Govt fails to make anti smacking bill a Govt bill

April 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm by David Farrar

The PM has announced that the anti smacking bill will not become a Govt Bill. She claims that NZ First were happy for this to happen, but I doubt this because the official explanation given doesn’t add up.

Clark claims it was unlikely to be able to be passed into law before Easter, even as a Government bill. But this is not the case. The Government has almost no bills on the order paper and could make this the first priority. On Tuesday they could 5.5 hours of debate and on Wednesday 4.5 hours. That is 9 hours to finish committee stage which is more than enough. You could then do third reading on Thursday which is a two hour debate and there are three hours available.

They’re tried to ram it through under urgency and failed. They’ve tried to make it a Government bill and failed. This is not a good look.

And talking of the bill, people should read this Manawatu Standard article where Police confirm that every complaint of smacking will not only be investigated by Police, but names will be passed onto CYFS. Big Brother will be watching!

Also Peter McC blogs how in the UK teachers are actually being given the power to use reasonable force to restrain unruly pupils and break up fights etc.

No tag for this post.

77 Responses to “Govt fails to make anti smacking bill a Govt bill”

  1. Grant ( a new one) () says:

    What a classic photo of Suzie on the TVNZ website that Whale Oil’s link points to. It’s right up there with Helen’s effort in the Oval office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dan () says:

    Isn’t it classic?
    Where other countries have tried, failed, and turned back, we soldier blindly on.

    We must surely look like dumbasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dad4justice () says:

    How surprising liebour have done another flip-flop. They think she’ll be right as the dumb arse peasant voter will forget about this nasty mess come election time. The witches, weaklings and wackos have tried their calculated best to show callous disrespect and systematic degradation for the traditional FAMILY.

    Well I think this bill has finally exposed the level of incompetence from a foolish – bureaucratic inertia – that is well past its use by date, as liebour is starting to smell, because the putrefaction process is escalating.
    The opposition will have to use gas masks in the house shortly and I think the odour will keep me away from the public gallery until they’re all thrown into the offal pit .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dmw () says:

    I predict that Plunket and Barnados and any other non-govt group that supports this poorly-drafted ideology will suddenly receive an uninvited increase in govt funding. (Didn’t ASH receive govt grants during the time that the govt wanted the public persuaded about the evils of smoking in restaurants and bars?)

    The unspoken purse-strings attached to the grants will be that it is used for similar public pronouncements on the merits of SB’s bill.

    Expect more “handprint”-type publicity stunts too.

    Now, how else can she buy the outcome she wants? It has worked before…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. APL () says:

    To quote Adolf Fiinkensein –

    “Roll on the day when the Frightful Frump and her cadaverous gang of incompetent sleazebags are rolled from office”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Horace () says:

    From the Herald this morning:

    “Yesterday, United Future MP Gordon Copeland announced he would be lodging an amendment to the bill to clarify that parents could pick up a child and place it in “time-out”. Ms Bradford said she had not studied the proposed amendment closely, but said the select committee that considered the bill had included an amendment to cover time-out.”

    But that isn’t what happened, Sue:

    (The following from the Greens website)

    The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC:

    “Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to “time out” or a “naughty mat” will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that “nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for “time out”.

    Comment of the Law commission:

    Committee members will recall that, in relation to option 1, the Law Commission was advised by a majority of the members that the outcome sought was a prohibition on the use of any force against children for corrective purposes. We are consequently delighted to receive Mr McKenzie’s independent confirmation that this objective is achieved by our proposed draft.

    However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.

    In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a “naughty mat” who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is “obviously for the purpose of correction”. We suggest that at least part, and 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 behaviour”. This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.

    We need to emphasise that, in any given case, the parental motive will be a question of fact that varies in the circumstances of each case. This means that it is impossible for us to provide a blanket reassurance that prosecution will never be appropriate when force has been used to achieve “time out”. It will be a matter for prosecutorial discretion and, ultimately (if the discretion is taken to prosecute) the decision of a jury.

    However, in this regard, there is a very important point to note. The “Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines” require prosecutors, in the exercise of their discretion, to assess the likelihood of achieving a conviction. We suggest that, in the vast majority of “time out” cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution.

    It may be that the McKenzie opinion will persuade some that the Law Commission’s advice on this issue produces an unsatisfactory result. However, in our view, it would be a great deal more unsatisfactory to tinker with the proposed draft to try to achieve a more robust exception for “time out”. It could open a loophole for the use of gratuitous force by parents, under a “time out” guise. As we understand the Committee’s majority view, this is definitely not what was wanted.

    Yours sincerely

    Sir Geoffrey Palmer
    President

    Well, talk about running in circles.

    To summarise: Yes it will, no it won’t, well yes it could, but that’s not what we want, we want it to stop forced time-out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Magda () says:

    Of course Barnados’ chief mouth, Murray Edridge, has come out in the Herald this morning stating that the government and Banadoes have a “common interest in seeing the bill passed”.

    Ever wondered how much Barnadaos rakes in managing the supervised access situation? Imagine how much more they will rake in once the parents dobbed in by smartarsed kids, nasty neighbours, vindictive ex-partners etc are added to their “client” list.

    Barnados reputation will hit the skids along with Plunket’s, and Save the Children’s, and anyone else silly or greedy enough to play sycophant to this outrageous rubbish.

