Get ready to hit your kids... [Archive] - Page 2

MSTRS

27th August 2008, 18:02

awayatc

27th August 2008, 20:12

People on this forum taking the time to voice their opinion in regards to bringing up their offspring are not the problem.
Regardless of the completely opposing views on smacking......

This law is suppoded to make a difference....sadly it won't, because the losers and no hopers that actualy hurt kids are not responsible parents at all.

I don't believe anybody who has posted their opinions on this thread needs government interference with bringing up their blood.....wether they choose to smack or not......

.02 pacific peso worth.......

devnull

27th August 2008, 22:31

So just to summarise how I understand some of what various posters are suggesting.

The ills of society and the bad behaviour of kids and teens is apparently down to them not getting smacked? WTF? SO now so called 'good parenting' comes down to whether you (in light of the law) have the balls to smack or not.

What about all that other stuff that I see missing from 'some peoples parenting' these days. Such as teaching morals, right and wrong, consideration for others, respect for self - I wouldn't think that stuff can be taught 'credibly' by dealing out the odd smack.

BTW I am not religious nutter, I do have a kid and I got smacked...not only that but I got the strap on my first day at school for WAIT FOR IT....farting on the mat during fecking story time?!!! I think it is spurious to hang the ills of todays society on the whole it's 'illegal' to hit your kids now thing. Sounds like a shitty and not particularly convincing excuse for crap parenting.

You understand incorrectly

Smacking is just one tool that a parent uses, not the only tool.
A good parent sets a punishment to fit the crime, so to speak.

My little boy gets a smack if it's warranted. He also gets told off or put in his room - it all depends on what he's done
He also gets lots of praise, hugs & kisses - though he's usually pretty good, there are times he isn't

The contention surrounding the anti-smacking bill (really anti-parenting, since it isn't just smacking) is that it undermines parental authority while doing nothing to address abuse issues.

Instead, kids are being taught in schools that they should inform on their parents, and that their parents will be punished by the state (shades of WW2 Germany & Hitler Youth??)

End result is kids out of control because parents are too scared to set boundaries (as in Sweden).

As for morals and responsibilities, those values have evolved in Western society because of the predominant christian influence in our past. Other cultures teach similar values, but our society was influenced by the church.

I'm not religious either, but even i have noticed that there seems to be a lot more open anti-religious feelings expressed now, mainly anti-christian. Instead of taking a live & let live attitude, more people are condemning others based on religion.

So is it really surprising that some of the values, namely respect, morals, responsibility, usually associated with christian beliefs, are becoming watered down, and being treated as less desirable traits?

Civilised behaviour is a thin veneer, and dropping one belief system without having an alternative available to hold up as an ideal doesn't do society any favours...

Number One

28th August 2008, 07:05

As for morals and responsibilities, those values have evolved in Western society because of the predominant christian influence in our past. Other cultures teach similar values, but our society was influenced by the church.

I'm not religious either, but even i have noticed that there seems to be a lot more open anti-religious feelings expressed now, mainly anti-christian. Instead of taking a live & let live attitude, more people are condemning others based on religion.

So is it really surprising that some of the values, namely respect, morals, responsibility, usually associated with christian beliefs, are becoming watered down, and being treated as less desirable traits?

Civilised behaviour is a thin veneer, and dropping one belief system without having an alternative available to hold up as an ideal doesn't do society any favours...

Interesting and good points. We are currently searching a school for our boy so the teaching kids to inform on their parents hasn't been brought home to US yet. In looking at schools though I note that most of the schools are runing specific 'values' programmes I would suspect this is in an effort to improve/control kids behaviour and social skills at school in the absense of these basic things being taught and 'rolemodelled' at home. I am personally quite keen on these programmes as though my boy is being taught the basics at home I know many kids aren't being taught that stuff deliberately at all and he has to go to school with some of these little horrors. I am conscious however that there are parents that balk at this kind of 'educational input' even though they are kept very generic and there isn't a wiff of 'religion' sad that society doesn't seem to recognise that religious or not there are some basic standards of behaviour that we should all look to demonstrate as the world becomes a busier and less caring place.

