Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[davereid]

Strange how the government like to tell us force and violence are bad.

Yet thats exactly how they control us.

Anybody accepts that its ok to use force in self defence, to stop the murderer, rapist or burglar.

But I find some irony in the governments use of violence to achieve its "social goals" !

[Grahameeboy]

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.

So you consider smacking a child is raising them right?

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'. So whay smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

Agree Laws will not stop abuse of kids but Laws don 't stop murder, speeding etc, however, we cannot police everyones daily movemnets so when someone gets caught doing wrong then the Law is working.

UK has not refused to ban smacking according to BBC Report

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4175905.stm

Parents in England and Wales who smack children so hard it leaves a mark will face up to five years in jail under new laws in force from Saturday.
Mild smacking is allowed under a "reasonable chastisement" defence against common assault.

But any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action.

The law is flawed and there should be a total ban on smacking, according to child protection charity the NSPCC.

So why does NZ have an issue with the Bill

[Grahameeboy]

Strange how the government like to tell us force and violence are bad.

Yet thats exactly how they control us.

Anybody accepts that its ok to use force in self defence, to stop the murderer, rapist or burglar.

But I find some irony in the governments use of violence to achieve its "social goals" !

What Govt violence??

[Fatjim]

I smack my children if they need it. I'd not plead guilty nor take "anger management" to sweeten up the judge. I'd tell the judge where to go if he/she started to lecture me on the wrongs of smacking.

Best place is the arse because it doesn't bruise/damage easily. Thats why the back of the hand and the bum are traditional "sweet spots" to administer corporal punishment.

[The Stranger:Me]

Do we know what caused the bruises on the shoulder? Did the father actually cause them? Bruises are not necessarily indicative of pain or torture.

So the kid was playing up at school. What's the father going to do now if the kid plays up at school. I know what I would do, let the school deal with it. What the hell if he disrupts the class.

From the article, the kid now realizes he has power and can't be touched. The kid already knows he don't have to stay on his naughty seat if he don't feel like it, because no one's going to make him. Good luck to that parents, they're going to need it. This is putting the looneys in charge of the nut house.

Any teachers care to comment on how behavior and discipline has been at schools since they abolished straps and canes. This is possibly a good indicator of what to expect.

[Usarka]

Well according to this article if a child runs around school with a stick you should call the police.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10464820

teachers too scared to apprehend and deal with a disruptive pupil, scared of an assault charge.

[davereid]

The use of the law is the use of violence to obtain an outcome that would not occur on its own.

Fines and imprisonment are all achieved by force.

It's a necessary part of civilisation, we need it to co-exist.

But I find it ironic that the government uses this force to achieve social goals - ie the use of force against an individual to stop him doing things that would have no effect on anyone but himself.

IMHO democracy and laws are the only way to go. But democracy is inherently flawed, and it needs constraining.

Even the Majority should not be able to impose their will on others except for self defence.

So.. Its ok for the majority to pass laws against murder, rape, burglary, and speeding. Because the actions of murderers rapists burglars and speeders effect innocent people.

It's also ok for the majority to be able to stop you tipping effluent in streams or organising your business to rort people.

Buts its not OK for the government to tell me I can't trade on a Easter Sunday. Its not OK for the government to make me wear a helmet on my push bike, or stop me letting people smoke in my own private property.

[devnull]

Wow!

There's a lot of misinformation in this thread...

First off, the original S.59 wasn't used "lots of times to get parents off"
That's pure media spin.
S.59 was claimed as a defence 7 times - it was allowed by the courts twice.
It was never a defence against common assault charges.

What Bradford did in her revised bill is make any form of physical force used for the purpose of correction, a crime. That doesn't just mean a smack on the bum. it also means putting a child in their room for time out, pushing them back into a carseat and strapping them in, etc. So long as the action is considered corrective, you are a criminal.

