Six police officers for smacking complaint
The Press has the story of Jimmy Mason:
Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.
The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.
“Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn’t realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness,” Mason said.
“So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one,” Mason said.
A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.
“They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me,” he said.
“It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”
Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.
“When I say ‘stop’ to the kids they have got to stop,” he said. “I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.
“They didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”
Mason was not charged in the end, but given a formal warning which will go on his police record.
A formal warning is not an inconsequential thing, and it seems very unfair he has received one, on the basis of the facts outlined. There maybe another side to the story, of course.
Also one has to ask why the hell do the Police send six officers in response? A street brawl is unlikely to get that many!
January 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am
The Police do not know what is right. That isn’t their job. Their job is to do as they are told. Most likely the six cops turned up because an off-duty policeman called it in.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Well i reckon the kid will not go riding off the way he did because he now understands the consequences. If he had simply been told by the father that he cannot go riding off, the message would go in one ear and out the other! Coming from Zimbabwe, i find the PC nonsense in relation to this matter absolutely rediculous. Corporal punishment is still used in many of the private and public schools in Zim and having finished secondary school in NZ 2 years ago i can say that the behaviour does not even compare to that of the kids in Zim. NZ is a great place to live, but these types of laws are what produce the kids that tag all over the place and have absolutely no respect for elders.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Wow, looks like all the drunk drivers, murderers, P dealers, rapists and burglers have been round up and sent to jail, must be the case if the cops have six spare officers to send to reprimand a father for flicking his sons ear….
And here I thought the Police force was understaffed….
January 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
6 police turning up! How many turn up as quickly to a burglary call?
January 14th, 2008 at 9:55 am
If there was a suspcion the injured child had been hurt by his father, rather than by accident, calling police might have been justified; but the report says it was the flick on the older child’s ear rather than the injuries to his younger brother which prompted the call. Exactly what a flick on the ear meant and the amount of force behind it would also be relevant – it doesn’t sound like much but as you say, David, there may be another side to the story.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“Coming from Zimbabwe, i find the PC nonsense in relation to this matter absolutely rediculous. Corporal punishment is still used in many of the private and public schools in Zim ”
And how’s Zimbabwe going these days? Inflation anyone? Civil order?
January 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The law is working exactly as it was intended to according to Bradford.
That being the case can she tell us why she intended for good parents who care about their kids to be criminalised?
Meanwhile kids keep on getting killed by their parents with no slow down.
Useless sack of socialist shit.
Tell about her parenting skills again.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Arresting parents for flicking their kids ear going to keep inflation down David?
January 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Murray said: Useless sack of socialist shit.
Isn’t it useless sack of Communist shit? Larger green sack, redder shit, twice as useless.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The father says “flicking” his ear, Im sure the off duty policewoman saw it very differently.
As for those complaining about the buglars going free, how many buglarys get a mention in DPF and a big writeup in the paper, with probably a tv NEWS STORY TO COME
January 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
GWW What do you have against buglars, or indeed any Brass instrumentalists?
Mind you I could understand anyone being arrested for showing their French Horn off in public….
January 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Ghostwhodribbles – fresh back from your spectacular own-goal (“where was John Key when Sir Ed died?” – hell of a lot closer to home than Clarkie, who couldn’t enjoy her holiday without a little Scandinavian X-country skiing…duh!)
The article I read doesn’t report the off-duty seeing the “ear-flick” at all! She phoned up her cronies, but the only mention of witnessing this heinous assault is a busybody….teacher.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Murray – sorry to bring some facts into the argument. But who was arrested? Or ‘criminalised’? He got a warning. Wasn’t arrested, wasn’t convicted (which would have made him a criminal).
The important question is should the police have used their discretion to take a lesser response? I’d be interested to hear the perspective of the person that witnessed this and the officers that responded.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
“Arresting parents for flicking their kids ear going to keep inflation down David?”
You’ve somewhat missed my point Murray.
It’s difficult to say “In Zimbabwe we do things differently and it’s a lot better” when you look at the state of Zimbabwe as it stands…
January 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
“where was John Key when Sir Ed died?” No! please don’t tell me someone seriously asked that question.
Is it now part of the politician’s remit to be on 24-hour alert, just in case someone important dies. Shit the UK’s foreign policy would have been paralysed for years waiting for the Queen Mum to snuff it.
Re the police-time/effort placed into this ear-flicking thing – I recall Tamihere saying on Radio live that this kind of thing would happen, I recall some posters here saying it wouldn’t.
It has.
Winston (I’ve got starship in my heart) Peters would be pleased his extra coppers are being used to impact on the –
Oh I can’t go on, it’s all too sick……….
January 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Well at least we know what to do if our house gets burgled and or car gets stolen.
Just call the coppers and tell them a kids been whacked and you wil have a whole squad at your disposal
And the Gumint and the Police bosses wonder why the citizens dont respect the Plod any more
January 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
BeShakey you Whaktard. (Thank you ‘An Unauthorised History of NZ’!)
That may not be “criminalised”, but how would you feel about having something like that put on your “record”, when you (and, I would argue, most of the NZ populace) feel it isn’t warranted.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am
But who was arrested? Or ‘criminalised’? He got a warning.
Yes, having a Police warning on your record for doing nothing out of the ordinary, that’s the kind of society we all want to live in, surely?
I’d be interested to hear the perspective of the person that witnessed this and the officers that responded.
Indeed, gossips and busybodies often have a great deal they can tell about other people. How satisfying that we’ve elevated this amusing pastime to the status of news and made it a Police matter. Oh brave new world, that has such denunciations in it!
January 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Seamonkey – firstly, I didn’t say it was a good thing, I said that at least a poster who wants to lay into the government or police about it can avoid lieing about what happened. I also said that I wasn’t sure whether it was warrented, it’d be interesting to hear the version of events of the person who saw it and the police officers. I’m happy to endure some abuse for suggesting that some facts might be useful, I know how some you righties hate letting them get in the way of your lynching posse.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
So psyco your position on police enforcement is that the police should at all times ignore statements made by witnesses and accept the version of events of the person who has been accused of something (however big or small)? I guess thats one way to reduce prison numbers.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
True that Mr. B. Shakey.
Withdraw and apologise.