    DMW’s right, we must look like the dumbest dumbarses on the planet with these wankers in charge. From Dog Control to Day Care, they just haven’t got a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dad4justice () says:

    Where would we be without our inept Law Commission ole chaps. Anyway can you tell me good sir – is this Commission the same ineffective and meaningless gathering of delinquents that sent me a copy of –dispute resolution in the family court, because none one of the recommendation’s have be implemented contained in report number 82 ??

    Talk about lunkheads !! What a disgrace !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dad4justice () says:

    I would have thought recommedation number 353 would solve this smacking saga bullshit – sir would it not ? The shark is waiting sir !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice () says:

    Yawn…yawn ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jamesdean () says:

    If Adolf is predicting it you can pretty well guarantee it won’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tim barclay () says:

    The Government is running around in circles on the smacking bill. So they are going to line up a bunch of worthy organistaons to front the debate to get them out of this hole. There will be hints of more funding if they do and the stick of less funding if they don’t. It will all be done behind closed doors and this Labour Government is expert at using the power of the state to manipulate organisations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dad4justice () says:

    Adolf is to be congratulated on his inspirational words. I do like the word cadaverous, which I had to look up in the Collins – pale, thin and haggard.

    Who does that remind you of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter () says:

    Very true Tim, remember Klark’s attempts to silence Maxim by way of depriving its members of government contracts? Freedom of political expression, especially challenging Klark and co’s Marxist religion, is under attack more and more every day in this stinking corrupt crime ridden socialist basket case of a country.

    Wake up Nzers, make the effort to rid yourselves of the pestilence that is socialism.. corrupting democracy, pandering to criminals, indoctrinating our children at the expense of their education, stealing the fruits of our labour and handing it out to leftist sycophants, infiltrating our mainstream media with socialist sympathizers, how much more of this shit are you going to take???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RickyJJ () says:

    Just remember what Plunket and Barbados and Save the Children do – they help children. Most of their staff would have decided against more lucrative careers in order to do something meaningful and beneficial with their lives. And they’re around child abuse far more than (I hope) any of you are.

    So why would these great organisations support something they thought was bad for children for a little more government funding? (Cos let’s face it, I doubt we’re talking tens of millions of dollars here.)

    It’s like saying Greenpeace would agree to end the moratorium on commercial whaling if the Japanese government simply gave them some money!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. idiotboy () says:

    “people should read this Manawatu Standard article where Police confirm that every complaint of smacking will not only be investigated by Police, but names will be passed onto CYFS.”

    Just to provide some balance on this issue – said article also says this:

    “if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that’s when information would be passed on.” Sounds reasonable.

    the article also says this:

    “Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.

    He said it would be “difficult to say, categorically” if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.”

    So yeah – just providing some balance for those who cant be bothered to read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dad4justice () says:

    Ricky JJ thicko – Barnardos spends a lot of tax payer’s money already on security guards -i.e. supervised access service so parents can try and see their alienated children .The fractured family business is big bucks for all employed in it !!

    Line up the parents – eh – welcome to the feminazi family destroying machine programmed to destroy paternal rights !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. idiotboy () says:

    Excuse me for this digression – but I do think this is important. Some regular commenters on this blog show definite signs of being mentally retarded. Two commenters in particular come to mind: redbaiter and chickenlittle…

    From Wikipedia: Mental Retardation is defined as “a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant/severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned.”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. idiotboy () says:

    Redbaiter – ‘abnormally aggressive’ (obviously); ‘seriously irresponsible conduct’ (Clark = Stalin); ‘significant/severe impairment of social functioning’ (insists on hating those who differ in opinion so much he makes himself sick)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. idiotboy () says:

    ChickenLittle – ‘severely irresponsible conduct’ (contributes nothing but shit-flinging here – obviously); not exactly ‘abnormally aggressive’ but his arrogance and smugness are so severe that it could be construed as such; of course the arrogance and smugness represent ‘significant/severe impairment of social functioning’; ‘incomplete development of mind’ (thinks that ‘I know you are, I said you are so what am i?’ is a valid argument as would any person with the brain of a five year old, is in the habit of pointing out the obvious – precisely because – that is all he sees)…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. idiotboy () says:

    In conclusion – while it may be politically correct and all to have mentally retarded people post their thoughts on a political blog – it should be noted that their contribution lacks value and in fact may prove detrimental…

    Seriously.

    In before ‘I know you are, I said you are so what am i?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dad4justice () says:

    Hey idiot boy can you tell me how this bill will bring our appalling child abuse figures down ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. llew () says:

    “Hey idiot boy can you tell me how this bill will bring our appalling child abuse figures down ?”

    Playing devil’s advocate, how will defeating the bill bring our appalling child abuse figures down?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Craig () says:

    What a bloody shambles, but sadly par for the course these days.

    Whether or not you agree with the proposed legislation the over the top intrusion into people homes/lives should be a concern to us all.

    How many good families will this destroy just because of a nosy neighbour or a disgruntled child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice () says:

    llew you know full well – this bill is all about the attack on parental authority and rights. Stop trying to sell us mutton as lamb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. idiotboy () says:

    Dan says: “We must surely look like dumbasses.”

    This is pertinent to the point i am making – however, i dont entirely agree here. I think that some of us look like mere dumbasses while others seem mentally retarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Peter S () says:

    llew,

    The current bill will have no effect on the child abuse levels, because child abuse is alreacy illegal.

