Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction. [Archive]

devnull

22nd November 2007, 10:30

WTF?
Seems your already under Bradfords spell.:wacko:
I repeat. I am possitive it will be minor bruising.
Guess your from the generation of no cane, no strap, do what I want.
Argue your point until hell freezes over. My view stands. Boys need discipline.

Well said.

She based all her arguments on Joan Durrant's paper - a paper that'd already been widely discredited, while ignoring all other international research that disagreed with her point of view.

I hadn't heard about the rape - had only heard about one of her son's committing suicide, and the infanticide baby's throat stepped on).
Goes a long way to explain her mental state I guess...

Don't know why people are still embracing the whole "permissive parenting" thing. It was tried in the '80s, and showed that the kids grew up to resent their parents. They learned no boundaries, so found it very difficult to function in society as a result.

The 3 year-old that's no longer wanted at daycare because of her behaviour should be a warning to parents of the slippery slope we're being pushed down. No way are my kids ending up like that.

The Pastor

22nd November 2007, 10:42

I got the beat as a kid and I turned out fine.

Dont know if i got bruise or not as i couldnt see my own ass.

Finn

22nd November 2007, 10:53

I can only remember being smacked once - surprisingly enough. It was when I threw a rock at a kid and it got him right in the face. He used to work at amps and still has the scar today. Mum cried after she smacked me. That put a grin on my face.

However, my 3 older brothers used to beat me senseless.

My stance on this is that I don't believe in smacking but I don't appreciate the government telling me how to raise kids.

BIGBOSSMAN

22nd November 2007, 11:01

Fuggoff, the 'media' are currently in 'Labour and its cronies r teh suck' mode. They'll take any opportunity they can to attack Bradford's legislation.

The legislation is an easy target when it's a patent crock, as it is in this case.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 11:02

I assume you'll be happy to find me a photo of that bruise and then let me bruise you to that extent?

Goodness knows you'd be able to handle it better than an 8 year old.

I'm sure you wouldn't dream of charging me with assault if I did it.

Oh, you would?

But if you were my son, someone I had a responsibility to protect, and also someone with no hope of defending themselves against me, it'd be OK? Not assault in that case?

Gotcha.

:niceone:

Agree Dan

Kids need protecting and to be honest no kids should be hit hard enough that it bruises.

BIGBOSSMAN

22nd November 2007, 11:05

However, my 3 older brothers used to beat me senseless.

Aha!! Is it now to be assumed that children can report their siblings to the police when involved in 'robust' disagreements and fracas?
And what about historical cases (runs and ducks for cover, nervously listening for the impending siren...) ?

jrandom

22nd November 2007, 11:09

I repeat. I am possitive it will be minor bruising.

Hmm, quite possibly. However, I was beaten as a child, I remember it well, having to go to school and not being able to take my shirt off and show the bruises, etc, and I take the very firm view that children should not be marked.

Guess your from the generation of no cane, no strap, do what I want.
Argue your point until hell freezes over. My view stands. Boys need discipline.

I have a four year old son, and he (usually) jumps to attention when I speak. Ask anyone on the forum who's met him.

:love:

But I've never put a bruise on him in my life. He knows he'll get a smack on the bum if he gets too obdurate, but it happens very rarely, and never leaves anything visible on the skin. (Yes, I check these things.)

In the end, yes, I personally have a very adverse emotional reaction to the idea of children being bruised by their parents, and I am all for removing legislative obstacles to the prosecution of parents who take their 'discipline' too far. If 'we the people' don't act as a democratic society to censure such parents, nobody will. The children are powerless.

My general position on social policy is rather complex, inasmuch as I favour the idea of the welfare state, but am generally against government interventionism and attempted moral engineering. However, I see an excess of physical force used by parents against children as a clear and simple crime that should be punished.

007XX

22nd November 2007, 11:09

Agree Dan

Kids need protecting and to be honest no kids should be hit hard enough that it bruises.

But is that the defining criteria in that law? Just asking as I haven't read the bill in question...

Are they actuallysaying : no slapping which would result in visible marking?

Or are they trying to abolish allforms of corporal punishment?

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 11:11

But is that the defining criteria in that law? Just asking as I haven't read the bill in question...

Are they actuallysaying : no slapping which would result in visible marking?

Or are they trying to abolish allforms of corporal punishment?

No idea but guess that is what Judges have to decide.

To cause a bruise to a buttock would take a lot I reckon as opposed to say a leg or arm

Coyote

22nd November 2007, 11:15

This is what happens when you vote for Labour and MMP.
So rather the business round table and dictatorship would suit?

jrandom

22nd November 2007, 11:15

But is that the defining criteria in that law? Just asking as I haven't read the bill in question...

Hmm, perhaps you should.

The new law does not criminalise parental discipline, exactly. Rather, it removes the distinction between general assault, and assault on a child that one is a guardian of.

Essentially, the law used to provide a defence against assault if it was perpetrated against one's child, and was "reasonable force" (or some similar phrase).

Quite a few cases of apparent abuse were acquitted of charges brought by the police due to that defence. If only juries were perfect, eh?

Me, I have no problem whatsoever with the standard criminal law relating to assault being applied to the way I treat my children!

007XX

22nd November 2007, 11:19

Hmm, quite possibly. However, I was beaten as a child, I remember it well, having to go to school and not being able to take my shirt off and show the bruises, etc, and I take the very firm view that children should not be marked.

I have a four year old son, and he (usually) jumps to attention when I speak. Ask anyone on the forum who's met him.

:love:

But I've never put a bruise on him in my life. He knows he'll get a smack on the bum if he gets too obdurate, but it happens very rarely, and never leaves anything visible on the skin. (Yes, I check these things.)

In the end, yes, I personally have a very adverse emotional reaction to the idea of children being bruised by their parents, and I am all for removing legislative obstacles to the prosecution of parents who take their 'discipline' too far. If 'we the people' don't act as a democratic society to censure such parents, nobody will. The children are powerless.

My general position on social policy is rather complex, inasmuch as I favour the idea of the welfare state, but am generally against government interventionism and attempted moral engineering. However, I see an excess of physical force used by parents against children as a clear and simple crime that should be punished.

+1 to all the above, except my son is 10. I guess we won't need that conversation after all, cos we agree...:hug:
But I would really like to have confirmation of the defining point as to where they decide that smacking is not tolerable.

No idea but guess that is what Judges have to decide.

To cause a bruise to a buttock would take a lot I reckon as opposed to say a leg or arm

Causing a bruise full stop would take a lot...:(

Like Dan, I definitely have decent bruising in my upbringing, and in the earlier years of my baby's life, I struggled with the hereditary anger management struggle...

But I never gave a smack to my boy that was bad enough to leave more than a temporary sting...Actually, I can probably recall only three occasions where I had to give him a tap on the bum.
However, should I start counting to 5....well, let's just say I've only gotten to 5 once! :laugh:

judecatmad

22nd November 2007, 11:25

Funny how most Mums are staying quiet on this law

As a mum-to-be, I think the law is a crock of shit. There you go, there's my stance. Would say it was a crock of shit even if we weren't having kids.

Will happily become a criminal if it means raising our boy to be a decent member of society and no court in the land is going to tell me how to raise him.

I'm not a bad person, and I'm not intending to whup his ass for every minor indiscretion, but there will be boundaries and if he crosses those and will not respond to other punitive measures, smacking will be the way to go. Furthermore, there's an age below which you simply cannot reason with a child and the quickest way to stop them hurting themselves (or teach them not to do that stupid thing again - like running across to road) is a quick tap on the hand or on the back of the legs.

Actually, having said that I'd happily become a criminal if it meant raising the boy right, I'd probably be more likely to consider quitting NZ full stop and would head back home. The UK has recently refused to ban smacking. Far too much PC crap going on here.

I've maintained right the way through this anti-smacking debacle that no law in the land will stop someone from beating the crap out of their kids and causing them serious harm - those sorts of people aren't bothered about the law and all this law has done is make criminals out of perfectly decent parents.

007XX

22nd November 2007, 11:26

Hmm, perhaps you should.

The new law does not criminalise parental discipline, exactly. Rather, it removes the distinction between general assault, and assault on a child that one is a guardian of.

Essentially, the law used to provide a defence against assault if it was perpetrated against one's child, and was "reasonable force" (or some similar phrase).

Quite a few cases of apparent abuse were acquitted of charges brought by the police due to that defence. If only juries were perfect, eh?

Me, I have no problem whatsoever with the standard criminal law relating to assault being applied to the way I treat my children!

I will do...

But the impression I get from reading what you just wrote is that there are way too many grey areas, leaving the assessment of "how much is too much" to whomever is assessing at the time...

Leave loopholes and people (on the good and bad side) will take advantage of it for their own personal gain.

I certainly do not want the situation to be so blurry that I get arrested one day for grabbing my son by the arm (in the supermarket let's say), just because some fuckwit thought I might harm my boy...

And all I might have been doing is getting my son's attention against a potencial danger...

The PC brigade is out there, and as soon as you remove the parental power from the parent's hands, and put it into the hands of the State, then you are talking about Communism.

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 11:30

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472554

1) cyfs get involved because a kid is smacked on the hand

2) mother smacks kid on the bum and gets warned by cops she may get arrested next time the neighbour complains

judecatmad

22nd November 2007, 11:30

But I've never put a bruise on him in my life.

In the end, yes, I personally have a very adverse emotional reaction to the idea of children being bruised by their parents

It's quite possible that the boy in question bruises very easily.

I recall my mum tickling me on my chest as a child regularly. I loved it! But each time I would end up bruised to buggery cos I simply bruised very easily.

The media never tell both sides of a story, nor do they ever represent the facts fully.

My personal stance on the anti-smacking is given above, but just because the father left a bruise does not make him a bad parent. That he lost his temper probably means he has some issues, but does he need to be made a criminal???

bane

22nd November 2007, 11:31

Me, I have no problem whatsoever with the standard criminal law relating to assault being applied to the way I treat my children!

Completely agree Dan.

Normally it's over complicated additions to legislature that reek of "nanny state", but in this case they just removed a passage that gave some parents a possible excuse to "assault" their kids.

The police have guidelines on what to prosecute, the fact they are taking this further suggests the father may have gone to far.

He knows he'll get a smack on the bum if he gets too obdurate

I somehow doubt a 4 year old knows he is being "too obdurate" :laugh:

Finn

22nd November 2007, 11:31

So rather the buisness round table and dictatorship would suit?

Like a typical lefty, you can't even spell business, let alone understand how its success is vital to the economy and well being of the general population.

As for dictatorship, are you living in a cardboard box on Stewart Island?

davereid

22nd November 2007, 11:32

Strange how the government like to tell us force and violence are bad.

Yet thats exactly how they control us.

Anybody accepts that its ok to use force in self defence, to stop the murderer, rapist or burglar.

But I find some irony in the governments use of violence to achieve its "social goals" !

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 11:32

As a mum-to-be, I think the law is a crock of shit. There you go, there's my stance. Would say it was a crock of shit even if we weren't having kids.

Will happily become a criminal if it means raising our boy to be a decent member of society and no court in the land is going to tell me how to raise him.

I'm not a bad person, and I'm not intending to whup his ass for every minor indiscretion, but there will be boundaries and if he crosses those and will not respond to other punitive measures, smacking will be the way to go. Furthermore, there's an age below which you simply cannot reason with a child and the quickest way to stop them hurting themselves (or teach them not to do that stupid thing again - like running across to road) is a quick tap on the hand or on the back of the legs.

Actually, having said that I'd happily become a criminal if it meant raising the boy right, I'd probably be more likely to consider quitting NZ full stop and would head back home. The UK has recently refused to ban smacking. Far too much PC crap going on here.

I've maintained right the way through this anti-smacking debacle that no law in the land will stop someone from beating the crap out of their kids and causing them serious harm - those sorts of people aren't bothered about the law and all this law has done is make criminals out of perfectly decent parents.

So you consider smacking a child is raising them right?

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'. So whay smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

Agree Laws will not stop abuse of kids but Laws don 't stop murder, speeding etc, however, we cannot police everyones daily movemnets so when someone gets caught doing wrong then the Law is working.

UK has not refused to ban smacking according to BBC Report

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4175905.stm

Parents in England and Wales who smack children so hard it leaves a mark will face up to five years in jail under new laws in force from Saturday.
Mild smacking is allowed under a "reasonable chastisement" defence against common assault.

But any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action.

The law is flawed and there should be a total ban on smacking, according to child protection charity the NSPCC.

So why does NZ have an issue with the Bill

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 11:33

Fatjim

22nd November 2007, 11:40

I smack my children if they need it. I'd not plead guilty nor take "anger management" to sweeten up the judge. I'd tell the judge where to go if he/she started to lecture me on the wrongs of smacking.

Best place is the arse because it doesn't bruise/damage easily. Thats why the back of the hand and the bum are traditional "sweet spots" to administer corporal punishment.

The Stranger

22nd November 2007, 11:47

Do we know what caused the bruises on the shoulder? Did the father actually cause them? Bruises are not necessarily indicative of pain or torture.

So the kid was playing up at school. What's the father going to do now if the kid plays up at school. I know what I would do, let the school deal with it. What the hell if he disrupts the class.

From the article, the kid now realizes he has power and can't be touched. The kid already knows he don't have to stay on his naughty seat if he don't feel like it, because no one's going to make him. Good luck to that parents, they're going to need it. This is putting the looneys in charge of the nut house.

Any teachers care to comment on how behavior and discipline has been at schools since they abolished straps and canes. This is possibly a good indicator of what to expect.

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 11:49

Well according to this article if a child runs around school with a stick you should call the police.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=288&objectid=10464820

teachers too scared to apprehend and deal with a disruptive pupil, scared of an assault charge.

davereid

22nd November 2007, 11:49

The use of the law is the use of violence to obtain an outcome that would not occur on its own.

Fines and imprisonment are all achieved by force.

It's a necessary part of civilisation, we need it to co-exist.

But I find it ironic that the government uses this force to achieve social goals - ie the use of force against an individual to stop him doing things that would have no effect on anyone but himself.

IMHO democracy and laws are the only way to go. But democracy is inherently flawed, and it needs constraining.

Even the Majority should not be able to impose their will on others except for self defence.

So.. Its ok for the majority to pass laws against murder, rape, burglary, and speeding. Because the actions of murderers rapists burglars and speeders effect innocent people.

It's also ok for the majority to be able to stop you tipping effluent in streams or organising your business to rort people.

Buts its not OK for the government to tell me I can't trade on a Easter Sunday. Its not OK for the government to make me wear a helmet on my push bike, or stop me letting people smoke in my own private property.

devnull

22nd November 2007, 11:51

Wow!

There's a lot of misinformation in this thread...

First off, the original S.59 wasn't used "lots of times to get parents off"
That's pure media spin.
S.59 was claimed as a defence 7 times - it was allowed by the courts twice.
It was never a defence against common assault charges.

What Bradford did in her revised bill is make any form of physical force used for the purpose of correction, a crime. That doesn't just mean a smack on the bum. it also means putting a child in their room for time out, pushing them back into a carseat and strapping them in, etc. So long as the action is considered corrective, you are a criminal.

If they were actually serious about combating real child abuse, they address the root causes, and also introduce legislation similar to the bill Chester Barrows proposed (which allowed harsher penalties for abusers while recognising that parents have an obligation to enforce reasonable standards of behaviour)

The key indicators, such as drug/alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, low education, poverty, etc, still have not been addressed

Coyote

22nd November 2007, 11:51

Like a typical lefty, you can't even spell business, let alone understand how its success is vital to the economy and well being of the general population.

As for dictatorship, are you living in a cardboard box on Stewart Island?
I didn't say anything about being a lefty, though I sway more to that side than the other. And I'm not totally against business. It's not like I make my own bikes, I have to buy them (at this stage).

But what I am against is the right giving out tax cuts to the business by spending little, if any money on government run organisations, such as hospitals and schools. Forcing people into private organisations where it's 'user pays', not 'for the good of the country'. Much like uni, which I can't afford to go to, instead I'm going to become a grease monkey apprentice because that's the only logical career path I can see for myself.

I don't support Labour, they're becoming as bad as National.

I'll use spell check from now on just to make sure any little mistakes don't go unnoticed by me. Note: other than 'uni', there were no spelling corrections to be made to this post.

007XX

22nd November 2007, 11:52

From the article, the kid now realizes he has power and can't be touched. The kid already knows he don't have to stay on his naughty seat if he don't feel like it, because no one's going to make him. Good luck to that parents, they're going to need it. This is putting the looneys in charge of the nut house.

Any teachers care to comment on how behavior and discipline has been at schools since they abolished straps and canes. This is possibly a good indicator of what to expect.

THAT is exactly what we have to worry about...I have spoken myself to little 9 year old tough guys who told me to "fuck off" and when asked what sort of language this was, their answer was very quick to come back as :

"what are you going to do about it?"

If no longer any consequences to bad behaviour, then there no longer any limits.

I am not condoning violence, but consequences have to be kept to retain respect. We are going too far one way or the other: what's wrong with finding a right balance? People think it's too hard and therefor put it in the "too hard" basket.

Indiana_Jones

22nd November 2007, 11:53

I don't get it, A parent doing their job gets convicted, but MP's in a fight don't get charged?

-Indy

007XX

22nd November 2007, 11:56

Wow!

What Bradford did in her revised bill is make any form of physical force used for the purpose of correction, a crime. That doesn't just mean a smack on the bum. it also means putting a child in their room for time out, pushing them back into a carseat and strapping them in, etc. So long as the action is considered corrective, you are a criminal.

If they were actually serious about combating real child abuse, they address the root causes, and also introduce legislation similar to the bill Chester Barrows proposed (which allowed harsher penalties for abusers while recognising that parents have an obligation to enforce reasonable standards of behaviour)

The key indicators, such as drug/alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, low education, poverty, etc, still have not been addressed

That's exactly the info I'm after...is there anyone who could post a link to that revised bill please?

I've been trying to find it, but I'm just getting the run around.

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 12:07

Boys need discipline.And so do girls...naughty things that they are.

So you consider smacking a child is raising them right?

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'. So why smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

A smack when needed is a valuable tool in the parenting kit.
And unlike an adult (theoretically) one cannot always reason with children...

imdying

22nd November 2007, 12:29

Do we know what caused the bruises on the shoulder? Did the father actually cause them? Bruises are not necessarily indicative of pain or torture.Being on his shoulder, I guess he had to restrain the child to apply the smacking? This, and if that is the case, may have been because the kid was either a little prick, or simply sick of getting his beats. The bullshit no depth article doesn't give any indication. It's not an article written to inform, it's an article written by some retarded loser who merely wants to inflame and sell. Yes, I think the 'reporter' (and I use that term lightly) is a cock.

tri boy

22nd November 2007, 12:29

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'.

Actually, yes, we do.
If your mate has had a couple too many, and starts "gobbing off" to those around him,(women, very large powerful, short tempered men), I would be the first to cuff him round the ears, make him apologise , and tell him to pull his head in.
Thats what discipline is about. It's not limited to children, but streams right through our lives.
I think some people confuse abuse with discipline (for different historic reasons).
Nobody wants to see children screaming in agony. The very thought is enough to upset me. But I have no problem in seeing a 4yr old or 45yr old receiving sensible physical correcting. Look to nature. :mellow:

devnull

22nd November 2007, 12:46

That's exactly the info I'm after...is there anyone who could post a link to that revised bill please?

I've been trying to find it, but I'm just getting the run around.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

[59Parental control

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d)performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3)Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.]

007XX

22nd November 2007, 13:49

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

So subsection 1 is suplanted by subsection 2 no matter what?!?:confused:

But hang on a minute:

Aren't points b, c and d normal parts of what someone would call "parenting"?

So, in effect, aren't they saying in subsection 1 that a parent (or legal guardian) is justified in using reasonnable force for points a,b,c and d...

But then completely overule this by saying in subsection2 that nothing in section 1 or in the law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

So number 2 says that no matter what your reasons or how reasonable the amount of "force" was, it will never be justified in the eyes of the law, because of subsection 2.

Then, number 4 leaves it in the hands of the police to use their discretion as to wether the complaint is warranted or not... :confused:

No disrespect, but since when is every single police member out there a specialist in parenthood? It's just putting too much reponsibility into the wrong hands.

I'm sorry, but the intention is good at heart, but the wording is very poor. I also question the motives of the people who compiled it in the first place.

LilSel

22nd November 2007, 14:08

My parents never smacked/hit/gave me the beats or anything... & I turned out fine!... I have never had any run ins with the police... never stolen... have a sucessful career... etc and so on

my friends when I was a child who used to get the beats... well... most of them already have kids... on the benefit... with P habits... and have had run ins with the law....

So... imho... what a load of shit!!... not smacking your kid doesnt mean they'll turn into criminals!!... giving your kids the bash however... how you think they are gonna turn out??... they're going to bash their own kids because 'thats how i was brought up'... break the cycle & there'll be alot less children getting killed by their own parents/family!!

I dont disagree with a smack on the bum if a child has seriously misbehaved etc... but if you leave a mark on any child then you are spineless & deserve to get charged under bradfords stoopid law! :done:

Mikkel

22nd November 2007, 14:09

So subsection 1 is suplanted by subsection 2 no matter what?!?

But hang on a minute:

Aren't points b, c and d normal parts of what someone would call "parenting"?

So, in effect, aren't they saying in subsection 1 that a parent (or legal guardian) is justified in using reasonnable force for points a,b,c and d...

But then completely overule this by saying in subsection2 that nothing in section 1 or in the law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

So number 2 says that no matter what your reasons or how reasonable the amount of "force" was, it will never be justified in the eyes of the law, because of subsection 2.

Then, number 4 leaves it in the hands of the police to use their discretion as to wether the complaint is warranted or not...

No disrespect, but since when is every single police member out there a specialist in parenthood? It's just putting too much reponsibility into the wrong hands.

I'm sorry, but the intention is good at heart, but the wording is very poor. I also question the motives of the people who compiled it in the first place.

They distinguish between prevention and correction...

My parents gave me a couple of smacks along the way - nothing brutal or bruising... painful indeed and in every way justified. I don't hold that against them at all - I actually think it was the only right response to my behaviour at those given times.

Seems to me though that kids are just too much trouble to be worth the bother! ;)

007XX

22nd November 2007, 14:21

They distinguish between prevention and correction...

My parents gave me a couple of smacks along the way - nothing brutal or bruising... painful indeed and in every way justified. I don't hold that against them at all - I actually think it was the only right response to my behaviour at those given times.

Seems to me though that kids are just too much trouble to be worth the bother! ;)

The problem in my view is how much the distinction is left blurry and therefor who is it left to define it when the time comes to make a ruling?

Not the parents obviously. :rolleyes:

A few very irresponsible parents unable to restrain themselves for whatever reasons are making it difficult for the rest of us.

Once again, a few a ruling for the masses.

tri boy

22nd November 2007, 14:26

I dont disagree with a smack on the bum if a child has seriously misbehaved etc... but if you leave a mark on any child then you are spineless & deserve to get charged under bradfords stoopid law! :done:

So you agree discipline is OK.
Using terms like Giving the Bash isn't really tied into this.
Most people agree that light discipline is OK. As for leaving a mark....most smacks/straps will leave a mark for an hour or two. Harmless, and reminds little Johny/Suzy that they stepped out of line.
I'm quite sure that the rate of offending will rise in the future if parents are hamstrung by Bradfords bullshit.:oi-grr:

LilSel

22nd November 2007, 14:28

So you agree discipline is OK.
Using terms like Giving the Bash isn't really tied into this.
Most people agree that light discipline is OK. As for leaving a mark....most smacks/straps will leave a mark for an hour or two. Harmless, and reminds little Johny/Suzy that they stepped out of line.
I'm quite sure that the rate of offending will rise in the future if parents are hamstrung by Bradfords bullshit.:oi-grr:

hehe... Im Suzie Q!

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 14:36

A number of years ago, there was a high-brow debate TV series on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Ultimate Question" (I think). They would invite a panel of 'experts' to have a debate on the question of the day and the audience were invited to participate. As an aside, the show where they considered the question "Are religion and science compatible?" they invited Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of York (I think). By the end of it, the Bishop was just ranting after having been made to look like a complete halfwit. But I digress.

Another show considered the question "Is it ever right for the strong to control the weak?". Amongst the invited experts was a Professor of Sociology from Newcastle University; a typical rabid left-winger with added chips on his shoulder no doubt stemming from the fact he was about a metre tall; not an exaggeration.

One audience member raised the issue of parents using physical force to correct a child's behaviour. The rabid dwarf was absolute vehement in his position that under no circumstances should a parent ever lay a finger on their children for any purposes and to do so should be treated as assault. After ascertaining that the rabid dwarf had no children, another audience member posed a hypothetical question. Holding up his wallet with a picture of his toddler-age daughter, he asked "If my daughter reaches up to grab something hot or dangerous, should I not therefore be allowed to give her a light smack on the bum to indicate she shouldn't do it again?".

Predicatably, the answer was no. Instead, the Professor suggested, he should explain the dangers inherent in the child's actions and impress upon them that repeating such actions could have unwanted results. The audience member then explained that although his daughter could understand the concept of hurting, trying to impress on her the dangers of putting her hands in a gas fire would be virtually impossible, and any pain that he caused her by a smack on the bum would be trivial compared to the pain and suffering caused by her hands coming into contact with white-hot flames.

Still, the Professor argued to punish the daughter was immoral. The audience member tried explaining to him that it wasn't a punishment. It was using a small transitory amount of pain to illustrate such an action was bad, and to prevent a much worse situation appearing in the future, especially when the child was of an age where you couldn't simply reason with them. But, like most bigoted pseudo-communist ideologists (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php?u=8593), he was completely unwilling to listen to any argument that didn't exactly fit his personal idea of a reg flag utopia.

Bradford is cut from the same cloth as the rabid dwarf. Politically, she's slightly to the left of Lenin but nowhere near as intelligent. And she's uglier... I don't have children yet I object to this bill and the aims espoused within it. Bradford has essentially criminalised a parent applying any form of correction to a child. Picking them up to put them in their room, grabbing their shoulder as they run out into the road, smacking their hand when they go to touch something hot or sharp ... anything. Rather like the current debacle that is the Electoral Finance Bill, the law no longer defines what is acceptable and what isn't, but rather introduces a grey area of theoretical offences that the Police have to consider each and every incident raised with them but may choose to exercise discretion over whether to prosecute. There's no certainly for parents any more ... they don't know what is allowed, what is right and what they are prohibited from doing. In addition, Bradford's bill gave feuding parents another stick with which to beat each other, in the most horrible way possible, as well as providing shitlet older children with a method by which they can attack their parents.

The situation's disgusting. The sooner this government goes, and the Green Party gets lined up against the wall and shot with greenhouse-gas producing bullets, the better.

My parents never smacked/hit/gave me the beats or anything... & I turned out fine!... I have never had any run ins with the police... never stolen... have a sucessful career... etc and so on

But you have tattoos and piercings ... your parents must be wishing they'd got out the cat'o'nine tails now. :innocent:

LilSel

22nd November 2007, 14:41

But you have tattoos and piercings ... your parents must be wishing they'd got out the cat'o'nine tails now. :innocent:

Nooo... They paid for most of them :innocent:... :wari:

n successful career... I didnt mean my current job, however successful I have been here... I finish here on 14th Dec... start new job 17th Dec :D:D:D

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 14:43

And so do girls...naughty things that they are.

A smack when needed is a valuable tool in the parenting kit.
And unlike an adult (theoretically) one cannot always reason with children...

Not so sure on that one...........but then Nats cannot go anywhere and I have a remote stop for her wheelchair to negotiate.

But to be honest, I am a huge softy so I normally give in anyway.............and Nats is still a good kid...............and she is open to negotiation.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 14:47

A number of years ago, there was a high-brow debate TV series on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Ultimate Question" (I think). They would invite a panel of 'experts' to have a debate on the question of the day and the audience were invited to participate. As an aside, the show where they considered the question "Are religion and science compatible?" they invited Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of York (I think). By the end of it, the Bishop was just ranting after having been made to look like a complete halfwit. But I digress.

Another show considered the question "Is it ever right for the strong to control the weak?". Amongst the invited experts was a Professor of Sociology from Newcastle University; a typical rabid left-winger with added chips on his shoulder no doubt stemming from the fact he was about a metre tall; not an exaggeration.

One audience member raised the issue of parents using physical force to correct a child's behaviour. The rabid dwarf was absolute vehement in his position that under no circumstances should a parent ever lay a finger on their children for any purposes and to do so should be treated as assault. After ascertaining that the rabid dwarf had no children, another audience member posed a hypothetical question. Holding up his wallet with a picture of his toddler-age daughter, he asked "If my daughter reaches up to grab something hot or dangerous, should I not therefore be allowed to give her a light smack on the bum to indicate she shouldn't do it again?".

Predicatably, the answer was no. Instead, the Professor suggested, he should explain the dangers inherent in the child's actions and impress upon them that repeating such actions could have unwanted results. The audience member then explained that although his daughter could understand the concept of hurting, trying to impress on her the dangers of putting her hands in a gas fire would be virtually impossible, and any pain that he caused her by a smack on the bum would be trivial compared to the pain and suffering caused by her hands coming into contact with white-hot flames.

Still, the Professor argued to punish the daughter was immoral. The audience member tried explaining to him that it wasn't a punishment. It was using a small transitory amount of pain to illustrate such an action was bad, and to prevent a much worse situation appearing in the future, especially when the child was of an age where you couldn't simply reason with them. But, like most bigoted pseudo-communist ideologists (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php?u=8593), he was completely unwilling to listen to any argument that didn't exactly fit his personal idea of a reg flag utopia.

Bradford is cut from the same cloth as the rabid dwarf. Politically, she's slightly to the left of Lenin but nowhere near as intelligent. And she's uglier... I don't have children yet I object to this bill and the aims espoused within it. Bradford has essentially criminalised a parent applying any form of correction to a child. Picking them up to put them in their room, grabbing their shoulder as they run out into the road, smacking their hand when they go to touch something hot or sharp ... anything. Rather like the current debacle that is the Electoral Finance Bill, the law no longer defines what is acceptable and what isn't, but rather introduces a grey area of theoretical offences that the Police have to consider each and every incident raised with them but may choose to exercise discretion over whether to prosecute. There's no certainly for parents any more ... they don't know what is allowed, what is right and what they are prohibited from doing. In addition, Bradford's bill gave feuding parents another stick with which to beat each other, in the most horrible way possible, as well as providing shitlet older children with a method by which they can attack their parents.

The situation's disgusting. The sooner this government goes, and the Green Party gets lined up against the wall and shot with greenhouse-gas producing bullets, the better.

But you have tattoos and piercings ... your parents must be wishing they'd got out the cat'o'nine tails now. :innocent:

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 14:50

Not so sure on that one...........but then Nats cannot go anywhere and I have a remote stop for her wheelchair to negotiate.

But to be honest, I am a huge softy so I normally give in anyway.............and Nats is still a good kid...............and she is open to negotiation.

If only all parents had a remote-controlled child, eh?!
And not every child needs or responds to a smack. Parents discover what works for each child over time.
You show me a book about 'How to parent' and I'll show you a crock of shit - they are all written by Bradford-types

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 14:53

Masterton man smacks his misbehaving 8yr old on the bum with an open palm, and gets 9mths supervision.
Teachers can't strap/cane, or discipline and now that Bradford bitch has got her first man for being a straight up father.
F**k me!:mad:

As usual by the pro childrens assaulting brigade you are very selective in your facts. The child was reported by a family member. The child had been so badly mishandled the father that the faimly member informed the police because of bruising sustained in 'smacking.'

Tri a little harder Boy.

Skyryder

Deano

22nd November 2007, 14:54

What would Super Nanny do ?

She seems to get results.

NighthawkNZ

22nd November 2007, 14:58

Is it any wonder why NZ is hopeless at sports like rugby... and legue... get a little tackle and bradford would be in there like a shot... (well not really but...)

With so little nown on the case to the public, I reserve my judgement...

devnull

22nd November 2007, 14:59

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

How many 1 year-olds will understand what you're saying and apply the reasoning necessary to reach a conclusion?

At that age they're learning to form sounds... and can understand a few simple words. What you're suggesting is not practical, purely from a developmental standpoint

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 14:59

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

When I was about a year old, my parents caught me poking a pencil into a mains outlet (in the UK - you can get a pencil into the holes in the outlet there). According to my mother, I got a swift hard slap which re-inforced the notion I shouldn't be doing this again. Do you think you could adequately impress upon a year-old child (even one that was as precocious as me!) the dangers of mains electricity using nothing but soft words and gentle persuasion? Sure, the child might be able to understand the concept of hurt. Could your one year-old child understand the concept of death? The concept of 240 volts passing through their body, their skin frying, muscles convulsing and their respiratory system locked? Can the child understand the concept of a parent having only seconds to react to such a thing and the sheer unimaginable horror a parent must suffer having to pick up a blistered lifeless body, faintly smelling of burned meat? Even if the child could understand and comprehend all this, what's to say that they'd even remember what it was they'd done wrong by the time you'd finished lecturing them? Sorry to be so graphic, but this is precisely the reason that Sue Bradford's law is so very dangerous; it criminalises one of the methods used by the very best of parents in situations where the circumstances demand them.

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 15:02

007XX

22nd November 2007, 15:03

What Sanx and Devnull are saying + 1...

None of us are condoning violent acts toward children.

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 15:09

I don't get it, A parent doing their job gets convicted, but MP's in a fight don't get charged?

-Indy

Mallard is up on an assault charge. From the incident. That other gangster, the Maori carpet bagger, I won't even write his name, needs his head squeezed in a vice.