BTW: I wasn't having a crack at you with that summary of my understanding about what some seem to be saying and in fact you I think are the first to even refer to hugs, kisses and praise....maybe not though - far too many pages of raw and fairly pointless debate going on to bother reading all of it.

Clockwork

28th August 2008, 08:19

... that summary of my understanding about what some seem to be saying and in fact you I think are the first to even refer to hugs, kisses and praise....maybe not though - far too many pages of raw and fairly pointless debate going on to bother reading all of it.
[/SIZE]

Thanks for sharing your half-informed opinion then.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is not about the correct way to bring up children. It's about how people feel towards starry eyed politicians and their supprters are turning ordinary people into criminals for caring enough to ensure that their young and unreasoning children learn right from wrong and how to function in society in a manner that has been accepted practice across almost all human cultures and I expect since before historical records began.

And for me personally the debate has been about the meaning and intent of the amendmented statute.

MSTRS

28th August 2008, 08:50

As far as I'm concerned this thread is not about the correct way to bring up children. It's about how people feel towards starry eyed politicians and their supprters are turning ordinary people into criminals for caring enough to ensure that their young and unreasoning children learn right from wrong and how to function in society in a manner that has been accepted practice across almost all human cultures and I expect since before historical records began.

Actually, this thread started off as being a 'forecast' of what we can do, after the petition forces a referendum, which in turn forces a repeal of this problem law. Of course, that leads to strong posts for/against state intrusion in our lives. And some sensible alternatives being offered. Or not. :bleh:

Patrick

28th August 2008, 10:56

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.

Skyryder

But a smack is not an injury. It is an assault. As is a whack with a lump of 4 x 2... Society has not allowed injury, it didn't before with the old section 59.

But to show where th is post has merit...

I know of a case on the North Shore where a 12 year old girl wanted a $300 pair of shoes. Dad said no, but she stole the money from his wallet while he, a shift worker, slept and went and bought them. The missing money was soon noticed after awakening, and there she is in new shoes.

Did she deserve action? I believe so.

Did she deserve being set upon with a lump of 4 x 2 and an electrical cord which both caused cuts and welts to her entire body? I believe not, and he was arrested and charged.

He was going for the old defence under section 59 of parental discipline.

The case went to court, and as dad gave evidence of the theft and of finding her in the shoes, the judge stopped the trial there and then, demanded that the Police Prosecutor and the arresting officer see him in chambers were he bolloxed them both for charging the dad.

The judge never saw the injuries - and the photos were VERY graphic. It never got that far, sadly. Was he happy about the injuries so he should never determine? Dunno - possibly, but it never got there.

Judges needed directions on when to know where parental discipline ended and an out and out violent assault began. Common sense does not seem to exist on occasions, and waffly lawyer speak is needed for them at times for them to understand.

Chester BORROWS amendment was just that... a clear directive but Sue BRADFORD was going to throw her toys out of the cot if her legislation was going to be touched or amended, remember?

I stand corrected. They're not being sucessfully enforced.

Enforced, they are. The courts are the point at where things are let down for everyone...

...That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

There are any numbers of reasons why they didn't go ahead, like below...

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

I have seen cases tossed out because the witness or the officer in charge arrived late (parking issues, late arrest from the night shift he/she had to work that night before into the morning of the court case.., full bus so witness had to wait for the next one, too many to mention really...). Offenders arrive late or simply fail to appear without any reason whatsoever. The difference is, when the prosecution do it, it gets tossed out. When the shitbag does it, it is, "oh well, never mind, things happen... lets do this again another day then..." The shitbag process can be repeated again and again... until bail is finally refused by the judge....

But we are not discussing beatings and/or abuse. This debate is about smacking. If injury occurs, then that has gone beyond smacking. Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow ammendment.

Agreed.

Your defination is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Skyryder

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is iminent that it is going to happen.

It is not assault if he does not have the ability to carry out that threat (calling out from across the river, he is in a wheel chair and you are at the top of a flight of stairs as an example...)

"Giving the bird" is not an assault. It is likely to receive one as a reponse though......

People on this forum taking the time to voice their opinion in regards to bringing up their offspring are not the problem.
Regardless of the completely opposing views on smacking......

