Anti-smacking law amended

[Deviant Esq]

Just on the news. Helen Clark and John Key have met and compromised over the bill. Wording was entered into the bill to allow policemen the discretion whether or not to prosecute parents, if they believed that the incident was inconsequential.

Good in that, on the face of it, ordinary decent parents won't be criminalised for just parenting... but it seems it will be under the sole discretion of the attending officer. I see a potential for mistakes in that. And not so mistaken "mistakes".

Thoughts?

Edit: Whoops, probably should have added this to the existing (but very long) thread. If a mod feels that this should in there, feel free to move it.

[Karma]

Is that like the discretion they can show to speeders?

[MSTRS:Me]

The pricks just can't help themselves. Just have to make sure that there is some subjective ambiguity in there, don't they. What a crock.

[SPman]

To quote "No Right Turn"
"Such an amendment is not even necessary - the bill presently has the numbers. Instead, it is purely about spin control, about Labour trying to limit the political damage it has taken. But the damage has already been done, and the votes already lost. Backing down at the last minute will not get them back.

Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you."

[mstriumph]

bad descision to leave to the police

- say they can be shown to have overlooked an incident where later there is an instance of full-blown kiddy-brutalizing ending in serious trauma and all fingers will be pointed at the hapless plod involved ........

- to prevent such liability i'd say they'd have no option but to pursue every complaint they receive

bad law

[98tls]

I think it was more "shit imagine the votes we are going to lose if we dont change it" thing..........the very fact that this thing is an issue does nothing but remind me how pathetic this place has become..........theres enough mindless the wrong way round baseball capped jeans 1/2 way down there arse wearing dipshits around already.......imagine in 15 years time how bad it will be.........for the sake of a kick up the arse both there lives and ours could have been much better..........sad

[SPman]

.........theres enough mindless the wrong way round baseball capped jeans 1/2 way down there arse wearing dipshits around already.......imagine in 15 years time how bad it will be.........for the sake of a kick up the arse both there lives and ours could have been much better..........sad

I don't think a "kick up the arse" would make stuff all difference ....a lot of them are like that, despite, or because of, to many "kicks up the arse"!

[yod]

shitty situation either way...the government can't really win can they

before: dodgy parents can get away with abuse by saying its discipline "Govt should be doing something about this!!!"
after: non-dodgy parents can get done for legitimate discipline "Govt can't tell me what to do!!"

as for subjective ambiguity....impossible to avoid; how hard is a smack thats ok and how hard is a smack thats not? umm...8.671 foot pounds per square inch??

and if you think they should be sticking to principles...sorry mate, no offense but thats just naive. it doesn't matter who's in power, the party thats in tries to KEEP the voters with legislation/budget/etc, the party that's not basically just says the opposition is wrong so vote for us

cynicism breeds lugubriosity and and mentally salubrious governments are few and far between (maybe a fascist dictatorship might be a nice change).....i know, my fault for even opening my err....fingers

[Skyryder]

Instead, it is purely about spin control, about Labour trying to limit the political damage it has taken. But the damage has already been done, and the votes already lost. Backing down at the last minute will not get them back.

Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you."

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

Brilliant post......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

[yod]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

Brilliant post......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

couldnt have put it better myself

[Skyryder]

......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

I agree.........this should have never been the issue that many have made it. The Christian right mobilised against Labour................not the Green's. In all the media reports I saw it was Bradford Bill with Labour's support. The Christian right deliberatly mistorted the facts of Bradford's bill so as to mount a political attack against Clarke and Labour. Key's opposition to Bradford's bill only endorced the Christian's right opposition to it.

While Key's about face suggests a degree of competance in political reality it more than suggests his lack of moral fibre in using defenceless childen as a means to a political end. I personaly find that offensive.

Skyryder

[Curious_AJ]

personally, id say that its good that it was atleast amended to be a bit more lenient to parents, parenting.. and not brutilizing... however... you would get individual police peoples who would prosecute a person for a smack on the bum, and you get the ones that wouldnt... its all to do with the police person's oppinion on the bill... thats screwed...

[Skyryder]

personally, id say that its good that it was atleast amended to be a bit more lenient to parents, parenting.. and not brutilizing... however... you would get individual police peoples who would prosecute a person for a smack on the bum, and you get the ones that wouldnt... its all to do with the police person's oppinion on the bill... thats screwed...

No it is not. It has nothing to do with the police's opinion on the bill. The ammendment allows discreation from prosecution on the grounds that a prosecution would be "so inconsequential" there was no public interest in it going ahead."

Skyryder

[oldrider]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

One thing our politicians love is a gamble, especially when they believe it's fixed in their favour and called on their terms.

Like tossing a coin: "Heads they win" and "Tails we lose"

The bill will be passed and it will be all forgotten in the clamour for the handouts promised in the run up to the next election!

Don't worry, they will all be voted back in next time and the circus will resume again! (Cynically) John.