Don't smack your kids...

[Scuba_Steve]

But they will hit you

Police have warned parents not to take any abuse from unruly teenagers.

Nobody expects hormone-driven teens to be docile but police are reporting a disturbing new trend in their behaviour.

Sergeant Alan McGlade, supervisor of the Hamilton Family Safety Team, said police had noticed a pattern emerging in cases of violence and abuse for the past six to 12 months.

When did the Anti-Smaking law come in again?

More teens attacking parents - Stuff article

[Mully]

I've heard (Second hand, but that'll do for KB) of kids (tweens and teens) hurling abuse at their parents and saying things to the extent of "You can't do anything to me"

My response would be a phonecall to CYFS - "Come take the little fuckers away" - cos CYFS are allowed to kill kids in their care.

CYFS > Sue Bradford's stupid bill.

Check. And Mate. You little turd.

[Smifffy]

I've heard (Second hand, but that'll do for KB) of kids (tweens and teens) hurling abuse at their parents and saying things to the extent of "You can't do anything to me"

My response would be a phonecall to CYFS - "Come take the little fuckers away" - cos CYFS are allowed to kill kids in their care.

CYFS > Sue Bradford's stupid bill.

Check. And Mate. You little turd.

They aren't just allowed to kill kids in their care - it's expected.

Although there are some foster parents that don't meet all of their KPIs in that regard.

[oldguy]

I don't smack kids, i give them a good kick up the ass.

[FJRider]

Self defence your honour ...

[Genie]

Once again this topic arises...and once again I'll say, 'arrest me'.

I'm going to smack my kids if they so deserve it.

I will not abuse my children but when they get sick of my nagging and don't take kindly to my yelling, then I'll give the little darlings a slap to say, I've had enough.

I too, hate the sound of my screeching so, in order to keep them happy, I'll slap their left thigh, it's the closest to my right hand...though sometimes an ear may get in the way.

I love my children, they are dear to me and to NOT SMACK them is to dishonour them.

[Scuba_Steve]

Once again this topic arises...and once again I'll say, 'arrest me'.

I'm going to smack my kids if they so deserve it.

I will not abuse my children but when they get sick of my nagging and don't take kindly to my yelling, then I'll give the little darlings a slap to say, I've had enough.

I too, hate the sound of my screeching so, in order to keep them happy, I'll slap their left thigh, it's the closest to my right hand...though sometimes an ear may get in the way.

I love my children, they are dear to me and to NOT SMACK them is to dishonour them.

And good on you I think this is how they should be brought up, Its how I was brought up & as far as I'm concerned it creates more respectful/considerate people heres to you

[Genie]

And good on you I think this is how they should be brought up, Its how I was brought up & as far as I'm concerned it creates more respectful/considerate people heres to you

Oh , I forgot to say, that in order to keep me happy I need at least 10 hours a week to ride my bike.

[riffer]

I find that turning off the wifi hotspot is having a much better result...

[Winston001]

When did the Anti-Smaking law come in again?

More teens attacking parents - Stuff article

Hmm...so lets analyse this:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 provides a limited defence for parents who physically strike their children. Not "smack" - that word does not appear anywhere in the law.

Previously the Section 59 defence allowed parents to use electric cords, a fence picket, and a riding crop on their children.

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.



And now you are saying that not being violently abused is causing teenagers to hit their parents...?

Sorry. I can't see the logical progression at all.

[Smifffy]

Hmm...so lets analyse this:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 provides a limited defence for parents who physically strike their children. Not "smack" - that word does not appear anywhere in the law.

Previously the Section 59 defence allowed parents to use electric cords, a fence picket, and a riding crop on their children.

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.



And now you are saying that not being violently abused is causing teenagers to hit their parents...?

Sorry. I can't see the logical progression at all.

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

The kids that were at risk of being abused under that regime are at exactly the same risk of being abused now, under the current law.

Amending section 59 has reduced child abuse in NZ. YEAH RIGHT!

All it has done is make good parents fear the consequences of their children misbehaving.

[hellokitty]

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

The kids that were at risk of being abused under that regime are at exactly the same risk of being abused now, under the current law.

Amending section 59 has reduced child abuse in NZ. YEAH RIGHT!

All it has done is make good parents fear the consequences of their children misbehaving.

True! It is illegal to bash your kids to death - an anti smacking law is not going to change that is it? People will still abuse and kill their kids.

[Mully]

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.

Thank God for that, huh?

I hated that time, back in the past, when you couldn't go a week without reading about some lowlife beating the shit out of their child/step-child/other misc small person.

I'm so happy that the repeal of S59 stopped NZ's children being murdered by their family.

Wait, shit.

[Pussy]

Just as well the Kahuis didn't smack their kids, eh?

[PrincessBandit]

Well it's really only a retrograde expression of the way our laws are heading isn't it. You can't beat a home invasion offender who is terrifying the shit out of you but they can do what they like to you; a shop owner can't defend their shop or themselves in a way which might injure a knife or gun-toting robber; parents mustn't physically defend themselves from stroppy children who take the easy option of lashing out in case they accidentally "smack" them...

Well, perhaps I'm being a tad over reactive. But doesn't anyone else wonder where it will end?