    If there were any intent to address the child abuse levels, then the law changes would be aimed at the child abuse.

    What this means is that, to discourage child abuse, then things like the penalty for child abuse should be looked at. Increasing gaol terms would be a far bigger deterrent.

    All that the current change will do will be flood the courts with minor stuff, making the statistics look even worse, whilst ignoring the real problems.

    If you want to deal with child abuse, then the best way is to deal with the real child abusers harshly, and send a clear and unequivocal message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    Idiotboy, comments like this would indicate you dan’t have children and are unlikely ever to. Can you advise readers whether you have reared children to the age of say thirteen? Or are you yet another childless beauracrat telling everyone else what’s good for their children? Like the PM?

    ‘ “if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that’s when information would be passed on.” Sounds reasonable.’

    Sounds reasonable to you, does it? Why is it reasonable for these appalling CYFS people to be advised in a couple of weeks time that you or I have smacked one of our children? Is there some great merit is this advice being passed on later, rather than immediately?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. idiotboy () says:

    Peter S – Congatulations! Your last comment showed no signs whatsoever of mental retardation.

    Seriously – well done. You are setting an example for others.

    Adolf – you got me there – you are right – i guess its not all that reasonable.

    Appreciate your comment though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dad4justice () says:

    Rather than causing parents to live in fear – being afraid of when will the state authorities cyfs and police will come knocking to attend a domestic violence smacking incident. This will be incredibly traumatic for the children.Possible solution ?? Would it not be better for government to investment in the early intervention service’s that are not restricted by a bias ideology, and can conduct a properly conducted investigation of the family composition and interactions. Then a meeting of minds mediation where the child has the opportunity to tell his or her parents how he or she feels about what is happening. We would focus on children’s views and interests, and could help clarity matters for disputing or irrational parents .It would save the taxpayer a lot of doe rae me –eh? Surely the kiwi family is worth this and watch child abuse rates drop .Try it what you got to lose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. idiotboy () says:

    dad4justice – now you’re talking – that sounds like sounds like a really good idea!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RickyJJ () says:

    “Ricky JJ thicko – Barnardos spends a lot of tax payer’s money already on security guards -i.e. supervised access service so parents can try and see their alienated children .The fractured family business is big bucks for all employed in it !!”

    So you think the mission statement of Barnados is to look after the interests of unemployed security guards? Everybody rolls up to the AGM and is like yay, if we support this bill we’ll be able to spend more taxpayers money on security guards? What sort of big bucks are we talking for these security guards anyway? (Maybe we’re all in the wrong business!)

    I think you’ll find they’re actually more interested in child welfare than unemployment issues, and that they strongly believe what they’re doing is in the best interests of the children. You’re welcome to disagree on the methods they use, but it does seem a bit rich to deny they care about children.

    It’s a bit like Labour and National really. Both parties want the best for the country, they just disagree on how to go about it. It’s methods we should be debating, not intent.

    Also, just about the thicko thing… And this goes to most people in here…
    What’s the point in name calling? You can insult people all you want, but this doesn’t actually do anything to discredit their point of view or enhance your own.

    Maybe I am a thicko, but if this is the case it should be easy to rebut every “stupid” thing I say with good argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Peter S () says:

    idiotboy,

    Thanks, I try to avoid the slide into mental retardation, though I have just passed the 40 mark, so I guess its going to be an uphil struggle from now on. ;-)

    I really think that the proposed bill is appallingly badly worded, because it creates a situation where the extent to which the law can be applied is unknown. I like the current law because the extent to which the law applies is decided, in the end, in a court of law.

    I also think that the child abuse argument is being used as a smokescreen. The law change approaches the problem from the wrong end, and so is doomed to failure in its stated intent.

    A lot of people that support the law change do so in complete sincerity, because lowering/eradicating child abuse is one of the most admirable intents. I just think that they have been sold a plausible sounding idea by a cynical bunch of control freaks that are using it to disguise their true intent.

    I’m definitely an advocate of addressing the problem. I just disagree with some over the best method.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dad4justice () says:

    Make fathers in prison learn words like parental responsibility and that kind of stuff eh ? and watch reoffend rates drop – teach them self esteem, importance of male role models and respect , you know what I mean …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. llew () says:

    “llew you know full well – this bill is all about the attack on parental authority and rights. Stop trying to sell us mutton as lamb.”

    I have some suympathy for your position D4J, although I perceive no threat to my parental authority at all – I just turned your questioon around to see how it looks.

    I kind of agree with Peter S’s answer to that question, except:

    “What this means is that, to discourage child abuse, then things like the penalty for child abuse should be looked at. Increasing gaol terms would be a far bigger deterrent.”

    I don’t think this is the case – harsher sentences, even the death penalty, don’t seem to reduce crime. Speculation as to why this is so leads me to agree to a large extent with Idiotboy’s musings on mental retardation.

    “All that the current change will do will be flood the courts with minor stuff, making the statistics look even worse, whilst ignoring the real problems.”

    Heh – David Slack over at Public Address wonders whether if the police won’t investigate burglaries, what makes us think they’ll be knocking on the door investigating smacking?

