About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

June 24, 2009 8:10am by David Farrar

General Debate 24 June 2009

Actually only the 23rd over here still!

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment121

Uncategorized
General Debate

Related Stories

General Debate 24 June 2023
General Debate 24 June 2024
General Debate 24 June 2020

Comments (121)

Login to comment or vote

Swiftman the infidel

Day three of the Taliban threat to get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – and use them – and thundering silence from the ‘Green’ Party http://www.greens.org.nz/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:18am
Glutaemus Maximus

All the Taliban have to do is go on a UN funded factfinding visit to N. Korea.

Sure that the lovely MR Kim will let them play with his buttons.

Sure that Uncle Helen would be quite relaxed about signing that expense order off.

Just as simple as ‘Donating’ more than Australia to the UNDP more years than not in the last decade.

Nothing like corruption in the highest places. Absolutely disgraceful really.

Winston Luigi could go along with the Taliban, as a Guide, after helpfully filling in the relevant forms for the UN. (Never to be found

again), unless Uncle Glenn flies in from Monaco.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:24am
toad

More own goals by Family Fist and the no-voters!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:25am
peterwn

Toad – the problem with the case mentioned (father pushing boy), is such behaviour would have been unlawful (along with mass canings of whole classes) even under the ‘old’ law. Goodness knows why Family First thinks that such behaviour was was protected by Section 59 under the ‘old’ law.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:32am
radvad

Just imagine how cold it would be without global warming.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:40am
bananapants

If a person is willing to shove a child to the ground three times *in public*, it just makes me wonder what they’re willing to do behind closed doors…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:42am
Murray

Hows the naughty mat Trevor?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:44am
slightlyrighty

Toad.

I would imagine that Christopher Hunt would be used as an example by Family First, of what is unreasonable force. As for the Rugby dad highlighted in the article you linked to, can you see the irony that the kids actually playing rugby were being subjected to roughly the same treatment, that is, falling over after being pushed?

Those who support the repeal of section 59 might actually do their cause a great deal of good if they could point to situations where authorities have gone to far. I feel that in the case of the Dad on the sideline, the authorities have gone too far. A loving parent, having a bad day, pushed his child towards a rugby game because the Dad did not want the child to let his team down.

None of us were there, so we do not know how hard the child was pushed, or if it was the push that caused the child to fall over, or the child fell over as part of a tantrum (which is a time honoured way for a child to get his or her own way), but in any case the effect of the push can be regarded as trifling or inconsequential. Yet due to the complaint of a bystander, this man has had the full weight of state authorities investigating his family and prosecuting him in exactly the way the National amendment to the removal of S59 bill was meant to avoid.

How many people were involved in investigating this father, what did it cost, and could these resources be better employed saving the next Nia Glassie instead.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:44am
NOt1tocommentoften

“None of us were there, so we do not know how hard the child was pushed, or if it was the push that caused the child to fall over, or the child fell over as part of a tantrum (which is a time honoured way for a child to get his or her own way), but in any case the effect of the push can be regarded as trifling or inconsequential. Yet due to the complaint of a bystander, this man has had the full weight of state authorities investigating his family and prosecuting him in exactly the way the National amendment to the removal of S59 bill was meant to avoid.”

What a load of bollocks! You’re right none of us were there so we can analyse the facts stated in the paper. The paper claims that the boy was pushed to the ground THREE times. I fail to see how this would be part of a tantrum. Especially if you consider the age of the child. And I didn’t know the fact that a father is “loving” is an exonerating factor in any criminal case…

“How many people were involved in investigating this father, what did it cost, and could these resources be better employed saving the next Nia Glassie instead.”
– As you noted – we don’t know the facts. BUt I must agree with Bananapants here: “if he was willing to do this in public, who knows what he would do behind closed doors.” Are you suggesting the police don’t act until they’re faced with a Nia Glassie type outcome Slighty? If not, and I presumed you’d agree with an interventionalist approach, then tell me what the police have done wrong here. Tell tale signs if you ask me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:50am
bananapants

A dad having a bad day doesn’t get to push his child over as he desires, I’m sorry. And he wasn’t allowed to do that before the repeal of S59 either. So it’s not an issue.

This is what I mean about people needing to get some skills in handling their children. And not just their children, but their own feelings of anger and frustration. If you can’t handle life to the point that you have to take it out on others physically, then you need some help.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:50am
Murray

bananpants doesn’t have to be to achieve full knowledge.

banapants is just that damn clever NOt
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:54am
Inventory2

toad said “More own goals by Family Fist and the no-voters!”

