I know that the reason I was getting hit was because mum was angry and this is her way of getting it out. So it has more to do with her feeling better than me learning a lesson.
I'm not allowed to hit the kids I look after, and believe me there have been times when the natural learnt instinct has made me want to, but because I can't I have had to keep my cool and use a different method of discipline. I don't even think about it any more, the kids get sent straight to time out, the situation is diffused and they get to cool off and so do I, and nobody gets hurt or fired.
I think the whole S59 repeal has hopefully made parents think before they just lash out in anger at their kids, and if they still decide to smack their kids then hopefully with a little less force.

How interesting this thread is.
Thank you for a considered and reasoned response.

I must admit, a touch silly of me to ask for examples of abuse of the old laws. Any law may be abused or misused and usually will given sufficient time. They (the laws) have been around for some time and as such some bad examples must exist. Interesting to note that juries found that the response was reasonable in these cases. Almost beggar’s belief, still I wasn’t there.

People say you can’t discipline adult with force, you can and I have (albeit teenagers) I have on a few occasions ejected gatecrashers from my property. The law allows for the use of “reasonable force” in certain circumstances but doesn’t define what is reasonable. Clearly it can’t as the situations are so wide and varied that they can’t possibly define reasonable force.
I am NOT in favour of loosely worded laws that are open to interpretation and have commented here several times to that effect. However as with reasonable force, some things can only be decided having regard to the circumstances and despite some apparent cases to the contrary, a jury is the most appropriate place for this.
Though there is conceivably scope to tighten the definition when it comes to a smack. It could be limited to open hand only, soft areas only, leaving no bruise – or whatever

My old man hit me in anger many a time. He was not a monster, but had all the usual pressures of life and 4 sons. He’d be mowing the lawns for example and run over his socket set and tools concealed in the long grass. Now to put this in perspective, good tools are not unlike motorcycles in their intrinsic value and here were half his tool box seized and rusty – except where the lawnmower hit them (which now of course had a fooked blade too). Yep the old man hit the roof – and me. Sure he hit me in anger. No denying that and I wasn’t about to suggest he needed anger management and time out. He’d told me a dozen times (figuratively) to put the tools away after I use them, the last times he didn’t flip out, doesn’t mean he didn’t have a right to this time AND after that, I was pretty damn careful to put the tools away. So yeah, he hit in anger, but I knew why he got angry and the whack told me it was serious and I better bloody well learn – and I did.
If you only got 1 or 2 kids, it’s simpler, you have more time to spend on molly coddling and feel good shit, If you have more, you need to start going for efficiency. A smack is short sharp and effective.

Abuse and discipline are 2 separate things.
The referendum question is about discipline, not abuse. Either you believe a parent may discipline their child with a smack or not.
I believe you really SHOULD vote accordingly.

Should the govt propose to act on it and should that action give rise to concern over creating a loophole for abuse then that is the time to raise that issue.

[Winston001]

Any law may be abused or misused and usually will given sufficient time. They (the laws) have been around for some time and as such some bad examples must exist.

Which is why Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 was amended. It provided too open a defence to physical abuse of children. So the law was tightened.

I've just searched the Family First website. A couple of months ago we were promised we'd be told of 9 incidents where good parents were convicted of assaulting their children when they only gave a smack.

We are still waiting.

I found 3 possible cases for argument on the FF website. One was an agreed over-reaction by CYFS. If that is the price we pay as a community to protect vulnerable children, its very small indeed. Certainly not the hundreds and thousands of cases of good families being terrorised by the state.

[Jonno.]

Life does produce winners and losers and children have to learn that. Apparently Kiwifern netball games have no score. To my mind that is ludicrous.
Kind of like the weetbix triathalon where everyone was a winner. what a message to give kids.

[Ms Piggy]

Well I must say, the last paragraph was certainly the most pertinent - and it shows the whole way through. To infer "good" in the context of the question is akin to a "good hiding" and therefore inappropriate shows some pretty desperate bias.

His proposed "clear and neutral" question of
"Should children be entitled to the same protection from physical assaults as everyone else enjoys?"
Absolutely reeks of bias. It doesn't allow for a "yes, but" position.

People should stop reading into it what is not there. There is NO rationale for NOT taking it at face value. Just answer the simple question before you - or not, your choice, but stop looking for reds under the beds.

Yes I do agree with what you're saying about 1 of his examples of a non-bias question being very biased.

But I do also agree that it's a terribly worded question and I also believe because of that a lot of people won't vote and therefore making the referendum a waste of time, money and energy when it could have been a very informative and helpful way of finding out what the public really believe about the repeal of section 59.

[Ms Piggy]

Any law may be abused or misused and usually will given sufficient time. They (the laws) have been around for some time and as such some bad examples must exist. Interesting to note that juries found that the response was reasonable in these cases. Almost beggar’s belief, still I wasn’t there.

Winston001 has already answered this but to add to what he said - I recently heard a presentation by a lawyer about the Repeal of Section 59. What he explained was that under the old law it was very difficult to prosecute - which is the reason why people did actually get off without conviction for some of the terrible "punishments" inflicted on kids that Trudes gave as examples. The law wasn't working and parents could use "reasonable force" (whatever the f*ck that is!) as an argument because there was no clear guidelines.

[Slyer]

I'm going to be the best parent, I've got the little pricks all worked out.
Unconventional, but the best.

One day.

[The Stranger]

Winston001 has already answered this but to add to what he said - I recently heard a presentation by a lawyer about the Repeal of Section 59. What he explained was that under the old law it was very difficult to prosecute - which is the reason why people did actually get off without conviction for some of the terrible "punishments" inflicted on kids that Trudes gave as examples. The law wasn't working and parents could use "reasonable force" (whatever the f*ck that is!) as an argument because there was no clear guidelines.


Have missed something here?
Why do so many of the "Yes" (and undecided) crowd raise abuse (or say "terrible "punishments"") in relation to the referendum?
Has the govt said if the noes have it they will turn back the clocks on this?
Just checking, because abuse seems to be a central theme to those supporting the current laws. I didn't think a vote of no was a vote for abuse.
If I got that wrong I would sure appreciate knowing.

Interestingly, the family first web site note that there have been 12 deaths from child abuse since the law change, the same rate as before. So it would appear that if there is in fact a link between these laws and child abuse the new laws have failed dismally.

[Grahameeboy]

Excellent common sense show. Like someone above said we shouldn't even need it on TV, but ah that's the day and age we live in.

I know when we can just pop down to the library and get a book on parenting....crazy eh

[Grahameeboy]

Have missed something here?
Why do so many of the "Yes" (and undecided) crowd raise abuse (or say "terrible "punishments"") in relation to the referendum?
Has the govt said if the noes have it they will turn back the clocks on this?
Just checking, because abuse seems to be a central theme to those supporting the current laws. I didn't think a vote of no was a vote for abuse.
If I got that wrong I would sure appreciate knowing.