    And I know he’s being flippant, but there is some truth in it. Although that leads me to ask the fundamental question – why make laws that won’t be enforced?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SPCS () says:

    On Thursday the 29th of March the Hon. Phil Goff misled the House during Question Time when he answered a question put to him by Taito Phillip Field, Independent MP for Mangere. Mr Field asked the Acting Minister of Police whether he could assure “good parents” that they would not be prosecuted for smacking their children for corrective purposes, should Sue Bradford’s bill ever become law. Mr Goff misled the House on two counts in his answer (see Hansard full transcript below).

    Goff replied in the affirmative: “the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it ABSOLUTELY clear that MINOR forms of offending will NOT be prosecuted”. [Emphasis added].

    However, once Bradford’s bill becomes law, the police cannot treat smacking for correction involving a child as “MINOR forms of offending”. Every formal complaint involving a child will have to be investigated promptly and current police guidelines dealing with “family violence” make this very clear as police spokespersons and leading lawyers have repeatedly pointed out. Whether they proceed to prosecute will be left to police discretion, but this does not provide the assurance the public are seeking.

    If there is no justification in law under Bradford’s bill for parents to use any form of “reasonable force” for correction, then a child’s claim (possibly exaggerated) as to how hard he was ‘hit’ or the extent of pain caused, and/or a by-standers perception of the these matters; will be the critical factor(s) that may lead an officer to charge the parent. If an officer knows there is no chance of a s. 59 defence being used by the parent, and no chance of any defence under summary law being relied on, (both defences are removed in Bradford’s bill), and he is somehow convinced that the case is not a “MINOR” one, then he will find it much easier to take a risk and press charges than under current law. What’s there to lose, he night ask? Why shouldn’t I prosecute? His attitude may very well be: let the Courts decide not the police. Under current law, with s. 59 in place, there is a safeguard for “good parents” to rely on, should a false allegation lead them into Court proceedings.

    Mr Goff went on to mislead the House by citing a Court of Appeal case to the House – R v. Hende (1996) [1NZLR 153]. – as providing him with “quite strong confidence” that he could assure parents that police will not prosecute parents for light smacking for correction once Bradford’s bill becomes law. He claimed that this case set a precedent: establishing that all judges will have to take the same view as the Court of Appeal Judge – Eichelbaum CJ: that “a light smack did not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine”. For Goff to claim this, he would have to mislead parliament, which he did. The case he cited involved a creche worker, NOT a parent or a person in the place of a parent. She appealed her conviction for assault against a child, for which she had been fined $250, and appealed her convictions for ill-treating and stupefying a child (both judgements issued by the District Court). She was not a parent or a person in the place of a parent for which s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) applied. Furthermore, the two light smacks she applied to the child’s bottom (a “technical assault” as the Judge noted) were not applied for the purpose of “correction”. They were applied in order to try and control a young child throwing a “tantrum” when she went “beserk”. Eichelbaum CJ concluded:

    “… there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine imposed. Accordingly we set aside the conviction, and instead direct (pursuant to s. 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985) that the appellant be discharged without conviction.”

    The case Mr Goff cites shows how police have prosecuted and will continue to prosecute adults who have formal complaints lodged with the police against them for administering a “pat on the bottom” to a child when no justification exists in law for the use of such “reasonable force” (s. 59 did not apply as a defence for the creche worker, nor will it apply to parents under Bradford’s bill). Once s. 59 goes, should Bradford’s bill become law, parents and those in the place of parents will find themselves as vulnerable to prosecution for assault as any creche worker, for merely carrying out parental duties involving the application of “reasonable force” for the purpose of correction. The role of parenting is demeaned to the level of child minder/creche worker (no disrespect intended towards creche workers!). Parents are not just child minders. The parent-child relationship is a sacred one with special and unique features. The parent for example is responsible for the moral upbringing of the child.

    The fact that the appellant endured a seven day trial and two hearings before the Court of Appeal, for what the Court of Appeal effectively said were only trifling matters, and matters that were three or four years old, shows sadly how police can get it so very, very wrong.

    Mr Goff misled the House to claim the police guidelines and a single Court of Appeal judgement can provide “good parents” will “quite strong confidence” that they will not be prosecuted by the police for lightly smacking their children for the purpose of correction, should Bradford’s flawed anti-family bill become law.

    Appendix: From the Hansard Record (Uncorrected Transcript)

    Crimes Act—Child Abuse Charges

    http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20070329.htm

    Taito Phillip Field: Does the Minister hear the warning given by Michele Wilkinson-Smith, [NZ Herald] when she stated: “The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community—and their children.”—and that will mean many in the Pacific community, which explains its widespread opposition to the Sue Bradford bill—if not, what assurances can the Minister give that good parents who are working hard to raise and correct their children will not be unnecessarily investigated by the police and Child, Youth and Family?

    Hon PHIL GOFF: I think we can say with quite strong confidence that good parents are not going to be prosecuted under the new section 59, as set out in the bill. The reason for that is that the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it absolutely clear that minor forms of offending will not be prosecuted. Further to that, there is case law—R v Hende in 1996—where the Court of Appeal itself ruled that a light smack did not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine. It is clear from Crown Law guidelines, police guidelines, and case law that good parents will not be so prosecuted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dad4justice () says:

    For the last time RickyJJ the word , now nice and slowly – ko nga tamariki i te tuatahi – or barnardos is spelt this way in this country mate !!

    What are these things “barbados ” and “barnados ” . I won’t even start to ask ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Sam Dixon () says:

    What has your comment on teachers having the power to break up fights got to do with a law change regarding whether parents can use violence as discipline?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Peter S () says:

    llew,

    “I don’t think this is the case – harsher sentences, even the death penalty, don’t seem to reduce crime. Speculation as to why this is so leads me to agree to a large extent with Idiotboy’s musings on mental retardation.”

