Get ready to hit your kids...

[Boob Johnson]

[Colapop]

who will you trust with your vote this year??

The mistake with that question is assumiong that anyone would trust a politician!

[devnull]

The mistake with that question is assumiong that anyone would trust a politician!

Two Crocodiles were sitting at the side of the swamp near the Lower Hutt river.
The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, "I can't understand
how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age and we were the
same size as kids. I just don't get it." "Well,"said the big Crock, "what
have you been eating?" "Politicians, same as you," replied the small
'Crock. "Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?" "Down the other side of the
harbour near the parking lot by the Parliament Buildings." "Same here. Hmm..
How do you catch them?" "Well, I crawl up under one of their BMW cars and
wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the
leg, shake the shit out of them and eat 'em!" "Ah!" says the big Crocodile,
"I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment. See,
by the time you finish shaking the shit out of a Politician, there's
nothing left but an asshole and a briefcase."

[MSTRS:Me]

Maybe, however, I would not be keen on a Govt who gave into what the Public wanted all the time...almost makes it Anarchy.

In this case, the Public got onto the Media band wagon and as usual blew things out of real proportion.

I mean what is the worst that has happened since the new Law was introduced compared with the old Law.

Democracy = government of the people, for the people, by the people. And (should) mean that majority rules. Where is the anarchy in that?
Instead, what this particular issue shows is that our 'government' is not acting with a popular mandate. That is diametrically opposed to democracy, and indeed, anarchy. Heard of the term 'dictatorship'? What's the version where there are lots of them, instead of one, imposing their version of what they think is good for us?
Nothing was blown out of proportion by the media, either.
What we have is a lowered benchmark for producing 'criminals' out of otherwise decent parents. And it has, does and will.
The reasonable force clause should have been clarified. Instead we got the 'thou shalt not...blah..blah...inconsequential...' tripe.

[Grahameeboy]

"Force" can be as simple as a mere touch.

Quite right about the magnitude, but a smack on a padded butt compared to a beating with a lump of 4 x 2, wrestling moves body slams, shoved in a dryer, whippings and punches to the head and body causing multiple broken bones/internal injuries etc etc doesn't need to have a new law to explain the difference, but sweeping up a smack, (which was deliberately avoided by BRADFORD and Co as above) within the definition does seem OTT.

No so sure...I think the name is the problem really.

[Grahameeboy]

Democracy = government of the people, for the people, by the people. And (should) mean that majority rules. Where is the anarchy in that?
Instead, what this particular issue shows is that our 'government' is not acting with a popular mandate. That is diametrically opposed to democracy, and indeed, anarchy. Heard of the term 'dictatorship'? What's the version where there are lots of them, instead of one, imposing their version of what they think is good for us?
Nothing was blown out of proportion by the media, either.
What we have is a lowered benchmark for producing 'criminals' out of otherwise decent parents. And it has, does and will.
The reasonable force clause should have been clarified. Instead we got the 'thou shalt not...blah..blah...inconsequential...' tripe.

As said by Abraham Lincoln who was shot by one of the people excercising their rights...

You are referring to direct democracy which is only possible with small groups..we are in a representative democracy so your definition is out of place with reality (sorry not being offensive here)...

[Skyryder]

The law specifically prohibits "the use of physical force for the purposes of correction"

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??


Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??


Skyryder

Yep it would be simple if it wasn't simple...

The problem is that in this Country there is an amazing amount of moaning on the basis that we live in a far away land and should be able to do what we like...

People think they know how to lead their lives and be parents...funny thing is that there is no manual or google search to do this...

This is why some moan about the Royal Family when they don't do things right...take Princess Anne..was standoffish..why..because she was not told how to be...so if the Royal Family struggle it is not surprising the rest of us sorry bastards struggle and whether we like it or not we do need things spelt out to us...

Blaming the Govt is just removing personal responsibility...am in the middle of a custody battle, yes the system is still not great...I have the choice to moan and get no where, except bitter like many Men's groups or work within the system and play the game...I chose the latter so in my view the system is for the people, just most don't see that.

Off topic a wee bit but just trying to explain the mentality behind the moaning about the anti-smacking Law.

[MisterD]

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

Tell that to the fella in Christchurch who was dragged in front of the courts because he gave his son a clip for running across the road pursued by his 2 year old younger brother.

[Grahameeboy]

Tell that to the fella in Christchurch who was dragged in front of the courts because he gave his son a clip for running across the road pursued by his 2 year old younger brother.

How were the facts divulged...anyway, nothing is perfect Mr D...you know that...imagine there was no law whatsover that covered this issue...there would be a hell of a lot more issues

[devnull]

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??


Skyryder

What is wrong?

You are.

Section 59
Parental control


(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

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(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).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

[Grahameeboy]

What is wrong?

You are.

What is wrong here?

[MSTRS:Me]

Off topic a wee bit but just trying to explain the mentality behind the moaning about the anti-smacking Law.

Oh really? How do you explain when you obviously don't understand (the ones who are moaning). That makes you just like certain people who enact laws or whatever cos 'they know what's good for us, whether we like it or not'...

[Grahameeboy]

Oh really? How do you explain when you obviously don't understand (the ones who are moaning). That makes you just like certain people who enact laws or whatever cos 'they know what's good for us, whether we like it or not'...

Nope I am not saying that...you are missing my point...I know I am misunderstood...

[James Deuce]

The assault laws deal with protecting children as well as adults. This is an additional regulation designed to regulate parental behaviour.

Don't educate, legislate.

No one sees individual law changes as bad until it is too late. Are you people saying that you are happy for the Government to legislate how you relate to your kids? Because you are included in a blanket statement that says you are a potential criminal if you dare to "discipline" your children in a way that any casual observer can interpret as violent with no other witnesses involved.

You now have to prove that you weren't violent, that your bahaviour was in context and the observer has interpreted what they saw incorrectly. I believe there are 6 convictions that have been over turned. I can't imagine that there hasn't been some cost in terms of family relationships, community standing, individual perceptions of character. Apparently it is acceptable to punish people wrongly because "children" are involved.

There's far too much scope for other people to point the finger and judge your performance as a parent. They won't help, but they'll certainly wreck your life quite happily.

You. Can. All. Fuck Off.