Despair - Why aren't we protecting our kids!

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

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1567813 8-Jun-2016 11:32

Fred99:

gzt: Defence/education is another topic. It is not bringing any light to this one.

(spend on) defense was brought up as a tired old argument about funding levels.

Education is on topic. I don't happen to believe that school funding (or lack of) is related to child violence rates. I also don't believe that in most cases violence against children happens because parents don't love their kids, don't want to care for them, etc.

Lots of opinions expressed that "it's complicated" (and I agree - it is).

IMO one of the complications is instinctive human behaviour when under stress.

Suggested above is that it's a Maori & Pacific Island problem. It's worse in America - but not many Maori and Pacifica peoples there - so nailing it down to specifics of "culture" (rather than culture of society in general) is not going to lead to the answer.

My previous reply on this thread seems to have got lost :(

The problems I see are

A failure of management at the upper levels. The examples given regarding Defence spending (LAVs, Patrol Boats, etc) are exactly what I'm talking about. It seems that there are buckets of money to be spent in the $100M+ bracket, without due consideration. Education-wise, there was Novopay of course, but I'm sure that equally horrific wastes of money are happening right now. Lots of money for analysts and policy makers and overseas study trips. Meanwhile, there's no money available for people doing the actual work to make improvements. Schools and principals and teachers are very adept at economising and running sausage sizzles, but not trusted to spend more money than what some bureaucrat arbitrarily approves. There also seems to be no shortage of money for auditors and bureaucrats to record and monitor and report on the efficiency of the front-line staff though. This is endemic to the whole Public Service AFAICT.

An underclass without opportunities. A person with no fulfilment in their lives and crappy living conditions has nothing to lose; prison is really not much different from daily life. The only escape, albeit short-term, from this situation is drugs and alcohol. And sex. Children are not valued because (a) they're a drain on meagre resources, and (b) they have no future either. Under these circumstances, it's not surprising that they become victims of violence. Note that this isn't a cultural or racial issue; it's a social and economic one.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567931 8-Jun-2016 14:13

And another:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/80835219/threemonthold-baby-dies-in-tauranga

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567935 8-Jun-2016 14:17

BarTender:

networkn: Well, I'd have to disagree on your take on reporting being unnecessary. it's how you determine if your teaching is effective (at a broader level). It tells the people who aren't teachers that things aren't working well and changes need to be made. Teaching isn't significantly different from any other role, information is power.

Sigh, you just have no idea about how the education system works in NZ.

Watch the Inside Education doco.

Then join the board of trustees of your local school. Work towards having a sister school that's a decile 1 school with your decile 10 school and work towards improving the achievement across both schools.

Then come back to me when you've done that rather than talking conjecture.

Throwing more money at education always has a positive outcome for the students and conversely cutting the funding which is what the government has just done tends to do the opposite.

Ah, so I presume you have done all those things you are suggesting and therefore are more qualified to talk about it than I?

If the HEAD of the Principals Association is making those claims, quite clearly they are patently untrue right?

/me smh

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1567941 8-Jun-2016 14:22

networkn:

And another:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/80835219/threemonthold-baby-dies-in-tauranga

I think it is safer for you to prejudge this case as the police are saying it is suspicious.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567943 8-Jun-2016 14:24

surfisup1000:

networkn:

And another:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/80835219/threemonthold-baby-dies-in-tauranga

I think it is safer for you to prejudge this case as the police are saying it is suspicious.

I didn't "prejudge" anything. I made a statement of FACT that someone had failed to protect the child in the original OP (Which remains true regardless of circumstances), and a more general comment that we don't do enough to protect our children in general, given the high rates of child abuse.

It's stunning to me that anyone could argue either point.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1567952 8-Jun-2016 14:46

Fred99:
Geektastic:

Fred99:

dickytim:

Murder of a child should be a mandatory death penalty.

Of course - the usual answer - harsher penalties.

If that worked, then the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of child murders in the world falling behind behind Nigeria, Brazil, India, Congo, Mexico and Ethiopia.

At least we will slowly be deleting some of those we don't need.

That's a terrific thought - get the government to extinguish "those we don't need".

Enough of this silly talk. Apart from my feelings about the death penalty, let alone a "mandatory" death penalty, there's an aspect to child murder / infanticide covered by section 178 of the crimes act. It's bad enough as it is - last thing I'd want to see is court cases in front of a judge with black cap at the ready, and baying crowds outside the courtroom.

Don't tell me my opinion is not valid or silly talk because you don't agree.

Is your solution to do nothing and continue as is?

The case in the high court today a 2 year old had a fractured skull, previous fractuted skull and various broken bones. Where there is no hope and such a heinous crime why should they live? Why should these people who have never held a job now cost us over $100,000 a year only to be realeased in a short time ready to breed and kill again.

A coward is someone who condones this, is that you?

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567954 8-Jun-2016 14:48

Guys (and Girls), everyone understand the emotion that crimes against kids can bring to the surface, let's try and keep it civil with each other though?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1567961 8-Jun-2016 15:09

networkn:

I didn't "prejudge" anything. I made a statement of FACT that someone had failed to protect the child in the original OP (Which remains true regardless of circumstances), and a more general comment that we don't do enough to protect our children in general, given the high rates of child abuse.