If they were actually serious about combating real child abuse, they address the root causes, and also introduce legislation similar to the bill Chester Barrows proposed (which allowed harsher penalties for abusers while recognising that parents have an obligation to enforce reasonable standards of behaviour)

The key indicators, such as drug/alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, low education, poverty, etc, still have not been addressed

[Coyote]

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?

I didn't say anything about being a lefty, though I sway more to that side than the other. And I'm not totally against business. It's not like I make my own bikes, I have to buy them (at this stage).

But what I am against is the right giving out tax cuts to the business by spending little, if any money on government run organisations, such as hospitals and schools. Forcing people into private organisations where it's 'user pays', not 'for the good of the country'. Much like uni, which I can't afford to go to, instead I'm going to become a grease monkey apprentice because that's the only logical career path I can see for myself.

I don't support Labour, they're becoming as bad as National.

I'll use spell check from now on just to make sure any little mistakes don't go unnoticed by me. Note: other than 'uni', there were no spelling corrections to be made to this post.

[007XX]

From the article, the kid now realizes he has power and can't be touched. The kid already knows he don't have to stay on his naughty seat if he don't feel like it, because no one's going to make him. Good luck to that parents, they're going to need it. This is putting the looneys in charge of the nut house.

Any teachers care to comment on how behavior and discipline has been at schools since they abolished straps and canes. This is possibly a good indicator of what to expect.

THAT is exactly what we have to worry about...I have spoken myself to little 9 year old tough guys who told me to "fuck off" and when asked what sort of language this was, their answer was very quick to come back as :

"what are you going to do about it?"

If no longer any consequences to bad behaviour, then there no longer any limits.

I am not condoning violence, but consequences have to be kept to retain respect. We are going too far one way or the other: what's wrong with finding a right balance? People think it's too hard and therefor put it in the "too hard" basket.

[Indiana_Jones]

I don't get it, A parent doing their job gets convicted, but MP's in a fight don't get charged?

-Indy

[007XX]

Wow!


What Bradford did in her revised bill is make any form of physical force used for the purpose of correction, a crime. That doesn't just mean a smack on the bum. it also means putting a child in their room for time out, pushing them back into a carseat and strapping them in, etc. So long as the action is considered corrective, you are a criminal.

If they were actually serious about combating real child abuse, they address the root causes, and also introduce legislation similar to the bill Chester Barrows proposed (which allowed harsher penalties for abusers while recognising that parents have an obligation to enforce reasonable standards of behaviour)

The key indicators, such as drug/alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, low education, poverty, etc, still have not been addressed

That's exactly the info I'm after...is there anyone who could post a link to that revised bill please?

I've been trying to find it, but I'm just getting the run around.

[MSTRS:Me]

Boys need discipline.

And so do girls...naughty things that they are.

So you consider smacking a child is raising them right?

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'. So why smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

A smack when needed is a valuable tool in the parenting kit.
And unlike an adult (theoretically) one cannot always reason with children...

[imdying]

Do we know what caused the bruises on the shoulder? Did the father actually cause them? Bruises are not necessarily indicative of pain or torture.

Being on his shoulder, I guess he had to restrain the child to apply the smacking? This, and if that is the case, may have been because the kid was either a little prick, or simply sick of getting his beats. The bullshit no depth article doesn't give any indication. It's not an article written to inform, it's an article written by some retarded loser who merely wants to inflame and sell. Yes, I think the 'reporter' (and I use that term lightly) is a cock.

[tri boy]

So if an adult is naughty do we smack them 'no'.

Actually, yes, we do.
If your mate has had a couple too many, and starts "gobbing off" to those around him,(women, very large powerful, short tempered men), I would be the first to cuff him round the ears, make him apologise , and tell him to pull his head in.
Thats what discipline is about. It's not limited to children, but streams right through our lives.
I think some people confuse abuse with discipline (for different historic reasons).
Nobody wants to see children screaming in agony. The very thought is enough to upset me. But I have no problem in seeing a 4yr old or 45yr old receiving sensible physical correcting. Look to nature.