Winston Peters ‘a dangerous old man’

On Friday in a speech at a business breakfast in Waipu – transcript here – Winston Peters said under WHAT NZ FIRST WILL DO:

  • To battle this problem New Zealand First will lower the age of criminal responsibility.
  • We will change social welfare to demand parental accountability.
  • We are not going to spend taxpayers’ money on parents who won’t keep their side of the deal.
  • We will make sure there are far more police – 1800 more as soon as they can be trained.
    After all, the last time we had a chance we trained 1000 front line police in three years flat.
  • We will return this country to what other generations knew: That crime doesn’t pay.
  • We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.

Anti crime, which presumably means anti-violent crime, but pro smacking.

Peters/NZ First also put out a media release titled ‘We Will Return NZ To: Crime Doesn’t Pay’

To battle widespread criminal behaviour by young people socially DNA-ed for destruction as seen in Kaikohe last weekend, New Zealand First will, among other measures, repeal the anti-smacking law.

“We live in a ‘PC age’ where there are more rules on the teachers and the police than young offenders and their parents,” said Mr Peters in a speech at Waipu this morning.

“We no longer hold these little ‘tow-rag’ offenders responsible for their actions.

“Instead we hear 100 different reasons why it’s not their fault.

“That’s rubbish.

“They’re old enough to know exactly what they’re doing.

“They know they will get away with it and that there will be no repercussions.

”Meanwhile, the old parties in parliament want the age of criminal responsibility raised.

“Many of these politicians have no idea how the other half live and don’t venture into the real world.

“Besides repealing the anti-smacking law, which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children, New Zealand First will lower the age of criminal responsibility; change social welfare to demand parental accountability and will make sure there are far more police on the frontline – 1800 more as soon as they can be trained.

“We will return this country to what other generations knew: That crime doesn’t pay,” said Mr Peters.

Calling young people toe-rags and encouraging the bash may appeal to populist votes but it is unlikely to solve youth crime.

Does Peters have any evidence to support his claim the the anti-smacking law “doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children”? He has habit of making unsubstantiated claims.

Sue Bradford has called Peters a ‘dangerous old man’:

Winston Peters has been labelled a “dangerous old man” who’s “really past his prime”, after vowing to repeal the so-called anti-smacking law.

Sue Bradford, the former Green MP behind the law, told The AM Show on Monday she was “horrified” by his recent comments.

“What he’s advocating is the return of the legalising of assault on our children, which is the last thing our kids need and the last thing the kids of Northland need.”

Ms Bradford said: “He’s talking about this on the back of the incident up in Kaikohe recently with the young people rampaging.

“Those kids probably see far too much violence I’d suggest in their lives already, far too much poverty, unemployment, a lack of opportunities for their families in their part of the country.”

The 2007 law change removed the defence of “reasonable force” in cases where parents and caregivers were being prosecuted for assault on children.

“It’s helped massively to change the idea that actually parents and other adults responsible for children are legally entitled to use physical punishment on their kids, that sometimes led to quite serious assaults,” said Ms Bradford.

Repealing the law would send the wrong message, she believes.

“We’ve got ‘it’s not okay’ campaigns about beating our partners, our wives, but on the other hand, children don’t matter?”

Conservative lobby group Family First says there have been massive increases in child abuse in the decade since the law began, but Ms Bradford says repealing the anti-smacking law won’t fix that.

“As the truly dreadful levels of family violence in this country continue, they cannot be laid to this law. No law can stop that.”

Massive increases in child abuse in the decade since the law began? That seems like a massive exaggeration, and I’d be surprised if they have evidence of a direct connection between the law change and levels of violence against children.

Family First have always strongly opposed the law change. They have put out a media release in support of Peters: NZ First Repeal Of Anti-Smacking Law Welcomed

This makes some claims about violence levels.

Police statistics show there has been a 136% increase in physical abuse, 43% increase in sexual abuse, 45% increase in neglect or ill-treatment of children, and 71 child abuse deaths since the law was passed in 2007. CYF have had more than 1 million notifications of abuse and there has been a 42% increase in physical abuse found by CYF since 2007.

But that does nothing to prove cause and effect. There are alternative claims that a greater awareness of violence against children has led to greater levels of reporting of abuse, which may be a positive effect rather than a negative effect.

In the past excessive smacking (more than a tap on the bum) and bashing tended to get swept under legal and social carpets.

I think that it’s very difficult to prove the effects of the law change on offending rates.

I believe that any moves to encourage less violence, and less smacking while encouraging effective alternatives, has to end up being better for children in general in the long run.

Peters may get some votes from his support of smacking law repeal, but I think it will come to nothing more than that.

I think it is very unlikely that there will be enough votes in Parliament to just repeal the smacking law. The old version was seriously flawed.

The only chance of change is if someone comes up with an improvement to the also flawed current law – but at least it signals that violence against children should be reduced.

No indication from Peters whether he would add smacking law repeal to his list of coalition bottom lines.

