Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[MSTRS:Me]

Society has changed wah wah. Beating our kids into submission isn't going to solve the problem. In fact no single action will.

Society has changed. Yes. No-one is advocating 'beating' children - that tired rhetoric is sooo old. And no single action will reverse the decline (in standards).
But systematic removal of the old checks and balances just simply speeds that decline

[discotex]

Mr Gormsby would disagree.
Canning was and still is a reasonable way of setting boundaries in my view.
Sounds brutal, but it isn't. 3 whacks on the arse of a 115kg wayward male secondary student DID alot of good. And I know I still hold the old discipline masters that whacked me in high respect. Not out of fear, but for having enough concern towards guys like me that paid no attention to wimpy teachers that tryed to reason with a wound up adolescent.
This was discipline that was short/sharp, and got the message across in 100 times quicker ways than detention, (what a joke) or talking.
The Bill may refer to parenting, but will have wide ranging repercussions, right across society.
Forget about Bradford and her cotton wool friends. They havn't got a clue. Thats why she is a pollie.

Interesting... I agree that detention is pointless. Talking is also pointless. Punishment needs to be effective to work. Period.

I just don't agree the only other viable option is caning.

There are far more creative ways to control kids. In my experience good teachers work out quickly what will get under a kids skin and use that. It might be making them look like a dick in front of their mates. It might be threatening to tell their parents they were a bad boy/girl.

I'll concede that there may be some children that for whatever reason will only respond to physical stimulus but the number will be very very small. Using corporal punishment on the rest is unnecessary and probably won't achieve the desired result anyway.

Not to mention that this whole discussion is about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Much easier to encourage kids to be good than punish them away from being bad.

[discotex]

Lots of people don't like the use of electric dog collars, but in many cases, (dogs chasing cars on roads etc) its the only method to correct that behaviour. I have had hands on use with these, and the dogs remain loving loyal companions. One or two shocks at the moment of behaviour generally sorts the problem. (please don't assume I treat children as animals, that'll just show peoples inability to understand my point).

Actually this raises a very good argument.

The reason these collars work is precisely because:

1. the shock is being administered at the exact moment of the behaviour.
2. the shock is not driven by the emotional needs of the owner.
3. is a measured shock that is proven not to cause harm to the dog.
4. is being used in the ways the law is written (i.e. to prevent danger to the dog and public).
5. is being used where there is no other option (can't reason with a dog and have tried all other training)

So yes, if you could limit smacking to being used in exactly the same way I'd approve.

In regards to corporal punishment this may explain why it can work where dished out by a teacher not connected with the behaviour and in a consistent manner.

The problem is that's not how smacking is administered. The force of the smack is proportional to the anger of the parent not the behaviour of the child. Is often used to stop behaviour that is only subjectively bad (i.e. kids learning the latest swear work at kindy or throwing a tanty in the supermarket) etc.

[discotex]

Society has changed. Yes. No-one is advocating 'beating' children - that tired rhetoric is sooo old.

Nowhere near as old as the "banning smacking will bring an end to society as we know it" rhetoric.

Are you saying it's ok for me to slap a woman who doesn't cook me eggs because it's not a beating it's only a smack and they won't listen to my reasoning?

I'm not saying that to be provocative, I'm just trying to understand why it's ok to do one thing to a child and not to an adult and what circumstances differentiate the two for you.

And no single action will reverse the decline (in standards). But systematic removal of the old checks and balances just simply speeds that decline

I'm lost... Which checks and balances are you talking about?

[devnull]

Interesting... I agree that detention is pointless. Talking is also pointless. Punishment needs to be effective to work. Period.

I just don't agree the only other viable option is caning.

There are far more creative ways to control kids. In my experience good teachers work out quickly what will get under a kids skin and use that. It might be making them look like a dick in front of their mates. It might be threatening to tell their parents they were a bad boy/girl.

I'll concede that there may be some children that for whatever reason will only respond to physical stimulus but the number will be very very small. Using corporal punishment on the rest is unnecessary and probably won't achieve the desired result anyway.

Not to mention that this whole discussion is about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Much easier to encourage kids to be good than punish them away from being bad.

Ever wondered why it used to be a choice of "jail or the military" for young offenders? That was done in the UK - many that were starting down the road of career criminal instead went on to become valued soldiers. It was the first time they'd encountered rigid codes of conduct...

Before commenting on the value of corporal punishment, it'd be worthwhile doing some research. There's a lot of "touchy-feely" emotive stuff out there, but there's also some damned fine research done over very long periods of time.

It was found that boys will respond better to corporal punishment, whereas girls will respond better to detentions or other non-physical punishment.