Skyryder

jafar

22nd November 2007, 15:10

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

You think so ??? from what I have seen of SOME of the older kids around they understand that they can do what they like & you or I can do nothing to stop them, if you even attempt to tell them off they start quoting Government Legislation such as the bradford bill & how they can (& will) have you arrested .
To make it more interesting the 'kids of today' are taught in school about their rights & it is reinforced to them that they can indeed have their parents arrested for even a light smack...
It is because of this PC bullshit that we have gangs of these little thugs running riot. They have been taught in school that the police can do nothing & anything they do will only end up in a family conference. Stupid thing is half the time the police take the little shits home & they are out on the street again before the cop car has left the driveway..

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 15:13

So whay smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids

you answered yourself. they have limits to their understanding.

People who believe in no smacking either have no kids or very well behaved kids.

judecatmad

22nd November 2007, 15:18

And not every child needs or responds to a smack. Parents discover what works for each child over time.

That was what I was trying to say in my post - thank you!

My parents never smacked/hit/gave me the beats or anything... & I turned out fine!... I have never had any run ins with the police... never stolen... have a sucessful career... etc and so on

my friends when I was a child who used to get the beats... well... most of them already have kids... on the benefit... with P habits... and have had run ins with the law....

So... imho... what a load of shit!!... not smacking your kid doesnt mean they'll turn into criminals!!... giving your kids the bash however... how you think they are gonna turn out??... they're going to bash their own kids because 'thats how i was brought up'... break the cycle & there'll be alot less children getting killed by their own parents/family!!

I dont disagree with a smack on the bum if a child has seriously misbehaved etc... but if you leave a mark on any child then you are spineless & deserve to get charged under bradfords stoopid law! :done:

And I WAS smacked - both by my mum and my dad. Mum's smacks were given only when I had totally crossed the line. They were quick and sharp and given even if it was the middle of the street. A quick slap around the back of the legs - the humiliation was the worst part cos people would stop and look! BUT it was all over and done with and I knew I needed to pull my head in.

Dad's, however, were different. I would be told I was going to get a hiding and then I would have to wait....sometimes 3 or 4 hours. Dad would go about his business as normal until the awful moment when he would call me and I knew I was going over his knee and getting a real hiding. Wrong, wrong, wrong, even though it was very infrequent.

As a result, I grew up with a real fear of my dad but a truly healthy respect for my mum. My mum was firm but she was fair. Nothing wrong with her sort of discipline. People used to comment on what a well behaved child I was. Could take me anywhere with little fear of disruption and absolutely no worries that I would barge in and start messing with other peoples' stuff.

I was never smacked beyond about the age of about 9 or 10.

I haven't grown up unsuccessful, nor do I see violence as an acceptable part of daily life. But I DO see smacking as a valid tool for the reinforcement of rules, if it is needed.

Smacking with an open hand to the back of the legs, the bum or the hands, when done as a quick, sharp response to a situation is NOT going to set up a cycle of violence. It's the repeated beatings with fists and objects that causes damage - physical and psychological - and that's the thing that the anti-smacking bill will not stop!

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 15:21

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

When I was about a year old, my parents caught me poking a pencil into a mains outlet (in the UK - you can get a pencil into the holes in the outlet there). According to my mother, I got a swift hard slap which re-inforced the notion I shouldn't be doing this again. Do you think you could adequately impress upon a year-old child (even one that was as precocious as me!) the dangers of mains electricity using nothing but soft words and gentle persuasion? Sure, the child might be able to understand the concept of hurt. Could your one year-old child understand the concept of death? The concept of 240 volts passing through their body, their skin frying, muscles convulsing and their respiratory system locked? Can the child understand the concept of a parent having only seconds to react to such a thing and the sheer unimaginable horror a parent must suffer having to pick up a blistered lifeless body, faintly smelling of burned meat? Even if the child could understand and comprehend all this, what's to say that they'd even remember what it was they'd done wrong by the time you'd finished lecturing them? Sorry to be so graphic, but this is precisely the reason that Sue Bradford's law is so very dangerous; it criminalises one of the methods used by the very best of parents in situations where the circumstances demand them.

You have no fucking idea what you are on about. The example that you quoted allows

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

Before posting bullshit know what you are on about. That way you wont make yourself look like a dick.

Skyryder

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 15:25

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 15:36

You have no fucking idea what you are on about. The example that you quoted allows

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

Before posting bullshit know what you are on about. That way you wont make yourself look like a dick.

No sir, you have no fucking idea what you're on about. Given that you're capable of finding the legislation in question, one wonders why you're not capable of reading a little further down the page, to the section that reads:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

The purpose of the smack in my example is to correct a child's behaviour, and section 59 of the Crimes Act specifically states that any use of force is not justified for the purposes of correction, and this lack of justification prevails over any reason given in section 1. Therefore my statement that Bradford's Bill criminalises a parent who uses force on their child for whatever purpose is correct. This same viewpoint was expressed by bodies such as the Law Society; whose members are far more qualified to comment on matters of legislation that either you or I.

Happy now, or do I have to get the crayons out to explain it further?

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 15:39

easy tiger. has this been tested in a court?

I (or CYFS) could argue that all that was necessary was to pull the child away from the socket. Hitting was unnecessary to prevent electrocution, they could be removed and other measures put in place to stop a repeat.

if there isn't a case history for this then you have no idea how the law will be interpreted in a court.

No it has not and until a case is presented the legislation stands as law and at the present time smacking is allowed in some circumstances.

I don't mind people having differing opinions and ideas. Would be a sorry world if we all thought the same...........but most object to Bradford's bill on the parents rights..........with little thought on the rights of those that are incapable of defending themselves..............thier children. What many do not know or realise is that prior to Bradfords bill animals had more protection in law than children. The realy sad thing about this is that many New Zealanders use Bradfords bill as opposition to Labour. In effect they were promoting the parental right of pyhsical assault on children as a means of denigrating Labour. Fucking Christian cowards and that is putting it mildly.

Skyryder

007XX

22nd November 2007, 15:40

I (or CYFS) could argue that all that was necessary was to pull the child away from the socket. Hitting was unnecessary to prevent electrocution, they could be removed and other measures put in place to stop a repeat.

if there isn't a case history for this then you have no idea how the law will be interpreted in a court.

But what about the child actual learning? How does he or she know not to repeat the mistake? Taking the danger away temporarily doesn't teach him or her anything.

It is not enough just to block all power sockets in the house and "prevent" it from re happening in your own home. What if you visit friends and their house is not child proof?

Maha

22nd November 2007, 15:45

I should add that I haven't had to smack any of my kids in quite some time now...but I would in a second IF required.

That Gordie gets away with murder, fucken little shit, a few days in the Bradford Boot Camp will do him the world of good...:cool:

SPman

22nd November 2007, 15:50

He later told police he had over-reacted and lost his temper.

Perhaps if he hadn't lost his temper, the situation would never have arisen?

tri boy

22nd November 2007, 15:53

As usual by the pro childrens assaulting brigade you are very selective in your facts. The child was reported by a family member. The child had been so badly mishandled the father that the faimly member informed the police because of bruising sustained in 'smacking.'

Tri a little harder Boy.

Skyryder

Only Brigade member I've been part of Cubs/Scouts. Never assaulted a child in my life.
Badly mishandled???? Please.:rolleyes:
Try again Rimrider.:devil2:

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 15:53

How many 1 year-olds will understand what you're saying and apply the reasoning necessary to reach a conclusion?

At that age they're learning to form sounds... and can understand a few simple words. What you're suggesting is not practical, purely from a developmental standpoint

I wasn't talking about a 1 year old............so you reckon a 1 year old should be smacked?

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 15:56

If only all parents had a remote-controlled child, eh?!
And not every child needs or responds to a smack. Parents discover what works for each child over time.
You show me a book about 'How to parent' and I'll show you a crock of shit - they are all written by Bradford-types

Remote controlled wheelchair................yep all parents should have one.......may make them see things in perspective perhaps.....

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 15:58

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

When I was about a year old, my parents caught me poking a pencil into a mains outlet (in the UK - you can get a pencil into the holes in the outlet there). According to my mother, I got a swift hard slap which re-inforced the notion I shouldn't be doing this again. Do you think you could adequately impress upon a year-old child (even one that was as precocious as me!) the dangers of mains electricity using nothing but soft words and gentle persuasion? Sure, the child might be able to understand the concept of hurt. Could your one year-old child understand the concept of death? The concept of 240 volts passing through their body, their skin frying, muscles convulsing and their respiratory system locked? Can the child understand the concept of a parent having only seconds to react to such a thing and the sheer unimaginable horror a parent must suffer having to pick up a blistered lifeless body, faintly smelling of burned meat? Even if the child could understand and comprehend all this, what's to say that they'd even remember what it was they'd done wrong by the time you'd finished lecturing them? Sorry to be so graphic, but this is precisely the reason that Sue Bradford's law is so very dangerous; it criminalises one of the methods used by the very best of parents in situations where the circumstances demand them.

What about shouting?

What about the parents putting that socket protectors in?

I think that we are taking Bradford's Law to far here.

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rights

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 15:59

No it has not and until a case is presented the legislation stands as law and at the present time smacking is allowed in some circumstances.

Legislation is the law. Legal precedent as to how the legislation / law is interpreted is something completely different. Try to get your terms right, please.

I don't mind people having differing opinions and ideas. Would be a sorry world if we all thought the same...........but most object to Bradford's bill on the parents rights..........with little thought on the rights of those that are incapable of defending themselves..............thier children. What many do not know or realise is that prior to Bradfords bill animals had more protection in law than children. The realy sad thing about this is that many New Zealanders use Bradfords bill as opposition to Labour. In effect they were promoting the parental right of pyhsical assault on children as a means of denigrating Labour. Fucking Christian cowards and that is putting it mildly.

Hard to know where to begin in taking apart this pile of tripe, but let's have a go anyway:

Sue Bradford's a member of the Green Party, not Labour.
If the intention of the Bill was to prevent children from violence (as opposed to a quick slap on the bum) then Sue Bradford would have supported Chester Borrows' proposed amendment that would have clarified the meaning of 'reasonable force' as something that causing "transitory and trifling" harm. Instead, she vehemently opposed it and promised to withdraw her bill if the amendment was accepted.
It's always interesting to note that Bradford's supporters always portrayed all incidences where a parent used force on a child as 'assault'; a nice emotive term used to conjure up images of vicious beatings. But as the Law Society pointed out, 'force' is used by a parent picking up a toddler throwing a temper tantrum on the floor. Hardly a vicious beating, is it?
80% of the country were opposed to this bill in its current form according to the myriad of opinion polls conducted on the topic, but considerably less than 50% of the population class themselves as Christians. Please explain the disparity, given your assertions that it's 'coward Christians' that object to the bill. (I'll also ignore the fact that pretty much the only supporter of the bill on this thread is the one publicly-declared Christian)Any more for any more?

007XX

22nd November 2007, 15:59

That Gordie gets away with murder, fucken little shit, a few days in the Bradford Boot Camp will do him the world of good...:cool:

Eh...leave my little brother out of this! :girlfight:

Oh, but hang on...that would mean DMNTD is my....:blink: Faaaaaaaaarrrrrrrkkk!!!! nah uh...no way! :nono:

But seriously, why is this all exagerated to the point of dividing good, smart people in two such drastic camps:

Those that beat up their kids and and those that don't. ?????

kro

22nd November 2007, 16:00

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:02

I'm sure Nat's is a lovely kid GB however not all kids are the same therefore they all react slightly differently so different techniques need to be employed.

I have 5 children and all need slightly different parenting...two in particular needed a smack more often,just the way it goes.

I should add that I haven't had to smack any of my kids in quite some time now...but I would in a second IF required.

Agreed..I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine but this thread was about an 8 year old with bruising which is more than just smacking.

Mind you just 1 wiggle of your ears would be enough for me Sir.

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 16:04

Agreed..I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine but this thread was about an 8 year old with bruising which is more than just smacking.

my ex's nephew is a clumsy goof. always running into things, falling off things, and often bruised. recently learnt that "you can't smack me mum" and the parents are terrified of him spouting bullshit at school.

little shit i should give him the bash.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:05

You think so ??? from what I have seen of SOME of the older kids around they understand that they can do what they like & you or I can do nothing to stop them, if you even attempt to tell them off they start quoting Government Legislation such as the bradford bill & how they can (& will) have you arrested .
To make it more interesting the 'kids of today' are taught in school about their rights & it is reinforced to them that they can indeed have their parents arrested for even a light smack...
It is because of this PC bullshit that we have gangs of these little thugs running riot. They have been taught in school that the police can do nothing & anything they do will only end up in a family conference. Stupid thing is half the time the police take the little shits home & they are out on the street again before the cop car has left the driveway..

There were gangs before the Bradford Law and I know at my school kids used to tell teachers they would get arrested etc...that was in the 70's.

Whilst I think telling kids their parents can be arrested seems OTT, it is good that kids learn their rights which some parents do not explain.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:07

you answered yourself. they have limits to their understanding.

People who believe in no smacking either have no kids or very well behaved kids.

This is easy.

A lot of parents have limits to their understanding.

So you saying that parents who are anti - smacking have well behaved kids.....interesting??

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 16:08

This is easy.

A lot of parents have limits to their understanding.

So you saying that parents who are anti - smacking have well behaved kids.....interesting??

Your experience with violent, disruptive, tearaway kids who wont listen is?????

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:10

my ex's nephew is a clumsy goof. always running into things, falling off things, and often bruised. recently learnt that "you can't smack me mum" and the parents are terrified of him spouting bullshit at school.

little shit i should give him the bash.

Good glad to see a kid sticking up for his rights..............maybe the parents should be pro-active and have a talk with the school and explain this to avoid future issues............I know you will say this is silly but that is what I would do rather than just do nothing and worry myself silly.

Toaster

22nd November 2007, 16:12

Masterton man smacks his misbehaving 8yr old on the bum with an open palm, and gets 9mths supervision.
Teachers can't strap/cane, or discipline and now that Bradford bitch has got her first man for being a straight up father.
F**k me!:mad:

Put a poll on and see what we all really think.
I was smacked as a kid when I stepped out of line and fair enough too. I had a healthy respect for my parents, grandparents etc.

The key to me is having unwaivering and consistent consequences for misbehaviour and disobedience as long as it is reasonable.

It seems more and more children, teens and young adults really need to learn that life isn't all about them too. Many seem to have a poor work-ethic, lack of respect for parents and authority, lack of contribution and commitment to family etc etc.

The concept of service and sacrifice for others is now lost on so many.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:13

Your experience with violent, disruptive, tearaway kids who wont listen is?????

True, but then you have to wonder why the kids are like that............poor parenting, set bad examples.........I am sure if you looked at more closely there would be a a link to the parents behaviour, could be they argue a lot, seperated, all sorts of things.............they see their parents get away with things so they copy...........

devnull

22nd November 2007, 16:14

No it has not and until a case is presented the legislation stands as law and at the present time smacking is allowed in some circumstances.

I don't mind people having differing opinions and ideas. Would be a sorry world if we all thought the same...........but most object to Bradford's bill on the parents rights..........with little thought on the rights of those that are incapable of defending themselves..............thier children. What many do not know or realise is that prior to Bradfords bill animals had more protection in law than children. The realy sad thing about this is that many New Zealanders use Bradfords bill as opposition to Labour. In effect they were promoting the parental right of pyhsical assault on children as a means of denigrating Labour. Fucking Christian cowards and that is putting it mildly.

Skyryder

Ah yep... and so we resort to religious slagging.

Are you just plain stupid? How many children have you raised, as a matter of interest? Never see ANY of the psych reports on this issue? Not even the Otago Uni one?

Well, I am a parent. This isn't about "parent's rights", despite what you may think. It's about raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility.

The animal argument is asinine crap. How many kids that have killed other kids have the police had put down lately?

As a parent, I'll fight for my kids, even die for them if necessary, but I'll be damned if some social misfit that screwed up her own family will tell me how to raise mine.

You think this shining example of humanity was right? Look at Sweden - they're far further down this slope. Look at the number of children being placed into state care; look at the youth crime rate...

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 16:15

I wasn't talking about a 1 year old............so you reckon a 1 year old should be smacked?

You weren't. I was. Bradford's bill makes no allowances for the age of the child either.

What about shouting?

Shouting might work. On the other hand, it might not. Sue Bradford doesn't have the answer to all situations.

What about the parents putting that socket protectors in?

That would address the one example I came up with, based upon my own personal experience. However, it would also assume the child never went into a house were socket protectors weren't fitted, and that the parent religiously re-inserted a protector every time a plug was removed. Ideally, it would happen, but despite Bradford and her ilk's attempts, this is not an ideal world.

I think that we are taking Bradford's Law to far here.

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rights

The problem is that Bradford's Bill contains no clarifications of what is and isn't allowed, or any limits of to what situations it should and shouldn't apply. As I stated earlier, Chester Borrows proposed an amendment (http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/sops/2007086.txt) which would have clarified the meaning of reasonable force and an act causing "transitory and trifling" harm ... a light open smack to the bum, for instance. However, Bradford was against any modification to her little bill and, despite offering no reasons why the amendment was bad, threatened to withdraw her bill (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10610.html) if it was passed.

I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine ...

But thanks to Sue Bradford, a light smack on the bottom is a criminal offence.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:20

You weren't. I was. Bradford's bill makes no allowances for the age of the child either.