Interestingly, the family first web site note that there have been 12 deaths from child abuse since the law change, the same rate as before. So it would appear that if there is in fact a link between these laws and child abuse the new laws have failed dismally.

Or as child abuse was on the rise the Law has slowed things down...it is a new Law..give it a chance

[The Stranger]

Or as child abuse was on the rise the Law has slowed things down...it is a new Law..give it a chance

12 deaths since the (as you put it) new law and you suggest that has slowed things down? Uh ok, if you say so.

[Grahameeboy]

12 deaths since the (as you put it) new law and you suggest that has slowed things down? Uh ok, if you say so.

It has stayed at 12 was my point...new Laws are not short terms fixes...

[Grahameeboy]

12 deaths since the (as you put it) new law and you suggest that has slowed things down? Uh ok, if you say so.

this is worse....and we do nothing about it...at least the Anti Smacking Law is trying to do something

"Over 1,200 children have been killed or injured during school terms in the last five years as pedestrians on New Zealand roads" so that is 200 a year which is significantly more that the child abuse stats

[Ms Piggy]

Have missed something here?
Why do so many of the "Yes" (and undecided) crowd raise abuse (or say "terrible "punishments"") in relation to the referendum?
Has the govt said if the noes have it they will turn back the clocks on this?
Just checking, because abuse seems to be a central theme to those supporting the current laws. I didn't think a vote of no was a vote for abuse.
If I got that wrong I would sure appreciate knowing.

Interestingly, the family first web site note that there have been 12 deaths from child abuse since the law change, the same rate as before. So it would appear that if there is in fact a link between these laws and child abuse the new laws have failed dismally.

That's a good point really. Have had too much celebratory wine to respond in a logical manner. Cheers! Will respond when have imbibed less yummy vino. :clap:

[Grahameeboy]

So what do you all think we should do about child abuse?

[The Stranger]

So what do you all think we should do about child abuse?

Start a child abuse thread.




No seriously, I think we have gone too far off topic all ready.

[The Stranger]

That's a good point really. Have had too much celebratory wine to respond in a logical manner. Cheers! Will respond when have imbibed less yummy vino. :clap:

Congratulations - I assume we are celebrating your license.

[Grahameeboy]

Start a child abuse thread.




No seriously, I think we have gone too far off topic all ready.

Answer the question......

[Ms Piggy]

Congratulations - I assume we are celebrating your license.

Iddedeeeee

[MisterD]

So what do you all think we should do about child abuse?

Stopping making life on benefits for popping out kids a lifestyle option for maori girls would be a good start.

[Grahameeboy]

Answer the question......

Interesting response which is why we need a Law which is better than nothing...

These kids need help and so do the parents but until we take responsibility to help in society to really solve the problem rather than abuse what the Govt is trying to do then..............

[Grahameeboy]

Stopping making life on benefits for popping out kids a lifestyle option for maori girls would be a good start.

Sorry wrong answer...............

[Dave Lobster]

Stopping making life on benefits for popping out kids a lifestyle option for maori girls would be a good start.

Correct answer.

[Ms Piggy]

Stopping making life on benefits for popping out kids a lifestyle option for maori girls would be a good start.

http://www.molblog.nl/images/uploads/computer_says_no.jpg

[Grahameeboy]

Correct answer.

No is not the correct answer....

[Dave Lobster]

No is not the correct answer....

Yes, it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, it is.


<object width="425" height="344">
</param>
</param>
</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
Mmmmm......nop...the solution is in our hands "Brothers in Arms"...

[MisterD]

Sorry wrong answer...............

So criminalising me for the way I choose to set boundaries for my boys is the f-ing answer to stopping kids being beaten to death?

An analogy for the hard of thinking...if you want to characterise smacking as "violence" or "abuse" then we may as well talk about "solitary confinement" or "imprisonment" instead of "time-out" or the "naughty mat". It's just plain f-ing stupid.

[crazyhorse]

Bring back the bash I say!

But I love watching the parenting programe - wish he'd teach me what to do with a lazy, unhelpful and unco-operative teenager!

[MSTRS]

Bring back the bash I say!

But I love watching the parenting programe - wish he'd teach me what to do with a lazy, unhelpful and unco-operative teenager!

Ship him/her off to Grahameeboy. Let him suffer the effects of state-sponsored child terrorism firsthand.

[Dooly]

But I love watching the parenting programe - wish he'd teach me what to do with a lazy, unhelpful and unco-operative teenager!

Do what I told ya on Sunday..........move house.
And dont tell them you're moving, or where you're going.:laugh:

Yeah ok, I know, in your case not applicable, but sure was funny our end.:laugh:

[Grahameeboy]

So criminalising me for the way I choose to set boundaries for my boys is the f-ing answer to stopping kids being beaten to death?

An analogy for the hard of thinking...if you want to characterise smacking as "violence" or "abuse" then we may as well talk about "solitary confinement" or "imprisonment" instead of "time-out" or the "naughty mat". It's just plain f-ing stupid.

Not talking about you...the Law allows you to smack for safety reasons...yep that cycle guy who got convicted...that was dumb but like all Laws it's the Judges etc who abuse the Laws.I think the Law is a good idea because it may, and yes it is a "may", make parents think...I am sure that parents who abuse kids start off as "nice".I see some kids being dragged by their arms when they misbehave...kids joints are not fully formed and you could harm them...We expect to live in a cotton wool society where we think we know best etc etc...I bet abuse here is higher than say Indonesia...where drunk drivers face the death penalty and guess what offending is low...unlike NZ and America

[James Deuce]

Not talking about you...the Law allows you to smack for safety reasons...yep that cycle guy who got convicted...that was dumb but like all Laws it's the Judges etc who abuse the Laws.I think the Law is a good idea because it may, and yes it is a "may", make parents think...I am sure that parents who abuse kids start off as "nice".I see some kids being dragged by their arms when they misbehave...kids joints are not fully formed and you could harm them...We expect to live in a cotton wool society where we think we know best etc etc...I bet abuse here is higher than say Indonesia...where drunk drivers face the death penalty and guess what offending is low...unlike NZ and America

You've got some weird ideas about NZ mate.

[MisterD]

Not talking about you...the Law allows you to smack for safety reasons...

The law allows me to smack to prevent harm or somesuch wording, but specifically forbids "smacking for the purposes of correction". This means that if I see my 3 1/2 year old about to hit his 4 month old brother, I can smack him, but if I'm too slow to prevent it I'm not allowed to smack him as punishment!

If I smack #1 son in those circumstances, I'm breaking the law, and I'm dependent on the police or CYFS deciding whether it's "inconsequential" or not. To me, that kind of power vested in state apparatus is completely and utterly unacceptable...the argument from the anti-smacking jihadists that "nobody has been convicted" is irrelevant, plenty have had their lives made a complete nightmare by the CYFS stormtroopers.

