Get ready to hit your kids...

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th August 2008, 08:50

Originally Posted by Clockwork

As far as I'm concerned this thread is not about the correct way to bring up children. It's about how people feel towards starry eyed politicians and their supprters are turning ordinary people into criminals for caring enough to ensure that their young and unreasoning children learn right from wrong and how to function in society in a manner that has been accepted practice across almost all human cultures and I expect since before historical records began.

Actually, this thread started off as being a 'forecast' of what we can do, after the petition forces a referendum, which in turn forces a repeal of this problem law. Of course, that leads to strong posts for/against state intrusion in our lives. And some sensible alternatives being offered. Or not.

**Patrick** · 28th August 2008, 10:56

Originally Posted by Skyryder

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.

Skyryder

But a smack is not an injury. It is an assault. As is a whack with a lump of 4 x 2... Society has not allowed injury, it didn't before with the old section 59.

But to show where th is post has merit...

I know of a case on the North Shore where a 12 year old girl wanted a $300 pair of shoes. Dad said no, but she stole the money from his wallet while he, a shift worker, slept and went and bought them. The missing money was soon noticed after awakening, and there she is in new shoes.

Did she deserve action? I believe so.

Did she deserve being set upon with a lump of 4 x 2 and an electrical cord which both caused cuts and welts to her entire body? I believe not, and he was arrested and charged.

He was going for the old defence under section 59 of parental discipline.

The case went to court, and as dad gave evidence of the theft and of finding her in the shoes, the judge stopped the trial there and then, demanded that the Police Prosecutor and the arresting officer see him in chambers were he bolloxed them both for charging the dad.

The judge never saw the injuries - and the photos were VERY graphic. It never got that far, sadly. Was he happy about the injuries so he should never determine? Dunno - possibly, but it never got there.

Judges needed directions on when to know where parental discipline ended and an out and out violent assault began. Common sense does not seem to exist on occasions, and waffly lawyer speak is needed for them at times for them to understand.

Chester BORROWS amendment was just that... a clear directive but Sue BRADFORD was going to throw her toys out of the cot if her legislation was going to be touched or amended, remember?

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I stand corrected. They're not being sucessfully enforced.

Enforced, they are. The courts are the point at where things are let down for everyone...

Originally Posted by devnull

...That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

There are any numbers of reasons why they didn't go ahead, like below...

Originally Posted by Indoo

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

I have seen cases tossed out because the witness or the officer in charge arrived late (parking issues, late arrest from the night shift he/she had to work that night before into the morning of the court case.., full bus so witness had to wait for the next one, too many to mention really...). Offenders arrive late or simply fail to appear without any reason whatsoever. The difference is, when the prosecution do it, it gets tossed out. When the shitbag does it, it is, "oh well, never mind, things happen... lets do this again another day then..." The shitbag process can be repeated again and again... until bail is finally refused by the judge....

Originally Posted by Jantar

But we are not discussing beatings and/or abuse. This debate is about smacking. If injury occurs, then that has gone beyond smacking. Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow ammendment.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Your defination is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Skyryder

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is iminent that it is going to happen.

It is not assault if he does not have the ability to carry out that threat (calling out from across the river, he is in a wheel chair and you are at the top of a flight of stairs as an example...)

"Giving the bird" is not an assault. It is likely to receive one as a reponse though......

Originally Posted by awayatc

People on this forum taking the time to voice their opinion in regards to bringing up their offspring are not the problem.
Regardless of the completely opposing views on smacking......

This law is suppoded to make a difference....sadly it won't, because the losers and no hopers that actualy hurt kids are not responsible parents at all.

I don't believe anybody who has posted their opinions on this thread needs government interference with bringing up their blood.....wether they choose to smack or not......

.02 pacific peso worth.......

Probably the best post. Summed up in a few sentences. Instead of 230 odd posts....

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 11:19

Originally Posted by Patrick

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is iminent that it is going to happen.

