About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 28, 2009 8:01am by David Farrar

General Debate 28 October 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment168

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (168)

Login to comment or vote

malcolm

Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Not sure. Anyway, I wasn’t saying that. I was just countering your somewhat facetious comment: “Wouldn’t an increase in rainfall, temperature and CO2 promote crop growth”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:00pm
gazzmaniac

Luc –
“that sort of “discipline”” was illegal under the old law. The Burrows amendment would have defined reasonable force, and would have ensured that a light smack was legal and a beating was not. Sadly that was not incorporated in the law, and now we are left with a mess that means it is illegal to use reasonable force against a misbehaving kid in some situations and not others, has created uncertainty and is selectively enforced by the police. Basically a worse result all round.
87.5% of voters did not vote for the right to beat kids. They voted for the right to raise their families the way that they choose, not the way the state says so.

And what does smacking have to do with being Muslim??? There are thousands of peaceful Muslims in New Zealand and very few are in jail for terrorism. In fact, I think the only people arrested under the anti terrorism laws were Tame Iti and his mates in the Ureweras.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:01pm
gazzmaniac

malcolm –
There is a large school of thought over here that Australia is a dry continent punctuated with wet periods, rather than the other way round. I do wish people would do two minutes of research before using examples – they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment.

And yes I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:06pm
thedavincimode

Am I the only person to notice that Bill English’s has in fact just completed a trifecta in very short order?

1. The double Dipton. I had some sympathy for him originally given the administrative fog that appears to surround this issue (perhaps intentionally with hindsight). But his total mishandling of this issue meant that my sympathy in the face of the media’s equally ridiculous handling of it soon disappeared.

2. The ridiculous, ambiguous and populist comments regarding tax avoidance. What was the point? He didn’t have a specific proposal to float. So why not just STFU? The similarities in the style of comment between English and Herr Doktor are just plain spooky. I wonder what the reaction of our overly-coiffured Revenue minister has been to this intrusion into his territory. Is this double dipping on portfolios? Why would you want to infer that a good chunk of your voting base and production in the economy was sitting around on its arse plotting tax avoidance all day. How removed from reality is that? Here’s some tips Bill. You don’t have to go out of your way to gratuitously insult people that are critical to the economy and the functioning of its tax system; particularly in these trying times. Business people and entrepeneurs don’t make real money by nickel and diming on tax. And you don’t actually pay tax until you make money. Making the money is the hard bit. Why is your headspace still operating at the tax-free allowance level Bill? How do your credibly criticise the previous Government for encouraging all our high income earners to fuck off overseas, and then turn around and pontificate on the lack of growth of earners in the $1m club? Did you not have something more important to do Bill, or did you just want some attention?

3. And now the ads on the economy. How could he not foresee the inevitable response from Liabore, the so-called media and the public? I’m not suggesting that Government shouldn’t be telling the public what’s going on with the big global thingy and in fact, they should have done a better job in that respect than they have. But not this way – where it raises the spectre of past standards of behaviour. And not in a way that results in me nearly choking and then becoming momentarily suicidal by hearing Cunners on Radio Pinko and agreeing with him. Uugghh.

So I pose the question: what is it about Bill? He is, supposedly, an intelligent man. So why does he do this? Can he just not help himself? Is it because he’s an institutionalised politician? If Dipton was a Liabore refuge, would Bill still be the MP? Would anyone be able to tell the difference? Would you not think that after his embarrassing little expenses fiasco that he might be more sensitive to the negative consequences of what he says and does? Why does he not understand that over time, this is the sort of thing that will result in the public’s perceptions of National’s standards of behaviour eventually merging with its perceptions of Liabore? Like Liabore, English seems unable to work out why they lost. That is perhaps not surprising from the fellow that took National’s polling lower that the silly magpie’s work ethic.

Or was it because Key was away and, as acting PM, Bill was feeling his oats and adopting a “roving” role. Can Key afford to spend this amount out of the country in future? Or, will Key go away more often to give Bill plenty of rope?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:17pm
malcolm

And yes I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!