[Grahameeboy]

The law allows me to smack to prevent harm or somesuch wording, but specifically forbids "smacking for the purposes of correction". This means that if I see my 3 1/2 year old about to hit his 4 month old brother, I can smack him, but if I'm too slow to prevent it I'm not allowed to smack him as punishment!

If I smack #1 son in those circumstances, I'm breaking the law, and I'm dependent on the police or CYFS deciding whether it's "inconsequential" or not. To me, that kind of power vested in state apparatus is completely and utterly unacceptable...the argument from the anti-smacking jihadists that "nobody has been convicted" is irrelevant, plenty have had their lives made a complete nightmare by the CYFS stormtroopers.

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

[Grahameeboy]

You've got some weird ideas about NZ mate.

Just different maybe...specifics

[MSTRS]

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

Try reasoning with a naughty 3yo...
...good luck with that.
Meh...a quick smack on the bum...effective.

[Flatcap]

...would you smack a work colleague for correction? ...

I would like to smack them from many other reasons as well

[crazyhorse]

Do what I told ya on Sunday..........move house.
And dont tell them you're moving, or where you're going.:laugh:

Yeah ok, I know, in your case not applicable, but sure was funny our end.:laugh:

I'd love to try that - but since she's refused to go to school (again) I think she'd notice the house being emptied. I took the sky card and modum to work yesterday - she thought her throat had been cut - ha ha ha tough love! ...... right????

[MisterD]

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

You really have bought the complete job-lot of spurious arguments haven't you G? I'm not legally responsible for my work colleagues and I'm not morally responsible for turning them into contributing members of society either.

I'm not saying I would actually smack in the example I gave, it was merely to illustrate the idiocy of the law as it stands. Good parents don't want to smack their children, all they want is the ability to use that effective and efficient tool if they deem it neccessary...

[Grahameeboy]

Try reasoning with a naughty 3yo...
...good luck with that.
Meh...a quick smack on the bum...effective.

I never had to smack Nats..admit I cannot but it prooves that you can reason.Anyway, Kids are suppose to be naughty...

[Grahameeboy]

You really have bought the complete job-lot of spurious arguments haven't you G? I'm not legally responsible for my work colleagues and I'm not morally responsible for turning them into contributing members of society either.

I'm not saying I would actually smack in the example I gave, it was merely to illustrate the idiocy of the law as it stands. Good parents don't want to smack their children, all they want is the ability to use that effective and efficient tool if they deem it neccessary...

You see on the moral side with work colleagues...or anyone else we come into contact with, I would say we should try...that's what I am going to doSo if good parents don't want to smack their kids they can use other effective tools then and parents who smack kids are bad parents....sorry being spurious I know

[yungatart]

I'd love to try that - but since she's refused to go to school (again) I think she'd notice the house being emptied. I took the sky card and modum to work yesterday - she thought her throat had been cut - ha ha ha tough love! ...... right????

Pack her in to the car in her pj's (or whatever else she sleeps in) and drop her inside the office at school...get a big strong man to help you....or ring the truancy office and tell them your daughter is refusing to go to school!

[Maha]

...would you smack a work colleague for correction?

My work colleague is Me! so to smack myself would be ineffective to say the least, beacause, I would just get angry with myself for smacking myself and never the twain shall meet....:confused:

[Dave Lobster]

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

Rubbish...

[Grahameeboy]

Rubbish...

Why.......I cannot smack Nats............I talk to her or take her to her bedroom ie naughty room and after 5 mins she is fine and the threat of going their works 9 out of 10 times

You don't need to smack kids....plain and simple...

[The Stranger]

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

Obviously never worked on a building site have you?

[MadDuck]

Obviously never worked on a building site have you?

Smack a few builders about see how far you get.

[The Stranger]

Smack a few builders about see how far you get.

I was a site foreman. I have, on several occasions.
It was very effective thanks. The jobs always ran a lot smother after such an event.

[MadDuck]

I was a site foreman. I have, on several occasions.
It was very effective thanks. The jobs always ran a lot smother after such an event.

Well then I suggest they werent real builders but minnions. No skill needing a firm hand.

Edit: I am in awe of your skills to tame them

[The Stranger]

Well then I suggest they werent real builders but minnions. No skill needing a firm hand.

Of course, we only employed the most stupid people we could find, that is after all the secret of running a successful company.
Much as it would appear your employer has discovered.

[Grahameeboy]

Obviously never worked on a building site have you?

Strangely I have when I was younger...and I didn't see any naughty kids...

[Swoop]

An enjoyable show last night.

Does anyone else see similarities with his presentation style and that of Eddie Izzard?

[MSTRS]

No. But there are some cross-over Rowan Atkinson effects.

[Trudes]

He reminds me of Billy Connolly.

[crazyhorse]

Pack her in to the car in her pj's (or whatever else she sleeps in) and drop her inside the office at school...get a big strong man to help you....or ring the truancy office and tell them your daughter is refusing to go to school!

Truancy can only do something until the day they turn 16 - buggar! she's 17 now. I asked about this one. Was gonna drag her to school today - and would've dragged her if we lived closer, but I don't like my chances of trying to get her into the car - was something I was actually gonna do. Would have the neighbours laughing though!

Told her if she waggs one more day, then she'll have to start paying board. 3 days without the sky card and modum - ha ha ha ha

Life is starting to suck for her!

[jim.cox]

Told her if she waggs one more day, then she'll have to start paying board.

You could also stop feeding her.

Or just evict her

[The Stranger]

Edit: I am in awe of your skills to tame them

I ran the Henderson Police station site. I took over the running of the site 1yr into a 2yr contract when it was 6 months behind. We completed on time. There were 60 separate sub contractors and at times 200 men on site.
Taming has/had nothing to do with it.
In typical KB fashion, for some weird reason you can only imagine an extreme position. The reality is it takes careful planning and constant communication (among other things). You always ask, explain and reason as a first course of action.
The unfortunate REALITY is however, if you are too nice you get walked over.
I had a contract and had given a commitment, the job would be completed on time and that was that. Sometimes, nice doesn't cut it.

What's that got to do with the subject at hand? It's just like raising kids.

[MisterD]

An enjoyable show last night.

It was indeed and quite timely from my POV too...the Ladder of Certain Doom arrives at our place tonight.

[Trudes]

It was indeed and quite timely from my POV too...the Ladder of Certain Doom arrives at our place tonight.

Oh yeah, I loved that!! "Right, it's 4:30, goodnight" :laugh: "Did you just blink at me??" :lol:

[James Deuce]

The guy's an abusive twat.

[Ms Piggy]

Have missed something here?
Why do so many of the "Yes" (and undecided) crowd raise abuse (or say "terrible "punishments"") in relation to the referendum?
Has the govt said if the noes have it they will turn back the clocks on this?
Just checking, because abuse seems to be a central theme to those supporting the current laws. I didn't think a vote of no was a vote for abuse.
If I got that wrong I would sure appreciate knowing.