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 11:34

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Ok first let me clear one thing up. I am not, nor ever have been the least bit interested in the actions, motives or arguments of the "Christian Right" and I honestly only added that point as an afterthought because I'd never heard it made before.

As to the quoted section

WHAT A CROCK OF WEASLE WORDED SHIT!!!!!

A child it placed in time-out as punishment pure and simple. To pretend otherwise is .... (I'm at a total loss for words at that "opinion")

"They suggest that probably a LARGE part of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior".

What f++king presumptious bullshit masqurading as a legal opinion!!

Boing!!!

Clockwork has now become over-wound and will need to take some time out regain his former rational composure

Opinions are just that opinions however those that give opinions on topics that they have some knowledge on carry more authoriity from those that do not.

In this case my opinion is in line with the Law Commisons.

BOING?? Don't you mean boring? But as you no doubt suffer from flights of fancy from the belief of a superior intellect than most, the spelling mistake is understandable.

Hope you regain your composure......................soon.

Skyryder

**Clockwork** · 28th August 2008, 11:41

Originally Posted by Skyryder

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

Skyryder

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th August 2008, 11:42

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and attack that. Like you did then and like your doing now!

He's Winnie undercover

**Clockwork** · 28th August 2008, 11:47

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Opinions are just that opinions however those that give opinions on topics that they have some knowledge on carry more authoriity from those that do not.

In this case my opinion is in line with the Law Commisons.

BOING?? Don't you mean boring? But as you no doubt suffer from flights of fancy from the belief of a superior intellect than most, the spelling mistake is understandable.

Hope you regain your composure......................soon.

Skyryder

Boing, surrounded by "Crazy" icons and immediately followed by a statement that Clockwork has become overwound. If you're so intelligent why couldn't you figure that one out?

p.s And there you go..... off on an irrelevent tangent again!

**James Deuce** · 28th August 2008, 11:47

What's really boring is how those who view excessive Government as a bad thing are immediately labelled child bashers, wife bashers, drink drivers, child molesters, blahda, blahda, blahda (Chowder is the best cartoon on telly at the moment).

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 11:52

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contraditory post, no matter how relevent it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

Probably not as you do not seem to understand English syntax. Look up the dictionary and see the difference on relevent and irrelevent.

Skyryder

**Clockwork** · 28th August 2008, 11:55

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Probably not as you do not seem to understand English syntax. Look up the dictionary and see the difference on relevent and irrelevent.

Skyryder

Q.E.D.

10char

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 12:25

Originally Posted by James Deuce

What's really boring is how those who view excessive Government as a bad thing are immediately labelled child bashers, wife bashers, drink drivers, child molesters, blahda, blahda, blahda (Chowder is the best cartoon on telly at the moment).

This has gota be the most intelleigent post to date on this thread.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 12:29

Originally Posted by MSTRS

He's Winnie undercover

You promised not to tell.

Skyryder

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th August 2008, 12:35

How does it feel to be on the other end of a broken promise (for a change)

**Skyryder** · 28th August 2008, 13:05

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Q.E.D.

10char

I’m waiting for a lengthy download so I thought I’d go and check just to kill a bit of time and put the record straight.

Clockwork post #241

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consensual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

My response post #243

Your definition is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

Patrick 257

Shaking your fist and saying "I'm going to smack your head in" IS assault if you believe he is going to do just that and it is imminent that it is going to happen.

Patrick has added another factor to the original post and had no part in my original response.

Skyryder 258

The post that I responded too never mentioned anything about a verbal response. Go check.

clockwork 260

Oh puhleeeeaaase!!!

Are you utterly incapable of admitting an error? Is there ANY point in continuing this debate with you?

As soon as you a confronted with an argument that boxes you into a corner you look for the weakest point in the contradictory post, no matter how relevant it is to the argument overall and throw up a smoke screen by attacking that.

Like you did then and like your doing now!

Now who is in error and more to the point can you admit it. If not then you are as guilty as you claim me to be. Such people are known as hypocrites.

Skyryder