Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I think that the proscription against treating is still a good thing, I can imagine a situation where one party might be able to afford a far larger bar than another
Or merely a far better legal team than another, so that their "party meeting with free entertainment" is deemed to meet the rules because the rule-makers don't want to start that fight, but a smaller, poorer party with a less impressive legal team is told that their event breaches the rule.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to WH,
We can all reflect on what a win this was for democracy the next time Parliament passes fiercely contested social legislation in the face of overwhelming public opposition.
The term you're looking for is tyranny of the majority, usually put as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". Pure democracy is a dangerous thing, which is why we have an independent judiciary and elect representatives rather than voting directly on issues.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Aren’t bikes officially supposed to have bells and mudguards, etc?
A bell, reflectors, at least one brake, a chain drive are in the law directly, and by implication handlebars since it’s an offense not to hold onto them. The rest is optional including the frame and seat.
The whole “Bike WoF” falls to the same objections as registration for bicycles with the note that it would be even more expensive as testing is required. So the floor price for a bicycle would rise even further. A brand now $99 bike would have “on road costs” (as they say in Australia) of $150+ for the WoF, presumably on top of the $100+ for registration. That is if it’s to be ridden on a road or “road related area” (per the road code, covers stuff like footpaths, off road bike paths and parks where bicycles are permitted).
Imagine the outcry when a negligent parent allowed their child to ride out of the driveway and onto the footpath for a second! $200 fine for “operating an unregistered bicycle”, probably combined with “bicycle not having bell” or “no reflectors” and likely “standards-approved helmet not present or not worn correctly”. You could wipe out a poor family’s entire income for the week with that one slip. Paula Bennett would be ecstatic! The Green’s spokescreature for Health would probably die of apoplexy.
(note that the cost estimates are based purely on the administrative cost and assume no direct net benefit to the government from operating the schemes).
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Matthew Poole,
What was there possibly to object to with such a sound law protecting our children?
The nanny state?
Watching scientists try to compare bad parenting with state care (foster parents, residential facilities, prisons) is both enthralling and terrifying. IIRC the gap between prison and residential care is often disturbingly small, especially if you have a disabled child and are looking at respite care or institutionalisation. But at a less personal level, the amount of abuse a child can experience at home before they'd be better off in foster care is terrifyingly large (albeit in part because to get to foster care children are normally institutionalised first).
My hope is that the very real possibility of a criminal conviction and prison time would be enough to reform all but the most out-of-control parents. Either through deterrence or removal. I wonder if what we need is "crimes against children" dedicated police units who are a properly-resourced, uniformed corollory to the social welfare agencies, since the governments we have are so reluctant to invest in education and child care despite the huge savings available doing it that way. I suspect just letting the abuse work its way out over generations is more politically acceptable and the costs are deferred, making them effectively invisible.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
the consequences to a child of ongoing abuse from a birth parent can easily be worse than the consequences of that parent abruptly exiting their life.
I have no doubt that this is almost always true.
What changed your mind? This comment at the start of this discussion seems to have you thinking the opposite. (the quote by steven crawford above reminded me). I fear you're going to weasel in the Colin Craig "smacking is not abuse" vein, but if so I'd liike to see a nice, clear, lawyerly definition of the boundary from you.
My line, FWIW, is quite clear: hit the child other than to prevent a clear, immediate threat and its abuse. Go to jail, do not pass on your problems to your child. The question I'm grappling with is whether sterilisation is justified in all cases or only the most severe.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Paul Rowe,
Being smacked with a jandal or a belt was fairly common when I was a kid in the 70s
Yes. But there's a tricky balance between a resilient implement and one that gives the satisfaction of a good solid impact. Wooden spoons were just too expensive since they broke so often. But jandals are too floppy, and belts it's too easy to hit the wrong thing and leave visible marks (or take an eye out). A specially-made strap is a much better idea.
This was not abuse, I'd just like to make that clear, this was normal parenting. "Everyone did it"{tm}. It only became abuse when they used a metre-long length of thick-wall poly pipe, or a fist-sized rock, or that unfortunate incident with the bit of 4x2 that turned out to have a nail poking out of it (hospitalisation required).
The important result was that they did turn me into a vehement supporter of the "lets call it assault" laws.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Kumara Republic,
(ooops)
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Richard Stewart,
We used to hear stories about parents who had beaten their children with a length of hose or similar, which was deemed acceptable by the courts as 'reasonable force'. This is no longer acceptable which is a good thing.
There was a brief moment when I was in primary school where this exact thing was discussed, and the school decided that no action was required. I still respect the teacher who went against social mores to bring the problem up at all, and just wish that a criminal conviction had been the outcome. It would probably have saved a great deal of anguish all round.
I'm with Miche: the consequences to a child of ongoing abuse from a birth parent can easily be worse than the consequences of that parent abruptly exiting their life. In many cases it just accelerates the departure.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That article is long but a great read for anyone wearing a cycle helmet.
Bicycling.com article was quite interesting to read. Also expensive, am about to order a couple of new helmets, despite my current helmet being nearly new. I like my brain!
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Bart Janssen,
It really is seconds people are complaining about.
But they're really stressful seconds, which means they shorten the motorist's life as well as wasting their time. Add that to the health cost of driving and the motorist may well be losing three times that directly lost time. Counter that with the longer, healthier life that the cyclists enjoy and is it any wonder some of them attempt to even the scales by killing the offending cyclist?