Sack the social workers

It's all our fault. Lowlifes being paid to produce children they don't want are killing them, abusing them, hitting them around the head with bats and pieces of wood, throwing them in dryers and against the wall -- all utterly in defiance of the Bradford-Key anti-smacking law, which you'll remember was going to put a stop to all this -- and do you know who's to blame for all these incidents: According to all the experts, we all are! You, me, absolutely everyone. Everyone except for the lowlifes and those who take our money to pay for their breeding.

"They're not to blame," I keep hearing; "WE are." It makes me sick.

"Our children belong to all of us."

"We're killing our children."

"We need to look after our under-fives."

"Violence against our children is unnacceptable."

"Family violence is a community issue."

"We all need to step up."

"We all need to become and be nosy neighbours from now on."

"We object to the way people are treating our little babies."

"We must bring back discipline in homes."

"We all need to be questioned when we go to hospital."

"Our children belong to all of us."

""We all need to take responsibility - perhaps we should all become our brothers, sisters and children's keepers... An act of violence against a Maori child is an act of violence against all Maori' says Te Ururoa Flavell.

"How do I feel when I hear they're Maori?" says Pita Sharples. "I feel ashamed. I feel guilty."

What a lot of horseshit. These people aren't talking about some inexplicable act of nature but about a series of incidents with one thing in common: lowlifes beating and killing their own children -- children they've been paid to have.

These aren't our babies.

We aren't killing them.

These babies are produced by lowlifes who don't want them; they're paid by us to have them; we're forced to pay for them by politicians who don't care about the incentives their welfare system has created. There's no need to for Sharples or any other Maori to feel ashamed to be Maori; he should be ashamed as a politician who supports those payments and their incentives and the system that delivers them.

We -- you and I -- we aren't responsible for the carnage and the abuse. I haven't killed or beaten any children, and neither have you. The people responsible for the carnage are the killers and the beaters themselves, and the scum who force us to pay for these lowlifes to have children they don't want.

If "we" really could do anything, it would be putting an end to being forced to pay for no-hopers to breed. That more than anything else would put a stop to it.

If you agree, then don't just tell me: tell everyone who will listen -- and every one of those 121 time servers in parliament.

UPDATE 1: From Liberty Scott:

So the next time my mother enters hospital, she'll be asked:

• Has anybody hurt or threatened you?
• Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?
• Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn't want to do?

Perhaps if it is asked of someone who enters hospital with injuries that could be attributed to violence then yes, but to ask every woman? What utter nonsense....

I have another idea, let's ban all those convicted of serious violent offences from claiming welfare. Who can morally justify that, why should they live funded by others?

UPDATE 2: From Lindsay Mitchell:

Just listening to Labour MP Dover Samuels calling in to Radio Live and vigorously regaling Jackson and Tamihere with his thoughts about these latest atrocities. He says he and a lot of other MPs knew that Sue Bradford's bill would make not one iota of difference. There are no academic solutions. There are no do-gooder solutions. And the Maori Party and their 'aroha' can go jump. There you go.

And again:

What we are seeing at the moment is not new. 'Battered Child (or baby) Syndrome' was first discussed in the 1960s. From Family Matters by Bronwyn Dalley;

New Zealand medical practitioners and paediatric radiologists took a central role in the dissemination of awareness of the syndrome; staff at Wellington Hospital noted the large number of 'injury' cases with a suspicion that was often confirmed when X-rays revealed earlier healed fractures.

Many cases of abuse investigated "displayed an intergenerational pattern." So the abuse stems back further still. The distressing number of young Maori children who died at the hands of their young mothers who had themselves been state wards is commented on.

For a long time associated factors have been known. Unmarried parenting, very young parenting, and a personal parental history of neglect and abuse. Add to these increased misuse of alcohol and drugs and benefits that pay emotionally and financially bereft people to become parents and it is little wonder what problem already existed has worsened.

UPDATE 3: As William Curtis, Michael William Curtis, Michael Curtis's girlfriend, Oriwa Terrina Kemp, Michael Paul Pearson and Wiremu Te Aroha Te Whanau Curtis are charged with assault for putting their three-year-old in a dryer, the government swings into action with "a four-year, $14m campaign ... aimed at changing the way New Zealanders think and act about family violence." The way New Zealanders think. The way "we" think.

Do they really think the no-hopers we pay to breed are going to hear this campaign we're also forced to pay for? Or take the least notice of it?

The government's answer to this end-road of welfarism is not to question the welfare, not to take a good long look at what paying no-hopers to breed has brought, but instead an expensive campaign of education to tell the people who are listening, the people who aren't killing their chidren, that they shouldn't. Says Cindy bloody Kiro in support of this fatuous stupidity, "The best deterrent is prevention through education -- teaching young people basic parenting skills and about a baby's development," she said.

She's deluded. She seems to think the likes of the Curtises and Kahuis are interested in parenting skills and the "development" of the babies that are their meal tickets. Will she never learn?

UPDATE 4: Meanwhile, this from a concerned Rodney Hide: "The Sunday Star Times have this extract from my book My Year of Living Dangeously [sic] in the bookstores this Friday..." As Blair Mulholland says, "It's official. The ACT Party is no more."

UPDATE 5: Heather Roy pipes up. As does Peter Osborne from Libertarianz. Says Heather:

"Now we have more abuse in the papers and the outrage is back. In typical political fashion neighbours are being criticised for not reporting abuse, the community is being exhorted to be more watchful and child abuse has been labelled a 'Maori problem'.

"But we should not be looking at who to blame - rather, we should be asking WHAT to blame. I have attended every meeting of the Cross-Party Group on Family Violence set up after the Kahui twins died. Despite numerous attempts, there was no willingness by any other committee member to even discuss - let alone tackle - welfare dependency.

"Rather, this issue - which has a direct correlation to child abuse - was placed in the 'too hard' basket, because making meaningful change to welfare in New Zealand might cost Labour some support when the election rolls around.

Says Osborne:

"Only New Zealanders as individuals can take control of the social ills facing us all today. Forget about Nanny State, it was she who set this disaster up in the first place and it was we who voted for it. Nothing can be done until we win back control over our own lives. This means getting Nanny State out of our homes, out of our workplaces, out of your children's minds and out of our pockets. The well being of our fellow citizens, neighbours, friends and relatives does not need to be centrally controlled and we certainly shouldn't be compelled to finance what is now proving to be a social disaster."

UPDATE 6: W E L C O M E H A R D N E W S R E A D E R S :
I invite you to check what I say above and see if Russell Brown makes his case. He says here:

What we might do [about violent crime] is try and catch and prosecute ... earlier; encourage reporting..., emphasise its irreducible unacceptability, try and pick it up in a public health context -- even if it means doing something as squishy as asking someone about their feelings.

All the measures, that is, that Cresswell mocked and railed against in [this] post.

Do you really thing it's these solutions that I'm mocking and railing against here? Or has he missed the point entirely?