Sue Bradford - our first political assassination?

[PrincessBandit]

Gosh, who woulda thought it? Sue Bradford is saying she is in the running to be our first political take-out. She read the "threat" on Twitter (how appropriate, of course it is the fount of all truth and knowledge, except for kiwibiker).

What could possibly have driven someone to say such nasty things about her?

Hmmmm. She even has parliamentary dispensation to not have her address on the electoral roll. I am sure there must have been other well-deserving candidates back in NZ's political history who have been more worthy of her for these threats, but they all survived.

Me? I'd make sure she lived, if only that she doesn't deserve martyrdom.

[MattRSK]

She is a money wasting sap!

[wbks]

So she is not only an out of touch old hag trying to get back at her physically abusive father by having a go at normal parants, but she is also a drama queen and a pussy!

[short-circuit]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together

[wbks]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together
Well she certainly looks like she could be packing a sausage, but not the metaphorical beans you speak of

[JimO]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together

hafuckenhaha......what a fucken moron

[98tls]

Ironically it will probably be one of the"unsmackable" that ends her existence.When asked why he did it little Johnny will reply honestly and say "how could i know it was wrong".

[Hitcher]

A silver bullet would be needed.

[R6_kid]

:laugh: not likely to happen in little old NZ.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that wouldn't mind giving her a bit of a smack though... who's your daddy?

[hospitalfood]

if you consider how many brainless throwback rednecks on this site hate her, it is no suprise she has concerns.

[ready4whatever]

I'll do it lol :thud: :bye:

how about crusher collins too?

[MattRSK]

Woodville Assassin haha!

[98tls]

if you consider how many brainless throwback rednecks on this site hate her, it is no suprise she has concerns. So anyone that has a different opinion than you is a redneck,go figure.Such an intelligent way of looking at things,by the way you spell like a redneck.:shutup:

[Pedrostt500]

All politicians are media junkies, if they don,t see their name in the paper for more than a week they suffer with drawl symptoms, and need to make some thing up.

[Mully]

Meh, she's not worth it.

She's just like the rest of the Greenie weirdos - attention whores having a cry because they aren't able to use their half-dozen electoral seats to run the country any longer.

She's also pissed cos she didn't get the "co-leader" position and is therefore not asked her her (irrelevant) opinion on the 6pm news at least once a week.

I can't imagine anyone would want to risk jail to get rid of her - she's a nothing anymore. If fact, she's a liability to the Greens now. (Despite the way they come across, their intentions are good)

I'd be surprised if she stands in 2011.

[hospitalfood]

Ironically it will probably be one of the"unsmackable" that ends her existence.When asked why he did it little Johnny will reply honestly and say "how could i know it was wrong".

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo

[98tls]

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo Sincerely happy for you.Typos a redneck thing eh.

[ready4whatever]

so your into hitting kids

As part of good parental correction yes

[MattRSK]

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo

So because someone voted no they are into hitting kids. That's bullshit.

[Hans]

me? I'd make sure she lived, if only that she doesn't deserve martyrdom.

They can't become martyrs if they just disappear.

[wbks]

They can't become martyrs if they just disappear.Hans... German? You may be just right to help us with our very own, first "never to be seen again" controversial politician! Either that or we find a Slav.

[short-circuit]

As part of good parental correction yes

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a7bqOYd7KXk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a7bqOYd7KXk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Hans]

Hans... German? You may be just right to help us with our very own, first "never to be seen again" controversial politician! Either that or we find a Slav.

No Slav, actually. Hans is a nickname given, because I'm rather good at speaking German in a certain manner.

Oh, and by the way, are you making an offer?

[wbks]

No Slav, actually. Hans is a nickname given, because I'm rather good at speaking German in a certain manner.

Oh, and by the way, are you making an offer?Lol no, not really. Maybe (twitter screen name) Garfield-something will have a deal for you:laugh:

[PrincessBandit]

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo

I'm sure Sue has done other stuff besides the smacking thing which has gotten up peoples' noses.

Didn't take long for the deviation back into the smacking debate to reappear. You trying to send me into PD again? lol.

[Wingnut]

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo

This is a well edited version of your original reply eh. Did you take a chill pill and read the crap you were writing eh.

[Hans]

http://holmeswilson.com/images/concrete_block_end_table.jpg

[oldrider]

Gosh, who woulda thought it? Sue Bradford is saying she is in the running to be our first political take-out. She read the "threat" on Twitter (how appropriate, of course it is the fount of all truth and knowledge, except for kiwibiker).

What could possibly have driven someone to say such nasty things about her?

Hmmmm. She even has parliamentary dispensation to not have her address on the electoral roll. I am sure there must have been other well-deserving candidates back in NZ's political history who have been more worthy of her for these threats, but they all survived.

Me? I'd make sure she lived, if only that she doesn't deserve martyrdom.

For a politician, the only bad publicity is "NO" publicity! Please do not mention her name! She is not worth it! :oi-grr:

[doc]

Gosh, who woulda thought it? Sue Bradford is saying she is in the running to be our first political take-out. She read the "threat" on Twitter (how appropriate, of course it is the fount of all truth and knowledge, except for kiwibiker).

What could possibly have driven someone to say such nasty things about her?

Hmmmm. She even has parliamentary dispensation to not have her address on the electoral roll. I am sure there must have been other well-deserving candidates back in NZ's political history who have been more worthy of her for these threats, but they all survived.

Me? I'd make sure she lived, if only that she doesn't deserve martyrdom.

Dont think this will be put into PD maybe the Firearms thread instead. :soon:

[98tls]

So because someone voted no they are into hitting kids. That's bullshit. Na just the interweb,just another with an opinion and a crystal ball it seems.Whilst he has the right to an opinion his assumption of my vote seems odd.Fwiw i didnt bother,why would i lets face it the thing was a 9 millon dollar facade,wonder if the treehuggers that thought of it considered the trees before doing such a thing.:shit:

[MattRSK]

What was the point if it wasn't binding? Why wasn't it done at the election?

[hospitalfood]

This is a well edited version of your original reply eh. Did you take a chill pill and read the crap you were writing eh.

no, unfortunately my initial reply vanished.
i stand by my initial reply

[Pussy]

What was the point if it wasn't binding? Why wasn't it done at the election?

A very good 9 million dollar question!

[Dave Lobster]

Why wasn't it done at the election?

Heh heh.. I think we all know the answer to that.. ;)

[MattRSK]

I've just been informed that it is a fact that if you voted no you like to beat children. Thanks for the update hospitalfood. I could tell that it was an important message because it came in red.

[Hans]

I've just been informed that it is a fact that if you voted no you like to beat children. Thanks for the update hospitalfood. I could tell that it was an important message because it came in red.

'Course it did. It's the lefties' colour of choice.

[98tls]

'Course it did. It's the lefties' colour of choice. Or possibly a "closet smacker":shit:Without doubt the most evil of "smackers".

[PrincessBandit]

'Course it did. It's the lefties' colour of choice.

Not to mention it's also the colour left by a reeeeeaaallllly goooooood smack!

[scumdog]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together

Balls she certainly has

Just like most other males....

[JimO]

Balls she certainly has

Just like most other males....

she is too uuuugly to be a male

[JMemonic]

A silver bullet would be needed.

No No vampires require a stake through the heart don't they and after sucking the blood of the welfare system for as long as she has well she has to qualify as a vampire.

[Forest]

The only effective way to assassinate a politician is to completely ignore them.

If you allow Sue Bradford to wind you up, then she has won.

[Harry33]

so your into hitting kids.
well not me mate, i voted yes.

real sorry about the typo

See this to me is the real issue. There's a difference between giving your kids a smack on the ass and beating the shit out of your kids. Most good parents know the difference. The bad parents will continue on beating the shit out of their kids regardless of these laws.

It will be interesting to see how kids behave down the track. I sure have meet a lot of kids through my work that have a real good understanding of what you can do and what you can't with regards to laws/rights. Good luck when you catch a kid shop lifting or breaking into your car etc.
Maybe there will be a generation out there who can honestly say " I was never taught right from wrong".

Just my 2c.

[peasea]

The only effective way to assassinate a politician is to completely ignore them.

If you allow Sue Bradford to wind you up, then she has won.

True. Just as children hate exclusion, it's probably true in that if we ALL totally ignore her, she will go away.

Won't she?:soon:

[Mikkel]

Smack? Where? I thought that stuff was fairly hard to come by here in NZ.

Those who have voted for Sue (and there would have to be some, even in here) can be well pleased. She does indeed punch well above her weight. Even if you don't agree with her, any politician who can push forward their agenda from a minority position is worthy of respect. Especially if you are one of those people, like myself, who find it disheartening how politicians seems to be getting nothing done and by how the daily agenda is dictated by popular opinion.

[Swoop]

She even has parliamentary dispensation to not have her address on the electoral roll.
On the morning news, it was stated that "she" has had to move houses three times.

It must take a lot of doing, to be that hated in society.

What was the point if it wasn't binding? Why wasn't it done at the election?
Simply because of the additional damage it would have done to the Looney Labourite Sect and their campaigning.

[MikeL]

any politician who can push forward their agenda from a minority position is worthy of respect. Especially if you are one of those people, like myself, who find it disheartening how politicians seems to be getting nothing done and by how the daily agenda is dictated by popular opinion.

1st point: a politician with intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he or she genuinely believes is the good of the nation deserves respect, regardless of ideology. The personal abuse heaped on Sue Bradford (and Helen Clark) - particularly references to their appearance and perceived lack of femininity - demean the political debate and say more about the mentality of those who make those comments than they realize.
2nd point: if popular opinion had been paramount we would never have abolished slavery, given the vote to women, outlawed child labour or decriminalized homosexuality. Social progress is only possible when a minority opinion is brave enough to stand up and say "this is not right". Whether a particular cause is right may well be debateable - but it has to be debated intelligently and without descending to ad hominem arguments.

[Hitcher]

Death threats are an unfortunate fact of life for those in or near public office. After a while you get to know which ones are serious and which are frivolous. I hope.

[MisterD]

Death threats are an unfortunate fact of life for those in or near public office. After a while you get to know which ones are serious and which are frivolous. I hope.

Indeed, can we say "media beat up"?

What do gobshite idiots with twatter accounts and Sue Bradford have in common? They should both be ignored and denied the attention and publicity they crave.