Leave a comment

78 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  27th March 2017

    ”Does Peters have any evidence to support his claim the the anti-smacking law “doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children”? He has habit of making unsubstantiated claims.”

    Yes, I think he does. They are laughing at the ‘ old man’ on Garners show at the moment. These morons are missing the point: We the people of New Zealand had no say in the passing of said legeslation…. and they laugh!!?

    What is missed from the summary are the number of people who each year are investigated for supposedly breaking this law… the intrusive police investigations, CYPS and upset kids who don’t know what the fuck is going on.

    ”Peters may get some votes from his support of smacking law repeal, but I think it will come to nothing more than that”

    Sadly, I think you are right. People have moved on, oblivoius to the trampling of freedom and democratic rights this legislation and the banning of smoking in pubs has had.

    Reply
    • Why do you think he has evidence? Has he said he has evidence? Or are you guessing?

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  27th March 2017

        He has said he was misquoted….that he wants a referendum. As to evidence, no need to guess or confirm. I just know. Take the lady down the road from me. Her kid gets his hands caught in the spokes of a bike. He screams ” don’t touch me” in agony. The neighour gets the wrong end of the stick. Police are called. Police call CYP’S. Children removed for a day while parents lives are turned upside down.

        Also think back to the organisation wanting to repeal this legislation, who took out nationwide adverts highlighting such cases.

        Remember Ian Wisharts panning of Nigel Latta’s report into anti smacking legislation and his claim it was working?

        If Winnie locks a referendum in as part of a political deal should he gain power he will get my vote.

        Reply
        • How many referendums does Winston want?

          I suspect he doesn’t want one on Super. Probably not one on cannabis law reform. What about euthanasia?

          Or is it just votes he is really after?

          Reply
      • NOEL

         /  27th March 2017

        Go back to the intent of the law. It wasn’t about throwing every father who gave the child a smack on the bum in the slammer. But to make it easier for the Police to prosecute the extreme cases who were hiding behind the claim that they were simply disciplining the child.

        Those stats would suggest cause and effect.

        Alternately most parents I know today choose time out over physical force and the kids appear ok.

        Reply
      • One of a kind

         /  27th March 2017

        Sue Bradford claimed when the anti smacking law was passed that it would prevent future ‘violence against children’ which led to the death of mites like Nia Glassie.

        Look at the effects over the last 7-8 years?

        Little children still dying at the hands of abusers? Yup still happening.

        Violent crime amongst youth – still happening. (Think dairy robberies, youth disorder etc.)

        So I will ask you an opposite question Pete – what good did Sue Bradford’s bill do? What has it prevented? What good did discouraging sensible kiwi parents from using a smack on the hand or bum to prevent tantrum throwing do for society?

        I would argue nothing.

        A smack on the hand at age 3 is much better than a Police dog bite at age 13.

        A paddled bum at age 5 is better than a taser at age 15.

        When kids are young they learn the relationship between bad behaviour and pain and it encourages them to walk an acceptable path in life.

        By the time they hit 13-15 however, the Police baton or taser does no good as they are hardened in their ways – the Police use of force is needed to protect themselves or members of the public.

        Reply
    • Gezza

       /  27th March 2017

      The comment about banning smoking in pubs gives you away here, Corkers. 😉

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  27th March 2017

        Please explain?

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  27th March 2017

        Details later.
        Meantime

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  27th March 2017

          No, lets have it now.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  27th March 2017

            There’s strong support for banning smoking in pubs for sound reasons & unlikely to be worthwhile support for overturning that ban so my assumption is you were fishing for downticks. Was this not correct?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  27th March 2017

              Like CSR, I believe people would have eventually moved on to smoke-free pubs over time. Leaving a few dingy joints with questionable patronage to carry on the fagging tradition. But they weren’t given a choice. This is a democracy. Surely people can choose where they go without state intervention?

            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              But people can still choose where they go without state intervention Corks. 😳

              Some of them just can’t smoke where other people who don’t want to be exposed to the many bad health effects of their smoking choose to go without state intervention. It’s all good mate. 👍

            • Corky

               /  27th March 2017

              The business owners had no choice. No fags in their pubs.

            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Well, there is that. But I think some were a bit slow addressing the health issue so they needed a bit of a push. I wonder if any of them went out of business? Suppose it’s possible. Anyway, I’m deviating too far from the young crims out of control kids issue now so I’ll stop here Corks. Have to get on with some activities here now the back problem’s resolved.

      • Conspiratoor

         /  27th March 2017

        Interesting comment G. My view is smoke free pubs would have become the norm over time regardless of legislation. Likewise the anti smacking bill has done nothing to address violence towards children. Both laws are nothing more than legislation driven by an insatiable appetite for regulation and the trend towards more nanny state intervention in the lives of the overwhelming majority of law abiding folks
        Trump is right, ‘you want one new law, show me two you don’t need’

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  27th March 2017

          I sort of agree with your comment about the “anti-smacking” legislation because it makes a smack on the bum a reportable offence by outraged citizens. But I’ve pretty much got over it now. At least these days the desperate mum takes the tantrummy kid out of the supermarket asap to avoid the glares.

