Sue Bradfords Anti-Spanking Bill

[Lou Girardin]

The Greens latest piece of social engineering has passed it's first reading in Parliament last night. For those who aren't aware, the bill seeks to remove the defence of "reasonable force" to charges of assaulting your children.
It appears that Ms Bradford suffered a case of the vapours when a jury found a woman not guilty of hitting her child with a riding crop.
So. in true schoolmarm manner, she wants all parents to be placed at risk of an assault charge for smacking their kids. Although she assures us the Police will not be charging parents for that. Yet, that's exactly what happened in Sweden when they enacted the same law.
Which makes me wonder what the point of this bill is.
And from a purely reactionary, grumpy old fart viewpoint, I think kids should be beaten a lot more. Especially during school holidays. Or as we call them in retail, hell daze.

[Storm]

Damn right. Just another airy fairy F^*king politician telling us how to raise our kids. She can just-oops, this is a family forum, but I'm sure you all get the idea

[SixPackBack]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!

[James Deuce]

As parents there is very little you can do without putting yourself in line for some serious trouble in all endeavours that you undertake with your children.

My wife has worked with colleagues who have no hesitation in using CYFS or other social agencies to "discipline" husbands and fathers who disagree with a course of treatment for a child, make a trenchant observation about the standard of care being delivered, or the heinous crime of bathing their own 3 year old daughter. I shit you not. Not a single one of the relationships survived the subsequent investigation. It is VERY easy to prove that a parent is abusive, particularly if they have gone years without proper sleep, nutrition, and exercise. MAkes one grumpy don;t you know.

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.

I give up. Just punch the next social worker in the face and get it over with if you are a parent. That way you'll get access to the help you "need" without the preamble.

[Pixie]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!
You are supposed to reason with the child,(a two year old for example)
and get a creature, who until it reaches the age of 7,is totally egocentric,to understand that your feelings are more important than his/hers.
Easy! :rofl:

[madboy]

From my first hand experience with CYFS (and I was the supposedly "innocent" parent), I'd say they must all be Green voters. I've never met a bunch of namby-pamby politically correct twats in all my life. Sure, as individuals most of them were lovely people, but the processes they work through and the way they go about things make the PC Brigade look like hairy-chested 1950s coal miners.

Implying the Police use common sense and judgement in enforcing an overly strict law is a complete farce. Many in the 5-0 use no more common sense and judgement than a goldfish (no offence to goldfish). Yeah yeah, so some use common sense, but chances of coming across one are 50/50. I've seen the damage that do-gooder pigs can do to me personally based on an overly zealous interpretation of bullshit policy, I'm f***ed if I'm going to accept those bastards having any say in how I raise my child.

[MSTRS]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!
Legalise using the business end of a cattle prod to all do-gooders. That'll help with the frustration that parents will be enduring by not being able to control their children. Watch the section get reintroduced (if removed)

[Milky]

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.


That is one of the things that irked me about the repealing of sect 59. It would be an offence if you bruised/injured/dislocated the young'uns arm while pulling him/her back from the path of an oncoming car.
It shouldn't be legal to discipline the kid with a sledge hammer then claim reasonable force, but the solution to this is not to repeal sect 59 but rather to define the meaning of reasonable in clearer terms.

[Badcat]

As parents there is very little you can do without putting yourself in line for some serious trouble in all endeavours that you undertake with your children.

My wife has worked with colleagues who have no hesitation in using CYFS or other social agencies to "discipline" husbands and fathers who disagree with a course of treatment for a child, make a trenchant observation about the standard of care being delivered, or the heinous crime of bathing their own 3 year old daughter. I shit you not. Not a single one of the relationships survived the subsequent investigation. It is VERY easy to prove that a parent is abusive, particularly if they have gone years without proper sleep, nutrition, and exercise. MAkes one grumpy don;t you know.

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.

I give up. Just punch the next social worker in the face and get it over with if you are a parent. That way you'll get access to the help you "need" without the preamble.

totally agree.
fucking PC gone mad.

[Fart]

Damn right. Just another airy fairy F^*king politician telling us how to raise our kids. She can just-oops, this is a family forum, but I'm sure you all get the idea


Too right.

Next thing will have the politicians telling us what time we can go to the toilet for a shit. I suppose they have to justify their existence.

[Hitcher]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.

[Badcat]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.

yep - totally.
of course, someone who beats a child is a criminal.
thewre's a big difference between a smack and a beating, and I KNOW that some fuckwits can't tell the difference, but FFS.....

[Quasievil]

they can pass whatever law they like in relation to this matter, the law says I must not exceed the posted speed limit also, get my drift

It will be a cold day in Hell that I as a New Zealander will follow any law proposed by that lefty mental radical bitch

[spudchucka]

That is one of the things that irked me about the repealing of sect 59. It would be an offence if you bruised/injured/dislocated the young'uns arm while pulling him/her back from the path of an oncoming car.
It shouldn't be legal to discipline the kid with a sledge hammer then claim reasonable force, but the solution to this is not to repeal sect 59 but rather to define the meaning of reasonable in clearer terms.
Not true as I see it, you still have a defence under section 48, Self Defence and Defence of Another.

The bill is bullshit though and as you say all they really need to do to relieve the problem is to clearly define what is REASONABLE force for parents to use to discipline their children. Clearly smacking is reasonable in the true sense, punching & kicking isn't. Niether is hitting with objects such as wood, canes, garden hoses etc, which some parents have gotten away with under the defence of section 59.

[MSTRS]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.
Agreed to that. We are all born with nerves (to transmit pain signals) the reason for which is to engender self-preservation. ie - if if hurts, don't do it again. Obviously, without condoning the use of jugcords & other such weapons of ass-destruction (sorry, Hitcher), an open handed smack is most effective in demonstrating the boundaries to a child. Said child(ren) not being recognised in law as being responsible for their actions until an arbitrary age in their teens, how are they to be reasoned with esp. in cases where mortal injury is imminent?

[spudchucka]

they can pass whatever law they like in relation to this matter, the law says I must not exceed the posted speed limit also, get my drift

It will be a cold day in Hell that I as a New Zealander will follow any law proposed by that lefty mental radical bitch
Just make sure the lefties aren't in Govt come September and everything will be sweet again. (In terms of this socialist crap at least)

[skidz]

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.

[FROSTY]

Diversionary tactics leading up to the election.
The social experiment in sweden failed abismally so why duplicate it.
The bill has the greatest ramification as a weapon to be used in broken relationships.

[Ixion]

Not true as I see it, you still have a defence under section 48, Self Defence and Defence of Another.

The bill is bullshit though and as you say all they really need to do to relieve the problem is to clearly define what is REASONABLE force for parents to use to discipline their children. Clearly smacking is reasonable in the true sense, punching & kicking isn't. Niether is hitting with objects such as wood, canes, garden hoses etc, which some parents have gotten away with under the defence of section 59.

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

It might also be considered excessive that a well meaning parent be subjected to all the stress and very considerable expense of a jury trial, to determine that their use of "force" was in fact reasonable.

Incidentally, I would like those who argue that "time outs" and such like are an alternative, to explain what they will do when the child decides to ignore the "time out". You can't forcibly make the child stay in room etc, since that involves force. Nor can you lock the door, since that also would fall foul of the law. No TV? What are you going to do when the child turns it on anyway. They can persist in turning it on longer than you can in turning it off. And you can't touch them at all.

The main justification put forward for the bill is that certain politicians did not agree with the conclusions of the juries in a couple of cases. Well, I don't always agree with juries either. And I'm sure that there have been some you've disagreed with . But that's the nature of trial by jury. Its the central tenet of our legal system.

Juries determine facts, not law. Changing the LAW because a politician disagrees with a jury's determination of FACT, is abuse of the constitutional process, IMHO.

[Big Dave]

Just as well dogs don't have lawyers too. Ours has copped a boot up the date lots.

You have to smack kids occasionally. When they are too young to reason with and want to stick a fork in the power point - a tap on the back of the hand is the only way to get through to them. Bad thing.

I have a mate who wouldn't discipline their child. 'let him grow his way' they used to say. It's now 12 and a fuckin' psychopath.

