Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[JimO]

did you see Bradford on the news, she is geting jabba the hutts disease

[Jorja]

What I would love to know is who the hell told my boy? He came home from school saying

"Mum do you know you can't smack me anymore or you could be arrested?"

was told by a teacher at school recently that they cannot verbally tell a student off as it is classed as abuse.

[davereid]

ya don't need to smack 'em anyway.

Just gently hold their delicate little cherub faces in your hands as you explain the error of their ways.

And sink your index fingers into the pressure point in the jaw line, just below the ear lobe.

They get a headache they will remember for days, but you will leave no marks.

Good old communist police torture technique, highly recommended as is both effective and impossible to prove.

[candor]

There could be some evil people reading here Dave. Yanno the PCs are worried about tv screens inspiring stuff. OTT you were right about those things they're installing on roads. Letter from cops affirmed some such experimentation.

[Katman]

Sadly, if the bill had existed 35 years ago my Mum would be locked up, never to see the light of day again. Thankfully, I can look back and truely say I believe Mum (and Dad) did a good job.

[Skyryder]

As I do not have any children I have not commented on Sue Bradford's bill however my own thoughts are in keeping with the small anti-smacking minority on this.

The general feeling within Ministry circles was that Bradford's legislation was in line with many children's advocacy groups and was necessary. Many of these institutions were aware of the abuse that was going but due to the uncertain nature of the jury deliberations only the serious cases went to Court. Others were considered but due to financial restrictions and the uncertainty of a successful conviction many were never presented to court. What has never been fully expressed is the intent of her bill. That is to reduce the physical harm inflicted on children by their parents. No one that has any feeling not only for their child but others too can not disagree with Bradford's intent and I for one commend her for that. That many politicians only came on board to protect children at the 11th hour is too their everlasting shame. The reality of the world that we all live in is that the majority usually have to pay the price so that the minority 'can not' do as they please.

[devnull]

whose is the child?
the parents or the state's?

thats the way i see things

It's not ownership, it's a bond.

I never saw "the state" when we were sitting for hours, week after week, in an intensive care unit after our little boy was born prematurely.

Courtesan, I'm not arguing that the idea of reducing child abuse is wrong, the method chosen is.
Like banning all trees to avoid forest fires.

There was an excellent article posted last year in the British Journal of Social Work called "The Swedish Myth"
They (Sweden) assumed, as Bradford has, that more control by the state is better. History has proved them wrong.
The article also cites several U.N. sponsered studies that were done to identify risk factors for abuse.
It was found that low maternal age, low maternal education level, drug or alcohol abuse, were all key indicators. Severity was exacerbated by poverty.

Address these issues, and you're well on the way to combating the problem. Spain has the lowest incidence of child abuse in the world, but who here has asked why? They still smack their kids. Something to ponder...

[Indiana_Jones]

so acording to the law someone posted up, I can smack my child if they are disruptive, but not for correction?

Then just say you were stopping their disruptive behaviour and were not correcting them

-Indy

[carver]

It's not ownership, it's a bond.

I never saw "the state" when we were sitting for hours, week after week, in an intensive care unit after our little boy was born prematurely.

no, but im guessing your in a public hospital, run by the state

[devnull]

no, but im guessing your in a public hospital, run by the state

Unfortunately, yes.
Then again, we arrived at the delivery suite by ambulance with 10 minutes to spare. My lad was in a hurry to meet us

[carver]

Unfortunately, yes.
Then again, we arrived at the delivery suite by ambulance with 10 minutes to spare. My lad was in a hurry to meet us

fuck...i have no idea what that would be like

yes, the state is big these days

[devnull]

fuck...i have no idea what that would be like

yes, the state is big these days

The story is a funny one... now

My wife had had what she thought was Braxton-Hicks contractions overnight. The following morning I told her I'd take the day off work and we'd go see the midwife. She reckoned I should go to work and she'd be fine, but I decided not to.

We met the midwife at the hospital, they put her on a monitor, and told us all was well, it was way too early (by 6 weeks), and that we should go home. Diagnosis was an irritable uterus.

Well, we got home, and the pains got worse. I called the midwife after an hour and told her that this didn't seem right. She said call back if anything else happens.

Waters broke about 1/2 an hour later.

Well, the midwife said get back to the hospital now.
Yep, thats going to happen. No way was my wife able to go by car at that stage. So it was a 111 call to get a vehicle out to take her. Poor bloke on the phone tried to talk me through it all, until I pointed out that I'd spent 5 years with St John, and all I really wanted was the job keyed in and a vehicle dispatched.

It's at this point that you fully realise that things are completely different when your own family are involved. Objectivity goes out the window.

Anyway, an LSU turns up, we get her into the vehicle, and its a lights & siren trip to hospital. 10 minutes after we get there, our son is born (5lb 7oz)
We get a quick look at him, then he's whisked away. We got to see him 2 hours later in SCBU.

BTW, no.2 is now on the way - we're hoping for a more sedate experience this time

[MSTRS:Me]

As I do not have any children I have not commented on Sue Bradford's bill however my own thoughts are in keeping with the small anti-smacking minority on this....

The general feeling within Ministry circles was that Bradford's legislation was in line with many children's advocacy groups and was necessary.

... The reality of the world that we all live in is that the majority usually have to pay the price so that the minority 'can not' do as they please.

Nobody who has no children should have any right to tell those who do, how to raise them....There are an endless number of theories out there as to 'how to raise children' and all of them are fundamentally flawed. Including the theories held by parents. Every child is different and requires different input, even within the same family. The 'one size fits all' - doesn't.

And the general feeling amongst some religious groups is that it is ok to doorknock and hassle people etc - doesn't make it right for them to do so.

You think the minority are listening?? Or care??

[Skyryder]

You must be taking lessons from III; someone answers your questions with facts and you blindly ignore them and carry on regardless. The true sign of a zealot.



Opinion polls - not the most reliable gauge of public opinion, but the best we've got - indicated that 80% of the population were against the bill. Roughly 40% of the population, according to the last census, identified themselves as Christian. Yes, the religious right were against this bill, but where does the other 40% come from? Or are you, like III, so ideologically opposed to the religious right that you automatically take the diametrically opposite position to them on any subject where they make their views known.



You're taking it to the extreme, again. Personally, I don't believe that is any way to treat your child. However, the bill doesn't draw any disctinction between smacking your child repeatedly round the head with a length of 2x4 and giving a child a sharp smack on the hand. One causes head injuries, and the other causes a moment's discomfort. Are you really saying those two things are the same? As I states before (twice) Chester Borrows sought an amendment to the Bill which would have clarified what was acceptable as force that caused transitory and trivial effects. But Bradford, on a crusade as usual, rejected it out of hand and threatened everyone with a toy ejection if it was passed.



www.commielaw.co.nz, was it? I can't be bothered trying to find the reference you're referring to, but unless the jury were polled on their political leanings - which is so highly unlikely as to be farcical - then no-one would know if they had an anti-Labour attitude or not. Secondly, as already pointed out, Sue Bradford's not a member of the Labour Party anyway.

I'm not going to debate your post point by point as I simply don't have the time.

But the bottom line on this is that the child was manhandled in such a way as to cause bruising. The mother was sufficiently concern to take photographs as evidence and a relative of the child reported the incident to the Police who took out the prosecution. The father pleaded guilty.

As a result of Bradford's bill there is at least one child that has been afforded the protection that both you and I have as of right. All other arguments opposing childrens protection from violent parents and their actions pale into insignificance when the choice is freedom to inflict pain as against.


Skyryder

[trev]

The trouble with you lot is you are not creative enough - find other solutions such as the enclosed p/t