And is should not.

Shouting might work. On the other hand, it might not. Sue Bradford doesn't have the answer to all situations.

And nor do parents either.

That would address the one example I came up with, based upon my own personal experience. However, it would also assume the child never went into a house were socket protectors weren't fitted, and that the parent religiously re-inserted a protector every time a plug was removed. Ideally, it would happen, but despite Bradford and her ilk's attempts, this is not an ideal world.

So now we are making excuses for parents? You are right though this may not be an ideal world and tell me a Law that is.

The problem is that Bradford's Bill contains no clarifications of what is and isn't allowed, or any limits of to what situations it should and shouldn't apply. As I stated earlier, Chester Borrows proposed an amendment (http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/sops/2007086.txt) which would have clarified the meaning of reasonable force and an act causing "transitory and trifling" harm ... a light open smack to the bum, for instance. However, Bradford was against any modification to her little bill and, despite offering no reasons why the amendment was bad, threatened to withdraw her bill (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10610.html) if it was passed.

But wasn't that the problem before which prevented cases being dismissed?

.......................................

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 16:26

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rightsThe really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

Whilst I think telling kids their parents can be arrested seems OTT, it is good that kids learn their rights which some parents do not explain.

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights). The 'good' kids somehow learned both, whilst the 'bad' kids are all one-sided as far as rights go. Teach them responsibility with appropriately applied pain, if they won't learn it any other way.

devnull

22nd November 2007, 16:27

But wasn't that the problem before which prevented cases being dismissed?

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:35

The really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

What Nanny State? Well although I am not so sure that is true, cannot be a bad thing protecting people?

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights). The 'good' kids somehow learned both, whilst the 'bad' kids are all one-sided as far as rights go. Teach them responsibility with appropriately applied pain, if they won't learn it any other way.

That is as much down to the parents as it is the teachers. I used to help on ski trips for schools and it is difficult for a teacher because they have to enforce boundary's that often the kids would not have at home, but as soon as the parents found out that you have allowed them to do things that they themselves allowed their kids to do there would be uproar.............

........................

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:37

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

Perhaps true but with kids the 'Assault' issue is different.

I guess the Laws will never win. There are those who will argue we should be pro-active and have a Law and then there are those who as you have said, will argue there is no evidence................

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 16:40

Ah yep... and so we resort to religious slagging.

Are you just plain stupid? How many children have you raised, as a matter of interest? Never see ANY of the psych reports on this issue? Not even the Otago Uni one?

Well, I am a parent. This isn't about "parent's rights", despite what you may think. It's about raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility.

The animal argument is asinine crap. How many kids that have killed other kids have the police had put down lately?

As a parent, I'll fight for my kids, even die for them if necessary, but I'll be damned if some social misfit that screwed up her own family will tell me how to raise mine.

You think this shining example of humanity was right? Look at Sweden - they're far further down this slope. Look at the number of children being placed into state care; look at the youth crime rate...

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.

The child in question was manhandled in such a manner that it resulted in bruising. So you are advocating that this is the way of raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility. Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this? Is that what you are saying??

Skyryder

Mom

22nd November 2007, 16:40

.......................................

GB, I have 3 children, and they all have been completely different personallities and have required different forms of discipline. First and foremost I used the "super nanny" type of discipline but..... my first daughter was a normal sort of kid, tried it on, got told not to, occasionally got a smack on the bum if required. My son was a fair little shit, no amount of telling him was good enough, he also got a good old smack when he crossed the line, for him it happened more often, my youngest daughter was an angel, not even sure she ever got a smack from Mom.

I was beaten as a child, not smacked, my father was a brute who thought nothing of picking up the nearest thing and walloping the shit out of me, black eyes were a trademark for the female members of my family home. I would never, ever condone violence against children, in any way shape of form, but I would not hesitate to give a short , sharp reminder about something if required.

An example:........my son at 17 years of age told me to "get fucked!!" right in my face, because he was not happy with one of my Nanny techniques.........he got a short, swift slap round the ears for that. Dont care, put me in jail!

The really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights).

Bingo!

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 16:41

What nanny state?

Just what reality do you inhabit? It sure isn't one where NZ exists.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:44

GB, I have 3 children, and they all have been completely different personallities and have required different forms of discipline. First and foremost I used the "super nanny" type of discipline but..... my first daughter was a normal sort of kid, tried it on, got told not to, occasionally got a smack on the bum if required. My son was a fair little shit, no amount of telling him was good enough, he also got a good old smack when he crossed the line, for him it happened more often, my youngest daughter was an angel, not even sure she ever got a smack from Mom.

I was beaten as a child, not smacked, my father was a brute who thought nothing of picking up the nearest thing and walloping the shit out of me, black eyes were a trademark for the female members of my family home. I would never, ever condone violence against children, in any way shape of form, but I would not hesitate to give a short , sharp reminder about something if required.

An example:........my son at 17 years of age told me to "get fucked!!" right in my face, because he was not happy with one of my Nanny techniques.........he got a short, swift slap round the ears for that. Dont care, put me in jail!

Bingo!

A 17 year old is not a kid though so although I would not have clipped him around the ear (I would have just smiled an ignored), I actually don't think what you did was wrong.

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 16:44

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

I'm not aware of the Judge letting them off. There were some cases where the jury did. There was some evedince that on one trial the jury aquited on the basis of it's hostile attitude to Labour. I did a lot of research on this way back and came across some commments from one of the legal sites on this. Have no idea if true or not.

Skyryder

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:47

Just what reality do you inhabit? It sure isn't one where NZ exists.

I just do not inhabit your reality that is all............where does NZ exist?

I guess we all have different life experiences........I will spare you mine.....and out of this we see things differently and the things that bother some people don't even register with others and so on.

devnull

22nd November 2007, 16:50

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.

The child in question was manhandled in such a manner that it resulted in bruising. So you are advocating that this is the way of raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility. Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this? Is that what you are saying??

Skyryder

You are wrong... so clearly wrong and unable to see why that I'd recommend some form of medication...

You obviously know much more about the case in the media than has been reported. I say obviously because what you've stated here isn't what was reported - please share the full story.

Now, as to my other questions... still waiting for an answer.
I'm also curious to know why you believe that Bradford is right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that repeating the same social experiment that failed so abysmally in Sweden is a wonderful thing.

All the while completely ignoring the numerous studies that have accurately identified the key risk factors in real child abuse, and doing nothing to address them.

The Swedish experiment has done more than just fail. It's effectively wrecked the lives of an entire generation. That's not just a failure, thats criminal. Those kids had the right to grow up with boundaries, responsibilities, morals, and it was taken away from them by a mindless bureaucracy

Mom

22nd November 2007, 16:53

I would have just smiled an ignored

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.

I actually don't think what you did was wrong.

Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 16:55

You are wrong... so clearly wrong and unable to see why that I'd recommend some form of medication...

You obviously know much more about the case in the media than has been reported. I say obviously because what you've stated here isn't what was reported - please share the full story.

Now, as to my other questions... still waiting for an answer.
I'm also curious to know why you believe that Bradford is right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that repeating the same social experiment that failed so abysmally in Sweden is a wonderful thing.

All the while completely ignoring the numerous studies that have accurately identified the key risk factors in real child abuse, and doing nothing to address them.

The Swedish experiment has done more than just fail. It's effectively wrecked the lives of an entire generation. That's not just a failure, thats criminal. Those kids had the right to grow up with boundaries, responsibilities, morals, and it was taken away from them by a mindless bureaucracy

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

I'm going fishing. Will be back late. Don't wait up.:jerry:

Skyryder

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 16:59

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

It's just the way I am..........agreed on the honour bit but I still have the choice to turn the other cheek........sometimes that can just as effective.

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.

Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.

To be honest I could not hit Nats because of her condition being so weak muscled...........she cannot take tops off pens so no way would I ever smack her because if she was sitting she would fall over, plus it is a bit hard to get her bottom for obvious reasons.

........................

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 17:03

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.

Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.

To add to my first reply, perhaps having Nats has meant I look at alternatives...........Nats can be a handful when she is in her wheelchair still.......she wants this she wants that...........I just find other ways.

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 17:13

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

I'm going fishing. Will be back late. Don't wait up.:jerry:

Skyryder

Yeah it was not me it was the beer....Officer

Mom

22nd November 2007, 17:38

To add to my first reply, perhaps having Nats has meant I look at alternatives...........Nats can be a handful when she is in her wheelchair still.......she wants this she wants that...........I just find other ways.

Of course there are other ways mate! Searching for them is the greatest challenge sometimes. You know me and I know you, with the greatest of respect here........parenting a child with a disability (no matter what it is) comes with its own set of challenges I agree, but untill you are faced with a non-disabled child telling you to get fucked or the childish equivalent of that, you simply can not say turning the other cheek and smiling is truely an option in some circumstances.......THE END

Am off to the ATNR ride!

SpankMe

22nd November 2007, 17:41

Yep, beat the shit out of the little buggers. Children should be seen and not herd, unless they're screaming from a beating.

Sanx

22nd November 2007, 17:49

You must be taking lessons from III; someone answers your questions with facts and you blindly ignore them and carry on regardless. The true sign of a zealot.

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.

Opinion polls - not the most reliable gauge of public opinion, but the best we've got - indicated that 80% of the population were against the bill. Roughly 40% of the population, according to the last census, identified themselves as Christian. Yes, the religious right were against this bill, but where does the other 40% come from? Or are you, like III, so ideologically opposed to the religious right that you automatically take the diametrically opposite position to them on any subject where they make their views known.

Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this?

You're taking it to the extreme, again. Personally, I don't believe that is any way to treat your child. However, the bill doesn't draw any disctinction between smacking your child repeatedly round the head with a length of 2x4 and giving a child a sharp smack on the hand. One causes head injuries, and the other causes a moment's discomfort. Are you really saying those two things are the same? As I states before (twice) Chester Borrows sought an amendment to the Bill which would have clarified what was acceptable as force that caused transitory and trivial effects. But Bradford, on a crusade as usual, rejected it out of hand and threatened everyone with a toy ejection if it was passed.

I'm not aware of the Judge letting them off. There were some cases where the jury did. There was some evedince that on one trial the jury aquited on the basis of it's hostile attitude to Labour. I did a lot of research on this way back and came across some commments from one of the legal sites on this. Have no idea if true or not.

www.commielaw.co.nz, was it? I can't be bothered trying to find the reference you're referring to, but unless the jury were polled on their political leanings - which is so highly unlikely as to be farcical - then no-one would know if they had an anti-Labour attitude or not. Secondly, as already pointed out, Sue Bradford's not a member of the Labour Party anyway.

Toaster

22nd November 2007, 17:55

That Kahui drop kick gets 3 chances at bail, after fucking each previous one up, and he's going on trial for murder.

Some frustrated dad gets a criminal record for dealing out some what-fors on a naughty kid.

Hey, to be fair, I dont know the full story, maybe the guy was excessive, and this is a good thing, or maybe some busy body relly dobbed in a dad doing his best to straighten out a naughty kid, with the intention of showing him consequences.

Without all the facts, I can only bluster, but I renew my distaste at the anti smacking bill.

Personally I agree on all points. However, from a purely legal standpoint it is worth noting that it appears the police did have some relevant history with the guy which was taken into account in deciding whether or not they charged him. Also, given that the law was to-date untested, it was important that the case be heard to develop common law precedent.

That "bill" is now law and no longer a bill. The law does make a distinction between physical discipline to prevent or stop certain behaviour and that of physical discipline for correction. It is the latter that is now illegal.

What the guy did was "after the fact". The other issue would likely be the fact that the child was bruised as a result of the disciplining. Lasting effects like bruising are also within the scope of the new laws. Had it been just the 3 smacks, then the only issue was the fact it was done as a corrective rather than preventative action.

Something to ponder anyway :)

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 18:01

Of course there are other ways mate! Searching for them is the greatest challenge sometimes. You know me and I know you, with the greatest of respect here........parenting a child with a disability (no matter what it is) comes with its own set of challenges I agree, but untill you are faced with a non-disabled child telling you to get fucked or the childish equivalent of that, you simply can not say turning the other cheek and smiling is truely an option in some circumstances.......THE END

Am off to the ATNR ride!

Do you make good coffee....enjoy the ride...........

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 18:02

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

Not the Kiwi way that I grew up with...

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 18:15

It seems to be the 5 out of the current 28 that are making the most noise.......

u4ea

22nd November 2007, 18:16

.

My stance on this is that I don't believe in smacking but I don't appreciate the government telling me how to raise kids.

I'm the same but it's because I didn't like the jug cord welts(don't quite know what sort of a five year old I was,maybe my behaviour was a reaction to the sexual abuse as well)..only ever smacked my 17 yr old 3 times in his life..a mate has a three year old which likes to pour out all the shampoo and washing powder,she was concerned as she smacked his bum.I told her its fine as under the law it's to "prevent harm" and those things contain chemicles.It is an individual choice to smack in my veiw as well so long as it isnt genuine abuse.Bradford needs to get a grip on her own issues by the sounds of it.

MSTRS

22nd November 2007, 18:21

Repeat after me..."No seats and under 5%" - there's (at least) one that'll be straight back on TheBenefit...

Grahameeboy

22nd November 2007, 18:26

It seems to be the 5 out of the current 28 that are making the most noise.......

Less is more.................

Jantar

22nd November 2007, 18:48

given that the law was to-date untested, it was important that the case be heard to develop common law precedent.
Unfortunately the case still hasn't been heard. H pleaded guilty, so no test of the law was carried out.

What the guy did was "after the fact". The other issue would likely be the fact that the child was bruised as a result of the disciplining.
No evidence was presented that the bruising was as a result of the discipline. For that reason he was only charged with the smacking, not the bruising.

Pussy

22nd November 2007, 19:06

I heard that Bradford was raped by her father. If this is true, it might explain her hatred of men but come on, go see a shrink bitch. Don't take it out on us.

This is what happens when you vote for Labour and MMP.

Her father would need to have been pissed and she would have needed a paper bag on her head. He probably only tupped her because he was too lazy to wank

ynot slow

22nd November 2007, 19:15

For f.cks sake I don't need a law to tell me the differance between,a smack which leaves a red mark for 10 mins or so and bash which leaves a break or bruise.

Can't recall getting thrashed as a kid,maybe the odd smack,never had a strap or wooden spoon,just hand.Got worse from some of the ornery old nuns,i.e triangle scale ruler on knuckles,strap.

Don't think as kids my brother and I were rebels but we also understood when the folks said do it or stop it we did,usually just before we were about to jump out of a window,off the roof or similar stupid things that parents know will end in tears,and they were mostly correct.:bash::Oops:

Hitcher

22nd November 2007, 19:19

candor

22nd November 2007, 19:51

I am totally for the right of sane people to smack, but like alcohol there are some people who should steer well clear of it. Aggro types. They should walk away or delegate the smacking duties to calmer adults.

My little ears pricked up listening to the news and 2 things I heard about this case were of interest
1. this dad had been in strife over his "style" before.... hmmmm.
2. He smacked in anger, and can anyone tell me how a smack on the rear results in heavy enough shoulder bruising to come up on a photo? Huh, huh?

Worst kid I know was raised by an antismacker. Justine bit everyone (I hated visiting as I feared her teeth up till her teens) and turned out like Paris Hilton. I think they based Paris on Justine actually. Like most of us I come from a thousand year lineage of smacking forebears. To my knowledge I never experienced or saw it done in anger or unwisely in 4 generations of my extended family.

Against the smacking ban 100% but am prolly for this conviction... because he smacked in ANGER - which means there is a good chance the nature of the act was not corrective and nurturing like a mother wolf nipping her cub. But that the nature of the act was instead retributive and ego driven.

The nature of the act (and kids sense this) makes all the difference to the outcome. Loving correction including non angry smacking will produce a responsible self controlled adult with boundaries.

Hateful correction by an angry ego monster will simply produce a similar ego driven psychopathic bully, who likes to transfer its negative feeling onto someone elses shoulders to bare, as an adult.

This law is treating the general population like we are all in the 4% of adults with serious narcissistic traits, ie potential Kahuis. Who aren't law abiders anyway.... so what a waste of Parliamentary effort. I saw it all as a terribly sad and unjustifiable diversion from addressing the root causes of the problem at hand. Like the idea unfit parents have a right to retain custody - like letting drug f***ed parents just go for it etc etc. This was all a "feel good" diversion from the too hard basket if you ask me.

tuhoerider

22nd November 2007, 19:57

I assume you'll be happy to find me a photo of that bruise and then let me bruise you to that extent?

Goodness knows you'd be able to handle it better than an 8 year old.

I'm sure you wouldn't dream of charging me with assault if I did it.

Oh, you would?

But if you were my son, someone I had a responsibility to protect, and also someone with no hope of defending themselves against me, it'd be OK? Not assault in that case?

Gotcha.

:niceone:

Assualt is illegal anyway whats the point of banning smacking a kid? Think the stink eye will work on a 3 yr old?

mstriumph

22nd November 2007, 19:57

............. The children are powerless.