This law is suppoded to make a difference....sadly it won't, because the losers and no hopers that actualy hurt kids are not responsible parents at all.

I don't believe anybody who has posted their opinions on this thread needs government interference with bringing up their blood.....wether they choose to smack or not......

.02 pacific peso worth.......

Probably the best post. Summed up in a few sentences. Instead of 230 odd posts....:niceone:

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 11:19

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is iminent that it is going to happen.

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

Skyryder

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 11:34

Ok first let me clear one thing up. I am not, nor ever have been the least bit interested in the actions, motives or arguments of the "Christian Right" and I honestly only added that point as an afterthought because I'd never heard it made before.

As to the quoted section

WHAT A CROCK OF WEASLE WORDED SHIT!!!!!

A child it placed in time-out as punishment pure and simple. To pretend otherwise is .... (I'm at a total loss for words at that "opinion")

"They suggest that probably a LARGE part of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior".

What f++king presumptious bullshit masqurading as a legal opinion!!

:crazy:Boing!!!:crazy:

Clockwork has now become over-wound and will need to take some time out regain his former rational composure

Opinions are just that opinions however those that give opinions on topics that they have some knowledge on carry more authoriity from those that do not.

In this case my opinion is in line with the Law Commisons.

BOING?? Don't you mean boring? But as you no doubt suffer from flights of fancy from the belief of a superior intellect than most, the spelling mistake is understandable.

Hope you regain your composure......................soon.

Skyryder

Clockwork

28th August 2008, 11:41

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

Skyryder

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

MSTRS

28th August 2008, 11:42

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and attack that. Like you did then and like your doing now!

He's Winnie undercover

Clockwork

28th August 2008, 11:47

Opinions are just that opinions however those that give opinions on topics that they have some knowledge on carry more authoriity from those that do not.

In this case my opinion is in line with the Law Commisons.

BOING?? Don't you mean boring? But as you no doubt suffer from flights of fancy from the belief of a superior intellect than most, the spelling mistake is understandable.

Hope you regain your composure......................soon.

Skyryder

Boing, surrounded by "Crazy" icons and immediately followed by a statement that Clockwork has become overwound. If you're so intelligent why couldn't you figure that one out?

p.s And there you go..... off on an irrelevent tangent again!

James Deuce

28th August 2008, 11:47

What's really boring is how those who view excessive Government as a bad thing are immediately labelled child bashers, wife bashers, drink drivers, child molesters, blahda, blahda, blahda (Chowder is the best cartoon on telly at the moment).

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 11:52

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

Probably not as you do not seem to understand English syntax. Look up the dictionary and see the difference on relevent and irrelevent.

Skyryder

Clockwork

28th August 2008, 11:55

Probably not as you do not seem to understand English syntax. Look up the dictionary and see the difference on relevent and irrelevent.

Skyryder

Q.E.D.

10char

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 12:25

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 12:29

He's Winnie undercover

You promised not to tell. :angry2:

Skyryder

MSTRS

28th August 2008, 12:35

How does it feel to be on the other end of a broken promise (for a change)

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 13:05

Q.E.D.

10char

I’m waiting for a lengthy download so I thought I’d go and check just to kill a bit of time and put the record straight.

Clockwork post #241

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consensual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

My response post #243

Your definition is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

Patrick 257

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is imminent that it is going to happen.

Patrick has added another factor to the original post and had no part in my original response.

Skyryder 258

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

clockwork 260

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contradictory post, no matter how relevant it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

Now who is in error and more to the point can you admit it. If not then you are as guilty as you claim me to be. Such people are known as hypocrites.

Skyryder

Skyryder

28th August 2008, 13:08

How does it feel to be on the other end of a broken promise (for a change)

I'm not sure. Never been on the end of a broken promise. Don't hang out with such people. :bye:

Skyyrder

MSTRS

28th August 2008, 13:18

Clockwork post #241

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consensual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

My response post #243

Your definition is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

Patrick 257

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is imminent that it is going to happen.

Patrick has added another factor to the original post and had no part in my original response.

Skyryder 258

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

clockwork 260

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contradictory post, no matter how relevant it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

Now who is in error and more to the point can you admit it. If not then you are as guilty as you claim me to be. Such people are known as hypocrites.