          Re the smoking ban, I can still smoke in the outside area at the local if I wanted to, & can join the smokers there if I want to continue a convo. You could have been waiting a very long time for committed smokers to voluntarily decide not to smoke inside the pub … eventually. I remember when smoking in offices was permitted & as the day of the ban drew near & smoking rooms were already provided, some smokers persisted in smoking in the office right up until Ban Day, because, hey, it wasn’t illegal so “eff you if you don’t like it!”

          Reply
          • Anonymous Coward

             /  27th March 2017

            What about the proposal to ban smoking anywhere in Lambton Quay?
            What about the rules as they stand in Australia (and only in a matter of time here) that you can’t smoke within 4m of a doorway and 8m from a kitchen and nowhere where people are eating – which means even if the bar is large enough to have a smoke free area you can’t take your food there if you are a smoker?
            In practice that means, that due to layouts, in many bars you can’t smoke anywhere on the property, and have to leave to smoke and then come back.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Extending the current bans is going right OTT. If they do this they might as well go the whole hog & ban smoking. Which won’t work.

          • NOEL

             /  27th March 2017

            I sort of agree with your comment about the “anti-smacking” legislation because it makes a smack on the bum a reportable offence by outraged citizens.

            OK but how many go to prosecution?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Not many, but they shouldn’t have to put up with having to explain themselves & the situation to the plods, which does happen I gather.

          • Conspiratoor

             /  27th March 2017

            I didn’t say I was going to wait for smokers to stop smoking in my pub. I would simply exercise my democratic right to ban them myself. Would my business suffer, I think not

            Reply
  2. Nelly Smickers

     /  27th March 2017

    As Wayne’s mum just said, “What relevance does someone like that *Sue Bradford* have these days anyway….all the girls in the Retirement Village reckin she’s as mad as a snake” LOL XD

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  27th March 2017

      What a fake…a middleclass shelia putting on the affections of a blue collar nave. She and Mick Jagger have a lot in common.

      Reply
  3. Businessman and Kaikohe Community Patrol founder Tony Taylor, who strategically released the Kaikohe petrol station CCTV footage, has certainly played nicely into Winston Peters hands, hasn’t he? Casually pouring scorn and disapproval upon his *own town* and local community to boot … He’s subsequently done so on RNZ and in media across the nation …

    No reports whatsoever of the “St Patrick’s Day” related incidents in Paihia and Kerikeri the same fateful Saturday night, which drew four fifths of the Mid-North’s police personnel away from Kaikohe, earlier clearly identified as a simmering trouble-spot …

    The same gentleman has subsequently stated publicly, in the Northland Age, that Kaikohe’s problem’s sheet back to “about 20 dysfunctional families”, described in oh so familiar terms of “multi-generational beneficiaries” and also some who’ve “moved to Kaikohe to be close to family members in Ngawha Prison”. That’s the Corrections facility which the government touted would revive the town’s fortunes …

    I smell “Demarcation Zone” …

    “The incidents led to the local National Party representative calling for the return of corporal punishment.” – Wireless. It’s all just SO $&**(#@! PREDICTABLE …

    The wireless article does interview Ant Warren, who owns & operates the local gym … He says some of the same stuff but at least has a ‘local’ perspective … which one might consider appropriate in one’s *own town* …? And a Maori perspective … ?

    “Kaikohe gets an unfair deal in that we only get in the papers when bad things happen.”

    “It’s all about respect, whether it’s for land or people or culture.”

    http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/growing-up-in-kaikohe-trouble-can-be-tough-to-avoid

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  27th March 2017

      Sometimes disapproval is necessary as a parent or as a community member.

      That similar problems occurred elsewhere points to the kind of systemic issues the critics were highlighting. That it is clear that the anti-smacking law has done nothing whatever to solve these issues and may well have aggravated them is glossed over by its defenders.

      Bad parenting and bad child and youth behaviour both need to have consequences – both carrot and stick. Parents and teachers now have few if any sticks and peers and gangs can offer instant gratifications as carrots that they cannot match. The only counter is a long view of life opportunities that most parents in a town like Kaikohe or Kaitaia cannot give their children. Seems to me that is the essence of the problem. Education is the only escape but when schools are subverted by their inmates they become destructive, not a lifeline.

      This is the kind of insight children need to be given. It is the essence of teaching philosophy in schools but it needs a big change to education to introduce it.

      Reply
    • It’s a lot of bad publicity for Kaikohe, all because of “about 20 dysfunctional families” who, rather than being publicly villified, would surely be better assisted by multiple government agencies and NGOs and probably are being …

      Its not at all or in any way “clear that the anti-smacking law has done nothing whatever to solve these issues and may well have aggravated them” Alan … Show me evidence of this …?