A spelling error, or a deliberate slur toad? I suspect it is the latter, which makes your claims that the Greens are a party of principle nothing more that a lie.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:58am
bananapants

Hey Murray, good england there with your word making. I make understand from good sense grammar.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 8:58am
Michael E

The old law would have allowed Glenn Groves to get away with the assault – he would have sucessfully argued that it was for corrective purposes, and that the assault was reasonable as no permanent (or even long lasting) injury would have occured.

There is no section in the crimes act that allows rugby players to defend an assault that is a tackle on an opponent – yes, being tackled is an assault. So for years rugby players have had no protection and I can’t recall a player ever being prosecuted for an on-field incident.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:06am
Murray

I call it dyslexia banapants. Given the context I would have thought that someone with your ability to a arrive at a solid conclusion would have been able to work out that the missing word was “there”.

England is spelt with a captial E by the way if we’re going to be anal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:10am
Yvette

For something different – Prisoner DIY container cells seemed a bloody silly idea until I looked at a few photos online of dwellings built from containers – there may be something in it for the right entrepreneur. http://www.thelastshower.blogspot.com/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:11am
Murray

What a crock of shit Michael E, as you are fully aware.

Firstly section 59 gives protection for use of “reasonable force” and this clearly wasn’t by the judges estimation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:13am
NOt1tocommentoften

Michael – You’re correct about a tackle being assault. But to say “rugby players have no protection” is a little disingenious. You are aware of the (admittedly uncodified) defence of consent I presume?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:13am
bananapants

sorry Murray, I didn’t spot the invisible ‘there’ because I had no idea what you were on about. My bad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:14am
tknorriss

I complained to the Minister of Transport the other day about the ridiculously small maximum liability of freighters under the Carriage of Goods Act 1979. The maximum amount they are liable for is $1500. I don’t think this has changed since 1979!

The problem is that it provides very little incentive for the freighters to actually be careful with their customer’s freight. We are always having equipment damaged during frieght despite our best efforts to package the equipment well. Potentially, this could result in many thousands of dollars worth of damage that we have to cover with our own insurance.

I agree there does need to be a limitation on liability. However, I think a figure of around $10000 would provide more incentive for the freighters to take better care.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:19am
NOt1tocommentoften

Tknorriss – this was the subject of a Fair Go story a couple of weeks ago. Depending on your freighter, you are able to contract out of this limited amount. It would always be possible to agree on another figure if you freighted often enough and the freight company were willing to adress this. What did the Minister have to say anyway?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:22am
slightlyrighty

I think that some of you have missed my point.

Why should the authorities bring the full weight (and expense) of the justice system onto this father? Why is the first instinct to prosecute when they could do better by taking a softly softly approach in this case and say “Are you having difficulty coping?, what can we do to help?”

A CYPFS investigation, with resulting prosecution by state authorities can be devastating to families.

I know that we have a terrible record of child abuse in NZ, but while the state seems ready, willing and able to investigate and prosecute, in many cases after the fact, we should be asking if the methods used by these authorities in cases at the lower end of the spectrum are helping parents, or ensuring that these parents keep out of the eyes of the state and making sure the problems are not addressed at the earliest opportunity.

The state can prosecute bad parents, but it can’t help an otherwise good parent having a bad day. It doesn’t know how to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:34am
tknorriss

Not1tocmmentoften “What did the Minister have to say anyway?”

Don’t know yet. His secretary has put my e-mail in front of him, so it will be interesting to see if he responds. The fact that the figure has never been reviewed seems very silly, though. $1500 was probably quite reasonable back in 1979. However, inflation has eaten away at that since then.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:40am
toad

Good to see the severe sentence handed down to Dunedin thug Jeffrey Hurring for animal cruelty. But I fear we haven’t heard the last of this guy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:49am
Inventory2

Agree wholeheartedly toad – but DPF has already devoted a thread to this miscreant!

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/a_future_killer.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:54am
toad

Thanks, Inventory2 – hadn’t picked that up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:56am
big bruv

Toad

What a lot of crap, that is not a severe sentence at all.

If you think that is severe it just proves that the Greens do not give a toss about animal cruelty, you campaign on it yet when you have the chance you do nothing about it.

For years the Greens have abused the animal welfare vote, it is time that you duplicitous bastards fronted up and told those of us who care about animal welfare that it is not a big issue for you, the Greens are more worried about pushing social justice issues and the causes of the hard left.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 9:59am
RightNow

Go Trev the Muss!!! You were absolutely correct to throw your toys out the cot, you don’t have to take that crap from Lockwood. You tell him you’re the boss mate, that was the worst decision he ever made. Next time you go right up to him and smack him on the snout, the trougher! If you want to yell across the house don’t let etiquette or protocol stand in your way. You show future politicians how it’s done, they shouldn’t be respectful in their schools, they should yell at the teachers and the other students if they think they’re right! And if someone upsets them they should punch them from behind, that’ll show them!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:12am
burt

toad

Good to see the severe sentence handed down to Dunedin thug Jeffrey Hurring for animal cruelty. But I fear we haven’t heard the last of this guy.