Skyryder

And those people who miss a subjective and blindly stumble on making an ass of themselves are known as ... what? Patrick says such fist shaking would be accompanied by something spoken to be considered assault. I would contend that if the shakee truly believed that said fist was about to descend on them, then assault has occurred. It is the perceived intent that is important.

Patrick

28th August 2008, 14:55

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

Skyryder

Go check??? Go figure...

Just pointing out how shaking a fist CAN be an assault, just to clarify a point, that sort of thing...

Take it as you like.

Clockwork post #241

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consensual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

My response post #243

Your definition is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

Patrick 257

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is imminent that it is going to happen.

Patrick has added another factor to the original post and had no part in my original response.

My bad... FFS.....:spanking:

Another view then, without the spoken word...

Clenches fist, raises it as if to strike but doesn't... without saying a word....

Clearly, under the circumstances, that IS an assault. (Technical, but one all the same. Would one be charged? Depends...)

Assault is not only the physical contact, it is also the attempt at that contact, like raising or shaking a fist COULD be seen as that. Circumstances.

Clockwork wasn't wrong. Neither were you, but hey....

Try to clarify a point.... sheesh.....

Ah feck it........:brick:

Winston001

29th August 2008, 01:22

Another view then, without the spoken word...

Clenches fist, raises it as if to strike but doesn't... without saying a word....

Clearly, under the circumstances, that IS an assault. (Technical, but one all the same. Would one be charged? Depends...)

Assault is not only the physical contact, it is also the attempt at that contact, like raising or shaking a fist COULD be seen as that. Circumstances.

Agreed, as in domestic violence cases and protection order breaches. Every chance of a prosecution.

Skyryder

29th August 2008, 15:49

Go check??? Go figure...

Just pointing out how shaking a fist CAN be an assault, just to clarify a point, that sort of thing...

Take it as you like.

My bad... FFS.....:spanking:

Another view then, without the spoken word...

Clenches fist, raises it as if to strike but doesn't... without saying a word....

Clearly, under the circumstances, that IS an assault. (Technical, but one all the same. Would one be charged? Depends...)

Assault is not only the physical contact, it is also the attempt at that contact, like raising or shaking a fist COULD be seen as that. Circumstances.

Clockwork wasn't wrong. Neither were you, but hey....

Try to clarify a point.... sheesh.....

Ah feck it........:brick:

Post the relevent statute that states as you quote.

Skyryder

MSTRS

29th August 2008, 16:29

From here...http://borrows.co.nz/index.php?/archives/18-House-Section-59-debate.html
The definition of assault from the Crimes Act is “assault means the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present the ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.”

MSTRS

29th August 2008, 16:37

Yep. The spoken-to parent will have a record filed away for possible use down the track. CYFS will also be notified...they're actually a shitload worse than the cops/courts.

Not. The Privacy Commissioner would have a coronary if he knew people believed that.

The police are not permitted to keep random records on citizens. Convictions, yes, that's what the Wanganui computer is for. Interviews, accusations, No.

I believe it. All the reports of parents dealt with by the police that did not end in prosecution, ended with the parent(s) being 'cautioned'... What's the point of that if it's not on record?

Have a read towards the bottom of this http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html It spells out exactly what is done.

Skyryder

29th August 2008, 21:01

avgas

30th August 2008, 09:17

what if i beat the kids with a shovel - its clearly the shovels fault

Patrick

30th August 2008, 10:06

Assault is not only the physical contact, it is also the attempt at that contact, like raising or shaking a fist COULD be seen as that. Circumstances.

Post the relevent statute that states as you quote.

Skyryder

From here...http://borrows.co.nz/index.php?/archives/18-House-Section-59-debate.html
The definition of assault from the Crimes Act is “assault means the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present the ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.”

Well I learnt something today. Much appreciated.

Skyryder

MSTRS beat me to it...

My two lines, as above, in post 272 says just that, but in straighter simpler terms, as in like "keep it simple, stupid......"

You could have learnt something on the 28th if you read the post... but oh well...

What do I know from dealing with this sort of thing for 23 years.....

MSTRS

30th August 2008, 10:10

MSTRS beat me to it...

