In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

Bradford and her Bill, BOTH stupid.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford and her Bill, BOTH stupid.
Wednesday, 21.03.2007, 08:46pm (GMT12)

Bradford and her Bill, BOTH stupid. Is Bradford’s anti smacking bill going to cause more problems than its worth in the long run? For instance, yes, the Police might not prosecute, but they will be obliged to investigate which will make otherwise good parents feel, and be treated like criminals. Where will the money for these investigations come from? We already have a shortage of front line Police officers as it is, does this mean that serious crimes will have to wait, or will it mean that parents will have to wait months before the Police can find the time to investigate their crime of 'smacking' a child?

That’s a lot of time for parents to be left in the lurch!

Or will the Police delegate the investigation to CYFS? If that’s the case, the child will be removed from the family till social workers can investigate. I don’t think good parents will appreciate having a non qualified social worker investigate this because we *all* know what they are like. What about the *real* cases of abuse? What about the youth criminals, will they have to suffer never having seen a social worker as reported this weekend in the Sunday Star Times?

Will this mean both Police and CYFS will demand a bigger budget to cope?

And if parents cannot, by law, smack their children, will this mean that cases of Psychological abuse will go through the roof? That isn't, yet, illegal is it? No child, as far as I know, has ever gone to counselling because they were smacked, but many adults have gone to counselling because their parents destroyed their self esteem when they were children, some adults have even murdered because of this psychological abuse they received when younger.

That sort of abuse continues long after they leave their childhood behind.

And what about immigrants to this nation, who will tell them that it is illegal to smack their children? Has Sue thought about who will warn them? Or will it be too late once they end up in court; will ignorance of the law be a defence?

And what if a 15 year old boy beats up his mother? Is she allowed to defend herself, or will she have to suffer in silence lest she be taken to court and the victim becomes the criminal!

One persons smack is another’s case of abuse! How will a parent tell if a smack they are about to give their child is abuse or not?

Would that smack you gave your child be against the law? To you, if may be a light smack, but to a Police Officer or social worker, it could be abuse!

How would you defend yourself in court against that? You *could* give the Judge a demonstration on a rag doll as to how hard, or lack of, the smack was, but if a Police officer or social worker disputed your version of events, who would the Judge believe?

If you were found not guilty in a criminal court "beyond of reasonable doubt" then would you again have to defend yourself in the Family Court on the charge of child abuse?

The double jeopardy rules don’t apply to the Family Court because they work under different rules; they work under the "probabilities" rule, which means you could be found not guilty in the criminal courts but guilty in the Family Court.

The standards of evidence are much lower in the Family Court so the chances are that you "probably" would be found guilty in the family courts because "you probably did it"

So for Sue to say that the Police will use discretion in prosecuting, she has yet to comment on what CYFS would do.

This will destroy many more families, and CYFS will be able to tell the world what a wonderful job they are doing.

If this law *only* involved the Police, then I'd say parents had a fighting chance, but since CYFS *will* be involved, and knowing what they are like, I'd say this is bill needs to be killed and never again mentioned in our society.

With the majority of the people against Bradford’s bill, Bradford should stop saying that the people don’t understand it, or that they are buying the doom and gloom merchants arguments about what this bill will do, and most of all, Bradford needs to stop telling lies about what is or isn't the law at present.

More importantly, both Bradford and Helen Clark need to stop being so arrogant because this bill implies that *all* parents are guilty and that is why the law needs to be changed. Rather than change the law because a few parents were able to convince the Judge that using a horse whip *was* reasonable force, they should look at why good people are being taken to court for having defended themselves against armed robbers, for example, or why the parole board is letting murderers out into society to kill again.

Lastly, I think it’s the height of arrogance for
Bradford to tell people to join a protest march against Clint Rickards not guilty verdict and then tell people they don’t have all the facts when parents want to march against her anti smacking bill.

nuff said


One Response to “Bradford and her Bill, BOTH stupid.”

  1. jay said

    Which part of ‘shove your bill up ya bum, does this silly moo not understand!’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: