Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[Skyryder]

You are wrong... so clearly wrong and unable to see why that I'd recommend some form of medication...

You obviously know much more about the case in the media than has been reported. I say obviously because what you've stated here isn't what was reported - please share the full story.

Now, as to my other questions... still waiting for an answer.
I'm also curious to know why you believe that Bradford is right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that repeating the same social experiment that failed so abysmally in Sweden is a wonderful thing.

All the while completely ignoring the numerous studies that have accurately identified the key risk factors in real child abuse, and doing nothing to address them.

The Swedish experiment has done more than just fail. It's effectively wrecked the lives of an entire generation. That's not just a failure, thats criminal. Those kids had the right to grow up with boundaries, responsibilities, morals, and it was taken away from them by a mindless bureaucracy

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

I'm going fishing. Will be back late. Don't wait up.


Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

It's just the way I am..........agreed on the honour bit but I still have the choice to turn the other cheek........sometimes that can just as effective.

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.



Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.

To be honest I could not hit Nats because of her condition being so weak muscled...........she cannot take tops off pens so no way would I ever smack her because if she was sitting she would fall over, plus it is a bit hard to get her bottom for obvious reasons.

........................

[Grahameeboy]

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.



Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.

To add to my first reply, perhaps having Nats has meant I look at alternatives...........Nats can be a handful when she is in her wheelchair still.......she wants this she wants that...........I just find other ways.

[Grahameeboy]

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

I'm going fishing. Will be back late. Don't wait up.


Skyryder

Yeah it was not me it was the beer....Officer

[Mom]

To add to my first reply, perhaps having Nats has meant I look at alternatives...........Nats can be a handful when she is in her wheelchair still.......she wants this she wants that...........I just find other ways.

Of course there are other ways mate! Searching for them is the greatest challenge sometimes. You know me and I know you, with the greatest of respect here........parenting a child with a disability (no matter what it is) comes with its own set of challenges I agree, but untill you are faced with a non-disabled child telling you to get fucked or the childish equivalent of that, you simply can not say turning the other cheek and smiling is truely an option in some circumstances.......THE END

Am off to the ATNR ride!

[SpankMe]

Yep, beat the shit out of the little buggers. Children should be seen and not herd, unless they're screaming from a beating.

[Sanx]

You must be taking lessons from III; someone answers your questions with facts and you blindly ignore them and carry on regardless. The true sign of a zealot.

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.

Opinion polls - not the most reliable gauge of public opinion, but the best we've got - indicated that 80% of the population were against the bill. Roughly 40% of the population, according to the last census, identified themselves as Christian. Yes, the religious right were against this bill, but where does the other 40% come from? Or are you, like III, so ideologically opposed to the religious right that you automatically take the diametrically opposite position to them on any subject where they make their views known.

Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this?

You're taking it to the extreme, again. Personally, I don't believe that is any way to treat your child. However, the bill doesn't draw any disctinction between smacking your child repeatedly round the head with a length of 2x4 and giving a child a sharp smack on the hand. One causes head injuries, and the other causes a moment's discomfort. Are you really saying those two things are the same? As I states before (twice) Chester Borrows sought an amendment to the Bill which would have clarified what was acceptable as force that caused transitory and trivial effects. But Bradford, on a crusade as usual, rejected it out of hand and threatened everyone with a toy ejection if it was passed.

I'm not aware of the Judge letting them off. There were some cases where the jury did. There was some evedince that on one trial the jury aquited on the basis of it's hostile attitude to Labour. I did a lot of research on this way back and came across some commments from one of the legal sites on this. Have no idea if true or not.

www.commielaw.co.nz, was it? I can't be bothered trying to find the reference you're referring to, but unless the jury were polled on their political leanings - which is so highly unlikely as to be farcical - then no-one would know if they had an anti-Labour attitude or not. Secondly, as already pointed out, Sue Bradford's not a member of the Labour Party anyway.

[Toaster]

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.

Personally I agree on all points. However, from a purely legal standpoint it is worth noting that it appears the police did have some relevant history with the guy which was taken into account in deciding whether or not they charged him. Also, given that the law was to-date untested, it was important that the case be heard to develop common law precedent.

That "bill" is now law and no longer a bill. The law does make a distinction between physical discipline to prevent or stop certain behaviour and that of physical discipline for correction. It is the latter that is now illegal.

What the guy did was "after the fact". The other issue would likely be the fact that the child was bruised as a result of the disciplining. Lasting effects like bruising are also within the scope of the new laws. Had it been just the 3 smacks, then the only issue was the fact it was done as a corrective rather than preventative action.

Something to ponder anyway

[Grahameeboy]

Of course there are other ways mate! Searching for them is the greatest challenge sometimes. You know me and I know you, with the greatest of respect here........parenting a child with a disability (no matter what it is) comes with its own set of challenges I agree, but untill you are faced with a non-disabled child telling you to get fucked or the childish equivalent of that, you simply can not say turning the other cheek and smiling is truely an option in some circumstances.......THE END

Am off to the ATNR ride!

Do you make good coffee....enjoy the ride...........

[MSTRS:Me]

That's the Kiwi way. It's always someone's else's fault.

Not the Kiwi way that I grew up with...

[Usarka]

It seems to be the 5 out of the current 28 that are making the most noise.......

[u4ea]

.

My stance on this is that I don't believe in smacking but I don't appreciate the government telling me how to raise kids.

I'm the same but it's because I didn't like the jug cord welts(don't quite know what sort of a five year old I was,maybe my behaviour was a reaction to the sexual abuse as well)..only ever smacked my 17 yr old 3 times in his life..a mate has a three year old which likes to pour out all the shampoo and washing powder,she was concerned as she smacked his bum.I told her its fine as under the law it's to "prevent harm" and those things contain chemicles.It is an individual choice to smack in my veiw as well so long as it isnt genuine abuse.Bradford needs to get a grip on her own issues by the sounds of it.

[MSTRS:Me]

Repeat after me..."No seats and under 5%" - there's (at least) one that'll be straight back on TheBenefit...

[Grahameeboy]

It seems to be the 5 out of the current 28 that are making the most noise.......

Less is more.................

[Jantar]

given that the law was to-date untested, it was important that the case be heard to develop common law precedent.

Unfortunately the case still hasn't been heard. H pleaded guilty, so no test of the law was carried out.

What the guy did was "after the fact". The other issue would likely be the fact that the child was bruised as a result of the disciplining.

No evidence was presented that the bruising was as a result of the discipline. For that reason he was only charged with the smacking, not the bruising.