Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[devnull]

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

How many 1 year-olds will understand what you're saying and apply the reasoning necessary to reach a conclusion?

At that age they're learning to form sounds... and can understand a few simple words. What you're suggesting is not practical, purely from a developmental standpoint

[Sanx]

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

When I was about a year old, my parents caught me poking a pencil into a mains outlet (in the UK - you can get a pencil into the holes in the outlet there). According to my mother, I got a swift hard slap which re-inforced the notion I shouldn't be doing this again. Do you think you could adequately impress upon a year-old child (even one that was as precocious as me!) the dangers of mains electricity using nothing but soft words and gentle persuasion? Sure, the child might be able to understand the concept of hurt. Could your one year-old child understand the concept of death? The concept of 240 volts passing through their body, their skin frying, muscles convulsing and their respiratory system locked? Can the child understand the concept of a parent having only seconds to react to such a thing and the sheer unimaginable horror a parent must suffer having to pick up a blistered lifeless body, faintly smelling of burned meat? Even if the child could understand and comprehend all this, what's to say that they'd even remember what it was they'd done wrong by the time you'd finished lecturing them? Sorry to be so graphic, but this is precisely the reason that Sue Bradford's law is so very dangerous; it criminalises one of the methods used by the very best of parents in situations where the circumstances demand them.

[Sanx]

Is it any wonder why NZ is hopeless at sports like rugby... and legue... get a little tackle and bradford would be in there like a shot... (well not really but...)

With so little nown on the case to the public, I reserve my judgement...

I don't think Bradford's been near any tackle, little or not, for a long time.

[007XX]

What Sanx and Devnull are saying + 1...

None of us are condoning violent acts toward children.

[Skyryder]

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

-Indy

Mallard is up on an assault charge. From the incident. That other gangster, the Maori carpet bagger, I won't even write his name, needs his head squeezed in a vice.

Skyryder

[jafar]

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids...smacking is the easy option for the parent..........so that when they are older they will be able to understand verbal reasoning.

You think so ??? from what I have seen of SOME of the older kids around they understand that they can do what they like & you or I can do nothing to stop them, if you even attempt to tell them off they start quoting Government Legislation such as the bradford bill & how they can (& will) have you arrested .
To make it more interesting the 'kids of today' are taught in school about their rights & it is reinforced to them that they can indeed have their parents arrested for even a light smack...
It is because of this PC bullshit that we have gangs of these little thugs running riot. They have been taught in school that the police can do nothing & anything they do will only end up in a family conference. Stupid thing is half the time the police take the little shits home & they are out on the street again before the cop car has left the driveway..

[Usarka]

So whay smack a kid who understands less than an adult.

What's wrong with actually talking and explaining to kids

you answered yourself. they have limits to their understanding.

People who believe in no smacking either have no kids or very well behaved kids.

[judecatmad]

And not every child needs or responds to a smack. Parents discover what works for each child over time.

That was what I was trying to say in my post - thank you!

My parents never smacked/hit/gave me the beats or anything... & I turned out fine!... I have never had any run ins with the police... never stolen... have a sucessful career... etc and so on

my friends when I was a child who used to get the beats... well... most of them already have kids... on the benefit... with P habits... and have had run ins with the law....

So... imho... what a load of shit!!... not smacking your kid doesnt mean they'll turn into criminals!!... giving your kids the bash however... how you think they are gonna turn out??... they're going to bash their own kids because 'thats how i was brought up'... break the cycle & there'll be alot less children getting killed by their own parents/family!!

I dont disagree with a smack on the bum if a child has seriously misbehaved etc... but if you leave a mark on any child then you are spineless & deserve to get charged under bradfords stoopid law!

And I WAS smacked - both by my mum and my dad. Mum's smacks were given only when I had totally crossed the line. They were quick and sharp and given even if it was the middle of the street. A quick slap around the back of the legs - the humiliation was the worst part cos people would stop and look! BUT it was all over and done with and I knew I needed to pull my head in.

Dad's, however, were different. I would be told I was going to get a hiding and then I would have to wait....sometimes 3 or 4 hours. Dad would go about his business as normal until the awful moment when he would call me and I knew I was going over his knee and getting a real hiding. Wrong, wrong, wrong, even though it was very infrequent.

As a result, I grew up with a real fear of my dad but a truly healthy respect for my mum. My mum was firm but she was fair. Nothing wrong with her sort of discipline. People used to comment on what a well behaved child I was. Could take me anywhere with little fear of disruption and absolutely no worries that I would barge in and start messing with other peoples' stuff.

I was never smacked beyond about the age of about 9 or 10.

