Smacking Referendum Results

August 21st, 2009 at 8:13 pm by David Farrar

The interim results are:

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a not held with a general election.

87.6% voted no and 11.8% vote yes.

A massive victory for common sense.

As a proportion of total enrolled adults, 47% voted no, 46% did not vote and only 7% voted yes.

Detailed results are here.

The three electorates with the lowest no votes are:

  1. Wellington Central 62.1%
  2. Rongotai 69.6%
  3. Auckland Central 70.1%

I think it shows how different opinion is within those enclaves, compared to most of the country. Having said that even WC almost had 2:1 voting no.

The electorates with the highest no votes (all 92.6%) are:

  1. Waikato
  2. Clutha-Southland
  3. Hunua
  4. Taranaki – King Country

The number of electorates who in each band for the no vote are:

  1. 60% – 65% 1
  2. 65% – 70% 1
  3. 70% – 75% 1
  4. 75% – 80% 3
  5. 80% – 85% 13
  6. 85% – 90% 22
  7. 90% – 95% 29

The turnout range varied from 32.8% in Tamaki Makaurau to 65.1% in Bay of Plenty.

Tags: , , ,

221 Responses to “Smacking Referendum Results”

  1. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    so 1.4 million kiwis weren’t confused by the question John –
    (just you don’t get confused by their reaction if you do nothing about it)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nicholas O'Kane (168 comments) says:

    YAY

    Lets change the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Richard (95 comments) says:

    Will be an interesting test for John.

    He does nothing – bad look (80%+ disagree).
    Changes the law back – VERY bad look, many know the old law wasn’t good.

    A middle ground? A review of the law with some recommended changes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Blue Coast (165 comments) says:

    About 1million voted Nats last election. Now up to John boy to listen to perhaps the same people who voted him in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    From stuff earlier today:

    Vote Yes spokeswoman and former NZ First MP Deborah Morris-Travers said the group that opposes smacking did not expect the vote to go their way.
    “We’ve always expected that the majority vote would be a No vote because, of course, thats how the question is put. It’s a loaded question.”

    A loaded question? Bollocks, the only thing ‘loaded’ is our socio-political landscape being loaded to the gunnels with hand-wringing PC liberals like Morris-Travers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    Watching Sue Bradford on tonight’s news reminded me exactly why this law was so flawed in the first place.
    She said that it wouldn’t count, either way because NZers didn’t really understand the question.

    Well 88% of NZers clearly understood the question enought to vote NO!.
    Democracy shines – the people have spoken.

    A resounding political smack in the face for Sue Bradford from NZ’s parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “Will be an interesting test for John.”

    yep, both this and the maori separatist seats on the Auckland council. Both are big tests for JK!
    If he wants to be a centre left party he should have declared that before the election

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

    47% voted yes, 46% did not vote and only 7% voted yes.

    One too many yeses there I think

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Blue Coast (165 comments) says:

    democracymum

    Clearly only her family and a few nutters voided their voting forms so the MSM should tell her about sex and fast travel !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. theodoresteel (91 comments) says:

    Clear result. Will be interesting to see if democracy or protection of minorities wins out in the end.
    Will probably be one a the best indicators for exactly where NZ’s political system is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Move over Bolt..! Bradford pushed her already class-leading arrogance to new personal best with her performance tonight. She’s a nasty, angry piece of work and the sooner she is pushed off our TV screens the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    Put in the Borrows amendment.
    Clearly the best way, very pragmatic common sense approach to the situation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    “you’re too thick to understand the question” sez Bwadford.

    Actually, no, you’re the idiots who couldn’t understand it (BAWWWWWW IT’S LOADED/AMBIGUOUS/REFERENDUMB LOL).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Delivery Boy (24 comments) says:

    Did any one see that drop kick Bradford on the 8pm news on Channel 97 try and say it was a win for the yes vote when you add the yes, the don’t knows and the non returned together.

    Keep trying Sue, you might convince someone who’s not a card carrying member of the Communist Party that you make sense.
    Cue Tui

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    Well that’s pretty clearcut. It was always going to be a NO vote, but the question was one of turnout, and how much. On both counts the message is resounding. People want the government to stop telling them how to raise their kids!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    It is absolutely fucking shameful the turnout of some electorates. Auckland Central a crappy 43.52% turnout. Christchurch Central (my electorate) 46.98%; Dunedin North 47.28%; Mt. Albert 45.41%; Rongotai 46.84% and Wellington Central 43.20%. It is expected South Auckland and the Maori seats will have low turnout. It is absolutely pathetic that some of the most well-heeled electorates in this country couldn’t get off their arses and vote.

    Well done No vote. As for the yes people. It would appear to me that some of the electorates that should have had a higher Yes vote couldn’t even be bothered to vote. Idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    John Key can’t keep going “Well, um, yeah, but, um, maybe.” He’s going to have to pull his finger out and show some real leadership. Sooner rather than later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    I just watched the hour-long Bradford vs Baldock debate on Triangle TV – well worth watching. Sue is never going to change her mind, what with the amount of times she threw around the word “violence” in relation to smacking; she just doesn’t get it.
    Neither got heated up or interrupted the other anyway.

    I am glad of the outcome though. NZ has spoken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    At the general election last year 45% voted for National, 34% voted for Labour and 6.7% voted for the Greens.

    87.6% is more than these three combined!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..the reactionary provincialites turned out in force..

    (no surprises there..)

    ..the rest of us ..(anyone with half a brain)..

    ..just ignored the whole $9 million farce..

    32.5 % turnout in tamaki makarau..

    ..so..nearly 70% of those in tamaki makarau..

    ..couldn’t be fucked taking part either..

    ..i wouldn’t get too over-excited about yr ‘mandate’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    what with the amount of times she threw around the word “violence” in relation to smacking; she just doesn’t get it.

    Of course not, she’s a far left Greenie. She just doesn’t get nuance.

    ..just ignored the whole $9 million farce..

    Could have been $900,000 if your Labour friends had included it in the election. Oh well.

    ..so..nearly 70% of those in tamaki makarau..

    ..couldn’t be fucked taking part either..

    No welfare money at stake in this vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    2008 General Election

    National Vote 45%
    Labour Vote 34%
    Green Vote 7%

    2009 Referendum 87% vote against Green Legislation

    A resounding vote, no matter what way you try and spin it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Well John the honeymoon is well and truly over now, will you run home to Mum and Dad or shack up with Sue?. Then again you could do the right thing and stay loyal, the choice is yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    philu, democracy is never a ‘farce’, no matter the cost.
    The people’s voice had a chance to be heard – every voting person in this country.
    If they chose not to participate, that is their right, but the country has spoken and their will is clear.

    Now it only remains to be seen whether the people we put in parliament to carry out the will of the people will do so. If they don’t, I will want to know damn well why not.

    Democracy in action, my friend…Democracy in action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “..the rest of us ..(anyone with half a brain)..”

    you well and truly qualify there Philu

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hurf..yr top turnout..was only 65%..

    ..as i said..anyone with half a brain..

    ..studiously ignored the irrelevant mess..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Alan Wilkinson (1,848 comments) says:

    So, Ms Bradford, the only people confused were the Yes voters?

    Consider yourself spanked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dave (986 comments) says:

    Actually, more people voted NO than those who list voted ALL the parliamentary parties not including Labour at the 2008 election.. Yes, Green Party votes included.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    starr..if you could even be the slightest bit intelligent/interesting/original with yr insults..

    you wouldn’t be the terminal bore you are..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    Anyone with half a brain voted.
    As in life, you must decide if you want something, or you don’t: there are two choices ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and we were given the option of which we considered right. That is all anyone can give someone in a democracy – the choice to vote for or against a thing – that is all there is.

    If you didn’t vote at all, you shouldn’t complain about the outcome.
    THAT is brainless.

    There are people in different countries in this world who would LOVE to be able to vote, or to get the vote they did give recognized.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Alan Wilkinson (1,848 comments) says:

    [deleted as redundantly repetitive]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Doh ! half brain phool (you said it loser)

    In fact that’s’ probably flattering yourself

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    no matter this ‘result’..

    you barbarians are not going to be allowed to go back to the days when we had to stand by..

    ..and watch children getting slapped/smacked..in public at least..

    and if you think key will go back there again..

    ..you are dreaming..

    listen..!..those who turned out to vote ‘no’ on this..

    ..would also vote to return to capital punishment..

    ..and to re-criminalising homosexuality..