You’re easily amused. I don’t think it counts as a wind-up if you write much more than the windee.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:28pm
thedavincimode

… and look here, this whole bloody climate thing. Its taking up too much space

Has anyone read Gareth Morgan’s book on the climate change arguments? He supposedly hired teams of experts with the opposing views and got them to critique the respective counter-arguments. Could someone please just read the bloody thing and tell me WTF happened, in which room, and with which chattel. Maybe you just need to flick to the last page before it starts snowing again (which will be very shortly according to the forecast).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:29pm
malcolm

He came to the conclusion that climate change is a very real problem and it’s caused in part by human activity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:30pm
gazzmaniac

thedavincimode could just read it himself, then he’d get the arguments only second hand not third…

malcolm – yes, I am easily amused.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:35pm
MyNameIsJack

thedavincimode (467) Vote: 0 0 Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
… and look here, this whole bloody climate thing. Its taking up too much space

Has anyone read Gareth Morgan’s book on the clim

Why bother? Morgan is an economist, and economists have predicted 32 of the last 3 recessions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:39pm
malcolm

Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

I think that’s the problem. You can’t ask just anyone. Most people are ignorant of most things technical. How many people know how their computer works? Or an automatic gearbox? Or a refrigerator? Or our brains? Or a TV? Or a power transmission system? Or a how people grow? Or why the sky is blue? Or how a limited-slip differential works?

Amazingly, climate change has done what 100 years of free high-school education could not achieve; it has made scientists out of a large proportion of the population.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:39pm
RightNow

Luc (that girl from) Hansen, who are these ‘child-bashers’ you speak of? If they’re all going to gather in one place I suggest you get the cops mate, they can round them all up and arrest them and that will be that.
It may be that you have a tenuous grasp on rationality (and there’s ample evidence going through the Kiwiblog archives) but I don’t know anyone that bashes their child. I have two children myself, and wouldn’t dream of bashing them. I will however smack my son on the legs or bum if I think it is appropriate. And that decision has nothing to do with you, Sue, or any other Dr Quinn Meddling Woman. So bugger off back to Trev Alert and rejoin the circle-jerk, I think they’re a jerk or two short.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:44pm
thedavincimode

Macolm

Thanks. A hot/cold cycle over aeons or now just a hot mode with no long term reversal?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 1:53pm
malcolm

I haven’t read the book – I just heard Gareth interviewed on National Radio when the book came out.

Have a look on his site. He has some very interesting articles on a wide-range of topics: http://www.gmi.co.nz/articles.asp
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:00pm
gazzmaniac

malcolm,
People are just as misinformed as ever. What they do note is what is going on around them – you can ask older people from Queensland what the weather was like when they were kids, and it is quite likely you will find that it hasn’t changed all that much. The Bureau of Meteorology also has around 100 years of weather observations, and they identify the 30 year cycle I mentioned previously.
For the record I know three of the things on your list, and have a rough idea about three others. The difference between how a fridge/computer/gearbox works and global warming, is that when you research how a fridge works you can get a definitive answer, whereas if you research climate change you really can’t get a definitive answer. In that respect, the mechanics of the climate is as much a mystery as how the brain works and the beginning of the universe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:03pm
malcolm

You know how an LSD works? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:08pm
Ryan Sproull

You know how an LSD works?

Just put it under your tongue. But it’s not the LSD working, man. It’s the universe working through the LSD.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:09pm
gazzmaniac

I have no idea how an LSD works, however if I really needed to know I can find out if I want.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:11pm
Pete George

LSD is not working so well these days, it has been losing value, against the NZ$ anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:25pm
Ryan Sproull

The LDS are working well in New Zealand, but not as well as they are in Utah.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:25pm
philu

my limited-slip-diff..is doing just fine..

(i don’t know how it ‘works’..tho’..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:35pm
big bruv

I am watching question time, Paula Bennett has not missed too many lunches in the last eleven months by the look of it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 2:52pm
Luc Hansen

Poor old RightNow: Oh dear – hit the sweet spot, have I?

I’m just playing the Kiwiblog game. Sometimes.

If you want rationality, I’m your man. And first off, I suggest you restrain yourself to hitting your kids within the privacy of your own home or you will undoubtedly receive a visit from the police.

Second, I suggest you go and have a look at the sort of abuse our esteemed judges were previously allowing in the way of reasonable force.

Third, any attempt at defining reasonable force gets interpreted by the same judges who necessitated the law change.

Fourth, you should take a good look at the tone of your post and understand why I say so many Kiwis badly need lessons in anger management.

Fifth, you should understand that you smack the kid because you can’t control your anger.