    Sort of. Harsher penalties are never going to be a complete solution. The only complete solution would be fixin human nature. A crime of passion (i.e. something excessive done in the heat of the moment) is unlikely to be prevented by any law. The type of crime that harsher penalties are effective in curtailing are the calculated crimes.

    Sadly, nothing is going to stop someone losing their temper and bashing a child. But harsher penalties would act as a deterrent to the long term systematic and callous abuse that does occur.

    As far as the policing- assault trumps things like burglary, so yes I do think there is a case for arguing that there would be a flood of investigations, and it would come at the expense of a whole raft of other policing activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. idiotboy () says:

    Peter S says: “A lot of people that support the law change do so in complete sincerity, because lowering/eradicating child abuse is one of the most admirable intents.”

    This is pretty much my sentiment exactly – i realise that there are technicalities that make this bill imperfect at best.

    However, I do think that something has to be done about child-abuse in New Zealand – sooner rather than later and preferably right now – i dont want to wait another couple years for some other alternative bill to go through the usual process.

    So for me – the pros of introducing this bill outweigh the cons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RickyJJ () says:

    Well done dad4justice, it is Barnardos.

    I made a spelling mistake and so my arguments are clearly rubbish. I was wrong. I’m sorry. I apologise for bringing down the tone of this thread.

    Now what are you going to do if I manage to find a spelling mistake in any of the posts you’ve ever made?

    I can only assume you’ll also admit your faults and then vote Green next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dad4justice () says:

    RockyJJ – I don’t like utopianism mate !Hows phool today ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. dmw () says:

    Irrespective of the opinions of Plunket, Barnardos, etc the fundamental question comes down to just this:

    “Will the law, as it is drafted, reduce child abuse in NZ?”

    In addition, any law should be subjected to scrutiny for side-effects:

    – will this law cause any undesirable outcomes?
    – will this law needlessly reduce individual liberties?
    – is this law enforceable?
    – what will happen to those who break this law?

    To my mind, and to the majority of lay people in NZ, this law fails any amount of scrutiny.

    It is an imposter, dressed in the guise of noble words, that seeks to trap the good people of NZ under the fear of unwarranted police/CYFS powers.

    Any person or organisation that supports this bill, despite their noble causes, is supporting an anti-family encroachment towards a police state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RickyJJ () says:

    Phool’s cool! Best Tuesday ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dad4justice () says:

    Has he injected himself with rocket fuel I hope ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tim barclay () says:

    I think the Labour Party would be wanting the worthies to front the debate rather than the rather noisy “rainbow” coalition – who seem to have opinion on everything including on how to raise children they will never have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SPCS () says:

    Green MP Ms Sue Bradford expects intelligent New Zealanders to believe her claims, that should her anti-smacking bill become law, the government authorities such as Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS) will NOT take kids away from good parents after receiving complaints that they smacked them “correctly” or in a “benign” fashion. “It’s just not going to happen for good parents who smack correctly,” her supporters yell at her bill’s critics. Sadly, the bill’s supporters have been deluded by Bradford’s rhetoric into believing that the bill actually sanctions those who smack “correctly” – that is those parents who apply a smack for purposes OTHER THAN “correction” whatever that means!

    The tragic case involving foster parents Don and Anne Eathorne and their two foster kids, featured on TV One’s Sunday programme last year (9/04/06), highlights the shocking way CYFS has broken up a loving family by its draconian meddling over a “smacking” report, failed to adhere to its own policies in removing kids from parents and used the media to malign loving and committed foster parents (more below).

    Bradford’s bill sanctions or justifies the use of “reasonable force” only if it can shown to have been used for certain defined purposes (as defined in the amendments); purposes other than “correction”. Like the Prime Minister Helen Clark and her party whips, Tim Barnett and Darryl Hughes, who as National MP Maurice Williamson pointed out in the House in debate, have never had kids; Bradford claims her bill will not lead to good parents being criminalised, even if they use a light smack for a corrective purpose. The Police authorities totally disagree that such assurances can be given. Leading QCs have refuted Bradford’s bald assertions. If she is correct, then why specifically exclude from the defences created in the amendments the defence for use of “reasonable force” in correction? And why define a range of activities for which defences are available when none are needed? Removing kids from harm’s way sometimes requires the use of “reasonable force” but it doesn’t need amendments to s. 59 to justify the action. How petty! Bradford’s bill is just plain “silly” and “ridiculous” – words used specifically by Helen Clark in live interviews to describe the current s. 59 defence which 80% of New Zealanders want to be retained.

    Supporters of the bill have been totally deceived by Bradford and co. into believing that kids will not be taken away from parents, even if the light smacking or other applications of “reasonable force” is indeed for correction. Bradford’s reasoning is that the police will turn a blind eye to all complaints over such mild and benign forms of corporal corrective discipline. Not so.

    We have more than sufficient evidence from New Zealand and overseas to say, sadly, that you such views are wrong as well as the reasoning giving rise to this conclusion.

    There have been a number of cases that have come before the Courts involving smacking – where very good parents used “reasonable force” for the purpose of “correction” – and the result was that their kids were taken off them for good or came very close to that through the actions of CYFS.

