I'm more concerned about my children hurting others than being hurt themselves. There's been no sexual abuse, to the best of my knowledge, but there was some pretty nasty text bullying by 'friends' a few years ago, and one of the things I came away with was, my child isn't a bully. Bullying isn't my child's responsibility.
Weirdly, I didn't think to explain that she shouldn't give her phone number out, or that she shouldn't have a phone, or shouldn't have friends - though any of those options would have prevented the abuse.
I know that my children are less at risk from strangers than from people they trust - partners, friends, and - statistically speaking - me. And the only way to protect them from that is to teach them love and respect and decency and hope they end up attracting and being attracted to the same.
Yeah, alright, I'm going to label you as an insensitive clod with your "any father would worry about these things."
Also, if you're worried about words being put in the mouths of others, please don't claim to speak for all fathers. Thanks.
Thank you all for this discussion, it's given me and probably a whole bunch of other lurkers a whole lot to think about.
Helen, especially, thank you for sharing that, it was brave and generous, and wrenching.
Hi Barnaby, did you see that 'apology' article in a hard copy paper? Cos I've only seen it online (and not exactly highly placed), and have looked for it in print.
It is completely and utterly absurd to imply the existence of a hidden agenda to belittle women, or to attack their intellect.
You've got to be pretty determinedly obtuse to think any agenda there was hidden.
Going after the male market is fine. But these guys have a long history of confusing male and dickhead.
People say it's decent beer, I wouldn't know. There's more decent beer than I can try these days, why would I spend money on beer that proudly presents itself as by wankers, for wankers.
Librarians would love it, sir
This librarian had completely tuned out till you called.
This is a very good point. You do have to come down to voting yea or nay on any given bill, so the Parliamentary system does necessarily impose a binary distinction.
On any given bill, but there are a lot of bills. I don't know enough stats to know how solid this is, but Theyworkforyou did some analysis that suggests the binary distinction breaks down pretty clearly when looking at a series.
There would be no point in a challenge if it was impossible to know which way the person had voted.
You can play the numbers, maybe one of Reg Boorman's people had talked politics with your cousin on the train and thought he probably wasn't Labour, maybe they knew he was a accounting student and figured chances were...
If you challenge 200 people, and 50 of them actually voted for you, you've still knocked out 100 more votes for your opponent.
Knowing if someone voted is a whole lot easier - they're crossed off the roll. But not how they voted.
There would be great symbolic value in a Labour MP reclaiming Auckland Central.
Sure, but there would have been more symbolic value in Labour being able to form a government with support from the greens and all. And if that had happened Ardern would almost certainly have won Auckland Central.
I'm not sure why the reaction to losing an election is focusing on the small things your friends arguably made mistakes about rather than you and your allies losing an election.
(Full disclosure, yes I wish the left voters had acted differently in Ohariu, Epsom and even Auckland Central, but I wish more that a few National voters had acted differently.)