Kids do not have the reasoning capacity of adults so a kid is not asking for a smack. A kid is just asking for a problem to be resolved. If the kid’s solution is not our desired outcome, we need to find a patient, non-violent way to get our message across. It’s not easy, but it’s right.

PS I am pleased to say I am practising what I preach. I would guess I’m a generation, give or take, older than you and I am appreciating a second chance at raising a child.

Sue Bradford is a living treasure. I may not agree much of her politics but the children of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:11pm
Sonny Blount

Sure, if you could arrange to get the rainfall and the higher temperatures at the same time and the same place. But it doesn’t usually happen like that. Just look at the on-going drought in Australia.

All three factors contribute to crop yields on their own.

An increase in rainfall with the same temp and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase somewhere else in temp with the same rainfall and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase in another area of co2 with the same rain and temp will increase yields there.

It is ironic that we call it the greenhouse effect when a greenhouse is a technology used in improve food production.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:13pm
wreck1080

Luc, you are a sick puppy.

I’m sick of listening to people praise bradford today. Many are saying you must respect her for sticking to her principles and for being an effective politician.

This is like praising Stalin or Hitler for being an effective politician.

Bradford had an evil agenda, thankfully she’s being forced out through old age.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:25pm
RightNow

Luc, you are funny and you do make me laugh. It’s a great game you’re playing and I do appreciate the comedic material you provide. To be fair to you, you are tainted by association with philu as far as I am concerned, so I rarely take your comments seriously.

Just FYI, I don’t smack for the purpose of correction (ha ha got you), so I’m not breaking any laws. When little Brutus needs correction we just show him a picture of Sue Bradford and tell him we’re sending him to live with her. My doesn’t he behave like a little angel after that. At least Sue’s good for something, even though she’s a big lying hypocrite who allegedly used to bash her kids.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:45pm
big bruv

Luc

“Sue Bradford is a living treasure. I may not agree much of her politics but the children of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude”

Including the twenty who have been killed?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:47pm
NOt1tocommentoften

You mean the ones who would have died anyway BB? The difference being Parliament has enacted something that will eventually reduce these sorts of horrible figures…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:52pm
Pete George

If twenty one would have been killed without her efforts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:53pm
Hurf Durf

In case anyone had any doubts about Bradford the bloodsucker (brought forward from yesterday’s GD):

DC: You’ve said in one of your recent statements that you’re still a radical.

SB: Yes.

DC: Are you still a socialist?

SB: Yes.

DC: Did you find it difficult to retain your radical politics in parliament?

SB: No, I haven’t found it difficult at all.

I’ve found it hard, in recent decades, to identify myself with a label. When I was young it was easy, we all called ourselves labels. As you keep maturing in political life, it’s harder. But if anything I think I’d call myself an ecosocialist and a feminist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 3:59pm
Ryan Sproull

Bradford had an evil agenda, thankfully she’s being forced out through old age.

An evil agenda? She just thinks parents shouldn’t smack their kids. Even if you disagree with her on that, would you really call it evil?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:07pm
LUCY

According to Gordon Brown we now have 41 Days until total meltdown (and counting)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:07pm
wreck1080

@Ryan: Sue Bradfords ultimate goal is anarchy, which will translate into political upheaval.

Removing disciplinary tools from parents is just one of the things she needed to do to achieve her goal.

Her hidden agendas are evil, and she would love to see the political status quo turned on it’s head.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:14pm
Hurf Durf

Puke, you’re about as rational as a game of Russian Roulette with six rounds in the revolver. Get real.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:21pm
Ryan Sproull

wreck,

Wait. Her goal is anarchy, and her method is increased state regulation of people’s actions?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:27pm
Hurf Durf

Bwadford’s goal is ecosocialism and her puckered arsehole of a face on every billboard.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:31pm
Pete George

Who would have thought?

ACC claims in steady decline Doc

As the Government moves to address huge ACC deficits, new statistics show work-related injury claims have been declining steadily. Statistics NZ figures released today show the number of work-related injury claims to ACC decreased by 4.2 per cent last year, down to 224,900 from 235,000 in 2007.

The figures indicate a steady decline, with the number of claims in 2007 down 4.7 per cent on 2005.

Claims for entitlement payments, which cover the costs of treatment or rehabilitation and compensate for loss of income, fell 10 per cent last year.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10605921
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:58pm
Luc Hansen

RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge. Good luck.

