With Labour and National competing to see who could beat their chests the hardest, and exude the most testosterone...

what the flaming fuck were you people expecting?

"You people" seems to be your default setting, as if you weren't implicated in any of this.

Since I got off my arse and bothered to vote, I guess I'm totally "implicated". But, not for the first time, I do find it less than useful to be assimilated into some?

This need to?

However, it strikes me as the opposite of "ambitious" to build more prisons and hire more cops rather than do?

between the sheets with Act and Mr Garrett

By the water cooler, you mean?

Hey, the space after italics problem is fixed. Cheers to the cactus elves.

blaming the rest of us for putting the tories in charge

Not resisting their installation better seems a fair charge. Democracy and all that.

Just to be clear, I'm not begrduging Craig that fact that he's a Tory. I just wished he stopped blaming the rest of us for putting the tories in charge sometimes.

Um what? I just find it rather amusing that people are so shocked at the notion that courting Laura?

Not resisting their installation better seems a fair charge.

Yeah, maybe from a members of the workers' party. Not from a freaking Tory!

"We've got one of the lowest levels of unemployment. Now, we're working to combat that."

Yes, we won't be beaten by those damned foreigners.
But now you've lost your job you will have the opportunity to?

I agree with Sacha that more needs to be done to restore hope and self esteem in the ccommunity.
Why would you cut night classes and special needs schools (like Aorangi Primary?

Um what? I just find it rather amusing that people are so shocked at the notion that courting Laura Norder before the election will have consequences afterwards — and some of those might not be pretty. As I said: What the frak was anyone really expecting?

It all comes as?

Why would you cut night classes and special needs schools (like Aorangi Primary in Chch) just to save money – the psychic equivalent of boring holes in the lifeboats...

Ah, but the responsibility's yours Ian. While you personally might not have actively whored after Laura Norder, like all of us?

Meanwhile Family Fist (sic) believes Forcing your kid to play rugby is good parenting.

Can FF find a put-upon "good parent" who isn't a textbook example of a man with anger problems knocking his kids around?

To be fair to the rugby dad, he pled guilty and went on an?

Though meditation might just help.

I have found recently that medication is better.

I have found recently that medication is better.

And so it is when you're getting the real good shit legally. :)

Ah, but the responsibility's yours Ian. While you personally might not have actively whored after Laura Norder, like all of us who are not privileged to be the One?

*sigh* Well, like it or not vote catchers come with price tags and unpleasant realities attached. Sorry about that, but there you go and here we are.

Indeed. And when you find that mystical third major party which gets every policy exactly right, I will be right there.

Can FF find a put-upon "good parent" who isn't a textbook example of a man with anger problems knocking his kids around?

Family First has a list of about 30 cases that they claim show the law isn't working well. Some may fall within your parameters.

Actually, it is a national disgrace for this country to have the second highest rate of incarceration after the United States.

Judith wept.

Can FF find a put-upon "good parent" who isn't a textbook example of a man with anger problems knocking his kids around?

They're not very good at choosing their test cases are they? They've been compiling 'victim parents' for adverts during the referendum. No doubt we'll find out all sorts?

Justice sector forecasts point to an extra 5,000 prison beds being required by 2018. Clearly, we will also have to build a new prison

Heh. Try ten new prisons.

Family First has a list of about 30 cases that they claim show the law isn't working well. Some may fall within your parameters.

I note that on the figures they provide there has been one prosecution for "smacking", which I assume to be the Masterton case I've noted before.?

I note that on the figures they provide there has been one prosecution for "smacking", which I assume to be the Masterton case I've noted before. None for the much-discussed "light smacking" though. There is zero chance of a law change to permit the other behaviours described.

They do argue?

They've been compiling 'victim parents' for adverts during the referendum. No doubt we'll find out all sorts of interesting things about them as well.

Only if someone does the dastardly deed of splashing their name (as opposed to a selectively edited version of their deeds) over the newspapers and internet.?

Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking – as we both do – surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?

I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have?

Only if someone does the dastardly deed of splashing their name (as opposed to a selectively edited version of their deeds) over the newspapers and internet.

What a stupid media release from family first. Most people who go to court end up named in the court news of several daily?

While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.

Quite.

I might add that it's?

I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have known not to [do any one of many things] when I've been drinking/had a hard day at work/etc. Then she wouldn't have got hit."

I'm with you there, but men are (no longer) charged by society to discipline?

While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.

Quite possibly, but it's a line?

Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking – as we both do – surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?

Sure, and I wouldn't be unsympathetic to the next female ACT staffer?

And yep, kids *misbehave* – but – blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?

And yep, kids *misbehave* – but – blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?

And aren't they the same people who whinge about society cotton-wooling today's kids? They can't have it both ways.

Yes, but we're back to saying that smacking should be banned, which is kind of what they've been arguing our secret agenda was from the beginning. Which proves them right, in the oddest way.

I'm still stuck on how its a bad thing eliminating a legal defence for punching your?

And, the threads seem to be melding eerily-

And yep, kids *misbehave* – but – blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?

I raised the matter in response to Russel's incredulity that someone was *blaming* children for being smacked. I think the blame is about as much as would be apportioned by?

I'm still stuck on how its a bad thing eliminating a legal defence for punching your children in the face, or attacking them with a riding crop.

For many people that's what Chester Borrows was trying to do, they think Bradford's bill was aimed at eliminating a legal defence for?

Exactomundo.

I have always suspected this word was genuine Italian...

I raised the matter in response to Russel's incredulity that someone was *blaming* children for being smacked.

I was referring specifically to the rhetoric from Family First and McCroskie. Responsibility for any incident always rests with the child (or at least not with the parent — McCroskie's refusal to criticise?

Uh, if proponents had toned down their rhetoric?

Um, yes... or do you really think Idiot/Savant's (and I don't mean to pick on him, he's just the first example that comes to mind) habitual cry of "child beater" was adding much to the discussion. I generally stayed the hell out?

It don't take a genius to work out that the new protective equiptment for corrections staff isn't so much

?Our corrections officers deal with some of the country?s most difficult and dangerous people. It is essential that these frontline staff have the tools to keep themselves?

But it would be okay if this guy's girlfriend had been sent to her room or told she couldn't watch TV?

Let me counter that.

I coach and referee a contact sport. The team I coach is under 13s, and we have behaviour issues from some of the kids that?

Um, yes... or do you really think Idiot/Savant's (and I don't mean to pick on him, he's just the first example that comes to mind) habitual cry of "child beater" was adding much to the discussion.

I agree.

I should note I have used some harsh words myself — calling?

if proponents had toned down their rhetoric?

...

You've lost me here. Isn't that pretty much what Sue Bradford and others actually did argue?

No. That was what Sue Bradford argued sometimes. Other times she talked about a law that gives parents to right to __hit or beat or smack__?

No. That was what Sue Bradford argued sometimes.

It would seem fair in this context to note that Family First and McCroskie touted the shining ideal of the "light smack" even while it championed parents whose actions could by no stretch of the imagination be described in that way: most?

I should note I have used some harsh words myself —

And to be self-critical myself, I'm no stranger to bringing a flame thrower to a knife fight — which isn't exactly constructive. :) And, yes, I do agree with you that if you're not a horse riding crops should?

You probably aren't allowed to shoot them if they attempt to run away either.

If I lock them up will the red cross bring them packages? Because that would make my food budget go so much further.

Inflicting pain, be it physical or mental, on another person in order that they comply to your demands is illegal under article 26 of the Geneva convention, is it not?. Well, if you are a prisoner of war it is ...

No it isn't.

I'm pretty sure Article 26 guarentees?

I stand corrected Sir, my keyboard lied, it was meant to say Article 17.
I usually quote article 26 in pubs. ;-)