My two lines, as above, in post 272 says just that, but in straighter simpler terms, as in like "keep it simple, stupid......"

You could have learnt something on the 28th if you read the post... but oh well...

What do I know from dealing with this sort of thing for 23 years.....

Some people don't want the glass of water you hand them...no, they want the whole well.
And anyway, you're a cop...can't be trusted.:no::shifty:

Patrick

30th August 2008, 11:49

Some people don't want the glass of water you hand them...no, they want the whole well.
And anyway, you're a cop...can't be trusted.:no::shifty:

Fairy snuff....:buggerd:

But the glass might be half full... or is it half empty...??? Its a conspiracy!!!

MSTRS

30th August 2008, 12:14

Fairy snuff....:buggerd:

But the glass might be half full... or is it half empty...??? Its a conspiracy!!!

Could be...ask Winnie to investigate

Winston001

2nd September 2008, 01:22

Have a read towards the bottom of this http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html It spells out exactly what is done.

Thanks for that. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes because I maintain that there is no computer cross-referenced data-base of every suspected offence and suspected offender investigated by the police. Hell, they'd have records on most of the NZ population.

Your point is that the alleged family violence is entered into a POL400 and therefore there is a record of the parent/s. Yes, agreed. However it is only going to have an impact if also referred to CYPFS. At a lower level the police may look at whether the parents need a bit of help. Apart from that the point is the police need statistics to explain their work and use reporting systems.

Nothing sinister or ominous in that IMHO.

Ixion

2nd September 2008, 01:26

Thanks for that. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes because I maintain that there is no computer cross-referenced data-base of every suspected offence and suspected offender investigated by the police. Hell, they'd have records on most of the NZ population.

...

They do .

Winston001

2nd September 2008, 13:00

They do .

And when the revolution comes......you'll think of me kindly......?? :2guns:

Ocean1

2nd September 2008, 18:38

Your point is that the alleged family violence is entered into a POL400 and therefore there is a record of the parent/s. Yes, agreed. However it is only going to have an impact if also referred to CYPFS.

All government institutions are required by law to report any evidence of child abuse to CYPFS. Some interpret that as meaning any suspicion of abuse. The parents are not informed of any such report, in some cases even while CYPFS is actively attempting to remove the kids from the property.

To paraphrase Jim, "Did you not notice when large bits of your civil rights were removed?"

Winston001

2nd September 2008, 21:46

All government institutions are required by law to report any evidence of child abuse to CYPFS. Some interpret that as meaning any suspicion of abuse. The parents are not informed of any such report, in some cases even while CYPFS is actively attempting to remove the kids from the property.

To paraphrase Jim, "Did you not notice when large bits of your civil rights were removed?"

Who watches the watchers eh.

Fair enough. I tend to think protecting children fits in with our civil obligations, you know, the other side of the rights coin.

Ocean1

2nd September 2008, 22:56

Who watches the watchers eh.

Fair enough. I tend to think protecting children fits in with our civil obligations, you know, the other side of the rights coin.

Dude, there are few devices more capable of causing widespread harm and injustice than a bunch of self righteous bigots acting under the auspices of a government entity not able to be held responsible for their actions. Have you no history to your name?

Further; how many parents have declined to seek professional help for their damaged kids for fear of exactly such a response?

James Deuce

3rd September 2008, 07:28

You actually have to be on top of your game when you engage any sort of social service in regard to children. You also have to be strong enough to tell them "no", to be able to quote their own regulations back at them, and be "hard" enough to do your own research in regard to whatever "condition" your child either suffers from for real, or is "alleged" to suffer from.

Luckily there are no experts left in NZ so you can create a great deal of self-doubt in whichever self-appointed expert leeches on to you, simply by communicating with centres of learning from around the world through that Internet thing. It's quite satisfying to see a "Government Expert" broaden their mind a little and develop a collegiate approach to learning. Takes years but. In the meantime you're getting nothing from the "system". Except grief.

Things to bear in mind when dealing with the "Government Experts".

