Disciplining your children

**avgas** · 21st May 2012, 15:02

The antismacking law has a much to with shithead kids in school as ACC levies have to do with Motorbike accidents.

Fact of the matter is if a kid is being a shit-head at school he should be booted out. No questions asked.
This has nothing to do with laying a hand on a kid.

I have mentioned this in another thread - but should be repeated here.
Create a solution for each problem - not a solution for all problems......it will never work. It never has.

**SVboy** · 21st May 2012, 15:12

Kicking a kid out for being a "shithead' will only create further larger social problems. Resource and enable the schools to act appropriately and watch exclusion rates fall.

**Winston001** · 21st May 2012, 20:02

Originally Posted by SVboy

Kicking a kid out for being a "shithead' will only create further larger social problems. Resource and enable the schools to act appropriately and watch exclusion rates fall.

Good point. Why is a kid difficult? Ok sometimes there are just nasty kids from good homes - kids with an inflated sense of entitlement. But mostly, the troublesome children have an unhappy homelife and have learned not to give a damn. In fact being disruptive means that somebody pays attention to them which is a lot more than they get at home.

I had a teacher friend who had a pupil she knew would be trouble. At age 6 he was uncontrolable. On one occassion his mother went to Dunedin (200km) and locked him in a wardrobe. Fortunately the police somehow discovered him.

Another friend has been seconded as voluntary BOT help for a decile 1 primary school. Some of the kids age 5 cannot talk. They don't know they live in a city, in a country called NZ. They don't know words for chair, table, bed. But they can swear like a biker. These sad children have grown up in homes where they are ignored. They are a time bomb for our society.

**Ender EnZed** · 21st May 2012, 20:49

Originally Posted by Clockwork

So after attending the trial, listening to all the evidence and taking on board the advice of the judge, these people were judged and acquitted by a jury of there own peers (which is how it should be surely) But apparently non-participants knew better and consequently felt they had to change the law to save society from such idiotic juries?

A jury's job is not to determine whether or not the defendant deserves to go to jail. The juries in these trials did their job and determined whether or not the defendant had broken the law. They hadn't broken the law, because the law was stupid. Now it's different.

**scumdog** · 21st May 2012, 21:24

Originally Posted by MSTRS

S59 allowed for 'reasonable force'. Slapper Bradford sought to remove it altogether, but Parliament decided to simply replace it with 'light and inconsequential'. So S59 was never really repealed as such, just watered down.
I suggest it was rushed through with little trouble (eventually) because the Slapper threatened to kiss each and every dissenter...

You got something against slappers comparing them to Bradford?

Bradford is a motor-mouth 'look-at-me' leech on the taxpayer.

Constantly.

And 'her' law very likely not saved one kid.