I understand he wants to work in parliament – he has heard that if he is a Labour MP he can punch his way to promotion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:20am
bananapants

bruv – it mightn’t feel like a long sentence, but in terms of the law it rather is. In fact, it’s the longest sentence ever handed out. The SPCA are very pleased with it (which is saying something, although I’m not sure what..)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:30am
philu

ffs..!..i am sitting here grinding my teeth..

..cos i totally agree with the 9.59am from big bruv..

..(couldn’t have said it better myself..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:37am
philu

yeah ..banana..let’s talk spca..

..a question for them..

..are they still..as they used to..selling/supplying animals to the vivisectionists/animal testing labs..?

..i know they did this..

..cos some years back i liberated a dog from a courier van..

..that dog was heading for the railway station..

..to be sent to a wellington testing lab..

..and another question for the spca..

..how the fuck can they claim to have the best interests of animals at heart..

..when they sit on that poxy ‘board’..

..that approves the vile cruelties imposed on caged/stalled animals…

..the spca are the licensers/enablers of systematic cruelties against animals…

..so them approving this ‘severe’ sentence..

..is something of a ‘sick’ joke..

..when it is them who should be standing in the dock..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:43am
tom hunter

Since the animal cruelty case has crossed over into the general thread I’ll try to buck up people’s spirits by mentioning a cool animal story – but you have to be in Auckland to enjoy it.

While taking the kids to school this morning I noticed a few people standing around looking out to sea at St Heliers beach. Couldn’t see what they were looking at but it seemed unusual behaviour. Upon dropping off the kids and returning down the hill I could not miss the reason. There are Orca cruising the beach.

Called the school, my wife – and by the time we got all them down (a 100 metre walk luckily) there were fairly large crowds. They came in close to the beach (10m) and appear to be chasing stingrays.

Apparently there is another pod off nearby Mission Bay beach. They don’t seem to be in a hurry to leave, so those of you based in Ak may wish to go and have a look.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:45am
Tauhei Notts

Does anybody else out there think that the Frenchman, supposedly beaten up by thugs on early Sunday morning, might be just as innocent as Alain Mafart?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:49am
bananapants

I don’t know much about the SPCA, but presume that like any organisation some of the people there are genuine and do good work, and others are complete nutbars… I tried to buy a cat from the cats protection league once and the individual I dealt with was nothing short of frightening, a proper caricature of the old mad cat lady archetype. There’s something about people who are obsessed with animals. I kind of wonder sometimes if it’s because they find humans too difficult.

Anyway, my dad used to rant about the SPCA trying to prosecute good farmers for standard farming practices so I grew up with a somewhat jaded view of them. And when we rescued an abused dog, which ran away the next day, the SPCA picked it up and sent it straight to the pound to be killed. We had to pay hundreds of dollars to get it out because we hadn’t managed to register the abused orphan dog in the 12 hour period that we’d ‘owned’ him for. Difficult to have high praise for organisations with stupid policies and procedures and staff who run the gambit from ‘concerned’ to ‘quite bonkers’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:51am
Redbaiter

I see the nameless and faceless left wing coward who writes the NZ Herald editorial has decided to run with the argument promoted by Communist Sue Bradford and her collectivist friends that the smacking referendum question is “ambiguous”.

I read the editorial twice and I cannot understand the argument.

Ambiguous means having two meanings right??

Can anyone who understands the Herald’s argument help me out here by explaining-

1) Meaning one

and

2) Meaning two?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:58am
sonic

“I see the nameless and faceless left wing coward”

So Redbaiter is your real name then?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 10:59am
Redbaiter

Gee you’re dumb Sonik.

I don’t write editorials in one of the country’s main newspapers.

Thanks tho for the inference that I am that influential.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:01am
toad

big bruv said: What a lot of crap, that is not a severe sentence at all.

Part of the problem is that section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of only 3 years for wilful ill-treatment of animals. But if this guy got only 1 year for what he did, what the hell someone would have to do to get the maximum 3 years beggars belief, so point taken.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:03am
grumpyoldhori

When did security idiots get the right to assault women ?
There was no need for this complete dickhead to tackle her, and trying to hit her high in the breasts makes it bloody worse.
So any legal types around, do security idiots have a right to assault women when they feel like it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U4sV-r31nE
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:03am
Redbaiter

Toad- you’re one of those fuckwits who claim that long prison sentences don’t work. Why don’t you make your tiny mind up??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:06am
bananapants

redbaiter – from a critical reasoning perspective, one of the main ambiguities entailed in the question is the bit where it says “should a smack as part of good parental correction…”.

