Despair - Why aren't we protecting our kids!

Forums › Off topic › Despair - Why aren't we protecting our kids!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 14

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1564780 3-Jun-2016 09:34

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

The legislation was never intended to be an instant fix because there is not an instant fix, it takes years if not generations to change attitudes and behaviour. It was a start and a necessary start to change society's attitudes and habits. The resistance to the change is evidence that changing those attitudes will take a long time. It goes in part to educating New Zealand that there are positive alternatives to hitting our young.

NZ is not a safe place for kids and compared to similar countries our record is not good at all, a quarter of a century at the coal face leaves me in no doubt that the anti smacking laws was a positive and important start.

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1564823 3-Jun-2016 09:51

MikeB4:

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

The legislation was never intended to be an instant fix because there is not an instant fix, it takes years if not generations to change attitudes and behaviour. It was a start and a necessary start to change society's attitudes and habits. The resistance to the change is evidence that changing those attitudes will take a long time. It goes in part to educating New Zealand that there are positive alternatives to hitting our young.

NZ is not a safe place for kids and compared to similar countries our record is not good at all, a quarter of a century at the coal face leaves me in no doubt that the anti smacking laws was a positive and important start.

My comment was just a bit of flippant sarcasm because by my perception that law change hasn't made an iota of difference. I don't have the energy to go and back that up with facts and statistics. ( If someone does want to do that and prove me wrong feel free. I'm as keen as the next person to see child abuse disappear.)

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1564829 3-Jun-2016 09:56

dickytim:

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

It was delusional to think this bill would change anything, all it did was make parents afraid to use reasonable discipline.

I don't know that there is an government answer to this problem until as one community we decide this is not good enough and stop accepting excuses for violence in any form.

Rubbish. Shame on the suggestion to tie this awful event to that change in laws.

For starters the "anti-smacking" law was called that by a group of (often religious "spare the rod...") zealots.

The change removed the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.
Prior to the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, there were cases of parents who had disciplined their children using a riding crop in one case, and a rubber hose in another, who were not convicted because of the legal justification of "reasonable force".

As for the need for change, apart from religious nutters there are cultures in NZ where severe forms of physical discipline are used routinely. I think it is government's place to intervene - as well as to "set standards" for acceptable behaviour surrounding child discipline - which will hopefully become a more accepted cultural norm.

I'll add to that and say that prior to "christianisation" of some of those cultures by missionaries, corporal punishment wasn't routinely used on children. Life may have been brutal in other ways - as it was for all of our ancestors at that time.

As for what's happened in Auckland - none of us know the circumstances, except that a 26 YO killed a young child with a sawn-off shotgun. Sure community has a part to play in this, tolerance of criminality and violence by some sectors of society is a problem. Shall we take bets on this - that gangs and drugs will be implicated in this.

FWIW, do you think most gang members were brought up in homes where corporal punishment was the norm?

Personally, I'm even sickened to see people hit dogs as part of "training".

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1564838 3-Jun-2016 10:17

Fred99: As for what's happened in Auckland - none of us know the circumstances, except that a 26 YO killed a young child with a sawn-off shotgun.

Do we know that? I have seen no outlet reporting that.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1564842 3-Jun-2016 10:25

gzt:
Fred99: As for what's happened in Auckland - none of us know the circumstances, except that a 26 YO killed a young child with a sawn-off shotgun.

Do we know that? I have seen no outlet reporting that.

No we don't - I should have said that we know that a young child appears to have been killed by a sawn-off shotgun, and a 26YO has been arrested for possessing that weapon.

The rest of it as I read between the lines, it sounds like an accident which wouldn't have happened if the 26YO didn't have the illegal weapon in the first place. Why he had that is one question. Who fired the shot is another - it could have easily been another child. I guess we'll find out in due course, until then we're all speculating.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1564867 3-Jun-2016 10:38

andrew027:

As a disclaimer, I haven't read a full story on this case yet so everything I'm writing here is speculation and just my opinion, but that said: I understand from radio news articles that (1) police removed a sawn-off shotgun from the property, (2) a man has been charged with unlawful possession of a pistol (a cut-down shotgun or rifle can be classified as a pistol), and (3) nobody at the house held a firearms licence.

Personally I have never seen the attraction of firearms. Some people use them as a tool, e.g. farmers with a rabbit or possum problem, or hunters. I don't even mind people who collect firearms because they have some kind of fascination with them. But I expect people to act within the law, i.e. to have the appropriate licence, have pistols or military weapons properly registered, and take appropriate steps to secure weapons and ammunition. But as a sawn-off shotgun is not suitable for hunting or suburban pest control, I can't think of a single good (read: law-abiding) reason anybody needs one.

So why is someone illegally in possession of a sawn-off shotgun? The first assumption I jump to is: were they planning to use it in a robbery, or maybe holding it for someone else dodgy who didn't want to be caught with it? Or perhaps they felt threatened and took their protection into their own hands? We may find out more over the next few days, but surely whatever reason you have it, (1) you keep it securely locked away, particularly if you have kids in the house, and (2) you never keep it loaded on your property, or have the ammunition with the firearm so someone else could easily load it.

Child abuse? No. We have plenty of that in this country and some of it is horrific - I still cry every time I read about what Mia Glassie was subjected to. Negligence? Yes. Possibly criminal negligence (IANAL so I'm not sure of the legal distinction). Somebody has done a stupid thing, and a child has paid the ultimate price for it. Of course, in America this tragedy would change nothing. Unfortunately, I doubt it will do much here either.

A sawn off has little practical use other than to commit crime. As a defence weapon it is as likely to hit non-intentional targets as anyone else with a shot spread that wide.

However on a practical note, if you were having a firearm for defence (and that isn't legal - just saying) then keeping it locked up and the ammunition elsewhere would defeat the object of the exercise somewhat.

Sawn off shotguns are also illegal regardless of whether you have a firearms licence or not IIRC - there is a minimum barrel length requirement. I'd have to say that expecting people who are prepared to obtain and possess illegal firearms to follow the usual sane steps for their safe use and security is a bit of a fool's errand.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1564873 3-Jun-2016 10:41

Protecting children is not only protecting them from violence, it is protecting them from preventable death and injury like, securing and correct use of firearms, ensuring children are secure in motor vehicles, ensuring kids are correctly equipped to ride bikes, to ensure chemicals are stored safely and correctly, ensuring care is taken with dangerous animals, to ensure that kids are well fed and appropriately clothed, to ensure kids receive appropriate medical care, ensure safety with appliances etc is done in the home, ensure working smoke alarms are installed, ensure medicines and drugs are kept secure. The list is long but it is all in the hands of responsible adults, all adults not just parents. Sadly NZ is very poor at this.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1564893 3-Jun-2016 10:53

Shít happens.

There will always be idiotic people doing idiotic things as long as we have free will. I do take issue with the comments in this thread saying NZ is not safe for young kids. My response is spend some time overseas, take a look at what occurs in other countries and you will come running back to NZ and never want to leave again. It is terrible that it happens, and one case is a case too many but we are by no means even close to the worst in this area. We just keep better statistics.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1564912 3-Jun-2016 11:09

I sat in a group talk with a child safety specialist yesterday, this guy was as a contractor with CYF's, schools, the police and all sorts. He has dealt with child suicides, assaults, murders you name it. Have gave numbers on child abuse that were staggering, something like 9 cases of child assault each day, the police get a domestic violence call every 5 mins.

The one piece of advice he had in relation to child abuse was if you have any suspicion a child is or has been abused in any way, call the police of Child youth and family. He said with all of the pressure on child abuse at the moment they are taking this extremely seriously.

Child abuse is a major problem and we as a community need to work together to help stop it.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1564945 3-Jun-2016 11:55

BTR:

The one piece of advice he had in relation to child abuse was if you have any suspicion a child is or has been abused in any way, call the police of Child youth and family. He said with all of the pressure on child abuse at the moment they are taking this extremely seriously.