In your response to PM, to be fair I think dispatching six police officers for an ear-flicking as a tad OTT.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I mean I withdraw and apologise.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
So any person accused of something should have a permenant record kept of it without any process.
Unless they’re a useless sack of commuist shit with the parenting skills of pol pot.
BS are certainly you’re initials.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Unfortunately this is the INTENDED outcome of the repeal of Section 59.
Without the Section 59 defense the cops cannot exercise discretion as they should. If you ask me the off duty cop should have exercised his/her judgment before ringing it in.
Honestly this is plain dumb. If the situation is as the father said it was then the cops that showed up should have growled the toddler and told him to listen to his father.
Unfortunately under Police guidelines for Domestic Violence(DV) situations there is no difference shown between very minor matters and your more serious DV where Police action IS warranted.
THE GUIDELINES DEFINITELY DO NOT CONTAIN GREAT PEARLS OF WISDOM AND TIPS ON HOW PEOPLE CAN PARENT THEIR TODDLERS BETTER.
Perhaps Annette KING should bottle up her common sense and send a small dose to every cop in NZ who may need to learn how to exercise it from time to time.
Bring back a modified version of Section 59 I say…….as unfortunately not all cops can be guaranteed to make the right decisions all the time.
AND FOR ALL THE FRICKEN NOSEY NEIGHBOURS OUT THERE………FOR GOODNESS SAKE THINK BEFORE YOU STINK WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS…..I MEAN YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE EINSTEIN TO WORK IT OUT DO YOU?????
January 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Everyone knows a “flick around the ear” really means a hit to the head.
Is there ever a good reason to hit a 3 year old in the head?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Seamonkey – I agree that, based on the information so far, six officers sounds very OTT. Which is one reason I’d like to hear the other side of the story before condemning them (I suspect that having heard the story it will still be OTT, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile getting some more facts).
Murray – there was a process, but besides that, no I don’t think that sounds like a good idea as a general process. However, I was criticised for daring to wonder what the witnesses had claimed had happened, and what the police officers had to say.
Jimmie – I feel like a broke record, but it would be good to hear someone elses version of events before deciding whether the law was applied as it was intended. Police are allowed discretion, which makes it strange that it wasn’t used in this case. Its one reason to wonder if something else isn’t going on. Lastly, the guidelines don’t contain ‘pearls of wisdom’ on parenting. Nor should they, just like they don’t contain pearls of wisdom on having a succesful marriage, if someone asks for them when the police turn up to arrest them for beating up their husband/wife it’s just plain silly. Same applies in this case.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Flicked him on the ear” not “Flicked him around the ear” Short and shrivelled..
One describes using a sole finger to flick only their ear, the latter describes whacking them on the side of the head with an open palm – that one would and should get a Police response – but I would still question whether 6 officers would be required in that instance.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Ditto Bevan.
A good friend of mine was burgled on Saturday.
Police will be calling on Tuesday!
Number of police attending- one!
Go figure
January 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Next time I have a burglary I`ll just say that my partner smackied my kids – that`ll get the cops around.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“One describes using a sole finger to flick only their ear”
Oh come on
you honestly believe the man flicked the toddler with his finger
he is using the term “flick” to give the impression that it wasnt hard
seeing as how the 2 year old was “slipping in and out of consciousness” I assume he took him to hospital to be checked out?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
This example is the almost exactly the example of what I used to argue against the introduction of the bill with a good friend of mine who is a social worker and CYFS worker. He said that a good society shouldn’t require violence of any sort to raise children. I argued that we’re not so far gone from the animals that the quickest way of learning a lesson is understanding the physical ramifications of incorrect actions. I used the example of lionesses teaching lion cubs how to behave. They give them a quick hard whack with a paw so that the cubs learn there is a physical impact. Kids need to know that if they knock their little brother out by being stupid that there is a physical repurcussion. The exact example I argued for was that of a kid riding out onto the street. They don’t get injured, time out would be meaningless but understanding that riding out on to the road could cause you physical harm would be very quickly learnt with a clip round the ear. Beats the alternate lesson which will ensure you never do it again, ever.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“One describes using a sole finger to flick only their ear”
Oh come on
you honestly believe the man flicked the toddler with his finger
he is using the term “flick” to give the impression that it wasnt hard
seeing as how the 2 year old was “slipping in and out of consciousness” I assume he took him to hospital to be checked out?
Well there you are just jumping to conclusions based on your own emotion, we can only go by what is being reported, not by what you think may have happened. If in fact in was a flick (or clip) around the ears, that will come out in Police witness reports, and frankly it would be justified for charges to be laid, although not for six officers to attend the incident.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Be Shakey
‘Lastly, the guidelines don’t contain ‘pearls of wisdom’ on parenting. Nor should they, just like they don’t contain pearls of wisdom on having a succesful marriage, if someone asks for them when the police turn up to arrest them for beating up their husband/wife it’s just plain silly. Same applies in this case’
Speaking from experience, in minor Domestic Violence incidents pearls of wisdom are what is needed as in many of these situations the people involved have little relationship skills and sometimes a word of advise can do wonders.
It doesn’t work where there are drugs, alcohol or serious dysfunction involved but in a lot of minor cases it can work and can help to de-escalate a situation that has potential to get out of control.
I do agree that this Father should have smacked his toddler on the bum and not around the ears as there is a fine line between a clip and a whack to the head area.
Still it just required a quiet word of advice from the cop involved not a Formal Warning.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
3 coil, havent seen a “live TV” interview with Key on the day the death was announced. But this is off topic
January 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Well maybe YOU should have thought about that before YOU and all the other hand wringing wooly liberals in the National Party supported your leader when he let Clark off the hook over the anti-smacking bill.
[DPF: Actually I said I would still vote against the bill. Try and get your stereotypes correct]
January 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Of course the smacking bill was always going to provide endless delight to the curtain twitchers you know the noisy neighbours. And no surprise a teacher was involved.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Jimmie – I absolutely agree with you that people in minor domestic violence incidents could do with some help with relationship skills etc. My point was that it shouldn’t be the police who do this, or are expected to.
The argument between short and bevan highlights that the debate is based on a pretty slim amount of facts and a lot of vitriol. It’d be good to have some solid facts about what happened before jumping to conclusions.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
” Welcome to CPS . . .
