Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[discotex]

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.

Yep... Smacking them will solve that problem. NOT.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

I think resorting to smacking frequently is a sign that the parent hasn't got a big enough toolkit when it comes to their child's behaviour.

I also believe smacking can quickly escalate to assault if a light smack doesn't work. I'm guessing that's what's happened in this case.


Interesting that people equate discipline with smacking. As someone say way back "what does supernanny do?.. it seems to work". She sure as shit doesn't use smacking and doesn't seem to be complaining.

Of course children need clear boundaries and clear consequences to their actions. Without them they go nuts. Watch supernanny for 20sec and you'll see that's why she gets results.

Smacking is in 99% of cases the wrong tool for the job. It is rare that a child is really so badly behaved that it deserves physical punishment. Usually it's the parent losing their rag that drives the smack rather than the child's behaviour.

It's telling that parents that smack a lot tend to have kids that misbehave constantly yet parents who smack extremely rarely (and regret it immediately) usually have well balanced behaving kids.


And for the "was going to put their hand in the fire" arguement; how about making your house safe enough for your children rather than expecting a 2 year old to manage their own safety. If you think a smack is going to stop a 2 year old from trying again you're in lala land. Put a grille over the fire and solve the problem once and for all FFS!

[Grahameeboy]

Yep... Smacking them will solve that problem. NOT.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

I think resorting to smacking frequently is a sign that the parent hasn't got a big enough toolkit when it comes to their child's behaviour.

I also believe smacking can quickly escalate to assault if a light smack doesn't work. I'm guessing that's what's happened in this case.


Interesting that people equate discipline with smacking. As someone say way back "what does supernanny do?.. it seems to work". She sure as shit doesn't use smacking and doesn't seem to be complaining.

Of course children need clear boundaries and clear consequences to their actions. Without them they go nuts. Watch supernanny for 20sec and you'll see that's why she gets results.

Smacking is in 99% of cases the wrong tool for the job. It is rare that a child is really so badly behaved that it deserves physical punishment. Usually it's the parent losing their rag that drives the smack rather than the child's behaviour.

It's telling that parents that smack a lot tend to have kids that misbehave constantly yet parents who smack extremely rarely (and regret it immediately) usually have well balanced behaving kids.


And for the "was going to put their hand in the fire" arguement; how about making your house safe enough for your children rather than expecting a 2 year old to manage their own safety. If you think a smack is going to stop a 2 year old from trying again you're in lala land. Put a grille over the fire and solve the problem once and for all FFS!

Agreed...I sometimes think that parents do thinks to make them feel better for failing.............I see parents in Devonport which has 4 pedestrian crossings...with kids crossing at junctions where care are turning, walking in front of cars etc......yet if their kids did that they would know about it............just a simple example......for all parents it is a new experience......so why do we think we know best...................

[devnull]

Do you sometimes thing that perhaps that the actions of some kids has nothing to do with what the parent does.

What makes all parents thing they know how to teach kids the right concepts............soo looking at the bit in bold, you seem to be agreeing with the Bill in it's intent because this is what it is aimed at.

If I agreed with the bill, I would have said so.

A child's primary role models are their parents.
While some are complete and utter scumbags, the majority are not.
And most of the scumbags are already known to authorities.

If those authorities got off their collective asses instead of playing silly games, then maybe you'd see some improvement. Scrapping CYFS and replacing it with a department that works to improve the family unit in "at risk" cases would be a good start.

Bradford's bill was never aimed at protecting kids - Chester Borrows' bill was.

As to her underlying intent, and given her own history with kids, I very much doubt your interpretation is correct. More like political expediency - assertion of additional control

[discotex]

Shame that very experienced teacher is leaving the system. Bet she is the old school type who controlled her class, and had heaps of respect from students and colleagues alike.

Fear maybe. Respect not likely.

Beating kids doesn't make them stop doing something out of respect.

My guess is this teacher just can't adapt and instead of learning new ways to handle the kids is bailing out.

Failing to control the class isn't a result of lack of the ability to beat the kids it's a result of lack of proper teacher training. Why else can so many young teachers demand respect without resorting to corporal punishment while the dinosaurs fail?

[MSTRS:Me]

The point that you anti-smackers seem to miss is the wording of the law in question.
Someone (a policeman?) must still decide, in the case of a complaint, whether the smack was 'reasonable and legal in the circumstances'. The waffly clause S.59 was simply replaced with another form of waffle.
A complaint of 'assault' was always possible under the old law, and did happen sometimes. Whether it ever went to court or resulted in a conviction, the same shitstorm of 'the authorities' moving in on a family happened and still does.
So how is anyone better off with the new law?
And don't come at the old 'protecting the innocent' crap - it just doesn't fly.