I did that once - contacted CYF over non-physical abuse by a parent of a 9YO child in a sport team I was coaching. It was a last resort, as I and other parents in the team had tried to intervene when it had happened, the parent had accepted at the time that he was not acting well, and wouldn't treat his child that way again - but that was to no avail. CYF handled it very well (IMO). I was later accosted by the other parent of the child at a match - very angrily accusing me (or some other parent) of "dobbing them in". Fortunately there were other parents there at that time who had witnessed the abuse (on several occasions) who intervened on my behalf, and they did get the message across that the behaviour was unacceptable. If they weren't there - and I'd admitted it was me (which I would have done), I expect that it would have turned into a screaming session - with accusation that it was "none of my business". However, when faced with consensus by others that the treatment of the child was unacceptable, she accepted that her husband had acted very poorly. I believe that "community" not only helped defuse a sh&t fight from hell situation developing, but reinforcing the message no doubt given by CYF, and acceptance that under the circumstances it was serious enough to involve CYF .

"Dobbing him in" wasn't a rash decision. I discussed what action should be taken with others before I made the call. I really didn't want to be the one to make the call - the chap was an employee in an organisation where my SO held a senior management role, I'd have much preferred if someone else could have done it for that reason.

I believe his behaviour did change, and that the outcome has been good.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1564968 3-Jun-2016 12:16

MikeB4:

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

The legislation was never intended to be an instant fix because there is not an instant fix, it takes years if not generations to change attitudes and behaviour. It was a start and a necessary start to change society's attitudes and habits. The resistance to the change is evidence that changing those attitudes will take a long time. It goes in part to educating New Zealand that there are positive alternatives to hitting our young.

NZ is not a safe place for kids and compared to similar countries our record is not good at all, a quarter of a century at the coal face leaves me in no doubt that the anti smacking laws was a positive and important start.

I wonder if it has anything to do with drinking and rugby. Anyone?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1564981 3-Jun-2016 12:26

joker97:

MikeB4:

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

The legislation was never intended to be an instant fix because there is not an instant fix, it takes years if not generations to change attitudes and behaviour. It was a start and a necessary start to change society's attitudes and habits. The resistance to the change is evidence that changing those attitudes will take a long time. It goes in part to educating New Zealand that there are positive alternatives to hitting our young.

NZ is not a safe place for kids and compared to similar countries our record is not good at all, a quarter of a century at the coal face leaves me in no doubt that the anti smacking laws was a positive and important start.

I wonder if it has anything to do with drinking and rugby. Anyone?

No not directly, of course some that commit this do drink and play rugby. There is also accountants, IT, lawyers, builders, plumbers, sailors....... and so on. It is across all of society.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1564983 3-Jun-2016 12:29

Maybe the accountants, IT, lawyers, builders, plumbers, sailors.. learnt it from being beaten by people who drink and play rugby? [please don't take offense I'm just wondering, for real]

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1564984 3-Jun-2016 12:30

I've never been directly involved in this sort of thing, and having had a fairly sheltered life, I have to my knowledge never met any form of criminal or indeed anyone who has even been arrested. Neither do I have any children and neither do I expect to start having them at 48.

I do, however, have a very old friend of some 33 years standing who is now 'Independent Reviewing Officer - Child Protection Team' for a London Borough, so he spent the last 20 years or so dealing with this sort of nonsense.

Based on many conversations between us over the years, my (anecdotal) conclusion is that one of the differences between the way things are done where he is and here is that where he is, they will instantly remove from the parents any child that they consider at risk. They do not have a debate, or any consultation or any other flimflam - they just swoop in, with the Police, and do it. I do not see much evidence that that happens particularly often here, but of course I may be wrong.

Things go wrong there too, as they do everywhere. I have no idea whether, statistically, they go wrong less often or more often. However, I do think that overall, NZ has a tendency to be a bit too consultative and not authoritative enough: sometimes, you just have to 'do' instead of 'talk about doing'. If people don't have just a small frisson of fear somewhere at the back of their minds in the ape part of the brain that there will be consequences to their actions, then it does not provide that check stop that is necessary for some people to think twice.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1564992 3-Jun-2016 12:37

joker97:

Maybe the accountants, IT, lawyers, builders, plumbers, sailors.. learnt it from being beaten by people who drink and play rugby? [please don't take offense I'm just wondering, for real]

It is not that simple, that is why I say the "anti smacking" law change was a start in the process of changing society's attitude and actions. It will take a long time. When you see a post that starts with "sh!t happens" you will start to see what I am getting at.

Yes violence begets violence so breaking the cycle is needed but that cycle in deeply ingrained. That said our children are not just unsafe from violence there is much much more.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 14