................

as WE, the people, are powerless against undisciplined children - unfortunately...

i was walking along a local street at lunchtime and watched, thunderstruck, as i was overtaken by a small boy of about 7 or 8, who proceded to DELIBERATELY kick over rubbish bins and street noticeboards along the pavement before ramming an abandoned shopping trolley into a parked car ...

when i recovered enough to shout "Hey you - stop that" the little arsehole picked up a stone and threw it at me :crazy:

i took a few steps towards him [in a threatening manner] before i realised this is the age of political correctness and stopped - by which time he had correctly interpreted the message inherant in my actions and raced off ....

but i tell you, he has done NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to the wellbeing of anglo-immigrant/native-aborigine relations.... if the bastards want reconciliation they'll have to stop their trashy kids pinching my purse and chucking rocks at taxpayers

*mutter mutter mutter*

Balding Eagle

22nd November 2007, 20:00

While I agree with Hitcher's position "That the media don't tell you all the facts so really you can't judge", my original opinion on the legislation is unchanged. If the kid was hurt really badly then the father could and should be charged with assault. If he was simply being disciplined with a smack by his father, then the government should f... off out of his life. The legislation was unnecessary and a waste of government's time.

As for the principle of corporal punishment, I am in favour. I don't recall being smacked by my parents but I was caned three times at college for misdemeanours that I deserved to be punished for. Sure as hell made me think and straightened me out and made me into the fine upstanding citizen I am today!! By the same token, I have heard about teachers who really abused the use of the cane and should have been strung up. Used right, the cane was a great tool that should be used on some of the little ar..holes who inhabit the classrooms of today. I have heard about all sorts of abuse of teachers which makes my hair curl (if I had any). If they had the cane today to use on the miscreants there would be fewer in the jails tomorrow.

Manxman

22nd November 2007, 20:09

Being on his shoulder, I guess he had to restrain the child to apply the smacking? This, and if that is the case, may have been because the kid was either a little prick, or simply sick of getting his beats. The bullshit no depth article doesn't give any indication. It's not an article written to inform, it's an article written by some retarded loser who merely wants to inflame and sell. Yes, I think the 'reporter' (and I use that term lightly) is a cock..

Here, here. A lot of people have made very astute points on this thread. This is one of them...

Usarka

22nd November 2007, 20:11

Mrs T aint no fool. She aint no jibba jabberin about them little punks. T wants to put some hurt on them fools. But it's the law thats the fool, fool.
http://a0.vox.com/6a00bf76d0a9b7438300c2252095a08e1d-320pi

tri boy

22nd November 2007, 20:17

1. Nobody knows any more about this case than has been published in the media to date, coverage which is Court censored and selective. It is therefore pointless trying to form a reasoned view until the facts are known.

2. The poll is too binary. There are more options for disciplining children than doing nothing or bashing them. "Have you stopping whacking your kids yet? Yes or No?" would have been just as meaningful.

For f**k sake Hitcher.Nobody is suggesting thatBASHING kids is the thing to do. Sheesh, I'd expect more from you.:Oi:

Re the poll. I'm a dumb prick obviously. Add what needs to be added.;)

carver

22nd November 2007, 20:19

whose is the child?
the parents or the state's?

thats the way i see things

candor

22nd November 2007, 20:24

Does this poll mean that 44 people need to be turned in to the authorities, ooh I hope Sue has no spies aboard the ship.

I'll confess first. Beulah got a smack, his only one in about 8 mths last week because he jumped on the bench after he had just been fed (dogs and horses eat before yourself)to steal food he had been forewarned not to touch - he ate my dinner, taking sly advantage of my temporary absence. It was not a lack of reaaon or knowledge it was wrong - oh the guilty face! Had he not been smacked swiftly his personality would have resulted in a repeat stunt every night ever after - an inch to a mile with this spunky boy. Bad as it felt to smack the rear, then ignore awhile to reinforce his fall from grace, I know he felt secure by the fact he was corrected. A line to toe was clarified = don't worry he sets them too.

candor

22nd November 2007, 20:27

The child is neithers property Carver. Who owns you at the end of the day? And allegiance is to?

carver

22nd November 2007, 20:33

The child is neithers property Carver. Who owns you at the end of the day? And allegiance is to?

i would like to believe once a child reaches adulthood he/she becomes independent. it is the parents responsibility to raise the child.
using force to discipline a child is just one of many ways of guiding it in the right direction.
actions have consequences, that is part of what discipline teaches

Toaster

22nd November 2007, 20:37

Unfortunately the case still hasn't been heard. H pleaded guilty, so no test of the law was carried out.

No evidence was presented that the bruising was as a result of the discipline. For that reason he was only charged with the smacking, not the bruising.

Jantar it was apparently presented in the summary of facts that the child was bruised as a result of him being held down. He was charged with and pled guilty to assault which related to both the act of smacking and the act of holding him down - which allegedly caused an injury. Remember the "smacking bill" is a media term, not a term relating to the actual Act itself - which relates to acts of assault. Smacking is merely one form of assault. Under law, a kiss, a grab, touch, hold or a push are all technical assaults just as much as a slap, punch, tackle or other more violent action.

On the first matter, the judge commented that the defendant's actions were no longer allowable under the law. The facts as presented to the Court and the summary from the Judge indicated he would most have been found guilty under jury trial or certainly under a Judges hearing.

From experience I would estimate that his defence lawyer would have likely advised his client to plead guilty because he would have faced a more severe punishment if he plead not guilty and dragged it out to trial or defended hearing.

JimO

22nd November 2007, 20:42

did you see Bradford on the news, she is geting jabba the hutts disease:lol:

Jorja

22nd November 2007, 20:46

What I would love to know is who the hell told my boy? He came home from school saying

"Mum do you know you can't smack me anymore or you could be arrested?"

was told by a teacher at school recently that they cannot verbally tell a student off as it is classed as abuse.

davereid

22nd November 2007, 20:47

ya don't need to smack 'em anyway.

Just gently hold their delicate little cherub faces in your hands as you explain the error of their ways.

And sink your index fingers into the pressure point in the jaw line, just below the ear lobe.

They get a headache they will remember for days, but you will leave no marks.

Good old communist police torture technique, highly recommended as is both effective and impossible to prove.

candor

22nd November 2007, 20:54

There could be some evil people reading here Dave. Yanno the PCs are worried about tv screens inspiring stuff. OTT you were right about those things they're installing on roads. Letter from cops affirmed some such experimentation.

Katman

22nd November 2007, 20:56

Sadly, if the bill had existed 35 years ago my Mum would be locked up, never to see the light of day again. Thankfully, I can look back and truely say I believe Mum (and Dad) did a good job.

Skyryder

22nd November 2007, 21:03

As I do not have any children I have not commented on Sue Bradford's bill however my own thoughts are in keeping with the small anti-smacking minority on this.

The general feeling within Ministry circles was that Bradford's legislation was in line with many children's advocacy groups and was necessary. Many of these institutions were aware of the abuse that was going but due to the uncertain nature of the jury deliberations only the serious cases went to Court. Others were considered but due to financial restrictions and the uncertainty of a successful conviction many were never presented to court. What has never been fully expressed is the intent of her bill. That is to reduce the physical harm inflicted on children by their parents. No one that has any feeling not only for their child but others too can not disagree with Bradford's intent and I for one commend her for that. That many politicians only came on board to protect children at the 11th hour is too their everlasting shame. The reality of the world that we all live in is that the majority usually have to pay the price so that the minority 'can not' do as they please.

devnull

22nd November 2007, 21:17

whose is the child?
the parents or the state's?

thats the way i see things

It's not ownership, it's a bond.

I never saw "the state" when we were sitting for hours, week after week, in an intensive care unit after our little boy was born prematurely.

Courtesan, I'm not arguing that the idea of reducing child abuse is wrong, the method chosen is.
Like banning all trees to avoid forest fires.

There was an excellent article posted last year in the British Journal of Social Work called "The Swedish Myth"
They (Sweden) assumed, as Bradford has, that more control by the state is better. History has proved them wrong.
The article also cites several U.N. sponsered studies that were done to identify risk factors for abuse.
It was found that low maternal age, low maternal education level, drug or alcohol abuse, were all key indicators. Severity was exacerbated by poverty.

Address these issues, and you're well on the way to combating the problem. Spain has the lowest incidence of child abuse in the world, but who here has asked why? They still smack their kids. Something to ponder...

Indiana_Jones

22nd November 2007, 21:20

so acording to the law someone posted up, I can smack my child if they are disruptive, but not for correction?

Then just say you were stopping their disruptive behaviour and were not correcting them

-Indy

carver

22nd November 2007, 21:21

It's not ownership, it's a bond.

I never saw "the state" when we were sitting for hours, week after week, in an intensive care unit after our little boy was born prematurely.

no, but im guessing your in a public hospital, run by the state

devnull

22nd November 2007, 21:27

no, but im guessing your in a public hospital, run by the state

Unfortunately, yes.
Then again, we arrived at the delivery suite by ambulance with 10 minutes to spare. My lad was in a hurry to meet us :hug:

carver

22nd November 2007, 21:30

Unfortunately, yes.
Then again, we arrived at the delivery suite by ambulance with 10 minutes to spare. My lad was in a hurry to meet us :hug:

fuck...i have no idea what that would be like

yes, the state is big these days

devnull

22nd November 2007, 21:49

fuck...i have no idea what that would be like

yes, the state is big these days

The story is a funny one... now ;)

My wife had had what she thought was Braxton-Hicks contractions overnight. The following morning I told her I'd take the day off work and we'd go see the midwife. She reckoned I should go to work and she'd be fine, but I decided not to.

We met the midwife at the hospital, they put her on a monitor, and told us all was well, it was way too early (by 6 weeks), and that we should go home. Diagnosis was an irritable uterus.

Well, we got home, and the pains got worse. I called the midwife after an hour and told her that this didn't seem right. She said call back if anything else happens.

Waters broke about 1/2 an hour later.

Well, the midwife said get back to the hospital now.
Yep, thats going to happen. No way was my wife able to go by car at that stage. So it was a 111 call to get a vehicle out to take her. Poor bloke on the phone tried to talk me through it all, until I pointed out that I'd spent 5 years with St John, and all I really wanted was the job keyed in and a vehicle dispatched.

It's at this point that you fully realise that things are completely different when your own family are involved. Objectivity goes out the window.

Anyway, an LSU turns up, we get her into the vehicle, and its a lights & siren trip to hospital. 10 minutes after we get there, our son is born (5lb 7oz)
We get a quick look at him, then he's whisked away. We got to see him 2 hours later in SCBU.

BTW, no.2 is now on the way - we're hoping for a more sedate experience this time :2thumbsup

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 08:07

As I do not have any children I have not commented on Sue Bradford's bill however my own thoughts are in keeping with the small anti-smacking minority on this....

The general feeling within Ministry circles was that Bradford's legislation was in line with many children's advocacy groups and was necessary.

... The reality of the world that we all live in is that the majority usually have to pay the price so that the minority 'can not' do as they please.

Nobody who has no children should have any right to tell those who do, how to raise them....There are an endless number of theories out there as to 'how to raise children' and all of them are fundamentally flawed. Including the theories held by parents. Every child is different and requires different input, even within the same family. The 'one size fits all' - doesn't.

And the general feeling amongst some religious groups is that it is ok to doorknock and hassle people etc - doesn't make it right for them to do so.

You think the minority are listening?? Or care??

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 08:13

You must be taking lessons from III; someone answers your questions with facts and you blindly ignore them and carry on regardless. The true sign of a zealot.

Opinion polls - not the most reliable gauge of public opinion, but the best we've got - indicated that 80% of the population were against the bill. Roughly 40% of the population, according to the last census, identified themselves as Christian. Yes, the religious right were against this bill, but where does the other 40% come from? Or are you, like III, so ideologically opposed to the religious right that you automatically take the diametrically opposite position to them on any subject where they make their views known.

You're taking it to the extreme, again. Personally, I don't believe that is any way to treat your child. However, the bill doesn't draw any disctinction between smacking your child repeatedly round the head with a length of 2x4 and giving a child a sharp smack on the hand. One causes head injuries, and the other causes a moment's discomfort. Are you really saying those two things are the same? As I states before (twice) Chester Borrows sought an amendment to the Bill which would have clarified what was acceptable as force that caused transitory and trivial effects. But Bradford, on a crusade as usual, rejected it out of hand and threatened everyone with a toy ejection if it was passed.

www.commielaw.co.nz, was it? I can't be bothered trying to find the reference you're referring to, but unless the jury were polled on their political leanings - which is so highly unlikely as to be farcical - then no-one would know if they had an anti-Labour attitude or not. Secondly, as already pointed out, Sue Bradford's not a member of the Labour Party anyway.

I'm not going to debate your post point by point as I simply don't have the time.

But the bottom line on this is that the child was manhandled in such a way as to cause bruising. The mother was sufficiently concern to take photographs as evidence and a relative of the child reported the incident to the Police who took out the prosecution. The father pleaded guilty.

As a result of Bradford's bill there is at least one child that has been afforded the protection that both you and I have as of right. All other arguments opposing childrens protection from violent parents and their actions pale into insignificance when the choice is freedom to inflict pain as against.

Skyryder

trev

23rd November 2007, 08:19

The trouble with you lot is you are not creative enough - find other solutions such as the enclosed p/t

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 08:33

As a result of Bradford's bill there is at least one child that has been afforded the protection that both you and I have as of right.

Did you think about that before you typed it? The fact that the child was assaulted, if that's what it was, refutes your statement.

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 09:06

Did you think about that before you typed it? The fact that the child was assaulted, if that's what it was, refutes your statement.

The protection that you and I have as of right refers to the protection of the Court not the parent that you post implies.

If you are going to comment on my posts try and understand them first.

Skyryder

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 09:14

The protection that you and I have as of right refers to the protection of the Court not the parent that you post implies.

If you are going to comment on my posts try and understand them first.

Skyryder

Stop trying to be disingenuous....
Protection implies that the 'bad thing' will be stopped from happening...it wasn't.
It would be correct to say that any sort of law allows legal consequenses for whomsoever may break that law. That is different.

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 09:42

Stop trying to be disingenuous....
Protection implies that the 'bad thing' will be stopped from happening...it wasn't.
It would be correct to say that any sort of law allows legal consequenses for whomsoever may break that law. That is different.

No it is not.

The victim of these 'legal consequences' is given protection of the law by the courts by way of the guilty plea (that's the child in the case in question) The protection of the court is also applied by way of sentance. No law isgoing to stop perpetrators from breaking it. It just means that it becomes unlawful. Jeeeezzz are you that dumb? I mean realy.

If you are going to use fancy words use the right ones. Disingenuous=having secret motives, insincere. Nothing secret about my support for for Bradford's bill and as for me being insincere...............not too sure just how you arrived at that conclusion............been reading your tea leaves. Try a tea bag in future that way there are no leaves for you to misinterpret.

Skyryder

Pixie

23rd November 2007, 09:57

THAT is exactly what we have to worry about...I have spoken myself to little 9 year old tough guys who told me to "fuck off" and when asked what sort of language this was, their answer was very quick to come back as :

"what are you going to do about it?"

If no longer any consequences to bad behaviour, then there no longer any limits.

I am not condoning violence, but consequences have to be kept to retain respect. We are going too far one way or the other: what's wrong with finding a right balance? People think it's too hard and therefor put it in the "too hard" basket.
What these pinko pc fuckwit academics don't understand is that kids instinctively push the limits to establish their place in the hierarchy.On top of that they are egocentric up to the age of 7 or 8 and only respond to whatever affects them directly.Even if they seem to want to please others it is only for the benefit they can gain for themselves.This is a unconsious behaviour trait in all mammal offspring.

If they are not reprimanded with the most effective penalty - minor physical or emotional pain as all other mammal parents do, they realise that they don't need to do as they are told and remain self centered little shits as they enter adulthood.

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 10:13

No it is not.

The victim of these 'legal consequences' is given protection of the law by the courts by way of the guilty plea (that's the child in the case in question) The protection of the court is also applied by way of sentance. No law isgoing to stop perpetrators from breaking it. It just means that it becomes unlawful. Jeeeezzz are you that dumb? I mean realy.

If you are going to use fancy words use the right ones. Disingenuous=having secret motives, insincere. Nothing secret about my support for for Bradford's bill and as for me being insincere...............not too sure just how you arrived at that conclusion............been reading your tea leaves. Try a tea bag in future that way there are no leaves for you to misinterpret.

Skyryder

Sigh....the legal consequences apply to the lawbreaker, not the victim.
I'm not stupid - I know what you mean, but like many laws, it could have been worded better. Just like this stupid law. There was nothing wrong with how it was (S.59) but Chester's attempt was just too sensible.
American Heritage Dictionary
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jěn'yōō-əs) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 10:19

Sigh....the legal consequences apply to the lawbreaker, not the victim.
I'm not stupid - I know what you mean, but like many laws, it could have been worded better. Just like this stupid law. There was nothing wrong with how it was (S.59) but Chester's attempt was just too sensible.

Look up pedantic. Futile springs to mind too but I suspect that you already know the meaning.