    ..such fools are/will be always with us..

    ..i find it best to just ignore them/their doings..

    ..which this referendum is clearly one..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    hurf..yr top turnout..was only 65%..

    65% is your average turnout in a Western democracy. Some are lucky to reach 50% in their general elections. FFS, phool, stop pontelucidating.

    listen..!..those who turned out to vote ‘no’ on this..

    ..would also vote to return to capital punishment..

    ..and to re-criminalising homosexuality..

    ..such fools are/will be always with us..

    ..i find it best to just ignore them/their doings..

    ..which this referendum is clearly one..

    That’s libel, phool. One should mind their words in future, lest your filching off the taxpayer should mysteriously be brought to the attention of the police. Wouldn’t surprise me if you were one of those tools who deliberately conflate a light smack with the beating Little Kash got the other day. Good job for Bwadford’s bill, huh? That saved her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    C’mon round philu – I’ll give you a celebratory correctional smack

    Yehaaaa!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    philu, and is the world a less violent place because of the stupid laws we’ve passed? Is school?
    No. It’s just as bad, if not more violent.
    Teachers can’t even teach now with the sh*t they have to deal with from kids.

    And it will only get more violent as this generation (who we treat with kid gloves, won’t discipline, and let get away with anything) grows up, and find out the reality is that you CAN”T always get your way in real life.
    But when confronted with an issue where they can’t get they way, since they haven’t been disciplined, they have no self control and just lash out like the young man recently who had a traffic accident and beat a defenseless old man to death.

    No self control, because of no discipline.

    If good, well rounded, disciplined kids is ‘barbarian’, then I’ll take that any day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Delivery Boy (24 comments) says:

    Sigh……
    are you related to the former Iraqi Information Minister Philu……..
    eh….????

    eh????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Grizz (244 comments) says:

    …I never voted…
    …not legally binding..
    …wrong debate….
    …banning smacking has not stopped child murders…
    …and grevious bodily harm…
    …if people like phool think it will…
    …good luck to him…
    …start digging 3ft graves with Sue…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    which parrallel universe do you live in..?..fletch..?

    do you even know any young people..?

    ..the young people i know..friends/team-mates of my son..

    ..are sensible /smart young men..

    and gee fletch..!

    ..would that you were so concerned about the ungodly mess we are leaving them to try to clean up..

    ..eh..?

    (but that would be asking too much..eh..?..

    you’d rather just revel/wallow in yr reactionary prejudices..

    eh..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    If only those rugby players were on a vegan diet, that brawl wouldn’t have broken out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    McCoskrie makes a valid point;
    More people voted ‘NO’ in this referendum than voted to change our whole voting system to MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. emmess (1,396 comments) says:

    The reaction of the elitist undemocratic Yes vote campaign has been so pathetic
    54% turnout for a postal referendum is bloody huge

    Why the hell is John Key pandering to these scum?
    My patience with these government is nearly worn out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..are you related to the former Iraqi Information Minister Philu……”

    do you mean the one who predicted that if america invaded iraq that it wd get bogged for years down in a war it would/could never win..?

    ..a war that would drain the life blood of america..?

    ..in both money..

    ..and the lives of their soldiers..?

    where exactly did he get it wrong..?..

    delivery boy..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    no matter this ‘result’..

    you barbarians are not going to be allowed to go back to the days when we had to stand by..

    ..and watch children getting slapped/smacked..in public at least..

    Phil, smacking in public is still allowed. Your sister Sue’s law hasn’t changed that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    which parrallel universe do you live in..?..fletch..?

    do you even know any young people..?

    Yes I do, phil, and I used to work at a school, so I know firsthand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Accuracy never was your scene, was it, phool?

    US forces are pulling out, aside from some rogue terrorist acts, the surge worked.

    The War in Iraq made only a dent in spending. Providing for Europe’s defence and domestic social services probably costs more.

    And in terms of deaths per length of conflict, the War in Iraq has one of the lowest in US military history. Yes, there has been a distressing number of deaths (which would have been lower if the Bush administration had actually suitably planned for post-war reconstruction) but it wasn’t the tens of thousands of piled up corpses the left wanted it to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “where exactly did he get it wrong..?..”

    geeez phool you’re bloody thick. How about:

    Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf:
    “My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all.”
    “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!.”
    “They’re coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks.”
    “Our initial assessment is that they will all die.”

    anywayyy – how bout that smacking result huh! is that an arse kicking for the greens or what !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Delivery Boy (24 comments) says:

    The same clown that said the Yankees weren’t coming to Bagdag whilst on camera buildings blowing up around him….

    Cue Tui again…

    eh….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    # dave Says:
    August 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    “Actually, more people voted NO than those who list voted ALL the parliamentary parties not including Labour at the 2008 election.. Yes, Green Party votes included.”

    Toad will be along to congratulate you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wreck1080 (3,807 comments) says:

    Awesome vote, I was expecting around 70%, but, nearly 90%???

    It’ll be interesting now, to see if 10% of the population can exert their will over the other 90%.

    I expect John Key is in a bit of trouble over this, although he is pretty good at talking his way through difficult issues to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Yes I do, phil, and I used to work at a school..”

    before you retired/went on the pension..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. budgieboy (107 comments) says:

    Hey Phil for the record, just this one time, let us have it direct. (without the usual obstupefactions and diversions)

    You lefties ain’t really all that into this democracy thing are you?

    Unless it goes your way… which is happening less and less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Er um

    During the last 6 months the current law has resulted in no prosecutions for smacking. The referendum result suggests that Kiwis think this is a good result.

    So the referendum is a vote to support the status quo?

    [DPF: There have been prosecutions but regardless the issue is about whether it should be an offence, not about whether it is prosecuted]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..US forces are pulling out, aside from some rogue terrorist acts, the surge worked…”

    um..!..no..!..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/iraq-explodes/

    “..The War in Iraq made only a dent in spending..”

    um..!..no..!

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-expiring-economy/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    Could we have a referendum on the DPB given the monsters it has created ? [P__l] My mum died when I was six and Dad left his ship, took a job on shore and raised me and two sisters. He was a shift worker and he would put me to bed and then go off to work for 8 hours. Later he remarried and we were a combined family (that’s what people did in the 1960′s). No doubt there were some bad adoptions but I know of some people raised in lovely families.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Hey Phil for the record, just this one time, let us have it direct. (without the usual obstupefactions and diversions)

    You lefties ain’t really all that into this democracy thing are you..”

    well..i’m actually holding out for/hoping for democracy 2.0..

    ..as a best-case scenario..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/is-there-any-point-in-fighting-to-stave-off-industrial-apocalypse/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    wreck1080 – I’m not so sure Key is in trouble. My guess is that a good chunk of the ‘No’ votes are from people who are sick of not being listened to, sick of being told how to live.. and they’ve dug their toes in over this issue to make the point. I also suspect he already has a plan in the top drawer, given the broadly similar predictions about the CIR outcome.

    All Key needs to do (from his perspective… and it’s what I’ve been predicting) is to ‘hear the people’ and start to make some moves along the Burrows lines, or similar. I won’t be happy with placationary moves unless vast numbers of good parents cease to bcome as-yet-convicted criminals as under the current law. We shall see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. budgieboy (107 comments) says:

    Micky, I commented earlier on No Minister, some of it was how this law is NOT WORKING, and it is not just about who has and has not been hauled before the courts:

    Good, average, everyday Kiwis are now being checked out by CYPS and Police, two organisations that are already hopelessly under resourced. (after 9 years of Liabour – fancy that?)

    For god’s sake, well before Bradford’s Folly became law we were always told, (after the death of some poor child) that CYPS were to be cut some slack as THE WERE SO OVERWORKED AND UNDERRESOURCED!

    SO what do the genius’s in Wellington do? Increase that workload to include chasing around average Jo Kiwi’s who just ‘might’ have smacked a kid’s arse.

    And now the truly at risk kids have even less chance of being helped by the system. (It’s NOT working)

    And don’t even get me started on the cops. I spoke today with a non sworn officer who handles complaints, basically if you are robbed these days you are not going to see a cop and it is NOT going to be investigated.

    Don’t believe me?

    Try this, call the cops and tell them the neighbour on your left has just come over to tell you he has been robbed. Then call back two hours later and tell them the neighbour on your right has been out the back spanking his child.

    Which call, middle New Zealand (Not you Micky and Phil) do you KNOW will get a POLICE response?

    Sickening isn’t it?