Interestingly, the family first web site note that there have been 12 deaths from child abuse since the law change, the same rate as before. So it would appear that if there is in fact a link between these laws and child abuse the new laws have failed dismally.
Okay - on the Monteiths tonight so much clearer head.

Maybe it's the similar way that a lot of the "It's my right to smack my child" crowd appear to assume that anyone that is against smacking children is also against discipline.

I just believe that there are far better ideas for discipline than smacking.

I don;t believe the repeal of section 59 has been given a chance yet. Habits of a life time don;t change overnight in any of us let alone a whole society.

Good show last night but I did think that it would have been helpful if he'd used a more realistic example than a little boy burning down a school.

[Ms Piggy]

Does anyone else see similarities with his presentation style and that of Eddie Izzard?
No, cos Nigel Latta never talks about cake or death! And I don't think he'd ever look good in heels and make-up.

[Grahameeboy]

Okay - on the Monteiths tonight so much clearer head.

Maybe it's the similar way that a lot of the "It's my right to smack my child" crowd appear to assume that anyone that is against smacking children is also against discipline.

I just believe that there are far better ideas for discipline than smacking.

I don;t believe the repeal of section 59 has been given a chance yet. Habits of a life time don;t change overnight in any of us let alone a whole society.

Good show last night but I did think that it would have been helpful if he'd used a more realistic example than a little boy burning down a school.

I totally agree....what is it with this obsession with feeling the need to smack a kid...are these parents devoid of the ability to find other ways or is it because they have that parking mentality...must park as close to where I want to go brigade

[The Stranger]

what is it with this obsession with feeling the need to smack a kid...are these parents devoid of the ability to find other ways

Why the obsession with sticking your nose in other people's business?
Ah it's not a case of devoid of the ability to find other ways, hell every expert who manage to squirt out one or 2 kids (and some with none) is only too eager to give you other ways anyway. It's about getting a job done quickly, quietly and efficiently so as you can get back to doing the good stuff you should be doing with your family.

Did your parents ever smack you Grahameeboy?
Mine did, shit can't say I can imagine a single negative impact as a result - except the old man breaking a toe when he kicked my brother's arse.
Was it bad for you?

[Grahameeboy]

Why the obsession with sticking your nose in other people's business?
Ah it's not a case of devoid of the ability to find other ways, hell every expert who manage to squirt out one or 2 kids (and some with none) is only too eager to give you other ways anyway. It's about getting a job done quickly, quietly and efficiently so as you can get back to doing the good stuff you should be doing with your family.

Did your parents ever smack you Grahameeboy?
Mine did, shit can't say I can imagine a single negative impact as a result - except the old man breaking a toe when he kicked my brother's arse.
Was it bad for you?

I am contributing to a thread....not sticky noses.

So quickly, efficiently and quietly eh....I don't see parenting that way but I manage with Nats and don't smack her so guess I am just lucky.

My Dad use to hit me...only negative is our relationship so I guess not a major eh...

[Ms Piggy]

Why the obsession with sticking your nose in other people's business?
I believe that may have to do with NZ's shamefully high rate of violence toward children. And before you jump up and down, I'm not saying everyone who smacks their children are abusers. I do believe the issue of child abuse in our lovely little ole country needs to be addressed and making smacking children for discipline is (possibly) a way the Government believes that society can have a bit of a mind shift. This is just a thought off the top of my head while listening to Martha and Vandella's in National Radio after having woken up at 5:15am.....so I could be a bit wrong.


Ah it's not a case of devoid of the ability to find other ways, hell every expert who manage to squirt out one or 2 kids (and some with none) is only too eager to give you other ways anyway. It's about getting a job done quickly, quietly and efficiently so as you can get back to doing the good stuff you should be doing with your family.

I don't believe for a minute that every parent that smacks their kids does so cos they have no ability to come up with alternatives but you've hit the nail on the head saying it's easier and quicker but that don't make it right.

I guess the other side of it for me is that it's kinda hypocritical to tell kids it's not okay to hit your siblings or other kiddies but then to hit them for being naughty.

[The Stranger]

I am contributing to a thread....not sticky noses.

So quickly, efficiently and quietly eh....I don't see parenting that way but I manage with Nats and don't smack her so guess I am just lucky.

My Dad use to hit me...only negative is our relationship so I guess not a major eh...

So you resent you your dad because he disciplined you with a smack occasionally?
If so, you are a bloody wimp, and I mean that.
My old man used to hit me, until the day I just stood there and when he was finished asked him if that was all. He never bothered again.
I bear him no malice at all for that at all. I know when he hit me, in general I had fooked up, and at times when he lost the plot and hit in anger or it wasn't deserved he was only human.

[Grahameeboy]

So you resent you your dad because he disciplined you with a smack occasionally?
If so, you are a bloody wimp, and I mean that.
My old man used to hit me, until the day I just stood there and when he was finished asked him if that was all. He never bothered again.
I bear him no malice at all for that at all. I know when he hit me, in general I had fooked up, and at times when he lost the plot and hit in anger or it wasn't deserved he was only human.

I said "Hit" not "Smack"...and no I don't because I get on with my life but what I am saying is that I would love to have a relationship with my Dad but because he sees this as the "way" we cannot have that...If I am a wimp...that's no problem...didn't realise life was about being macho.I just don't believe that hitting is needed if a kid fucks up...I mean to use your words "they are only human"...kids are suppose to fuck up, that is how they learn but surely talking about why and what to do next i.e. support them in their mistake is more of a "relationship".The difference is that I am big enough to hurt someone (also achieved Brown in Aikido) but prefer to talk and even if provocked, would not hit someone.That is why we will just have to be difference and agree to disagree.

[The Stranger]

I believe that may have to do with NZ's shamefully high rate of violence toward children. And before you jump up and down, I'm not saying everyone who smacks their children are abusers. I do believe the issue of child abuse in our lovely little ole country needs to be addressed and making smacking children for discipline is (possibly) a way the Government believes that society can have a bit of a mind shift. This is just a thought off the top of my head while listening to Martha and Vandella's in National Radio after having woken up at 5:15am.....so I could be a bit wrong.

Ah yes, child abuse. That'll fix it - except it remains unabated, I wonder why? Perhaps abuse has nothing to do with discipline and more to do with poor communication skills - often those that can't communicate well verbally use the only thing they can use well, their fists. Or a number of other reasons.

I don't believe for a minute that every parent that smacks their kids does so cos they have no ability to come up with alternatives but you've hit the nail on the head saying it's easier and quicker but that don't make it right.