Skyryder

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 10:24

Look up pedantic. Futile springs to mind too but I suspect that you already know the meaning.

Skyryder
:argh:
I'm well aware of the meanings of both those words.
If meaning of pedantic includes 'say what you mean', then we agree on something.:eek5:
As for futile...yes, I'm arguing with an idiot :nya:

007XX

23rd November 2007, 10:28

If they are not reprimanded with the most effective penalty - minor physical or emotional pain as all other mammal parents do, they realise that they don't need to do as they are told and remain self centered little shits as they enter adulthood.

Most definitely...what pisses me off the most though I think, is that those supporting this law are basically saying that no parent is ever capable of restraining themselves in how far they go with the intensity with which they restrain or correct their child.

So what? we are all child beaters??? C'mon, give me a break...

Storm

23rd November 2007, 10:46

Dont ya know? We're all child bashers, and dont get me started on what I am- as a middle class white male who works for his money, I'm well known as a racist chold molesting scumbag with no concern for anyone except himself. And I am also one of those smelly, lawbreaking "biker" types to top it all off

Sadly, that seems to be the way NZ is going these days

*shrugs, stops beating head futily against wall and goes back to life*

devnull

23rd November 2007, 10:49

Most definitely...what pisses me off the most though I think, is that those supporting this law are basically saying that no parent is ever capable of restraining themselves in how far they go with the intensity with which they restrain or correct their child.

So what? we are all child beaters??? C'mon, give me a break...

Agreed.

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them :Oi:

mstriumph

23rd November 2007, 12:09

so acording to the law someone posted up, I can smack my child if they are disruptive, but not for correction?
...................

-Indy you have CHILD?? sheesh, that's scarey!! :no:

007XX

23rd November 2007, 12:18

Agreed.

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them :Oi:

Based on section 4, any member of the Police Corp is....Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Usarka

23rd November 2007, 12:25

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them :Oi:

Yeah Helen Clarke pisses me off too....

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 12:32

:argh:
I'm well aware of the meanings of both those words.
If meaning of pedantic includes 'say what you mean', then we agree on something.:eek5:
As for futile...yes, I'm arguing with an idiot :nya:

Pedantic does not mean 'say what you mean' It's meaning is 'to the strict adherance.......... and to the literal meaning at the expense of the wider view.'

The word that you are wanting is articulate. Able to speak or write fluently or coherently. That means using the correct word or words for what you want to say or describe accurately etc.

As for me being an idiot I can only assume that this is based on the fact that I do not agree with you. Once again wrong word.:spanking:

Skyryder

tri boy

23rd November 2007, 12:45

How was the Fishing?

devnull

23rd November 2007, 12:47

How was the Fishing?

As opposed to the trolling? :spanking:

tri boy

23rd November 2007, 12:52

As opposed to the trolling? :spanking:

Owww! that really hurt.:weep:
Wheres Sue when you need her. (blows hard on Dog Whistle).

Ocean1

23rd November 2007, 13:13

True, but then you have to wonder why the kids are like that............poor parenting, set bad examples.........I am sure if you looked at more closely there would be a a link to the parents behaviour, could be they argue a lot, seperated, all sorts of things.............they see their parents get away with things so they copy...........

Absolutely agree. Those kids are violent or disruptive because the parents failed to effectively set limits to their behaviour. It really is that simple.

Some kids invariably respond to simple no/yes statements and some don't, some are teachable using exclusively positive reinforcement techniques and some aren't. I'd suggest most (boys in particular) occasionally need negative concequences to reinforce behavioural lessons. And make no mistake, the effect of Bradford's ill-considered piece of bullshit, (should one be so irresponsible as to fail to ignore it as required), is to remove a vital component of the tools nescessary to raise well behaved kids.

007XX

23rd November 2007, 13:19

Absolutely agree. Those kids are violent or disruptive because the parents failed to effectively set limits to their behaviour. It really is that simple.

Some kids invariably respond to simple no/yes statements and some don't, some are teachable using exclusively positive reinforcement techniques and some aren't. I'd suggest most (boys in particular) occasionally need negative concequences to reinforce behavioural lessons. And make no mistake, the effect of Bradford's ill-considered piece of bullshit, (should one be so irresponsible as to fail to ignore it as required), is to remove a vital component of the tools nescessary to raise well behaved kids.

:niceone: I missed ya! and yes, agree totally...

As many of us have posted since this thread started, we are not advocating beating the daylight out of children. Those who do should be very severely prosecuted and punished.

But these are a case by case occurence and should be treated as such...not a gross generalisation treating every parent as a potencial criminal.

It is an insult to all parents.

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 13:42

:argh:
I'm well aware of the meanings of both those words.
If meaning of pedantic includes 'say what you mean', then we agree on something.:eek5:OK - it is pedantic to insist that one 'says what they mean'...statements like 'the victim faces the legal consequences' say one thing, when the opposite was intended
As for futile...yes, I'm arguing with an idiot :nya:

Pedantic does not mean 'say what you mean' It's meaning is 'to the strict adherance.......... and to the literal meaning at the expense of the wider view.'
Spelling, old boy:hitcher:
The word that you are wanting is articulate. Able to speak or write fluently or coherently. That means using the correct word or words for what you want to say or describe accurately etc.
Indeed :shifty:
As for me being an idiot I can only assume that this is based on the fact that I do not agree with you. Once again wrong word.:spanking:
Failure to agree does not an idiot make...arguing for a flawed concept, when no evidence exists to support that argument, does.
Skyryder
Correspondence is closed. Ed.

Ocean1

23rd November 2007, 14:41

:niceone: I missed ya! and yes, agree totally...

It is an insult to all parents.

Aw shucks. :o

Was hugely impressed by the kids in China, not many little ones out in public, (not many little ones period, one per couple and all...) but the ones I saw were cheerful and well managed. The teenagers all wanted to talk, about everything, they were well spoken, knew where/what NZ was and desperate for a chance to improve their english by speaking to a native user. (insert sarcasm here).

They're also fascinated by beards.

007XX

23rd November 2007, 14:53

Aw shucks. :o

Was hugely impressed by the kids in China, not many little ones out in public, (not many little ones period, one per couple and all...) but the ones I saw were cheerful and well managed. The teenagers all wanted to talk, about everything, they were well spoken, knew where/what NZ was and desperate for a chance to improve their english by speaking to a native user. (insert sarcasm here).

They're also fascinated by beards.

Funnily enough, I found the same in Malaysia a few years ago...lovely kids with lots of smiles. The only problem was that they were so poor, they were continually begging for money, which positively made me feel like a criminal for looking so well fed and having clean clothes on my back.

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 15:08

As opposed to the trolling? :spanking:

Much much better.:love:

Ocean1

23rd November 2007, 15:13

Funnily enough, I found the same in Malaysia a few years ago...lovely kids with lots of smiles.

Perhaps one of the differences is the cultural acceptance of having a place, a defined role to undertake, (in China). Malaysia seems to have lost some of their cultural societal values, seems to be a common feature in rapidly changing cultures.

The only problem was that they were so poor, they were continually begging for money, which positively made me feel like a criminal for looking so well fed and having clean clothes on my back.

Well fed? You hardly look over-nourished m'dear, you do need clothes on the front as well however.

007XX

23rd November 2007, 15:25

Perhaps one of the differences is the cultural acceptance of having a place, a defined role to undertake, (in China). Malaysia seems to have lost some of their cultural societal values, seems to be a common feature in rapidly changing cultures.

Yes, I have heard that before. I was in Malaysia quite some years ago, and I am told it has quite a bit in latter years, not for the best either. Which is an absolute shame, as it was in my mind one of the most beautiful place on earth.

Well fed? You hardly look over-nourished m'dear, you do need clothes on the front as well however.

Oh, that must be why you were stuggling to look me in the eye upon our meeting. Can you even remember what colour they are? :Pokey:

The Tazman

23rd November 2007, 15:46

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 15:47

Correspondence is closed. Ed.

I'm only getting into my stride.

Failure to agree does not an idiot make...arguing for a flawed concept, when no evidence exists to support that argument, does.

Not too sure who penned this under my name but it's a fancy way of saying that until there is evidence to the contrary one should not support an argument or take a position on anything unless some kind of evidence can be produced to support it.

In other words supporting an argument where there is no evidence does not neccessarily make for an idiot. Einstien could no more support his theory with evidence but no one would call him an idiot.

A 'concept' is an abstract idea among other things. The very nature of this (abstract ) can at times preclude the gathering or the presentation of evidence as in the Theory of Relitivity. Instead the idea is argued on logical grounds.(mathamatical equations is one) The meaning of concept that you have defined falls outside of the parameters of this discussion.

I

Skyryder

Ocean1

23rd November 2007, 15:47

Oh, that must be why you were stuggling to look me in the eye upon our meeting. Can you even remember what colour they are? :Pokey:

The clothes? No idea, did you not notice my general lack of fashion awareness?.

Be fair though, I was struggling to maintain eye contact with the whole premesis at the time.

007XX

23rd November 2007, 15:51

The clothes? No idea, did you not notice my general lack of fashion awareness?.

Be fair though, I was struggling to maintain eye contact with the whole premesis at the time.

True enough...:laugh: :drinknsin

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 16:02

Can I just point out the poll results!!!! How did the anti smacking law get passed!!!!!

I can't believe that people thought that this law would stop those low life scum f**ks that BEAT (not smack) their kids. How many stupid people are there out there?????

There are laws about murder but does it stop it happening?????????

All this law has done has taken away another form of discipline and as it goes on we see more and more what kind of kids are appearing. They all think they can do what they like, say what they like and when ever they like. When you really speak to good honest people you find out they had some discipline, often in the way of the odd smack.

Until people realise there will be consequences for THEIR actions and it's THEIR fault not someone else's it's just going to get worse.

I'm sure there'll be some do gooders out there that would disagree but look where all this PC shite has got us.

That's my opinion anyway

There's a thread on this somewhere. No one that I know who was in support of Bradford's bill has said that her bill would stop child abuse etc. No legislation will prevent murder, theft, fraud etc. It just makes it unlawfull to do so. The bill is to prevent the use of reasonble force as a defence. It was no more or less than that. I don't belive that holding parents accountable for inflicting unneccassary pain and injury on their siblings is PC.

I can not for the life of me see what the problem is. There is a choice here. Parents who have the right as they see fit to inflict pain and injuty on their children or the right of the child to recieve an upbringing where pain and injury are unacceptable. Clearly the community see the latter. Thats' the real tragedy.

Skyryder

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 16:50

Can I just point out the poll results!!!! How did the anti smacking law get passed!!!!!

Because, like certain people here, the pollies, who are supposed to represent the will of the people, were not listening. Same as the dog-chipping business.

devnull

23rd November 2007, 17:13

There's a thread on this somewhere. No one that I know who was in support of Bradford's bill has said that her bill would stop child abuse etc. No legislation will prevent murder, theft, fraud etc. It just makes it unlawfull to do so. The bill is to prevent the use of reasonble force as a defence. It was no more or less than that. I don't belive that holding parents accountable for inflicting unneccassary pain and injury on their siblings is PC.

I can not for the life of me see what the problem is. There is a choice here. Parents who have the right as they see fit to inflict pain and injuty on their children or the right of the child to recieve an upbringing where pain and injury are unacceptable. Clearly the community see the latter. Thats' the real tragedy.

Skyryder

The term "reasonable force" is very well tested in law i.e. that deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances by a jury of your peers.

I can not for the life of me see what the problem is. There is a choice here. Parents who have the right as they see fit to inflict pain and injuty on their children or the right of the child to recieve an upbringing where pain and injury are unacceptable. Clearly the community see the latter. Thats' the real tragedy.

Skyryder

Actually, the real tragedy is the misguided (and I'm being generous there) individuals that have absolutely no idea about raising kids, yet insist on inflicting their idealistic claptrap on those that do.
Maybe when you become a parent you'll then be able to see what the problem is.

Your implication of "inflicting pain and injury" is ludicrous.

If that was valid, then an equally valid example would be a parent putting a 12 gauge solid into the chest of any social worker that comes calling, then justifying their actions under S48 (self defence)

I'm surprised that Bradford's statement in parliament that it's mostly men that smack, and they only do so for sexual gratification, hasn't been trotted out yet.

I'm left wondering at the level of maturity of those that take up the whole anti-smacking argument in the face of mountains of proven research that clearly shows they are wrong. Must be some form of left-wing religious hysteria, because there's certainly no rational reason evident

Mom

23rd November 2007, 17:28

Parents who have the right as they see fit to inflict pain and injuty on their children or the right of the child to recieve an upbringing where pain and injury are unacceptable. Clearly the community see the latter. Thats' the real tragedy.

Skyryder

I was going to leave this one alone but I can not leave your comment.

A few for questions for you...Can you give us an indication of your age, and whether you actually have children, or have ever been responsible for the parenting of children?

In your eyes I am part of the tragedy because I have smacked my kids, causing them a short, sharp pain!!!!!!!! Have never injured them though, but you make no differentation at all. Perhaps I should go to the police station now and turn myself in?

Grahameeboy

23rd November 2007, 17:47

Absolutely agree. Those kids are violent or disruptive because the parents failed to effectively set limits to their behaviour. It really is that simple.

Some kids invariably respond to simple no/yes statements and some don't, some are teachable using exclusively positive reinforcement techniques and some aren't. I'd suggest most (boys in particular) occasionally need negative concequences to reinforce behavioural lessons. And make no mistake, the effect of Bradford's ill-considered piece of bullshit, (should one be so irresponsible as to fail to ignore it as required), is to remove a vital component of the tools nescessary to raise well behaved kids.

Sorry I cannot agree that the Bill is bullshit to remove parents tools..like all tools they can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

devnull

23rd November 2007, 17:58

Sorry I cannot agree that the Bill is bullshit to remove parents tools..like all tools they can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

A defibrillator can be dangerous in the wrong hands. So can insulin.
By that reasoning, these lifesaving things available to us should be banned as well?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

The "tools" aren't the problem. It comes back to personal responsibility. Something that is discouraged in the current social environment. Those of us that say this out loud are labelled "religious fundamentalists"

But what the name-callers are missing is something more basic - our whole society is based on "religious" values. By that I don't mean "attend this church" or "worship that god". More like the "thou shalt not kill" type stuff i.e. Commandments

Until we drop the "no responsibility" bullshit, and the govt gets its act together with things like stopping making teen pregnancy a valid career choice, it's not going to change

Grahameeboy

23rd November 2007, 18:12

A defibrillator can be dangerous in the wrong hands. So can insulin.
By that reasoning, these lifesaving things available to us should be banned as well?

No silly. They are used by trained an qualified medical professionals. Yes mistakes will be made but parents are different. They often have self interest motives.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

The "tools" aren't the problem. It comes back to personal responsibility. Something that is discouraged in the current social environment. Those of us that say this out loud are labelled "religious fundamentalists"

No it is not. The Bill sends a message to remind us that parents have a personal responsiblity.

But what the name-callers are missing is something more basic - our whole society is based on "religious" values. By that I don't mean "attend this church" or "worship that god". More like the "thou shalt not kill" type stuff i.e. Commandments

Not a lot wrong with that though. What other values should we use?

Until we drop the "no responsibility" bullshit, and the govt gets its act together with things like stopping making teen pregnancy a valid career choice, it's not going to change

I agree, lets stop paying ACC to drunk drivers and passengers and apply contributory negligence to ACC claimants.......and send a message that society says we must take personal responsibility like you have said earlier........is teen pregnancy a career choice?

.................

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 18:32

They often have self interest motives.
And kids don't ?

No it is not. The Bill sends a message to remind us that parents have a personal responsiblity.
The parents who aren't a problem don't need to be reminded. And those that are a problem - well, legislate all you like...ha!!

But what the name-callers are missing is something more basic - our whole society is based on "religious" values. By that I don't mean "attend this church" or "worship that god". More like the "thou shalt not kill" type stuff i.e. Commandments
I've often stated that very thing in these forums

........is teen pregnancy a career choice?
Oh yes...you must led a fairly sheltered life. There are whole families out there who make their living this way.

devnull

23rd November 2007, 18:41

I don't believe the bill does send a message.

Chester Borrows bill did - it set very rigid guidelines, and was good, well-written law.

Instead, we ended up with an amendment that allows abusers to get away with more than what they could under the original section. Bradford's bill exclusively bans "correction", nothing else i.e. bad law.

The original applied a measurement based on whether your peers would have done the same in the circumstances presented to the court.
A similar law (that uses the same measurement) in the US is called the "Good Samaritan Law". It protects people from being sued for helping an injured person. Again, they are protected IF their actions are deemed to be reasonable under the conditions i.e. another person, with the same level of skill, would have done the same.

I do think that the ACC laws need overhauling. It's being used to milk the taxpayer, but not provide the services and compensation that it was meant to. But because of it, you can't sue, thus making it impossible for people to recover medical expenses and lost wages.

Yes, sadly teen pregnancy is now a valid career choice. As long as you can pop out kids, the govt will pay. An overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We don't want people dependent on the state; we want independent people that can think for themselves, take responsibility for themselves....