Child abuse, violence and trauma affects thousands of children with over 63,000 referrals made to Child Youth and Family in 2006. [172.6 a day]
It is estimated that each year in New Zealand:
* Every month one child is killed through physical abuse
* 9,800 children are hospitalized with preventable injuries [26.849 a day]
* There is a $5.32 billion fiscal and economic cost to New Zealand on the long term effects of childhood abuse
* Approximately 15% of children are born at risk
* More than 80,000 children are witnesses of family violence [210.178 a day]
* One family member is killed through family violence every 12½ days ”
I think this is about the third case under S59 since it was changed?
Obviously it is working well
January 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Six cops for a this incident? Doesn’t surprise me. I had some things stolen from my home. I gave the cops the names of the people who did it. That was a month ago. They have not even investigated it yet.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Sofia – It was stated a number of times during the S59 debates that the bill would only play a small part in addressing this. The real change required was a cultural shift. One part that was frequently discussed was people referring incidents of violence that they witnessed to police (in many of the child death cases people were aware of things happening but didn’t want to be seen as being nosy). Personally, I’d rather have people referring what turn out to be minor incidents, than not report the incidents that later culminate in a dead child.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Reading this story I felt disgusted at what has become an over the top, pc correct feel good at all costs society. I have been against the anti smacking bill from the start as I do not believe it will solve the problem of child abuse. Oh and guess what, I am one of those teachers as is my partner. So before you put teachers into that little box of interfering Anette King kiss asses (gd) it might help your perspective if you get to know a few first. As for Jimmy Mason he seemed to be the only one with his head screwed on its not like he left a bruise or broke an arm. How do you explain consequences to excited 3 year olds who only care about riding their bikes and having fun?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“Mason was not charged”
Just like we said would happen for minor incidents.
I am of the opinion that there must be more to this than Mr Mason’s own account, otherwise it is difficult to see why people around him would have been so upset.
For most people when one of youe children is injured, thumping the other one is not usually top of your list of priorities, however I’ll wait for the full story.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
gee, a teacher raised the alarm.
wonder who she votes for.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
BeShakey – my point is that with the statistics indicating about 26 children are hospitalized daily, to have just 3 cases under the S59 change is an absolutely pathetic reflection of what is going on and an utter diversion of attention from the real problem.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am
How about this story from the US:
Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family’s home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.
The doctor’s recommendation: Take Tylenol and apply ice to the bruises. The boy was back home a few hours later.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59566
Cops seem to like dealing with peaceful members of the public in force. Little chance of them getting hurt or having nasty words said to them.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
The Christchurch incident reported today is producing accusations on talkback radio that the police are bloody fuckwits and descending into even less public regard than they already have, and NO REAL MENTION IS MADE OF CHILD ABUSE in relation to it.
That’s how S59 sends a message?
January 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Sofia, I think introducing more legislation is an utter diversion of the real problem, which like BeShakey says is a cultural problem. A man taking his two boys for a ride of their bikes regularly does not indicate to me the sort of person involved in the endemic abust of children in NZ. The law needed to be written to prevent the use of case law citing S59 to allow the use of weapons on children. It has been effective in this but it has also been effective in involving unnecessary people into it, people who may well be very fine parents. This is what I object to. I feel Helen Clark has been very clever in aligning the object to this law as being pro-child abuse, this is blatantly not the case. In my mind, three cases of people being accosted by police for what could be debatably good parenting, is three too many. Obviously any single case of a child being assaulted, is one too many, but we need to fix the underlying culture before making every child a victim.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Those statistics are for preventable injuries, so it would be odd to charge someone with assault (or anything else) for their kid falling off their bike. Of course some of those injuries are caused by violence from an adult, in which case charges are justifiable, but assault isn’t the only option as far as charges go. I agree with you that more needs to be done, but I’m not sure that S59 is a problem, rather than (a very small) step forward.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
So what if a teacher raised the alarm would it be any different if a truck driver did? I dont think so
January 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
How about this story from the US:
If you care so much about what goes on in the US, maybe you should look into relocating there.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Bevan : what a prick you are. I was simply quoting a story.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
So psyco your position on police enforcement is that the police should at all times ignore statements made by witnesses and accept the version of events of the person who has been accused of something (however big or small)?
That’s quite a spectacular logical leap there, BS. Something a little less spectacular but more effective was called for. Obviously the guy wasn’t beating the crap out of his kid, or he would have got something more than a warning. If the cops had in fact arrested him for assault, the opinions of the witnesses would be of some interest – the fact is however, that the cops turned up and found nothing worth charging anyone for. In other words, busybodies poking their fucking noses in where they’re not required, government mandated and with Police backup. Away tae fuck with ‘em.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Sorry Sofia, I mis-interpreted your posts. I think we’re both in agreement that the law change has not affected the real problem.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Not as spectacular as your claims that what witnesses saw, and what the police officers saw has no relevance because they are ‘busybodies poking their fucking noses in where they’re not required’ (quite the wordsmith aren’t you?), but the police opinion can be trusted in terms of the charges (or lack of).
While you have no issue with condemning someone without knowing the facts, I’d actually like to know what went on. There is some middle ground between something that justified a warning (or no response at all) and “beating the crap out of his kid”. The witness and the police may be able to shed some light on what actually happened, making it easier to comment with some solid information, rather than conjecture and vitriol.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Labrator said
“I used the example of lionesses teaching lion cubs how to behave. They give them a quick hard whack with a paw so that the cubs learn there is a physical impact. ”
When a male lion takes over a group of lionesses from another male, they often kill the young of the other male. The lionesses let him. Then breeding begins again.
Should we follow this example of lion parenting too?
January 14th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Mason was not charged”
Just like we said would happen for minor incidents.
As if the risk, hassle, stress, and the belittling nature of being talked to by 6 police in front of your kids counts for nothing. Try to imagine, Sonic, going through a yellow light or some equivalently minor indiscretion and being talked to at length by 6 officers, and finally being issued a formal warning with your family watching the whole thing in the back seat. Go on, pretend its an experience justified by running a yellow.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Oh the poor lamb. He is so upset he phoned the newspapers.
The man must be in torment.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I wonder if the general availability of Police officers in the area at the time has any impact upon how many turn up to this domestic dispute, how many turn up to that burglary, how many turn up to the other thing…?