Don't make it wrong either. Yes, quicker and easier. Nothing wrong with that. Let's take a single child family. As a parent, you never have to deal with interaction between siblings. Your child gets your undivided attention for both affection and for discipline. Whilst you are doing these things with this child no one else misses out on your time and no one else is arguing or playing with the stove etc. Now as you add 1 more child, time will about halve, add 2 or 3 more and the dynamic changes a lot. Quick and effective becomes necessary, or the time you get to spend being constructive with your children becomes such a small slice. So no I'm not about to make an apology for suggesting quick and effective in the context of bringing up children. You want to deal with the negative aspects quickly and effectively as you possibly can.

I guess the other side of it for me is that it's kinda hypocritical to tell kids it's not okay to hit your siblings or other kiddies but then to hit them for being naughty.

I note you drink - apparently, do you have a problem not allowing young children access to alcohol?

[MisterD]

Kids need three things from their parents: love, boundaries and consequences for crossing them.

The anti-smacking jihadists need to get over their obsession with how some parents choose to apply the last of those three and have a bit more of a think about why it is that too many parents, especially Maori parents, don't seem to bother with giving their kids the first two...

[The Stranger]

I said "Hit" not "Smack"...

Right, so your experience with smacking kids is nill.
You don't smack Nats and you were hit/abused, so on what basis do you claim it is somehow wrong?
Bloody typical one kid expert!

[PrincessBandit]

Adult time-out is called prison. If you lock your kid in a room all day then that could well be classed as neglect which is a form of abuse.
And how many in prison actually have a better lifestyle than on the outside? 3 square meals a day/better access to education...blahblahblah. Some kids couldn't care less about being sent to their room, and most do not use the time in their to contemplate the reason behind their "time out".


It's a non-binding referendum based on a question that has no meaning irrespective of a "yes" or "no" answer.

That's my "face value" reading of it.
I love "non-binding" - it only is if the answer isn't in line with what the government wants to do anyway; if the answer is what the govt is after, then that's a different story. Hahaha.


... Life does produce winners and losers and children have to learn that. Apparently Kiwifern netball games have no score. To my mind that is ludicrous.

Absolutely. Life is NOT fair, but how we bring our children up should deal with how to cope with that.


I'm going to be the best parent, I've got the little pricks all worked out.
Unconventional, but the best.

One day.

Cool! Let me know your secret when you have finally finished raising them (except I'll probably be long dead by then....) :laugh:


So criminalising me for the way I choose to set boundaries for my boys is the f-ing answer to stopping kids being beaten to death?

An analogy for the hard of thinking...if you want to characterise smacking as "violence" or "abuse" then we may as well talk about "solitary confinement" or "imprisonment" instead of "time-out" or the "naughty mat". It's just plain f-ing stupid.

Whenever I watched Nanny Jo put kids on the naughty mat I often wondered how many times it DIDNT work, which you never got to see on the telly.



Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

The old misconception again and again - kids aren't adults. End of story. They are not miniature adults and do not have the same cognitive powers of reason, experience with which to judge consequences etc. Stop comparing how we treat adults and children as if it should be identical.


I would like to smack them from many other reasons as well

Go on, do tell.....


...Anyway, Kids are suppose to be naughty...

To what degree though?


...
Did your parents ever smack you?
Mine did, shit can't say I can imagine a single negative impact as a result - except the old man breaking a toe when he kicked my brother's arse.
Was it bad for you?

I did smack both my kids. Never had to do it often as they knew the action likely to bring it about wasn't worth the short stinging result it would elicit. Neither of my children (both in their late teens) can remember being smacked much. That is because: 1, as I said it only had to be used sparingly and 2 the end result was a lesson learnt quickly and was over and done with. They don't feel abused or down trodden by physical violence. In fact they both feel completely loved, valued and have grown to be wonderful teenagers who get frequently complimented by teachers and other adults they interact with.

[The Stranger]

I believe that may have to do with NZ's shamefully high rate of violence toward children.

I note also that in an interview with mother of the year Sue Bradford in 2007 she said
"The epidemic of child abuse and violence in this country continues - sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem"


So there you have, literally from the horses mouth. That should pretty much lay that argument to rest.

[James Deuce]

I love "non-binding" - it only is if the answer isn't in line with what the government wants to do anyway; if the answer is what the govt is after, then that's a different story. Hahaha.



No, that's no true at all. It's non-binding because the question doesn't propose anything to do with any sort of specific change.

If the question said "Should Section 59 be repealed?" then the Government's attitude to the referendum would be completely different.

As it stands, the referendum is the sort of question that Stuff Poll (and some KB Poll ceators) creators revel in. A false dichotomy.

[The Stranger]

I did smack both my kids. Never had to do it often as they knew the action likely to bring it about wasn't worth the short stinging result it would elicit. Neither of my children (both in their late teens) can remember being smacked much. That is because: 1, as I said it only had to be used sparingly and 2 the end result was a lesson learnt quickly and was over and done with. They don't feel abused or down trodden by physical violence. In fact they both feel completely loved, valued and have grown to be wonderful teenagers who get frequently complimented by teachers and other adults they interact with.

HOW COULD YOU? You ghastly monster you - fancy admitting such a heinous crime in a public forum. Next thing I expect is you'll want us to believe that you actually love your kids, ha, yeah right, Grahameeboy knows the truth.

[Ms Piggy]

I note you drink - apparently, do you have a problem not allowing young children access to alcohol?
Ummmmm...you've lost me there.

Otherwise your replies are food for thought, particularly your point about those that are violent toward their kids relating to a lack of communication skills and lack of many other life skills as well I suspect.

I guess we'll have to agreed to disagree because I do believe if as a society we make a stand against hitting kids being acceptable it will make a change, sadly I believe a lot of us are looking for a quick fix - it aint gonna happen because life can be farken tricky at times!

There are compelling arguments for both sides though eh. I appreciate the intelligent discussion btw.

[MSTRS]

Something that seems to be ignored in this 'debate'....
Where is it written that smacking is the only tool in a parent's kit? Just because *some* of us view smacking as a valid parental tool, doesn't mean we also view it as the be all and end all.

[James Deuce]

Something that seems to be ignored in this 'debate'....
Where is it written that smacking is the only tool in a parent's kit? Just because *some* of us view smacking as a valid parental tool, doesn't mean we also view it as the be all and end all.
No, you can't say that. You're either a violent bashing monster or a loving caring parent with valid opinions about child rearing. There's no middle ground.

[Winston001]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

I've been regularly checking the Family First website which months ago promised to tell us about 9 cases of victimisation of families under S 59. They've gone quiet. So far there are 3 cases which would be interesting to know more about.

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.

[MSTRS]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

.....

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.

