Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

**The Stranger:Me** · 4th August 2009, 19:42

Originally Posted by Ms Piggy

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

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 19:45

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 19:46

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

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

**The Stranger:Me** · 4th August 2009, 19:54

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 19:57

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 20:00

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

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

**Ms Piggy** · 4th August 2009, 20:02

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 20:08

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

**The Stranger:Me** · 4th August 2009, 20:09

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

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

Start a child abuse thread.

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

**The Stranger:Me** · 4th August 2009, 20:10

Originally Posted by Ms Piggy

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

Congratulations - I assume we are celebrating your license.

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 20:10

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Start a child abuse thread.

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

Answer the question......

**Ms Piggy** · 4th August 2009, 20:17

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Congratulations - I assume we are celebrating your license.

Iddedeeeee

**MisterD** · 4th August 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

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

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

**Grahameeboy** · 4th August 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Answer the question......

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

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