There's something really screwey about no streaking...
Is it any old dumb mop? It streaks...
Come on mop, no streaking mop...
I don't mind mop the floor, my mop streaks, I don't like it...
It's not me, it's the mop...
I don't believe it...now the floor looks beautiful...
That's why they call me mophandlemama...
Now the floor looks beautiful...
That's why they call me mophandlemama... (3x)
In two weeks, before she could see herself not dressed...
The twenty-third of May...you know she disturbed no one today...
The manager told her to completely forget...
If you ever go to bed, I'll kill you...
Do I tell the whole world that I'm mentally ill?
Go to the papers...yeah, why not?
Drum roll...
I want to show them that I can walk on my own without hands of theirs...
And, I can still fantasize, but I keep it to myself...
I think I deserve to be loved, don't you?
Very much so...
Think I deserve to be loved...
Keep it to myself...keep it to myself...
Do you ever think that you would actually, really kill yourself?
Well, if I have thought about it real, uhh, real deep...
Yeas, I believe I would...
And, I can still fantasize, but I keep it to myself...
Keep it to myself...keep it to myself...
...that I can walk without hands of theirs...
Yes, I believe I would...

edited 'Stupid Mop' by Pearl Jam

MaryE welcome to the forum, and take it easy Friend, you will remember it was you who first asked questions.
You lead a quite life, politics is to me an interesting subject.
I knew about this before it was law, heard debate on radio national and ABC local radio.
Just weeks ago heard about a father being charged and found guilty, on radio national.
He it was claimed hit his child with a one finger flick to the ear, he admitted it.
The extra charge, that he punched his child in the face, was contested, only one witness to say he did, a challenged witness. the law, the fact it is stupid, or do you agree with the idea courts know your kids better than you.
The referendum is on now listen to radio national or jewely may tell you the NZ news channel freq

“Whilst police discretion is great I wonder how much of a minefield that creates. If I was spotted smacking a child I'd rather runner be the investigating officer than Mikk...”

Nah it’s one those laws like j-walking and littering R0bert. Made so if they can’t get you on what they want you for they’ll use a lesser charge instead.

Like they suspect you of beating your kids and you say “no I just smacked his bum”. Gotchya anyway. It’s all a game.

I don’t believe Runner would be any more sympathetic if in that profession, unless you were beating the kid with a bible. Rather than investigate Mikk would probably give you a slap right back on the spot.

“So the kid who is kicking, screaming and smashing stuff can be smacked to get their attention and stop the dangerous behaviour“

Yup.

“You can't bundle them into the car, get them settled down and then give them a thrashing afterwards.”

Only if people call you “officer”.

Hiya Belly, I am also enjoying Mary’s messages. I don’t know the NZ radio frequencies though. Well not news stations anyways.[smile]

“…or do you agree with the idea courts know your kids better than you..”

Whoever knows the kid doesn’t matter here in NSW.
[Fill in with my normal spew on DoCS here]

The NZ Law as it currently stands seems perfectly reasonable to me. Belly, a "little flick" to the ear can easily go wrong and the child can easily lose an eye. That's why hitting a child on the head is a no go area, as it's extremely dangerous and irresponsible to do that, just as dangerous as shaking a small child. This law does not prevent smacks on the bum and other such similar normal and everyday physical disciplinary measures. You can STILL smack your child. Probably a few hundred thousand NZ kids get smacked every day in view of other people, and those hundreds of thousands of parents don't end up charged.

It's perfectly legal to smack your child in NZ. That's what's written in the law. If you whack , or try to whack, your child in the head and you're caught doing it then you'll deserve whatever the law throws at you. You don't hit children on their heads, just like you don't inflict marks and welts or sexually approach children, and if you do any of that stuff you deserve to be punished. There's laws in most countries against that sort of thing. But, it's perfectly legal in NZ to smack your child. And that's as it should be.

I thought I had an understanding of how you thought MaryE.
I welcome your input and promise we will disagree, often.
We do here, strongly, I fall over laughing at some PC practices, like making boys play with dolls, even wear dresses in an attempt to see they do not become aggressive.
thinking that screaming heap of kid in the super market is better for being cuddled than controlled.
I said in an earlier post my childhood as not helped by a mum, [I loved her totally] who would NEVER allowed smacking, it was hurt by her rules.
I later after dads Early death at a young age had to be father big brother, uncle to ten kids, and to fight to stop dreadful behavior from some, without hitting.
Yes twice I did, for theft big time theft from my mums purse, she fought me but it got done.
Those kids spent the next day on a beach very happy and all thanked me.
NZ made a dumb rule, sorry worse than stupid, confused about neglect and true harm done to children they got lost, have no doubt, be happy they are going to say they got it wrong.
My loving mum? who went hungry to see us eat? who fought like a tiger to stop smacking?
The girl she hit was my sister mum FLOGGED her 3 kl ms to school , with a broom!
all those years ago in Bargo every farm door opened and watched strange isn't it?
It was the Handel and it broke mum still hit away, sister won, she went home with mum WE went to school.

MaryE,

As the laws stands it SEEMS fairly reasonable. The thing is, you can be charged for smacking - you seem to think you can't, and it's great that you've got that much faith in others - and the onus of proof is on you to prove your innocence as opposed to someone proving your guilt.

As it stands, if you are seen laying your hand on a child in a aggressive (not necessarily in anger) manner - no matter how hard - you have committed a crime. That's the fact of it.

You can see all the defence clauses and assume there would be no miscarriage of justice if your personal intention was one of 'for the welfare of the child'. But as it stands the law doesn't see it that way. You are guilty of assault from the start unless the Officer decides that you were acting in the best interests of the child.

There's is no burden of proof on the PROSECUTION excluding proof of the act of physical contact. All they need to know is that you did touch your child aggressively. Then you can spend the rest of your life as a convicted criminal. There goes many job opportunities.

Some people are vindictive when it comes to break ups. Custody battles are ugly. You'd like to think that all Police Officers are above the law and NEVER abuse their knowledge or power but they're human...and fallible. This law will inevitably destroy lives based on the FACT that the burden of proof is at the feet of the accused. I didn't even see an 'intent' clause in the wording of the legislation. EVERYTHING you can be charged with needs an element of intent to be proven by the prosecution to convict. This apparently doesn't have that.

Hope you get where I'm coming from.