Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 77594	2007-03-15 04:47:00	Anti-smackin bill	SolMiester (139)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
533114	2007-03-23 16:05:00	Oh well, baaaa baaaaa. Did you just put your gumboots on?	mikebartnz (21)
533115	2007-03-24 10:19:00	To truly evaluate the removing of Sec59 we have to take away our own emotions. Its important, I think, to remember the reasoning behind the change. Remember the woman from Timaru who used a riding crop on her child, a jury aquitted her, her lawyer used this section to get her off assaulting her child. Claiming she was using reasonable force. We are not allowed to assault an adult, there are laws about that, we are not allowed to beat an animal, there are laws about that also. And yet we are allowed to use a riding crop on a child ?? The Police have said they will treat calls regarding parents smacking a child as a DV case. I would hope they use their sensibilities (though lately theyve shown very little sensibility) to ascertain if the parent has disciplined for a relevant reason. ie .. someones about to get hurt, or damage is about to be done. Assuming of course that they have been called out to a situation where a Mum or Dad has smacked the lil poo on the bum or hand, with their own hand!! and not with something, that when picked up and used on a person becomes a weapon. You will still be able to reprimand your tots with a smack, a child from 7 on .. a smack makes very little difference. They should have figured out right from wrong by then.	Lovelee (6586)
533116	2007-03-24 12:54:00	Remember the woman from Timaru who used a riding crop on her child, a jury aquitted her, her lawyer used this section to get her off assaulting her child. Claiming she was using reasonable force. How about you present all the facts? That kid required a puniushment to match his actions, a Jury decided it wasn't unreasonable. Im sure the "child" would be better off for the lesson learned apart from cyfs stepping in and removing the child and placing him in foster care after the court case was over and the mother was declared not guilty. Seems the decisions of the NZ justice system means nothing to such misguided fools and their bleeding-heart actions. Now that smacking is to be banned how would the family react to the child hitting someone to the face with a baseball bat?, tell him to go sit on the naughty step? Ring up Sue and ask her in her wisdom whats next? The real would cares nothing for the weak views of the soft-in-the-head. Once the kids realise they not only have the power on the streets but also in the family home all bets are off, Hopefully they kill the hippies first.	Metla (12)
533117	2007-03-24 13:15:00	You will still be able to reprimand your tots with a smack, a child from 7 on .. a smack makes very little difference. They should have figured out right from wrong by then. I am not getting into this arguement, even though I feel pretty strongly about it. Yes, I will still give my 2 year old grandson a whack around the behind when he needs it, and yes, maybe after 7 years old, they should know right from wrong! Is that why our jails are now bursting at the seams? They would do better making a law upping wages so only one parent has to work to support their family. Then the other parent can be home supervising the kids and teaching them right from wrong. Instead of having to have both parents working, just to be able to afford the basics that we all need, like food, power etc. It is so hard after a full days work trying to give the kids the full time attention they need, as well as run a house, job and family. Now don't flame me people, this is my view only! LOL	supergran (108)
533118	2007-03-24 19:45:00	How about you present all the facts? That kid required a punishment to match his actions, a Jury decided it wasn't unreasonable. I'm sure the "child" would be better off for the lesson learned apart from cyfs stepping in and removing the child and placing him in foster care after the court case was over and the mother was declared not guilty. Seems the decisions of the NZ justice system means nothing to such misguided fools and their bleeding-heart actions. Now that smacking is to be banned how would the family react to the child hitting someone to the face with a baseball bat?, tell him to go sit on the naughty step? Ring up Sue and ask her in her wisdom whats next? The real world cares nothing for the weak views of the soft-in-the-head. Once the kids realise they not only have the power on the streets but also in the family home all bets are off, Hopefully they kill the hippies first. I am sorry Met,I have to say it,you are on to it once again.	Cicero (40)
533119	2007-03-24 19:50:00	I was smacked, and I admit I have smacked my kids. Thinking about the times I have done, on very few occassions I can honestly say I was in control of my emotions. 99% time it was the emotion that caused me to do it. I hear the arguements and wonder whether we are all foccusing on the wrong thing. The arguement I am hearing over and over is children need to learn consequences so they can grow up to be law abiding citizens, and I totally agree with that. I too believe(d) that many of todays problems with youth is to do with lack of discipline and the removal of corporal punishment in schools and now apparantly at home. It appears that todays kids have no fear of repercussions. Now, something that I have only just thought about is, as adults, what are the repercussions or consequences for our behaviour? Depending on severity that could mean jail. I know that and I will do little that would put me in that position - but who knows, my emotion one day may put me there. I know that now and I will know that later if it occurs. But I also know that if I were to get in such a position to do wrong no one is going to beat or smack me under the law as a consequence. I am an adult. If we were to focus on the goal of smacking ie, to teach children consequence, what other way could this be done? I admit at times I have tried most other alternatives and at times I can see results but when they dont work I resorted back to smacking, it is not easy. What would you do? If you walk outside your house and you see your 3yr old running towards the road. You yell at child and then rush out to get them and (I believe the emotion of the moment) causes you to smack child's behind because you are trying to associate this behaviour to pain to prevent this happening again - I think this is reasonable. From a childs view - I was only trying to catch the butterfly and then all of a sudden he yells at me and then I get yanked by my arm and smacked. Next time he yells and comes running after me I am going to run away Although I am not in favour of the bill I do believe for me it has made me think more about smacking and I for one will make a more concerted effort to NOT smack - but I am human and hope that if I do slip up and smack, no one is going to smack me.	sam m (517)