      A rise in crime of this sort – itself debatable because apparently crime is decreasing overall – could just as easily be attributable to growing poverty and inequality, ready access to communications devices (a la Beejay) … the growth of the instant gratification society where “a long view of life opportunities” is subservient to quick sales and profits … The apparent irrelevance of education … [and still it is relatively speaking ‘only’ 20 families]

      Headline: [in exaggeria] ‘Twenty dysfunctional families in Kaikohe hold nation to ransom, dictate government policy’ …

      “Unemployment for the parents makes for a hard, hard life and it affects everyone.” says Ant Warren (on Wireless) … but will the government put money into employment initiatives?

      No, we just need more police and more prisons … One policeman’s salary might go a lot further preventing crime than catching criminals …

      I agree that a big change in education is required …

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  27th March 2017

        This is the evidence from the opponents of the law. What have you got?

        Key findings include:
        • Notifications of abuse to CYF have increased more than six-fold since 2001.
        There is no evidence that this can be attributed simply to increased reporting
        or public awareness. Cases requiring further action have more than
        doubled since 2001 which has created a huge workload for CYF. In addition,
        substantiated cases of abuse found by CYF have increased from approximately
        6,000 in 2001 to as high as 23,000 in 2013. While the past two years
        has seen a decrease in substantiated abuse found by CYF, this decrease is
        not matched by police convictions for abuse.
        • While physical child abuse found by CYF continued its climb from 2001
        right through to 2013 but dropped very slightly in the past two years, police
        statistics show a 200% increase since 2000 and a 136% increase since
        the anti-smacking law was introduced. The increase in serious physical
        abuse resulting in injury has increased by 86% since the law change. The
        government admits that numbers are projected to rise further.
        • Sexual offences recorded by police and by CYF continue to rise but, once
        again, while the CYF rates have started to decrease in the past 48 months,
        there has been no matching decrease in police rates, with a 43% increase
        since the law change.
        • Emotional abuse found by CYF has decreased since 2013 but is still 360%
        higher than 2001.
        • Rates of neglect and ill-treatment of children have decreased in the past
        two years but are still unacceptably high each year, with a 45% increase in
        police rates since the law change.
        • Child homicides continue to be a blot on NZ’s image. New Zealand has one
        of the highest rates of child abuse deaths in the OECD.
        • There has been a statistically significant increase in children diagnosed with
        emotional / behavioural problems (including depression, anxiety disorder,
        and ADHD) – a 132% increase since the smacking law was introduced.

        Click to access Defying-Human-Nature-FULL-REPORT.pdf

        Reply
        • No evidence of causation.

          It could be argued that the very vocal support of smacking as a legal punishment for children sent signals to parents with inclinations towards violence that it was fine toi bash their kids as long as they didn’t get caught doing it in public.

          No evidence that I’m aware of for that either. But anyone can make claims based on statistics where there is no solid research.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  27th March 2017

            Sorry Pete, you will need come up with counter facts rather then generalised musings.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  27th March 2017

            So you are confirming my original statement?

            That it is clear that the anti-smacking law has done nothing whatever to solve these issues and may well have aggravated them is glossed over by its defenders.

            Reply
            • NOEL

               /  27th March 2017

              Geez I said it earlier.
              The only issue it was designed to solve was the ability of Police to prosecute those who were hiding behind claims of “I was simply disciplining the child”.

              Is there is an increase in prosecutions since the law was enacted.

              Oh look there was.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              Are you claiming the objective was more prosecutions rather than helping children or families? I don’t recall any of the political advocates saying that.

              And if more prosecutions was the objective, were the families of parents prosecuted helped or harmed by those prosecutions or threats of prosecution?

            • I think the objective of Sue Bradford and some others was to ban any form of physical punishment.

              T think what most people who supported a change was the elimination of the ‘disciplining their child’ defence loophole that had got a small number of parents off charges before a jury (the odds are that some of 12 would support corporal punishment).

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              So the objective was to take the decision away from juries who had heard the evidence and give it to politicians who hadn’t.

            • No, the objective was to clarify what constituted assault and what didn’t, because the old law was too open to different interpretations by different juries.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              No, the objective was to declare something criminal that previously was not criminal. The hypocrisy was then to allow the police not to prosecute if they so chose.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              The effective consequence was to remove the decision from juries and give it to the police. This is explicitly a step towards a police state with no recourse to the court or any right of appeal.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              If there is one great demographic truth about New Zealand, it is that we are no longer one country, but five or six.

              The homogeneity that used to be our population has long since vanished. Instead we most resemble micro-states – defined by our differing geography and diverse culture.

              So it is that the South Island is now a separate country, an alternate New Zealand. Even-paced, wide and white. Closer in cultural patina to Queensland than Auckland. And you don’t really appreciate this stark contrast until you travel there and instinctively reach for the passport.

