Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Parents face police

DOMINION POST (Helengrad): Regular Smackers May Face Charges
Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment.

Even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday...
Can anyone remember the name of that gutless plonker who helped to pass this into law on the basis that the "guidelines" wouldn't criminalise good parents?

UPDATE: Here on the police website are the all-important guidelines, and unsurprisingly they're hardly pellucid in their clarity. Sample:

No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable. Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(1)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s 59(1)(d))...

Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:"Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested.

In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member's supervisor must be consulted."Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.

Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances...

If you're a parent, best you print it out, keep it in a drawer somewhere, and refer to it regularly. And whatever you do, don't let the kids read it: any self-respecting youngster will quickly realise how much control they now have over you.


  1. Yes.... er... wasn't it that guy whatsisname... the one who deposed the leader of the National Party..? What IS his name...? John something....

  2. Yeah, that's him. Rhymes with Donkey . . .

  3. "But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required." John Key

    But what if they don't, John? Who checks the checkers? What happens then?

    Ah, well. Yeah ...

  4. .... and the tragically sad thing is that, if you read the tea leaves and study the chicken bones of what passes for political comment in this country, it seems that this greasy opportunist will become our next Prime Minister! Jesus (if he had actually existed) would have wept!

  5. And of course we all know that the Police have so much spare time up their sleeves [by neglecting burgleries, boy racers, stranded females at Piha, tinny houses, et al] that they will promptly rush to each and every smacking reported, and duly note down the details for CPYS to follow up in its own ample spare time!

  6. Anyone who is stupid enough to sit down with the socialists to do a deal and then compounds his stupidity by trusting them ... well...

  7. ... trusts them and expects them to live up to the "spirit" of the deal...

    ...trusts state enforcers who are contracted to attain quotas (you knnow, like number of vehicle drivers checked for intoxication per month etc., number of cases "cleared" etc.)...

    ...trusts the judicial system to get ot right (!)... rich enough not to consider how one small litigation can ruin a family's finances for ever (let alone a big one), sending them into penury... protected enough not to have visited a Family Court to see how the system operates presently, not to meet the denizens of that system...

    ...fails to understand how an accusation and state interest will tarnish and destroy lives for no good purpose...

  8. ...fails to understand the nature of those who inhabit the recesses of state employment and state institutions...

    ...fails to understand the nature of the creatures he does the deal with...

    What a one!

    Or is he merely pragmatic?

  9. I still remember the name of the party, the National Party of course. But the leader? They come and go. And they all repudiate the teachings of their predecessor (why are they called conservative??).

    But anyway, we'll have a new one shortly.

  10. Hey Ruth/Anon.....what say you?

    Gone quite eh?

  11. I think that John Key is dead right to support the Sue Breadford's watered down smacking legislation.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.