Mom

23rd November 2007, 18:45

I do think that the ACC laws need overhauling. It's being used to milk the taxpayer, but not provide the services and compensation that it was meant to. But because of it, you can't sue, thus making it impossible for people to recover medical expenses and lost wages.

Yes, sadly teen pregnancy is now a valid career choice. As long as you can pop out kids, the govt will pay. An overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We don't want people dependent on the state; we want independent people that can think for themselves, take responsibility for themselves....

Love your work! So off topic it is not funny............but really worth discussing........want to start a thread?

Grahameeboy

23rd November 2007, 18:51

........is teen pregnancy a career choice?
Oh yes...you must led a fairly sheltered life. There are whole families out there who make their living this way.

No I have not just did not realise it was a problem in the NZ....it was a while back in UK and still is but there was a real bad phase..........

devnull

23rd November 2007, 18:53

Love your work! So off topic it is not funny............but really worth discussing........want to start a thread?

Hehe... did drift a wee bit off there, didn't I? :D

Should start a thread on what's wrong with the govt & how to fix it :innocent:

Mom

23rd November 2007, 19:00

Hehe... did drift a wee bit off there, didn't I? :D
Should start a thread on what's wrong with the govt & how to fix it :innocent:

:Offtopic: I DARE you.............LOL

ps: please dont!

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 19:02

I was going to leave this one alone but I can not leave your comment.

A few for questions for you...Can you give us an indication of your age, and whether you actually have children, or have ever been responsible for the parenting of children?

In your eyes I am part of the tragedy because I have smacked my kids, causing them a short, sharp pain!!!!!!!! Have never injured them though, but you make no differentation at all. Perhaps I should go to the police station now and turn myself in?

I am 63 years of age have two girls. I spent close on twenty years as the home parent while my wife worked. Both girls have uni degress and consider each their friend. On that basis I consider that my parenting skill are second to none.

Please reread my post. I said that the society approves of inflicting pain on children. My comments were not directed to one indavidual as you seem to imply. I might add that is was not that long ago that our society aproved the beating of the wife as she was considered to be the property of the husband. Marrage vows explicity said Love Honour and Obey. Thankfully that practice is no longer tolerated and indeed in the future the arguments that are put forward today for 'smacking' children will also belong in the same rubbish bin.

Skyryder

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 19:05

We don't want people dependent on the state; we want independent people that can think for themselves, take responsibility for themselves....

This is precisely what Labour and it's sycophants wants. And they've had it for too long.

devnull

23rd November 2007, 19:05

No I have not just did not realise it was a problem in the NZ....it was a while back in UK and still is but there was a real bad phase..........

All symptoms of the same problem mate....
One bad piece of law doesn't cut it.

Fix the real issues, empower people to be responsible for their own lives instead of copping out to the state, and we start addressing the causes instead of just the symptoms.

The rot across the state infrastructure runs deep, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. Some things, like scrapping CYFS and starting again but doinf it right this time, would be a start. Judicial reviews with random samplings of court cases to ensure that judges actually do their jobs properly, with the power to sack those that don't.

In other words, right across the board, assign accountability and hold people to it. Doing a good job = praise; a bad job = bye bye.

Fatjim

23rd November 2007, 19:09

"empower people to be responsible for their own lives".

Where did this huge piece of PC horse shit come from?

You mean, "make people responsible for their own actions"

Mom

23rd November 2007, 19:10

I might add that is was not that long ago that our society aproved the beating of the wife as she was considered to be the property of the husband. Marrage vows explicity said Love Honour and Obey. Thankfully that practice is no longer tolerated and indeed in the future the arguments that are put forward today for 'smacking' children will also belong in the same rubbish bin.
Skyryder

Seems we agree on more than meets the eye....;)

Grahameeboy

23rd November 2007, 19:10

All symptoms of the same problem mate....
One bad piece of law doesn't cut it.

Fix the real issues, empower people to be responsible for their own lives instead of copping out to the state, and we start addressing the causes instead of just the symptoms.

The rot across the state infrastructure runs deep, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. Some things, like scrapping CYFS and starting again but doinf it right this time, would be a start. Judicial reviews with random samplings of court cases to ensure that judges actually do their jobs properly, with the power to sack those that don't.

In other words, right across the board, assign accountability and hold people to it. Doing a good job = praise; a bad job = bye bye.

I agree.....no ACC for 'at fault' cases............take responsibility.

Agree with performance testing of judges...........and random dope testing should bag a few eh?

devnull

23rd November 2007, 19:11

"empower people to be responsible for their own lives".

Where did this huge piece of PC horse shit come from?

You mean, "make people responsible for their own actions"

:D

Same thing, just sounded better... I'm on a roll :bleh:

Ahh... the lawful beating of wives.... it was called the "Rule of Thumb" - you couldn't beat your wife with a stick larger than your thumb... you'd think it'd be the "Rule of Wrist" wouldn't you? :jerry:

MSTRS

23rd November 2007, 19:36

What surprises me is that supposedly intelligent people will back Labour and it's obviously flawed social policies. Or did the trained monkeys escape (again) ?

ynot slow

23rd November 2007, 19:44

In your eyes I am part of the tragedy because I have smacked my kids, causing them a short, sharp pain!!!!!!!! Have never injured them though, but you make no differentation at all. Perhaps I should go to the police station now and turn myself in?

Can remember as a kid of 10 or so,mum had a roast in the oven,my brother and I were trying to grab the knuckle from the dish,as the oven door was open and dish halfway out,mum grabbed us and gave us a slap each,nothing bad no marks etc.The reason being she saw the dish being upturned and the oil catching alight,and as a girl she was badly burnt on her thighs from her nighty catching alight.She smacked us as a deterent and as well as a reminder not to be stupid.

Swoop

23rd November 2007, 19:52

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 21:39

None of us who have raised children can declare themselves the perfect parent. All of us start with little understanding or have any experience of what parenting entails. We make the choices that we believe are best for our children. When we fail them in this we follow the choices that are best for ourselves. Rarely do we remember that they are the product of both limb and womb. When inflicting pain on them even with the best of intentions we inflict pain on ourselves. Due to our arrogance and self righteousness as parents we simply do not feel it.

Skyryder

Sanx

23rd November 2007, 21:53

We make the choices that we believe are best for our children.

Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Choices. Please explain how the legislation we've been discussing expands upon the choices available to good parents? Good parents can still make choices they believe are best for their children, but can now get prosecuted for them.

What you should have said was:
"We make choices that we believe are best for our children, but only when those choices happen to coincide with the particular moral values of a 20% minority. The rest of the time, we're told what to do."

Skyryder

23rd November 2007, 22:02

Sanx

23rd November 2007, 22:12

:zzzz::zzzz::zzzz:

By which I take it you haven't got an answer. Or is the response courtesy of the III school of debate. Treat anything you don't like / can't answer / are wrong on with a yawn, to indicate that mere consideration of the point is somehow beneath you.

candor

23rd November 2007, 22:34

I can't understand the anti smackers.

And there is one more thing...

do we really expect an unsmacked generation would do as our grand dads did and go to war if need be. There are oppressors out there - some of them want to control our Falun Gong for example.

Some of the political battle axes like Bradford - they unknowingly eat the young.

Its a slippery slope. First no nukes, then no canes... no smacking, no tree climbing, no swimming lessons, no balls for dogs, no jail for killers, next we'll be neutral like the Swiss and then we'll be seen like easy meat. Next occupied.

I don't see the feminist anti smackers ortheir sons or daughters populating an army. They'll just negotiate with the next Hitler. Bradford clones winning a war - ha! A country of Bradfords is a frightening thought. Flight of fancy over.

Skyryder

24th November 2007, 06:07

Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Choices. Please explain how the legislation we've been discussing expands upon the choices available to good parents? Good parents can still make choices they believe are best for their children, but can now get prosecuted for them.

What you should have said was:
"We make choices that we believe are best for our children, but only when those choices happen to coincide with the particular moral values of a 20% minority. The rest of the time, we're told what to do."

I have never advocated the Bradford's bill expands choices as you seem to imply. It goes without saying that the choices that we make in bring up our children are based on our moral values. It has nothing to do with the values of any statistical poll of either the majority or minority. I don't believe that inflicting pain by way of 'smack' is a good choice for the child. Ask any child if they like having pain inflicted on them. The choice in such cases are for expediency and convenience of the parent. When pain is inflicted in such circumstances and for that reason I will argue that that is a bad choice. There are other areas where the state makes decisions on bringing up children. One is the time that parents must begin to allow the child to be educated. New Zealand was one of the first countries in the world to bring in legislation so that this could happen. There have been cases in the past where parents have refused lifesaving blood transfusions. The state by way of court decisions have administered these measures.

I think you need to sit down and think if you opposition to Bradford's bill is based on what you believe:in that the Government is trying to tell you how to bring up your children or if your opposition is based on a political opinion of either Bradford, or Labour or both. Remember that National also voted for this legislation. It's here to stay. Deal with it.

Now you realy have become a bit of a :zzzz: so I'm off for a ride.:woohoo:

Skyryder

Skyryder

24th November 2007, 06:15

I can't understand the anti smackers.

And there is one more thing...

do we really expect an unsmacked generation would do as our grand dads did and go to war if need be. There are oppressors out there - some of them want to control our Falun Gong for example.

Some of the political battle axes like Bradford - they unknowingly eat the young.

Its a slippery slope. First no nukes, then no canes... no smacking, no tree climbing, no swimming lessons, no balls for dogs, no jail for killers, next we'll be neutral like the Swiss and then we'll be seen like easy meat. Next occupied.
I don't see the feminist anti smackers or their sons or daughters populating an army. They'll just negotiate with the next Hitler. Bradford clones winning a war - ha! A country of Bradfords is a frightening thought. Flight of fancy over.

What a load of cobblers. So smacking kids is going to turn them into patriot citizens. The rest is just pure drivel. I expected better than this from you Candor. What happened? Have a bad hair day?:spanking:

Skyyrder

devnull

24th November 2007, 07:17

It goes without saying that the choices that we make in bring up our children are based on our moral values. It has nothing to do with the values of any statistical poll of either the majority or minority. I don't believe that inflicting pain by way of 'smack' is a good choice for the child. Ask any child if they like having pain inflicted on them. The choice in such cases are for expediency and convenience of the parent. When pain is inflicted in such circumstances and for that reason I will argue that that is a bad choice. There are other areas where the state makes decisions on bringing up children. One is the time that parents must begin to allow the child to be educated. New Zealand was one of the first countries in the world to bring in legislation so that this could happen. There have been cases in the past where parents have refused lifesaving blood transfusions. The state by way of court decisions have administered these measures.

I think you need to sit down and think if you opposition to Bradford's bill is based on what you believe:in that the Government is trying to tell you how to bring up your children or if your opposition is based on a political opinion of either Bradford, or Labour or both. Remember that National also voted for this legislation. It's here to stay. Deal with it.

Skyryder

Actually, the petition for a referendum is currently at 220,000 votes. 80,000 to go...

So what you're saying here is that all parents should adhere to your personal beliefs? Even though there is no data to support your point of view, but there's a lot that refutes it?

You may not believe that a smack is never warranted, but time & time again that belief is proved wrong. The latest being the Otago Uni study published in 2006.

There have also been studies published in the UK, Europe & the US, so it's not as though only 1 psych study disagrees with you. They all do, bar 1.
That one is the paper written by Joan Durrant, who was widely criticised for manipulating data to meet preconceived conclusions.

So is there ANY empirical evidence you can point to and say "See? That proves I'm right"?

The removal of corporal punishment in schools was also done on the sly. It was a last minute addition to the education bill - no consultation with any school was done. (Incidentally, UK parents want it re-instated there - they are appalled at what the school system has deteriorated to)

I spoke to a woman who's been teaching for 35 years, who was saying that the levels of behaviour in school is the worst she's ever seen. She had decided to leave the profession because of it.

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 07:23

Actually, the petition for a referendum is currently at 220,000 votes. 80,000 to go...

So what you're saying here is that all parents should adhere to your personal beliefs? Even though there is no data to support your point of view, but there's a lot that refutes it?

You may not believe that a smack is never warranted, but time & time again that belief is proved wrong. The latest being the Otago Uni study published in 2006.

There have also been studies published in the UK, Europe & the US, so it's not as though only 1 psych study disagrees with you. They all do, bar 1.
That one is the paper written by Joan Durrant, who was widely criticised for manipulating data to meet preconceived conclusions.

So is there ANY empirical evidence you can point to and say "See? That proves I'm right"?

The removal of corporal punishment in schools was also done on the sly. It was a last minute addition to the education bill - no consultation with any school was done. (Incidentally, UK parents want it re-instated there - they are appalled at what the school system has deteriorated to)

I spoke to a woman who's been teaching for 35 years, who was saying that the levels of behaviour in school is the worst she's ever seen. She had decided to leave the profession because of it.

I think Skyryder is right........are parents thinking of the kids or themselves......you know anything for a quiet life

That women, just 1 view and I am sure that in her 35 years of teaching, so lets say she is around 60, things have changed....thats life. Doesn't mean that the lack of corporal punishment is the reason.

tri boy

24th November 2007, 07:36

[QUOTE=devnull;1310387]Actually, the petition for a referendum is currently at 220,000 votes. 80,000 to go...

Where can I get my nasty violent hands on this petition?
At least once in my life I want to "strike a blow" for common sense.
90%-10% on this little poll is stating the obvious. This law is a crock.
Yeah, I know, the poll is a poor example of proper professional systems.....Blah, blah blah.....
But what a result so far.
Shame that very experienced teacher is leaving the system. Bet she is the old school type who controlled her class, and had heaps of respect from students and colleagues alike.
Don't sweat the result Skyrider. You can always head into sth Auckland, and start fixing up the mess there with your softly softly approach. I'm sure the local coppa's could use a good laugh. (Take some bandages, your going to need them.....for yourself).:devil2:

tri boy

24th November 2007, 07:47

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 07:54

[QUOTE=Grahameeboy;1310391]I think Skyryder is right........are parents thinking of the kids or themselves......you know anything for a quiet life

It will be a very quiet life for many parents who lose their kids to Drownings/Burns/Bouncing off cars/Falling down steep rugged cliffs etc
Wake up man.

What's that got to do with the anti smacking Law?

I'm not even going near the trouble of undisciplined little shits causing trouble on roads, in parks, in private houses.

Discipline does not required smacking

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child. (I bet you hate that saying). Truth hurts some times even for guys like you.

So what kinda guy I am I?

I truly hope your family isn't attacked by a group of undisciplined arseholes that tear your comfy home to bits.

Thanks for your friendly thoughts.............sorry you feel you have to say that

Thats when it might kick in mate.:mellow:

Yeah, I mean I have led such a sheltered life..............life ain't perfect, shit happens, it's dealt with.

..................

devnull

24th November 2007, 08:22

Where can I get my nasty violent hands on this petition?
At least once in my life I want to "strike a blow" for common sense.
90%-10% on this little poll is stating the obvious. This law is a crock.
Yeah, I know, the poll is a poor example of proper professional systems.....Blah, blah blah.....
But what a result so far.
Shame that very experienced teacher is leaving the system. Bet she is the old school type who controlled her class, and had heaps of respect from students and colleagues alike.
Don't sweat the result Skyrider. You can always head into sth Auckland, and start fixing up the mess there with your softly softly approach. I'm sure the local coppa's could use a good laugh. (Take some bandages, your going to need them.....for yourself).:devil2:

http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html

devnull

24th November 2007, 08:26

I think Skyryder is right........are parents thinking of the kids or themselves......you know anything for a quiet life

That women, just 1 view and I am sure that in her 35 years of teaching, so lets say she is around 60, things have changed....thats life. Doesn't mean that the lack of corporal punishment is the reason.

How about answering the questions I Skyrider asked then?
On what do you base your belief?

Do you have ANY empirical evidence whatsoever that supports your position?

When this became an issue last year, I read huge amounts of info that showed that this was wrong - and as I said there was only one paper that supported Bradford. Even then, the statistics she claimed were proved false by the country the paper was written about.

So please, cite some real evidence that you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong

MSTRS

24th November 2007, 08:31

..........life ain't perfect, shit happens, it's dealt with..........

Yep, and sometimes that is best done with a quick smack...

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 08:32

Taken from the Unity Site

The degree of family breakdown in New Zealand society is evident by the increasing number of brutal child abuse cases that are coming before the courts. There are many reasons for the current level of family dysfunction in New Zealand, but much of it flows from government policy established by the current political leaders. a rampant welfarism and laws that undermine parental authority have worked to dissolve the family unit. We now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation where the same political leaders and public servants, such as Cindy Kiro, are backing harsher sentences for child abuse.

Blame someone else again.

Unity for Liberty sympathizes with those calling for harsher penalties but warns of the danger that now exists where under the current situation good parents are not protected by law. This will mean that the family unit will be further eroded by zealous government staff. It will require more than hype and hysteria to change this situation and turn our society from total disaster. We need laws that will protect and honour the roll of good parents in raising their children. We need to adopt policy that encourages and protects the family unit.

Bold: How so? Surely good parents will be protected and seen as good parents. What about bad parents.............nothing about protecting kids........it's an adult world run by Adults self interest........be it Govt or Laypeople.