    Is that what you call ‘working’ ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    mickey – I understand that there have been 13 prosecutions since the law change, CYF acknowledge that families have been investigated wrongly for smacking.

    Those 13 aside, 10′s, if not 100′s of thousands of perfectly good, loving parents have broken the current law – perhaps just waiting a neighbour or teacher complaint to turn this into a conviction. The point is that are have committed a crime. Much like shoplifting is a crime irrespective of whether or not the person is caught and convicted.

    What part of this does your ideology find hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    mickysavage Says:
    August 21st, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    Er um
    “During the last 6 months the current law has resulted in no prosecutions for smacking. The referendum result suggests that Kiwis think this is a good result.

    So the referendum is a vote to support the status quo?”

    No “When you add the yes vote and the spoilt vote to the number of voters who didn’t vote at all the figures are about even.”
    http://infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=41185

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    A rogue terrorist act. Thank you for making my point.

    And that second link, wtf. When I cut through the (mostly uncited) bullshit, I get a link to…informationclearinghouse?!

    You should really stop trying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. budgieboy (107 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link Phil, love your work but it doesn’t really answer the though question does it?

    Can is ask it another way?

    Are you ok with universal suffrage?

    Even if the majority don’t see the world in the same way you do can you abide a system that advocates and ultimately enshrines values that are not your own?

    Or should we (where ‘we’ are the majority) just consider ourselves lucky to have the left around to be our moral compass.. you know… to tell us when they are right and we are wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    FFS can’t Philu be banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Fisiani (993 comments) says:

    The government represents the people. The government can be removed by the people.The people did not vote for the smacking bill rammed though by the Labour and Green nanny statists. The people were denied the chance to vote on this referendum in October 08 by Labour who were terrified that this might make them lose the election. Labour believed they had done nothing wrong. They still believe this.
    National had a landslide win and are currently riding at over 50% in the polls. We , the people,are delighted to be finally free of Labour. We feel we have a government that represents us and our values.
    The government have to listen to the people or they will lose the people.
    John Key strikes me as a decent guy and I assume that he is a loving husband and father. He is astute.
    The law is as follows
    A 2 year old reaches for a socket with a fork. Smack her hand to drop the fork -legal.
    Take the fork off her then gently smack the back of her hand – Criminal. Reportable to CYFS and the Police.
    We have the legal talent in Parliament to listen to the people and prove they have been listened to.
    I predict a law amendment before Christmas

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    @ mickysavage – err, umm – any truth in the rumour that the latest crime statistics were withheld by the Police until next week?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    54% voted the rest either didn’t vote or spoilt their papers (didn’t care/ incompetent), so the 11.8% (yes vote) must be the ones who do all the talking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. bill hicks (100 comments) says:

    wtf………..http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2774974/Green-MP-Sue-Bradford-gets-award-for-work-on-smacking-law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Sue Bradford really is a dour-faced lying cow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    looks like Sue Bradford got her arss smacked by Joe citizen.

    Bill Hicks, notice the word social justice …..

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

    I don’t get why anyone would ever want or need to smack, hit, punch, belt, wallop, strap, cane, kick or use any other form of violence against their children. I don’t get how people get excited about possibly getting a legal right to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Southern Raider (1,747 comments) says:

    All those Ponsonby and Oriental Bay trophy wifes high on P and pissed off with their car salesmen husbands sleeping around them always lean to the left because it feels good.

    Whereas the productive areas of the country (Waikato, Southland etc) are still down to earth enough to have some common sense.

    Any chance of a referedum on climate denial now? “Should dumb arse actors/actresses be able to force on the country a climate tax as part of a communist plan to screw a countries economy?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Grizz (244 comments) says:

    Mickey Savage:
    “Er um

    During the last 6 months the current law has resulted in no prosecutions for smacking. The referendum result suggests that Kiwis think this is a good result.

    So the referendum is a vote to support the status quo?”

    However, since the introduction of the law, we are still seeing children murdered or suffer permanent disability at the hands of their caregivers. We did not need an anti smacking law. We needed better laws to identify at risk children and to remove them from harmful situations. We also need to get serious with repeat offenders and sterilise them so they cannot breed in our society again.

    Once we are on top of the worst of child abuse, then we can consider an anti-smacking law, but it probably will not be needed as the real issue would have been solved. The antismacking law is like saying we should all have electric cars, but do nothing to increase out electricity generation!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..as part of a communist plan to screw a countries economy?”..”

    have you seen a copy of the plan..?

    ..or some memos..?

    ..or something..?

    ..anything..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Southern Raider (1,747 comments) says:

    Micky do you also consider good parents being harrassed in public places like shops by the do goody anti-smacking police not a negative outcome of the law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Southern Raider (1,747 comments) says:

    Philu I’m sure you can read. Even Treasury is has made a dire warning of what is planned as the reduction target.

    And although the left will never admit it the science isn’t settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Yeah, phool, it’s called The Communist Manifesto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    “During the last 6 months the current law has resulted in no prosecutions for smacking. The referendum result suggests that Kiwis think this is a good result.”

    Even assuming there have been no prosecutions.

    Prosecutions != Criminal Offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    oh god wait for the tara te heke post -’Why My Kids Sometimes Need The Bash But I Get My Neighbour To Do It While He’s Over Watching SKY TV And Eating Pizza’ post….

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

    No No.
    You are a criminal when you commit the Act and break the law.
    you just haven’t been caught and brought before court and sanctioned.

    Think shoplifters, Taggers, Burrglars?
    When are they criminals?
    When they commit the crime.

    So it is for all of us who give our kid a smack for correctional purposes.

    Now John Key is being disingenuous in using the term criminalising.
    My granny used to say if your intent is to avoid the truth it’s a lie.

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

    Just read my emails.

    “Family First is calling on the government to immediately amend the anti-smacking law under urgency so that good parents are not treated as breaking the law for light smacking, and then to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse which will identify and target the real causes”.

    If National who forced this law change on us! don’t change it, will you smack them at the next election by giving your PARTY vote to ACT.
    At least they have a leader with principle and as a party voted for Kiwi parents unlike The National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    What part of “non-binding” don’t you people understand? And its charming seeing people screaming for a law change on the basis of a publicly-funded opinion poll no reputable polling firm would put its name to, and which an overwhelming majority of New Zealand either didn’t — or couldn’t — participate in.

    The only necessary law change I see is the repeal of the Citizen-Initiated Referenda Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. MT_Tinman (3,044 comments) says:

    pearleshells(1) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    August 21st, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    I don’t get why anyone would ever want or need to smack, hit, punch, belt, wallop, strap, cane, kick or use any other form of violence against their children. I don’t get how people get excited about possibly getting a legal right to do so.

    Yes Pearle, I realise that.

    I just hope for the sake of NZ’s future that you never raise children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Now John Key is being disingenuous in using the term criminalising.

    Donkey: The problem is that the only people throwing around “the term criminalising” with gay abandon have been Larry Baldock and the NO campaign, not Key. Still, nice to see you admit that the whole referendum has been premised on a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia, at 54% response rate where do you get;
    “an overwhelming majority of New Zealand either didn’t — or couldn’t — participate in.”

    we’re talking about voters here – math not your strong point?

    “The only necessary law change I see is the repeal of the Citizen-Initiated Referenda Act.” yeah, silence the bastards, fuck what the people think aye

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    we’re talking about voters here – math not your strong point?

    Yes it is, but English seems to be as big a problem for you as it is for Larry Baldock who was chuntering on about (direct quote, Paddy) “an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders” on the news this evening.

    “The only necessary law change I see is the repeal of the Citizen-Initiated Referenda Act.” yeah, silence the bastards, fuck what the people think aye

    “The people” can pay for their own zero credibility opinion polls (what’s the final bill for this farce? Nine million?), and you should leave the drama queen hyperbole to someone who’s good at it. Oh, repealing the CIRA would be a savage blow against ‘the people’ and their freedom of speech. Please…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    ” And its charming seeing people screaming for a law change on the basis of a publicly-funded opinion poll no reputable polling firm would put its name to, and which an overwhelming majority of New Zealand either didn’t — or couldn’t — participate in.”

    You have got to be joking, 1.5 million Craig, it is a very significant number “you” and those that think like you would appear to be in the overwhelming minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    “Yes it is, but English seems to be as big a problem for you as it is for Larry Baldock who was chuntering on about (direct quote, Paddy) “an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders” on the news this evening”

    Baldock is right, it is astonishing the reluctance these progrssive ideologues have in admiting defeat, one can only conclude that these people are some of the most blind and dangerous people in the land.