[ManDownUnder]

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

It might also be considered excessive that a well meaning parent be subjected to all the stress and very considerable expense of a jury trial, to determine that their use of "force" was in fact reasonable.

Incidentally, I would like those who argue that "time outs" and such like are an alternative, to explain what they will do when the child decides to ignore the "time out". You can't forcibly make the child stay in room etc, since that involves force. Nor can you lock the door, since that also would fall foul of the law. No TV? What are you going to do when the child turns it on anyway. They can persist in turning it on longer than you can in turning it off. And you can't touch them at all.

The main justification put forward for the bill is that certain politicians did not agree with the conclusions of the juries in a couple of cases. Well, I don't always agree with juries either. And I'm sure that there have been some you've disagreed with . But that's the nature of trial by jury. Its the central tenet of our legal system.

Juries determine facts, not law. Changing the LAW because a politician disagrees with a jury's determination of FACT, is abuse of the constitutional process, IMHO.

Oh c'mon it's easy.

"reasonable" force would be up to (but not including) the point of making the child cry surely... coz that might cause them to learn something.

I have to admit I'm blessed in respect of my wife - being the ex primary teacher and natural "reader of thoughts of kids and animals". I have learned HEAPS from her.

When it comes to discipline - our kids get reasoned with, in age appropriate language, then tested - "Do you understand". Beyond that they a smack on the bum or sent to their bed for 5 mins or whatever.

No mess no fuss, the occasional tanty but - a kid's lot is to push boundaries - and the only way to keep the boundaries there is to push back - just hard enough so they don't move

MDU

[spudchucka]

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.
Yes it is, under the direction of the Judge. However, there have been more than just a few cases where the Judge & jury have gotten it very wrong. I know from talking to child abuse detectives that parents routinely get off serious assault charges through the defence of section 59.

The section doesn't need to be repealled, it simply needs to clearly define what is and isn't reasonable to the point that juries can't make the sort of mistakes that have become quite common.

[MSTRS]

Anyway, as it was with the cane in schools, not all got a taste of it, but the potential for it's use was often enough. Any of the 'older' members here spent time in the 'lower ranking' schoolrooms of today. A hugely greater percentage of those young adults (cough) are conducting themselves in ways that would make you want to ...well, you get my drift. Knowing the punishment/discipline is there or not makes a big difference to behaviour. Why do we automatically look at our speed when we see a cop??

[ManDownUnder]

Yes it is, under the direction of the Judge. However, there have been more than just a few cases where the Judge & jury have gotten it very wrong. I know from talking to child abuse detectives that parents routinely get off serious assault charges through the defence of section 59.

The section doesn't need to be repealled, it simply needs to clearly define what is and isn't reasonable to the point that juries can't make the sort of mistakes that have become quite common.

Sounds like common sense getting in the way of a Political Career to me... you better watch your back.... :rofl:

[Wolf]

We have a no smacking policy in our house - we use alternative means of discipline. However we wound up with CYF turning up accusing us of child abuse because the someone heard us yelling at the kids and so therefore told CYF we had beaten them. We are not able to know who dobbed us in because they are protected by anonymity but they out-and-out lied and said they had come round to our place and witnessed us beating the kids. Either that or the woman from CYF was lying to make it sound more menacing - "we have witnesses".

We were not believed when we said we hadn't beaten them and the woman who spoke to us (who was dressed like a hooker, I might add) was extremely condescending.

We wound up being put on a parenting course - which we enjoyed and found valuable and all - because they could find no physical evidence of any beatings but still didn't believe us.

Anyone else see the similarity between the way CYFS, the McCarthy Regime and the Spanish Inquisition behaved? To be accused is gospel proof of your guilt, all the most honest and upright members of society can be identified by the way they phone up the anonymous "Dob in a Fellow Citizen" line or whatever.

I am appalled by the way that these people have the power to come to you on the say-so of an anonymous caller and threaten to take action against you unless you jump through the hoops.

I love my kids and they know it. Having some Inquisitor turn up on your doorstep or accost you in the street because of hearsay and threaten to take your kids from you unless you toe the line is the stuff of nightmares.

Especially when you consider the number of kids sexually molested in the "safe" foster homes the CYFS sends them to - and, more recently, the ones where the "safe" foster parents have beaten the kid to death.

I am dead against child abuse - having been subjected to it as a child myself, and I would happily see children removed from an obviously dangerous place but there are those in CYFS who are nothing but power-tripping Nazis (I actually have a rather good friend who works for CYFS so I know they're not all Hermann Goerring clones) and they abuse that power, threaten people and treat people as "guilty until proven innocent" they protect spiteful people who lie to "pay back that bitch next door who always has the radio so loud, get CYFS on her, that'll teach her".

I will always classify CYFS as a bunch of self-aggrandising criminals until they toe the line with the law - allow the accused to know who their accusers are and contest the matter through proper legal channels, treat the accused with respect and dignity and treat them as innocent until proved guilty.

I know of several people who have had falling-outs with both Juliet and myself who would be prime contenders to call CYFS on us out of spite and make up all sorts of crap ("I was there yesterday and saw it with my own eyes" despite not having visited us for months owing to a trivial disagreement.) I have also heard back through the grapevine of someone who was actively trying to recruit other mutual friends into dobbing us in because CYFS need the complaints to come from three different sources. I know this person would have been one of the "reliable witnesses" quoted by CYFS ("Reliable" in this case means "continuous drug user whom we don't want near our kids")

[ManDownUnder]

...We were not believed when we said we hadn't beaten them and the woman who spoke to us (who was dressed like a hooker, I might add) was extremely condescending.

We wound up being put on a parenting course - which we enjoyed and found valuable and all - because they could find no physical evidence of any beatings but still didn't believe us.


If it wouldn't cause so much grief - wouldn't it be fun to test them - set up a BS situation and put them through their paces - just to show how flawed the system is.

Let's say you ring an complain I'm beating my kids, you "witnessed it" just as the news was starting on TV1 (tie it to a time and a place). At that time I happen to have some friends over - members of the constabulary, who are gone by the time CYFS show up. This gives me an alibi, although not one immediately available.

you see where I'm going with this.

Problem is the kids get hurt and confused by whats going on - they're the pawns and that would shit me big time.

If CYFS ever showed up on my doorstep and said something like that - I'd just see red. I can see I'd want a friend or someone there to calm me down - which in turn would "add credibility" to the CYFS case.

... it's a tough one coz at the same time - I wouldn't want kids to stay in a house where there is abuse going on... and I expect those involved may be experienced at hiding it... and threatening the kids to convince them into lying about it too...

I don't envy them, but it's far from ideal either way

[ManDownUnder]

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.

No - the bloke in the mirror is enough for her

[Ixion]

Oh c'mon it's easy.

"reasonable" force would be up to (but not including) the point of making the child cry surely... coz that might cause them to learn something.

..

When I was a wee lad, my great great grandmother (our family matriarch), who had very definite opinions on children ("seen and not heard, and that as little as possible"), had a trick for disciplining the wayward ones.

After a verbal ticking off (always very fair, explained what you did wrong, and why it was wrong, and established that you knew it was wrong) would come "And now you're going to get a spanking". Then she would bend the child over and, behind his back, clap her hands together loudly in the region of the childish posterior. Never touched the kid, but , at least half the time, kid would burst into tears. Reasonable force ? In fact, no force at all, but I'll bet CYPS wouldn't belive it (Mind you, I wish I could see any of them try to take on Gran. Her tongue should have been registered as a lethal weapon)

'Tis the discipline that does it , not the pain. I had my share of spanking as a child, can't say that any of them really hurt much, but most made me cry.

[Riff Raff]

What I want to know is, where will this leave SpankMe????

[ManDownUnder]

What I want to know is, where will this leave SpankMe????

LMAO... good question.

I think the closest he gets to kids is watching people (practice) making them... :rofl:

[Wolf]

If CYFS ever showed up on my doorstep and said something like that - I'd just see red. I can see I'd want a friend or someone there to calm me down - which in turn would "add credibility" to the CYFS case.

I was livid and scared - not a good combination, it took me a lot of effort to remain calm dealing with them so they would not see me wig out and "prove" their point.