Now what’s this crap about an association with Philu? I hardly ever even read his posts because they are just too hard to read. And I’m not vegetarian!!

I like to think my posts are at least readable, and certainly rational, and if my views did not make you guys spew then there would be no point in being here, would there?

Wreck1080 – very apt handle by the tenor of your post. Poisonous vitriol, indeed.

Why are you reserving your venom for Bradford and not Key? It was Key who got the bill across the line.

Is is because it’s easier to pick on women and kids?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 5:50pm
starboard

just saw bradford on tv..what a dog..she musta spent 300 bucks on that hair do and she still looks like a dropped pie
sue..ya cant make honey outa dogshit luv…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 6:11pm
Steve

Phool @ 2.35
“my limited-slip-diff..is doing just fine..”
At least you knew what a limited slip differential is. But your one lost traction both sides ages ago.
Sorry, could not resist making an immature comment. I’m just a lowly engineer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 6:31pm
Luc Hansen

How language shapes the narrative.

An IED killed 7 US soldiers in Afghanistan yesterday, reports the MSM.

Just how accurate, powerful and sophisticated do these IED’s have to get before we drop the I? Is the use of the word “Improvised” intended, ever so obliquely, as indicating the US opponents as backward, even sub-human? Just a racist slur?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 6:40pm
Hurf Durf

Being able to connect an artillery shell to a crude detonator is not dependent on genetics, Puke, so it’s not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 6:53pm
Luc Hansen

So is a smart bomb an IED?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 7:24pm
Luc Hansen

Rodney Hide suffered a comprehensive defeat today, saved from total humiliation by a little window dressing on councils reporting of financial results.

So I ask again, what does he think he’s doing there? His powerful leverage has come to nought.

Whereas the Free Democrats in Germany wrested major concessions from Merkel’s party.

Why doesn’t he demand tax cuts?

Why doesn’t he demand ACC be sold – how many billions would it be worth, esp, as I said before, if the taxpayer picks up the tab for the current tail.

There is just a strange quiet here over the issue of Rodney’s effectiveness (or lack of, thereof).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 7:32pm
william blake

Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.

I suppose you lot would like to retain laws of provocation as a defence to murder as well?

you lot are warped and need medicating.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 7:32pm
Hurf Durf

Because the point of the S59 repeal was to destroy smacking completely, not get rid of it as a defence in court, Will. Bwadford has admitted as such. When are the rest of you totalitarians going to be as honest?

Puke, you cannot call an IED a smart bomb, no matter how “advanced” it is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 7:44pm
nickb

“defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies”

You are a fucking numpty. Like the Nia Glassies and Kahui twins of this world that Bradford said her law would protect?

Fuckload of good it did them. But carry on with your ignorance and stupidity, and ignoring the child abuse and baby killings that continue on an almost daily basis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:11pm
Pete George

Where did anyone claim that the s59 tweak would stop the worst child abusers?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:22pm
big bruv

“Where did anyone claim that the s59 tweak would stop the worst child abusers?”

The person who made that claim was Comrade Sue Bradford, the actual quote was “now our kids will be safe”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:25pm
Paul G. Buchanan

Luc:

They are called IEDs because they are not machine tooled and factory made to uniform standards, but instead crafted out of an assortment of available parts. That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft. To the contrary, some of the cell-phone detonated shaped charges are the ISAF trooper’s worst nightmare. But the reason for the “I” is not racism or denigration of the opponent, just a technical differentiation when classifying weapons of a general subtype.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:28pm
starboard

william blake (11) Vote: 0 6 Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

” smash ” children !!??…” break their bodies “..!!??..whats your problem nutbar ? You wana get yaself looked at
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:30pm
thedavincimode

william blake

“Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.”

A new player. Should be fun. Seems to have passed Fuckwit 401 with Hons.

So Willy, just which law was it that legitimised the “smashing” of children and the “breaking” of their bodies. Was it the same law that permitted people to put babies in the washing machine, hang them on the clothes-line or just kill them because they made it hard to concentrate on the TV when pissed?

