Child beaters, round two

**MSTRS:Me** · 19th June 2009, 09:16

Originally Posted by RantyDave

But this whole thing has been started by people who want their right to hit children.
....The solid base of people who like hitting children ....

Actually, this whole thing was started by someone who wants that 'right' taken away.
And where is it written that (good?) parents like to hit their kids? Smacking is just one tactic in the grab-bag of parenting options, whether it's used or not.
Thinking of analogies...I come up with the fact that many car-makers are no longer fitting lighters/ashtrays in their vehicles. 'They' have decided that 'we' don't need them now. WTF? No-one says you have to use such items, but many do, and now the choice is removed. I, like many others, resent that.

**James Deuce** · 19th June 2009, 09:19

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Obviously this woman has not matured enough to see beyond what is immediately in front of her. In that sense, she is child-like. I'm surprised you didn't invoke S.59 by giving her a smack...

She loves winding me and Heather up. It was a pleasure to ignore her pointedly.

**MSTRS:Me** · 19th June 2009, 09:24

Originally Posted by James Deuce

She loves winding me and Heather up. It was a pleasure to ignore her pointedly.

Probably a good thing that you had the 'safety' engaged...
How is Heather?

**James Deuce** · 19th June 2009, 09:33

Good mate, bit sore, but good. I'll never bitch that solo parents have it easy, ever again.

**Winston001** · 19th June 2009, 09:37

Originally Posted by jono035

I think a lot of people are arguing 2 different points in this debate. No-one here has said that 'abusive parents' should be able to 'justify hurting their children'. To argue that is a gigantic straw man. What people are arguing is that the change to the law spills over into criminalising something that non-abusive parents would like to have open to them as a disciplinary measure. A lot of people do not believe that a smack on the bottom that does not leave a mark, administered sparingly is something that is unacceptable, let alone something that should be prosecutable, which it now is.

Please everyone, stop suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be supporting child-abuse, it belittles this discussion.

Good post and I agree and have previously said that decent people are fearful they may face prosecution. The test therefore is - how many decent parents have actually suffered wrongful prosecution for giving a light smack in the past two years?

None that we have know of.

Families First says there are 9 prosecutions. 9. Two years, four million people, 9 cases. And in some of those the parents pleaded guilty!!

Furthermore when Bob Mccroskie (FF manager) was directly asked three times by Sean Plunkett on Morning Report (Tuesday) for specific cases involving smacking - he was unable to name a single one. Nadda. This is the man leading the referendum campaign.

As suggested above, if 1% of our children under 10 are smacked in a day = 3000 children. That equates to 2,190,000 chances of parents being criminalised in 2 years.

The truth is good parents have nothing to fear.

**James Deuce** · 19th June 2009, 09:54

Originally Posted by Winston001

The truth is good parents have nothing to fear.

I wrote some stuff out but it all feels a bit pointless. It's not Police or lawmakers I "fear", it's the judgmental prats I have to share my community with.

**MSTRS:Me** · 19th June 2009, 10:05

Originally Posted by Winston001

The test therefore is - how many decent parents have actually suffered wrongful prosecution for giving a light smack in the past two years?

That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"

**Hinny** · 19th June 2009, 12:17

Originally Posted by MSTRS

That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"

How many big brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?

Kids are expected to remember everything they are told and follow all instructions like automatons. When they are flat out learning about their whole world, learning to talk, walk, do arithmetic yada yada. And if they slip up you expect them to put up with physical violence.
How would you like it if I followed you around and whacked you every time you did something to piss me off? Or maybe something I consider to be 'wrong'.

**MSTRS:Me** · 19th June 2009, 12:26

Originally Posted by Hinny

How would you like it if I followed you around and whacked you every time you did something to piss me off? Or maybe something I consider to be 'wrong'.

You are not my parent, and you are not responsible for me or my actions. Try the above, and Section 48 will apply...

**Hinny** · 19th June 2009, 12:36

Don't you think you are missing the point?

**MSTRS:Me** · 19th June 2009, 12:49

Originally Posted by Hinny

Don't you think you are missing the point?

Not at all. Following a kid around, giving him/her a belt every time they make a mistake is abuse. A parent doing that deserves to feel the eyes of the law/community on them.
Tell us... your 5yo, was told that he couldn't have a lolly, so went to your gargre, grabbed a screwdriver and scratched FUCK DAD into the tank of your newly polished m/c. Was that a 'mistake'? Or being naughty?

**James Deuce** · 19th June 2009, 12:53

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Tell us... your 5yo, was told that he couldn't have a lolly, so went to your gargre, grabbed a screwdriver and scratched FUCK DAD into the tank of your newly polished m/c. Was that a 'mistake'? Or being naughty?

Hairy lipped childless social workers would tell us that he was just expressing himself and it was our fault for letting him know where the screwdirvers were and how to spell "FUCK".

**Winston001** · 19th June 2009, 12:54

Originally Posted by MSTRS

That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"

Ok - lets imagine my 12yr daughter is employed by me after school. She forgets to get the mail posted before 5:00pm. I smack her for being a clot - as part of disciplining her as an employee.

At home that night, she spills nail varnish on our new carpet, having been told not to bring it into the living room. I give her a smack just to bring home that mum and dad mean what they say.

No bruising in either case.

Where is the difference?

**Hitcher** · 19th June 2009, 12:57

Originally Posted by Winston001

Where is the difference?

This is a trick question, right?

**Winston001** · 19th June 2009, 13:02

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Someone collared me yesterday afternoon during school pickup and demanded to know where Heather was. Not concerned for Heather, aggro that she'd "disappeared". She asked me what I'd done. I refused to answer, and yelled out to the kids to get into the car. Not yelled "at", yelled "out", they were a good 50 metres away.

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

I'd be ultra pissed off if that happened to me and I'd have given her 40 words or more.

There are some nasty pieces of work out there, filled with bitterness.