So far it seems that the good parents have not been prosecuted and the bad one has............

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 08:33

Yep, and sometimes that is best done with a quick smack...

Without physical harm or brusing......................

Maha

24th November 2007, 08:39

Without physical harm or brusing......................

Never did me any harm (did it?)....the odd canning at High Shcool, a Pool Que or a branch around the arse from Mum (as a kid) yeah i deserved it i guess, but i turned out alright didn't i?....:eek:

MSTRS

24th November 2007, 08:40

Without physical harm or brusing......................

....just a fleeting stinging sensation, which is remembered next time (it is to be hoped) the recipient thinks of doing what led to the smack in the first place...

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 08:40

How about answering the questions I Skyrider asked then?
On what do you base your belief?

Do you have ANY empirical evidence whatsoever that supports your position?

When this became an issue last year, I read huge amounts of info that showed that this was wrong - and as I said there was only one paper that supported Bradford. Even then, the statistics she claimed were proved false by the country the paper was written about.

So please, cite some real evidence that you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong

It's funny how we are happy to cite science when it suits our argument.

I don't have any paper evidence.............Global warming had huge numbers of papers about doom and gloom and now the view is changing..............

I am just saying that I think that this Bill is being blown out of all proportion by those who do not agree with it. The UK have adopted a similar Bill.......

I just see a Bill that is trying to protect kids and everyone is worrying about parents and how society is doomed because of the Bill.

Right now I just don't buy into this........if I am mistaken then I am happy to accept that too................time will tell

MSTRS

24th November 2007, 08:41

Never did me any harm (did it?)....the odd canning at High Shcool, a Pool Que or a branch around the arse from Mum (as a kid) yeah i deserved it i guess, but i turned out alright didn't i?....:eek:

Careful Mark. Don't give the anti-brigade any real ammunition...:Pokey:

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 08:42

....just a fleeting stinging sensation, which is remembered next time (it is to be hoped) the recipient thinks of doing what led to the smack in the first place...

I have no issue with that..............I have no doubt that is what you would do.....guess not all Dad's are like you and what they thing is just a sting ends up being more and this is the difference.

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 08:46

Never did me any harm (did it?)....the odd canning at High Shcool, a Pool Que or a branch around the arse from Mum (as a kid) yeah i deserved it i guess, but i turned out alright didn't i?....:eek:

You did, cannot disagree with that.....but doesn't mean the Bill is wrong

Maha

24th November 2007, 08:47

Careful Mark. Don't give the anti-brigade any real ammunition...:Pokey:

What about the Strap at primary school?.... one teacher even had a name for his leather hurty thing....and fuck that hurt more than the cane!...'Why cant i sit on a mates shoulders with my feet out straight while playing Bullrush?.....:cool:

devnull

24th November 2007, 09:10

I have no issue with that..............I have no doubt that is what you would do.....guess not all Dad's are like you and what they thing is just a sting ends up being more and this is the difference.

That's the core of the whole debate... the majority of parents ARE just like that, and object to extremists dictating how to raise their kids, with nothing other than political idealism to back them up.

Bradford's political beliefs should make anyone wary anyway - she's a devout Maoist, but I've yet to meet any Chinese that lived under his regime and thought it good.

The global warming debate (now called climate change because the planet wouldn't play the game and warm up on demand), has brought a lot of scientists into disrepute. Politicising science was a huge blunder on the part of the UN.

Google for "ponder the maunder" and see what a young college student in the US put together, showing Al Gore's movie for what it is...

Comparing pseudo-science to over 20 years of hard psych research on child development is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

What's contributed to the anger of parents is that this isn't the first time in history that govts have tried to control the population through their kids. It was particularly successful prior to the WW2 (Hitler Youth - started in Bavaria in 1922. By 1930 there were over 25000 members. It replaced the Boy Scout movement)

A "feeling" or "belief" that a law may be OK is not sufficient justification to experiment with other peoples' children...

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 09:27

That's the core of the whole debate... the majority of parents ARE just like that, and object to extremists dictating how to raise their kids, with nothing other than political idealism to back them up.

A "feeling" or "belief" that a law may be OK is not sufficient justification to experiment with other peoples' children...

But Laws are designed to deal with the minority. It does not tell Parents how to bring up kids, it just sets boundary's.............Parents set boundarys for kids so what's the issue.

But so far the argument is about the Parents, not the kids. The law is not about experimenting with other people's kids.

Skyryder

24th November 2007, 09:32

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 09:36

There are no political beliefs in protecting children from violence. It required a political will to do so. That's different.

Lets try and get this into perspective with a simple analogy. Correct me if I am wrong but many of you believe in the right of the parent to smack the child...............but when the child grow up does he have the right to 'smack' the parent.

Skyryder

Exactly..............it's okay for parents to smack kids, shout at them but not the other way around when they are older.

You see we live in an Adult's world to suit them because as we grow older we become selfish....

In the States a while back a boy got a Court to allow him to disown his parents.....good on him I say...............

yungatart

24th November 2007, 09:44

Lets try and get this into perspective with a simple analogy. Correct me if I am wrong but many of you believe in the right of the parent to smack the child...............but when the child grow up does he have the right to 'smack' the parent.

Skyryder

In a word, "no!"
The Bible says.."honour thy Mother and thy Father"
Healthy correction/discipline of a child leads to respect for authority.

Maha

24th November 2007, 09:47

In the States a while back a boy got a Court to allow him to disown his parents.....good on him I say...............

In the States, you can also sue MacDonalds if your coffee is too hot, or if your Mobile Camper crashes while you are sitting in the back having your lunch....'it was on cruise control, that shouldn't happen'!.....

devnull

24th November 2007, 09:55

There are no political beliefs in protecting children from violence. It required a political will to do so. That's different.

Lets try and get this into perspective with a simple analogy. Correct me if I am wrong but many of you believe in the right of the parent to smack the child...............but when the child grow up does he have the right to 'smack' the parent.

Skyryder

That's crap. The same old argument that any form of discipline is violence.
It has no logical basis whatsoever - just political extremism, promoted mainly by those that are not, and will never be, parents.

If adults and children were identical, then we wouldn't have laws that exempt children from being charged with most crimes. An adult is expected to show personal responsibility, and can be held accountable.

A child is learning these concepts - the parent has a duty to teach them. It isn't optional - no matter what the socialists think.

Just today we see yet another homicide committed by 3 teenagers.
When will it be enough?

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 09:56

In the States, you can also sue MacDonalds if your coffee is too hot, or if your Mobile Camper crashes while you are sitting in the back having your lunch....'it was on cruise control, that shouldn't happen'!.....

Mom has trained you well..............bugger....all the same Power to Kids I say

Maha

24th November 2007, 09:58

Mom has trained you well..............bugger....all the same Power to Kids I say

Its all the :spanking: i receive as an Adult.....:love:

MSTRS

24th November 2007, 10:00

[QUOTE=devnull;1310387] You can always head into sth Auckland, and start fixing up the mess there with your softly softly approach.

Oh, good idea. When you've been stabbed, beaten to death with a hunk of 4x2, and kicked into next week, you could turn the other cheek, shake your finger at them and tell them to go to the naughty chair.

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 10:01

That's crap. The same old argument that any form of discipline is violence.
It has no logical basis whatsoever - just political extremism, promoted mainly by those that are not, and will never be, parents.

If adults and children were identical, then we wouldn't have laws that exempt children from being charged with most crimes. An adult is expected to show personal responsibility, and can be held accountable.

A child is learning these concepts - the parent has a duty to teach them. It isn't optional - no matter what the socialists think.

Just today we see yet another homicide committed by 3 teenagers.
When will it be enough?

Do you sometimes thing that perhaps that the actions of some kids has nothing to do with what the parent does.

What makes all parents thing they know how to teach kids the right concepts............soo looking at the bit in bold, you seem to be agreeing with the Bill in it's intent because this is what it is aimed at.

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 10:04

[QUOTE=tri boy;1310413]

Oh, good idea. When you've been stabbed, beaten to death with a hunk of 4x2, and kicked into next week, you could turn the other cheek, shake your finger at them and tell them to go to the naughty chair.

Now you are beginning to understand..............of course the trick is to avoid getting in that situation in the first place.

Anyway, have been to South Auckland a few times and seems okay to me...........

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 10:05

Its all the :spanking: i receive as an Adult.....:love:

So when I come and visit one day can I have 2 lumps.......

discotex

24th November 2007, 10:09

It seems more and more children, teens and young adults really need to learn that life isn't all about them too. Many seem to have a poor work-ethic, lack of respect for parents and authority, lack of contribution and commitment to family etc etc.

The concept of service and sacrifice for others is now lost on so many.

Yep... Smacking them will solve that problem. NOT.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

I think resorting to smacking frequently is a sign that the parent hasn't got a big enough toolkit when it comes to their child's behaviour.

I also believe smacking can quickly escalate to assault if a light smack doesn't work. I'm guessing that's what's happened in this case.

Interesting that people equate discipline with smacking. As someone say way back "what does supernanny do?.. it seems to work". She sure as shit doesn't use smacking and doesn't seem to be complaining.

Of course children need clear boundaries and clear consequences to their actions. Without them they go nuts. Watch supernanny for 20sec and you'll see that's why she gets results.

Smacking is in 99% of cases the wrong tool for the job. It is rare that a child is really so badly behaved that it deserves physical punishment. Usually it's the parent losing their rag that drives the smack rather than the child's behaviour.

It's telling that parents that smack a lot tend to have kids that misbehave constantly yet parents who smack extremely rarely (and regret it immediately) usually have well balanced behaving kids.

And for the "was going to put their hand in the fire" arguement; how about making your house safe enough for your children rather than expecting a 2 year old to manage their own safety. If you think a smack is going to stop a 2 year old from trying again you're in lala land. Put a grille over the fire and solve the problem once and for all FFS!

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 10:15

Yep... Smacking them will solve that problem. NOT.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

I think resorting to smacking frequently is a sign that the parent hasn't got a big enough toolkit when it comes to their child's behaviour.

I also believe smacking can quickly escalate to assault if a light smack doesn't work. I'm guessing that's what's happened in this case.

Interesting that people equate discipline with smacking. As someone say way back "what does supernanny do?.. it seems to work". She sure as shit doesn't use smacking and doesn't seem to be complaining.

Of course children need clear boundaries and clear consequences to their actions. Without them they go nuts. Watch supernanny for 20sec and you'll see that's why she gets results.

Smacking is in 99% of cases the wrong tool for the job. It is rare that a child is really so badly behaved that it deserves physical punishment. Usually it's the parent losing their rag that drives the smack rather than the child's behaviour.

It's telling that parents that smack a lot tend to have kids that misbehave constantly yet parents who smack extremely rarely (and regret it immediately) usually have well balanced behaving kids.

And for the "was going to put their hand in the fire" arguement; how about making your house safe enough for your children rather than expecting a 2 year old to manage their own safety. If you think a smack is going to stop a 2 year old from trying again you're in lala land. Put a grille over the fire and solve the problem once and for all FFS!

Agreed...I sometimes think that parents do thinks to make them feel better for failing.............I see parents in Devonport which has 4 pedestrian crossings...with kids crossing at junctions where care are turning, walking in front of cars etc......yet if their kids did that they would know about it............just a simple example......for all parents it is a new experience......so why do we think we know best...................

devnull

24th November 2007, 10:16

Do you sometimes thing that perhaps that the actions of some kids has nothing to do with what the parent does.

What makes all parents thing they know how to teach kids the right concepts............soo looking at the bit in bold, you seem to be agreeing with the Bill in it's intent because this is what it is aimed at.

If I agreed with the bill, I would have said so.

A child's primary role models are their parents.
While some are complete and utter scumbags, the majority are not.
And most of the scumbags are already known to authorities.

If those authorities got off their collective asses instead of playing silly games, then maybe you'd see some improvement. Scrapping CYFS and replacing it with a department that works to improve the family unit in "at risk" cases would be a good start.

Bradford's bill was never aimed at protecting kids - Chester Borrows' bill was.

As to her underlying intent, and given her own history with kids, I very much doubt your interpretation is correct. More like political expediency - assertion of additional control

discotex

24th November 2007, 10:17

Shame that very experienced teacher is leaving the system. Bet she is the old school type who controlled her class, and had heaps of respect from students and colleagues alike.

Fear maybe. Respect not likely.

Beating kids doesn't make them stop doing something out of respect.

My guess is this teacher just can't adapt and instead of learning new ways to handle the kids is bailing out.

Failing to control the class isn't a result of lack of the ability to beat the kids it's a result of lack of proper teacher training. Why else can so many young teachers demand respect without resorting to corporal punishment while the dinosaurs fail?

MSTRS

24th November 2007, 10:17

Grahameeboy

24th November 2007, 10:29

If I agreed with the bill, I would have said so.

A child's primary role models are their parents.

Not so sure these days with peer pressure and luxuries available to kids that are outside the control of parents.....maybe different 40 years ago

While some are complete and utter scumbags, the majority are not.
And most of the scumbags are already known to authorities.

And the Bill will target the minority?

If those authorities got off their collective asses instead of playing silly games, then maybe you'd see some improvement. Scrapping CYFS and replacing it with a department that works to improve the family unit in "at risk" cases would be a good start.

Bradford's bill was never aimed at protecting kids - Chester Borrows' bill was.

So was it to protect fishing quota's?

As to her underlying intent, and given her own history with kids, I very much doubt your interpretation is correct. More like political expediency - assertion of additional control

I am sure that the MP's who voted the bill in did not all have a bad history. Bradford just introduced it.

........................

discotex

24th November 2007, 10:30

The point that you anti-smackers seem to miss is the wording of the law in question.
Someone (a policeman?) must still decide, in the case of a complaint, whether the smack was 'reasonable and legal in the circumstances'. The waffly clause S.59 was simply replaced with another form of waffle.

Actually I think you'll find I made that point quite clearly.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

Your argument about the police is pretty weak though.

The police use judgement when pressing charges against any law. How many people have you heard of who'd been busted smoking a joint and were told "don't let me catch you doing that again" or speeding or whatever and the cops just walked away.

I don't see any section in the misuse of drugs or land transport act giving police the choice whether to prosecute or not but they do on a regular basis. What is materially different with this law?

devnull

24th November 2007, 10:33

Fear maybe. Respect not likely.

Beating kids doesn't make them stop doing something out of respect.

My guess is this teacher just can't adapt and instead of learning new ways to handle the kids is bailing out.

Failing to control the class isn't a result of lack of the ability to beat the kids it's a result of lack of proper teacher training. Why else can so many young teachers demand respect without resorting to corporal punishment while the dinosaurs fail?

You do realise, that because of the sharp rise in violence in schools, many teachers are leaving the profession because they fear for their safety, don't you? And that NZ is now facing a critical shortage of teachers.

The govt is offering a $30k incentive payment in efforts to lure teachers here from overseas. It isn't working...

Patrick

24th November 2007, 10:44

Yep, and sometimes that is best done with a quick smack...

Without physical harm or brusing......................

....just a fleeting stinging sensation, which is remembered next time (it is to be hoped) the recipient thinks of doing what led to the smack in the first place...

Re the above three posts... That is what the amendment from BURROWS was meant to be about... but Bradford wouldn't allow it... One light smack, without harm or bruising, is parental discipline, but not in her book, is how I see it....

I have no issue with that..............I have no doubt that is what you would do.....guess not all Dad's are like you and what they thing is just a sting ends up being more and this is the difference.

True... but the previous law saw that too... The reality was just the judges fell for the parental discipline crap where a lump of 4x2 and extension cords was OK.... It wasn't, and never was, from the cops points of view. Seen many locked up for that, won some, lost some. Inconsitency from the judges about the parental discipline "limits" was, and probably always will be, the problem.

In a word, "no!"
The Bible says.."honour thy Mother and thy Father"
Healthy correction/discipline of a child leads to respect for authority.

Check out the respect for authority this day and age... it no longer exists. Kids attack teachers, abuse parents, Police, just to name a few....

The point that you anti-smackers seem to miss is the wording of the law in question.
Someone (a policeman?) must still decide, in the case of a complaint, whether the smack was 'reasonable and legal in the circumstances'. The waffly clause S.59 was simply replaced with another form of waffle.
A complaint of 'assault' was always possible under the old law, and did happen sometimes. Whether it ever went to court or resulted in a conviction, the same shitstorm of 'the authorities' moving in on a family happened and still does.
So how is anyone better off with the new law?
And don't come at the old 'protecting the innocent' crap - it just doesn't fly.

Same old, same old, really.... Nothing really has changed that much at all. Parents were getting locked up for physically harming or injuring their kids before under the old law. Now it is happening with the new law.

The difference is the short sharp light smack should still go nowhere, or the violent beating, which quite rightly ends up in court, exactly as it was before...

The amendment proposed by BURROWS was pointing out the obvious... the judges needed "guidelines" on what was parental discipline or what was a beating. Although blatantly obvious to this fella and to BURROWS, not so to the judges and BRADFORD it seemed. Two extremely different acts.

Been a hell of a roundabout, but.......