Define 'light smack'...nobody can (or will).
As for supporters...anyone who ticks either box is a supporter. It is a referendum, with a choice of answer.
EDIT: I will assume by supporter, you mean someone who wants to smack their kid/s with impunity? Not sure how they can 'come up with something'...anymore than the anti-brigade can.
We can, however, see a decline in youth behaviour/responsibilty that has accelerated since corporal punishment was abandoned..along with many more violent assaults, use of vehicles as weapons - that sort of thing. Too simplistic to draw that inference? Perhaps. Yet no denying there is every chance the two are connected.

[Clockwork]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

I've been regularly checking the Family First website which months ago promised to tell us about 9 cases of victimisation of families under S 59. They've gone quiet. So far there are 3 cases which would be interesting to know more about.

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.




Yes it is, if it's hitting for correction. The only other time you can be excused for "assaulting" your children is if it is part of normal parental duties such as forcibly cleaning or phisically restraining them.

[Badjelly]

One thing struck me about the Nigel Latta show this week, which I must admit I didn't pay very close attention to. Having talked fondly about the good old days of caning and stressed the important of punishment as one of the tools that parents need (and I agree 100% with this), he then went on to talk about various techniques including the microwave timer, the time-out and the ladder of doom (you'd have to have watched it to understand that one). But he never talked about smacking the little buggers when they're naughty. So where does he stand on physical punishment? Is he being just a teensy bit PC about this?

[Winston001]

Yes it is, if it's hitting for correction. The only other time you can be excused for "assaulting" your children is if it is part of normal parental duties such as forcibly cleaning or phisically restraining them.

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......

[Winston001]

One thing struck me about the Nigel Latta show this week, which I must admit I didn't pay very close attention to. Having talked fondly about the good old days of caning and stressed the important of punishment as one of the tools that parents need (and I agree 100% with this), he then went on to talk about various techniques including the microwave timer, the time-out and the ladder of doom (you'd have to have watched it to understand that one). But he never talked about smacking the little buggers when they're naughty. So where does he stand on physical punishment? Is he being just a teensy bit PC about this?

Had to laugh. What he said comes straight out of the positive parenting courses. In other words, he's pretending to be un-PC but in fact is reinforcing current ideas.

[Badjelly]

...So where does he stand on physical punishment?...

Isn't the Internet wonderful? From a newspaper article (http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/01/20/40891_mike-bruce-opinion.html)


...NZ clinical psychologist, author of parenting books and father of two Nigel Latta, is torn on the smacking issue, but told the Herald Sun: "It does kids no harm at all and, personally, we've smacked our kids. We don't any more, of course (due to the ban in NZ). We discovered with my eldest son that it just made things worse. I have no strong feelings about smacking one way or the other. It works on some kids, on others it doesn't.

That's close to my opinion.

[Winston001]

Define 'light smack'...nobody can (or will).

Easy - but I don't need to. There is no physical description of assault or murder in the Crimes Act either but we know it when we see it.

A sharp smack on a baby would be abuse. On a 4yr old's bottom, appropriate. On a 12yr old a waste of time.

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

So the loopholes were closed. 99.9% of parents should be pleased. Hell its about protecting kids.


We can, however, see a decline in youth behaviour/responsibilty that has accelerated since corporal punishment was abandoned..along with many more violent assaults, use of vehicles as weapons - that sort of thing. Too simplistic to draw that inference? Perhaps. Yet no denying there is every chance the two are connected.

I'm sure there is research on this but I'd hazzard a guess youth have been a growing problem since the industrial revolution. Once we moved away from villages to cities, we provided a fertile environment for youth culture to develop.

[The Stranger]

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......


Why does that matter to the topics at hand or the referendum question?

[The Stranger]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.


I know I asked this before, but is the govt proposing a return to the previous version?

[Clockwork]

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......



Give me a break! I'm not trawling through the News archives in an attempt to proove/disproove an irrelevant point. You made a statement about what is allowed by law, I challenged it. I've read that part of the act, and I've simply stated my interpretation. Whether or not a jury would convict, I don't know. I expect a lot would depend upon if the Judge advised them during the summing up (as in a recent case) that they must apply the law regardeless of whether they agreed with it or not (paraphrased, I admit).

Quite simply the law as it stands at the moment DOES allow conviction, even for a light smack if given for "corrective" purposes and certianly would permit the prosecution of such cases.

Personally I don't think ANY parent should be subject to the criminal justice program for such an action. End of story.

[Winston001]

Why does that matter to the topics at hand or the referendum question?

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.


I know I asked this before, but is the govt proposing a return to the previous version?

No. This is a citizens initiated referendum, not a political initiative.

[Clockwork]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.


Who escaped prosecution??? As I recall and have stated previously (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129341545&postcount=35), they were aquitted by a jury of their peers.

[The Stranger]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

Surely this is a matter you should take up with those who initialted the referendum.

No. This is a citizens initiated referendum, not a political initiative.

Right, so why the stress over what once was?

[MSTRS]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.



Not necessarily...
The problem (for 82% of the population, according to polls) is that good average kiwi parents can be prosecuted for smacking their children.

[Grahameeboy]

The old misconception again and again - kids aren't adults. End of story. They are not miniature adults and do not have the same cognitive powers of reason, experience with which to judge consequences etc. Stop comparing how we treat adults and children as if it should be identical.

To what degree though?





Have you seen how adults are? I treat Nats like a person..simple as that...it works.

Naughty is naughty...same response.

[Grahameeboy]

Not necessarily...
The problem (for 82% of the population, according to polls) is that good average kiwi parents can be prosecuted for smacking their children.

So what % of average Kiwi parents can be prosecuted?

[MisterD]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

Criminalised not prosecuted...say I walk into my local dairy, pick up a packet of biscuits and leave without paying or being seen...have I broken the law? Yes. Have I been prosecuted? No.

The point is, that if I give my boy a clip around the arse in Pak'n'save because he keeps taking biscuits off the shelf, then if some interfering busybody so decides I could get home to find the CYFS stormtroopers waiting for me...that is an absolutely fucking intolerable state of affairs and that is why I've already voted no.

[Winston001]

Who escaped prosecution??? As I recall and have stated previously (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129341545&postcount=35), they were aquitted by a jury of their peers.

Yes - because the previous wording of Section 59 was too loose with the consequence that juries were confused. In those cases they acquitted.

However what it also meant is the police and crown prosecutors were reluctant to lay charges because of the loophole. The amendment closed that loophole.

[MisterD]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

So the loopholes were closed. 99.9% of parents should be pleased. Hell its about protecting kids.

Bugger, should have multi-quoted....

What percentage of parents "escaped"? Like a total of 2 in howeverfuckingmany years...0.000what%?

Making law on the basis of such extreme examples is such a bad and illogical course of action that I can't quite get my brain around the idiocy.

The correct response to such jury decisions is an appeal and better guidance from the judge next time. Sheesh.

[Winston001]

Right, so why the stress over what once was?

Ok. I'm generally pretty calm and don't get upset about stuff. However one thing I do feel passionate about is wilful and deliberate harm to children and animals.