[Mully]

"The only thing worse than getting death threats is not being talked about at all"

[Ixion]

1st point: a politician with intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he or she genuinely believes is the good of the nation deserves respect, regardless of ideology. The personal abuse heaped on Sue Bradford (and Helen Clark) - particularly references to their appearance and perceived lack of femininity - demean the political debate and say more about the mentality of those who make those comments than they realize.
2nd point: if popular opinion had been paramount we would never have abolished slavery, given the vote to women, outlawed child labour or decriminalized homosexuality. Social progress is only possible when a minority opinion is brave enough to stand up and say "this is not right". Whether a particular cause is right may well be debateable - but it has to be debated intelligently and without descending to ad hominem arguments.

Skirting carefully around Mr Godwin, I could raise an eyebrow toward a gentleman whose "intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he genuinely believed was the good of the nation" caused a good deal of mischief. But in deference to Mr G I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

[riffer]

Skirting carefully around Mr Godwin, I could raise an eyebrow toward a gentleman whose "intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he genuinely believed was the good of the nation" caused a good deal of mischief. But in deference to Mr G I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

Skirting around Godwin is like being a little pregnant Les.

[Oscar]

A silver bullet would be needed.

But where?

If you aimed at the head, what damage would you do?
Its full of woolly socialist concern for fellow persons, recipes for yogurt and hemp alternate fuel and plans for social engineering - not much of a target. You could aim at the ego I suppose, huge but gaseous...

[Oscar]

1st point: a politician with intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he or she genuinely believes is the good of the nation deserves respect, regardless of ideology. The personal abuse heaped on Sue Bradford (and Helen Clark) - particularly references to their appearance and perceived lack of femininity - demean the political debate and say more about the mentality of those who make those comments than they realize.
2nd point: if popular opinion had been paramount we would never have abolished slavery, given the vote to women, outlawed child labour or decriminalized homosexuality. Social progress is only possible when a minority opinion is brave enough to stand up and say "this is not right". Whether a particular cause is right may well be debateable - but it has to be debated intelligently and without descending to ad hominem arguments.

OK.
Would like to elucidate on what she has actually done?
As far as I can see her sole contribution is to take a confusing piece of legislation and make it even more so.

[inlinefour]

A silver bullet would be needed.

Roger that, Ive got the weapon, just awaiting the projectile (some rotten eggs could be the go), for that perfect shot. :innocent:

[MisterD]

but it has to be debated intelligently and without descending to ad hominem arguments.

Tell that to La Bradford, who seems happy to paint anyone who dislikes the government interfering in the way they bring up their children as "violent", "child beaters", "christian fundamentalists"..etc etc etc.

[MisterD]

I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

A very great man, unfairly demonised on the basis of one speech...

[firefighter]

1st point: a politician with intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he or she genuinely believes is the good of the nation deserves respect, regardless of ideology. The personal abuse heaped on Sue Bradford (and Helen Clark) - particularly references to their appearance and perceived lack of femininity - demean the political debate and say more about the mentality of those who make those comments than they realize.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here.

However, a politician who can't be bothered brushing her hair/or having at least a slight pride in her appearance, gets no respect from me. She has no right to my respect looking like a bum.

Would you put up with much more lowly paid uniformed personnel presenting themselves like this? No fucken way. Never mind taking them seriously.

As a politician she is representing N.Z. And she presents herself like that? How embarrassing for N.Z.

[MikeL]

Skirting carefully around Mr Godwin, I could raise an eyebrow toward a gentleman whose "intelligent, clearly thought-out and sincerely held principles acting for what he genuinely believed was the good of the nation" caused a good deal of mischief. But in deference to Mr G I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

You could argue that the particular gentleman's principles were not intelligent and clearly thought out. Nevertheless the merits or otherwise of his political principles should have been (and at the time were) the focus of debate, not whether he only had one ball or was a vegeterian or spoke with an Austrian accent or other irrelevancies.
And as for Enoch Powell, there are many intelligent people in the U.K. who sincerely believe in the principles which he espoused. He was brave enough to speak up for something that he felt strongly about, not for himself but for the nation as a whole, and deserves respect for that.

[MikeL]

I agree with a lot of what you've said here.

However, a politician who can't be bothered brushing her hair/or having at least a slight pride in her appearance, gets no respect from me. She has no right to my respect looking like a bum. Would you put up with much more lowly paid uniformed personnel presenting themselves like this? No fucken way. Never mind taking them seriously FFS.

As a politician she is representing N.Z. And she presents herself like that? Get the fuck out of my nation's government!

Presumably you had no respect for David Lange either, whose appearance, at least in his first few years of political life, exactly fits the description above.

[The Stranger]

i voted yes.


Turned out to be quite a waste really didn't it.

[Ixion]

You could argue that the particular gentleman's principles were not intelligent and clearly thought out. Nevertheless the merits or otherwise of his political principles should have been (and at the time were) the focus of debate, not whether he only had one ball or was a vegeterian or spoke with an Austrian accent or other irrelevancies.
And as for Enoch Powell, there are many intelligent people in the U.K. who sincerely believe in the principles which he espoused. He was brave enough to speak up for something that he felt strongly about, not for himself but for the nation as a whole, and deserves respect for that.

True enough on both counts. Just establishing that the principle applied on both sides of the political fence.

Actually, I should have referenced the late Caudillo de Espana rather than the anonymous gentleman, thus avoiding a long hard stare from Mr Godwin.