1. Everybody else knows more about your child than you do.
2. Dieticians believe that processed food is vital to get children eating. The more sugar, the more "E"s the better.
3. Both parents must work. If only one parent works full time then you don't love your children.
4. Daycare is an important part of every newborn baby's development.
5. Boys and Girls are the same and experience developmental progress in exactly the same way. If a 3 year old boy can't hold a pencil and doesn't speak clearly then the Ministry for Social Policy and Special Education Services will be called in. Plans will be made and Education Support Workers organised wihtout your knowledge. You will accept the jusdgement of a Kindy teacher with an IQ smaller than your shoe size.
6. Parents have nothing to contribute to the raising of their children and are to be ignored in any situation where they have been invited to participate in a conference about "problems" with their children.

MisterD

3rd September 2008, 08:37

You forgot one James:

If you feed your new baby anything but breast milk you are evil.

MSTRS

3rd September 2008, 08:53

You forgot one James:

If you feed your new baby anything but breast milk you are evil.

Without a valid reason, then yes. Breast is best.
Or don't you like tits?
:drool:

Flatcap

3rd September 2008, 09:03

Without a valid reason, then yes. Breast is best.
Or don't you like tits?
:drool:

Form over function for most blokes

Do you wear adult diapers and nurse?

MisterD

3rd September 2008, 09:22

Without a valid reason, then yes. Breast is best.
Or don't you like tits?
:drool:

Officialdome does not accept the existence of valid reasons - I saw friends of ours put through such crap having real problems that they told Plunket to fuck off and not come back.

Winston001

3rd September 2008, 09:37

Dude, there are few devices more capable of causing widespread harm and injustice than a bunch of self righteous bigots acting under the auspices of a government entity not able to be held responsible for their actions. Have you no history to your name?

When does protection of the vulnerable segue into self-rightous bigotry? Many would say this has already occurred with helmet and seat-belt laws, fluoridation of water, immunisation injections etc etc.

That's why we have people like the Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman plus other public watchdogs.

The proof of over-zealous information usage is the number of people who are wrongly victimised eg. had their children removed. Yes, it happens but always for cause. If this action was commonly taken by mistake, the media would be all over it.

Further; how many parents have declined to seek professional help for their damaged kids for fear of exactly such a response?

Pass. I'm sure you are right. No answer really. There is plenty of help available to parents but usually those who need it are inarticulate and fear authority.

MSTRS

3rd September 2008, 09:49

Form over function for most blokes

Do you wear adult diapers and nurse?Whether a woman breastfeeds or not, her tits are going to loose their firmness/shape after having a baby.
And, no.

Officialdome does not accept the existence of valid reasons - I saw friends of ours put through such crap having real problems that they told Plunket to fuck off and not come back.

I agree. Over-zealous pushing of an ideal is not the answer. A (first-time) mother needs support and information. Some woman just can't physically produce or deliver milk. A desire to breastfeed isn't always enough. Others have, perhaps, a psychological block.
But all things being equal, still can't improve on nature, though.

James Deuce

3rd September 2008, 10:07

Pass. I'm sure you are right. No answer really. There is plenty of help available to parents but usually those who need it are inarticulate and fear authority.

Actually help isn't readily available, isn't promoted by health workers and usually provided in a remedial fashion after an easily avoidable crisis. This sometimes involves 24x7 monitoring, removal of children, or an ESW applied to a child without parental permission or ever reviewing problems and helping fix them.

A lot of people just have to rise above whatever issues they bump into and get on with it, because there will be no help. Always remember: "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you", are literally mutually exclusive concepts.

James Deuce

3rd September 2008, 10:10

Whether a woman breastfeeds or not, her tits are going to loose their firmness/shape after having a baby.
And, no.

I agree. Over-zealous pushing of an ideal is not the answer. A (first-time) mother needs support and information. Some woman just can't physically produce or deliver milk. A desire to breastfeed isn't always enough. Others have, perhaps, a psychological block.
But all things being equal, still can't improve on nature, though.

There are vastly more reasons than those that affect the mother. The main issue with having children today is that the focus is on the mother, the birthing experience, and breast feeding. The health and capabilities of the child come at about 13th on the list.

There are midwives out there who will insist that a child with a cleft palate and a hare lip can breast feed.

