Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

**Blue Thunder** · 24th November 2007, 16:09

[
Badford isn't a politician!!!!!! "she" is an unelected parasite on the face of this country.
This P.O.S. is a professional protestor and a scum-sucking leech on the soicety of NZ!

Ah the joys of MMP we get all the tossers that no body wanted in the first place

**jeremysprite** · 24th November 2007, 17:12

I'd say that considering the politics involved in this, the Government would make damn sure that this case (the first) would be a clear-cut, child beating case. Otherwise, everyone gets up in arms and tears down the Anti-Smacking Bill.
However, if the government goes - Look! we caught one using our new law! Then a lot of people will settle down about it, and we'll eventually accept non-smacking as a way of life.
Just like the Swedes.

**MSTRS:Me** · 24th November 2007, 17:24

Originally Posted by jeremysprite

I'd say that considering the politics involved in this, the Government would make damn sure that this case (the first) would be a clear-cut, child beating case. Otherwise, everyone gets up in arms and tears down the Anti-Smacking Bill.
However, if the government goes - Look! we caught one using our new law! Then a lot of people will settle down about it, and we'll eventually accept non-smacking as a way of life.
Just like the Swedes.

Governments write the laws. But if they get into prosecuting or influencing the police to do so, then that is a step too far. Not that that would stop this lot. As far as 'accepting' the present law as it is written...not according to any poll on the matter.

**discotex** · 24th November 2007, 22:01

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Good, we are getting somewhere. I should have picked up on your example before by pointing out that I wouldn't consider a smack 'cos she wouldn't cook my eggs' to be acceptable, anyway. If I really want some eats and she doesn't want to cook, then I can. That's the 'adult' thing to do.
However, putting a cut-off age on smacking kids is a bit more difficult. What age do you as a parent stop bathing them, or drying them? I guess the answer is each kid is an individual with different needs and expectations and each parent knows their child best and can decide when the time is appropriate for 'backing off' at bath time or smack time.

Yes that is the adult thing to do. Is smacking your 7 year old child for throwing a tanty in the supermarket really the adult thing to do? Is letting them get under your skin so much that you resort to smacking the adult thing?

I'm not so sure parents always do know best. Parents aren't perfect people any more than the politicians that would ban smacking, bottle feeding, smoking dope and every other law that assumes people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

There are lots of people out there making mistakes. Parents included. Not all parents know anything other than physical discipline. It's very hard to see the forest from the trees when you're in any situation.

What I do say is that parents given proper assistance and anti-natal training are more likely to draw the line correctly (even if that includes a smack once a year or whatever) and have a wider variety of techniques to deal with misbehaving children. Hell, some might even find better alternatives to smacking.

Like drugs and alcohol, used correctly and in specific circumstances you could argue smacking is helpful. Like drugs and alcohol, used incorrectly and abusively smacking leads to problems.

I'm quite anti using the law to control people. I'd much rather people are empowered to find better solutions to their problems. As I've said before I'm anti the anti-smacking bill but I also believe smacking is over utilised as a corrective tool.

**discotex** · 24th November 2007, 22:26

Originally Posted by devnull

Sure... start by having a look here:

http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/

The research presented is pretty balanced. He advocates that smacking is just one tool, and not a cure-all. His views are despised by the Greens here because he was the most vocal in discrediting Durrant's conclusions.

Am trying to find a copy of the British Journal of Social Work article - they're restricted access on their website.

"The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics" is the article

Another good site:

http://www.nkmr.org/english/smacking...erspective.htm

Don't have a copy of the British report here - it's on my work PC. I'll post it on Mon, assuming this thread is still going

Ta. I'll try to have a good read through it tomorrow if I get a chance.

I've only managed to skim through one of the links on the first page. (http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/L...Larzelere.html) It seemed to agree with my position somewhat while suggesting limited smacking may have a place (as I've already conceeded in a perfect application may be true).

I think we may actually be quite close in our general beliefs about discipline if you agree with the same article.

Of specific interest was that enforced time out was equally effective as spanking when used as a follow-up punishment if reasoning alone did not work.

Also this part I found interesting as it backs up my experience that physical punishment can actually increase misbehavior in moderate to good kids.

For children initially high on antisocial behavior, spanking frequency reduced their subsequent level of antisocial behavior. For children who were lowest on antisocial behavior, spanking frequency increased their subsequent level of antisocial behavior. In terms of Bell's control system model, this suggests that punishment is more effective as an upper limit control than as a maintenance or lower limit control. Consistent with the conditional sequence model, parents should be looking for opportunities to use gentler disciplinary responses when they can. The Straus et al. evidence suggests that frequent spanking becomes counterproductive with relatively well behaved children.

**Skyryder** · 25th November 2007, 06:14

Originally Posted by Blue Thunder

[
Badford isn't a politician!!!!!! "she" is an unelected parasite on the face of this country.
This P.O.S. is a professional protestor and a scum-sucking leech on the soicety of NZ!

Ah the joys of MMP we get all the tossers that no body wanted in the first place

Sometimes the personal dislike of something can cloud other factors that my be prevalent if more objectivity be utilised. For example she brokered a bill that had most of the electorate against. I think it was about 80%. That she bought National into the 'fold' when National opposed the bill from the outset should if you have any political nouse inform you of her political skills.

Like so many who opposed her bill you resort to the kind of abuse that you would be the first to critisize if she should use your rhetoric.

Whether you agree that Bradford is a politician is your choice. The reality is that she sits in Parliment and can make and change laws............. you can't. I suspect that your blindness in political matters is caused by old fashioned jealousy.

Skyryder