They have backed off now - until that bitch druggie decides to get spiteful again and recruit more people willing to lie - so that's a plus. So a couple of them are left wondering how we managed to magically make all the evidence of abuse go away, so what? So long as they are not currently on my doorstep they can twist up their little insides and littler brains with spite and venom and die alone without friends years from now because they failed to heed Nietsche. (And green bling for the first person to tell me the relevant quote)

[ManDownUnder]

I was livid and scared - not a good combination, it took me a lot of effort to remain calm dealing with them so they would not see me wig out and "prove" their point.

They have backed off now - until that bitch druggie decides to get spiteful again and recruit more people willing to lie - so that's a plus. So a couple of them are left wondering how we managed to magically make all the evidence of abuse go away, so what? So long as they are not currently on my doorstep they can twist up their little insides and littler brains with spite and venom and die alone without friends years from now because they failed to heed Nietsche. (And green bling for the first person to tell me the relevant quote)

I can't quote Nietsche, but the irony doesn't excape me either.

The very instincts I have to protect my children would kick in if CYFS (or similar threat) showed up on my doorstep.

The natural behaviour (like wanted to punch them) would "demonstrate" in their favour.

WTF?

If you're concerned, can't you approach CYFS yourself, or the Police or both and tell them what you think is going on?

If worst came to worst - would it be possible to talk to CYFS and "arrange an agreed safe house" the kids could go to - like an Uncle or similar. Somewhere the kids are comfortable and familiar, and you'd agree to stay away for 12 hours...

It shits me I even need to make suggestions like that - it's complete bullshit but in my mind it'd be a less unacceptable situation.

The nasties making the calls to CYFS need to be put on notice too. "Do it agin and I'll prove you wrong - following by throwing the book at you!"

Have CYFS do it - they're the only ones knowing their identity, and they need to know you're serious (although I suspect they know that already)
MDU

[mstriumph]

Have been trying to keep abreast of this one from afar and several points spring to mind
- firstly, imperfect as it is, the judicial process is meant to be independant of the state and it is exceedingly dangerous when politicians seek to intefere with this,
secondly [and as has been pointed out here] 'reasonable' can be a very expensive thing to determine; IMHO to put parents in a position where they may have to do so for smacking their child is inappropriate
... and thirdly, ANYONE who thinks it's always possible to reason with a 2 year old is in serious need of a reality check :rofl:
Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

It might also be considered excessive that a well meaning parent be subjected to all the stress and very considerable expense of a jury trial, to determine that their use of "force" was in fact reasonable.

Incidentally, I would like those who argue that "time outs" and such like are an alternative, to explain what they will do when the child decides to ignore the "time out". You can't forcibly make the child stay in room etc, since that involves force. Nor can you lock the door, since that also would fall foul of the law. No TV? What are you going to do when the child turns it on anyway. They can persist in turning it on longer than you can in turning it off. And you can't touch them at all.

The main justification put forward for the bill is that certain politicians did not agree with the conclusions of the juries in a couple of cases. Well, I don't always agree with juries either. And I'm sure that there have been some you've disagreed with . But that's the nature of trial by jury. Its the central tenet of our legal system.

Juries determine facts, not law. Changing the LAW because a politician disagrees with a jury's determination of FACT, is abuse of the constitutional process, IMHO.

[WRT]

. . . they failed to heed Nietsche. (And green bling for the first person to tell me the relevant quote)

Several relevant?

Love is a state in which a man sees things most decidedly as they are not.

Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.

And for dealing with CYFS?

The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.

[Lou Girardin]

One small point though, Big Dave mentioned it and a lot of weaselie pollies said the same phrase "a tap on the hand". We never got "taps" on the hand. It was a bloody good slap on the arse. It's has to hurt or there's no deterrent.

[James Deuce]

One small point though, Big Dave mentioned it and a lot of weaselie pollies said the same phrase "a tap on the hand". We never got "taps" on the hand. It was a bloody good slap on the arse. It's has to hurt or there's no deterrent.

It only has to happen once for the threat to last for a long time too.

Another alternative mentioned is Time Out. Don't make me laugh. If you're naughty I'll send you to your room - where all your toys are - bummer.

[ManDownUnder]

... and thirdly, ANYONE who thinks it's always possible to reason with a 2 year old is in serious need of a reality check :rofl:

I hear ya - but again - we put it in 2yo speak. "This is naughty, and if you do it you will get a smack"

Comprehension of what a car would do if it hit her would not be possible, and any demonstrations or pictures innappropriate

MDU

[enigma51]

One of the things John had on his show was how to deal with your kids and my favourite one was Time out. Thats just great if you are 5 years old you have a 5 min time out. Thats gone work aint it!

I use to get a time out right after I got a good smack or 4.

[ManDownUnder]

It only has to happen once for the threat to last for a long time too.

Another alternative mentioned is Time Out. Don't make me laugh. If you're naughty I'll send you to your room - where all your toys are - bummer.

Yeah - send them to the bathroom. It works better for all the right reasons.

MDU

[enigma51]

Oops did not see jim2 had the same comment

[Big Dave]

One small point though, Big Dave mentioned it and a lot of weaselie pollies said the same phrase "a tap on the hand". We never got "taps" on the hand. It was a bloody good slap on the arse. It's has to hurt or there's no deterrent.

When they were two it was only ever a tap on the hand - and i probably did it twice to each of them. I did smack their bum once or twice when they were slightly older too - but as soon as reasoning or non physical was effective it was abandoned.

Until you get to 17 when it's pick him up, pin him against the wall, put your finger in his face and say 'you will not talk to your mother that way again'.

[James Deuce]

Until you get to 17 when it's pick him up, pin him against the wall, put your finger in his face and say 'you will not talk to your mother that way again'.

***Gets weights out and starts high-intensity, low rep mass building programme***

[Wolf]

Our boys get asked nicely with "please", told firmly with no "please" then put in their room - all their toys are in the lounge because I want them to stay in bed at night, not get out and play with their toys in the "dark" (like you get that in the city, best we can manage with curtains drawn and the outside light off is "dim")

After timeout they are told "do what you are told or you'll go to time out again ("No," says Master 3, "No," says Master 2) They can't reach the door handle and we ignore them - going to time out is kept "low-key" - no talking to them, no saying "Right, for that you go to timeout" no eye contact - nothing that would help time out count as "attention". They are then ignored for one minute per year of age and when let out made to sit down and told why they went to time out and assured it will happen again. they are told they are loved and given a hug and kiss when they return to the fold - after they hug and kiss whomever it is they hit if that is the reason for time out.

We hadn't always been consistent in this in the past - repeating our instructions ad nauseum sometimes, telling them to get to their room - things that eroded our credibility - but on the whole they are learning that if they transgress they get ignored for two or three minutes while everyone else has fun - they don't enjoy it. They are generally pretty well behaved and developing good boundaries.

They also get lots of thanks when they are playing nicely or showing kindness to one another or other people - "catch your kids behaving". They are learning by degrees that being good gets more attention than being bad - wasn't always consistent as I said, so they are having to unlearn that hitting each other gets full-blown attention complete with stern admonitions and "get into time out and stay there". They're learning that it is not the path to attention, rather the path to missing out on the fun.

Likewise tantrums - the offender is ignored and the one being good is paid a lot of attention until the tantrum thrower wises up and joins in nicely.

They also lose any toy used as a weapon against anyone and lose TV and DVD privileges (our TV has a standby button on the remote that cannot be overridden using the power switch on the TV - turn it off with the remote and they can try to turn the TV back on all they bloody like.)

[vifferman]

***Gets weights out and starts high-intensity, low rep mass building programme***
Just remember, Jim - you've got cunning and experience on your side...

I'm still (just) bigger than my 3 boys, but torpitude has given me a greater mass that they'll be a fair way off achieving for themselves.

[Lou Girardin]

Is it allowed to give extended time out?
Say, 15 years.

[Wolf]

Is it allowed to give extended time out?
Say, 15 years.
I think only the judicial system can give that and even then you can get out early

[crashe]

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.