MSTRS

3rd September 2008, 10:22

Then there are midwives out there (along with other so-called professionals/experts) who should be shot.

MisterD

3rd September 2008, 10:56

The health and capabilities of the child come at about 13th on the list.

Sad, but true...from our own experience, apparently a hungry baby is preferrable to a bottle-fed baby.

riffer

3rd September 2008, 12:48

There are midwives out there who will insist that a child with a cleft palate and a hare lip can breast feed.

I had a friend got pregnant at 17 and had a child with a cleft palate and double hare lip. This is a while ago now (about 22 years ago).

This is exactly what they told her. She was a determined young lady and spent hours and hours and hours trying to feed her little fella with a spoon.

Heartbreaking to watch. :blink:

Ocean1

3rd September 2008, 19:23

When does protection of the vulnerable segue into self-rightous bigotry?

When it's delivered by the state. It's that simple, there's only one class of entity capable of protecting endangered kids: family or close friends. Never in recorded history has any government agency effectively supplied the help struggling or broken families need.

Many would say this has already occurred with helmet and seat-belt laws, fluoridation of water, immunisation injections etc etc.

Some such policy makes sense. A minority insisting on not being innoculated is the reason Polio, TB and Hooping gough aren't extinct. If, however your choices aren't hurting others there is not the slightest excuse to legislate to control it.

The proof of over-zealous information usage is the number of people who are wrongly victimised eg. had their children removed. Yes, it happens but always for cause. If this action was commonly taken by mistake, the media would be all over it.

Dude, with the greatest respect, (and a kind of hopeful wonder at your inocence), you couldn't be more incorrect. Yes there are arseholes out there who abuse their kids. The government not only can't do anything about that but their attempts to intervene in an increasing number of family situations has done tragic and entirely avoidable damage.

And as for the press... If you'd been accused of harming your kids in any way would you be calling the press?

Pass. I'm sure you are right. No answer really. There is plenty of help available to parents but usually those who need it are inarticulate and fear authority.

There are answers, ones that might sometimes even work. The help that's currently available... doesn't.

And those affected are far from restricted to the inarticulate.

Winston001

3rd September 2008, 22:12

Well team, I'm feeling a bit like Pollyanna after reading the above thoughts - all of which incidentally I respect. Guess our experiences differ.

I am fortunate. My wife and I are educated, quietly self-confident, and active in our community. Any problems we've had with our three children - small medical stuff - have all been addressed very effectively by the "system". Admittedly my son's testicular torsion was misdiagnosed (4 yr old) so the testicle died, but that was a medical judgement and nothing to do with general healthcare etc.

As young parents we went to Parent Centre seminars, read books on child development, and were in a parents support group. In fact my wife even started a special group for premature babies.

If we didn't like what we were told, we went further. Our friends have had similarly good experiences raising their children.

Nevertheless many new parents don't have the confidence or knowledge to deal with the myriad problems children bring. That's why Plunkett , La Leche, Parent Centre etc exist.

I'm genuinely sad to learn that some of you have had bad experiences and lack of expert support. It must be gutting.

Winston001

3rd September 2008, 22:16

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="4"><tbody><tr><td nowrap="nowrap"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td nowrap="nowrap"> Ocean1 (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php?u=7335) http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/bgold/statusicon/user_online.gif <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1716027", true); </script>
60 sec worth of distance run..
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gifhttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gifhttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gifhttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gifhttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gifhttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/ranks/goldstar1.gif
</td> <td align="center"> ♂ </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td width="100%">
</td> <td valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>    Quote: Ocean -

When it's delivered by the state. It's that simple, there's only one class of entity capable of protecting endangered kids: family or close friends. Never in recorded history has any government agency effectively supplied the help struggling or broken families need. [/quote]

Where were the family when James Whakaruia died? The Kahui twins etc etc ebloodycetera....... Sorry man, I think the same but am a bit cynical about the modern "family"

James Deuce

3rd September 2008, 22:28

Ocean1

3rd September 2008, 22:46

Nevertheless many new parents don't have the confidence or knowledge to deal with the myriad problems children bring. That's why Plunkett , La Leche, Parent Centre etc exist.