              I feel that way about the East Coast too. And parts of Northland, where Kaikohe and Kerikeri may be just down the road from each other, but inhabit wholly different hemispheres.

              I’m sure immigration accounts for some of this diversity. But by no means all. Over the past generation, New Zealanders have trooped in different directions, despite staying here. And we are not stopping anytime soon.

              Gore is a case in point. It was once embarrassed about itself. It was known as a sort of hickdom – Kiwi hillbillies. But it has turned its country feel into an asset, embraced both cows and guitars, and enjoys chasing smart-arsed metros out of its eateries. Gore: solid and stolid, maybe, but also sensible.

              But even this rural Southland community is being required to fight the virulent infection known simply as political correctness. And it emanates from a most unusual source: the police.

              Cue principal protagonist – 70-year-school bus driver Jim McCorkindale. He will be quitting his role this week after being hauled before the district court for assaulting one of his 12-year-old male passengers. On the face of it, a nasty case of bus rage.

              But the conclusion was as reported: the 12-year-old complainant being marched off to the court’s holding cells and Jim walking free. Because it turned out that Jim was not some child-beater after all, but a child saviour.

              The boy – something of a behaviour issue according to his own dad – had been teasing and pulling the hair of one of the girl passengers. Jim stopped the bus and told him to stop. The boy swore at him and carried on tugging.

              At which point Jim did something extraordinarily old-fashioned. He grabbed the boy’s arm and threatened to punch him in the stomach if he didn’t stop tormenting the girl. The boy stopped. Then got off the bus at the next stop and did something extraordinarily post-modern. Called the police, and told them that irascible old Jim had assaulted him. For no reason at all.
              Ad Feedback

              All these facts were known to the police before they turned up in the Gore court with Jim in the dock. They were very soon known to Judge Kevin Phillips. And hence the actions described above, with the 12-year-old also lectured about respecting his parents and the need to obey those in authority.

              End of story, you might have thought. But no.

              Enter Gore’s senior police sergeant Steve Gregory. Who says that, given the same set of facts, he would prosecute again. And that police did the right thing because there was an assault. Jim had laid his hands on the boy. Which is also, apparently, why the lesser option of police diversion was rejected. Despite Jim’s blemish-free past.

              This politically correct madness – that adults may not physically intervene when kids are teasing/tormenting other kids – is exactly the reason why so many teens and adolescents are out of control. They are smart enough to discern that no effective sanction can ever be applied to them.

              At worst, they might get a family group conference. At best, they might get the intervening adult arraigned with criminal charges.

              It is also the reason why so many adults turn a blind eye to teen excess. Not only are many of them armed these days – knife crime a speciality – but there is no back up available from the police. Instead, their aim will be to prosecute you.

              The UK police are experiencing similar credibility issues for exactly the same reason. A perceptible softness in dealing with anti-social teens and their intimidating behaviour. Except their top cops have finally recognised that their relative inactivity – and kid-glove attitude with kids – is losing them public respect.

              In the most horrific case, they refused to take action in favour of a solo parent, with a severely disabled teen daughter, who was routinely harassed and victimised by neighbourhood thugs. Eventually, the woman killed her daughter and herself because of the continuing bullying, and the police inertia.

              The silly statement of the Gore police sergeant suggests a similar attitude prevails in too many local stations as well. Teen anti-socials are bullying, vandalising, assaulting and swearing at any number of innocents – peer or adult – every day and in virtually every city/town in New Zealand.

              They do so because they know there is no real sanction, no real consequence. They are not a police priority and civic-minded adults are thinking twice about intervening.

              After the events in Gore last week – and after the official police response – then thinking twice is now over. It is not safe to intervene at all. You will be arrested. You may end up in jail and can’t always rely upon Kevin Phillips being on the bench. So, political correctness triumphs, even in Gore. Which means there’s bugger all hope for the rest of us.

              http://www.radiolive.co.nz/PC-madness-means-we-must-turn-blind-eye-to-bully-boys-/tabid/430/articleID/12581/Default.aspx

        • “The law is designed to teach children that physical discipline is not the answer.”

          We wouldn’t want that, would we!?

          “Violence leads to fear and distrust of adults …”

          Perhaps we do want this …?

          ” … and often does not help children understand what behaviour is expected of them.”

          Perhaps we want this too? La confusion permet l’endoctrinement? Confusion enables indoctrination …?

          http://howto.yellow.co.nz/legal/consumer-law/how-to-understand-the-new-zealand-anti-smacking-law/

          ” A repeal of the “anti-smacking” bill – a catchy, media-spun name that actually missed the point of the legislation – sends the wrong message to those with child abuse tendencies … The bill was not and never will be targeting good parents who use good discipline in their home … But the awareness this law change brought to our horrific child abuse statistics has arguably resulted in a greater discussion throughout our communities about what is OK and what is a step too far.”