But no, it MUST be a socialist conspiracy.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Bevan : what a prick you are. I was simply quoting a story.
And I was just informing you of your migration options……
January 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Good one, Sonic. Quite obviously there is no contradiction in being embarrassed by police and being pissed off enough by it to call the papers.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Sofia said: “Every month one child is killed through physical abuse”.
And every month dozens die on the roads, or of disease, or of accidents, or of suicide, or of…
The proportion of kids dying from abuse is very small. Try putting the issue in some context.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
So no point ever doing anything the Ross, we may as well get rid of all road safety laws as kids still get knocked down?
January 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
And Sofia also said:
* There is a $5.32 billion fiscal and economic cost to New Zealand on the long term effects of childhood abuse
* Approximately 15% of children are born at risk
* More than 80,000 children are witnesses of family violence
Figures plucked out of thin air and without any context. Now please tell us, and provide sources, how many kids are killed who are not abused and what the economic cost of that is.
Cheers
January 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
> we may as well get rid of all road safety laws as kids still get knocked down.
You clearly missed my point, Sonic. Try reading my post again. Sofia is gnashing her teeth over child abuse, when such abuse causes a small fraction of the harm done to kids. Wouldn’t it make sense to focus on that which causes the vast majority of harm?
January 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
While you have no issue with condemning someone without knowing the facts…
We know the facts. Someone saw somebody else parenting and didn’t like how they were doing it, so squawked for the cops. Cops came and found nothing worth charging anyone for. Small consolation for the parent, who gets hassled by the cops and his parental authority shot to bits in front of his kids, thanks to some busybody. What exactly are the unknown facts here?
January 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The antismacking bill like the EFA were both cases of pollies rush of blood to the head The old ‘Christ we gotta do something or at least be seen to be doing something”
These people are genetically programmed this way Rather than sit down and calmly think thru a problem they panic and rush around like headless chooks.
They demand their poor suffering underlings the called called ‘policy advisers” come up with a solution.
And that means legislation or money. Because these fools only know two ways to solve any problem .Throw money at it and it will go away or Pass a law and make it illegal and it will go away.
Still you get the government you deserve and we sure have
January 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Psycho – we know what the father in question said happened. The person who saw it hasn’t been interviewed, neither have any of the police involved. Everything may have happened exactly as the father said, but it’d be nice to have heard both sides of the story before condemning the describing the person who called the police as “busybodies poking their fucking noses in where they’re not required”.
Ross – I agree that some context is important. But we aren’t faced with a choice of either reducing the road toll or reducing child abuse, we can do both.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Some one tell me how to stop a headstrong toddler from doing dangerous things apart from a quick sharp whack to the rear end?
You can talk to them till the cows come home but they don’t have the comprehension to understand danger but they can understand the temporary pain of a whack to the backside and a warning from dad not to ride the bike down the ramp.
WHAT REALLY MESSES KIDS UP FOR GOOD IS WHEN THEY ARE BROUGHT UP BY A PARENT/S WHO ABUSE ALCOHOL/DRUGS WHO COULDN”T GIVE A TOSS WHETHER THEIR KIDS DO WHAT’S RIGHT OR NOT OR FED OR NOT OR CLOTHED OR NOT AND LEAVE THE KIDS TO DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS MUM/DAD’S LIFESTYLE TOO MUCH.
WHERE THE KIDS ARE THE TICKET TO GETTING MONEY EVERY WEEK AND NOTHING ELSE.
WHERE YOU GO AND FIND 9 YR OLD KID COOKING UP FRIED EGGS AT MIDNIGHT AS HE HASN”T EATEN FOR TWO DAYS AND DAD HAS JUST BEEN ARRESTED FOR BEATING UP HIS OTHER KIDS IN A DRUNKEN RAGE
WHERE THE EIGHT MONTH PREGNANT MUM OT BE THINKS NOTHING OF GETTING DRUNK EVERY SECOND NIGHT AND LEAVING HER OTHER KIDS TO WANDER AS THEY PLEASE.
THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOUR IS WHAT MESSES KIDS UP NOT A SHORT SHARP RAP TO THE BUM TO STOP DANGEROUS BEHAVIOUR
January 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
DONT EFFECT MUM/DAD’s LIFESTYLE
January 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So no point ever doing anything the Ross, we may as well get rid of all road safety laws as kids still get knocked down?
Could try doing something that works, just as an option mind, with not so many high minded attention grabbing bills that have negative effects and solve no problems.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
What’s the fuss then? Hit your kids and bear the consequences.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Totally ridiculous, and it’s only going to get worse. This Govt has a lot to answer for. Sue Bradford should be ashamed.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Sonic’s worried about people so cut up they call the papers. Just like the Muliagas? Oh no that’s different because… because… oh dear, you’re fucked.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Off topic DPF Appreciate your letting us know what you got your German friend after all the advice you received (some more than a little off colour I must say)
[DPF: I am sending the present today, and will blog what it was after the birthday]
January 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Jimmie
Yes but Bradford and her dumb arse supporters ignore all the cases you refer to They are more interested in punishing the white middle class. They are the sworn enemy.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
name and shame the busy bodies
January 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hey people- YOU elected the politicians who made this law. NZ is a democracy. Don’t use your vote wisely, this is what you get.
What have you learned?
Don’t vote for socialist scum.
What will you do next election?
Rush out and vote for more socialist scum.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
….Meanwhile, a man took his son on a boat without a life jacket. He fell in the water and nearly drowned 2km from the boat he fell out of. His dad did not get a warning . No cops turned up.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
There have been three recent incidents which reflect on the administration of the Christchurch Police…First a Superintendent (Cliff I think his name was) was reported as directing that every Police Officer in the region was to spend a half hour a fortnight specifically targetting motorists not wearing seatbelts.
Second …His Worship Bob Parker was on Morning report complaining about vandalism, violence, and other crime was out of control in the city area and stating he intended to call a meeting of the Safer City Committee…Thirdly this bureaucratic nonsense. ..and they wonder why morale and Public Confidence is abating.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Umm ,we had a break in , to busy to come for days.to much effort to follow up,or to use their collective brains. Dads are easier to hammer”
January 14th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
lorrie07 said – `so what if a teacher called the cops would it be any different if a truck driver did’.