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

    Craig Ranapia said:

    …and which an overwhelming majority of New Zealand either didn’t — or couldn’t — participate in.

    I wonder what effect John Key all but stating before the referendum that he didn’t see any need for change had on the turnout?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    ..Listen to the people JK. Change the law or lose my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. annie (540 comments) says:

    This legislation encapsulated all that eventually put people off the Labour government – I think ignoring the referendum result would be a major political mistake.

    The legislation needs to be repealed and immediately replaced with entirely new, well-drafted legislation that cracks down hard on the use of significant force on children, which is the actual problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    As I understand the law, it was put in place in response (partly) because of our high incidence of children being killed by guardians.

    The effect of this law on this rate has been precisely ZERO!

    On the closing day of the referendum, another child has died at the hands of a supervising adult. Children continue to die in staggering numbers. THE LAW IS NOT WORKING!!.

    Let the agencies of the state focus on the real need and change the law so children who are lightly smacked by loving and caring parents do not end up the subject of investigation by state agencies who should be out protecting those children most in need.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wreck1080 (3,807 comments) says:

    For all the clowns out there who say the law works.

    Parents live in fear a snoopy neighbour will dob them in .

    The PM always refers to the lack of prosecutions as evidence the law works.

    There has been some comments from the legal profession about the background effects of the law, such as cyfs interventions, and on social welfare.

    Who wants to be in a country where people must fear being a parent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    A few thoughts:
    I am reasonably confident everyone who voted understood the question in spite of any controversey about how it was framed. Indeed the fact that the question was labelled controversial made it a popular discussion point in the MSM, talkback, blogs, water cooler etc. Everyone knew no=decriminialise smacking. The fact that a very clear majority chose no is also evidence of this. Were there confusion, you’d get closer to a 50:50 distribution.

    I also agree with others here that 65% is, on the whole, quite a good turnout for postal referenda. Morons such as philu will try to spin that otherwise, but when compared with other postal ballots that are run – local body elections/DHBs for example, its actually a good turnout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    While I think it is likely those who didn’t agree with the referendum were more likely to not bother voting it is a significant democratic result.

    It is also significant that none those eligible to vote will ever be smacked (again). None of those on the receiving end were able to vote.

    What now? Tweak the law a bit again. Then what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    It was just Sue Bradford grandstanding, and only because she hasn’t got a clue about economics, commerce, financial instruments, legal process.

    It is always small beer stuff that they make their own vision.

    What people like her fail to understand is that as soon as they encroach inside the House, Home, or family unit. They will be told to fuck off!

    QED the No vote.

    Simples

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the fact is that less than half of new zealanders voted to return to endorsed/public smacking/slapping/hitting of children..

    ..the rest of us just went meh..!

    ..with the high turnout/pro-smack vote coming from the provinces..

    ..the home of reactionary thought/ideas..

    ..what’s the surprise there..?

    and a mandate..?

    meh..!

    more an endorsment of the violence/thuggery that runs deep in our culture..

    ..especially out there..

    ..in the ‘outlands’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    paradigm at 7:54 am
    “Everyone knew no=decriminialise smacking.”

    I hope not. There should always be some types of smacking that are offenses.

    Glutaemus Maximus at 8:11 am
    “What people like her fail to understand is that as soon as they encroach inside the House, Home, or family unit. They will be told to fuck off!”

    Never has been like that, never will be. I doubt you think that the worst abusers can tell everyone to fuck off?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “The PM always refers to the lack of prosecutions as evidence the law works’

    I find Key just completely out of line on this point. “we have a law that at this point no one has been prosecuted under”
    ….so what happens to the poor parents who have to go through the drama, cost and humiliation of a criminal conviction before Key does something about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    @Cerium “None of those on the receiving end were able to vote”

    hmmm, I’ll be interested to read your views on abortion

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

    If Bill English wants to be PM, ever! now’s the time and this is the issue which would allow him to overthrow John Key.
    I hope Bill strikes while the iron is red hot!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    I take it you aren’t a woman Patrick?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    whatever gave it away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. joeAverage (311 comments) says:

    i know its playing the women not the ball ,but my little lady,the wife says(cannot sue do something about her hair, and makeup,) she looks a real mess and with her wealth,she could spruce herself up a bit,,ps the wife (she who must be obeyed had her hair done yesterday so is feeling really upbeat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “The PM always refers to the lack of prosecutions as evidence the law works”

    How many people were prosecuted for sodomy before the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Viking2 (11,275 comments) says:

    Yep and the cost in both $ and emotional terms is unjustifiable. Should the state wish to compensate those people then that might start to even the power play but of course they won’t. All it takes is one bent or evil or misguided policeman or cyps worker.

    Key of course feels quite safe if he ignores the result for the reason that those that get pissed off with him will do the more sensible thing and vote for principle in the next election, which of course means a vote for Act. That is fine with Key for both parties will need each other to govern and Key will still be the PM. Politics of MMP.
    Politics by the way that were changed on a far lessor vote.

    I guess the next step is a petition for a referendum on if in fact CIR should be a compulsory part of the process of running our country when it comes to major political issues. With good IT today the cost does not have to be that high and we could achieve some good outcomes in relation to public policy. At the moment its all at the whim of the power brokers and not the public. We aren’t all dumb unlike a lot of those that have agenda’s such as Clark, Cullen and Bradford.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..I find Key just completely out of line on this point. “we have a law that at this point no one has been prosecuted under”
    ….so what happens to the poor parents who have to go through the drama, cost and humiliation of a criminal conviction before Key does something about it?..”

    so patrick..

    your argument boils down to a maybe/hypothetical event..at sometime in the future..

    you really are grasping at straws aren’t you..?

    ..for any ‘reason’ .. save yr reactionary urges to slap/smack small people..

    ..to justify endorsing/enabling/recommending..

    ..that children be hit..

    ..eh..?

    yr ‘arguments’ are those of an intellectual midget..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Cerium, that was a sentimental ‘Fuck Off!’, and for the record. Any adult that uses excessive force, cruelty, or similar, needs to be dealt with by the proper procedures.

    My take on it, is that when there is a tragedy of abuse inflicted on children there appears to be insufficient punishment.

    To try and coral caring parents in with the scum that transact these awful acts is just plain wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    Phil Goff has a great opportunity if he has the balls. All he has to say is that Labour accepts the reason thay lost was became they stopped listening to the people. Key managed to get all the National MPs to do a flip flop. If Goff could do the same it would put Key on the back foot. It would not win the election for Goff but it could make a difference. As things stand now anyone who is every slightly right of centre has only one party to vote for – ACT>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    An Open Letter the Prime Minister

    Dear Mr Key

    There are two things in my life that I value above all else. My children and our democracy. My children are a little older now and no longer need to be reminded with a gentle smack from time to time, (when all other options have failed) the difference between right and wrong. They are growing into fine young adults of whom my husband and I are immensely proud. Our democracy on the hand, still feels like it has some valuable lessons to learn.

    Last night the people of New Zealand told your Government exactly what it thought of Sue Bradford’s legislation.

    The result was a resounding NO. 87% people believe that good parents should not be criminalised for giving their children a light smack as part of parental discipline. The same type of smack that you now admit you also gave your children when they were little.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law

    During the last general election 45% of voters turned out to support your Government which means the NO vote for this referendum has enjoyed unparalled support from people across all party affiliations. The people of New Zealand have spoken with one voice.

    Sue Bradford would have us believe, that the referendum has no credibility because no one understood the question in the first place. But the New Zealand people are not stupid and figured out which way to vote and cast their ballots accordingly. Substantially more people turned out for this referendum than any of last year’s local body elections, and more than twice those who voted on the firefighter’s referendum.

    So what will you do now?

    I do not want to hear “comforting words from cabinet”
    I along with the rest of 87% of voters expect a law change.

    Every day in my community I see harassed young mums, with pre-schoolers, in the supermarket, taking older children to school. Sometimes despite their best efforts, their little ones throw a tantrum, or will not get into their car seats. As a direct result of this legislation these mothers are now too frightened to given their children a light smack, for fear of being reported to CFS by some ‘well meaning’ bystander.

    This is the unintentional impact of Sue Bradford’s law. It is being felt throughout the country in every electorate, your own included where over 90% voted against this legislation. The law is wrong and it needs to be changed.

