Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[tri boy]

As usual by the pro childrens assaulting brigade you are very selective in your facts. The child was reported by a family member. The child had been so badly mishandled the father that the faimly member informed the police because of bruising sustained in 'smacking.'

Tri a little harder Boy.



Skyryder

Only Brigade member I've been part of Cubs/Scouts. Never assaulted a child in my life.
Badly mishandled???? Please.
Try again Rimrider.

[Grahameeboy]

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

I wasn't talking about a 1 year old............so you reckon a 1 year old should be smacked?

[Grahameeboy]

If only all parents had a remote-controlled child, eh?!
And not every child needs or responds to a smack. Parents discover what works for each child over time.
You show me a book about 'How to parent' and I'll show you a crock of shit - they are all written by Bradford-types

Remote controlled wheelchair................yep all parents should have one.......may make them see things in perspective perhaps.....

[Grahameeboy]

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.

What about shouting?

What about the parents putting that socket protectors in?

I think that we are taking Bradford's Law to far here.

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rights

[Sanx]

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.

Legislation is the law. Legal precedent as to how the legislation / law is interpreted is something completely different. Try to get your terms right, please.

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.

Hard to know where to begin in taking apart this pile of tripe, but let's have a go anyway:

• Sue Bradford's a member of the Green Party, not Labour.
• If the intention of the Bill was to prevent children from violence (as opposed to a quick slap on the bum) then Sue Bradford would have supported Chester Borrows' proposed amendment that would have clarified the meaning of 'reasonable force' as something that causing "transitory and trifling" harm. Instead, she vehemently opposed it and promised to withdraw her bill if the amendment was accepted.
• It's always interesting to note that Bradford's supporters always portrayed all incidences where a parent used force on a child as 'assault'; a nice emotive term used to conjure up images of vicious beatings. But as the Law Society pointed out, 'force' is used by a parent picking up a toddler throwing a temper tantrum on the floor. Hardly a vicious beating, is it?
• 80% of the country were opposed to this bill in its current form according to the myriad of opinion polls conducted on the topic, but considerably less than 50% of the population class themselves as Christians. Please explain the disparity, given your assertions that it's 'coward Christians' that object to the bill. (I'll also ignore the fact that pretty much the only supporter of the bill on this thread is the one publicly-declared Christian)

Any more for any more?

[007XX]

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

Eh...leave my little brother out of this!

Oh, but hang on...that would mean DMNTD is my.... Faaaaaaaaarrrrrrrkkk!!!! nah uh...no way!

But seriously, why is this all exagerated to the point of dividing good, smart people in two such drastic camps:

Those that beat up their kids and and those that don't. ?????

[kro]

That Kahui drop kick gets 3 chances at bail, after fucking each previous one up, and he's going on trial for murder.

Some frustrated dad gets a criminal record for dealing out some what-fors on a naughty kid.

Hey, to be fair, I dont know the full story, maybe the guy was excessive, and this is a good thing, or maybe some busy body relly dobbed in a dad doing his best to straighten out a naughty kid, with the intention of showing him consequences.

Without all the facts, I can only bluster, but I renew my distaste at the anti smacking bill.

[Grahameeboy]

I'm sure Nat's is a lovely kid GB however not all kids are the same therefore they all react slightly differently so different techniques need to be employed.

I have 5 children and all need slightly different parenting...two in particular needed a smack more often,just the way it goes.

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.

Agreed..I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine but this thread was about an 8 year old with bruising which is more than just smacking.

Mind you just 1 wiggle of your ears would be enough for me Sir.

[Usarka]

Agreed..I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine but this thread was about an 8 year old with bruising which is more than just smacking.

my ex's nephew is a clumsy goof. always running into things, falling off things, and often bruised. recently learnt that "you can't smack me mum" and the parents are terrified of him spouting bullshit at school.

little shit i should give him the bash.

[Grahameeboy]

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..

There were gangs before the Bradford Law and I know at my school kids used to tell teachers they would get arrested etc...that was in the 70's.

Whilst I think telling kids their parents can be arrested seems OTT, it is good that kids learn their rights which some parents do not explain.

[Grahameeboy]

you answered yourself. they have limits to their understanding.

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

This is easy.

A lot of parents have limits to their understanding.

So you saying that parents who are anti - smacking have well behaved kids.....interesting??

[Usarka]

This is easy.

A lot of parents have limits to their understanding.

So you saying that parents who are anti - smacking have well behaved kids.....interesting??

Your experience with violent, disruptive, tearaway kids who wont listen is?????

[Grahameeboy]

my ex's nephew is a clumsy goof. always running into things, falling off things, and often bruised. recently learnt that "you can't smack me mum" and the parents are terrified of him spouting bullshit at school.

little shit i should give him the bash.

Good glad to see a kid sticking up for his rights..............maybe the parents should be pro-active and have a talk with the school and explain this to avoid future issues............I know you will say this is silly but that is what I would do rather than just do nothing and worry myself silly.

[Toaster]

Masterton man smacks his misbehaving 8yr old on the bum with an open palm, and gets 9mths supervision.
Teachers can't strap/cane, or discipline and now that Bradford bitch has got her first man for being a straight up father.
F**k me!

Put a poll on and see what we all really think.
I was smacked as a kid when I stepped out of line and fair enough too. I had a healthy respect for my parents, grandparents etc.

The key to me is having unwaivering and consistent consequences for misbehaviour and disobedience as long as it is reasonable.

It seems more and more children, teens and young adults really need to learn that life isn't all about them too. Many seem to have a poor work-ethic, lack of respect for parents and authority, lack of contribution and commitment to family etc etc.

The concept of service and sacrifice for others is now lost on so many.

[Grahameeboy]

Your experience with violent, disruptive, tearaway kids who wont listen is?????

True, but then you have to wonder why the kids are like that............poor parenting, set bad examples.........I am sure if you looked at more closely there would be a a link to the parents behaviour, could be they argue a lot, seperated, all sorts of things.............they see their parents get away with things so they copy...........