Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
David Round, former President of the NZPA, had a good article in the Press earlier this week. Here's an excerpt:
"Suggested solutions are either ineffectual or draconian. To question all women entering hospital about possible abuse will offend many decent women, and fail to detect those who lie and the many who simply will not go to hospitals. To encourage the dobbing-in of suspected abusers, or even to make that compulsory under threat of criminal penalties, will inevitably result in many false allegations. Some of those will be malicious; many will be sincere but mistaken. The parent of any child with a playground bruise or scratch will go in fear of being accused of a dreadful crime. In an hysterical atmosphere great injustices can be done, as Peter Ellis's unhappy fate attests.
Should we take "at risk" children away from their parents? Until abuse has actually occurred it would be hard to break up families just because it might. Official powers to enter any home and seize children will soon be misused. Where would we put the children? The supply of foster parents is dwindling. What would conditions be like in enormous state-run orphanages? The number of staff needed for such operations – and the cost – would be prohibitive."
-
And it seems that killing a child in Sweden won't nececssarily mean you'll be convicted of murder.
-
It seems we're not the only ones having this debate. They're also debating child abuse in Sweden, where up to 12 kids die each year at the hands of their parents and care givers.
-
What Laws et al really mean is that something must be done as long as it doesn't affect or inconvenience them in any way whatsoever.
How exactly is it inconvenient for Laws or any other man if a woman is asked if she has been criticised lately? There is a bigger issue and that is that such a question is going to achieve very little. Maybe that could have been behind Laws' complaint?
-
A factual problem with that is that it's not just a Maori problem and any group claiming to be immune is flying in the face of statistics.
Lyndon, of course that is true. But as you know they have child abuse in Sweden and in every other country. And our rate of child abuse is only marginally inferior to Switzerland's and Austria's and is half that of the States. Would you call Switzerland and Austria hotbeds of child abuse? Who would have thought!
But I suspect that if you looked at the rate of non-Maori child abuse in this country, we'd find ourselves in the top half of the OECD. Sure, that's not necessarily anything to write home about, but neither is it a reason to be ranting on the subject either.
-
Police say they've received a number of calls about the anti-smacking law. There was an article today referring to a cop who said that it was OK to smack because it was reasonable force. I'd have to agree.
-
Greece has extended adult protection against assault to children, Spain has promised to do the same and Ireland is expected to follow
That doesn't change the fact that in 2003 those countries didn't have a smacking ban, yet they had the lowest rates of child maltreatment deaths. How can that possibly be? Clearly, it is difficult to see any relationship between smacking and child deaths.
But there seems little doubt that in overall child welfare and deaths by accident and injury Sweden is miles ahead
Little doubt if you are trying to maintain an ideological position. But considerable doubt if you look at the stats. As Beckett makes clear, when deaths from undetermined causes are excluded, Sweden ranks 9th (not 12th as I wrote earlier) in the OECD. So Sweden just manages to make it into the top third of countries in the OECD. At least two other Scandinavian countries rate worse in 18th and 19th positions. Both of those countries have had smacking bans in place for quite some time.
-
Maybe Key was overseas or just out of cell phone coverage or in a meeting. But if the PM of any hue makes and effort to pick up the phone and initiate direct contact I would at least expect that Key would have heard about it.
Please, Don. This issue has been around for the last 5 years. That's five years - how long does it take to get the main players around the table? But no, it's all Jonh Key's doing, the same John Key who saved the govt's bacon over the anti-smacking bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not his job to rescue the govt every time it gets itself into a bind.
Annette King is really, really arrogant
Obviously you've never seen her in action. She can be really, really arrogant.
By the way, I haven't read Jane Clifton's article, but does it in anyway reflect McCully's version of events?
I haven't read it either. But I hope you're not suggesting there's a conflict of interest. Nah, I didn't think so.
-
That is breathtaking.
Why on earth would the PM, who needs the support of National to pass this bill, not invite John Key to the briefing? Truly ming boggling.
It also casts an interesting light on Jane Clifton's "it's all because Annette King is such a cow" explanation of events.
Yeah, what would Jane know? Tell me who her partner is again...
-
Six deaths/year/1000 really is six too many.
Yes, it is, if it were true. But the rate is actually 1.2 per 100,000, once undetermined causes are excluded (although this condition changes the figure very little). As stated above, our rate of child deaths is marginally inferior to Switzerland and Austria, equal with Hungary and almost half as low as the USA. Not very sexy when put in that context, is it?