[Grahameeboy]

If I agreed with the bill, I would have said so.

A child's primary role models are their parents.

Not so sure these days with peer pressure and luxuries available to kids that are outside the control of parents.....maybe different 40 years ago


While some are complete and utter scumbags, the majority are not.
And most of the scumbags are already known to authorities.

And the Bill will target the minority?

If those authorities got off their collective asses instead of playing silly games, then maybe you'd see some improvement. Scrapping CYFS and replacing it with a department that works to improve the family unit in "at risk" cases would be a good start.

Bradford's bill was never aimed at protecting kids - Chester Borrows' bill was.

So was it to protect fishing quota's?

As to her underlying intent, and given her own history with kids, I very much doubt your interpretation is correct. More like political expediency - assertion of additional control

I am sure that the MP's who voted the bill in did not all have a bad history. Bradford just introduced it.

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

[discotex]

The point that you anti-smackers seem to miss is the wording of the law in question.
Someone (a policeman?) must still decide, in the case of a complaint, whether the smack was 'reasonable and legal in the circumstances'. The waffly clause S.59 was simply replaced with another form of waffle.

Actually I think you'll find I made that point quite clearly.

To be clear I'm anti the amendment as I think it's unclear and sends the wrong message. Rather than engaging parents to find better solutions it just fucks everyone off.... Kinda pointless.

Your argument about the police is pretty weak though.

The police use judgement when pressing charges against any law. How many people have you heard of who'd been busted smoking a joint and were told "don't let me catch you doing that again" or speeding or whatever and the cops just walked away.

I don't see any section in the misuse of drugs or land transport act giving police the choice whether to prosecute or not but they do on a regular basis. What is materially different with this law?

[devnull]

Fear maybe. Respect not likely.

Beating kids doesn't make them stop doing something out of respect.

My guess is this teacher just can't adapt and instead of learning new ways to handle the kids is bailing out.

Failing to control the class isn't a result of lack of the ability to beat the kids it's a result of lack of proper teacher training. Why else can so many young teachers demand respect without resorting to corporal punishment while the dinosaurs fail?

You do realise, that because of the sharp rise in violence in schools, many teachers are leaving the profession because they fear for their safety, don't you? And that NZ is now facing a critical shortage of teachers.

The govt is offering a $30k incentive payment in efforts to lure teachers here from overseas. It isn't working...

[Patrick]

Yep, and sometimes that is best done with a quick smack...

Without physical harm or brusing......................

....just a fleeting stinging sensation, which is remembered next time (it is to be hoped) the recipient thinks of doing what led to the smack in the first place...

Re the above three posts... That is what the amendment from BURROWS was meant to be about... but Bradford wouldn't allow it... One light smack, without harm or bruising, is parental discipline, but not in her book, is how I see it....

I have no issue with that..............I have no doubt that is what you would do.....guess not all Dad's are like you and what they thing is just a sting ends up being more and this is the difference.

True... but the previous law saw that too... The reality was just the judges fell for the parental discipline crap where a lump of 4x2 and extension cords was OK.... It wasn't, and never was, from the cops points of view. Seen many locked up for that, won some, lost some. Inconsitency from the judges about the parental discipline "limits" was, and probably always will be, the problem.

In a word, "no!"
The Bible says.."honour thy Mother and thy Father"
Healthy correction/discipline of a child leads to respect for authority.

Check out the respect for authority this day and age... it no longer exists. Kids attack teachers, abuse parents, Police, just to name a few....

The point that you anti-smackers seem to miss is the wording of the law in question.
Someone (a policeman?) must still decide, in the case of a complaint, whether the smack was 'reasonable and legal in the circumstances'. The waffly clause S.59 was simply replaced with another form of waffle.
A complaint of 'assault' was always possible under the old law, and did happen sometimes. Whether it ever went to court or resulted in a conviction, the same shitstorm of 'the authorities' moving in on a family happened and still does.
So how is anyone better off with the new law?
And don't come at the old 'protecting the innocent' crap - it just doesn't fly.

Same old, same old, really.... Nothing really has changed that much at all. Parents were getting locked up for physically harming or injuring their kids before under the old law. Now it is happening with the new law.

The difference is the short sharp light smack should still go nowhere, or the violent beating, which quite rightly ends up in court, exactly as it was before...

The amendment proposed by BURROWS was pointing out the obvious... the judges needed "guidelines" on what was parental discipline or what was a beating. Although blatantly obvious to this fella and to BURROWS, not so to the judges and BRADFORD it seemed. Two extremely different acts.

Been a hell of a roundabout, but.......

[Patrick]

You do realise, that because of the sharp rise in violence in schools, many teachers are leaving the profession because they fear for their safety, don't you? And that NZ is now facing a critical shortage of teachers.

