Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[devnull]

No it has not and until a case is presented the legislation stands as law and at the present time smacking is allowed in some circumstances.

I don't mind people having differing opinions and ideas. Would be a sorry world if we all thought the same...........but most object to Bradford's bill on the parents rights..........with little thought on the rights of those that are incapable of defending themselves..............thier children. What many do not know or realise is that prior to Bradfords bill animals had more protection in law than children. The realy sad thing about this is that many New Zealanders use Bradfords bill as opposition to Labour. In effect they were promoting the parental right of pyhsical assault on children as a means of denigrating Labour. Fucking Christian cowards and that is putting it mildly.


Skyryder

Ah yep... and so we resort to religious slagging.

Are you just plain stupid? How many children have you raised, as a matter of interest? Never see ANY of the psych reports on this issue? Not even the Otago Uni one?

Well, I am a parent. This isn't about "parent's rights", despite what you may think. It's about raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility.

The animal argument is asinine crap. How many kids that have killed other kids have the police had put down lately?

As a parent, I'll fight for my kids, even die for them if necessary, but I'll be damned if some social misfit that screwed up her own family will tell me how to raise mine.

You think this shining example of humanity was right? Look at Sweden - they're far further down this slope. Look at the number of children being placed into state care; look at the youth crime rate...

[Sanx]

I wasn't talking about a 1 year old............so you reckon a 1 year old should be smacked?

You weren't. I was. Bradford's bill makes no allowances for the age of the child either.

What about shouting?

Shouting might work. On the other hand, it might not. Sue Bradford doesn't have the answer to all situations.

What about the parents putting that socket protectors in?

That would address the one example I came up with, based upon my own personal experience. However, it would also assume the child never went into a house were socket protectors weren't fitted, and that the parent religiously re-inserted a protector every time a plug was removed. Ideally, it would happen, but despite Bradford and her ilk's attempts, this is not an ideal world.

I think that we are taking Bradford's Law to far here.

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rights

The problem is that Bradford's Bill contains no clarifications of what is and isn't allowed, or any limits of to what situations it should and shouldn't apply. As I stated earlier, Chester Borrows proposed an amendment which would have clarified the meaning of reasonable force and an act causing "transitory and trifling" harm ... a light open smack to the bum, for instance. However, Bradford was against any modification to her little bill and, despite offering no reasons why the amendment was bad, threatened to withdraw her bill if it was passed.

I guess the difference is smacking and hitting...........a light smack on the bottom is fine ...

But thanks to Sue Bradford, a light smack on the bottom is a criminal offence.

[Grahameeboy]

You weren't. I was. Bradford's bill makes no allowances for the age of the child either.

And is should not.


Shouting might work. On the other hand, it might not. Sue Bradford doesn't have the answer to all situations.

And nor do parents either.


That would address the one example I came up with, based upon my own personal experience. However, it would also assume the child never went into a house were socket protectors weren't fitted, and that the parent religiously re-inserted a protector every time a plug was removed. Ideally, it would happen, but despite Bradford and her ilk's attempts, this is not an ideal world.

So now we are making excuses for parents? You are right though this may not be an ideal world and tell me a Law that is.


The problem is that Bradford's Bill contains no clarifications of what is and isn't allowed, or any limits of to what situations it should and shouldn't apply. As I stated earlier, Chester Borrows proposed an amendment which would have clarified the meaning of reasonable force and an act causing "transitory and trifling" harm ... a light open smack to the bum, for instance. However, Bradford was against any modification to her little bill and, despite offering no reasons why the amendment was bad, threatened to withdraw her bill if it was passed.

But wasn't that the problem before which prevented cases being dismissed?

.......................................

[MSTRS:Me]

Funny thing is that the Law is to try and protect the kids rights, not the Parents rights

The really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

Whilst I think telling kids their parents can be arrested seems OTT, it is good that kids learn their rights which some parents do not explain.

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights). The 'good' kids somehow learned both, whilst the 'bad' kids are all one-sided as far as rights go. Teach them responsibility with appropriately applied pain, if they won't learn it any other way.

[devnull]

But wasn't that the problem before which prevented cases being dismissed?

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

[Grahameeboy]

The really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

What Nanny State? Well although I am not so sure that is true, cannot be a bad thing protecting people?

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights). The 'good' kids somehow learned both, whilst the 'bad' kids are all one-sided as far as rights go. Teach them responsibility with appropriately applied pain, if they won't learn it any other way.

That is as much down to the parents as it is the teachers. I used to help on ski trips for schools and it is difficult for a teacher because they have to enforce boundary's that often the kids would not have at home, but as soon as the parents found out that you have allowed them to do things that they themselves allowed their kids to do there would be uproar.............

........................

[Grahameeboy]

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

Perhaps true but with kids the 'Assault' issue is different.

I guess the Laws will never win. There are those who will argue we should be pro-active and have a Law and then there are those who as you have said, will argue there is no evidence................

[Skyryder]

Ah yep... and so we resort to religious slagging.

Are you just plain stupid? How many children have you raised, as a matter of interest? Never see ANY of the psych reports on this issue? Not even the Otago Uni one?

Well, I am a parent. This isn't about "parent's rights", despite what you may think. It's about raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility.

The animal argument is asinine crap. How many kids that have killed other kids have the police had put down lately?

As a parent, I'll fight for my kids, even die for them if necessary, but I'll be damned if some social misfit that screwed up her own family will tell me how to raise mine.