    Just as micro-chipping dogs, did nothing to reduce vicious dog attacks, this law in its current form will do absolutely nothing to reduce New Zealand’s appalling rates of child abuse. The people who are killing our children on what now seems a weekly basis are not the mums and dads who lightly smack their children.

    Mr Prime Minister. You have proved yourself to be a fair and compassionate leader. You are well liked and work hard on behalf of our country.

    Aristotle, (a man who knew a thing about democracy) once said
    “Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.

    Please listen to what the people of New Zealand have said and give parents back their peace of mind and focus instead on the real causes of child abuse in our country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    “Options for changing New Zealand’s approach to smacking children will go to the Cabinet on Monday after New Zealanders voted by 88 per cent that a smack should not be a criminal offence.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592463

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    crikey..!

    a heartfelt-plea to be able to continue to hit..

    with the ‘rationale’ that real child-killers won’t be stopped…

    i don’t recall anyone ever saying it wd..but hey..!..eh..?

    we are talking about an incremental inch-forward of civilisation…

    a change of culture..

    from one of hitting children..

    ..to one of not hitting children..

    it’s as simple as that..

    those arguing for a return to the previous status quo..

    ..are the same ones who preached the downfall of civilisation..

    ..when teachers were stopped from battering their charges..

    .are the same who would have argued against the abolition of slavery..

    ..on their own personal-freedoms grounds..

    ..reactionaries are always with us..

    ..it’s best to just ignore them..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    Phil U says:

    yr ‘arguments’ are those of an intellectual midget..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Viking2 (11,275 comments) says:

    democrasymum; I have taken the liberty to copy your post to:
    Very well said. Thanks.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=124&p=23861#p23861

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    …9.10am..well said democracymum…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    reactionaries are always with us..

    ..it’s best to just ignore them..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    ..go f*** yourself whore…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    Rather than seeking to criminalise good parents who might need to give a gentle smack now and then, we really should be looking at where the problem lies.
    New Zealand has terrible issues with child abuse and killing.
    I blogged on the matter late last night and Dave at Big News highlights a raft of child deaths over the last six months.
    The common factors in these killings were welfare, DPB mums and unstable relationships.
    This is the issue the New Zealand government needs to tackle.
    And this is the issue we must face due to the failed policies of the green-left alliance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Grant (428 comments) says:

    Hi DemocracyMum.
    Great effort and very passionate.
    I would however take issue with this bit:

    “Every day in my community I see harassed young mums, with pre-schoolers, in the supermarket, taking older children to school. Sometimes despite their best efforts, their little ones throw a tantrum, or will not get into their car seats. As a direct result of this legislation these mothers are now too frightened to given their children a light smack, for fear of being reported to CFS by some ‘well meaning’ bystander.

    This is the unintentional impact of Sue Bradford’s law”

    The last sentence is wrong. Bradford’s very intention is a state where people report the activities of their neighbours. That sort of behaviour is de riguer in every socialist state, and labour were happy to go along with it.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Philu – you’re probably the only one on this blog who has served time in prison for armed robbery – so don’t fucken lecture anyone about violence,
    yr ‘arguments’ are those of a hypocritical bludging parasite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    “Sometimes despite their best efforts, their little ones throw a tantrum, or will not get into their car seats. As a direct result of this legislation these mothers are now too frightened to given their children a light smack”

    Tantrums are attention seeking behaviour. Smacking is giving attention, feeding the habit. The best way to teach a kid not to throw tantrums is to appear to ignore them, then when you get the opportunity (or make the opportunity) distract them onto something positive. This isn’t possible in all situations but it works. Smacking may sometimes be a quick fix but it doesn’t teach the right behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Viking2 (11,275 comments) says:

    Grant, why would you take issue with it for it is exactly what is the danger in this odious piece of legislation and has in fact happened. Its not an unintended consequence it is an intended consequence.
    Something you then acknowledge in your very next sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Viking2 (11,275 comments) says:

    What planet do you live on Cerium?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Cerium — thank you for your enlightened liberal wisdom. You have your opinion — that’s fine. I myself think it’s completely nonsense. Children have tantrums and sometimes you have to smack them. Just ignoring them doesn’t work. Been there — just doesn’t work. Sometimes a parent has to be in control. Sometimes a parent has to be in charge. That’s just the facts.

    The other problem is that your way of parenting has become law. “Enlightened” people like you have forced your opinions on everybody else.

    What this referendum shows is the majority of New Zealanders, the vast majority of New Zealanders, realise that something stinks and are sick of so-called “enlightened” wisdom which in reality is illiberal utopian nonsense. We want commonsense and we want it now.

    John Key needs to get a clue. We don’t want to be mollified, we want a law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Grant (428 comments) says:

    Hi Viking2.
    Perhaps “taking issue” wasn’t the right phrase.
    Was just trying to point out to DM that I agreed with her sentiments 99%. The 1% disagreement is that, like you, I believe bradford wanted to create an environment where people report on one another.
    Cheers
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “The common factors in these killings were welfare, DPB mums and unstable relationships.”

    FM, I believe this to be the case but CYF is trying to claim 30% of biological father are the killers of their own flesh and blood. I have trying to get a source for this claim.

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-is-murdering-children.html

    I was referred to a book, “Lives Cut Short ”by the existing and former heads of CYF, Marie Connolly and Mike Doolan. The book claims the source is police data. I have never heard such rubbish since the Telethon over 20 years ago where a Herald Advert showed the pictures of four baby girls with the caption “1 in 4 of these girls will be sexually abused before then are 18, half by their own fathers”.

    A number of fathers could seen the figure was crap but those who put the ad in the paper would not acknowledge this till after the Telethon was over.

    Does anyone believe that 30% of 91 children over a decade were murdered by their biological fathers? I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    “Children have tantrums and sometimes you have to smack them. Just ignoring them doesn’t work. Been there — just doesn’t work. Sometimes a parent has to be in control. Sometimes a parent has to be in charge.”

    Every parent goes for the quick fix at times, especially when stressed or hurried. But time and patience can be rewarded. Just like smacking doesn’t always work, positive parenting doesn’t always work. But in the long term it gives better results, in my experience. It worked with my grandson yesterday when he threw a wobbly because he didn’t get his own way. The tantrum was ignored, as soon as he was quiet a positive activity was started which he willingly joined. Parent was in charge.

    It doesn’t always work first time, especially if the kid is used to getting it’s own way. If smacking always worked it would only be needed once.

    Pandering to tantrums is not actually being in charge. It is reacting to the kid dictating the terms of engagement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    Just like smacking doesn’t always work, positive parenting doesn’t always work.

    So why legislate to remove a parent’s right to decide what works best for them, at the particular time, with the particular child in question? Smacking is a valid part of the parental tool kit.

    Kids need three things: love, boundaries and consequences for crossing those boundaries. The anti-smacking jihadists need to focus on why too many kids don’t get items 1 and 2, and worry less about how some parents choose to apply item 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Pandering to tantrums is not actually being in charge. It is reacting to the kid dictating the terms of engagement.

    And there speaks the voice of someone I am prepared to bet has never had to “engage” with a two year old having a tantrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Heh,heh, well after all that ranting one thing stays in place, Key will not bring back a law allowing people to get away with using horse crops on their kids.

    So people what are you going to do about it, vote Labour ? or will you just rant on ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Keep up the good hitting lads!

    Smote ‘em good!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    So people what are you going to do about it, vote Labour ? or will you just rant on ?

    VOTE ACT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    how many children do you have Ceriam…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Sounds like cerium gets his entire knowledge of kids from watching those highly edited “super nanny” shows

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Cerium, the issue is not whether you believe smacking was appropriate for your kids, if you raised them without smacking good on you, but just you and the other 11.8% need to stop telling me how to raise mine. That’s the crux of the matter, clearly the vast majority on NZr’s believe it should be a disciplinary tool available to responsible parents,
    …….and if the behaviour of most Green party members are anything to go by, (a party built on violent drug taking protestors) clearly smacking could have done them some good when they were being raised

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    how many children do you hit..?..starbored..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Smack the bum

    it’s finally occurred to me why phool is so opposed to this – he thinks its all about him

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the same arguments were advanced by those who opposed the abolition of slavery..patrick..

    ‘free your own slaves..leave mine alone..!’

    and i guess it comes back to an issue of wether you view yr children as yr property..

    as those former slave-owners viewed their slaves..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    FFS “slaves”? ..whatever ….
    how many times have you bonged up this morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    that you are too ignorant to make the connection..patrick..