Or are you just part of the Liarbore/Melon poll brigade?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:32pm
Pete George

“now our kids will be safe”

If anyone said that meaning it would stop all the worst abuse and anyone who thought that’s what it would do would be a bit stupid, wouldn’t they. What’s the context of the full quote?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:46pm
Luc Hansen

Thank you Paul. That sorted out that query. I have always been curious about what was behind the designation, and I was just having a bit of fun with the racism bit. Although, to be honest, I do think our western colonialism was and is rooted in racism, and we delude ourselves in thinking otherwise.

William said, “you lot are warped and need medicating.” I think you meant to say their medication dosage should be increased! 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 8:50pm
RightNow

phLuc: “RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge.”

Ironically that was exactly how the last version of S59 was, that the defense of reasonable force had to be argued to a judge. Sue apparently didn’t have that much confidence in the judiciary to make the right decisions which is why she proposed her bill in the first place. Given that history I’m in no danger.
Besides, that nice Mr Key said the police aren’t to pursue a prosecution against me because it’s not in the public’s interest. You see the people that actually do bash their kiddies aren’t the ones who are protesting against the new S59, they’re too busy just trying to last from one benefit payment to the next without running out of smokes, booze and drugs. They don’t actually care about their kiddies, they just want the extra benefits that come with popping out more sprogs. They’re in your gang aren’t they? Why don’t you get out amongst them and help them with some child-rearing advice? I’m sure they’d appreciate it, they might not even bash you very hard when you meddle in their business.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:12pm
RightNow

pete george, you got it! We all knew she was stupid, what took you so long to get it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:14pm
Pete George

I don’t think she was stupid, maybe overly idealistic. I always thought she wanted too much from her PMB, it was diluted through the Key compromise.

But this supposed quote of hers – “now our kids will be safe” – can’t find it with Google, neither “children will be safe” – is it another bruv made up quote? Or can someone verify it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:34pm
virtualmark

Paul, interesting to see your comments on IEDs re “That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft”.

My understanding is that the IEDs used in Iraq quickly became quite sophisticated, particularly in terms of their shaped charge and their remote actuation. Strong indications that much of this sophistication came via Iranian military assistance.

That quickly led the US military to develop things like radio jammers and clever sensors to both detect IEDs and to neutralise them.

As a result the move in Afghanistan has been back to relatively simple IEDs, particularly a move to detonating them via simple pressure plates or the good old long-wire-back-to-a-switch approach.

So in many ways the IEDs have come full circle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:44pm
RightNow

to be honest pete, I don’t know if she said it or not (and don’t have the inclination to search for it). There are two primary reasons I though her bill was a crock.
First, the existing law was actually working ok (IMO) but she was apparently grumpy that in the last decade or so a few (like 3 or 4) cases were found not guilty by the judiciary, including one that involved a riding crop or something similar. IMO (again) if these cases were really a wrong decision by the judge then issuing new guidelines (or whatever they do) for the judges would have been a better approach.
Second, this law change seemed as practical as a law against people using marijuana. Those who really want to do it aren’t going to stop just because of the law, they just do it covertly. The new S59 would actually make parents more afraid to do things like take their kids to a doctor if they had a smack mark on their bum for example, or may keep their kids home from school because they’d be worried the teachers might sick Syphs onto them. Basically it makes early detection of a problem more difficult.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:45pm
Pete George

RN, I think she was trying to give children the same legal protection against assault that adults and animals have. In theory that seems reasonable to me. But in practice I wouldn’t argue with either of your points here. Child abuse is a bloody hard issue to try and deal with. Her bill has raised the issue, that may or may not do any good. It’s possible bad abusers feel they are justified because there is so much support for parents being able to treat their kids however they like. But I have no idea if the situation is better, worse or no different for kids generally.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:54pm
Luc Hansen

RN

What’s your problem? There is little in your post to disagree with, but I think you may be misinformed about exactly what judges permitted as reasonable force. That’s why s59 was removed. Under the current law, even a light smack can be prosecuted by police if they wish. So far, they have not wished to do that, but I don’t expect that to be the case forever. You do realise that this is the same discretion police use in deciding whether or not to prosecute an adult v adult assault allegation. By law, an uninvited chest push is assault. It doesn’t really hit the courts unless something unintended, like a victim falling and hitting his/her head on a gutter.

Children are human beings in their own right. This is the nub of the issue. Kids are entitled to full human rights from the moment of birth, or even earlier. We should be bending over backwards to make our kids feel treasured and safe. I find it perplexing that the many of the same people who rail against abortion demand the right to physically assault their kids. Can you imagine the fuss at work if you, as manager, gave your workers a smack whenever they transgressed some rule that, to them, you have just invented? In my usual work environment, the smack would be returned with interest.