I haven't grown up unsuccessful, nor do I see violence as an acceptable part of daily life. But I DO see smacking as a valid tool for the reinforcement of rules, if it is needed.

Smacking with an open hand to the back of the legs, the bum or the hands, when done as a quick, sharp response to a situation is NOT going to set up a cycle of violence. It's the repeated beatings with fists and objects that causes damage - physical and psychological - and that's the thing that the anti-smacking bill will not stop!

[Skyryder]

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

When I was about a year old, my parents caught me poking a pencil into a mains outlet (in the UK - you can get a pencil into the holes in the outlet there). According to my mother, I got a swift hard slap which re-inforced the notion I shouldn't be doing this again. Do you think you could adequately impress upon a year-old child (even one that was as precocious as me!) the dangers of mains electricity using nothing but soft words and gentle persuasion? Sure, the child might be able to understand the concept of hurt. Could your one year-old child understand the concept of death? The concept of 240 volts passing through their body, their skin frying, muscles convulsing and their respiratory system locked? Can the child understand the concept of a parent having only seconds to react to such a thing and the sheer unimaginable horror a parent must suffer having to pick up a blistered lifeless body, faintly smelling of burned meat? Even if the child could understand and comprehend all this, what's to say that they'd even remember what it was they'd done wrong by the time you'd finished lecturing them? Sorry to be so graphic, but this is precisely the reason that Sue Bradford's law is so very dangerous; it criminalises one of the methods used by the very best of parents in situations where the circumstances demand them.

You have no fucking idea what you are on about. The example that you quoted allows

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or


Before posting bullshit know what you are on about. That way you wont make yourself look like a dick.

Skyryder

[Usarka]

You have no fucking idea what you are on about. The example that you quoted allows

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or


Before posting bullshit know what you are on about. That way you wont make yourself look like a dick.

Skyryder

easy tiger. has this been tested in a court?

I (or CYFS) could argue that all that was necessary was to pull the child away from the socket. Hitting was unnecessary to prevent electrocution, they could be removed and other measures put in place to stop a repeat.

if there isn't a case history for this then you have no idea how the law will be interpreted in a court.

[Sanx]

You have no fucking idea what you are on about. The example that you quoted allows

(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or


Before posting bullshit know what you are on about. That way you wont make yourself look like a dick.

No sir, you have no fucking idea what you're on about. Given that you're capable of finding the legislation in question, one wonders why you're not capable of reading a little further down the page, to the section that reads:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

The purpose of the smack in my example is to correct a child's behaviour, and section 59 of the Crimes Act specifically states that any use of force is not justified for the purposes of correction, and this lack of justification prevails over any reason given in section 1. Therefore my statement that Bradford's Bill criminalises a parent who uses force on their child for whatever purpose is correct. This same viewpoint was expressed by bodies such as the Law Society; whose members are far more qualified to comment on matters of legislation that either you or I.

Happy now, or do I have to get the crayons out to explain it further?

[Skyryder]

easy tiger. has this been tested in a court?

I (or CYFS) could argue that all that was necessary was to pull the child away from the socket. Hitting was unnecessary to prevent electrocution, they could be removed and other measures put in place to stop a repeat.

if there isn't a case history for this then you have no idea how the law will be interpreted in a court.

No it has not and until a case is presented the legislation stands as law and at the present time smacking is allowed in some circumstances.

I don't mind people having differing opinions and ideas. Would be a sorry world if we all thought the same...........but most object to Bradford's bill on the parents rights..........with little thought on the rights of those that are incapable of defending themselves..............thier children. What many do not know or realise is that prior to Bradfords bill animals had more protection in law than children. The realy sad thing about this is that many New Zealanders use Bradfords bill as opposition to Labour. In effect they were promoting the parental right of pyhsical assault on children as a means of denigrating Labour. Fucking Christian cowards and that is putting it mildly.


Skyryder

[007XX]

I (or CYFS) could argue that all that was necessary was to pull the child away from the socket. Hitting was unnecessary to prevent electrocution, they could be removed and other measures put in place to stop a repeat.

if there isn't a case history for this then you have no idea how the law will be interpreted in a court.

But what about the child actual learning? How does he or she know not to repeat the mistake? Taking the danger away temporarily doesn't teach him or her anything.

It is not enough just to block all power sockets in the house and "prevent" it from re happening in your own home. What if you visit friends and their house is not child proof?

[Maha]

I should add that I haven't had to smack any of my kids in quite some time now...but I would in a second IF required.

That Gordie gets away with murder, fucken little shit, a few days in the Bradford Boot Camp will do him the world of good...

[SPman]

He later told police he had over-reacted and lost his temper.

Perhaps if he hadn't lost his temper, the situation would never have arisen?