I am not a truck driver but I suggest most of them would have:
1. Gone to see if they could help the injured child.
2. Reinforced the message given by the father to the 3 yr old.
3. After providing what assistance they could they would have gone about their own business.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Teachers…..
January 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hey – yet another way for the State to ruin our kids… Now they get to see their parents admonished by the coppers for giving them a smack. As if today’s parent’s didn’t lack real authority over their children beforehand (and let’s face it – that’s the root cause of the youth ‘problem’). is that boy ever going to take his fathr seriously again? And if not, surely his and his brother’s lifes will be in danger somewhere along the track as a consequence.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I thought all truck drivers were wacked out on P?
But then again I wouldn’t want to make baseless generalisations….
January 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Is this an example of the kind of thing for which people were labelled ‘hysterical’ when they pointed out the flaws in S59?
And haven’t some people been likening the ‘hysteria’ over the EFA to that?
Now we have seen this situation unfold, does it not follow that complaints about S59 were not ‘hysteria’?
And won’t the same be seen to be true about the EFA?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
ross-
“Sofia said: “Every month one child is killed through physical abuse”.
And every month dozens die on the roads, or of disease, or of accidents, or of suicide, or of…
The proportion of kids dying from abuse is very small. Try putting the issue in some context . . .
then
“Figures plucked out of thin air and without any context. Now please tell us, and provide sources, how many kids are killed who are not abused and what the economic cost of that is.”
reference:
http://www.cps.org.nz/page/cps_5.php
CPS figures – your tax payer money compiles them [The site is 'Award winning, NZQA accredited, and 'reputation for excellence' - shit, who can argue with that?]
My point was that this great measure, to send a message to parents and change the culture, has so far seen one case, that I am aware of, go before the courts, with a masterton guy being placed under a year’s ‘supervision’. He had a previous record of violence.
In the face of ‘billions of dollars of damage to thousands of children’ the law is a dismal fucking failure . . . for children
This latest Christchurch case has only resulted in the image of the police being diminished yet again . . . which seems to be a Labour policy, and something Howard Broad is helping with.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Dave said
“….Meanwhile, a man took his son on a boat without a life jacket. He fell in the water and nearly drowned 2km from the boat he fell out of. His dad did not get a warning . No cops turned up.”
Radio NZ also reported that the farther was unaware that the kid was missing or in fact was not very concerned about it either.
The real concern is that it necessitated a police response by ‘six’ officers. What in hell is going on. Are the police so paranoid that they need to react in such numbers to satisfy Sue or are they so scared of the pitfalls of the legislation that they feel that the only safe arse covering response is in numbers in order to have plenty of witnesses to substantiate how they handled the incident.
Is this because the law is so wishy – washy as to what constitutes an offence?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
BS said: “Ross – I agree that some context is important. But we aren’t faced with a choice of either reducing the road toll or reducing child abuse, we can do both.”
Yes, we can do both, but if you waste resources in one area, those resources cannot be used in another. For example, having more cops investigate child abuse means fewer cops on the road.
I was stressing, however, that figures for child abuse deaths are extremely small when compared with other causes of child deaths.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
We do not know how Mr Mason was acting, perhaps the police felt they needed the numbers for safety reasons.
As I said above, we only have Mr Mason’s account of this incident, lets wait until the full facts are in.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Yeah, but this all starts with some miserable self appointed PC Gestapo member, probably a childless feminist, calling in the cops in the first place. Shades of numerous other “dob-in-your-neighbour” citizen-terrorising systems of government.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Off topic to the EFA Tim Shadbolts gonna place adverts asking people to vote for Eric Roy He will be in breach of the EFA on 2 counts.
Now can anyone tell me why it aint anti free speech for the good Mayor to be punished for supporting a candidate.
Come of you supporters of the EFA Tell me how this isnt taking away his freedom of speech All he wants to do is ask for support Bet if it was for Crazy you would all support his rights 2 face arseholes the lot of you
January 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Lee – I think this thread does give a great example that many of the S59 concerns were hysteria. Reality: A guy gets warned by the cops. Hysteria: Thousands of parents will be lined up outside courts waiting to be tried for giving their child a light smack.
Sofia – the change to legislation was never meant to be a cure all for child abuse, unfortunately there isn’t any solution that is that easy. Assuming that the Press story is accurate it does sound as if the S59 has had the positive effect of making people more aware and willing to contact the police about violence towards children. It’d be great if the police were only ever contacted about serious cases (whether or not this particular case is serious) but I’d rather have people be too concerned (and hence contact the police too much) than not concerned enough and ignoring cases that end horrifically.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“this all starts with some miserable self appointed PC Gestapo member, probably a childless feminist, calling in the cops in the first place”
That makes about as much sense as calling you a sterile goose-stepper wannabe burning with pent up rage because your mother refused to breast feed you once you started school.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“We do not know how Mr Mason was acting, perhaps the police felt they needed the numbers for safety reasons.”
Wimmen were they??
January 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Gestapo Member??!?!
Believe it or not, they’ve already coined the phrase “Reductio ad Hitlerum” for that kind of argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_hitlerum
January 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Whose money is he spending on that gd?
I hope it is not the rates paid for by the good people of Duneden?
So ratbiter hates women now? what a surprise.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“Oh the poor lamb. He is so upset he phoned the newspapers”
Sonic, I suggest he didnt like being labeled in Police files a childbeater. But tell us, when did YOU stop beating your wife?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Phil- one good thing about this legislation is that it may wake up a few of the mindless Labour voters as to exactly the kind of power hungry control freaks they have elected to parliament. Labour isn’t about the working man any more- today it is the party of the post modern elitist Marxist academic nut jobs
January 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
BeShakey:
“Reality: A guy gets warned by the cops. Hysteria: Thousands of parents will be lined up outside courts waiting to be tried for giving their child a light smack.”
I understand where you are coming from. I have to say though, that for one who is usually likes to be so specific about facts your characterisation of the situation above, has reduced the issues rather.
I don’t think anyone suggested thousands of parents lined up ouside courts, and the situation was a little more than ‘A guy gets warned by the cops.’
I think the concern is that the resources employed here far outstripped the seriousness of the situation (mind you, he might have been gunned down if he’d tried it again!). Also concerns raised about the change i nthe Law included that the police would be obliged to investigate every accusation, and I don’t think even the most hysterical poster envisaged six cops being sent in at a time to do it….