Yep she does.... Bill (William) Bradford
They live out in West Auckland somewhere....

[vifferman]

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.
Spanking the monkey, perhaps? :sly:

[crashe]

ok Sue Bradford is pissed off and started this Bill because of some parents doing grevious body harm to their children.
She was really peeved when the parent horse-whipped their child and got off it in court. I think the child in question had done something really bad to someone else at school. so the mother horsewhipped him as punishment.

Now some parents (No not all, I did say some) are going over board and fair whacking their child/ren... either over the head or with a hunk of wood etc.
This is what they want to stop from happening.

Some parents have almost killed their child/ren and shouldnt be allowed to have kids. Some have even killed their child. This must be stopped from happening.

Sure years ago we all (Those of us that are a tad older) got belted or whipped with a belt or strapped on the hand.. and yes we survived it.
But I bet you say, that you won't do that to your kids what your parents did to you.

Yes I smacked my daughter on the butt and sent her to her room (time out)... she has turned out ok. I have a almost four year old grandaughter and I have only smacked her hand once. She used to get sent to the bedroom (time out) til she "Sorts her shit out". While she was in there screaming, yelling or crying she didn't play with the toys...hehehe. Now at almost four years of age.... she does understand when she is being told off.

But the violence against children must stop.

But there will be some do-gooder out there, that will dob in someone for just smacking a child's hand... Those are the ones to worry about as well. They don't think a child should have a wee tap/smack on the butt.

[k14]

Yeah this is total bollox. I used to get a decent whack on the arse (along with my other 2 brothers), mostly with the "jam spoon" (a wooden spatula that was very solid and lasted 15 or so years of punishments) when we were out of line. I used to hate that thing, but I knew that when I got it i deserved it. It was usually followed by between 10 minutes and a couple of hours in my bedroom, depending on the offence. Now being slightly older I can see that it was a very good way of disiciplining me and my brothers and we are better off having experienced that.

I sure as hell will be doing the same when the time comes (still a long way off yet) for me to bring up kids of myself. In my opinion it is a very effective way of portraying the right message, but as in all facets of life it is wrecked for the majority by the minority.

[James Deuce]

But the violence against children must stop.

.

There's only one way that will happen. Actively teach people how to be parents. At the moment you have to pick it up from people who may be getting it wrong, because they got the wrong instructions, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Stop giving Social workers laws with which to separate Parents and Children if theparents ask for help on how to do it properly too. Few parental relationships survive a CYF intervention.

[SixPackBack]

How do you legalise 'common sense' most of us know what 'smacking and discipline in regards to a child entails. A strong sense of doing the right thing for the child and the wider community.

Children can become highly 'animated' and smacking is an excellent tool in bringing the child back to reality........a short sharp shock is some times needed, no amount of talking can help sometimes

For the record i have smacked my daughter, and i would consider her a superlative example of humanity *do not smack her now at 15 she smacks back :rofl: *

[White trash]

***Gets weights out and starts high-intensity, low rep mass building programme***

Better do something, your kids are already taller than you.

[Lou Girardin]

ok Sue Bradford is pissed off and started this Bill because of some parents doing grevious body harm to their children.
She was really peeved when the parent horse-whipped their child and got off it in court. I think the child in question had done something really bad to someone else at school. so the mother horsewhipped him as punishment.

Now some parents (No not all, I did say some) are going over board and fair whacking their child/ren... either over the head or with a hunk of wood etc.
This is what they want to stop from happening.

Some parents have almost killed their child/ren and shouldnt be allowed to have kids. Some have even killed their child. This must be stopped from happening.

Sure years ago we all (Those of us that are a tad older) got belted or whipped with a belt or strapped on the hand.. and yes we survived it.
But I bet you say, that you won't do that to your kids what your parents did to you.

Yes I smacked my daughter on the butt and sent her to her room (time out)... she has turned out ok. I have a almost four year old grandaughter and I have only smacked her hand once. She used to get sent to the bedroom (time out) til she "Sorts her shit out". While she was in there screaming, yelling or crying she didn't play with the toys...hehehe. Now at almost four years of age.... she does understand when she is being told off.

But the violence against children must stop.

But there will be some do-gooder out there, that will dob in someone for just smacking a child's hand... Those are the ones to worry about as well. They don't think a child should have a wee tap/smack on the butt.


This bill will have absolutely no effect on any of this. Do speeding laws stop speeding? Did prohibition stop drinking?
Child bashers will remain child bashers.
The difference is that good parents will have one more thing to fear.
Like I first said, a hysterical over-reaction to one juries strange decision.
Juries also bring in not guilty verdicts if they consider a defendant insane. Shall we do away with this defence too?

[James Deuce]

Better do something, your kids are already taller than you. Exactly what I was thinking.

[Lias]

This bill will have absolutely no effect on any of this. Do speeding laws stop speeding? Did prohibition stop drinking?
Child bashers will remain child bashers.
The difference is that good parents will have one more thing to fear.
Like I first said, a hysterical over-reaction to one juries strange decision.
Juries also bring in not guilty verdicts if they consider a defendant insane. Shall we do away with this defence too?

Well said Lou

[Indiana_Jones]

A joke. A fucking joke.

Makes me sick. I guess the defence force won't be allowed to use guns next, they might trumatize the enemy :wait:

-Indy

[mstriumph]

yes - agreed - but for the child that choice is meaningless without the concept of what a 'smack' is [which is theoretically possible if someone legislates that way]?
[/color]

I hear ya - but again - we put it in 2yo speak. "This is naughty, and if you do it you will get a smack"

Comprehension of what a car would do if it hit her would not be possible, and any demonstrations or pictures innappropriate

MDU

[Lou Girardin]

A joke. A fucking joke.

Makes me sick. I guess the defence force won't be allowed to use guns next, they might trumatize the enemy :wait:

-Indy

Iceman without an M61 and a bunch of Sidewinders just wouldn't be the same.

[mstriumph]

.. and have several perfect kiddies who have never dashed out into traffic, tried to eviscerate their younger siblings and all of whom passed logic 101 at the tender age of 18months? :wait:

Yep she does.... Bill (William) Bradford
They live out in West Auckland somewhere....

[Keystone19]

This bill will have absolutely no effect on any of this. Do speeding laws stop speeding? Did prohibition stop drinking?
Child bashers will remain child bashers.
The difference is that good parents will have one more thing to fear.
Like I first said, a hysterical over-reaction to one juries strange decision.
Juries also bring in not guilty verdicts if they consider a defendant insane. Shall we do away with this defence too?

You're right. Changing the law will do nothing to change poor parenting skills. Those who are already probably pretty good parents will be the only ones who stop to think about it.

What is needed is the development of a decent parenting skills programme. There are plenty of good examples around, they are just not in the right places. Secondary school is possibly the place where they should be. If parents are unable to teach their kids parenting skills then someone should.

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which categorically states that there should be no physical violence against children in any form including smacking. If the law is not repealed then we should not be a signatory. At the moment it is pure hypocrisy to be a signatory but continue to allow 'reasonable force' against our children.

[ManDownUnder]

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which categorically states that there should be no physical violence against children in any form including smacking. If the law is not repealed then we should not be a signatory. At the moment it is pure hypocrisy to be a signatory but continue to allow 'reasonable force' against our children.

A good point - twink anyone?

Just as well it's not the yanks... I believe they used resonable force in Afghanistan, then again in Iraq...

[mstriumph]

..... erm ...."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." ???

................ So long as they are not currently on my doorstep they can twist up their little insides and littler brains with spite and venom and die alone without friends years from now because they failed to heed Nietsche. (And green bling for the first person to tell me the relevant quote)

[yungatart]

I for one will not stop smacking my kids (well maybe, they range in age from 30 down to 14 and all are bigger than me but if they weren't), if they are seriously out of line and need a smack then that is what they will get- IMO sometimes they ask for it so they should get it. How is this supposed to be policed anyway? A cop in every home 24/7 or maybe a social worker/ Cypfs employee- yeah right ! We have plenty of them to go around every house in the country, eh? Nobody ever died from a swift smack on the butt cheeks and nobody ever will! It is definitely NOT child abuse, in fact those parents who choose NOT to discilpine their kids are the ones who are abusive.