    The Case of the Eathornes

    One example should suffice – involving loving and mature foster parents who had two kids 24/7 in their care – a brother and a sister. Once removed by CYFS they never saw the kids again. Don and Anne Eathorne, formerly of Karamea, had this happen to two foster kids under their care. The whole case was the subject of an intense and detailed expose on a TVNZ Sunday documentary that screened last year (producer Chris Harrington TVNZ). The grave injustice by CYFS against the parents was well documented.

    The national case manager for CYFS, Ms Lorraine Williams, even had the gall, when interviewed at length on the programme about the case, to repeatedly infer that the couple had been involved in “child abuse”, thereby defaming them in a libellous and unprofessional outburst. The Eathornes had fostered over 20 children over a number of years and had an unblemished record with foster agencies, prior to CYFS removing the two kids from them. At the time the programme went to air the Eathornes were still on the CYFS books as legitimate foster parents. As yet CYFS has failed to go through due process to remove them officially as foster parents.

    A foster boy aged 10 years was lovingly disciplined by Anne Eathorne for wilfully causing about $5,000 damage (wilful vandalism) to farm equipment owned by her husband’s employer in 2002. Some months later he did about $1,000 of damage (wilful vandalism) to his school principal’s car. He again was lovingly but firmly disciplined by Anne. CYFS who were ultimately responsible for the boy (and his sister) but refused to pay anything towards the vandalism bills. The Eathornes were forced to cover both bills in full themselves.

    The correction was carried out in both cases by Anne and Don was not present. The boy ceased his vandalism after the second discipline session. Over two years later the incident was reported to CYFS, not by the boy who was disciplined, but by another older CYFS foster boy who heard about it through the ‘victim’ while stating short-term in the Eathorne’s home. The older boy was placed by CYFS at very short notice, with the Eathornes in Karamea. CYFS could find no one else willing to care for him and the Eathorne’s felt pressured and then offered to assist. That boy, who arrived with no CYFS paperwork as required under CYFS policy, was well-know to CYFS social workers as a liar and a very troubled individual. He was dropped at their doorstep one evening. He got talking to the other two younger foster children and learnt of the smacking incidents that occurred several years earlier. He then ran away from the Eathornes after staying only a few days with them and reported the ‘assaults’ to his CYFS social worker, embellishing the tale with a number of other ridiculous claims.

    CYFS acted within a few days of learning of the incidents and without notifying the foster parents or going through due process, arrived at their doorsteps and removed the boy AND his sister (both in long-term foster care). Don and Anne have had no access to the kids since. It appears that CYFS worked closely with police to ensure that they faced serious charges in court. Both Anne and Don were fined $500 each in the Greymouth District Court on 30 January 2006 under s 194 of the Crimes Act, had to pay $130 in court costs and both received criminal convictions for assault against a child in their care. Neither can ever work with kids in any role again – professional or voluntary.

    The ‘assault’ consisted of two short smacks to the boy’s open palm of his hand – delivered by Anne (Don was not present) using a small wooden jam spoon. The boy willingly complied with the corrective discipline and only reasonable force was used. He never raised any complaints with his CYFS social worker. Anne demonstrated on the Sunday programme how she carried out the safe smacking which in no way harmed the boy. The Judge accepted submissions from the parents’ lawyer Mr Doug Taffs that the smacking discipline was “benign:” and “not gratuitous violence” (Dominion Post 11/02/06 NZPA story). He also accepted Mr Taff’s submissions on behalf of his clients that they both had unblemished records as parents and foster parents and had gone well beyond the call of duty in covering medical expenses for the boy for his health problems prior to the two smacking incidents. He also accepted that it was appropriate for Mr Taffs to submit that they should be discharged without any conviction. Instead of discharging them, the Judge convicted them of assault and fined them both (total $1,130).

    Following the two brief and benign discipline sessions, the foster boy’s behaviour showed a marked improvement and the vandalism, according to the couple, ceased. Judge Colin Doherty who issued the judgement – he convicted both parents of criminal assault – did not make any reference to a s. 59 defence to assault and the couple’s lawyer Mr Doug Taff did not refer them to this possible defence that was technically open to them. Neither Don nor Anne had heard about a s. 59 defence at the time and were manipulated, they believe, into pleading guilty of smacking the boy in a so-called plea-bargain. Anne had always been upfront and honest from the outset of the police investigation and acknowledged that she had smacked the boy with a small wooden spoon, for wilful vandalism to correct his wayward behaviour. They expected to be discharged without a conviction after agreeing to the plea bargain, but the Judge accepted their honest admission of smacking using reasonable force for correction as an admission of assault, which clearly it was not, if s. 59 had been taken into consideration. S. 59 is a defence for ALL parents and foster parents but was ignored.

    If Bradford succeeds in getting her flawed bill into law, the s. 59 defence will be gone altogether for all parents, foster parents, and caregivers. Parents who use ANY form of reasonable force (including light smacking) for the purpose of correction, will be committing a criminal offence in law and will open themselves up to having formal charges laid against them by their own kids, neighbours or zealous CYFS social workers based on hearsay evidence from known liars, and possibly find themselves convicted of assault and child abuse.

    Parents and especially foster parents have much to be concerned about over this bill. There are six cases similar to the above involving CYFS that have been notified to the Families Commission by a member of our organisation. The Society documented others in its written and oral submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee considering Bradford’s flawed bill last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RickyJJ () says:

    “Any person or organisation that supports this bill, despite their noble causes, is supporting an anti-family encroachment towards a police state.”