The debate around S 59 and this curiously worded referendum has been fraught with misinformation. Its just my effort to try and correct misconceptions. Along with other people here doing the same.

[Grahameeboy]

I note also that in an interview with mother of the year Sue Bradford in 2007 she said
"The epidemic of child abuse and violence in this country continues - sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem"


So there you have, literally from the horses mouth. That should pretty much lay that argument to rest.

Well that is a fair comment that she makes as no Law can solve the problem..just the same as any Law but it can make a difference and at the end of the day we should accept some responsibility to solve the problem...

[Grahameeboy]

Yes - because the previous wording of Section 59 was too loose with the consequence that juries were confused. In those cases they acquitted.

However what it also meant is the police and crown prosecutors were reluctant to lay charges because of the loophole. The amendment closed that loophole.

Exactly and agree with you next post too....no holes stops leaks to stay afloat.

I am sure there will be settling in period and of course what we hear is only in the media which tends to slant things to suit.

[Goblin]

Exactly....blah blah blah...You're like bloody crickets.... on an on you go...

Good on you for having shared custody of your daughter whom you've never had to discipline but please spare a thought for the many parents out here who have more than one child. You dont seem to get the concept of sibling rivalry between full-on brothers and the fun and games associated.

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.

This silly and expensive referendum is just boosting sue bradfords ego and wallet.

[Grahameeboy]

You're like bloody crickets.... on an on you go...

Good on you for having shared custody of your daughter whom you've never had to discipline but please spare a thought for the many parents out here who have more than one child. You dont seem to get the concept of sibling rivalry between full-on brothers and the fun and games associated.

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.

This silly and expensive referendum is just boosting sue bradfords ego and wallet.

Did I say I have never disciplined her? I do but I talk to her and use the naughty room....

Mmmm...I have a Sister so must have some concept....even so I still feel that smacking is unnecessary.

Agree about Laws but the aim is to catch the offenders to reduce the risks which is why the Anti-Smacking Law seems extreme..I reckon there would be less of an issue if it was called "Abuse of Children Act" like the Care of Children Act we have and we would not be having a referendum..the name sucks and is what has created this uproar.

The dogs one bugs me..my neighbour lets her dog out before she gets out and for 5 minutes it just runs around across the road...funny cause she rides to work with a backpack cover saying "one less motorist" and I see her ignore red lights on lake road in the morning...lol

[Trudes]

Well, maybe if people stopped calling it the "Anti-smacking law" then people might actually get that it is not all about that.

[Grahameeboy]

Well, maybe if people stopped calling it the "Anti-smacking law" then people might actually get that it is not all about that.

See my last post...the opposition at the time would only let if through if it was called this I understand...wonder why??..Why didn't they just call it Childrens Rights Act

[Trudes]

See my last post...the opposition at the time would only let if through if it was called this I understand...wonder why??..Why didn't they just call it Childrens Rights Act

Are we talking about the same law here? I believe it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. The purpose of this Act is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline. Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The media likes to call it The Anti-smacking law because it stirs up more emotions in the average citizen.

[Grahameeboy]

Are we talking about the same law here? I believe it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. The purpose of this Act is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline. Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The media likes to call it The Anti-smacking law because it stirs up more emotions in the average citizen.

Bloody Media...made me believe that is what the act is called...I say ban papers....I am going for a blat to get over it

[Trudes]

Good for you! If only more people could see the way to do the same. :)

[mctshirt]

I also tell my kids they suck at stuff when they lose, The oldest one did try that crap on me about how everyone wins, I shot that down quick, One winner son, everyone else is the loser.

Was that after you ran over him to score a another try at the end of season kids versus parents game? Fair call - no-one remembers who came second :yes:

It's all blah, blah, blah - the law won't protect the children at risk any more than putting a sign up or a slick multi media advertising campaign targeting the market research demographic will :rofl:

[Winston001]

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.



I'm afraid I must disagree.

Laws reflect and bring about changed social attitudes. Its only 150 years ago that young children were sent up to clean chimneys.

Only 20 years ago, bum bandits hid in public toilets. It was incomprehensible to me as a schoolboy that one day homosexuality would be lawful.

A mere 10 years ago prostitution was illegal. Today there are brothels in the suburbs.

Similarly the Victorian ethic of physically punishing children has slowly eroded and the latest move with S.59 is just another signpost along the road.

[Headbanger]

Yep, Morality merely reflects the fashion of the day.

Another 50 years, the world maybe at war, society may look for strength within the church and boomfa all those awesome things like man-love will be banned again......

[Headbanger]

Was that after you ran over him to score a another try at the end of season kids versus parents game? Fair call - no-one remembers who came second :yes:


Nah, running race through the supermarket. I usually win unless I crash into something.

[Goblin]

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Laws reflect and bring about changed social attitudes. Its only 150 years ago that young children were sent up to clean chimneys.

Only 20 years ago, bum bandits hid in public toilets. It was incomprehensible to me as a schoolboy that one day homosexuality would be lawful.

A mere 10 years ago prostitution was illegal. Today there are brothels in the suburbs.

Similarly the Victorian ethic of physically punishing children has slowly eroded and the latest move with S.59 is just another signpost along the road.150 years ago chimneys were big enough for children to get inside them to clean. These days you'd be lucky to get a bottle brush up there. (insert tounge in cheek smilie)

Bum bandits still hang around public toilets looking for bum sex. As a school kid I never knew anything about homosexuality...although I did think Hudson and Halls were a bit odd.

I never understood how a woman could be convicted for soliciting yet the men who payed them were not seen in anyway part of the problem. More like they were innocent victims of the ladies of the night. There may be brothels in the burbs these days but there always has been...only they were more discrete.

S.59 will never work because the people it's targeted at are the ones who dont give a rodent's rectum about any law.

I dont think all children should be smacked but it does work well for some. I found out through trail and error that smacking my youngest only made things worse. The only way I can deal with his bad behaviour is to ignore it. He hates that so changes his behaviour accordingly.

[The Stranger]

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Laws reflect and bring about changed social attitudes. Its only 150 years ago that young children were sent up to clean chimneys.

Only 20 years ago, bum bandits hid in public toilets. It was incomprehensible to me as a schoolboy that one day homosexuality would be lawful.

A mere 10 years ago prostitution was illegal. Today there are brothels in the suburbs.

Similarly the Victorian ethic of physically punishing children has slowly eroded and the latest move with S.59 is just another signpost along the road.

Say what?
I think you may have missed the message in Goblin's post.
She was saying the legslating against something doesn't stop it.
When hosexuality was against the law, did it still happen?
When prostitution was ilegal did it still happen?

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? Because it rather looks as though you have provided proof that she is correct.

[Winston001]

Say what?
I think you may have missed the message in Goblin's post.
She was saying the legslating against something doesn't stop it.
When hosexuality was against the law, did it still happen?
When prostitution was ilegal did it still happen?

