Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[BIGBOSSMAN]

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]

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.

Agree Dan

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

[BIGBOSSMAN]

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]

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.



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]

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]

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]

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

So rather the business round table and dictatorship would suit?

[jrandom]

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]

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.



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...
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!

[judecatmad]

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]

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]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=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]

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]

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"

[Finn]

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?