(BTW , what becomes of Mr G's law on a neo-nazi site - I assume such exist. Do they invoke a 'Churchill' corollary? )

[firefighter]

Presumably you had no respect for David Lange either, whose appearance, at least in his first few years of political life, exactly fits the description above.

Actually, he still looked far cleaner and more professional to me than Sue ever will.

[Ixion]

I agree with a lot of what you've said here.

However, a politician who can't be bothered brushing her hair/or having at least a slight pride in her appearance, gets no respect from me. She has no right to my respect looking like a bum.

Would you put up with much more lowly paid uniformed personnel presenting themselves like this? No fucken way. Never mind taking them seriously.

As a politician she is representing N.Z. And she presents herself like that? How embarrassing for N.Z.\

Perhaps greatness transcends clothes?

The late Mr Einstein , to give but one example, was notorious for sartorial laxity.

[short-circuit]

It must take a lot of doing, to be that hated in society.

Not in a largely ignorant one

[Swoop]

As a politician she is representing N.Z. And she presents herself like that? How embarrassing for N.Z.
I believe it had something to do with promoting NZ when the lord of the rings was in favour.

"She" could be used for promotional activities as an Ork.

[ital916]

Gosh, who woulda thought it? Sue Bradford is saying she is in the running to be our first political take-out. She read the "threat" on Twitter (how appropriate, of course it is the fount of all truth and knowledge, except for kiwibiker).

What could possibly have driven someone to say such nasty things about her?

Hmmmm. She even has parliamentary dispensation to not have her address on the electoral roll. I am sure there must have been other well-deserving candidates back in NZ's political history who have been more worthy of her for these threats, but they all survived.

Me? I'd make sure she lived, if only that she doesn't deserve martyrdom.

Because she is a fucking idiot. Trying to create a nanny state where the gubbermint tries to tell people how to raise their children. Bring back corporal punishment in schools and compulsory military training, tech the yobbos of today some fucking manners.

If someone does assasinate her, they better catch it on camera.

[idb]

All politicians are media junkies, if they don,t see their name in the paper for more than a week they suffer with drawl symptoms, and need to make some thing up.

Many people suffer with drawl symptoms...John Wayne or Bill Clinton to cite two famous examples.

[firefighter]

\

Perhaps greatness transcends clothes?

The late Mr Einstein , to give but one example, was notorious for sartorial laxity.

I was unaware of Einsteins involvement in politics.

I didn't ever suggest fancy expensive clothing being necessary. Having some pride in how you represent yourself is.

I've worn three uniforms in my short life. The way it was worn, my actions, attitude, and grooming was (and is) directly how the public would perceive the 'company' as a whole. Fact.

If you work in such an important sector of society, you dress for the occasion. If Sue had more respect for her position she would buy a comb, and may find that when she looks professional she will get back the respect she is giving her job title, and even I of all people may listen to what she has to say.

Clothing transcending greatness.....not at all.

[short-circuit]

Because she is a fucking idiot. Trying to create a nanny state where the gubbermint tries to tell people how to raise their children. Bring back corporal punishment in schools and compulsory military training,

Think about it. Someone would have to "Bring back corporal punishment in schools and compulsory military training" - does the term Nanny State still apply?

What if I don't want my little Johnny being hit at school or participating in mindless regimented exercises? Would that not be an impingement on my freedoms?

[MikeL]

Think about it. Someone would have to "Bring back corporal punishment in schools and compulsory military training" - does the term Nanny State still apply?

What is I don't want my little Johnny being hit at school or participating in mindless regimented exercises? Would that not be an impingement on my freedoms?

The call to bring back corporal punishment is misguided and a knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as a trend towards violence and lack of discipline among young people. While I have some sympathy with those who deplore the lack of discipline, I can't accept that corporal punishment is the answer. As a teacher I have in the past witnessed canings that ought never to have taken place, for reasons that were trivial, with children of 12 or 13 who were traumatised, and by teachers who took far too much pleasure from the act.
A surprising number of people who support the idea of bringing back corporal punishment think that somehow their own children should be exempt...

[Mr Merde]

:laugh: not likely to happen in little old NZ.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that wouldn't mind giving her a bit of a smack though... who's your daddy?


Should a smack, as part of good foreplay, be a criminal offense in New Zealand?

No

Yes

[MisterD]

or participating in mindless regimented exercises? Would that not be an impingement on my freedoms?

Do you have input into the curriculum now? My kids will no doubt be forced to waste their time learning a useless language...I get no choice about that.

[ital916]

Think about it. Someone would have to "Bring back corporal punishment in schools and compulsory military training" - does the term Nanny State still apply?

What is I don't want my little Johnny being hit at school or participating in mindless regimented exercises? Would that not be an impingement on my freedoms?

It has to be a balance and right now the balance is out of whack. We have gone so far into becoming a hand holding politically correct society that it is laughable.

Bring back a form of punishment at schools that will actually get kids to behave, as for compulsory military training, Im sticking with that.

[peasea]

Do you have input into the curriculum now? My kids will no doubt be forced to waste their time learning a useless language...I get no choice about that.

Have you had a rat arouind these two websites?

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/

and

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

It takes a bit of time but well worth it. I agree with you about the language being (largely) useless unless you intend to teach Maori culture at some point, but what primary school child knows what they want to do later in life, or even this afternoon?