[James Deuce]

You're right. Changing the law will do nothing to change poor parenting skills. Those who are already probably pretty good parents will be the only ones who stop to think about it.

What is needed is the development of a decent parenting skills programme. There are plenty of good examples around, they are just not in the right places. Secondary school is possibly the place where they should be. If parents are unable to teach their kids parenting skills then someone should.

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which categorically states that there should be no physical violence against children in any form including smacking. If the law is not repealed then we should not be a signatory. At the moment it is pure hypocrisy to be a signatory but continue to allow 'reasonable force' against our children.

OoooOOo We don;t follow a UN convention. OooOOO

I really, really scared.

How many UN conventions have been conveniently ignored by signatories of the said conventions? Nations whose political, economic, and military might dwarf our own? The UN is a bloated farce, a parody of a brilliant idea.

Who cares?

[Keystone19]

OoooOOo We don;t follow a UN convention. OooOOO

I really, really scared.

How many UN conventions have been conveniently ignored by signatories of the said conventions? Nations whose political, economic, and military might dwarf our own? The UN is a bloated farce, a parody of a brilliant idea.

Who cares?

Yeah, that's my point kind of. Why sign it if we aren't going to abide by it. Bunch of hypocrits. (I might add that it was signed under the last National Government)

[mstriumph]

:clap: Perhaps we could all line up outside the beehive and chant this in unison?? [ok - we'd have to tart it up a bit - spin-doctor anybody??] ..... because she's dead right, turning an undisciplined kid out into the world is bad parenting, surely?
I.................. It is definitely NOT child abuse, in fact those parents who choose NOT to discilpine their kids are the ones who are abusive.

[Marknz]

she's just jealous 'cause she is so butt ugly and no-one will give her a good spanking... spoiling the fun for everyone.

:drinkup:

[Rincewind]

If you take the comments made by the cross section of intelligent people who subscribe to this forum about this subject,it is plainly clear that the Lunatics should be runnin the asylum,(That's how we are percived by the "great washed" isn't it?)
Anyway we should form our own party,run it as a coalition, make our own laws and get rid of "P.C. shite" (whoever he is ??)

P.S. I Love children (Couldn't eat a whole one though)!!!

[FROSTY]

Well I smack baby bikie.I explain to him why Im going to do it and that it is going to hurt.It is one of the punishments used -along with time out,loss of privilages and other things
funny thing is what scares baby bikie the most is daddy headin off on a ride without him --

[soundbeltfarm]

i have 2 boys and they get disiplined with a smack or timeout.
we find timeout does work to a point but when they get a crack around the arse they soon learn from it.
im totally against child abuse like everyone here is.
but what do you term abuse?
teachers have no respect from students anymore because they cant disipline them and also their parents dont either.
some of my teachers i was shit scared of, i was one of the last to get the cane at our school in the 90s and the teacher who gave it to me i think i grew to respect the most. because there were no interuptions from kids being fuckwits, so we were learning skills and life skills.
kids dont seem to care about resposibility anymore because no one is allowed to disipline them and the blame gets passed onto somone else.
in my opinion youth aid is the biggest crock of shit, kids get referred to youth aid for doing a crime and they get fuck all punishment.
it all stems from the home and if parents or caregivers cant disipline with force ie: a smack not a fucking hiding..
this country will turn into a bunch of people no wanting to take resposibilty for their actions and they know they wont get fuck all reaction for it.
my old belted my arse and i think i respect them the more for it.
my sister dosn't smack her kids and they are little cunts.
i dont think a kid needs a smack for everything they do wrong but i think we should be allowed to use it.
and heaven help a cyfs worker who comes here to tell me what im doing wrong.
i'll just get my kids to belt the fucker because nothing will happen to them. hahah
not true.
not sure what i'd do, think i would crap pants then get pretty angry.
anyway thats my 2 cents probably dosn't make sense.

[SixPackBack]

Well I smack baby bikie.I explain to him why Im going to do it and that it is going to hurt.It is one of the punishments used -along with time out,loss of privilages and other things
funny thing is what scares baby bikie the most is daddy headin off on a ride without him --

Thats a good sign baby bikie loves FROSTY and motorbikes.....your on the right track :yes:

[soundbeltfarm]

one thing i know for certain and i maake an effort is to praise my kids when they do well.
like a saying i read or somthing.
praise to a child is like water to a desert.
and you see them beam when they get praised.

[rfc85]

we came back from the islands in 97 with three children the youngest was 5 and enrolled inthe local primary school which was ment to be "the best school in town" the second day when she came home she said to her mother -"if you smack me I can callthe police, my teacher said "
This was answered-"well you think that you better piss off and live with your teacher"
so sad, man so fucken sad, that some cow of a teacher who had never met us could judge us and implie that we hit our children-and this bitch is doing the same fucken thing.
Forgot to add, we did smack the children until they were about 4, when they knew the rights and wrongs -and have never had to do it again.

[James Deuce]

Yeah, that's my point kind of. Why sign it if we aren't going to abide by it. Bunch of hypocrits. (I might add that it was signed under the last National Government)

That's alright then. ;)

[bondagebunny]

is im still ok to smack the parents for dollars I dont give a rats arse what laws they change

[scumdog]

Sounds like common sense getting in the way of a Political Career to me... you better watch your back.... :rofl:

Not if you look at 'madboys' post earlier on this thread.

[scumdog]

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention.

THIS is is the biggest screw-up NZ Govt. has made, - having anything to do with the UN.
Why the hell do we need to have ANYTHING to do with the lefty, PC, anti-gun, anti-rights waste of time/money/resources dictorial cretinist regime that the UN is?????? :mad:

[Beemer]

Yeah this is total bollox. I used to get a decent whack on the arse (along with my other 2 brothers), mostly with the "jam spoon" (a wooden spatula that was very solid and lasted 15 or so years of punishments) when we were out of line. I used to hate that thing, but I knew that when I got it i deserved it. It was usually followed by between 10 minutes and a couple of hours in my bedroom, depending on the offence. Now being slightly older I can see that it was a very good way of disiciplining me and my brothers and we are better off having experienced that.

Ha, we used to get the jam spoon too! I have it in my possession now, so no more smacks for me! I also used to get the back of the wooden hairbrush if I wriggled while my hair was being done...

I have a niece and a nephew, both children of the same sister. My niece was treated quite strictly and was always well behaved and polite, whereas my nephew was allowed to get away with murder. Result today, some 30 years later? My niece is happily married with two kids, both parents have good jobs and the kids are pretty well behaved too. The nephew? Hardly held down a job in his life, into petty crime, drugs, you name it, he's done it. To me this proves that discipline doesn't turn people into thugs, it actually gives them some boundaries for their behaviour and ensures they turn into decent human beings!

There is a guy in Levin who is right behind Sue Bradford and her ilk. He was sending a letter to a young girl several years ago and refused to accept a stamp with a photo of a winery on it - because it could corrupt her! (I reckon if being written to by a guy in his 40s hadn't done it, then a bloody stamp wasn't likely to!) THAT is the kind of person who supports this type of law change.

I don't have kids myself, but I'm pretty sure I could tell the difference between a corrective smack and a thrashing.

[Hitcher]

Yeah this is total bollox. I used to get a decent whack on the arse (along with my other 2 brothers), mostly with the "jam spoon" (a wooden spatula that was very solid and lasted 15 or so years of punishments) when we were out of line.
Mr Jamspoon used to get occasionally invited to dinner at our place when we were kids. He would sit on the table immediately to my mother's right. His stained head certainly gave the impression that he had spilt the blood of the innocents. But he never touched a child in our home in anger. His appearance was sufficient to focus the mind on the task in hand -- the reverent and orderly consumption of comestibles and the diligent and expeditious cleaning up afterwards of associated paraphernalia. He was a competent supervisor.