    What’s so great about families anyway? Surely the less snotty kids running around the better?

    Fewer families would mean less demand for housing. Well there’s that problem solved!

    Fewer families would mean less youth crime. And less paedophilia. I think most people who want pro-family laws just want there to be more little kids around so they can fondle them.

    I think the best argument however is that fewer families means lower taxes – we’d save a ton on education and health care.

    And lower taxes mean more freedom.

    So really, if you’re pro-family then you’re anti-freedom. Why don’t you go live in Iran, I’ve heard they hate freedom there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dmw () says:

    “However, I do think that something has to be done about child-abuse in New Zealand – sooner rather than later and preferably right now – i dont want to wait another couple years for some other alternative bill to go through the usual process.

    “So for me – the pros of introducing this bill outweigh the cons.”

    That is very dangerous, idiotboy. That is like saying that cars should be banned, because some people cannot be trusted to use them safely. (Or ditto regarding alcohol, hot cross buns, pies, Coca Cola…)

    If you are motivated by a desire to lower the abuse that happens in a minority of child-raising situations (I hesitate to call them “families”), then this law is not going to help at all. We are better off scrapping it, and putting the effort instead into training parents in how to raise their children without the abuse.

    The sad thing is that most of the child abuse cases are in homes of welfare beneficiaries. The govt is paying people to have babies without fathers. Those babies are beaten up by boyfriends and relatives of these unmarried mums.

    And now they (the govt) are trying to punish US for problems that they caused and refuse to recognise or deal with.

    Doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you still think it is a law worth supporting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dad4justice () says:

    SPCS Its a funny old world when Westport lawyer Mr Taffs name pops us as this two faced slimeball also manipulated the law in my case , he compelled me to enter a guilty plea aginst instruction – in a so-called plea bargin with cops. Guilty to breach of two protection Westport District Court 27 November 2001. I complained to the law society about him as he acted outside the protections contained in the Bill of Rights – and they fobbed me of. I feel so sorry for that Buller couple as Taffs is a disgrace to the legal profession .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Metal () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Metal () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Metal () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. SPCS () says:

    Response to “dad4justice”. URGENT. SPCS was aware early last year when it began investigating the Eathorne’s tragic case (prior to it airing on TV1 Sunday programme) that a formal complaint had been laid against the lawyer [X] concerned, in an unrelated case, and that the complaint was dealt with by either the Law Society or the Courts. We understand the lawyer came very, very close to being “struck off”. You wrote: “I feel so sorry for that Buller couple as ["X"]is a disgrace to the legal profession”. SPCS has prepared all the legal groundwork for taking the Eathorne’s case to the Court of Appeal. Would you kindly contact SPCS with more details about your case as it will definately be relevant to any appeal against the Eathornes conviction. Please write: SPCS, P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville. The SPCS Executive will treat with strict confidence any disclosures of information from you relating to your own case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Peter S () says:

    Metal,

    The problem with time-outs is that there is a tenuous association between the punishment and the action.

    A 2 yearold has limited reasoning capabilities and lower communication skills. Reasoning & timeouts therefore have limitations on their efficiency, because a child of that age simply does not associate being in a room alone with breaking the head off the pet cat. A timely administered smack on the hand is sometimes the ideal combination of action & result, because there is an easy association of the sting & explanation with the original action.

    An older child is much more likely to benefit & respond to the time-out method.

    Smacking is not the answer to every misdemeanour just as prison is not the apt punishment for every crime. The problem is that, if, for example, you removed the threat of prison for any crime, then you by default lower the punishment for every crime, and that makes standards correspondingly harder to enforce.

    Every child is different and no one regieme works for all children. Each child responds to different types of discipline in differing ways, and it is a wise parent that adapts to find methods that work for each child, because it makes life easier for both the child and the parent.

    IB,

    sorry, but I’ve got to side with dmw on the pros & cons of the bill. I do think that your intentions are good, but I feel that the potential for damage far outweighs the possibility of benefit.

    As far as Clark & Bradford are concerned, I do NOT think that their intentions are good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Metal () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. idiotboy () says:

    Peter S – appreciate your argument – no need to apologise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dina () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. idiotboy () says:

    dmw says – “That is like saying that cars should be banned, because some people cannot be trusted to use them safely.”

    you are right – smacking should not be banned just because some people cant be trusted to administer said smacking safely.

    Thing is – and i realise that you dont agree with me on this point – this bill does not ban smacking.

    dmw says – [snip] “…training parents in how to raise their children without the abuse.”

    I aggree – this is exactly what we need to do. Come on parents of nz – let’s atart NAO!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dad4justice () says:

    SPCS – sorry I was held up trying to deal with cyfs Ashburton on behalf of another punished and falsely accused father.I manage 30 odd active cases in various jurisdictions , very busy and cyfs will not work with me ?? Kids can’t understand politic’s !! Cyfs are impossible to deal with because of Ruth, Ruth can’t tell the truth.