I was astounded when I read that all books pertaining to pre-Maori colonisation of NZ had been removed from schools. The truth, it would seem, is not being taught to our kids.

[short-circuit]

Do you have input into the curriculum now? My kids will no doubt be forced to waste their time learning a useless language...I get no choice about that.

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

[Mr Merde]

Have you had a rat arouind these two websites?

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/

and

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

It takes a bit of time but well worth it. I agree with you about the language being (largely) useless unless you intend to teach Maori culture at some point, but what primary school child knows what they want to do later in life, or even this afternoon?

I was astounded when I read that all books pertaining to pre-Maori colonisation of NZ had been removed from schools. The truth, it would seem, is not being taught to our kids.

This is the nanny state.

"WE CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH"

it also goes against the pc brigade agenda.

[peasea]

This is the nanny state.

"WE CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH"

it also goes against the pc brigade agenda.

Yes, well, you have me with that last line.......

[Beemer]

Meh, she's not worth it...

I can't imagine anyone would want to risk jail to get rid of her - she's a nothing anymore. If fact, she's a liability to the Greens now. (Despite the way they come across, their intentions are good)...

I have to agree with you. What would be the point in offing her? She's an annoyance, but not important enough to risk going to jail for.

Someone emailed Breakfast this morning and suggested that perhaps the death threat had come from the hairdressers association!

She had a makeover a while back and looked reasonably smart - for about a month and then she obviously never bothered to get her hair cut again. She is a disgrace - I can't think of any other politicians who look scruffier than her.

[MisterD]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

No, it's not bollocks at all, there's an entirely valid argument about where the government should just butt-out. I think we can both agree that at one end the government should take care of national defence and at the other it shouldn't tell us when to brush our teeth and go to bed...so where do you draw the line?

Personally, I draw it well before what I eat, what light bulbs I use and the consequences I give my kids when they cross the boundaries that I set.

[davereid]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

Hmm... that is, in a nutshell the problem with democracy.

A thread entirely about violence, forgets the fact that government asserts its authority by violence, albeit hidden behind coercion, threat and bullying before the man with the club and gun is sent. But he will be sent.

Democracy occurs when the majority assert their right to use violence against the minority.

That, IMHO is crap, and is also called "mob rule".

The use of violence by anyone should be restricted to self defence.

So, if you want to drive drunk, on the wrong side of the road, then society has the right to use force. If you want to steal from me or kidnap my children, then society has the right to use force. If I get drunk, and damage your property or harm you, you have the right to use force to be compensated. But if I want to drink a beer without harming you, society shouldnt have the right to give me the cane.

But our society gives itself the right to use violence against me because I painted my house an unapproved colour.

Government does not have an anti-violence leg to stand on.

[short-circuit]

Personally, I draw it well before what I eat, what light bulbs I use and the consequences I give my kids when they cross the boundaries that I set.

All those decisions will potentially affect me though or the world that my children will inherit....it's not just about personal freedoms, its also about collective responsibility.

P.S. The Nats don't want you talking on your cellphone in your car either. Even those goons get some things right

[Timber020]

I just found out shes in hiding to avoid the assasins. Shes on all fours and standing in a paddock, instant disguise. They were going to put other animals in there but nobody was willing to stoop to that level of animal cruelty.

[MisterD]

P.S. The Nats don't want you talking on your cellphone in your car either. Even those goons get some things right

I've been doing that since I first went out on the road as a sales rep in about 1994 so I'm not about to take any notice of that either...

[ManDownUnder]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together

Did you just admit you don't have any balls??? ... wow...!

[Hinny]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

In a pre-election televised debate both Nat & Lab leaders clamoured to be recognised as the earliest adopter / supporter of Ms Bradford's bill.

Something overlooked by many on this forum.

[Hinny]

in deference to Mr G I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

'Enoch was Right'

For the same reasons that became a popular catch cry in Britain, here we could say...

'Winston was Right'

[Mr Merde]

This whole cry for help by Bradford is a joke.

It smacks of poilitical manouvering.

She is highly unpopular in the country and has had her bill lamblasted by 88% of the peopler that bothered to vote.

She feels she needs to generate some compassion for her from the populace.

So she decides to "cry wolf"

"Oh they are out to get poor old me"

"Save me from ther nasty boogie men"

She doesnt live in the real world where people say things they think but would never act upon.

I wonder how many times there was mentiuon of violence to any other MP on the interweb?

Aunty Helen was extremely unpopular towards the end of her reign and you didnt see her complaining that she was a political assination target.

[idb]

I have to agree with you. What would be the point in offing her? She's an annoyance, but not important enough to risk going to jail for.

Someone emailed Breakfast this morning and suggested that perhaps the death threat had come from the hairdressers association!

She had a makeover a while back and looked reasonably smart - for about a month and then she obviously never bothered to get her hair cut again. She is a disgrace - I can't think of any other politicians who look scruffier than her.

You should see her first thing in the morning.................I've said too much!

[Mr Merde]

You should see her first thing in the morning.................I've said too much!


So you are the person who made the donation to her "turkey baster". (I couldnt imagine it happening any other way well not twice or sober anyway)

[Hinny]

She is highly unpopular in the country and has had her bill lamblasted by 88% of the peopler that bothered to vote.