Expulsions were rare, as was the incidence of weapons carried at school.

Looking at the Swedish statistics (since they were the first to implement a smacking ban), the rate of serious assaults on kids by other kids rose nearly 700% after they implemented their ban. We're following the same trend.

So if scientific research says this ban doesn't work, and the statistics support the same conclusion, what do you base your belief on?

[Skyryder]

Lets try and get this into perspective with a simple analogy. Correct me if I am wrong but many of you believe in the right of the parent to smack the child...............but when the child grow up does he have the right to 'smack' the parent.

Skyryder

(Tri boy Quote)Absolutely entitled. If the smacking is of similar effort. (light, and with concern/love).
IE Grandma has a brain disorder, and is close to injuring herself because of her condition. One of the most basic stimulus for a brain is to pick up nerve signals like a sting/smack. (I'm no doctor, so don't mind being corrected).
So a similar smack in adulthood and childhood is doing a similar task.
So long as people don't blur this issue with heavy physical punches etc, I think it works for all ages. (dare I say it, most animals).
[/QUOTE]

Try what you have advocated and you would be charged with assault. I would doubt that you would get off no matter how well your intentions. Society does no condone the 'smacking' of elderly people by caregivers or family members for any reason and yet it condones smacking by parents on their siblings. I think this clearly demonstrates the double standards that we have but we are blinded by our cultural traditions to see this as it is..........: hypocrisy.

Skyryder

[tri boy]

I'm liking this debate. Parts of the argument on both sides are teaching me alot.
In summary, I think both sides are very close. But the last little details are keeping us separated.
What a grand discussion.

[MSTRS:Me]

Nowhere near as old as the "banning smacking will bring an end to society as we know it" rhetoric.To a certain extent that is exactly what it is doing

Are you saying it's ok for me to slap a woman who doesn't cook me eggs because it's not a beating it's only a smack and they won't listen to my reasoning? Now you are talking adults and the approach necessarily should be different

I'm not saying that to be provocative, I'm just trying to understand why it's ok to do one thing to a child and not to an adult and what circumstances differentiate the two for you.

Precisely because they are different.

I'm lost... Which checks and balances are you talking about? The removal of corporal punishment in schools, the banning of smacking, the prohibition in schools of teaching of religious values to name but a few

And no, I am not religious.

[candor]

What a load of cobblers. So smacking kids is going to turn them into patriot citizens. The rest is just pure drivel. Skyyrder

Was late, was tired, catastrophising. But the point is that we really don't know where this will lead. What I've seen of unsmacked kids does not bare thinking about.

The divide here seems to be between idealists, who may well have advanced parenting skills, loads of time and can afford a Kiwi version of the nanny to sort out difficulties with their parent child interaction.....

and practical perfectly sane people who have successfully used smacking as part of their "correction" retinue.

It's not evil, wrong, abuse, dangerous, the devils work or the root of all evil so I don't think it should be judged as BAAAD and needing outlawing.

I've said it before - it's like banning sex in order to reduce the incidence of rape. It will prolly backfire and turn it more covert, harder to spot and likely to have more irreversible consequences (like death) before anyone picks it up.

Mostly its guys bashing these kids to death. All it needs is for mums to get like Beth Heke and be the protectors they should be - "you do NOT touch my (or our) kid - bastard". This requires self esteem and values changing for girls and women. Not blanket bans on normal behaviour.

Congrats to the nana who said she will continue on as a responsible law breaker! Chester had it right, maybe they can amend.

[discotex]

Ever wondered why it used to be a choice of "jail or the military" for young offenders? That was done in the UK - many that were starting down the road of career criminal instead went on to become valued soldiers. It was the first time they'd encountered rigid codes of conduct...

I'm all for picking up people at their first slip and putting them on a different path.

The fact that our justice system allows so much leniency after dozens of offences is a total joke.

Before commenting on the value of corporal punishment, it'd be worthwhile doing some research. There's a lot of "touchy-feely" emotive stuff out there, but there's also some damned fine research done over very long periods of time.

It was found that boys will respond better to corporal punishment, whereas girls will respond better to detentions or other non-physical punishment.

Expulsions were rare, as was the incidence of weapons carried at school.

Looking at the Swedish statistics (since they were the first to implement a smacking ban), the rate of serious assaults on kids by other kids rose nearly 700% after they implemented their ban. We're following the same trend.

So if scientific research says this ban doesn't work, and the statistics support the same conclusion, what do you base your belief on?

My belief is largely based on observation, personal experience and a few articles I've read over the years based on such studies. It's also based on discussions with teachers and psychologists both pro and against.

