Author: HEF Admin

  • Sheryl Savill and Bob McCoskrie on TVNZ this morning

    Sheryl Savill and Bob McCoskrie

    on TVNZ this morning

    Q+A’s Paul Holmes interviewed Sheryl Savill from Focus on the Family and Family First NZ’s Bob McCoskrie on the smacking referendum this morning on TVNZ.

    You can view the full interview here:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-paul-holmes-interviews-cheryl-savill-and-bob-mccroskie-2871394/video

    You can  read the transcript here
    http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-paul-holmes-interviews-cheryl-savill-and-bob-mccroskie-2871394

    Got a comment on this issue or like to give us feedback? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=122aa520f2a4cb0d&mt=application%2Fpdf

    DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59
    KEAH? – HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WHEN GOOD BECAME BAD!

    By Stephen Dol NZCBC, Research Analyst.
    stephen.dol@thinkingezy.co.nz
    Michael Jackson sung the song “Bad”, which really meant “Good”. That’s confusing and so is the opposition to the referendum. To clarify this it is important to highlight two separate issues in the debate – 1) dysfunctional violent abuse and 2) the purpose of authority within a family to govern and when necessary, enforce. The confusion has been created by the violent abuse lobby who have merged the assumption that physical discipline to correct boundary and  behaviour encroachments is dysfunctional violent abuse, which it is not.
    The question is…
    Let’s use the dictionary definition for abuse i.e. “to treat badly”. The question then becomes “Is physical discipline bad treatment of a child”. To answer this we need to assess the outcome, i.e. how well will a child who is loved and  disciplined transition into adulthood as a responsible balanced citizen? and what is the effect of a smack on this transition? The outcome shows the violent abuse theory to be out of kilter with reality, regarding boundaries and behaviour development, in caring homes. Why? Because till now, too many kids coming from these homes are succeeding in life. To spurn the collective wisdom and observations of hundreds of generations of families is to say that they got it wrong. This is crazy talk.
    The ugly picture
    What constitutes abuse, are cases such as Nia Glassie, the Kahui twins and similar reports. There is no question about these delinquent, evil and wicked cruelties and they must be dealt with. But this is not what the authority to govern in a family is about and the examples given are tactical manipulation because they muddy relatively clear waters.
    Our beloved schools
    What ever the view you take, the school system is the best recent example of what happens when the authority to govern is removed from the governing body. This happened in the 1980’s and almost 30 years later we are clearly seeing the effect of that change. The DomPost (24 June 2009) reported in the article “Mother punches school head”, that there were 6995 violent incidents this last year by students in schools, of which 815 were inflicted on teachers, (part of the governing body). On top of this there is no account for the daily foul gestures, verbal, manipulative, behavioural and psychological abuses. The report went on to say, “…fortunately these events are relatively  infrequent”. I don’t know about you, but 41 acts of violence per school day (5 directed at teachers) is not infrequent. The mechanisms for dealing with it are toothless (ask your teenage college kids or other students, I did. They think it is a joke). In today’s pop culture, violence in schools seems to be considered normal and par for the course of being a teacher. The estimated cost of this abuse to the tax payer, is $6.2m per year in ACC claims and medical costs (this does not account for expenses associated with the violence such as lost teaching time, counselling and time wasted dealing with the problem or the families who are unable to control their kids). This rouses no reaction, disgust or shame from the “yes” vote referendum campaigners, yet we are asked to shoulder this burden, every year without complaint. Is this right?
    A parking lot at home
    Worse than this, the school experience has been permanently embed in law with regard to family governance and that is discouraging and outrageous. We can expect in due course that the school experience will park itself in our homes, as the tweenies, twitters and tweeties enjoy the protection of the enforcement arm of the law to freely in some cases, turn their violence on their parents. In others to roam unrestrained in their anti social behaviours. Why? Because central government does not appreciate the effect of what has happened as a result of usurping the support the families need for authority in order to govern and enforce. Parents have a responsibility at times to enforce good behaviour in and outside their homes. The government would never dream of taking away such authority from the police and the far stronger measures of enforcement, such as pepper spray, handcuffs, tasers, riot gear, the AOS, etc. That is the real world we live in, but at the back of my head I hear the shout about alternative discipline advice. The problem is, on its own, it is not working at school and it isn’t working at home.
    The death that ended the war
    Violent abuse is a real issue. The attempt to address it however, is directed at the wrong cause. It is a social issue that has gained momentum on the back of the Culture Wars of the 1960’s & 70’s.  The DomPost (02 June 2009) reported in the article “A death (Michael Jackson) that ended the great war”, that it is now considered a war won by popular culture and its associated values.  What is popular culture? – among many other things it is: “I disregard authority; I have the rights; don’t restrain me in any way whatsoever; promises are for breaking; commitment is a big word;
    and what defines a family anyway? ”What it ought to be is: “Respect for order by respecting authority; acknowledging my responsibilities; restraining my base desires for the good of the community; making honourable commitments; action not intent; and reinforcing family structure”. The drinking age debate and the associated property, violence and sex crimes (reported DomPost 13 July 2009, “Dark side – Girls night out”) is just one of many examples of the cultural confusions we have inherited from this “victory”. The “safe everything” message is another.
    The cultural abuse instrument
    So, what about the abuse? The Cultural Revolution has become the abusive instrument (bad treatment of others) because of what it stands for and what it promotes, what it sows and what it then reaps – and that issue is not being accosted. On this basis (yes even in the absence of smacking), the issue that is trying to be addressed (abuse) is self defeated by pop cultures new moral baseline and that will go on unabated until we stop and take stock of what has happened. I suspect it will be with us for some time to come – till society can bear it no more.
    “Do as I say not as I do”
    As for the detractors of the referendum, there isn’t much to say really except, it is not enough to, “Do as I say and not as I do”. Pop culture will turn a blind eye to behaviours regarding leadership and consistency. Bill Clinton is the classic pop culture politician who demonstrated his cock up and avoidance through technicalities in his embarrassing string of public denials. Such world views make it necessary to adhere to the “Do as I say” adage. But true public leaders, in all facets of life must lead by example. Too many bear the opposite hallmark, and so they credibly can’t. By the next election numerous will have fallen – it has already begun. Not getting caught doesn’t make the erosion any less cancerous.
    Muted criticism and deflating support
    Finally John Key responded to the referendum question, leading up to the last election, by saying and I quote, “That National’s view on S59 was clear but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told. Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders have a say on the matter”. The question now is, has John Key been poisoned by the same political wine and become drunk too, with that power? He stood shoulder to shoulder with the detractors, to mute the descent and deliberately deflating the support for the referendum by saying “We don’t plan to change anything anyway”. How discouraging for confidence in the democratic process of this country. The recent folic acid in bread reports demonstrates how stupefied and impotent central government has become. The government can’t even resist the demands of another country. They have been hijacked by cretins who are more interested in bureaucratic participation in the meddling of foreign nations in our affairs, than they are in the interests of the people they govern.
    Let Right be Done
    Now we all have to decide and choose. I have said before “Let Right Be Done”. It needs to happen now. It’s time to start the process of taking back our country from this new breed of Monarchy and Lords. – It seems that “No” might still be in fashion after all.

    © July 2009, Stephen Dol. All rights reserved.
    You are free to disseminate this document provided it is cited in context and due credit is given to the author.

  • (dis)Honest to God: How Not to Argue about the Smacking Referendum

    FROM:
    and

    (dis)Honest to God: How Not to Argue about the Smacking Referendum

    Dr. Glenn Peoples responds to liberal Ian Harris.

    Liberal Ian Harris displays dishonesty and nastiness toward Christian parents. Ian Harris tells us (“Honest to God,” Dominion Post, [Dominion Post. Saturday July 11, 2009. Page B5], reproduced at the YesVote website at /http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/07/17/the-bibles-harsh-view-rejected) that we should reject the “harsh views” on child rearing found in the Bible.

    ( <<< Click on image to view full size)

    Mr Harris, unfortunately, joins many of those who promote the criminalisation of good parents by muddying the waters. He notes, for example, that someone who defends the right to use physical discipline also believes that children (like adults) are sinners. He then announces that since “progressive” Christians (by which he seems to mean those who no longer accept Christian theology) realise that this is based on an antiquated view, we should likewise reject the right to use physical discipline and we should criminalise those who do.

    It is difficult to interact charitably with those who support the ban on smacking if this is the contorted way they are going to reason about the subject. Whether or not one thinks the theology held by some supporters of the right to use physical discipline is correct is quite a different matter from whether or not one thinks they ought to be made into criminals, surely!

    Unfortunately again, Mr Harris attempts to use his platform as a mouthpiece of liberal (what he calls “progressive) Christianity to give credence to scientific claims that are obviously subject to great dispute. He makes the sweeping claim that this nebulous thing called “modern research” (while he cites no actual studies) shows that although corporal punishment does help bring about short-term compliance, it does not help a child to “internalise positive values for the longer term.”

    I am constantly bemused by the way in which conservative religious spokespeople are ridiculed even when they do cite research, but obvious nonsense like this can be peddled by the liberal voices without so much as a single scholarly citation, and nobody is expected to bat an eyelid.

