Smacking kids?

**ghost** · 16th March 2007, 08:08

Originally Posted by Sweet_Sophie

Putting politics aside for a moment, lets look at what this bill is actually about... our children's wellbeing. I don't think you should have to smack your kids to educate them on what's right and wrong. I was never smacked and I turned out to be an angel.

And thats your right to chose not to. What is the youngest memory that you have. How do you know you were'nt? Maybe after a few smacks when you were two or three you didnt need it when you got older.

I was smacked when I was young, and I turned out ok as well. Different people, different dicipline, my parents arent criminals for doing either.

And dont think that if I may chose to smack my child that I dont care about his well being, if I didnt care about him I would just let him run free. You can come and try to reason with him someday ( he's two) when he insists that playing with the power point is the only thing in the whole world to do.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th March 2007, 08:21

Pain is a great teacher....
Smacking is not abuse. In fact, applied judiciously, it shows the greatest love and concern for a child's long-term wellbeing. When "No!" isn't enough, a smack establishes a boundary in no uncertain terms.
I am glad my child-rearing days are behind me, because otherwise I would foresee a large amount of legal trouble ahead for me personally. Instead, I see an even larger amount of trouble ahead for the whole country.
When Parliament stops listening to the people, it is but a small step to far-Left/far-Right Totalitarianism...

**Squeak the Rat** · 16th March 2007, 08:28

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that Sue Bradford is now saying that light smacking is ok under her bill.

Ignoring the labour/greens u-turn, the fact is that (some) lawyers and police believe that people smacking children will be criminals under the act. And now that it has public attention, do-gooders will dob in parents who smack their kids. And police have indicated they will investigate and prosecute.

I like J2's suggestion. Dob yourself in.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th March 2007, 08:45

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that Sue Bradford is now saying that light smacking is ok under her bill.

She is just obfuscating...she will still withdraw her bill if 'teh' amendment is ratified.
Too many laws in this country are poorly worded, whereby the original intent is lost when 'tested' through the courts.
IMHO if her bill is to be given any credence, it should state categorically that a smack with an open hand on a particular part (or parts) of the child's anatomy is OK. Which is what the proposed amendment is trying to achieve (see first sentence).

**Indiana_Jones** · 16th March 2007, 08:56

Does that fat cow Sue Bradford have children?

I know Glorious comrade Clark doesn't, but then again she's a male monkey who's been put in a suit and then strategically shaved.

-Indy

**shafty** · 16th March 2007, 08:59

I heard 1 talk back caller say (before he was cut off) that Bradford lost a kid to suicide, - is that right does anyone know?

**James Deuce** · 16th March 2007, 09:41

Originally Posted by Sweet_Sophie

Putting politics aside for a moment, lets look at what this bill is actually about... our children's wellbeing. I don't think you should have to smack your kids to educate them on what's right and wrong. I was never smacked and I turned out to be an angel.

And that is the most incredibly rude argument I keep hearing.

It is assumed, just like motoracer did, that those that disagree with the bill disagree with creating a safe loving environment for their children.

Just for the record I am taking names. I do not like being insulted like that.

Not all children are the same. 1 of mine needs corrective action via time out. He is very social and being removed is the worst thing that can happen to him. Number 2 will use time out to plot his revenge. A light tap fixes the problem without histrionics RIGHT NOW. Number 3 just needs a special look and he'll do everything he can to get back in the good books.

Parenting by numbers DOES NOT WORK.

**cowpoos** · 16th March 2007, 10:14

Originally Posted by Deano

It won't stop "child abuse" will it - E.g. Kahui twins.

It will however make criminals of parents who spank their kids (like most of us were spanked without destroying us psyhcologically or emotionally ?), despite Sue's reassurances that Cops won't ever kow about that sort of thing...we know that a lot of the time the cops will prefer to charge someone and leave it up to the courts to decide..........

My opinion has changed somewhat after watching the 'nanny' programs with problem children - it seems that 'time out' and honest, up front communication seems to work....I could be wrong...will try it with my kid when he ? arrives.

Sue Bradford - she doesn't come across well though does she ? Wasn't she a dole bludger before becoming an MP ? Talks like Lynn of Tawa...LOL

I tell ya something though - if at teenage years my kid ever tries to strike me or the missus, they won't know what hit em. Might make sure thay realise this before that ever possibly arises.

I'm not really for or against at this stage because I havn't read the proposed bill in detail...only heard some of what the media have put forward....

But...how many times while at school was there people who would not let he teacher's have the last say...or will just tell them where to go...I would presume they would be the same types of persons that at home or away from school,etc they would react the same way...tell there parents where to go...you know... "YOU CAN'T F#?K@%G MAKE ME' etc etc... how do those kids get dealt with?? can't stick them in time out because it will become a physical excersize making them stay there!!! what do people do with those types??? normal everyday kids seem to have good morals and know wrong from right...and can accept being 'told' and timed out,etc as punishment...still some can't

**Damon** · 16th March 2007, 10:29

My personal view is that over the last few generations, parents have become softer and more protective of their kids which is having a negitive effect on them later in life,
i think most people will agree that children in general are more out of control today than they were in say the 60's 70's or even 80's, sure there have always been bad kids but it's much more previlent today.
Perhaps if kids learned the difference between right and wrong and there were real life concequeces to their actions rather than a parent counting to 5 or being sent to the naughty corner to reflect like the Sue wants then they wouldn't be throwing bricks off bridges onto the motorway and torturing animals.

As for Sue Bradford, wasn't she convicted for assult a few years back? and she has no kids, i hardly think she's the person to tell the country how to raise children.

**Squeak the Rat** · 16th March 2007, 10:34

Come on guys, don't hassle sue. She is competent, sane and completely capable of dealing with the stresses and intellectual requirements of an MP.

**Damon** · 16th March 2007, 10:39

Originally Posted by Jim2

And that is the most incredibly rude argument I keep hearing.

It is assumed, just like motoracer did, that those that disagree with the bill disagree with creating a safe loving environment for their children.

Just for the record I am taking names. I do not like being insulted like that.

Not all children are the same. 1 of mine needs corrective action via time out. He is very social and being removed is the worst thing that can happen to him. Number 2 will use time out to plot his revenge. A light tap fixes the problem without histrionics RIGHT NOW. Number 3 just needs a special look and he'll do everything he can to get back in the good books.

Parenting by numbers DOES NOT WORK.

Bling! here's a parent with his head screwd on right and Sue wants to make him a criminal, F@#K Sue Bradford