The question requires that a smack can actually be part of good parental correction. In that respect, it is loaded.

So should good parental correction be a criminal offence? Well, most people would say no to that.
But if you asked the same people “is a smack part of good parental correction?” they mightn’t agree with that either.

So the question is ambiguous because it entails a premise which not all people would consider to be true. It means that not all people will be able to answer this question in a way which actually demonstrates their feelings about the removal of the reasonable force defense in cases of parental assault.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:08am
Inventory2

@ RightNow – Trev’s taking a bit of a kicking over at Red Alert, so now he’s deleting some of the posts which are critical of him

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/06/free-speech-tervor-mallard-style.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:08am
sonic

“you’re dumb” “Thanks tho”

“I don’t write editorials in one of the country’s main newspapers.”

With writing skills like those displayed above I wonder why?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:09am
llew

Ambiguous means having two meanings right??

Can anyone who understands the Herald’s argument help me out here by explaining-

1) Meaning one

and

2) Meaning two?

1. Should it be illegal to smack children

2. SHould it be illegal to smack parents.

That’s the obvious ambiguity, but context makes it clear which definition is roughly the right one. I do think the writers should have had the intelligence to make it ironclad though, otherwise everyone points out how ambiguous it is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:14am
Inventory2

@grumpyoldhori – agreed! I blogged about this on Monday, and felt that it was a gratuitous act by the guard, whose colleagues had been caught napping as the women meandered down to the advertising hoardings then onto the field. Sure, they were breaking the stadium rules, but the video clearly shows that the woman was “surrendering” when the Red Badge Fun Police guy was at least five metres away. He didn’t have to hit her with that level of force.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:14am
Redbaiter

“The question requires that a smack can actually be part of good parental correction. In that respect, it is loaded.”

Ok, so its loaded.

Loaded is not “ambiguous”.

“So the question is ambiguous because it entails a premise which not all people would consider to be true.”

A premise which is not true again does not fit the definition of ambiguous.

Like the Herald Editor, you’re full of shit.

The question may be leading, or loaded or whatever, but it is not ambiguous.

That is just a false claim aimed at discrediting the results of the referendum by those who don’t want their precious little do gooding social liberal proclivities offended.

You guys don’t get it.

Nobody needs fat arsed communist scum like Bradford, who’s never been voted into parliament and never would be, interfering in the raising of their children.

Its going to promote anger in the community, and rightly so.

John Key too is making a big mistake by throwing his oar in with Bradford.

I could put up with his crawling to the Racist Party and Peter Dunne.

His stupid socialist “Jobs Summit”.

His failure to keep his promise on tax cuts.

With this, he’s gone too far.

Driven home the point that there’s no difference between National and Labour.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:19am
xxx

I can’t picture where shoving a 7 year old capable of playing club rugby is a intelligent form of instruction in “not letting the team down”. I suspect the boy will learn that the team will just reject you or give you the bash if you have a free will instead. Now there’s an important lesson for a boy. Consequences to actions, and personal decisions clashing with group think, and revelation of personal values, all in one morning.

But what the hell does it have to do with anti-smacking law?

He wasn’t being corrected, he was being coerced and bullied.

And how is it Police business?

And how is our business?

And don’t we know this type of thing is going on right now, and has been for hundreds of years, and stopping someone using a smack as a correct form of discipline won’t do anything to it?

The form of coercion we see in the shoving incident is more closely related to emotional abuse, not physical abuse. The state cannot and should not be involved in this kind of thing.

You want action?

Then why did no one at the game step in? Another parent, another Father, other than the squealer who went to the police.

Why no word from the club management? Are the values of that Lower Hutt club personified there? Bullying? Think like us or get out? Drink up, you poof? Why aren’t you smoking? What you looking at?

I won’t kid you, I know the answers to these questions because I’ve stood on the sidelines of “grassroots” rugby in the Hutt and elsewhere. Try it sometime. Listen to the language of violence used for encouragement – or is it release for the spectators. Sit in the stands and watch the fights and drug use as the game goes on. Someone once called it the closest thing to war for young men when there was no war. I’m surprised anyone of ability makes it out of the mire of “grassroots.” When sportsmanship finally makes an appearance, when a player accesses his skill, the whole place lights up for a few seconds, before returning to uninspiring chaos.

We all have ample opportunity to stop this kind of thing, if we want it to stop. We’re just cowards and hide in our clubs and groups instead. We hide behind the police and the government. We figure if we ban the act, we’ll kill off the motivation. Think again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:20am
Redbaiter

“That’s the obvious ambiguity”

Thanks for the laff Llewser.