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/9607761/Anti-smacking-law-hitting-its-targets

          @ Alan @ McCoskrie “There is no evidence that this can be attributed simply to increased reporting or public awareness.”

          Is there evidence it CANNOT be attributed likewise …? I don’t think so.

          Lift the lid on a pressure cooker and there’s a release of steam … It can only be good that all those cases are getting dealt with …

          All those cases of child abuse … and we wonder why the kids lash out in Kaikohe …?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  27th March 2017

            They didn’t lash out, they robbed a liquor store & tried to rob a servo.

            Reply
            • Yes Gezza, I concede that … Meantime we have no idea what the St Patrick’s Day revellers did in Paihia & Kerikeri to warrant 4/5ths of police personnel going there …

              Aside from a passing mention in the media release about Kaikohe kids, we don’t know if there was public drunkeness, damage to property, theft, threat to persons or violence … Yet these are social issues too … especially alcohol …

              The fact is, no-one set out to tarnish the good names of Paihia and Kerikeri … despite the police attending “incidents” …

              I’m just saying this is ‘guided News’ with political agenda navigating it … Public Relations ‘News’ … a lot like “News” in socialist countries … The ‘News’ generated in a State of inverted totalitarianism …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              There’ve been a number of news reports about violence and thefts in Paihia and Kerikeri – quite often perpetrated by visitors from Kaikohe and Moerewa unfortunately which doesn’t help your cause.

            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Well, that’s true we know nothing about Paihia & Kerikeri, but it might be because the police went there the situation was under control.

              What made this news was:
              1. There was video, and
              2. These were young kids & quite a gang of them at the servo, and
              3. The cop had to back off because the adults were defending the little scroats.

              I imagine if there was video of something similar happening elsewhere in NZ it’d make the news as well, but who knows.

            • I flatly refute that Gezza … Things like that make the news because SOMEONE sends them to the media … In the case of police action this is almost always the police themselves and literally a carefully crafted Press Release …

              In this case it wasn’t … Police were initially “asked for comment” … Days later a reporter from the Advocate (et al) finally quoted Acting Far North Police Commander Inspector Al Symonds … after some of the youths had been “turned in” by their whanau …

              By that time police were also “reviewing their deployment plan” and would have an increased presence in Kaikohe for the next few weekends …

              But IMHO, encouraging or cementing Blue & Black policy into election campaigns is behind it all …

            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Well, a small point – you could challenge or dispute what I said but you haven’t refuted it PZ. You’ve just insisted that your opinion as to there being a political motivation for the video being sent to the media is the most likely explanation.

              But my point is that I am sure lots of video clips get sent to the media all the time. They decide what’s newsworthy. You don’t have a teev anymore but we get to see videos of brawls, assaults, driveoffs, attempted & actual robberies and unusual or interesting events etc on telly all the time.

              Cellcams & securicams & computers everywhere – easy peasy to process and send video clips to media, facebook, twitter, youtube and police all at the same time. Happens everywhere – look at the Westminster Bridge attack. How do we know the clip wasn’t also sent to the police?

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  27th March 2017

              The news outlets have people whose job it is to have a wide reach on social media and find this stuff. They NEED the video, even newspapers.

            • @ Alan – “quite often perpetrated by visitors from Kaikohe and Moerewa”

              “Quite often” … !!!!???

              Are you for real? Care to define “quite often” …?

              Is this along similar lines to the fact that SOME unspecified percentage of crime all over NZ is committed by people from poorer areas robbing people from wealthier areas …?

              Its our problem when the solution is to provide more police to protect the wealthier people … but its not our problem when the solution is to do something positive for the poorer people in the poorer areas … that’s their problem …

              @ Gezza – Maybe my not having telly allows me to see clearly what’s really happening when one of these incidents makes the BIG TIME *GREWS* (Groomed News) …?

            • @ AC – “The news outlets have people whose job it is to … find this stuff.”

              I don’t think that’s the case with this Kaikohe incident AC, because early reports came complete with quotes from ‘Community Leader’ Tony Taylor …

              But you’re right of course … which speaks LOWLY of the news outlets too, does it not …? They look for incidents with the most *groom* value … and themselves are possibly even part of the “more police, more prisons” Lodge …

      • Peters is electioneering of course, and its a time to be very wary of “buying votes”, which is what his ‘hard line on crime’ kinda looks like … Increasing police numbers and other punitive measures is a sure sign of policy desolation …

        That he’s following National’s line of policy on this subject is more interesting than his actual policy IMHO … Lining up his coalition partner perhaps?

        Reply
  4. The ability of young people to communicate night and day with members of their peer group has given rise to “instant mob” behaviour called for by the natural leaders in the mob who dream up “party at Pauls, BYOGF” and “RV at the Gymn a biggie’s going down”. BYO Hoodie. “Cops are in Paihia, KK is the place, onto it”.
    If only those devious creative minds could be directed into a force for the good, the whole community would be better off. Whats happened to Blue Light dances and games nights so there is something to do in town rather than hanging out waiting for the text message. Too much money in some pockets, and for those who have none just take it where it is. If you are caught blame anyone else including the family and all you’ll get is a telling off. Sticks and stones etc.
    Why don’t parents know where their kids are at? What are you going to do about it? Its not my problem, my kids have grown up. Its not my problem I have no kids. Its not my problem, thats why we have Police and Social Welfare. Hey who is paying for all of this ? We all do as taxpayers! So it is a community problem? Ye, but which community? I don’t belong to one?
    I’ve got a headache, going to have a lie down!

    Reply
    • NOEL

       /  27th March 2017

      You just identified the solution. Impound their phones instead of catch and release.
      They’ll either get the message or go to a higher level of crime to get a replacement, requiring a visit to the District Court and not the weak Family Group Conference.

      Reply
  5. NOEL

     /  27th March 2017

    I should have added imagine the intel and insights to previous crimes those impounded phones could provide.

    Reply
  6. Bill Brown

     /  27th March 2017

    C’mon it’s Winnie’s last roll of the dice ! Regardless of the mans politics and or agenda he certainly has one heck of a constitution to keep going !! Oh those baubles he just loves so much !!! Peters has made life grandstanding and that will never change.

    Reply
  7. Would this sort of father v son assault have been at risk of a not guilty verdict from a jury?

    A Marlborough man who punched and kicked his son after a call from his teacher says he disciplined him “the Samoan way”.

    The 48-year-old was at home in Blenheim with his family after work when their son’s teacher called.

    His wife spoke to the teacher about behavioural issues the 11-year-old boy was showing at school.

    A police summary of facts said his father got upset, went into the lounge, where his son was sitting on the couch, and put his hands around his neck.

    He lifted his son about 30 centimetres off the ground by the throat, partially choking him, before throwing him across the room.

    The boy was lying on the floor. His father went over and kicked him once in the stomach.

    He grabbed the boy by the shirt collar and pulled him to his feet, before punching him once to the face.

    The boy had swelling, bruising and scratches to his face and neck, and a sore stomach.

    When spoken to by police, the man partly admitted the facts, but minimised the assault, the policy summary said.

    In explanation, he said he was upset and frustrated at his son. He was trying to discipline him “the Samoan way”, he said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/90878226/Father-beats-son-after-call-from-teacher

    Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  27th March 2017

      Hate to say it but no doubt it would have become as racial issue as to how different cultures who live in NZ operate and the asssult would have become secondary. Still at least Susan Devoy could wade in. Snigger.

      But this was no tap on the backside

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  27th March 2017

      ‘A Marlborough man who punched and kicked his son after a call from his teacher says he disciplined him “the Samoan way”.

      That’s correct. The Samoan way is brutual. LIke their natures.. I think given the facts most
      juries would find him guilty…although that is not a given, and in a few incidents perpetrators were found not guilty.

      However, lets look at this with cold hard realty. I accept this was assault..and could have been manslaughter.

      1- The father realised discipline was needed. He accepted responsibility for his sons actions.
      2- Polynesian kids are tough. Middleclass methods don’t work ( by the way, what methods
      would they be? No pocket money for 2 weeks? What money?)
      3- When this type of punishment or similar was normal few techers where ever bashed or abused.
      4- Its a fact once caning was removed from secondaty schools, misbehaviour skyrocketed.
      Teaching as an occupation now sucks.
      5- Polynesian kids instinctively undestand the bash. For them its normal. And no, in my opinion its not a self perpetuating cycle of abuse.

      The question is what would reintroduction of caning do for stats and also would more kids getting a bloody good hiding when they deserved it make our crime rate plummmet. I have historical precendents to say yes…what’s your proof to the contrary?

      Reply
      • There is no way corporal punishment will return to schools. Many many parents would not tolerate other people hitting their children.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  27th March 2017

          absolutely.

          Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  27th March 2017

          My experience of corporal punishment in schools was, that while there was the “strap”, actually the forward knowledge that you were going to be strapped was more powerful than the actual event. There’s too many queers in schools today for any of this to work. You were being strapped by a “man”, or “woman”, not some confused-gender apparition, where the punishment could be interpreted as some sexual outlet for the dispenser.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  27th March 2017

          Quite correct..and society will pay the price,time, time and time again.

          Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  27th March 2017

          It’s clear that many parents don’t care enough about their own kids to be bothered to discipline them – I pity the schools dealing with them 6 hours per day trying to teach them to learn. Are the “many, many” parents you refer to those who discipline their children? What techniques do they use? Do you have a link or some evidence?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  27th March 2017

            Interesting question Maureen. Quite a disturbing couple of video clips of a schoolgirl getting knocked out by one schoolgirl and then her head stamped on by another at Asburton College last week. Mum’s calling for security officers to be introduced at schools. Min of Ed is pushing ahead with guidelines to be made into law soon about when teachers can physically intervene in such situations & when not – causing some concerns with some teachers it seems.