As such if someone can show me some credible evidence that shows there aren't better options I'm happy to review my position.


Are you sure that the problem isn't that they removed corporal punishment but rather that they didn't introduce a viable alternative at the same time.

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to ban corporal punishment you need to have trained your teachers how to handle the situations in a new way rather than just not handle them.

The same applies to banning or controlling the use of smacking in the home which is why I am against the bill. I'd much prefer to remove parents need for smacking through education in the first place rather than attempt to legislate against it.

I'm interested to read the studies you are talking about to read their conclusions first hand rather than your conclusions based on their results. Can you point me in their direction?

[discotex]

And no, I am not religious.

Fark trying to edit that so I can respond point by point...

Ok.. Lets agree that adults and children are different and need different responses to "unacceptable" behaviour.

First, where do you draw the line between adult and child? You can reason with most 5 year olds as well as most adults. Does that mean I shouldn't smack after 5 but under 5 is ok?

Second, what exactly differentiates between the rights of children and the rights of adults? Adults have the right to be free from violence and threats of physical harm so why not children? I think I can predict what you'll say next... Smacking isn't violence is it? Oh but wait, I can't smack adults....

[devnull]

I'm interested to read the studies you are talking about to read their conclusions first hand rather than your conclusions based on their results. Can you point me in their direction?

Sure... start by having a look here:

http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/

The research presented is pretty balanced. He advocates that smacking is just one tool, and not a cure-all. His views are despised by the Greens here because he was the most vocal in discrediting Durrant's conclusions.

Am trying to find a copy of the British Journal of Social Work article - they're restricted access on their website.

"The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics" is the article

Another good site:

http://www.nkmr.org/english/smacking...erspective.htm

Don't have a copy of the British report here - it's on my work PC. I'll post it on Mon, assuming this thread is still going

[Swoop]

Taken from the Unity Site.....

Sounds very close to "destiny"... Do you have a black shirt and like to march, by any chance?

What about the Strap at primary school?.... one teacher even had a name for his leather hurty thing...

This wouldn't have been "Mannings' Masher" by any chance?

It was particularly successful prior to the WW2 (Hitler Youth - started in Bavaria in 1922. By 1930 there were over 25000 members. It replaced the Boy Scout movement

Unfortunately it did not "replace" the BSM... That organization did not fit the "ideals" of the Reich...

all the same Power to Kids I say

Fuck that. If kiddies are allowed to rule over their parents.... oh dear.

Police are now being called to attend school fights, FFS!!!! Teachers don't want to step in to break them up like they used to, by grabbing the scruffs of two necks and marching them off to the Principals office, for fear of being prosecuted themselves.

Lack of respect starts from the home, is then further formed from schooling then once in the grown up world, it is already developed by most....

What an excellent post!!!

Forget about Bradford and her cotton wool friends. They havn't got a clue. Thats why she is a pollie.

Badford isn't a politician!!!!!! "she" is an unelected parasite on the face of this country.
This P.O.S. is a professional protestor and a scum-sucking leech on the soicety of NZ!



Here is the fucking solution:
An open handed smack is OK.
Closed hand = fist = prosecution to the most severe degree possible.

Done. *Ding!* Next.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ok.. Lets agree that adults and children are different and need different responses to "unacceptable" behaviour.

First, where do you draw the line between adult and child? You can reason with most 5 year olds as well as most adults. Does that mean I shouldn't smack after 5 but under 5 is ok?

Second, what exactly differentiates between the rights of children and the rights of adults? Adults have the right to be free from violence and threats of physical harm so why not children? I think I can predict what you'll say next... Smacking isn't violence is it? Oh but wait, I can't smack adults....

Good, we are getting somewhere. I should have picked up on your example before by pointing out that I wouldn't consider a smack 'cos she wouldn't cook my eggs' to be acceptable, anyway. If I really want some eats and she doesn't want to cook, then I can. That's the 'adult' thing to do.
However, putting a cut-off age on smacking kids is a bit more difficult. What age do you as a parent stop bathing them, or drying them? I guess the answer is each kid is an individual with different needs and expectations and each parent knows their child best and can decide when the time is appropriate for 'backing off' at bath time or smack time.

[MSTRS:Me]

Badford isn't a politician!!!!!! "she" is an]unelected parasite on the face of this country.
This P.O.S. is a professional protestorand a scum-sucking leech on the soicety of NZ!

You got that right!!

Here is the fucking solution:
An open handed smack is OK. But never about the head or face. Hand or buttocks/back of thighs
Closed hand = fist = prosecution to the most severe degree possible.

Done. *Ding!* Next.

Yay!! We've sorted out.