    ..comes as no real surprise..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    Philu can not make the distinction between legitimate authority and slavery, this is common among those of the extreme anarchist left. Perhaps Philu, you could give us an example of legitimate authority, anything Phil what do you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Just when you thought phool’s writing style couldn’t possibly get any stupider, he starts using txtspeak “yr”

    ..eh ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..you could give us an example of legitimate authority..”

    how about stopping you greedy polluting rightwing bastards from destroying the planet..?

    ..for starters..?

    (seeing as you asked..)

    as always shunda..still continuously/relentlessly emitting from than near-knee orifice..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    c’mon Philu – give us a proper example

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    “And there speaks the voice of someone I am prepared to bet has never had to “engage” with a two year old having a tantrum.”

    I have three kids. Plenty of engagement. When all three were under 4 their mother worked fulltime nights, I worked days and spent much of my spare time looking after kids. They were very good kids, still are, and had minimal smacking. I’m happy about that.

    Since then I have added two step kids, and two grandkids (who visited yesterday).

    “Sounds like cerium gets his entire knowledge of kids from watching those highly edited “super nanny” shows”

    No, I think they are a bit staged and overdone.

    I’m not trying to tell you how to raise kids Patrick, I know there a lot of people who don’t want to consider alternatives. I’m saying what has worked for me, and if there are any parents prepared to listen to alternatives to hurting their kids then good. If they are prepared to persevere I think they will be happy with the results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    stupid strawman argument starr..piss off..!

    tell us why you have the ‘right’ to slap/smack/hit children..?

    .eh..?

    and forget the bullshit of ‘there is no other way to stop a 2 yr old from tantruming’..eh..?

    ‘cos ypu batterers want the right to hit children of any age..

    when do you stop..?..b.t.w..?

    are you all agreed on an age at which you should lose that right to batter..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    anyway..soccer calls..!

    just argue amongst yrselves..eh..?

    see if you can agree on that cut off date/age..?

    eh.?

    (see how ‘ridiculous/illogical yr reactionary stance/attitude is..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    This disgusts me:

    I think it is likely those who didn’t agree with the referendum were more likely to not bother voting

    When you add the yes vote and the spoilt vote to the number of voters who didn’t vote at all the figures are about even

    an overwhelming majority of New Zealand either didn’t — or couldn’t — participate

    The only necessary law change I see is the repeal of the Citizen-Initiated Referenda Act.

    What would we think of Mugabe or the Taleban claiming the non-voting portion of the electoral roll as their votes.

    This is amongst the most non-democratic repulsive nonsense that anybody could spout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    stupid strawman argument

    are you all agreed on an age at which you should lose that right to batter..?

    ..eh..

    ?..

    phil(workandincome.govt.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Get ready to watch the cringe inducing sight of John Key flipping and flopping around like a cock in a shirtsleeve over this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Cerium says:

    I have three kids…. They were very good kids, still are, and had minimal smacking. I’m happy about that.

    Criminal. Go directly to jail, do not pass go.

    Do you not even think about what you are saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    Patrick: “but just you and the other 11.8%”

    I’ve always made it clear I wasn’t voting yes and I didn’t.

    There were over 50% who didn’t vote No. It is a likely quite a few of them would have voted No if they did vote but we won’t know.

    Of those who voted No we don’t know how many think smacking is a good disciplinary measure and how many just don’t like the law as it is (I don’t), or don’t like the principle of government interference, or whatever.

    I’m confident that over time (and probably since this issue became prominent) more parents will smack less, and will look for alternatives that can work better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    The Standard have just opened their thread on this. Should be amusing to see how they spin the unspinable. I’m sure Lynn Prentice and Irish Bill will be busy all weekend deleting posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    Sonny: “Criminal. Go directly to jail, do not pass go.

    Do you not even think about what you are saying?”

    Do you? I’m not aware of doing anything that was criminal, I was never arrested. I was checked by social welfare once because one of my daughters had been to A&E a few times but they were happy with the evidence and the explanations.
    (My kids were allowed to experiment, to get out and do things, and sometimes they had accidents).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    Some of Lynn’s latest handiwork.

    Jaw droppingly astonishing really.

    no leftie
    August 21, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Ken Livingstone says “Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film.”

    Note the “forcibly” and “made to” parts of his comment.

    Unless you market the message a lot better than that, you’ll continue to be very disappointed.
    Reply

    *

    outofbed
    August 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Are we this stupid ?
    no leftie gives us the answer
    Reply

    *
    no leftie
    August 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Threats AND abuse.

    Good to see you’re holding the moral high ground.

    Great message to take to the public as well.

    [lprent: Your comments seem designed to disrupt debate and drag it to irrelevant flamewars. There is no significant abuse by my standards (and they are pretty much the only ones that count here). That means you are tettering on being classed as a troll - read the policy.

    If you wish I'll demonstrate how I like to vent some real levels of abuse on trolls. I consider it a darwinian winnowing to get rid of bad behaviour. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “There were over 50% who didn’t vote No. It is a likely quite a few of them would have voted No if they did vote but we won’t know.”

    That’s bullshit, I believe the YES vote was inflated by those protesting the $9mil expense. Besides, If you want to put your stats that way, there were over 94% who didn’t vote YES

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. MT_Tinman (3,044 comments) says:

    Cerium I agree with some of your points, particularly about tantrums but they are all of topic – no doubt deliberately so given the amount my time has been wasted by anti-smacking wankers raving on about “beating, hitting” etc.

    I did find that when my children started throwing a tantrum at inconvenient times the threat of a clip around the ear (never delivered to either by the way) worked wonders.

    I also found that a sudden hand moving fast and stopped by the backside was better than letting my children learn by experimentation that actions such as running in front of cars, putting hands in fires, touching ovens, drinking cleaning fluids etc. were not a good thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    What’s bullshit about that Patrick? I think if everyone voted the percentage may come down a bit but it would still probably be 70-85%. I doubt it would be higher than the poll %.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    But Cerium, people that supported the NO vote didn’t bother voting because they knew they were going to win overwhelmngly anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    Yes Herman, there will be all sorts of reasons why people didn’t vote (and why people voted). It doesn’t really matter. A democratic poll showed a large majority voting No. That’s the only thing that counts for certain. But even then there can be varying interpretations because people were voting for different reasons. The point I was trying to make with Patrick was it doesn’t mean x% think smacking is a good part of parenting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Tom Semmens (79 comments) says:

    Are you saying that just because you can get 88% of 54% of voters to say that it should be legal to rape your wife as part of a loving relationship, we should change the law? Are you all saying that just because you can get 88% of 54% of voters to say that it should be illegal to indulge in homosexual acts between consenting adults as part of a loving relationship, we should change the law to make homosexuality illegal again?

    How many people would want the smoking ban reversed?

    How many people would agree marital rape should be legal?

    How many people would like to see homosexuality re-criminalised?

    All these changes were hugely unpopular when they were introduced. The Christian fundies like McCroskie and Baldock in particular saw the end of civilisation in homosexual law reform. Yet the sky didn’t fall and today most people support these three law changes.

    Sometimes politicians have to lead; Sometimes they have to follow – that is the nature of politics. On moral issues politicians normally have to lead. If we’d waited for a majority, women still wouldn’t have the vote, women could be legally raped inside marriage, slavery would still be legal and the death penalty would still be with us.

    Like most other moral decent and morally right law changes, it has been fanatically -yes, fanatic is the right word for the sky fairy believers who led the pro-child beating lobby – opposed by those who have a vested interest in holding up social progress.

    In ten years we’ll see this law change HAS led to a sea change in attitudes to child abuse, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    Tom,

    What utterly vile trash to write here.

    Keep that foul, diseased sort of thinking over at the Standard where you originally posted it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Fascinating trawl through this morning’s posts.

    The highlights: democracrymum’s stirring letter, philu’s confession that he’s missing 50% of his brain, and Patrick Starr’s revelation that philu is a convicted armed robber (that true phil?).

    But let’s narrow the focus, shall we?

    The only thing that matters here is what our populist PM is going to do now that he has become an unpopulist.

    I’m sticking with my earlier prediction that John Key will follow the lead of that other flexibly-principled party leader Peter Dunne, who, upon realising that he’d backed the wrong horse in the EFA debate, promptly abstained in the final vote (once his desired result was assured).

    What’s the betting the ‘series of proposals’ Key takes to cabinet include a return to the Borrows amendment or some such move that means the same thing?