And just to address your extreme view that the law is not working because kids are still being killed, consider this:

1. Current adult behaviour toward our kids today is the result of the former permissiveness of our child assault laws

2. Laws can only act as a signpost to acceptable behaviour and as a deterrent to those who can be deterred by the promise of punishment.

Those who cannot be deterred will still commit the crime.

Let’s give peace a chance and get back to me in 2035.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:06pm
RightNow

phLuc, I’m ever the optimist. Are you saying you’re off and you won’t come back for 26 years? I think I’ll buy a lotto ticket!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:10pm
Paul G. Buchanan

Virtualmark:

Yeah, it shows again the dialectic between the offense and the defense in war. An interesting note to your quite correct observation about the full circle aspects of this process is that more sophisticated (i.e cell phone or pager-rigged detonators) triggering devices are considered to be evidence of al-Qaeda links to the Taliban (since learning curves have to be gained first hand). That helps pinpoint their areas of overlap and thereby focus, um, kinetic targeting. Thus, for the insurgents the best option is to “go low on the blow” in order to disguise who is doing what, where. Which means that the learning curves work both ways, for both sides.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:13pm
Luc Hansen

I see I have won this one. 😉

Ad hominem and wishful thinking combined – is that the best you can do?

Consider this: no matter how many “loving” parents turn up for this march, can you really see Key backing down? If I was him. I would just smile, praise the democratic principles of free speech and let you rednecks get it out of your system. He’s got you by the short and curlies!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:18pm
RightNow

phLuc, you can think what you like, I have presented my points of view previously on this topic, it’s not my fault you were late for the party. Search through the archives if you like. And since you’re here to ‘make us spew’ I don’t believe you deserve engaging in serious debate with. Meanwhile I still raise my kids as I see fit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:28pm
Hurf Durf

Bloodsucker Bwadford’s valedictory was surprisingly only attended by half the house. Maybe the sensible people didn’t want to waste their time hearing an ecosocialist whine about the little people trying to stop her.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 10:44pm
Luc Hansen

RN, you can certainly raise your kids as you see fit, so long as you stay within the law.

That sounds a bit patronising but it’s not meant to be. There are heaps of laws surrounding raising kids, and we are bound by them as law abiding citizens. For example, when I moved into my current abode four years ago, there were three teenagers living here and I automatically became liable for “duty of care.” I wasn’t particularly impressed when I realised that, but that’s the law. And it makes one think, which is a legitimate purpose of statute law.

Now I must address your remark about serious debate: I think you introduced yourself to me with the words “Luc (from that girl) Hansen”. Right? Then you invented some sort of affiliation between philu and myself. Talk about out of left field! Then you reply to an entirely serious and sincere post about why I think the new law is desirable with fatuous sarcasm. In fact, I have yet to see serious, credible debate from you over this issue so I see no reason to waste my time searching archives.

Blogs are a place to hang out. There is room for seriousness, room for humour. Room for testing ideas, room for confirmation. Above all, room for free expression.

Concocting a brutish one liner like Hurf (see above) is very skilled at is fun for him and for us but simply drives away most people who want a genuine debate with differing viewpoints rather than just mixing with those of the same world view. But I’m made of sterner stuff. I’m looking forward to my first thousand posts!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 11:42pm
noskire

A silly little prick tried to shoplift from my store a while back. He and his partner walked in while I was in the office, so he thought it was a great opportunity to grab a nice expensive bottle of spirits. He didn’t realise I had walked out of the office just after they walked in, and I watched him grab the bottle and slip it in his jacket. The muppet then picks up a 4pk of bourbon premix and “innocently” comes up to the counter.
I smile and say “ok, hand over that bottle you have in your jacket.” He looks at me increduoulsy and says “what you talking about bro?”. I repeat myself. He looks a little sheepish, and pulls the bottle out of his jacket, at which point I suggest he and his friend should depart in a rapid manner, to which the punk has the cheek to reply “what, you’re not going to serve me now?” Sheesh…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 12:50am
MikeNZ

LUC
You’ve won nothing
People are ignoring you and your negatives have gone up.
Duh!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 10:19am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Middle East

$450,000 for anti anti-smacking law march »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
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
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d