The referendum did not have very much to do with her bill.

I doubt this point was understood by the majority of people who voted.

That would be why the proponents concocted such a stupid meaningless question.

Get over it people, NZ had a child abuse problem - the worst in the developed world in fact.
This change is an attempt to deal with that problem, and rightly so too !

[James Deuce]

Get over it people, NZ had a child abuse problem - the worst in the developed world in fact.
This change is an attempt to deal with that problem, and rightly so too !

NZ has an ethnically biased poverty issue that needs dealing with. Child abuse stats will improve if that is addressed.

[Swoop]

The referendum did not have very much to do with her bill.
Really? What else caused enough of the population to get pissed off and call a referendum then?

[Hinny]

They were misguided plonkers.

[idb]

The new law was pointless and divisive and removing it now that it's in place would also be pointless and divisive...just leave it there.

[short-circuit]

The new law was pointless and divisive and removing it now that it's in place would also be pointless and divisive...just leave it there.

Wasn't aware anyone (including National) ever actually had any plans to the contrary

[idb]

Yep, but I'm not addressing the politicians.

[MisterD]

Get over it people, NZ had a child abuse problem - the worst in the developed world in fact.
This change is an attempt to deal with that problem, and rightly so too !

Bollocks. NZ has a child abuse problem, this bill was always about Sue Bradford trying to impose her warped values on New Zealand society...there will be two responses from parents:

1) They'll carry on as they were ignoring the law (I'm in this group) which is fine for now 'cos our PM says it's ok to ignore the law.

2) They'll simply give up trying to discipline their kids at all, this is where the excrement will hit the rotating cooling blades in about ten years time...yeah the law's working all right...

[Winston001]

2) They'll simply give up trying to discipline their kids at all, this is where the excrement will hit the rotating cooling blades in about ten years time...yeah the law's working all right...


Implicit in this statement is the requirement to hit kids. Why??

Here is a Cambridge Dictionary definition of discipline - to teach someone to behave in a controlled way.

You don't have to hit people to teach them good behaviour.

[Mully]

You don't have to hit people to teach them good behaviour.

It's not a matter of having to hit them. It's just good fun.

(p/t BTW, calm down)

[Trudes]

Bollocks. NZ has a child abuse problem, this bill was always about Sue Bradford trying to impose her warped values on New Zealand society...there will be two responses from parents:

1) They'll carry on as they were ignoring the law (I'm in this group) which is fine for now 'cos our PM says it's ok to ignore the law.

2) They'll simply give up trying to discipline their kids at all, this is where the excrement will hit the rotating cooling blades in about ten years time...yeah the law's working all right...

You do realise of course that several other MPs over the years attempted to have similar Bills introduced but they were never drawn from the ballot, Bradford wasn't the first and she wouldn't have been the last. I believe that it was because of the political make-up of Parliament at the time, the increase of media attention on child abuse and homicide and the increasing pressure from the UN and child welfare advocacy groups from NZ and overseas to change the law that this Bill was drawn, considered and eventually passed.

[Hinny]

Would I be right in saying that here is a case where Sue Bradford has one up on John Key, - Actually brought a bill before the house and had it adopted.

[MisterD]

Implicit in this statement is the requirement to hit kids. Why??

Here is a Cambridge Dictionary definition of discipline - to teach someone to behave in a controlled way.

You don't have to hit people to teach them good behaviour.

The point I was making, is that there are a lot of parents out there who are muddling through with no help or guidance and whose only idea of discipline is smacking...I'm absolutely convinced that a large number will simply chuck the whole thing in the "too hard" basket and basically stop parenting completely.

Like I said on another thread we had on the same subject, kids need three things:
1) Love
2) Boundaries and
3) Consequences for crossing those boundaries

The problem is why too many kids don't get items 1 & 2, not how most parents choose to apply item 3...

[MisterD]

You do realise of course that several other MPs over the years attempted to have similar Bills introduced but they were never drawn from the ballot, Bradford wasn't the first and she wouldn't have been the last. I believe that it was because of the political make-up of Parliament at the time, the increase of media attention on child abuse and homicide and the increasing pressure from the UN and child welfare advocacy groups from NZ and overseas to change the law that this Bill was drawn, considered and eventually passed.

Yes I do realise that, Maharey was the last before Bradford, I think...why anyone takes the slightest bit of notice of the UN is completely beyond me..

[Dave Lobster]

why anyone takes the slightest bit of notice of the UN is completely beyond me..

cough.. Srebrenica.. cough..

[peasea]

cough.. Srebrenica.. cough..

You must need a pill.

[Mully]

Would I be right in saying that here is a case where Sue Bradford has one up on John Key, - Actually brought a bill before the house and had it adopted.

Yeah, but people actually voted for John Key

[Marmoot]

Get over it people, NZ had a child abuse problem - the worst in the developed world in fact.
This change is an attempt to deal with that problem, and rightly so too !

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

[Hinny]

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

[short-circuit]

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

Social change in what a year or so?


Give us your opinion after a generation of parents or two thanks...until then do yourself a favour (you're just making yourself look ignorant)

[Marmoot]

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Read the bold part. What's the point of making this law?