[vifferman]

I dunno what to think. It's too complicated for me, and I think that in hindsight it would have been better if I wasn't a parent. Probably makes sense - anyone who's a sorry excuse for a human will be a sorry excuse for a parent, and anyone who's had poor parenting is fighting a losing battle to be a good parent themselves.
I don't remember any of the corporal punishment meted out to me, apart from that which was blatantly unjust. Maybe it all was. :whocares:

[Lou Girardin]

THIS is is the biggest screw-up NZ Govt. has made, - having anything to do with the UN.
Why the hell do we need to have ANYTHING to do with the lefty, PC, anti-gun, anti-rights waste of time/money/resources dictorial cretinist regime that the UN is?????? :mad:

Perhaps because it presents a forum where diplomacy can avoid major wars. The last one was 60 years ago, probably the longest ever period between international conflicts.

[Wolf]

..... erm ...."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." ???

Correct quote I was looking for, green bling duly awarded.

I think many of the "guardians of public morality" have become greater monsters than the monsters they hunt. A couple of the CYFS workers we dealt with have clearly lost their humanity and are rapacious beasts setting upon everything about them in a blood-lust frenzy of "moral indignation". To be accused is to be guilty, no mercy will be shown, burn the heretic.

Fortunately we also dealt with another couple who were still human.

[Wolf]

those parents who choose NOT to discilpine their kids are the ones who are abusive.
I agree wholeheartedly. The airy-fairy "let the kids develop how they will and do what they like" crap raises children with no concepts of right and wrong.

Discipline is required, boundaries are needed. We have a no smack policy so our children are disciplined in other ways. They are getting the idea - our three year old said to me when I came home the other night "Toys gone. Esin, Targin fight."

We do not believe in allowing them full scope when they're young and trying to reign them in as they get older. Instead, we give them two choices - what they have for breakfast, which snacks we buy at the supermarket etc.

As they get older, the number of choices will gradually increase. This will give them the message they are trusted more while still establishing boundaries - "you can't have everything you want".

The plan is that by the time they are teens, they will feel respected, have a range of choices and the ability to make considered choices and feel freer than before, not "unfairly reined in".

They will also come to learn that we set boundaries on them because we love them. They will be taught that there are consequences - logical and natural - of their actions and choices and that if they make an unwise decision, they might not like the consequences. They will learn the rules we set are for their protection and the protection of others because we do not want them killed or harmed or imprisoned and we don't want them to have to live with killing or harming someone else.

It is the duty of a responsible parent to provide boundaries. We believe we can acheive that without smacking and our kids, while not perfect, are certainly better than other kids we know of their age.

For the record, both my brother and I were smacked as children - often that smacking went too far and became abuse but we certainly grew up knowing that transgression of any nature would result in (at least) a smack. My brother tries to solve problems with violence and being regularly smacked has not stopped him from using drugs and getting in trouble with the police.

I have no desire for my children to learn that the easiest way to deal with something is to thump someone. As their disciplining progresses we will move to "stand, talk and deal" tactics where they will learn to acknowledge what they did out was out of line.

It is rather hard to tell a child that hitting his brother is "wrong" when the punishment meted out is a smack. Double standards, there - and kids pick up on that. **THUMP** "Don't hit people!" :weird:

Our boys do not dash out into traffic. When we get to the road they tell us to wait and stop until it is safe to go. We acheived this by dint of holding their hands when appraoching roads, stopping, tellling them to wait and watch out for the cars and praising them for doing so. They are 2 and 3 years of age and have been road savvy since not long after they learned to walk.

Last night at the supermarket, both boys were tired and scratchy. The eldest walloped his brother so wound up not being allowed to ride in the kiddie-car thing for a while. He threw a major tantrum and got to be ignored on the floor while I played with his brother until he calmed down. In the end he capitulated because he wanted to ride in the kiddie-car.

[ManDownUnder]

I agree wholeheartedly. The airy-fairy "let the kids develop how they will and do what they like" crap raises children with no concepts of right and wrong.

Discipline is required, boundaries are needed. We have a no smack policy so our children are disciplined in other ways. They are getting the idea - our three year old said to me when I came home the other night "Toys gone. Esin, Targin fight."

We do not believe in allowing them full scope when they're young and trying to reign them in as they get older. Instead, we give them two choices - what they have for breakfast, which snacks we buy at the supermarket etc.

As they get older, the number of choices will gradually increase. This will give them the message they are trusted more while still establishing boundaries - "you can't have everything you want".

The plan is that by the time they are teens, they will feel respected, have a range of choices and the ability to make considered choices and feel freer than before, not "unfairly reined in".

They will also come to learn that we set boundaries on them because we love them. They will be taught that there are consequences - logical and natural - of their actions and choices and that if they make an unwise decision, they might not like the consequences. They will learn the rules we set are for their protection and the protection of others because we do not want them killed or harmed or imprisoned and we don't want them to have to live with killing or harming someone else.

It is the duty of a responsible parent to provide boundaries. We believe we can acheive that without smacking and our kids, while not perfect, are certainly better than other kids we know of their age.

For the record, both my brother and I were smacked as children - often that smacking went too far and became abuse but we certainly grew up knowing that transgression of any nature would result in (at least) a smack. My brother tries to solve problems with violence and being regularly smacked has not stopped him from using drugs and getting in trouble with the police.

I have no desire for my children to learn that the easiest way to deal with something is to thump someone. As their disciplining progresses we will move to "stand, talk and deal" tactics where they will learn to acknowledge what they did out was out of line.

It is rather hard to tell a child that hitting his brother is "wrong" when the punishment meted out is a smack. Double standards, there - and kids pick up on that. **THUMP** "Don't hit people!" :weird:

Our boys do not dash out into traffic. When we get to the road they tell us to wait and stop until it is safe to go. We acheived this by dint of holding their hands when appraoching roads, stopping, tellling them to wait and watch out for the cars and praising them for doing so. They are 2 and 3 years of age and have been road savvy since not long after they learned to walk.

Last night at the supermarket, both boys were tired and scratchy. The eldest walloped his brother so wound up not being allowed to ride in the kiddie-car thing for a while. He threw a major tantrum and got to be ignored on the floor while I played with his brother until he calmed down. In the end he capitulated because he wanted to ride in the kiddie-car.

I like your style. Tell you what - I'll put my money where my mouth is.

As of right now, I'm not going to smack my kids for 2 months... and I'll let you know how I go. If it works well I'll roll that out to be permanent. :yes:

MDU

[crashe]

I like your style. Tell you what - I'll put my money where my mouth is.

As of right now, I'm not going to smack my kids for 2 months... and I'll let you know how I go. If it works well I'll roll that out to be permanent. :yes:

MDU

MDU - Watch "Little Angels" on TV1 on Wednesday nights.....
you may learn a thing or two.... lol.

[ManDownUnder]

MDU - Watch "Little Angels" on TV1 on Wednesday nights.....
you may learn a thing or two.... lol.

I've been watching - and I learned there are a lot parents out there with no concepts of boundaries. We have no such problems in our house, and we have 2 delightful kids who are as carefree as I'd hope to get them.

If the absence of smacking makes them more carefree - I'm all for it. If it comes at the price of a loss of boundaries... I'll be looking for some answers

[Wolf]

Perhaps because it presents a forum where diplomacy can avoid major wars. The last one was 60 years ago, probably the longest ever period between international conflicts.
Except for when the Americans attacked Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf and Iraq, the poms fought the Argentinians in the Falklands - both good diplomatic members of said UN council and able to veto any attempts at being charged with war crimes - which is what should happen to GW Bush and a large number of the US Military. Will never happen because the US would veto any move by the UN to bring such charges to bear - the US can do that despite the fact GWB blatantly disregarded UN rulings re Iraq and unilaterally created a "Coallition of the Willing to Murder" including the UK and Australia.

I have no respect for the UN as they are nothing but a pack of ineffectual wankers. Suspend the right to veto, kick the US out of the UN for flagrant breach of UN rules and hang GW Bush by the neck in public as a war criminal on a par with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein - then I'll have some respect for them.

LiasTZ will be puzzled by the above as I am generally against Capital Punishment, but I am all for it for war criminals - which is what Bush Jr is - even though he will never be convicted of it because the UN is useless.

[Wolf]

I've been watching - and I learned there are a lot parents out there with no concepts of boundaries. We have no such problems in our house, and we have 2 delightful kids who are as carefree as I'd hope to get them.