Similarly, we have mentioned that the EFA will oblige the Electoral COmmission to investigate piffling issues, and others have used the ‘public interest’ rebuttal. Yet, only last week we had the ‘Don;t Vote Labour’ website coming under scrutiny, despite the protestations of EFA supporters that such situations would never occur.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
So in that respect the EFA and S59 are similar, and you know it.
commie.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“Psycho – we know what the father in question said happened. The person who saw it hasn’t been interviewed, neither have any of the police involved. Everything may have happened exactly as the father said, but it’d be nice to have heard both sides of the story before condemning the describing the person who called the police as “busybodies poking their fucking noses in where they’re not required”.”
The point, BS (and sonic) is that where the police do not prosecute, the facts will never come in. The person who “witnessed” the incident will never be called to give evidence. You are talking about a prosecution where evidence is presented. Where the accused has the quaint right to see their accusers and test their evidence.
Where the cops “warn” someone, there’s no weighing of evidence by anyone. The cops decide there was probably an offence, but they won’t or can’t prove it.
So presumed innocence goes out the window, because the citizen has no redress: “You weren’t charged, so you’re not a criminal, so don’t complain; but we’re watching you, because we know you’re guilty, we just can’t prove it”.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
ps BeShakey I am suprised you are still able to type after those knuckle-rappings you got from Tina the other day. Was it you or her that first used the word ‘fantasist’?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“So ratbiter hates women now? what a surprise.”
Just picked up on your obvious worries about them being able to do their job in such cases.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m sure most of the women police officers I have met could kick your scrawny ass Ratbiter.
Why not approach your local policewoman and ask her to demonstrate?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
‘Why not approach your local policewoman and ask her to demonstrate?’
Are we back to ‘fantasists’?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The real moral of this story is that it is no longer necessary to call pizza hutt when you are being burgled (Pizza hutt are more reliable than the cops and will actually send somebody).
if you need urgent assistance from the cops and really need them to show up just call them and mention somebody is giving a child a clip round the ear. They will be with you lickety split.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Lee – the ‘thousands lined up…’ was a paraphrasing of a National speaker at the third reading. I’ll try to find the Hansard record if I have time.
I agree with you that the resources seem out of proportion to the description of what happened, I’ve said that a few times in earlier posts. But I did also say that I’d be interested in hearing from the witness and/or the officers involved before letting rip with accusations.
Interesting that you think that was a ‘knuckle rapping’ Lee, if you read the thread you’ll notice there were quite a number of posters, including a lot of people who are pretty right wing, who agreed that I had simply suggested a fairly standard description of investing in the sharemarket.
Sean – whats your point? That the police should never give someone a warning – criminal charges or nothing? One of the key points made against the S59 ammendment is that the police would charge everyone, they wouldn’t give warnings. Now that they’ve warned someone they should be charging everyone. It all still seems a bit contradictory.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“‘Why not approach your local policewoman and ask her to demonstrate?’
Are we back to ‘fantasists’?”
We’re talking to a silly little man with an innate obeisance to wimmen. Most people who kiss Klark’s arse on here all day are the same.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
BeShakey – My sympathies actually lay with you on the Tina thing, she was way out of line, and actually quite rude. So once again you missed my oblique ironic quip. Come on Man, try to keep up will you!
Yes I’d love to see the Hansard thing.
Admit it, you enjoyed every second.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think this thread does give a great example that many of the S59 concerns were hysteria. Reality: A guy gets warned by the cops. Hysteria: Thousands of parents will be lined up outside courts waiting to be tried for giving their child a light smack.
Well, that would be hysteria wouldn’t it? Too bad the actual concerns expressed about the S59 repeal were that it would criminalise parents, waste Police time, encourage busybodies and disgruntled spouses into denunciations, and offer no material assistance in reducing child abuse. Seems like this incident bears those concerns out nicely.
(And yes, I do think ending up noted as a potential child abuser in Police records constitutes being “criminalised,” just like I think your freedom of speech is restricted if you have to register with the authorities and be careful not to distribute your speech too widely. Fuck you for an authoritarian if you disagree.)
January 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Sorry Lee, it’s a bit hard to get ironic quips on here, wheat from the chaff etc. I’ll have a look, but can’t promise my memory was 100% accurate, so I’ll be happy to tone down that claim if it can’t be found (but I’m sure that was what she said).
January 14th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“Fuck you for an authoritarian if you disagree.”
Hell yeah, you tell ‘em Mr Free Speech.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Yeah, but Milt, what do you think of the war in Iraq?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sonic please stick to answering the question I asked .Oh dear Of course you cant without agreeing with me that Mayor Shadbolts freedom to publicy endorse and support whoever he wishes has been taken from him by the Socialists.
And a review of DPFs past files will show that of course this was never going to be the consquences that were intended by the EFB as it was according to its promoters and supporters.
Lying scum
January 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
GD you’re straying quite far from top and just being really unnecessarily abusive
January 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
*from topic
January 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The Bridge of Remembrance, where the guy was set upon by the 6 cops, is about 100 metres from the Christchurch central police station. That plus the off-duty cop probably explains the 6.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Yeah, but Milt, what do you think of the war in Iraq?
The war won.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“GD you’re straying quite far from top and just being really unnecessarily abusive”
You’d like us all to just lay down so you could walk right over us wouldn’t you David? Political correctness ain’t gonna save your commie arse this time around.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Nah Redbaiter you’re wrong. I’m not trying to walk over you but it’s cute you think that. Bless.
I just like debate without abuse. It’s more interesting to read that way.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Don’t be like that David, you love the abuse on here. It’s the next best thing on the internet after youtube.
I wonder if we could make a poem out of some of the choicest bits of abuse and overwrought rhetoric each day?
or maybe just a Haiku…
BeShakey you Whaktard,
Political correctness ain’t gonna save your commie arse.
Wimmen were they??
probably a childless feminist, calling in the cops in the first place.
Rush out and vote for more socialist scum,
sack of commuist shit with the parenting skills of pol pot.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I daresay the only reason why six cops turned up was that the incident was at the Bridge of Remembrance less than a block from the Christchurch Central Police Station.