Goes to show just how absolutely and completely fucken hopeless the left are don’t it???
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:22am
bananapants

redbaiter – I’m just putting the theoretical position of ambiguity in front of you. If you’ve never studied philosophy, critical reasoning, or logic, then I understand that you don’t understand. And it’s okay for you to say that you don’t understand. You don’t have to come out abusing everybody every time something goes over your head.

I guess you’re not just unhappy on the computer though. Being angry must be something that afflicts other areas of your life, and for that my heart goes out to you. It can’t be easy to be so dissatisfied. Hugs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:25am
Redbaiter

“With writing skills like those displayed above I wonder why?”

Apparently its compelling enough that you can’t stop yourself reading it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:26am
llew

Goes to show just how absolutely and completely fucken hopeless the left are don’t it???

Did they write the silly question? It shows me that if the referendum organisers wanted to be taken seriously, they had no clue how to go about it.

Although I’m coming round to Ryan Sproull’s view that (I think) they did it on purpose in an (failed) effort to be clever.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:27am
toad

Redbaiter said: Toad- you’re one of those fuckwits who claim that long prison sentences don’t work.

I have never claimed that ‘baiter. If it means protecting society from psychopaths like William Bell, I don’t believe he should ever be paroled.

For that matter, I don’t believe that this psychopathic thug in Dunedin who tortured a dog for 30 minutes before killing it should be let out until he is assessed as being unlikely to reoffend. But he only got one year – I’d prefer to see him locked up for much longer – he’s a walking time bomb.

My opposition to Garrett’s “Three Strikes” Bill is not on the basis of whether it “works”. It is on the basis that iot offends against human rights in that it will result in some people receiveingpunsihments that are disproportionate to their actual offending.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:28am
Redbaiter

Banananananananannananannapants, its deceitful to say something is ambiguous when it isn’t.

Where you come from perhaps deceit is accepted as normal.

For myself, I don’t like it, and I think the whole “ambiguous” campaign is a cowardly lie designed to discredit the outcome of the referendum.

Some might think the question is “ambiguous” because they are told so, and do not think to enquire why.

Others know it isn’t and are deliberately lying.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:30am
racer1

“# Swiftman the infidel (9) Vote: Add rating 8 Subtract rating 2 Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 8:18 am

Day three of the Taliban threat to get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – and use them – and thundering silence from the ‘Green’ Party http://www.greens.org.nz/”

Well i’m into day 3 of my tomato sauce drought, and Kevin Rudd is yet to comment? Could you explain to us why the Greens should comment on this?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:33am
philu

“..Driven home the point that there’s no difference between National and Labour..”

going green..?…red..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:34am
racer1

“Murray
Hows the naughty mat Trevor?”

How’s the stupid mat Murray?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:34am
llew

Redbaiter (6585) Vote: 1 0 Says:

June 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Banananananananannananannapants, its deceitful to say something is ambiguous when it isn’t.

Where you come from perhaps deceit is accepted as normal.

It is ambiguous, if you can’t see it, you’re the one either being deceitful, or you are ignorant of grammar & could maybe do with going back to school.

For myself, I don’t like it, and I think the whole “ambiguous” campaign is a cowardly lie designed to discredit the outcome of the referendum.

It discredits itself – but most people will see that the intention is to ask “Bring back the Smack. Yes/no”

Some might think the question is “ambiguous” because they are told so, and do not think to enquire why.

Others know it isn’t and are deliberately lying.

And then there are those with reading comprehension skills.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:36am
Redbaiter

So far, the only answer to the ambiguous query is LLews, and its been remarkable only for its idiocy.

Thanks tho for at least having an honest try LLewser.

Trouble is your honesty kind of fucked up everything else.

If that’s the true ambiguity the Herald editor is referring to then he’s as big a dumbfuck as I expected.

Or maybe as I suspect, his intention is just to discredit the referendum.

Like every other leftists do gooder who doesn’t like the fact they’re going to get their interfering arses kicked.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:36am
racer1

” Redbaiter
“With writing skills like those displayed above I wonder why?”

Apparently its compelling enough that you can’t stop yourself reading it.”

As was the Herald editorial for you apparently?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:36am
llew

If that’s the true ambiguity the Herald editor is referring to then he’s as big a dumbfuck as I expected.

Or maybe as I suspect, his intention is just to discredit the referendum.

Well could be, I haven’t read the Herald bit yet, I just responded to your question with an obvious grammatical ambiguity.

Like every other leftists do gooder who doesn’t like the fact they’re going to get their interfering arses kicked.