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? Because it rather looks as though you have provided proof that she is correct.

LOL the delights and frustrations of internet discussions. I take your point.

Goblin was saying (as have others) that changing laws doesn't change behaviour. I disagree. Child labour is unlawful. Homosexuals used to hide themselves - now they are accepted. Etc.....

[The Stranger]

Homosexuals used to hide themselves - now they are accepted. Etc.....

Just because they no longer hide in the closet and instead strut their stuff openly doesn't mean honda riders are accepted.

[Winston001]

Just because they no longer hide in the closet and instead strut their stuff openly doesn't mean honda riders are accepted.

Certainly not. :gob: Some of them even have the gall to post here...:shit:

[Clockwork]

Ok. I'm generally pretty calm and don't get upset about stuff. However one thing I do feel passionate about is wilful and deliberate harm to children and animals.

The debate around S 59 and this curiously worded referendum has been fraught with misinformation.

Misinformation such as...


For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

Or perhaps such as implying that a "smack as part of good parental correction" equates to "deliberate harm"?


Yes - because the previous wording of Section 59 was too loose with the consequence that juries were confused. In those cases they acquitted.

However what it also meant is the police and crown prosecutors were reluctant to lay charges because of the loophole. The amendment closed that loophole.

...or implying that the juries in such cases were too stupid to understand section 59 and whether it was applicable to the case before them so it needed to be simplified for them?

Why would you make such an assumption? Because they didn't agree with you?

Sure, we're all entitled to form an opinion on the outcome of these cases, God knows I frequently disapprove of jury verdicts but the long and the short of it is that they sat through the case, witnessed the demeanour of the parties involved and were generally in a far better position to deliver their opinion than those of us living the case vicariously through the eyes of the media.

[Swoop]

As a school kid I never knew anything about homosexuality...although I did think Hudson and Halls were a bit odd.
I wonder if they had a "naughty chair"...:blip:

[ready4whatever]

please refer to my thread '2009 is crazy'

[Goblin]

I wonder if they had a "naughty chair"...:blip:More likely a "naughty stick". :spanking:

[Winston001]

So - looked like the last episode from Nigel Latta tonight but I missed most of it. Did he advocate smacking?

[Dave Lobster]

Yep, Morality merely reflects the fashion of the day.

Another 50 years, the world maybe at war, society may look for strength within the church and boomfa all those awesome things like man-love will be banned again......

Even society wont be that stupid, will it?

[Ms Piggy]

So - looked like the last episode from Nigel Latta tonight but I missed most of it.
I've missed it for the last 2 weeks but I've recorded it so may sit down and watch it tonight.

[tomobedlam]

So - looked like the last episode from Nigel Latta tonight but I missed most of it. Did he advocate smacking?

Nope he did not

[Ms Piggy]

Hey All - this is an excellent, practical and funny show. Watch or record it.

[James Deuce]

Hey All - this is an excellent, practical and funny show. Watch or record it.

I beg to differ. After giving it a good watch I find it patronising and sound-bite oriented. Oh yeah. TV.

The tiresome insistence that all parents think like him, really, honestly, at the core of their being, is very off-putting.

I get disagreeable at the drop of a hat though.

The only thing I gleaned from it is that it is OK to be human when you're a parent, so long as you comply with a pile of legislation that you should be able to argue inside and out in a court of law. No. Hang on. That was this thread.

[Ms Piggy]

I beg to differ. After giving it a good watch I find it patronising and sound-bite oriented. Oh yeah. TV.

The tiresome insistence that all parents think like him, really, honestly, at the core of their being, is very off-putting.

I get disagreeable at the drop of a hat though.

The only thing I gleaned from it is that it is OK to be human when you're a parent, so long as you comply with a pile of legislation that you should be able to argue inside and out in a court of law. No. Hang on. That was this thread.

Hmmmmm, I didn't get that idea from his show. I did find some of his examples a little unrealistic but overall I found it practical. I'm into sound-bites and I'm a bit simple so less is more for me.

[James Deuce]

It may well be his style of presentation. I fell in with a bad crowd as a teenager (Christians - damn vermin) and his style is reminiscent of the "comedy" presentation popular with "Youth Leaders" (Scarily Facist title) and Propagandists, sorry, Preachers of all denominations at the time.

I think it's a communication style that only works for a certain cultural profile and certainly is aimed at the perceived "proper" family unit.

[CookMySock]

Boys, you’re very special to me but those people think you’re annoying, be quiet.Hehe, thats funny. Thats another one of lifes' little lessons - collating messages from our own psyche, projecting them onto others, and using it as reasoning why kids should do what you want them to do.

All this teaches them is how to evade subtle manipulation, and how to use it themselves.

A better lesson to teach, is that if someone doesn't like what you are doing, is that it's their problem, not yours. Never feel compelled to take any action for other peoples' reasons. Do as you choose for your own personal reasons. If the outcome causes you to re-evaluate, then so be it.

Steve

[James Deuce]

A better lesson to teach, is that if someone doesn't like what you are doing, is that it's their problem, not yours. Never feel compelled to take any action for other peoples' reasons. Do as you choose for your own personal reasons. If the outcome causes you to re-evaluate, then so be it.

Steve
That the biggest load I've heard in a long time, and is the core of NZ's welfare and social responsibility issues.

"I'm alright and you can fuck off" is not the recipe for a society of any description.

[Ms Piggy]

A better lesson to teach, is that if someone doesn't like what you are doing, is that it's their problem, not yours. Never feel compelled to take any action for other peoples' reasons. Do as you choose for your own personal reasons. If the outcome causes you to re-evaluate, then so be it.

Steve

Unless your child is being a total wanker - then that theory doesn't fit.

[James Deuce]

Unless your child is being a total wanker - then that theory doesn't fit.
It does for the people who support that theory. They probably find it funny.

[Ms Piggy]

It may well be his style of presentation. I fell in with a bad crowd as a teenager (Christians - damn vermin) and his style is reminiscent of the "comedy" presentation popular with "Youth Leaders" (Scarily Facist title) and Propagandists, sorry, Preachers of all denominations at the time.

I think it's a communication style that only works for a certain cultural profile and certainly is aimed at the perceived "proper" family unit.

I think I hear what you're saying - kind of like a fad or fashion where-by people hang off the persons every word. I don't agree with some of his stuff and I do find his manner a bit brutal at times.

[avgas]

That goodness my kids will have a nice soft mum to cry to.
Hang-on - She isn't that nice either.
Thats it - my kids are fucked lol

[avgas]

Unless your child is being a total wanker - then that theory doesn't fit.
Hardest thing I have ever had to learn was to not live up to others expectations. That was never the problem, the problem was always that my expectations were too low.
Wanking is something that someone does on their own. Fucking up means its takes more than 1 person.
No one cares about wankers these days - only the fuckers that mess with your day.