| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 141633 | 2016-01-25 17:58:00 | Taking control back | kenj (9738) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1415043 | 2016-01-25 17:58:00 | This is so true www.nzherald.co.nz Ken :clap:clap |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1415044 | 2016-01-25 19:34:00 | A rare bit of common sense for the NZ Herald. | CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1415045 | 2016-01-25 20:11:00 | A rare bit of common sense for the NZ Herald. "Common sense"? NZ Herald? Surely an oxymoron. But yup, a good article, penned by Linda Hall, a Hawkes Bay Today Assistant Editor. Both the Herald and HBT are owned by APN, but what a wide gap in standards with the Herald being the lower achiever. |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1415046 | 2016-01-25 21:45:00 | There's a large difference between smacking and beating. I was smacked as a child for doing wrong. It made me the respectful and well mannered person I am today. | lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1415047 | 2016-01-25 22:40:00 | Does the article really tell us anything we didn't already know or offer any useful advice? seems more like an add for a book to me. Not that I don't agree with it, just didn't get anything new from it. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1415048 | 2016-01-26 04:33:00 | There's a large difference between smacking and beating and injuring a child is off the scale. The purpose of the anti-smacking legislation was to prevent someone from using 'smacking' as a defence when a child is injured. Most intelligent people agreed. That's why all parties supported it. I'm surprised that anybody could object. Suspect they're reading between the lines for something sinister |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1415049 | 2016-01-26 05:05:00 | and injuring a child is off the scale. The purpose of the anti-smacking legislation was to prevent someone from using 'smacking' as a defence when a child is injured. Most intelligent people agreed. That's why all parties supported it. I'm surprised that anybody could object. Suspect they're reading between the lines for something sinister The problem is they have legislated against everyone in order to try and catch a few miscreants. That’s the problem, government thinking. 87.4% of the voters in the referendum saw the legislation for what it was, but about 60 politicians saw it differently. :rolleyes: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1415050 | 2016-01-26 05:09:00 | There's a large difference between smacking and beating. I was smacked as a child for doing wrong. It made me the respectful and well mannered person I am today. Don't forget...Handsome...Intelligent...Hardworking ...Generous... etc !!!!! {Just like ME } PJ :devil:D |
Poppa John (284) | ||
| 1415051 | 2016-01-26 06:26:00 | and injuring a child is off the scale. The purpose of the anti-smacking legislation was to prevent someone from using 'smacking' as a defence when a child is injured. Most intelligent people agreed. That's why all parties supported it. I'm surprised that anybody could object. Suspect they're reading between the lines for something sinister And that legislation has not made a blind bit of difference to the number of kids being killed or injured by the a***holes that behave in that fashion. |
CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1415052 | 2016-01-26 06:43:00 | And that legislation has not made a blind bit of difference to the number of kids being killed or injured by the a***holes that behave in that fashion. Exactly! :thumbs: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1 | |||||