Like those well known leftist journos, Joanne Black & Jane Clifton who both expressed distaste at the assault on the language affected by this question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:42am
bananapants

redbaiter – again, if you don’t understand something that plenty of people more intelligent than yourself can understand, then just say so. You make a dick of yourself otherwise, by persisting in pretending that you can see something no one else can see. When in fact, the opposite is true.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:43am
bananapants

who is Jane Clifton’s boyfriend again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:45am
big bruv

Toad

If a dog bites a person for the third time it will more than likely have to be put down (it’s behaviour can be changed but that is an argument for another day)

You (as with all Green supporters) care more for the criminal than you do for the victim, Garret is talking about the very worst offenders, the Greens care about the human rights of these scum while the rest of us want to see them locked up for the rest of their life in harsh conditions (many of us would rather they were simply shot)

The Green party irrational hatred of Garrett has nothing to do with this law, you simply do not like the man because he is refreshingly un PC.
NZ needs more David Garrett’s and less (a lot less) idiots such as Bradford and Mad Dehahunty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:46am
bananapants

oh yes, that’s right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_McCully
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:46am
Ryan Sproull

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

If you believe that smacking can be part of good parental correction, the question is plain.

If you don’t believe that smacking can be part of good parental correction, the question is nonsensical and meaningless.

I suppose that’s where there is some ambiguity. If you say, “Yes,” are you saying that there is no such thing as a good parental smack? Or are you saying that there is such a thing as a good parental smack and that it should be a criminal offence?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:47am
bananapants

Ryan – yes. You’ve got it. Doesn’t matter where your politics lie – a grammatical ambiguity is a grammatical ambiguity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:49am
Ryan Sproull

You (as with all Green supporters) care more for the criminal than you do for the victim, Garret is talking about the very worst offenders, the Greens care about the human rights of these scum while the rest of us want to see them locked up for the rest of their life in harsh conditions (many of us would rather they were simply shot)

How are you caring for the victim?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:51am
Redbaiter

“If you don’t believe that smacking can be part of good parental correction, the question is nonsensical and meaningless.”

Crap. One merely votes yes, meaning you agree parents who smack should be prosecuted.

There is absolutley no need for confusion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 11:53am
Ryan Sproull

Crap. One merely votes yes, meaning you agree parents who smack should be prosecuted.

There is absolutley no need for confusion.

If you say yes, you’re agreeing to the terms “good parental correction”. Suddenly you’re not just casting a vote against smacking, you’re casting a vote against “good parental correction”. It’s not so much ambiguous as loaded and misleading.

“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is not ambiguous. It means, “We’re agreed you’ve been beating your wife, but have you stopped?” Does its lack of ambiguity make it a good question to ask people who haven’t been beating their wives?

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is not ambiguous. It means, “We’re agreed that a smack can be part of good parental correction, but should it be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” Does its lack of ambiguity make it a good question to ask people who don’t believe a smack can be part of good parental correction?

So it’s not ambiguous, but it only makes sense when asking someone who already agrees to the terms.

This is a trivial matter, however, as smacking has always been assault, assaulting your child has always been a criminal offence in New Zealand, and the repeal of S59 didn’t change that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:00pm
racer1

” Ryan Sproull
You (as with all Green supporters) care more for the criminal than you do for the victim, Garret is talking about the very worst offenders, the Greens care about the human rights of these scum while the rest of us want to see them locked up for the rest of their life in harsh conditions (many of us would rather they were simply shot)

How are you caring for the victim?”

They care about the victims so much that they want there to be more of them!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:01pm
big bruv

More evidence as to why Crusher Collins should be made PM immediately.

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/NationalNews/Prison-guards-to-get-body-armour-batons-and-pepper-spray—Collins/tabid/423/articleID/109848/Default.aspx?ArticleID=109848
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:01pm
racer1

Is this stuff on recommendation of the department, or recommendation of the PR advisers?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:03pm
big bruv

Ryan

“How are you caring for the victim?”

Fair question, I am not doing anything for the victim, nor have I said that I would, IMHO there is not a lot you can do for those who have already been the victim of a crime, of course in NZ we will smother the poor buggers with social workers and assorted wankers who will tell the victims that they have a right to be depressed or have a right to go on a benefit for the rest of their life’s when the very best thing they can do is harden up and get on with their lives.

What I want to do is stop these human filth make a victim out of the next person, the Greens (and you it seems) think that it is a basic human right for criminals to be free to make victims out of ordinary decent Kiwi’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:10pm
Whafe

Get this for PC’ness…. I almost want to not be a part of this country….

Strawberry growers in NZ will no longer be ablet o have “Pick You Own” berries any longer. OSH have put a stop to it because it is to dangerous. There are no paths with hands rails etc…..