You think this shining example of humanity was right? Look at Sweden - they're far further down this slope. Look at the number of children being placed into state care; look at the youth crime rate...

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.


The child in question was manhandled in such a manner that it resulted in bruising. So you are advocating that this is the way of raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility. Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this? Is that what you are saying??

Skyryder

[Mom]

.......................................

GB, I have 3 children, and they all have been completely different personallities and have required different forms of discipline. First and foremost I used the "super nanny" type of discipline but..... my first daughter was a normal sort of kid, tried it on, got told not to, occasionally got a smack on the bum if required. My son was a fair little shit, no amount of telling him was good enough, he also got a good old smack when he crossed the line, for him it happened more often, my youngest daughter was an angel, not even sure she ever got a smack from Mom.

I was beaten as a child, not smacked, my father was a brute who thought nothing of picking up the nearest thing and walloping the shit out of me, black eyes were a trademark for the female members of my family home. I would never, ever condone violence against children, in any way shape of form, but I would not hesitate to give a short , sharp reminder about something if required.

An example:........my son at 17 years of age told me to "get fucked!!" right in my face, because he was not happy with one of my Nanny techniques.........he got a short, swift slap round the ears for that. Dont care, put me in jail!

The really funny thing is that NannyState has this belief that it can protect everyone/thing from anyone/thing else...

The better thing would be the teaching of responsibilities (along with rights).

Bingo!

[MSTRS:Me]

What nanny state?

Just what reality do you inhabit? It sure isn't one where NZ exists.

[Grahameeboy]

GB, I have 3 children, and they all have been completely different personallities and have required different forms of discipline. First and foremost I used the "super nanny" type of discipline but..... my first daughter was a normal sort of kid, tried it on, got told not to, occasionally got a smack on the bum if required. My son was a fair little shit, no amount of telling him was good enough, he also got a good old smack when he crossed the line, for him it happened more often, my youngest daughter was an angel, not even sure she ever got a smack from Mom.

I was beaten as a child, not smacked, my father was a brute who thought nothing of picking up the nearest thing and walloping the shit out of me, black eyes were a trademark for the female members of my family home. I would never, ever condone violence against children, in any way shape of form, but I would not hesitate to give a short , sharp reminder about something if required.

An example:........my son at 17 years of age told me to "get fucked!!" right in my face, because he was not happy with one of my Nanny techniques.........he got a short, swift slap round the ears for that. Dont care, put me in jail!



Bingo!

A 17 year old is not a kid though so although I would not have clipped him around the ear (I would have just smiled an ignored), I actually don't think what you did was wrong.

[Skyryder]

Which cases? Even the Law Society struggled to find these mountains of cases that Bradford referred to. They couldn't.

They found a handful where the defence of S59 had been unsuccessfully tried, and a couple where a judge had agreed that the parent had acted appropriately in the situation

You see, it's was never an automatic "Get out of jail free" card.
Assault is assault, and is defined an another part of the Crimes Act.

I'm not aware of the Judge letting them off. There were some cases where the jury did. There was some evedince that on one trial the jury aquited on the basis of it's hostile attitude to Labour. I did a lot of research on this way back and came across some commments from one of the legal sites on this. Have no idea if true or not.

Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

Just what reality do you inhabit? It sure isn't one where NZ exists.

I just do not inhabit your reality that is all............where does NZ exist?

I guess we all have different life experiences........I will spare you mine.....and out of this we see things differently and the things that bother some people don't even register with others and so on.

[devnull]

Bollocks. The Christian Right have consistantly advocted their parental rights are being interferred with. It was their 'fundamental' opposition to Bradfords bill.


The child in question was manhandled in such a manner that it resulted in bruising. So you are advocating that this is the way of raising kids to become young adults that are respectful, and can integrate well into the community they live in. It's about bringing them up so that they DON'T thinks its OK to maim or kill others; it's about having a sense of personal responsibility. Correct me if I am wrong but whacking kids to the point of bruising and inflicting pain is the way to achveiv this? Is that what you are saying??

Skyryder

You are wrong... so clearly wrong and unable to see why that I'd recommend some form of medication...

You obviously know much more about the case in the media than has been reported. I say obviously because what you've stated here isn't what was reported - please share the full story.

Now, as to my other questions... still waiting for an answer.
I'm also curious to know why you believe that Bradford is right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that repeating the same social experiment that failed so abysmally in Sweden is a wonderful thing.

All the while completely ignoring the numerous studies that have accurately identified the key risk factors in real child abuse, and doing nothing to address them.

The Swedish experiment has done more than just fail. It's effectively wrecked the lives of an entire generation. That's not just a failure, thats criminal. Those kids had the right to grow up with boundaries, responsibilities, morals, and it was taken away from them by a mindless bureaucracy

[Mom]

I would have just smiled an ignored

You know that actually surprises me.......Honour your Father and your Mother, springs to mind here. Smiling and ignoring was going to achieve what? Certainly prove to him that I have no self respect, because I dont seem to care how he talks to me???? Leave him thinking well that was not a problem, I will keep doing it??????

No kid of mine will ever talk to me like that! He had the grace to apologise to me, not one of those sorry mumbles either, he really just lost the plot. Trust me, I doubt he will ever speak like that to me ever again, and he has learned a valuable lesson about what is in fact OK.

I actually don't think what you did was wrong.

Thank you! May Natalie never place you in a position that you have to step away from your stance on smacking! I actually mean that mate, until you are faced with behaviour that you have attempted to control without a smack, you really have no idea.