Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

**devnull** · 23rd November 2007, 19:05

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

No I have not just did not realise it was a problem in the NZ....it was a while back in UK and still is but there was a real bad phase..........

All symptoms of the same problem mate....
One bad piece of law doesn't cut it.

Fix the real issues, empower people to be responsible for their own lives instead of copping out to the state, and we start addressing the causes instead of just the symptoms.

The rot across the state infrastructure runs deep, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. Some things, like scrapping CYFS and starting again but doinf it right this time, would be a start. Judicial reviews with random samplings of court cases to ensure that judges actually do their jobs properly, with the power to sack those that don't.

In other words, right across the board, assign accountability and hold people to it. Doing a good job = praise; a bad job = bye bye.

**Fatjim** · 23rd November 2007, 19:09

"empower people to be responsible for their own lives".

Where did this huge piece of PC horse shit come from?

You mean, "make people responsible for their own actions"

**Mom** · 23rd November 2007, 19:10

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I might add that is was not that long ago that our society aproved the beating of the wife as she was considered to be the property of the husband. Marrage vows explicity said Love Honour and Obey. Thankfully that practice is no longer tolerated and indeed in the future the arguments that are put forward today for 'smacking' children will also belong in the same rubbish bin.
Skyryder

Seems we agree on more than meets the eye....

**Grahameeboy** · 23rd November 2007, 19:10

Originally Posted by devnull

All symptoms of the same problem mate....
One bad piece of law doesn't cut it.

Fix the real issues, empower people to be responsible for their own lives instead of copping out to the state, and we start addressing the causes instead of just the symptoms.

The rot across the state infrastructure runs deep, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. Some things, like scrapping CYFS and starting again but doinf it right this time, would be a start. Judicial reviews with random samplings of court cases to ensure that judges actually do their jobs properly, with the power to sack those that don't.

In other words, right across the board, assign accountability and hold people to it. Doing a good job = praise; a bad job = bye bye.

I agree.....no ACC for 'at fault' cases............take responsibility.

Agree with performance testing of judges...........and random dope testing should bag a few eh?

**devnull** · 23rd November 2007, 19:11

Originally Posted by Fatjim

"empower people to be responsible for their own lives".

Where did this huge piece of PC horse shit come from?

You mean, "make people responsible for their own actions"

Same thing, just sounded better... I'm on a roll

Ahh... the lawful beating of wives.... it was called the "Rule of Thumb" - you couldn't beat your wife with a stick larger than your thumb... you'd think it'd be the "Rule of Wrist" wouldn't you?

**MSTRS:Me** · 23rd November 2007, 19:36

What surprises me is that supposedly intelligent people will back Labour and it's obviously flawed social policies. Or did the trained monkeys escape (again) ?

**ynot slow** · 23rd November 2007, 19:44

Originally Posted by Mom

In your eyes I am part of the tragedy because I have smacked my kids, causing them a short, sharp pain!!!!!!!! Have never injured them though, but you make no differentation at all. Perhaps I should go to the police station now and turn myself in?

Can remember as a kid of 10 or so,mum had a roast in the oven,my brother and I were trying to grab the knuckle from the dish,as the oven door was open and dish halfway out,mum grabbed us and gave us a slap each,nothing bad no marks etc.The reason being she saw the dish being upturned and the oil catching alight,and as a girl she was badly burnt on her thighs from her nighty catching alight.She smacked us as a deterent and as well as a reminder not to be stupid.

**Swoop** · 23rd November 2007, 19:52

Originally Posted by Sanx

Nothing is wrong with talking and explaining, but if the child is too young to reliably assimilate the information you're trying to impart, along with an understanding of the consequences of ignoring you, would you really like to rely on explanation alone?

In fact this could have the opposite effect. A nice, soothing tone of voice saying "what a silly thing to do, cluck, cluck, brood, brood, nice fluffy pleasant thoughts, etc, etc"
The sprog then thinks "if I shove the knife into the power socket, Mum will speak with soothing tones"... at the funeral.

Originally Posted by Finn

I heard that Bradford was raped by her father.

He would be a very sick man for doing so.
Women (apparently) improve with age - like a fine wine... so badford must have been fucking hideous as a kid.

**Skyryder** · 23rd November 2007, 21:39

None of us who have raised children can declare themselves the perfect parent. All of us start with little understanding or have any experience of what parenting entails. We make the choices that we believe are best for our children. When we fail them in this we follow the choices that are best for ourselves. Rarely do we remember that they are the product of both limb and womb. When inflicting pain on them even with the best of intentions we inflict pain on ourselves. Due to our arrogance and self righteousness as parents we simply do not feel it.