    Yes our old Mr Taffs the lawyer (another ex- St Bedes Old Boy) is quite the character. I will write you a letter over Easter period about him. I will also send you documentation of the complaint made about his lewd behaviour and supporting evidence that clearly show this man is guilty of judicial malfeasance. I tried to highlight his despicable conduct to the Law Society and Human Rights Review Tribunal to no avail .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Dina () says:

    How is violence the answer in disciplining your children. I always hear comments like “what if you have a badly behaved child, how will you control them”.
    There are many ways to control children, I strongly support the non-violent ways of disciplining children, such as time outs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dad4justice () says:

    In fact a judge told me just week that cyfs were dangerous – fact !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Andrew Davies () says:

    All those who oppose smacking should be campaigning AGAINST this bill as we are continually told by Clark and Bradford that it does NOT outlaw smacking.
    Or is it that you don’t believe them either?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Peter S () says:

    Reasoning with a 2 yearold that keeps shouting the same thing in a tantrum.

    Reasoning with someone that keeps posting the same thing.

    Equally pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dad4justice () says:

    Dina – cyfs already practise time out when they take the kids from the parents !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Peter S () says:

    Andrew Davies,

    Good point.

    I could never agree to the passage of this bill because I cannot trust what the ones pushing its passage state about it.

    On the intent of this bill, Clark and Bradford have taken more positions than exist in the Kama Sutra.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dad4justice () says:

    Dina – for example – I know a mum stripped of her 5 kids on cold SW cantab evening (2006) -kids ranged from 15 months to 14 year old , mum screamed all the way down the road as the upset children got carted away in a few pig cars !The SW thought it a great joke !! Hows that for starters darling ! The cyfs informant turned out to be a drug dealer on the run from cops !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. dad4justice () says:

    Shame on you New Zealand !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. dad4justice () says:

    Do you want to hear about the lovely grand mother fighting the bastard cyfs for only 7 years for the right to see her grandson – shove your corrupt nation up your arse and scumbag government built on lies , lies and more lies !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. dad4justice () says:

    Or the cyfs caregiver who raped the 14 year old from Timaru – you media are so false !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice () says:

    Or the pregnant lady from South Africa who endured police and cyfs maliciously taking her 3 sons from her ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. dad4justice () says:

    Shine on you crazy diamond .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPCS () says:

    Hi dad4justice We look forward to receiving your material.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. gd () says:

    The real public anger IMHO is against the State attempting to impose its will on the family. This is the latest in a long line of slowly creeping legislation all designed to allow the State to invade the family.

    The smacking issue is a minor element. The principle of the sanctity of the family is being undermined by the Socialists.

    They will continue to do so as long as the citizens let them get away with it. Their end game is a model where the father has limited or little contact with the family and where the State controls the mother and children by providing the financial support gathered in part from the father but mostly supplied by tax payers.

    The feminist dominated education system will continue to preach the mantra that wimmin are good and men are evil.

    The Churches will continue their anti family campaigns adding and supporting the Socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Alice () says:

    The really scary thing about the Bradford Bill is it will give Cyfs bureaucrats more power to take away children and put them in a WORSE situation. Which, as D4J correctly points out, Cyfs ALREADY have a lengthy track record of doing. Even the thickest Bradford Bill supporter should be able to see giving strangers more power to wreck children’s lives by snatching them away from their parents for years will not benefit those children.

    My neighbours bringing up their grandies were destroyed in this way. One defiant, overgrown boy, known to be brain-damaged due to his mother’s drug-taking during pregnancy, played up several times too often. His grandfather smacked him.

    With typical overkill CYFS then removed not only him (which would have been fair enough, the boy needed to learn his consistent bad behaviour had earned consequences) but his hapless younger siblings. The damage to those little ones in terms of bedwetting, nightmares etc has been horrendous. Do CYFS give a damn? Of course not! And they ignored a neighbourhood petition to return the younger children to the grandparents. Nanny State knows best? Like hell.

    Highly paid, childree-by choice politicians & bureaucrats, or ones with small families of docile children further cossetted by the best education & health care the parental big salaries can buy, need to understand that not all children and not all ages respond to the same type of discipline. An obedient little girl is a different kettle of fish from an ADHD child of either sex, or from an XYY boy. Difficult children shouldn’t be snatched from their homes just because the parents don’t follow trendy middle class parenting notions.

    By refusing to face the serious long-term damage the Bradford Bill will do to children, its supporters show they have no interest in children’s welfare. Their arguments boil down to the palpably nonsensical idea Nanny State has a child’s interest more at heart than any parent.

    The Bradford Bill is covert class warfare. Yes, really. The main victims will be the children of pressured, low-income parents who are not perfect but do love their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. adrien () says:

    remember this

    Psychologists spend all day working with sick people. The theories they come up with are often largely based on these people, rather than the well ones, but they are always the ones consulted on policy decisions which are applied to normal well people. Makes me sick every time they get a psychologist on the news as the self-proclaimed expert on everything. I should know, my dad was one.

    Barnardos does a lot of work for children. But how many of those children are happy, well-cared for children who are provided with everything they need? Not many I bet. Maybe Barnardos view is distorted?

    As for Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Well, what an idiot. His argument that because only PART of the reason to take a kid into time out is correctional purposes, that introduces doubt.

    That’s like saying a bank robber who robs a bank to pay a parking fine won’t be found guilty of robbing the bank because that wasn’t the only motive for their actions.

    Good one Geoffrey! Quel idiot.

    The jury only needs to prove ANY amount of force was used for correction. Not that ALL of it was. This guy was our PM (labour), and is now a lawyer. I know what lawyers to avoid if I want any that have any sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.