As for the Dad who didn’t show much emotion when his son was returned to him, the same issue of the Press reveals that he was actually in deep shock.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The police have had an opportunity to comment and they have done so on other aspects of this case. If they had of felt that the father smacked or clouted his child on the side of the head they could have and should have commented. If they have and it was not reported they should issue a statement.
I am going to have cut this short as I going out to collect signatures calling for a referendum where the public can answer the question.
“SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?”
We will reach the required number for a referendum but the sooner that referendum is announced the less of this nonsense good parents will have to put up with until the legislation is changed.
If any on this blog would like to offer some practical help as well as blogging please contact.
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/
Any help collecting signature would be greatly appreciated.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Lets cut to the chase, a very loose 18 yo FEMALE was reported complaining.at the earflick and as these cops remembered clint (very well paid) richard, they thought there were possibilities. Remember in like flyn OR CLINT, or all for one , ie a good police gang bang , cops are like crims except they wear blue..and have a good union
January 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Did anyone happen to notice what time of the day the teacher phoned in the complaint of child smacking to the police.
If that time was anywhere close to the end of a police work shift it is my bet that a whole car load of cops rushed out the door saying “Yeh, we will get it,
Nice safe job, that can be strung out passed shift change, and an automatic minimum overtime payment for those logged onto the “child abused” job.
Looks like normal workplace income boost to me.
Nothing to do with the severity of any likely charge – In fact the would not want to make any charge cos the paperwork is a pain in the arse.
Get out of the shop, onto OT, and home as soon possible without giving the show away..
January 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Chuck – great idea, but you want to make sure the wording of the question doesn’t appear to shepherd the voters towards the outcome you want.
As I remember, the referendum on “sensible sentencing” some years back lost a lot of credibility because the question was worded in such a way that if you said “No” you felt like you were effectively saying “No I don’t think convicted criminals deserve anywhere near their sentences, and they shouldn’t have to serve any more than the bare minimum of time behind bars”.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Geez, what a lot of weirdos here today.
Full moon isn’t until next week.
Seeing as NZ now knows the names of the Mason family involved, can we please have the name of the teacher who took umbrage?
Or will that teacher hide behind the skirts of the Police?
To make an example you must be responsible for your actions, not cry and run for cover.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
The left suddenly want to support ‘anonymous donations’ Steve.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The left suddenly want to support ‘anonymous donations’ Steve.
Anonymous donation from a so called teacher with nothing better to do whilst on holiday. Mind bending socialist with six+ weeks over xmas.
God those teachers work hard ….
January 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Now I understand why they need such long holidays, unlike the 4 weeks I get
January 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
130 comments in the middle of the holidays!……and to think that Labour and the Greens are silly enough to think that the section 59 debate will be long forgotten come election time
January 14th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The petition was not my initiative. It was started almost a year ago before the compromise bill was passed. The wording has been approved by the appropriate authorities and I believe should be clear to the voter.
Just changing the topic ever so slightly – while I was door knocking for signatures I notice a lot of anger there towards the government in general and Sue Bradford in particular. I cannot recall to how many people referred to her that bitch.
A few people declined to sign but no one at all was rude to me. Many were very supportive.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
“Chuck – great idea, but you want to make sure the wording of the question doesn’t appear to shepherd the voters towards the outcome you want.”
Just to add to Chucks comments: RRM, the referendum on sentencing and violent criminals resulted in 92% agreeing. As a result, the Government changed the law so that violent offenders were to serve 2/3 of their sentence, rather than the 1/3 up util then. Petitions can change things.
We need to remember, that despite some people agreeing with Sue Bradford’s Act, the vast majority of Kiwi’s don’t. Polls range from 70% to 96%, with an average of 83% on this question alone. CIRs cannot be long policy statements and the questions needs to be short and to the point. If you go out and collect signatures you will find that 90% will sign (as both Chuck and myself find). They sign having seen and understood the question and they are more than entitled not to sign if they feel the question is too leading. Even if it gets to a referendum and the vast majority of Kiwis are faced with the question
“SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?”
they will still have the option not to answer it (i.e. not vote or abstain) if they feel it is too leading. This means that they cannot be led.
As the law stands today, the Bill exactly proscribes that very act (smacking as part of parental correction), so to have an effective referendum on this one issue we need to ask that exact question of the voter. The law is definately not making a neutral statement in this area hence the question has to be specific (as it is).
Of course once (as I believe) a majority of voters have said “No” in the referendum we can all have plenty of time to debate facts, words and any possible new legislation. That is the time to consider all the nuances that people wish to discuss. But it will be done with a clear indication of the electorates view on a specific clause in a specific act.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I recall your crowd being at the Howick Santa Parade Chuck Bird. In fact two of your people were opposite me and my child. I thought it was disgusting that you would use an exciting children’s occasion to push your political barrow.
No one signed your petition in the 2 hours I was there — in fact I was going to say something rude to your toadies except I was on the other side of the street and it was too busy to cross.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ruth, you are entitled to your POV (and I support your right to do that), but in my experience I get 90% of people wanting to sign. If they don’t want to, I wish them a nice day anyway. Seems to be a bit different to your approach
We live in a democracy, so any law abiding citizen is entitled to go into public places and collect signatures. Anyone is.
Do you know how many people have signed yet Ruth?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
After all that, police are reviewing the case because of teh discrepancy between the witness and the parent – after six cops turned up and gave the man a warning
I wonder whose view of events the warning was based on?
January 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
bradford,has just stated on newstalkzb that we have to understand,(we are not allowed to smack our children anymore) so suckers,good luck in the future when there is NO discipline, in our society. So vote for greenies and liarbor, if you want a fucked up future.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Excellent post (@ 2339, 14 Jan) Dave. The Police need to understand that their already declining public support will plument even faster if they don’t sort themselves out. They are already seen as being politically-biased: this will only strengthen that perception.
The Opposition need to be all over this one.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am
“bradford,has just stated on newstalkzb that we have to understand,(we are not allowed to smack our children anymore) so suckers,good luck in the future when there is NO discipline, in our society. So vote for greenies and liarbor, if you want a fucked up future.”
I bit bet Sue biffed her kids around the ears a few times, she just has that disposition and demeanour………
January 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
RRM – great poem, what an honour to feature in your first (?) kiwiblog poem.