For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

One or two generations is too much for social experimentation. Hell, even one person is too much for the government to commit social experimentation.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against child abuse and injuring physical punishment. But for the government to start meddling with our internal live opens up a gate to untold precedent. Ponder this: now we allow the government to start controlling our way of diciplining the children. What next? In the name of good intention, they can start controlling what we can and cannot feed to the children and by how much. What about a law that dictates a minimum of 6-9 months of breastfeeding with the threat of jail sentence? It's reasonable! What about a law that dictates you must feed your children 3x a day at 8am, 12.30pm, and 6.30pm just because some parents keep failing to do this? What about a law that says children must be in bed by 9pm otherwise the parents would be liable for criminal offence, JUST because some thick arse keep failing to do this? And what about the showerhead restrictions to save water and the planet? Should we allow the government to control how we have shower? What's next? Ban on ice cream and sugary foods to fight the nation's obesity problem JUST because some people are too fat and couldn't slim down?

Common sense being made into law? Is that common sense or nonsense?

Good parents know these things, and bad parents must be educated. But in no situation should any parents be criminalised for this.

And to murky the water even more, the law actually prohibit smacking in ANY situation. In essence, the moment you smack your kid, light or heavy, you effectively become a criminal. Whether the police decides to prosecute or not is irrelevant to this fact that you have become a criminal to your kids.
And if the government tells the police not to prosecute in certain situations, they are effectively telling the police to "ignore some crimes because it is too small". Is THIS what you want from your law? Is it?
And the same people keep complaining about how petty crimes such as theft are not being investigated thoroughly.
Or do you only care about crimes that directly affect your life, but not others?

Additionally, the precedent for the house of Elected Representatives to ignore the thoughts of 1 million people who elected them is abhorrent. Democracy effectively died. And I am not just talking about this government, but also the government before them.

And for Sue Bradford herself to keep ignoring these facts and repeating the make-believe by accusing her opponents that they are ignorant, hateful, and violent, is just an utter extreme plain arrogance.

If I were one of the Anzac soldiers that fought for the very freedom in this world, I'd be stirring in my grave!

[Winston001]

The point I was making, is that there are a lot of parents out there who are muddling through with no help or guidance and whose only idea of discipline is smacking...I'm absolutely convinced that a large number will simply chuck the whole thing in the "too hard" basket and basically stop parenting completely.

Like I said on another thread we had on the same subject, kids need three things:
1) Love
2) Boundaries and
3) Consequences for crossing those boundaries

The problem is why too many kids don't get items 1 & 2, not how most parents choose to apply item 3...

I agree but you'll note the public discussion including KB has focused exclusively on the right to smack as though it was some sacred duty of parents.

There is plenty of help for parents through parenting courses, books, and even television. The problem is the parents who need the help often aren't aware of it.


........Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".


In the short-term that's correct. Section 59 exists as a get out of jail free card, an exception to the general law which states one person shall not assault another. S.59 allows parents to assault their children. Just as the law against kidnapping has an exception for parents.

In the longer term, there is social engineering at work. The intention is to change social attitudes to domestic violence which can only be good for us all. However it will take a generation.

[MisterD]

I agree but you'll note the public discussion including KB has focused exclusively on the right to smack as though it was some sacred duty of parents.

Indeed, the right to use a perfectly valid, efficient and effective component in the parental tool kit.



There is plenty of help for parents through parenting courses, books, and even television. The problem is the parents who need the help often aren't aware of it.

Which is why I said the focus should be on giving kids 1)Love and 2)Boundaries...legislating to try to stop most good, or at least trying-to-be-good parents from smacking as a way of correcting kids who cross those boundaries is wrong. Even if you're a confirmed Bradfordite who believes smacking isn't valid, at least we ought to agree that it's putting the cart a long way before the horse...

What pisses me off (and I'd say most of those that voted "no") is that yet again it's the law-abiding majority that are being bashed. It's all far to hard to attempt to actually solve the real problems.

[short-circuit]

Indeed, the right to use a perfectly valid, efficient and effective component in the parental tool kit.

Except all the research has proven physical force (not matter how "lovingly" administered) is none of those things

[Mully]

Not NZ, but

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10594965


GEORGIA, United States - A man annoyed with a crying toddler at a US Wal-Mart started slapping the 2-year-old girl after warning the toddler's mother to keep her quiet.

Authorities say the young girl and her mother were shopping Monday (local time) when the toddler began crying.

A police report says Roger Stephens (61) approached the mother and said, "If you don't shut that baby up, I will shut her up for you."

The report also said that after the stranger hit the girl at least four times, Stephens said, "See, I told you I would shut her up".

Stephens is now charged with felony cruelty to children.

[Flatcap]

Except all the research has proven physical force (not matter how "lovingly" administered) is none of those things


Surely efficient at least

[MisterD]

Except all the research has proven physical force (not matter how "lovingly" administered) is none of those things

I don't care what the "research" says...there are times for my boisterous little #1 son that it's exactly the right thing.

[short-circuit]

I don't care what the "research" says...there are times for my boisterous little #1 son that it's exactly the right thing.

Thats a shame. Will the world benefit from a MisterD jr?

[MisterD]

Thats a shame. Will the world benefit from a MisterD jr?

No, it's benefitting from two of them.

[short-circuit]

Surely efficient at least

Efficiency brought you McDonalds.

Quality anything (including people) takes time to develop.