Serioulsy, where will this end, what a crock of shit, it is fucked this PC crap…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:13pm
llew

Heh. A response to all those freak strawberry picking accidents… 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:16pm
Redbaiter

“Serioulsy, where will this end, what a crock of shit, it is fucked this PC crap…”

Whafe, we are held prisoner by an elitist gang of corrupt and lazy politicians, cowardly media and tit sucking academics.

Labour, National, they’re the same.

Labour you can forgive, for they are at least true to their principles.

National have none and are therefore worthless.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:20pm
llew

Tauhei Notts (441) Vote: 0 1 Says:

June 24th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Does anybody else out there think that the Frenchman, supposedly beaten up by thugs on early Sunday morning, might be just as innocent as Alain Mafart?

he blows up ships? Seriously, doubts are starting to be expressed, but is this because we’re so used to someone videoing, or CCTV, or whatever, that if we can’t see what happened with our own eyes, we don’t believe it? Blumsky would have an opinion on this I bet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:21pm
Ryan Sproull

What I want to do is stop these human filth make a victim out of the next person, the Greens (and you it seems) think that it is a basic human right for criminals to be free to make victims out of ordinary decent Kiwi’s.

Well, no. But I do think that while we make prisons punitive (which you seem to prefer – “harsh conditions”) rather than rehabilitative, we’re creating more vicious criminals who are bound to make new victims once they’re released.

You’ve suggested one solution – life imprisonment or putting them to death.

But a focus on rehabilitation, coupled with an “dangerous till proven otherwise” attitude towards prisoner release, would be a less expensive option than life imprisonment.

Caring for criminals now means caring for potential victims tomorrow.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:22pm
llew

Apple picking is heaps more dangerous. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:23pm
Redbaiter

“It’s not so much ambiguous as loaded and misleading.”

In fact it is not ambiguous at all.

What this referendum is about Ryan is the continual undermining of parenting by unelected scum like Bradford who want children to be brought up by the state. Indoctrinated with the collectivist values she believes in.

Vote yes if you believe the state should raise children, or no if you think parents should raise them.

Don’t think that bitch Bradford is not clear on her own agenda.

She always has been.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:27pm
Whafe

This nation is becoming a bunch of sissies, soon the vast majority of males will be required to sit down to piss…… Give me fucken strength…..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:37pm
bananapants

Do you hate all women redbaiter, or just the ones who have more power than you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:37pm
racer1

She was elected too, sorry to burst your bubble there baiter!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:41pm
big bruv

racer1

What electorate did Bradford win?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 12:52pm
bananapants

wrong century bruv.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:00pm
siobhan

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2530634/Sophie-Elliott-provoked-murder-accused-Clayton-Weatherston

In many other countries, stabbing someone 216 could not constitute manslaughter. When is New Zealand going to look at “Degrees of Murder”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:05pm
Ryan Sproull

What this referendum is about Ryan is the continual undermining of parenting by unelected scum like Bradford who want children to be brought up by the state. Indoctrinated with the collectivist values she believes in.

Vote yes if you believe the state should raise children, or no if you think parents should raise them.

Don’t think that bitch Bradford is not clear on her own agenda.

She always has been.

We can’t have referenda with all of this unspoken implication, though, Redbaiter. To you, it’s “vote yes if you believe the state should raise children”. To someone else, it’s “vote no if you want to see more violence in our society”. And so on. The question should say what it means. If it means reinstating S59, it should say exactly that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:22pm
Redbaiter

Ryan, this question was selected and promoted by a group of people who wanted it asked. It is their question. If you want one that asks something different, then get off your damn whining arse, write the question, get 300000 signatures on a petition, and put it to referendum.

This was the question these people wanted asked. They did the hard yards. It is not ambiguous, it is merely unsatisfactory to collectivist scum who want to attack parents.

You don’t like it, do your own referendum.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:31pm
MyNameIsJack

The question should say what it means. If it means reinstating S59, it should say exactly that.

Can’t have that ryan, as that would mean McCroskie and co would have to be honest about what they want – the unfettered right to bash children.

Nowhere can they define “smack” or “good parental correction”.

One man has been convicted, after punching his son in the face. Under the old law, he could have claimed “reasonable force”. It is good that these thugs must now face up to what they do.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:33pm
Redbaiter

“the unfettered right to bash children.”

Fuck off Jack. Your multitudinous posts are just a narcisstic low IQ spoilt brat little wanker demanding attention. What a shame your parents weren’t smart enough to drown you at birth and save everyone else the expense of carrying your sad deranged self obsessed arse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:41pm
thedavincimode

siobhan says

“In many other countries, stabbing someone 216 could not constitute manslaughter.”