If the absence of smacking makes them more carefree - I'm all for it. If it comes at the price of a loss of boundaries... I'll be looking for some answers
The Little Angels program is where we got the "once polite, once firm, then off to time out/loss of toys/privileges/whatever" and the idea of not making eye contact when putting them in time out. Close the door on them - time out must be in a place that is boring for the child - hold the door shut if need be, do not yell at them or talk to them if they kick the door. They only get spoken to when the come out. It also showed how to do time-out in shops - making them hold onto the trolley and walk along beside it - trap their hand with your own if need be and do not look at or talk to them until the timeout period is up. Then let them walk quietly along side with the knowledge they will have more time out if they piss about again. They also showed the play with the other kid while one is throwing a tantrum - works quite well... when they stop screaming and come up, welcome them and play with them both together.

At the parenting course we were told of "HALT" - when kids act up they are Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired. Attention seeking is a common cause - and both my brother and I would act up to get a hiding because at least it was attention (another good argument against smacking, you are rewarding their bad behaviour by paying (admittedly painful) attention). Attention seeking is best cured by giving them attention when they're playing nicely and removing them from the area (time out) when they're naughty.

We were also told "don't get hooked in" - that has made a major difference in our house.

Before: Drink. No, you've had enough. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No...

After: Drink. No, you've had enough. Drink. No. Drink. Drink. Drink.

Sometimes the best "last word" is silence...

[Keystone19]

The Little Angels program is where we got the "once polite, once firm, then off to time out/loss of toys/privileges/whatever" and the idea of not making eye contact when putting them in time out. Close the door on them - time out must be in a place that is boring for the child - hold the door shut if need be, do not yell at them or talk to them if they kick the door. They only get spoken to when the come out. It also showed how to do time-out in shops - making them hold onto the trolley and walk along beside it - trap their hand with your own if need be and do not look at or talk to them until the timeout period is up. Then let them walk quietly along side with the knowledge they will have more time out if they piss about again. They also showed the play with the other kid while one is throwing a tantrum - works quite well... when they stop screaming and come up, welcome them and play with them both together.

At the parenting course we were told of "HALT" - when kids act up they are Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired. Attention seeking is a common cause - and both my brother and I would act up to get a hiding because at least it was attention (another good argument against smacking, you are rewarding their bad behaviour by paying (admittedly painful) attention). Attention seeking is best cured by giving them attention when they're playing nicely and removing them from the area (time out) when they're naughty.

We were also told "don't get hooked in" - that has made a major difference in our house.

Before: Drink. No, you've had enough. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No. Drink. No...

After: Drink. No, you've had enough. Drink. No. Drink. Drink. Drink.

Sometimes the best "last word" is silence...

This is exactly how it should be done. It is difficult at first and requires a whole heap of effort on the part of the parent but it works. Consistency is the answer. I have worked with many families as a public health nurse and taught these strategies. The ones for whom it did not work were the ones who were not consistent. It may take three weeks for it to be effective or it may take three days. It's achieving the consistency that will make it successful.

[mstriumph]

:hug: .. sometimes everybody needs one .. :hug:
I dunno what to think. It's too complicated for me, and I think that in hindsight it would have been better if I wasn't a parent. Probably makes sense - anyone who's a sorry excuse for a human will be a sorry excuse for a parent, and anyone who's had poor parenting is fighting a losing battle to be a good parent themselves.
I don't remember any of the corporal punishment meted out to me, apart from that which was blatantly unjust. Maybe it all was. :whocares:

[mstriumph]

Churchill said "Rather jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war" ..... or, if he didn't, he should have :oi-grr:
Perhaps because it presents a forum where diplomacy can avoid major wars. The last one was 60 years ago, probably the longest ever period between international conflicts.

[Lou Girardin]

Except for when the Americans attacked Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf and Iraq, the poms fought the Argentinians in the Falklands - both good diplomatic members of said UN council and able to veto any attempts at being charged with war crimes - which is what should happen to GW Bush and a large number of the US Military. Will never happen because the US would veto any move by the UN to bring such charges to bear - the US can do that despite the fact GWB blatantly disregarded UN rulings re Iraq and unilaterally created a "Coallition of the Willing to Murder" including the UK and Australia.

I have no respect for the UN as they are nothing but a pack of ineffectual wankers. Suspend the right to veto, kick the US out of the UN for flagrant breach of UN rules and hang GW Bush by the neck in public as a war criminal on a par with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein - then I'll have some respect for them.

LiasTZ will be puzzled by the above as I am generally against Capital Punishment, but I am all for it for war criminals - which is what Bush Jr is - even though he will never be convicted of it because the UN is useless.


'Major' wars, not little brushfire affairs. Those are all hiccups compared to WW1 or WW2 or if there had been a war between US and USSR.
Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

[Wolf]

'Major' wars, not little brushfire affairs. Those are all hiccups compared to WW1 or WW2 or if there had been a war between US and USSR.
Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?
Dunno if the poor buggers that got stomped in said "brushfires" would deem them to be minor.

And I'm saying the UN needs to grow some balls and seriously kick arse when its rulings are ignored by inbred morons with a lust for blood and glory. I have no respect for an organisation that purports to be a World Police Force that cannot even police its own members.

The founding countries of the UN all granted themselves immunity from the actions of said organisation with their power of veto - it was corrupt and diseased from day one. That should be rectified or it should be disbanded and replaced with a more impartial Multinational Organisation.

Would we put up with a judicial system here in which a High Court judge, say, could say "No, sorry, I am not going to allow you to try me for crimes that have been alleged against me."?

No one should be above the law - and that includes International Law. The League of Nations ceased to exist after failing to prevent WWII, perhaps the UN should cease to exist for failing to keep it own founding members in line.

The US is not just any "rogue state" - it is one with the ability to hold itself above the law. If it were some rogue non-foundational banana republic, they'd be facing war crimes tribunals by now.

The UN is diseased, kill it, get something better.

[ManDownUnder]

No one should be above the law - and that includes International Law. The League of Nations ceased to exist after failing to prevent WWII, perhaps the UN should cease to exist for failing to keep it own founding members in line.

The US is not just any "rogue state" - it is one with the ability to hold itself above the law. If it were some rogue non-foundational banana republic, they'd be facing war crimes tribunals by now.

The UN is diseased, kill it, get something better.

If I recall one of the reasons for founding the UN was that nuclear devices held the possibility of giving extreme and unbalanced power to any one nation.

To counter any one nation hving an unreasonable influence on world politics a union was formed. Not of States - of Nations.

Now it seems the Union of States seeks (or wields) more power that the Union of Nations????

Yeah - not right.

[ManDownUnder]

Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

If anyone ignores the UN they should do so at their own peril - even moreso if they are a member.

Like the a Police Officer breaking the law... they MADE the law, they promised to uphold the law, so breaking it is an extreme offense.

So it should go with a founding member of the UN, when breaking the UN rules/mandates etc.

[MSTRS]

Nobody ever died from a swift smack on the butt cheeks and nobody ever will! It is definitely NOT child abuse, in fact those parents who choose NOT to discilpine their kids are the ones who are abusive.
Absolutely right. HOWEVER..... just playing Devil's Advocate here....although firm, fair discipline will normally produce a 'good' result, I don't believe that it's application or lack of will always have the desired effect. Some kids are just 'born bad', for want of a better term. Discipline in and of itself is not the answer. Parents absolutely must involve their kids in the parent's lives & themselves in their kid's lives too. Unfortunately there are too many parents out there who expect their kids to grow & develop without active input. These are the kids most at risk of growing up bad.

[mstriumph]

..... I am uncomfortable with the thought of anyone being 'born bad' ...... yep, people do grow up self-centred, cruel, unempathetic, selfish but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that was the result of nature and not nurture?

[mstriumph]

however [she was quick to add] that's absolutely no excuse for it! :nono:

[MSTRS]

..... I am uncomfortable with the thought of anyone being 'born bad' ...... yep, people do grow up self-centred, cruel, unempathetic, selfish but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that was the result of nature and not nurture?
What I was trying to say was along the lines of ...if everyone was raised absolutely identically, some would be 'perfect', most would be 'ok' but some would be 'evil'. See what I'm getting at? It's called 'free-will' I think. Anyway, nature plays a bigger part than we'd care to admit but since we can't control that, we must use love & discipline to nurture our kids in the right direction. And too many parents don't. And too many PC laws etc are cramping parent's rights.