Nothing to do with knowledge or confidence. You seem to have the idea it's a lower-socio-economic phenomenon, I've known very competent professionals, including senior health pros fall foul of one of the various social "services" taking an interest in their kids. They found the "help" "offered" just as intrusive, if not invasive, and far too often just as damaging.

Also, Plunkett doesn’t exist any more. In spite of having been the model for such organisations worldwide it was starved of funding and abandoned a couple of years ago, it failed to comply with the brave new policies.

And personally I found the local La Leche representative a benightedly unintelligent drone, capable, (just), of parroting the pamphlet she distributed and successfully managing to convey strongly to all in sundry that men, (fathers in particular), had no part to play in raising kids.

I’m perfectly prepared to believe that none of the above is a problem in the deep south, they often aren’t once you’re far enough from the bullshit. The resource I’ve most often known produce positive, lasting results is Tough Love, and that, dude, is help in the proper sense.

bomma

3rd September 2008, 23:05

cudnt be arsed reading 21 pages but we studied this a lil in one of my papers and the thing is that in this amendment, it says (as the first one did) that parents are allowed to "lightly smack" their kids (who's to define "lightly"??) but when the top cop dude (cant remember rank or name) was asked by the media, he stated that no smacking would be tolerated....there were two separate messages coming out and it caused a whole lot of commotion. personally ive been smacked as a child and wudnt wish it on others coz there are obvious reprocussions but can you imagine how much harder it would be to discipline these lil monsters if they knew they werent legally allowed to be hit?!?! :mellow:

should build a quiet room and keep the canes and paddles in there....and if you dont have kids you can use that room for "other purposes" :buggerd:

Winston001

4th September 2008, 13:18

That's the modern minority. Thanks to weeks and weeks of media coverage with this stuff every time something hideous happens we end up lumping everyone into the same basket. There are plenty of "disadvantaged" families out there working hard to be less "disadvantaged" and cynically lumping whole socio-economic groupings into the same bucket is doing 99.9% of the country a huge disservice.

Don't buy into the propaganda.

Mmmm.....but the facts are that about one child a month dies in NZ at the hands of family members. According to Starship and the police, that is just the tip of the iceberg, there are hundreds of children seriously injured by parental assault every year.

Making a noise about it when reported is justified. If no-one speaks up, the abuse will continue. Again I have to ask where the wider family are in these situations. Friends? Neighbours?

But ok, fair enough that the vast majority of families love their kids and do their best. I totally agree we shouldn't tar everyone with the actions of a small awful minority.

MSTRS

4th September 2008, 13:27

I totally agree we shouldn't tar everyone with the actions of a small awful minority.

But the law, and it's supporters, do/es ...

Winston001

4th September 2008, 13:27

Nothing to do with knowledge or confidence. You seem to have the idea it's a lower-socio-economic phenomenon, I've known very competent professionals, including senior health pros fall foul of one of the various social "services" taking an interest in their kids. They found the "help" "offered" just as intrusive, if not invasive, and far too often just as damaging.

Also, Plunkett doesn’t exist any more. In spite of having been the model for such organisations worldwide it was starved of funding and abandoned a couple of years ago, it failed to comply with the brave new policies.

And personally I found the local La Leche representative a benightedly unintelligent drone, capable, (just), of parroting the pamphlet she distributed and successfully managing to convey strongly to all in sundry that men, (fathers in particular), had no part to play in raising kids.

I’m perfectly prepared to believe that none of the above is a problem in the deep south, they often aren’t once you’re far enough from the bullshit. The resource I’ve most often known produce positive, lasting results is Tough Love, and that, dude, is help in the proper sense.

We can certainly agree on Tough Love. Mind you, its harder to do in practise than I expected but works.

Maybe we are advantaged in the provinces, smaller populations, greater sense of family and community support, dunno but an interesting thought.

Fair comment too that it isn't just a socio-economic problem although generally, that is the theme of troubled families whom I deal with.

I guess this discussion falls foul of generalisations when many posters are thinking of specific situations - which the rest of us don't know about. Kids with personality disorders, nascent mental health problems, physical health issues, faetal alcohol syndrome, abuse by someone etc etc. Damn it is hard being a parent and there are so many risks outside your control.