Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 79319 2007-05-16 06:59:00 "Smacking Bill' passed kenj (9738) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
550243 2007-10-28 21:58:00 I apologise to the few intelligent politicians for lumping them all together.

Unfortunately, most of them prove that intelligence is not a pre-requisite for becoming an MP

Ken

What is it you are trying to say Ke?
Cicero (40)
550244 2007-10-28 22:15:00 Don't really care, it won't affect me at all, as I don't have kids and don't plan to have either. SKT174 (1319)
550245 2007-10-28 22:17:00 Don't really care, it won't affect me at all, as I don't have kids and don't plan to have either.

Yes it is the principal that is being questioned rather than your desire to propagate or not.
Cicero (40)
550246 2007-10-28 23:01:00 What is it you are trying to say Ke?


In amongst the 121 politicians there is the odd one that I might trust....

Not based on party lines or political views.

Most of them would sell their soul to the Devil to retain their place and voting in a law like this is a good indicator of why I feel this way.

Their choice. Stand up and be counted, or, go along with whatever is required to retain a seat in the house.

My question is... "Will this kneejerk law against smacking stop kids from being beaten up or killed?? So far this year, indicators unfortunately say no.

Ken
kenj (9738)
550247 2007-10-28 23:16:00 In amongst the 121 politicians there is the odd one that I might trust....

Not based on party lines or political views.

Most of them would sell their soul to the Devil to retain their place and voting in a law like this is a good indicator of why I feel this way.

Their choice. Stand up and be counted, or, go along with whatever is required to retain a seat in the house.

My question is... "Will this kneejerk law against smacking stop kids from being beaten up or killed?? So far this year, indicators unfortunately say no.

Ken
So you are against the bill?

Or have I missed your point?
Cicero (40)
550248 2007-10-28 23:39:00 Had to look it up! :) I'll have to remember that one - much more sophisticated than saying "anchor with a w"... :D

And in this case, most appropriate...


LOL, me too.....ROFLMAO!
SolMiester (139)
550249 2007-10-28 23:47:00 I have to say, this law like the dog collar (microchip) law, will only ever be obeyed by those that already heed the law....in other words it is useless.

There will be those that say now the police can do something about the abuse, however, I feel it will only bog the police down with over jealous, busy bodies reporting every clip around the ears from parents byside themselves in the supermarkets.....

120 MP's and this is what we get....how overpaid and un-informed are they?!
SolMiester (139)
550250 2007-10-28 23:56:00 So you are against the bill?

Or have I missed your point?

Sorry Cicero... definitely against

Ken
kenj (9738)
550251 2007-10-28 23:58:00 Section 59 Crimes Act 1961

-- "1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of..."

Nothing anti-smacking there.

But I agree with SolMiester - it won't stop child abuse. Laws don't really stop anything, though. They made P an A-Class drug. Didn't stop P.

It (repeal of s59) was an anomaly in the law and now it's been fixed.
Deane F (8204)
550252 2007-10-28 23:59:00 Sorry Cicero... definitely against

Ken

I think I see your point.:rolleyes:
Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6