533120	2007-03-25 03:43:00	My point of view. This bill, I am guessing is to lessen (because i don't think it will ever completely get rid of) child abuse. I don't think this is going to work..... i think its going to make things a lot worse. Unfortunately this bill will basically take away what little control we have over our own children. Its given them power that they have never had before and thats quite a freaky thought..... There are going to be those people who will still smack their children (right or wrong). What will happen then ?......... a parent will then fear the consequences and try what ever they can to hide the fact? Children will feel bad and think they are horrible because their parents are doing something that is considered against the law? Isn't it just calling every parent out there who smacks their children child abusers? I would hate to think that a child who gets a smack on the hand has the same guilt and horror as that of a child who gets beaten to a pulp. To put a parent in the same category as a worseless sh*t of a parent who cannot control themselves is ...... wrong? Some may think that is the case though, some may think that there are parents out there who smack when out of control and not when they feel that that child's actions can be stopped by shocking them into not doing it again with a smack on the bum. The minds of our young are about to be corrupted with power, guilt, responsibilities, that are not theirs to have. I am an under 5s child care worker and can see the panic and sense of defeat in the eyes of the parents i work with, regardless if they smack or not.	never-u-mind (6500)
533121	2007-03-25 05:19:00	Metla said . . . That kid required a puniushment to match his actions, . . Regardless how you feel about smacking . . NO CHILD SHOULD BE BELTED WITH A WEAPON! This *child* in this case, was over 14, if I remember correctly . Way past the ability of corporal action to have any affect! Either way . . the event should not have happened . Words of wisdom again from Supergran . I agree . Though I differ as to the reason both parents are working . Parents of today have 2 cars, house & mortgage, most of the possessions inside the house on HP, a credit card et al . Instead of building their family, with Mum at the head, there for the kids every need, from the day they babe can crawl, and for many before the babes are handed over to a caring centre . (A kid by the time of 5, that is cared for outside the home from 6 months has on average had 25 primary caregivers) Sam . . most parents are in control of themselves when they smack their naughty kid . The butterfly situation, is easily sorted . And should be done every time a child recieves a smack . Under 1 yr isnt so easy . But over 1, after the tears are done with, usually a couple of seconds :p the child must understand why they got the smack . The reason being that, running onto the road can be dangerous, taking them and showing them the road and the cars rushing by makes your point . Ive raised 4 kids, all got smacked, only when danger was imminent . Lighting fires under an 80 yr old wooden home, the first time, they werent smacked, the second time they were! Never u mind . . . Im sure you would also see the fear in the kids eyes if someone were to raise their hand to the children also . I dont think this bill is going to change anything, except we will see more kids being emotionally abused, as we did after the DV act came out, defining physical spousal abuse .	Lovelee (6586)
533122	2007-03-26 00:27:00	My :2cents: First up - I am a parent - late starter - 2 kids (3&5) . I guess I'm like most (99 . 9% of parents I hope) - hate smacking my two - but it's used as a last resort, and it works . More often than not - the threat of it is enough to make them think . Usually ask, then warn/tell, then action - rarely do we need to get to the action part . There is a few things about this bill that really get me steamed though: [1] The bill is supposed to target abuse - isn't it? Therefore would the smart thing to be rewording it to make it illegal to use an implement, or a closed fist? Surely if this change was made - then 90% of us would support it rather than the other way around . [2] When amendments were originally proposed, Sue Bradford immediately threatened to pull the bill . Didn't matter what the amendments were . Seems to me she sees this bill as more about her, than about protection for the real at risk kids . [3] All of those in support of the bill (politicians) seem to be ignoring the very people they are supposed to represent . Every unofficial poll indicates 80-90% of NZers in favour of ditching it . I guess once again nothing changes in NZ politics . The pity here is we appear to be helpless to stop this . The only intelligent thing to do is to add this to the growing list of this Govt's errors - and make sure you remember it come next election .	Brooko (8444)
533123	2007-03-26 01:10:00	Strange. I let 2 of my granddaughters go ahead of us on the way to the river - with instructions to them (particularly the older) not to go near the water until we got there (about a minute later). I was appalled to find them IN the water. The eldest got smacked. I don't think she even felt it - wearing a fairly heavy kilt! But her pride was upset. She was all of 5 years old. Now according to the latest ruling I would be a criminal - but if I smacked her earlier because I thought otherwise she may go into the water I am OK. Funny how she has always been very loving to us! Now we are older and not so mobile she came and took my wife shopping the other day. And come to think of it the teacher who used the stick on us kids in the early 1940s (more than any other teacher) was regarded by us all as a god like figure - we loved him dearly and would have followed him to the ends of the earth. None of us ended up violent thugs. Odd that really! Tom	Thomas01 (317)
1 2 3 4