It's stunning to me that anyone could argue either point.

What you wrote is clear. You said (in relation to the boy who was shot)....

"Despair -Why aren't we protecting our kids!"

"how do people even contemplate harming children.....*AGAIN* over the harm people do to kids!"

There is a difference in doing 'harm' to a person vs an accident - you prejudged the former because that is what you wrote!! You didn't say it could have been an accident. Subsequently it appears the latter is more likely although police have not made any announcements.

We can agree to differ but surely you are can see how I interpreted your words?

In any case, we both agree that there are far too many feral families in this country who fail to provide a safe environment and/or abuse their kids.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1567964 8-Jun-2016 15:10

dickytim: Where there is no hope and such a heinous crime why should they live? Why should these people who have never held a job now cost us over $100,000 a year only to be realeased in a short time ready to breed and kill again.

A coward is someone who condones this, is that you?

I am not a coward. I just don't want us to join a club as distinguished and elite as Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and [insert the names of all the other increasingly diminishing list of wonderful countries that still carry out the death penalty]. And I would prefer my country to honour its international treaty commitments, including our unequivocal rejection of the DP.

And the DP is such a proven crime deterrent! Not. Enjoy harbouring views more suited to the rubbish bin of history if this suits you, however.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1567972 8-Jun-2016 15:13

The death penalty solves nothing as it does not address the root cause.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1567973 8-Jun-2016 15:14

MikeB4:
The death penalty solves nothing as it does not address the root cause.

But it makes some people feel good and TOUGH!

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567976 8-Jun-2016 15:15

surfisup1000:

networkn:

I didn't "prejudge" anything. I made a statement of FACT that someone had failed to protect the child in the original OP (Which remains true regardless of circumstances), and a more general comment that we don't do enough to protect our children in general, given the high rates of child abuse.

It's stunning to me that anyone could argue either point.

What you wrote is clear. You said (in relation to the boy who was shot)....

"Despair -Why aren't we protecting our kids!"

"how do people even contemplate harming children.....*AGAIN* over the harm people do to kids!"

There is a difference in doing 'harm' to a person vs an accident - you prejudged the former because that is what you wrote!! You didn't say it could have been an accident. Subsequently it appears the latter is more likely although police have not made any announcements.

We can agree to differ but surely you are can see how I interpreted your words?

In any case, we both agree that there are far too many feral families in this country who fail to provide a safe environment and/or abuse their kids.

There is no such thing as a blameless accident when a firearm is involved with a child. If the PARENTS are PROTECTING the CHILD then this could not have happened, regardless of what "this" is.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1567986 8-Jun-2016 15:25

networkn:

surfisup1000:

networkn:

I didn't "prejudge" anything. I made a statement of FACT that someone had failed to protect the child in the original OP (Which remains true regardless of circumstances), and a more general comment that we don't do enough to protect our children in general, given the high rates of child abuse.

It's stunning to me that anyone could argue either point.

What you wrote is clear. You said (in relation to the boy who was shot)....

"Despair -Why aren't we protecting our kids!"

"how do people even contemplate harming children.....*AGAIN* over the harm people do to kids!"

There is a difference in doing 'harm' to a person vs an accident - you prejudged the former because that is what you wrote!! You didn't say it could have been an accident. Subsequently it appears the latter is more likely although police have not made any announcements.

We can agree to differ but surely you are can see how I interpreted your words?

In any case, we both agree that there are far too many feral families in this country who fail to provide a safe environment and/or abuse their kids.

There is no such thing as a blameless accident when a firearm is involved with a child. If the PARENTS are PROTECTING the CHILD then this could not have happened, regardless of what "this" is.

I question as to if it could be anything but a minimum of a lack of protection. Why?

1. A cut off shotgun.

2. A loaded weapon in a built up area.

3. A loaded weapon with children present.

4. Unlicensed and illegal firearm.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1567990 8-Jun-2016 15:31

networkn:

There is no such thing as a blameless accident when a firearm is involved with a child. If the PARENTS are PROTECTING the CHILD then this could not have happened, regardless of what "this" is.

Yet still an accident.

There is a clear difference between intentionally abusing a child (where the child is hated and disliked by caregivers) and failing to provide a safe environment (where the child may be in an otherwise good family unit).

Don't see why you can't see the difference. It is important to differentiate between active abuse and accidents because they require different solutions.

If you take your simple approach of lumping all injuries together regardless of intent then you will fail to solve much at all.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567991 8-Jun-2016 15:31

MikeB4:

I question as to if it could be anything but a minimum of a lack of protection. Why?

1. A cut off shotgun.

2. A loaded weapon in a built up area.

3. A loaded weapon with children present.

4. Unlicensed and illegal firearm.

Exactly, any of those 4 things would do it.

I was exposed to guns on the farm as young as probably 7. We were taught basics like don't climb a fence with a loaded gun, walk BEHIND someone with a loaded gun, the barrel of a gun should never point at something you don't intend to kill, even for the briefest time.

Had we not have been taught that and had it reinforced to us, and ensured we complied, I'd expect that would fall under "failure to protect".

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14