The govt is offering a $30k incentive payment in efforts to lure teachers here from overseas. It isn't working...

Police are now being called to attend school fights, FFS!!!! Teachers don't want to step in to break them up like they used to, by grabbing the scruffs of two necks and marching them off to the Principals office, for fear of being prosecuted themselves.

Lack of respect starts from the home, is then further formed from schooling then once in the grown up world, it is already developed by most....

Those without respect for anything or anyone keep me employed.

[yungatart]

Lack of respect starts from the home, is then further formed from schooling then once in the grown up world, it is already developed by most....

Those without respect for anything or anyone keep me employed.

Absolutely!!
It starts in the home, compounded by the lack of boundaries, logical or natural consequences..(hell, any consequences!) and the firm belief that "the world owes me, does revolve around me..."
It starts with lack of any discipline or guidance
I will still smack my grandkids if I feel I need to, to bring them into line. Luckily for them (and me) they have all been brought up well, and know how to behave!

[devnull]

Police are now being called to attend school fights, FFS!!!! Teachers don't want to step in to break them up like they used to, by grabbing the scruffs of two necks and marching them off to the Principals office, for fear of being prosecuted themselves.

Lack of respect starts from the home, is then further formed from schooling then once in the grown up world, it is already developed by most....

Those without respect for anything or anyone keep me employed.

Agreed. It's really gotten out of hand

Hell, when I was growing up, I'd call a man "Sir"... and any cop as well.
The local cop knew most of the people, and if you were caught doing something wrong, he'd give you a clip round the ear. Being taken home by him was reserved for really bad behaviour - you knew you were in deep trouble when that happened. (And this was in Auck - the furthest reaches of the Nth Shore)

Now, parents are afraid to parent for fear of losing their kids to the state, teachers are afraid to enforce their authority for fear of prosecution, lawyers and social service agencies make a killing, and the police are expected to clean up the mess... How can this be progress?

[tri boy]

Lets try and get this into perspective with a simple analogy. Correct me if I am wrong but many of you believe in the right of the parent to smack the child...............but when the child grow up does he have the right to 'smack' the parent.

Skyryder[/QUOTE]

Absolutely entitled. If the smacking is of similar effort. (light, and with concern/love).
IE Grandma has a brain disorder, and is close to injuring herself because of her condition. One of the most basic stimulus for a brain is to pick up nerve signals like a sting/smack. (I'm no doctor, so don't mind being corrected).
So a similar smack in adulthood and childhood is doing a similar task.
So long as people don't blur this issue with heavy physical punches etc, I think it works for all ages. (dare I say it, most animals).
Lots of people don't like the use of electric dog collars, but in many cases, (dogs chasing cars on roads etc) its the only method to correct that behaviour. I have had hands on use with these, and the dogs remain loving loyal companions. One or two shocks at the moment of behaviour generally sorts the problem. (please don't assume I treat children as animals, that'll just show peoples inability to understand my point).

[tri boy]

Fear maybe. Respect not likely.

Beating kids doesn't make them stop doing something out of respect.

My guess is this teacher just can't adapt and instead of learning new ways to handle the kids is bailing out.

Failing to control the class isn't a result of lack of the ability to beat the kids it's a result of lack of proper teacher training. Why else can so many young teachers demand respect without resorting to corporal punishment while the dinosaurs fail?

Mr Gormsby would disagree.
Canning was and still is a reasonable way of setting boundaries in my view.
Sounds brutal, but it isn't. 3 whacks on the arse of a 115kg wayward male secondary student DID alot of good. And I know I still hold the old discipline masters that whacked me in high respect. Not out of fear, but for having enough concern towards guys like me that paid no attention to wimpy teachers that tryed to reason with a wound up adolescent.
This was discipline that was short/sharp, and got the message across in 100 times quicker ways than detention, (what a joke) or talking.
The Bill may refer to parenting, but will have wide ranging repercussions, right across society.
Forget about Bradford and her cotton wool friends. They havn't got a clue. Thats why she is a pollie.

[discotex]

You do realise, that because of the sharp rise in violence in schools, many teachers are leaving the profession because they fear for their safety, don't you? And that NZ is now facing a critical shortage of teachers.

The govt is offering a $30k incentive payment in efforts to lure teachers here from overseas. It isn't working...

Sure violence in schools is increasing (although I haven't seen any real stats that back you up on that).

You are falsely attributing violence in schools to a lack of corporal punishment though.

You might as well blame rock'n'roll, video games or violent movies if you are going to make that sort of claim.

Society has changed wah wah. Beating our kids into submission isn't going to solve the problem. In fact no single action will.