Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

[Winston001]

Who escaped prosecution??? As I recall and have stated previously, they were aquitted by a jury of their peers.

Yes - because the previous wording of Section 59 was too loose with the consequence that juries were confused. In those cases they acquitted.

However what it also meant is the police and crown prosecutors were reluctant to lay charges because of the loophole. The amendment closed that loophole.

[MisterD]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

So the loopholes were closed. 99.9% of parents should be pleased. Hell its about protecting kids.

Bugger, should have multi-quoted....

What percentage of parents "escaped"? Like a total of 2 in howeverfuckingmany years...0.000what%?

Making law on the basis of such extreme examples is such a bad and illogical course of action that I can't quite get my brain around the idiocy.

The correct response to such jury decisions is an appeal and better guidance from the judge next time. Sheesh.

[Winston001]

Right, so why the stress over what once was?

Ok. I'm generally pretty calm and don't get upset about stuff. However one thing I do feel passionate about is wilful and deliberate harm to children and animals.

The debate around S 59 and this curiously worded referendum has been fraught with misinformation. Its just my effort to try and correct misconceptions. Along with other people here doing the same.

[Grahameeboy]

I note also that in an interview with mother of the year Sue Bradford in 2007 she said
"The epidemic of child abuse and violence in this country continues - sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem"


So there you have, literally from the horses mouth. That should pretty much lay that argument to rest.

Well that is a fair comment that she makes as no Law can solve the problem..just the same as any Law but it can make a difference and at the end of the day we should accept some responsibility to solve the problem...

[Grahameeboy]

Yes - because the previous wording of Section 59 was too loose with the consequence that juries were confused. In those cases they acquitted.

However what it also meant is the police and crown prosecutors were reluctant to lay charges because of the loophole. The amendment closed that loophole.

Exactly and agree with you next post too....no holes stops leaks to stay afloat.

I am sure there will be settling in period and of course what we hear is only in the media which tends to slant things to suit.

[Goblin]

Exactly....blah blah blah...

You're like bloody crickets.... on an on you go...

Good on you for having shared custody of your daughter whom you've never had to discipline but please spare a thought for the many parents out here who have more than one child. You dont seem to get the concept of sibling rivalry between full-on brothers and the fun and games associated.

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.

This silly and expensive referendum is just boosting sue bradfords ego and wallet.

[Grahameeboy]

You're like bloody crickets.... on an on you go...

Good on you for having shared custody of your daughter whom you've never had to discipline but please spare a thought for the many parents out here who have more than one child. You dont seem to get the concept of sibling rivalry between full-on brothers and the fun and games associated.

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.

This silly and expensive referendum is just boosting sue bradfords ego and wallet.

Did I say I have never disciplined her? I do but I talk to her and use the naughty room....

Mmmm...I have a Sister so must have some concept....even so I still feel that smacking is unnecessary.

Agree about Laws but the aim is to catch the offenders to reduce the risks which is why the Anti-Smacking Law seems extreme..I reckon there would be less of an issue if it was called "Abuse of Children Act" like the Care of Children Act we have and we would not be having a referendum..the name sucks and is what has created this uproar.

The dogs one bugs me..my neighbour lets her dog out before she gets out and for 5 minutes it just runs around across the road...funny cause she rides to work with a backpack cover saying "one less motorist" and I see her ignore red lights on lake road in the morning...lol

[Trudes]

Well, maybe if people stopped calling it the "Anti-smacking law" then people might actually get that it is not all about that.

[Grahameeboy]

Well, maybe if people stopped calling it the "Anti-smacking law" then people might actually get that it is not all about that.

See my last post...the opposition at the time would only let if through if it was called this I understand...wonder why??..Why didn't they just call it Childrens Rights Act

[Trudes]

See my last post...the opposition at the time would only let if through if it was called this I understand...wonder why??..Why didn't they just call it Childrens Rights Act

Are we talking about the same law here? I believe it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. The purpose of this Act is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline. Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The media likes to call it The Anti-smacking law because it stirs up more emotions in the average citizen.

[Grahameeboy]

Are we talking about the same law here? I believe it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. The purpose of this Act is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline. Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The media likes to call it The Anti-smacking law because it stirs up more emotions in the average citizen.

Bloody Media...made me believe that is what the act is called...I say ban papers....I am going for a blat to get over it

[Trudes]

Good for you! If only more people could see the way to do the same.

[mctshirt]

I also tell my kids they suck at stuff when they lose, The oldest one did try that crap on me about how everyone wins, I shot that down quick, One winner son, everyone else is the loser.

Was that after you ran over him to score a another try at the end of season kids versus parents game? Fair call - no-one remembers who came second

It's all blah, blah, blah - the law won't protect the children at risk any more than putting a sign up or a slick multi media advertising campaign targeting the market research demographic will

[Winston001]

No anti-smaking law will stop babies and children being beaten, same as no drink driving laws will stop drunk drivers killing and maiming people on our roads nor will gun laws stop firearms being illegally owned, nor dog registration stop people letting their dogs roam free to attack passers by.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Laws reflect and bring about changed social attitudes. Its only 150 years ago that young children were sent up to clean chimneys.

Only 20 years ago, bum bandits hid in public toilets. It was incomprehensible to me as a schoolboy that one day homosexuality would be lawful.

A mere 10 years ago prostitution was illegal. Today there are brothels in the suburbs.

Similarly the Victorian ethic of physically punishing children has slowly eroded and the latest move with S.59 is just another signpost along the road.

[Headbanger]

Yep, Morality merely reflects the fashion of the day.

Another 50 years, the world maybe at war, society may look for strength within the church and boomfa all those awesome things like man-love will be banned again......