| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 137959 | 2014-09-15 01:09:00 | Anti smacking bill | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1384007 | 2014-09-25 08:34:00 | Back to the subject of teaching a kid... I like the approach of Ken Titus (aka Poppa Titus), from the 3 seasons of the comedy show "Titus". If he saw an accident about to happen - like a toddler with a fork hobbling towards a power socket he'd lean forward in his chair, and silence everybody to wait and watch. After a flash and a howl, and a puff of smoke from the direction of the child he'd light up with "There, you won't do that again now, will you?" "He'll learn!" We learn well from our mistakes. Just a pity if those mistakes maim us or kill us, or addict us or bankrupt us before the lessons sink in. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1384008 | 2014-09-25 10:53:00 | Just a pity if those mistakes maim us or kill us, or addict us or bankrupt us before the lessons sink in. Is your cup half full or half empty Paul ??? ... |
SP8's (9836) | ||
| 1384009 | 2014-09-26 00:05:00 | Ambulance at the bottom of the hill/drive on this one ehhh !. | Lurking (218) | ||
| 1384010 | 2014-09-26 13:44:00 | The amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 says thus: 59 Parental control “(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— “(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or “(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or “(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or “(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting . “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction . “(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1) . “(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution . ” If you can find any reference to smacking, I'll eat my hat . If you think that an 80kg adult should belt a 20kg child then I feel sorry for you . Despite the histrionic claims of Family First there have been no prosecutions of ordinary mums and dads for smacking their children . Its a myth |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1384011 | 2014-09-27 13:02:00 | "reasonable force", that's the problem, it's hard to define what's reasonable and what's not. Is a single open-handed smack on a childs bottom acceptable? Is any physical contact acceptable? What if it was multiple times in succession? I dunno, Family First list 10 specific examples. You may not think they've unjustly been prosecuted but they certainly do. I've had a friends sister came under fire. She was never fully prosecuted, but she was "under investigation" for 6 months, and she never even touched her kid! My mate had to take several months off work to look after his niece / nephew while his sister and her partner weren't allowed to look after the kids. It was unfortunate, it stemmed from the fact the child had a bit of a clumsy inclination, hand-eye coordination etc... Some kids just don't get those motor skills as quickly as others and end up injuring themselves. You could see it if you hung out with them for more than a little bit. However, it was a massive impact on this family for an insanely long time when it was completely unjustified. There was absolutely no myth there, I've seen that first-hand. Just because you can't see the wind, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1384012 | 2014-09-28 06:02:00 | I completely understand that Chill and being investigated by the authorities is no fun at all . The case you refer to sounds like suspected child abuse and doesn't involve Section 59 . Child abuse is nasty stuff but the Police and CYPS cannot win . Each time a bad case is discovered they get blamed for not preventing it . And when they do intervene and find no crime, they are called fascists, kidnappers etc by people . FYI here is the previous version of Section 59: 59 Domestic discipline (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances . (2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact . (3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989 . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1384013 | 2014-09-28 07:51:00 | We have this anti smacking bill, but what about jill? What protection has she got ;) | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1384014 | 2014-09-29 01:16:00 | For those who think beating kids is a good idea: www.youtube.com Yeah. Friend had a boy who liked tantrums, when he was 4 he threw one at some shops. On the ground, the whole works. She told kid if he didn't stop it they'd leave him there. She got in my car and said drive round the corner. I did. He stopped and came running round the corner all panicked. It worked. Granddaughter at age 4 decided it was a fun thing to, when she'd come over - 80km from her place - say that she wanted to go home now. Then when we'd say are you sure, shall we ring mum, say no she didn't want to, then a bit later, want to go home etc etc. So the next time she came, at 8pm she tried that again, so I packed her stuff up, put her in the car and drove her back. She was crying when we arrived. But she never did that again. Ever. Much better way of handling the situation. No need to get violent. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||