            The other thing interesting about this item is two pupils obviously filmed the assault from different angles. The offenders have been suspended by the Board while they wait to meet to decide what their fate will be. No mention in the item of the police being involved.

            https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mother-wants-security-in-schools-after-violent-video-emerges

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  27th March 2017

              Oops, meant to say – item was on 1Ewes tonite.

            • MaureenW

               /  27th March 2017

              Thanks Gezza , personally I would prefer that gender-specific people were looking after my kids. Don’t have an issue with gays but do wonder about gender-identity issues and the people charged with childcare

            • @ Gezza – “No mention in the item of the police being involved” … which they should have been of course … Obviously an assault, child KO’d, warranted an ambulance, the caller to ambo would automatically trigger police …

              But instead Mum wants what …? Security guards in every school!? How many security guards? How many security guards required to cover all corners of the playground and behind the bike sheds all day, every school day …? Is that fish I smell … or phish … ?

              This begins to look like another case of *GROONEWS* or *GREWS* (new words # 92 & 93 I think?) … GROOMED NEWS … +GREWS+ is best I reckon …

              If I was mum I’d take my child elsewhere … Ashburton College clearly has a bullying problem … apparently like every other school in NZ …

      • @ Corky – “Polynesian kids instinctively undestand the bash. For them its normal. And no, in my opinion its not a self perpetuating cycle of abuse”

        Almost unbelievable anyone could say this Corky. A Trollism if ever I heard one. Why do they “instinctively” understand it? Is it because they’re closer to being Primates or Monkeys than we White folks? Does this instinctively apply to Maori and other indigenous or ‘brown’ people too?

        Many Polynesian kids are conditioned to undestand the bash. For them its normal; inter-generational: By definition a self perpetuating cycle of abuse.

        Reply
        • Conspiratoor

           /  27th March 2017

          Turns out it’s monoamine oxidase – the warrior gene

          ‘Māoridom is a warrior society that evolved under the stresses of war and
          ocean exploration resulting in a natural character that embraces aggression; hence the proclivity of Māori towards violence lies within his own nature”

          http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/index.php/MR/article/viewFile/222/243

          Reply
          • MaureenW

             /  27th March 2017

            Interesting, I’m married to a Maori – they definitely have the warrior gene – it provides some comfort to me in a society made up increasingly of apologist, the useless faggots

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  27th March 2017

              going well tonite Maureen,what are you like at …cooking..eggs?

            • MaureenW

               /  27th March 2017

              Do you have an issue with useless faggots – tell me what it is? Actually my last comment was not quite correct – I meant to say that I’m not as reassured in a society of apologists and useless faggots.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  27th March 2017

              I’m married to one too Maureen. She’s definitely got it!

          • “The warrior gene” doesn’t explain numerous reports by early explorers and traders that Maori were not only a physically healthy race but also devoted, gentle and even ‘liberal’ child rearers … [I’m definitely talking pre-Missionary here] …

            All humans it seems are more-or-less equally imbued with ‘fight, flight or freeze’ … perhaps due to human evolution as opposed to specific cultural evolution …

            Conversely, lack of this “warrior gene” doesn’t explain the excellent fighting capabilities of many other cultures …

            I’ll call *CROC* on monoamine oxidase pending further investigation …

            Its so very very simple folks … violent child-rearing techniques are taught by being reared violently …

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th March 2017

              Dunno if this is a first, but I agree with PZ here. Violence begats violence. Genes may give the physique for it but the brain needs to be conditioned to it.

            • Corky

               /  27th March 2017

              ‘The warrior gene” doesn’t explain numerous reports by early explorers and traders that Maori were not only a physically healthy race but also devoted, gentle and even ‘liberal’ child rearers … [I’m definitely talking pre-Missionary here] …”

              Too much revisonist history…where do you think all those smoked heads came from?

            • @ Corky – “where do you think all those smoked heads came from?”

              Demand for smoked heads from Pakeha traders Corky … where else!?

              Or did the wicked, degenerate, primitive heathen Maori force them to buy Mokomokai?

              You KiwiFrontLine revisionists should think before you call people revisionists?

              There was Pakeha demand for prostitutes and even child prostitutes too, but this is almost always dressed-up by Pakeha in terms of evil Maori selling their daughters …

        • Corky

           /  27th March 2017

          ‘Almost unbelievable anyone could say this Corky. A Trollism if ever I heard one. ‘

          Your trouble is you live inside your head too often.. the taste of reality, like a simple palate escapes you.

          Reply
          • I disagree Corky … You’re statement about Polynesian kids “instinctively understanding the bash” was just too much like feeding the racism inherent in the system … feeding so many people’s pre-determined prejudices with irrational bullshit … feeding the sheeple …

            It warrants only challenge, regardless of how “heady” you find it …

            I don’t want to have a simple palate … like yours …

            Palate: a person’s ability to distinguish between and appreciate different flavours.

            Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s