[mstriumph]

I'll go along with some people being born with a tendancy towards .. call it 'evil' if you will [same way as some of us are left handed :) ] but i'd be hesitant to say that couldn't be influenced/amended/altered?

[MSTRS]

but i'd be hesitant to say that couldn't be influenced/amended/altered?
Of course it can. But is it being done effectively nowadays (as I understand it from my upbringing).
My dictionary states - Discipline (n) A state of order maintained by training & control, a particular system of regulations for conduct, instruction & excercise designed to train to proper conduct or action, drill, chastise, punishment inflicted by way of correction and training, the training effect of experience or adversity.
It is worth noting that the term 'discipline' derives from the word 'disciple' (meaning follower).
So - smacking a child should be considered one of the means at our disposal for keeping that child on the path we intend for them. In no way do I condone a 'hiding' using fists or the like. I see no problem with using an open hand slap on the bum.
If Section 59 was clarified to reflect this, then I do not oppose that change. But if the section is repealed altogether then that is an entirely different matter.

[stevedee]

Have a laugh about the law change if comes, it won't change anything, the type that beat their kids will continue to do so, and the rest of us "nice" folk will worry about reasonable force and debate it till the cows come home.

For the most part the laws are made for us nice folks to feel safe and in control. The minority who the law was made to control don't and never will give a rat's ar@e about it until they get caught, and in this country it looks like there is a very slim chance of that.

With all the possible security issues any country faces right now regarding terrorism I would have thought the government could use their time more productively, but then again I guess to get re elected you need to be seen on TV. What a load of bollocks politics is.

spd:-)

[FROSTY]

Wolf I like your attitude. I dissagree with the priciple of NEVER smacking a child but I do agree there are alternatives to smacking.
I feel that child punishment/control is about having a full armoury of rewards and punishments.Certainly what you do is what I do except smacking is included.
With baby bikie there were certain actions that could result in him being seriously hurt. walking out onto a busy road,playing with electrical sockets and to a lesser extent touching the exhaust on my bike are just three that came to mind. At a young age the smack on the back of the hand was used to remind him---to do this hurts.Now hes 6 and that principle doesn't apply

[mstriumph]

Amen to that...

....................With all the possible security issues any country faces right now regarding terrorism I would have thought the government could use their time more productively, but then again I guess to get re elected you need to be seen on TV. What a load of bollocks politics is.

spd:-)

[scumdog]

'Major' wars, not little brushfire affairs. Those are all hiccups compared to WW1 or WW2 or if there had been a war between US and USSR.
Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

Yep, when the UN start dictating what kind of gun laws/control NZ should have they lose any respect I ever may have had for them, shove UN up you arse as far as I'm concerned, generaly throughout the world they have often shown that they are as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.

[mstriumph]

Absolut!
The phrase 'self-righteous, self-serving, dictatorial, lame-brained, pontificating, blind, ineffective arseholes' also springs to mind.

.... and, by the way, is there a REASON that almost everyone on KB actually uses 'arse' and 'ass' correctly [ie and not interchangeably?]? - it's most unusual?
Yep, when the UN start dictating what kind of gun laws/control NZ should have they lose any respect I ever may have had for them, shove UN up you arse as far as I'm concerned, generaly throughout the world they have often shown that they are as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.

[vifferman]

and, by the way, is there a REASON that almost everyone on KB actually uses 'arse' and 'ass' correctly [ie and not interchangeably?]? - it's most unusual?
Hitcher, the Arse Sheriff.:yes:

[Lou Girardin]

Absolut!
The phrase 'self-righteous, self-serving, dictatorial, lame-brained, pontificating, blind, ineffective arseholes' also springs to mind.

.... and, by the way, is there a REASON that almost everyone on KB actually uses 'arse' and 'ass' correctly [ie and not interchangeably?]? - it's most unusual?

We speak English, not USglish.

[vifferman]

We speak English, not USglish.
An increasingly difficult challenge, given our US-centric TV, and expandingly interdweeb-influenced lives...

[Lou Girardin]

An increasingly difficult challenge, given our US-centric TV, and expandingly interdweeb-influenced lives...

Kep fiting th gud fit.

[Hitcher]

Hitcher, the Arse Sheriff.
As a fully-paid-up member of the BDOTGNZA I do my bit...

[mstriumph]

Blue Ducks Order Twin Gerbrils Nuclear Zealot Attack?? Bent Down Over The Great New Zealand A...... ? ???? Too silly ... OK I give up - I'm gonna hav to ask for assistance on this one?? :confused:
As a fully-paid-up member of the BDOTGNZA I do my bit...

[mstriumph]

Sorry - I'm an ex-brit .... we no longer know the difference :no:
We speak English, not USglish.

[Hitcher]

BDOTGNZA is the venerable Brave Defenders Of The Great New Zealand ARSE. Tremble at the mention of their name!

[mstriumph]

- and a venerable, vunerable and delightfully attractive arse it is, too! :not:
........ can i stop now? :confused:

[Pixie]

Perhaps because it presents a forum where diplomacy can avoid major wars. The last one was 60 years ago, probably the longest ever period between international conflicts.
Nothin' to do with MAD,Huh?

[James Deuce]

Nothin' to do with MAD,Huh?

Or the fact that more people have died in armed conflict during those 60 years of "peace" than the totals combined, civilian and military, of WW1 and WW2.

WW1 and WW2 were anomalies in the history of humankind. As a percentage, never had so many munitions been exhanged to such little effect - relatively. As a general rule professional soldiers, airmen and sailors made up 10% of the militarised population, but accounted for 90% of the death and destruction. I have to try to find, but the study that came to these findings was commssioned post-Vietnam, when it became obvious to the US military hierarchy who were spending more time in the field than ever before that conscript troops were good at carrying stuff, but weren't effective in the field. Poor kill ratio you see. The phenomenon was examined in more detail by discussing the issue with WW2 verts, both professional (some of whom served in Vietnam - it was only 20 years after WW2 that US involvement started) and conscript. A HUGE number of conscripts (more than 50%) in frontline active duty admitted shooting high, both literally and figuratively.

Conclusion?

Don't smack your kids unless you're a professional.

[Lou Girardin]

Nothin' to do with MAD,Huh?

MAD didn't stop the Cuban missile crisis.

[Lou Girardin]

Or the fact that more people have died in armed conflict during those 60 years of "peace" than the totals combined, civilian and military, of WW1 and WW2.

WW1 and WW2 were anomalies in the history of humankind. As a percentage, never had so many munitions been exhanged to such little effect - relatively. As a general rule professional soldiers, airmen and sailors made up 10% of the militarised population, but accounted for 90% of the death and destruction. I have to try to find, but the study that came to these findings was commssioned post-Vietnam, when it became obvious to the US military hierarchy who were spending more time in the field than ever before that conscript troops were good at carrying stuff, but weren't effective in the field. Poor kill ratio you see. The phenomenon was examined in more detail by discussing the issue with WW2 verts, both professional (some of whom served in Vietnam - it was only 20 years after WW2 that US involvement started) and conscript. A HUGE number of conscripts (more than 50%) in frontline active duty admitted shooting high, both literally and figuratively.

Conclusion?

Don't smack your kids unless you're a professional.

20,000,000 died in WW1, 60,000,000 diesd in WW2. Show me the evidence of 80,000,000 dead since 1945.

[James Deuce]

20,000,000 died in WW1, 60,000,000 diesd in WW2. Show me the evidence of 80,000,000 dead since 1945.

23 Million died from Influenza from 1919-1923.

I'll dig the war stats up when I deal some of my own stuff first. The 60 million you quote for WW2 includes "civilian" casualties. If you let me do that for 1945-2005 I'll top 80 million easily.

[Hitcher]

WWII looks like 61 million, plus or minus.

http://www.paralumun.com/warworldwartwodeaths.htm