    It must be understood that a National cabinet is not exactly a hotbed of raw courage. And party pollster Farrar will no doubt be pointing out to the aspiring four-termers the severe electoral consequences of ignoring the public’s will on an issue they care about (as opposed to far more important issues that they care much less about, like boring old superannuation).

    So if the Nats don’t give the public what they want after this cabinet meeting, I suggest they most certainly will after the cabinet meeting that follows the publication of the next poll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    Cerium,

    So just because they voted for it, doesn’t mean they really wanted it? Do you mean to imply that the voting public can’t read or don’t follow the news, or don’t talk to each other?

    Oh, if only the voting public were as smart as you, until then, perhaps you should just fill out everyones forms for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Well expressed Mr Ansell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Tom Semmens (79 comments) says:

    @Herman Poole,

    “Tom,

    What utterly vile trash to write here.”

    Why? because kiwiblog is only an echo chamber of looney tunes fundies and the Genghis Khan branch of the National party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    The Left got the shaft other this one, which is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    Tom

    How much crack have you smoked today ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    Oh dear, Tom can see beyond the “don’t tell me what to do” hissy fit stance. That will go Down well here. It already has.

    “In ten years we’ll see this law change HAS led to a sea change in attitudes to child abuse, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.”

    I think that’s the most likely result. I have wondered why there has already been so much fuss over something minor. Once the law is again tweaked I wonder where all the outrage will find a new target. That Key isn’t rewarding the rabid right rigidly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    “So just because they voted for it, doesn’t mean they really wanted it?

    What is “it”? FFS Herman, not everyone who voted No necessarily did so for the same reasons you did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    What I do like about John Key’s reported response, though, is that he’s been quite upfront about having smacked his own kids (about as often as I’ve smacked mine, ie not much) – thus exposing himself to a charge of hypocrisy.

    This is a continuation of National’s very good record for being candid and honest, even if, in this case, Key knows the charge will probably stick.

    Faced with similar questions, Clark would avoid the question, attack the questioner, blame an underling, or flat-out lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Angus (536 comments) says:

    People who can’t differentiate between a parental smack and child abuse are either subliminally mindfucked progressive drones, or genuinely stupid. Much of the protest on the right is over this issue revolves around the insidious intrusion of the state into the lives of everyday, good families purely for ideological reasons. This culture war has been slowly smouldering since the 70′s when that poster girl for cultural Marxism Kay Goodger [who may still be a key policy adviser in the MSD] wrote this for Socialist Worker magazine:

    “The rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society, rather than individual parents…All laws enforcing individual ownership of children should be abolished.”

    This is the ideology still adhered to by Bradford and her ilk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    ““The rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society, rather than individual parents”

    If you remove the last sentence doesn’t this make sense? Obviously the parents have the prime responsibility but they need support and help from the wider community – and in some ways from government. Professional help eg medical care and education. Wider family and neighbourhood support – or do we all want to live in isolated bubbles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Cerium (23,327 comments) says:

    Tom, are you suggesting that Key’s is a “normal person” type response? As opposed to a typical Kiwiblogger?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    ..why do the luneys keep using emotive terms such as ” beat “..”thrash”..”punch “..”abuse”..”violence” when all we are talking about is a lite smack on the arse for discipline sake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    @John Ansell
    “and Patrick Starr’s revelation that philu is a convicted armed robber (that true phil?).”

    Check it out yourself;

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2005/02/tame_iti.html#comment-115181

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “If you remove the last sentence doesn’t this make sense?”

    Lanthanite, you need to hone your skills on how the Left uses sophistry in their language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    “tell us why you have the ‘right’ to slap/smack/hit children..?”

    No philu tell us whether or not you believe parental authority is a legitimate concept, this has always been at the core of this issue, what is your opinion on parents having authority over children?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    Angus you summed it up perfectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    At least Key is honest about smacking his kids when it was legal.

    It would be nice if Bradford was. When collecting signatures on the footpath I was told by a police officer and Bradford’s neighbours that she was violent to her to her own children. I also heard a talkback caller last night after the poll claim that she has been to court for being violent to her own child.

    Normal one should play the ball not the player but in this case I think it right to find out the truth about Bradford. If any in the NO lobby was found guilty of child abuse you can be sure the other side would do there best to make this public.

    It should be obvious to anyone who seen Bradford on TV before she became an MP that she is a violent and aggressive person. That gives credence to these many unsubstantiated rumours.

    Does anyone know for sure if Bradford was ever charged with violence to a child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    “If you remove the last sentence doesn’t this make sense? Obviously the parents have the prime responsibility but they need support and help from the wider community – and in some ways from government”

    Cerium, one persons “help” is another persons state sanctioned mind control. When has removing individual responsibility ever been positive for the human race?.
    We are talking about raising our young, if we need the state to do it for us, forget about global warming we have much bigger problems as a species.
    Strange coincidence that Karl Marx was quite into the state raising kids, or is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    “Does anyone know for sure if Bradford was ever charged with violence to a child?”

    Well she took off to communist China while her children were very young, not to keen on letting her “education” get side tracked by a couple of kids it would seem.
    One of her kids unfortunately took his life after a very troubled childhood, whether this has to do with her parenting is another story though.
    Sue has a history of aggressive behavior and I think it is only fair for this to be exposed, apparently Christine Rankin has some experience with Bradford and her “WINZ’ issues some years back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    Thanks Shunda, I was aware of her child’s suicide. Suicide can have many causes, clinical depression being a main one. I think it would be as unfair to blame Bradford for her child’s suicide as much for Debroah Morris-Travers to blame her parent’s for her sister’s suicide.

    However, I do think any evidence of Bradford being violent towards a chid is very relevant to the whole issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    chuck and shunda must make you lot really proud to have them in yr ‘camp’..eh..?

    they are both such a ‘class act’..eh..?

    you read their stuff..

    ..and you feel like plunging yr eyes into disinfectant..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..(that true phil?)”

    what can i say..?

    a misspent youth..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and..um..!..it’s ‘old news’..eh..?

    it’s hardly a secret..

    starr likes to mention it a lot..

    but then..he dosen’t have much else to say..

    and really belongs over with chuck and shunda..

    he is one of them..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Steve (4,522 comments) says:

    fuckwit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    a man of few words..with a small number of syllables..

    ..aren’t you steve..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Trouble is Philu, whilst you may dismiss your past as “a misspent youth..?” nothing seems to have changed much has it? Now you have a wasted middle age

    The generosity of us hard working taxpayers has privileged you with higher qualifications that you have done absolutely nothing with. In fact all you do is criticise our generosity and refuse to pull your weight whilst troughing off the welfare system, a system again paid for by us generous taxpayers.

    (but do keep posting your incoherent rants and brag about your life long welfare dependency. People who can change things read this blog)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “(but do keep posting your incoherent rants and brag about your life long welfare dependency. People who can change things read this blog)”

    Like very fine politician’s like Rodney Hide, Sir Roger Douglas and John Boscawen.

    I will be passing on Phil’s rants to them. Hopefully they can raise this bludger’s past and arrogance to the media.

    If they don’t i will.

    I have had a truce with Phil. He decided to break it.

    How does the thought of work make you feel Phil.

    I think I should pass some of Phil’s rant on the my Friend’s leighton Smith and Larry Williams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    that’s the thing with you fools..isn’t it..?

    you have no answers/ideas…

    you are both both inchoate and incoherent..

    and all you have is personal abuse/threats…

    stick it/them up yr respective arses..eh..?

    or each others..if that is yr idea of a good time..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    Dear Phil

    The thought of you working not bludging off the taxpayer is my idea of a good time.

    Kind regards
    Chuck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    chuck..you have a long reputation of being one of the vilest of the vile..

    ..your musings on the personal life of bradford have long been one of yr constants..

    ..and i think many rightwingers would consider you as much a bottom-dweller as i do..

    ..you have no right to go into a persons private/family-life in that manner..

    as i said..

    you truly are vile..

    ..and i have never had any fucken ‘truce’ with you..

    you horrible bitter little old man..

    i wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    So Phil – you freely admitted being a solo dad on the DPB on 14/2/2005. Let me ask you two things:

    How long have you been on the DPB (you made that confession 4 1/2 years ago)?
    What efforts have you made to get paid work since 14 February 2005?