[Winston001]

What pisses me off (and I'd say most of those that voted "no") is that yet again it's the law-abiding majority that are being bashed.

The main fear drummed up over S.59 is that good law-abiding parents will suddenly find themselves in front of a judge for smacking their child. And yet, we were given no real life examples of this actually happening by the referendum supporters. Nil.

The No voters have been the victims of spin. One easy proof is the word "smack" does not appear anywhere in the law - ergo there is no anti-smacking legislation. Its just media spin.

Actually there are various obscure laws which are unenforced but "potentially" could place you before a judge. Consider the following:


Crimes Act Section 123 Blasphemous libel

*

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

(2) Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.

(3) It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.

(4) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.


And now have a look at the Scottish Thread in PD. Plenty of blasphemy going on there........

[Flatcap]

Efficiency brought you McDonalds.

Quality anything (including people) takes time to develop.

So kids are like cheese then?

[Dave Lobster]

So kids are like cheese then?

You're not allowed to eat them once they've matured, though.

That's pit bulls..

[idb]

So kids are like cheese then?

Or Kodachrome

[Marmoot]

Blind bats keep arguing over the smacking definition, not realising the issue is about the legislation process, government interference into uncharted territory, social engineering, and how the democratically elected government is ignoring the thoughts of not a small portion of the people.

I guess bringing a torch to the blinds would still not make them see, so I give up.

Keep telling the police to "ignore some crime".

And in the mean time, ponder this:
'I asked for help but instead got conviction' (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10586994)
Children outsmart law on smacking (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584541)

The only reason the $9M referendum cost was a waste of money is because the results are ignored.

And I don't know what to call an MP that decides 1million of the very people she represents as stupid.

[Dave Lobster]

And I don't know what to call an MP that decides 1 million of the very people she represents are stupid.

Prime Minister?

[Hinny]

One or two generations is too much for social experimentation. Hell, even one person is too much for the government to commit social experimentation.

... for the government to start meddling with our internal live opens up a gate to untold precedent. Ponder this: now we allow the government to start controlling our way of diciplining the children. What next? In the name of good intention, they can start controlling what we can and cannot feed to the children and by how much.

Common sense being made into law? Is that common sense or nonsense?


And to murky the water even more, the law actually prohibit smacking in ANY situation.

...they are effectively telling the police to "ignore some crimes because it is too small". Is THIS what you want from your law? Is it?

Additionally, the precedent for the house of Elected Representatives to ignore the thoughts of 1 million people who elected them is abhorrent. Democracy effectively died. And I am not just talking about this government, but also the government before them.



Your idea of the role of Govt. is a little off skew.
Govts. are there to give us what we need...not what we want.
Social engineering is a major part of this role if not the total.

They already control what you can and cannot feed to your children.

Prohibit smacking in any situation? I suggest you read the law.

The Police already ignore some crimes as they are too small. Think about it. That is common sense.

Democracy didn't die. Stop being so melodramatic. Govt's should not be controlled by the people. It is not a case of "we pay your wages so do what we want" How petulant can you be? They are not our servants.

Politicians are there as our representatives to do stuff for our good.
They are there to make us better off.
The fact that somebody other than you or I are doing that is generally because we are incapable for some reason.

[Marmoot]

A totalitarian nanny state.
You're a genius.

I'm just glad you're not an MP.

[short-circuit]

A totalitarian nanny state.
You're a genius.

I'm just glad you're not an MP.


I sit on the other side of the politcial spectrum from Paul Henry, but I've been in here long enough to agree with him on one thing.... people here appear to be too stupid to be trusted with "Democracy" (not that it really exists in a true form anyway)

[James Deuce]

And now have a look at the Scottish Thread in PD. Plenty of blasphemy going on there........

Not enough in my opinion. Some people need to try a bit harder or I'll be reviewing my ratings.

[James Deuce]

The Police already ignore some crimes as they are too small. Think about it. That is common sense.



Yes burglary, rape, and vandalism all get routinely ignored. They're all fixed up by insurance or the health system any way.

[Marmoot]

I sit on the other side of the politcial spectrum from Paul Henry, but I've been in here long enough to agree with him on one thing.... people here appear to be too stupid to be trusted with "Democracy" (not that it really exists in a true form anyway)

That's what Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Bokasa said.

[MisterD]

The main fear drummed up over S.59 is that good law-abiding parents will suddenly find themselves in front of a judge for smacking their child. And yet, we were given no real life examples of this actually happening by the referendum supporters. Nil.

Judges are reasonable people...the CYFS stormtroopers on the other hand...

[Dave Lobster]

Judges are reasonable people....

Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh...

That's REALLY funny!!!!

[short-circuit]

That's what Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Bokasa said.

....and Paul (ex national MP) Henry

[short-circuit]

That's what Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Bokasa said.

Now those are some real names

[MisterD]

....and Paul (ex national MP) Henry

Wrong. Ex failed National candidate (lost out ot Georgina Byers IIRC).

[Hinny]

Did he actually get selected?
I knew he had tried out one time and been rejected.

[short-circuit]

Wrong. Ex failed National candidate (lost out ot Georgina Byers IIRC).

I stand corrected - you are absolutely right

[Swoop]

So kids are like cheese then?
They smell funny if left for too long?

[Flatcap]

They smell funny if left for too long?

Nah - you're thinking of yeast infections...