[DPF: Idiot. No case is prosecuted under S59 as that is a defence section]

No need for name calling because of my mis choice of words. Give yourself 10 demerits.

The true idiots are those like wreck1080 who thinks this has something to do with S59 when it has NOTHING at all to do with it, and yet I don’t see you calling them names. Fuckwit.

What else do you call something that costs a lot of money, and stress?

[DPF: Idiot. No case is prosecuted under S59 as that is a defence section]

If he believes the law is working as intended then he needs to feel the pain (or dollars) associated with cases where it clearly isn’t.

Andrew: I do.

If I wanted the benefit of your advice I’d ask for it.

My guess is that that’s at the core of the matter. Ringing the police after the cushion was thrown was the only way to shut him up and get him off her back and out of her house.

Typical weasel words from the empty suit Neville Key.

Typical weasel words from the empty suit Neville Key.

We were told this repeatedly

And it was a lie lie lie Its yet more bullshit from both sides.

We now have a government who has betrayed the people who elected to Ignored 87% of the citizens

Call that democracy You must be joking

Police can only interpret clear, good law. When you have bad, unclear law they are in an awkward situation, and so defer to the courts.
Prior to Bradford’s Bill people, including the police, knew what reasonable force was regarding children. Today we do not from a legal framework. Any time there is a question mark in this regard it will be up to the courts to decide.

Apart from victimising the individual, in this case the uncle, we will also load up our court system (and perhaps prisons) with these ‘crimes’, while the real crimes go on unaddressed. Another byproduct will be increasing taxes for you and me.

The police are to enforce the law, not interpret it.

But Kris, that’s the point of this case – the police have been criticised for exactly that, trying to enforce the law and for not using their discretion (which may have been difficult if the mother was adamant that charges should be laid).

I don’t see what this has to do with Bradford. She can’t be held responsible for every nutty mother.

This shows how hard it can be to get a fair all encompassing law.

John Key – are you listening?

No.

The same police discretion that saw a 17 year old charged with theft of $2 from his sister? Police discretion is simply not that crash hot and should never be used as a justification for shit law.

Exactly!
This case highlights the fact that the police will not/cannot show discretion in such cases.
They will defer to the courts, and hence you will get more of these type of cases.
The police are to enforce the law, not interpret it. This just highlights how bad and non specific this law is – and why we need to get rid of it.
As others have said; prior to Bradford’s Bill passing this would have never come before the courts.

John Key – are you listening?

Andrew W:

I was guessing about why they were arguing, and I said that.

But to answer you question: no.

How she brings up her kids, and how you do, if you have them, is your business, and no-one else’s.