    I’ll confess too – I got my first holiday job in 1970, my first full-time job in 1974, and I have worked almost continously since. I have had a couple of brief spells of unemployment (around a month max), and have never applied for, let alone received a benefit. I’m proud of my record – are you proud of yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    inventory…see 7.33 pm..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    No Phil, I didn’t ask my questions until 8.02pm – or are you psychic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Anyway, I didn’t threaten or abuse you. All I did was ask a couple of polite questions about information which you yourself have put into the public domain. And hey, I put some information about MYSELF into the public domain as well – I just don’t see how you could construe that as a threat….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    stand back! – Phools going to blow!

    deep breaths philu, – (or get out the yoga book)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Isn’t paranoia a by-product of cannabis abuse Patrick?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Its sad because the guy just wants some acceptance, I’ve told him before all he needs to do is get some paid employment and people will treat him differently,
    but alas – he keeps making the pathetic excuse of ‘school holidays’

    (I think he secretly longs to be a rich capitalist rightie)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    As I understand the law, it was put in place in response (partly) because of our high incidence of children being killed by guardians.

    The effect of this law on this rate has been precisely ZERO!

    On the closing day of the referendum, another child has died at the hands of a supervising adult. Children continue to die in staggering numbers. THE LAW IS NOT WORKING!!.

    Um, and how does making it more legal to smack kids help?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. tipenerose (1 comment) says:

    New Zealand has become the land of the long white wingers. Face the facts a law to outlaw smacking won’t deter the insane, sick and sad from overdoing the punishment thing…they will do it regardless of the law. All it does is make those who use common sense and a bit of physicallity with their kids law breakers. The one law for all mindset is full of BS. Because a nutter kills his child all of us ordinary folk have to suffer. Because teenagers get drunk and drive we are all banned from having a few drinks and getting behind the wheel. Because some people have gone a little strange after smoking canabis, none of us are aloud to smake canabis. Because some houses built by bandits became leaky…no ordinary bloke can build his own house anymore. What a croc!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “New Zealand has become the land of the long white wingers”

    judging by last nights game we could have done with a couple of them – our brown ones cant seem to catch the ball

    (but I agree with everything else you say)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. RightNow (6,841 comments) says:

    Regardless of whatever the bad losers who just don’t get it say, the real result we’re waiting on now is what Key will do.

    Does he get it?

    So far I haven’t seen any indication that he does, which is disappointing. Why is he pandering to Bradford and her 11.8% brigade? The very least he can do to show he’s listening to the country is adopt a Borrow’s style amendment.

    Looking forward to upcoming polls though. I’m picking ACT will be crucial to forming a government next election.

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

    In reply to MT_Tinman, yes I have raised children. They are now parents themselves and they too never use violence to discipline their children. I now also care for foster children.

    I believe in raising well-disciplined, polite and respectful children, grand-children and foster children. I simply never use violence to achieve this as there are far more effective techniques which leave everyone involved with their self-respect and self-esteem intact.

    My bottom line is to treat everyone, whether they are my neighbour, partner, colleague or child with respect and fairness at all times, even when I don’t agree with what they are doing. I am not a Christian but the basic Christian rule for living of treating everyone else as you yourself would like to be treated is a great guide. For me this goes for children as well as adults.

    The laws of NZ say that it is never acceptable for an adult to use violence against another adult. I see no reason why this shouldn’t apply to children as well as adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    pearleshells – so you’re one of those challenged folks who can’t distingush a smack from ‘violence’. I’m sorry for you.

    The laws of NZ say that it is never acceptable for an adult to use violence against another adult

    Oh no… rugby is illegal!

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

    Dear getstaffed, if I smack you, it is violence. If you smack me, it is violence. If either of us smacks a child, it is violence.

    Until relatively recently it was legal for a husband to use reasonable force to correct his wife. Now this is not only illegal but is seen as abhorrent. The same shift in attitudes will take place in NZ society with regard to children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    pearshells, you remain unable to distinguish a smack from violence, so any smack must be violence as far as you’re concerned. odd, but fair enough i guess.

    so tell me, what degree of force constitutes violence? is lifting a child and putting them down violent? is pulling a child back from a railway line violent? is rugby violent, and do rugby players flout the law with every tackle? is it right for you to be able to define violence in a way that suits you and then hold me accountable based on your definition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    pearleshells – are you coming on getstaffed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    not unless she’s a premature-ejaculater….

    ..i wouldn’t think..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Phool

    You claim that we should leave Bradford’s personal life out of it, normally I would agree with you however in her case I make an exception, she is without doubt the most evil, nasty, duplicitous and cunning maggot on the face of the earth.

    When she decided that MY personal life was fair game she lost all rights to her own.

    There are many politicians who I do not like (Neville Key being one of them) and a few that I cannot stand but there is only one who I truly hate, only one that I would not offer assistance to if they was in a life threatening situation and only one whose eventual death will cause me to raise a glass in celebration, that politician is Comrade Bradford.

    I wish her nothing but ill will, poor health and bad luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..she is without doubt the most evil, nasty, duplicitous and cunning maggot on the face of the earth..”

    really..?

    ..have you always been prone to obsessive over-reaction..?

    or is this a recent development..?

    (better go and give the kids a smack ..eh..?

    it might make you feel better..

    ..and they probably ‘deserve it’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Hi Phil – gonna answer last night’s questions any time soon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..(but do keep posting your incoherent rants and brag about your life long welfare dependency..”

    in over 5,000 comments..find me one comment where i have ‘bragged’ ..?

    and ‘bragging’ over raising a child on a domestic purposes benefit..?…(!)

    you have absolutely no idea of that reality..eh..?

    and once again/still..

    you just make up fucken lies about me..

    go on..!..in over 5,000 comments…

    ..find one where i ‘brag’..!

    you are not only as mad as a cut snake..

    you are also a fucken congenital liar..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Phil – you admitted being on the DPB on 14/2/2005. Four and a half years on, you’re STILL on the DPB, yet you refuse to engage in debate over any efforts you have made to come off the benefit, apart from suggesting that you can’t work if you don’t get school holidays off. That may not be bragging per se, but you seldom seem repentant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..but you seldom seem repentant…”

    w.t.f am i meant to be ‘repentant’ about,,?

    being a sole parent..?..on a d.p.b..?

    in yer fucken dreams..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “and ‘bragging’ over raising a child on a domestic purposes benefit..?…(!) you have absolutely no idea of that reality..eh..?”

    no you parasite I did it on MY OWN whilst working full time as well…. and YOU have absolutely no idea of that reality ya lazy dimwit bludger. I have never taken a handout and managed it.

    You brag about smoking dope – what was it you said; “7 joints at the big day out”, You brag about getting additional WINZ funding to start your stagnant blog site. You brag about your state funded higher qualifications – Where does all the money for that come from? MY F’ing taxes!

    Get a job, you’re a disgrace

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..You brag about getting additional WINZ funding to start your stagnant blog site..”

    totally untrue…(in both ‘brag’..and fact..)

    (the rest of it is ‘groundhog day’..and already done to death..)

    thought you’d ‘spice it up a bit’..

    eh..?..

    make something ‘new’ up..?..eh..?

    you lying fucken arsewipe..!

    once again..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Yes it is groundhog day – Day after day I go to work and pay my taxes so that you can lazily sit around, bludge, toke and promote yourself as a poster-child for everything that’s wrong with our welfare state. Perhaps you didn’t get the smackings you deserved as a child!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    my parents didn’t hit me..

    but school teachers beat the living crap outta me..

    in both secondary..and primary school..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “but school teachers beat the living crap outta me..”

    they missed some….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Phillip Ure said “w.t.f am i meant to be ‘repentant’ about,,?

    being a sole parent..?..on a d.p.b..?

    in yer fucken dreams..eh..?”

    Phil – do you seriously believe that it’s your right to choose the lifestyle you have, paid for by those of us who work and pay taxes? You’ve been living off my taxes since AT LEAST 14/2/2005 – 4 1/2 years, and in all likelihood, much longer. All I was asking last night was whether you had made a serious attempt to get off the DPB in that time. Or perhaps more to the point, has your WINZ Case Manager made a serious attempt to get you into work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Inventory – It’s got nothing to do with looking after his son – here’s the real reason Philu wont work (laziness and greed)

    “but there is one thing you are overlooking. for these ideas to work any beneficiary must start breaking the law, (by not declaring that money to work and income).
    as the system works now. you do work; you pay tax on it; and work and income then claw back 80 cents in the dollar off you. go figure”

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2005/02/tame_iti.html#comment-115195

    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.