Skyryder

**Sanx** · 23rd November 2007, 21:53

Originally Posted by Skyryder

We make the choices that we believe are best for our children.

Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Choices. Please explain how the legislation we've been discussing expands upon the choices available to good parents? Good parents can still make choices they believe are best for their children, but can now get prosecuted for them.

What you should have said was:
"We make choices that we believe are best for our children, but only when those choices happen to coincide with the particular moral values of a 20% minority. The rest of the time, we're told what to do."

**Skyryder** · 23rd November 2007, 22:02

Originally Posted by Sanx

Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Choices. Please explain how the legislation we've been discussing expands upon the choices available to good parents? Good parents can still make choices they believe are best for their children, but can now get prosecuted for them.

What you should have said was:
"We make choices that we believe are best for our children, but only when those choices happen to coincide with the particular moral values of a 20% minority. The rest of the time, we're told what to do."

**Sanx** · 23rd November 2007, 22:12

Originally Posted by Skyryder

By which I take it you haven't got an answer. Or is the response courtesy of the III school of debate. Treat anything you don't like / can't answer / are wrong on with a yawn, to indicate that mere consideration of the point is somehow beneath you.

**candor** · 23rd November 2007, 22:34

I can't understand the anti smackers.

And there is one more thing...

do we really expect an unsmacked generation would do as our grand dads did and go to war if need be. There are oppressors out there - some of them want to control our Falun Gong for example.

Some of the political battle axes like Bradford - they unknowingly eat the young.

Its a slippery slope. First no nukes, then no canes... no smacking, no tree climbing, no swimming lessons, no balls for dogs, no jail for killers, next we'll be neutral like the Swiss and then we'll be seen like easy meat. Next occupied.

I don't see the feminist anti smackers ortheir sons or daughters populating an army. They'll just negotiate with the next Hitler. Bradford clones winning a war - ha! A country of Bradfords is a frightening thought. Flight of fancy over.

**Skyryder** · 24th November 2007, 06:07

Originally Posted by Sanx

Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Choices. Please explain how the legislation we've been discussing expands upon the choices available to good parents? Good parents can still make choices they believe are best for their children, but can now get prosecuted for them.

What you should have said was:
"We make choices that we believe are best for our children, but only when those choices happen to coincide with the particular moral values of a 20% minority. The rest of the time, we're told what to do."

I have never advocated the Bradford's bill expands choices as you seem to imply. It goes without saying that the choices that we make in bring up our children are based on our moral values. It has nothing to do with the values of any statistical poll of either the majority or minority. I don't believe that inflicting pain by way of 'smack' is a good choice for the child. Ask any child if they like having pain inflicted on them. The choice in such cases are for expediency and convenience of the parent. When pain is inflicted in such circumstances and for that reason I will argue that that is a bad choice. There are other areas where the state makes decisions on bringing up children. One is the time that parents must begin to allow the child to be educated. New Zealand was one of the first countries in the world to bring in legislation so that this could happen. There have been cases in the past where parents have refused lifesaving blood transfusions. The state by way of court decisions have administered these measures.

I think you need to sit down and think if you opposition to Bradford's bill is based on what you believe:in that the Government is trying to tell you how to bring up your children or if your opposition is based on a political opinion of either Bradford, or Labour or both. Remember that National also voted for this legislation. It's here to stay. Deal with it.

Now you realy have become a bit of a

so I'm off for a ride.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 24th November 2007, 06:15

Originally Posted by candor

I can't understand the anti smackers.

And there is one more thing...

do we really expect an unsmacked generation would do as our grand dads did and go to war if need be. There are oppressors out there - some of them want to control our Falun Gong for example.

Some of the political battle axes like Bradford - they unknowingly eat the young.

Its a slippery slope. First no nukes, then no canes... no smacking, no tree climbing, no swimming lessons, no balls for dogs, no jail for killers, next we'll be neutral like the Swiss and then we'll be seen like easy meat. Next occupied.
I don't see the feminist anti smackers or their sons or daughters populating an army. They'll just negotiate with the next Hitler. Bradford clones winning a war - ha! A country of Bradfords is a frightening thought. Flight of fancy over.

What a load of cobblers. So smacking kids is going to turn them into patriot citizens. The rest is just pure drivel. I expected better than this from you Candor. What happened? Have a bad hair day?

Skyyrder