Siobhan, you’re pre-judging. I think we’ll probably find that the knife went off when he was cleaning it (very carelessly it would seem in the circs).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:41pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, this question was selected and promoted by a group of people who wanted it asked. It is their question. If you want one that asks something different, then get off your damn whining arse, write the question, get 300000 signatures on a petition, and put it to referendum.

This was the question these people wanted asked. They did the hard yards. It is not ambiguous, it is merely unsatisfactory to collectivist scum who want to attack parents.

You don’t like it, do your own referendum.

I agree that they get to pick their question. I think their main problem is that their wording has given National an out, while a straightforward question about S59 would force Key’s hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:42pm
Jack5

Slightly Righty in his post at 9.35 said: “….I know that we have a terrible record of child abuse in NZ…”

Child abuse is terrible and unacceptable. But the touchy-feely lefties have put it about that NZ has one of the world’s worst records in child abuse.

I doubt this can this be substantiated. Compare NZ child abuse with millions of Indian children who are virtual slaves, African Muslim girls forced to undergo female circumcision, trafficking in kidnapped early-teen East European girls, the boy camel jockeys in the Gulf, the children forced to become soldiers in some African nations, Samoan boys forcibly raised as girls in some families that have no natural girl children, Third World child brides?

Let’s keep things in perspective.

Let’s keep thing in perspective.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:42pm
MyNameIsJack

Fuck off yourself, redbaiter. For someone who claims to believe in freedom for all, you are remarkably intollerant of anyone who challenges your narrow, bigotted views. What a shame your father didn’t pull out of your mother and shoot you on the blankets.

Still, it is good to know that homosexuals don’t reproduce.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:43pm
MyNameIsJack

Jack, I’m gklad you brougt some perspective to this topic.

It is good to know that as long as achild somewhere in the world suffers, we ccan permit thigs to keep bashing kids in NZ too. Gotta keep up with the world, don’t we?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 1:52pm
Jack5

MyNameisJack at 1.52 misrepresents what I said.

My point is that though child abuse is unacceptable, wrong, cruel, and reprehensible, it is being put about that the incidence in NZ is among the highest in the world. I challenged the claim that NZ is worse than countries/cultures such as India’s, the various African, Middle Eastern and Asian nations, perhaps even Samoa’s.

Many lefties have an interest in creating a huge sense of guilt about child abuse in the consciences of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who love and nurture children. The lefties’ interest can vary from creating taxpayer willingness to fund ever more social workers, to greater powers of social workers and do-gooders over families, to just general bad-mouthing of men as a gender (seeing as they are typically the perpetrators in cases of child abuse).

Let’s throw child abusers in jail and throw away the key. But don’t let the lefties hijack the problem for selfish purposes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 2:07pm
bananapants

Hey, I have the flu so I have an excuse, but why is everyone else here? Are you lot beneficiaries or something?

Is this very good for the nation’s productivity? What jobs do you guys do (or not do, as the case may be) that enables so much kiwiblog commenting time? Do people get that written into their contract these days? Just curious.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 2:17pm
Jack5

I’ve read some wild posts on Kiwiblog, but I think MyNameisJack’s rant at Redbaiter at 1.43 takes the prize.

First MyNameisJack describes Redbaiter’s views as “narrow,bigotted”.

Then MyNameisJack says:”Still, it is good to know that homosexuals don’t reproduce.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 2:17pm
MyNameIsJack

I work in the MSD, writing client manuals to show beneficiaries how they can maximise their benefits, and how to minimise their income when completing claim forms
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2009 2:19pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« DC train crash

A future killer? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
General Debate 04 June 2026
A win for democracy
Meet the Greens - ACC
Abolishing HR
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
General Debate 02 June 2026
Words that are now meaningless

Recent Posts

Words that are now meaningless 4 June 2026
Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 04 June 2026
Ghost
Words that are now meaningless
David Garrett
Words that are now meaningless
Ehlana
Words that are now meaningless
David Garrett
Meet the Greens – ACC
Ehlana
Abolishing HR
Ehlana
Abolishing HR
Agricola
General Debate 04 June 2026
Don Beckett
Abolishing HR
GJM
General Debate 04 June 2026
Wairoa Native
Meet the Greens – ACC
Im Right
General Debate 04 June 2026
RoboRob
Abolishing HR
Don Beckett
General Debate 04 June 2026
RoboRob
General Debate 04 June 2026
RoboRob

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
The response to Budget 2026 has been unusually muted
Point of Order
You know what “does not pass the sniff test”? Labour’s incremental response to blatant corruption – this is why they plunged 7.5%
The Daily Blog
When is a Free Speech Union not a Free Speech Union?
The Standard
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d