“I wonder whose view of events the warning was based on?”
It was interesting to note, after all the comment here yesterday, that there is a discrepency between the fathers account and the witnesses account. I’m not much of a fan of TV1 news, but their report was that it was witnessed by a teacher and an off duty cop, not that the teacher saw it and then reported it to an off duty cop.
Anyway, th police warned him and are now reviewing the file, which I took to mean that the teacher/off duty cops version was more significant than a ‘flick to the ear’.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Ahhh I think some people are missing the point. This legislation is turning people against each other and is ridiculously draconian. My wife experienced the horrors of Soviet Russian influence in her country and is disgusted that Labour got away with introducing this law. Another reason why NZ is the laughing stock of the South Pacific.
How many children are hurt and affected by verbal abuse? Maybe we should ban parents raising their voices to their children. Emotional abuse must be prevented. No?
January 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Ruth, I did not attend the Howick Santa parade but find it beyond belief that two people spent two hours trying to collect signature and failed to get one. I was out door knocking last night and got 15 signatures myself. Door knocking is a lot slower that working at a table. Normally people get annoyed by door knockers for just about anything. I got some very positive responses. When I work at a table with another person we usually get over 100 signatures in two hours.
Others may belief that you hung around these people for two hours to be sure they failed to collect a single signature. I am a little skeptical to say the least.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
BeShakey, six police showed up to this event. There were two witnesses. Surely it would only take a few minutes to interview the father and the two witnesses. If the witnesses stated that it was a clip the ear and the side of the head rather than a flick with one or two fingers they should have taken action then. I oppose Bradford’s anti smacking legislation but do not condone hitting a child in the head. It appears that the police are making this political and sending the message – criticise us and we will make things difficult for you.
About a week ago one of our collectors was assaulted. A woman grabbed some signed petitions and walked away. When the collector grabbed them back they ended on the ground with the thief on top of the collector. This is more serious than a minor assault. It is an attack on the democratic process.
It would be good if the police put a tenth the effort into apprehending the offender as they have in this case. In my view the police have behaved quite political and have made minimal efforts to apprehend the offender.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
You go Chuck. Stick to your convictions. You will win in the end. Take no notice of sour spiteful little commie children like Ruth. They will never amount to anything or ever achieve anything. Their psychological makeup condemns them to a life of bitterness.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“Their psychological makeup condemns them to a life of bitterness.”
Unlike our ratbiter, who’s sunny disposition and joyous attitude to life shines through in almost every comment!
January 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Quelle surprise!! Cindy Kiro has come out in support of the “dobber-in”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10486940
January 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Interesting quote from the article above:
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.” – Cindy Kiro
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on this suffice to say my opinion is that the connection between a flick on the ear and the murder of a child through traumatic head injury is tenuous at best.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Re kiro’s statement:
Notice how the tone has changed since the ammendment was passed? Remember how it was all about “removing a defence” from those who beat their kids near dead and beyond? Now its ” Physical punishment is ineffective” and how “we” have to understand that we can’t smack anymore.
It sure shows Clark’s comment in that radio interview of 2005 up for what it really was…
G
January 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Compare her comment to what she had to say about the 21 year old who got a 13 year old pregnant. I got the following quote from the Herald.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
RNZ News is just reporting Kiro as saying that the intention of the S59 law was to “re-educate people”. Pardon me Dr Kiro, but I thought it was intended to stop people “beating” and “thrashing” their children! “Re-education” has some pretty sinister overtones – then again, with this control-freak government, why would we expect anything else?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Chuck – it’d be interesting if you had some facts to back up your claim that the police are sending the message “criticise us and we will make things difficult for you”. Did the father criticise the police? I haven’t heard anyone suggest that.
I disagree with Kiro fairly often, but in terms of your apparent quote from her about the 11 year old, I don’t see what she has done wrong. She stated what the family were doing (not that she agreed with it, just what they were doing). She may have been mistaken about what they were doing (although you didn’t say that), but either way, what is the connection to this case.
“I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on this suffice to say my opinion is that the connection between a flick on the ear and the murder of a child through traumatic head injury is tenuous at best.”
Of course no conclusion can reasonably be drawn because we don’t know what the facts were. The father has given his side, which is apparently fairly different to that of the witness. Without knowing knowing what exactly the witness claimed happened, and without having any way of knowing which one is more accurate it’s pretty tough for anyone sitting here to draw a conclusion.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
BeShakey, I will use logic not facts. A police woman and teacher made the complaint. The police arrived and heard the man’s story. I would presume they would have compared his story with the man’s. If they didn’t – why not?
On the basis of the man’s story and the stories of the two witnesses the police decide the appropriate action is to issue a formal warning but not charge the man. The man goes to the media and then the police discover inconsistencies between the stories that they failed to notice after the initial interview. The father did not criticise the police but a stupid law. The police could have got a message from higher to send a message to this father and any other parent who goes public after a formal warning from the police in similar circumstances. I think there are many people on this blog who feel the police are influenced politically far more than they should be in a democracy.
In regards Kiro’s comments the link to the full story is below.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10478186
A 21 year old has impregnated a 13 year old girl. She was likely 12 when she conceived. The article says she started having sex from the age of 11. It does not make it clear if it was with this man. I do not care if an 11 or 12 year old girl has sex with every boy her age in the class. It a young man eight years older has sex with her that is a serious offence. Would you agree? Ms Kiro should have been demanding the man be charged. If the girl’s parents or legal guardians were allowing this to go on they also should have been charged. Ms Kiro’s comments that I previously quoted are entirely unacceptable as a Commissioner for Children. Why is not National calling for her resignation.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“no conclusion can reasonably be drawn because we don’t know what the facts were”
It sounds like you need video evidence to be convinced of anything. The police gave the man a warning so I’m going to suggest that six police officers decided the child was not in danger of being murdered by his father. This is what Kiro is alluding to when she says that “The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head” in direct reference to this case.
That’s like saying a parking accident is akin to vehicular man-slaughter. Not only ludicrous but shows serious deficiencies in the thought processes of someone representing the publics interest.
Case law allowed people to beat their kids with weapons to near death under S59, this needed to be stopped. What we’ve got has affected good parents in a way that is wrong and was entirely predicted (although exagerated for effect) yet Kiro seems to think it appropriate.