    But even if what Mr Harris says is correct, the implication is that corporal punishment in and of itself has short term benefits and no long term ill effects. Hardly something to be prosecuting people for! The reality is that the effects he cites are perfectly compatible with the good of corporal punishment. Such punishment usually is administered to children when they are not willing to reason or reflect on the long term consequences of their actions. It is for when children are being unruly and unwilling to listen. Circumstances in which they are willing to do so are the circumstances under which corporal punishment is less necessary (meaning that the older a child becomes, the less frequent a smack will become). None of this gives the careful reader any reason to think that the occasional smack is immoral, much less worthy of criminal prosecution.

    Bereft of compelling moral or scientifically grounded arguments, Mr Harris turns instead to arousing prejudice against the religious convictions of those who disagree with him about child discipline. Unable to find anything strong enough in what all Christians consider their holy book, he reaches into the book of Ecclesiasticus (part of the so-called “apocryphal” writings that did not make up part of the Hebrew canon) to find the claim that “he who loves his son will whip him often.”

    But not only has Mr Harris strayed into literature that the so-called “fundamentalists” (most of whom would identify as conservative Protestants) that he attacks do not even regard to be part of the Bible at all, he has clearly sought out the most extreme translation of the verse that he can find. He conjures up grizzly pictures of leering parents towering, horsewhip in hand, over the broken and bleeding bodies of little children with misleading language like this.

    But just a few minutes research would dispel this attempt. The New American translation reads, “He who loves his son chastises him often.” The Douay Rheims translation (the Catholic Bible, which does include this book as part of the canon) reads “He that loveth his son, frequently chastiseth him.” The old King James version, the one that “fundamentalists” are most likely to read if they read this book at all, reads “He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod.” Of course, because it’s a metaphor for physical discipline that’s probably still too much for Mr Harris, but needless to say, it robs him of his “whipping” bogeyman.

    After the rhetorical debris is stripped away, all that’s really left is a string of namecalling and fearful language. He calls the views of his opponents “repugnant.” He calls them “fundamentalists” with “antiquated” views that are opposed to “progressive” thought. But where’s the actual substance? Like much of the rhetorical fireworks that is being leveled at those who want the law changed to a common sense view that refuses to place thousands of good parents in the criminal category, Ian Harris offers more heat than light, and manifests just the sort of shallowness and bias that this debate could do without.

    Glenn Peoples

    Dr Peoples’ specialist area of research is the role of religious convictions in public life. He runs New Zealand’s top philosophy and theology podcast, Say Hello to my Little Friend.

  • Parents Still Flouting Smacking Law – And Still Opposing It

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 July 2009

    Parents Still Flouting Smacking Law – And Still Opposing It

    Family First NZ says that the latest research on parental discipline by Digipoll shows that parents are continuing to flout the law and that the opposition to it remains at its high level.

    “Parents are ignoring the law because they simply don’t agree with it and because it is so confusing, but what is most significant in this latest poll is that even parents who choose not to smack are opposed to it being criminalized,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “More than a 1/3’rd of parents say they never smack yet only 11% believe it should be a criminal offence.”

    “On the other hand, 61% of mums and 67% of dads admitted that they are completely ignoring the law despite the potential for investigation, intervention and prosecution by CYF and the police.”

    “This research also reaffirms that parents use smacking sparingly (and have done for a number of decades), are experimenting with different parenting techniques, and that the ‘one size fits all’ model is unacceptable to parents. Parents are using different techniques for different children and that is part of the challenge of parenting – finding what works best for that particular child.”

    “The Ministry of Health’s 2006/2007 NZ Health Survey (“A Portrait of Health”) found that telling a child off was the most common form of discipline (62% of parents) yet was considered most effective by only 19% of parents who used it. 40% of parents admitted yelling but only 3.7% considered it most effective, and ‘time out’ was used 50% of the time yet only a 1/3’rd of parents who used it considered it most effective.”

    “Parenting isn’t for cowards but the expectations and laws being placed on parents are sure making it scary,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “It’s time we acknowledged the difficult role of parenting, and started supporting parents – rather than eyeing them with suspicion and submitting to the organizations who are the self-appointed experts on child rearing,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “It’s also time we targeted the real causes of child abuse and the rotten parents who are putting their kids at risk.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrieNational Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Of those planning to vote, an overwhelming 85.4 percent said they would vote “no” to the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2673872/Fewer-parents-smack-today-than-in-past-poll

    Fewer parents smack today than in past – poll

    Last updated 09:44 25/07/2009
    Fewer New Zealand parents smack their children today than in past decades, according to results of a poll released today. A non-binding citizens-initiated referendum on whether smacking should remain a criminal offence is due to held from next Friday to August 21. A Weekend Herald-DigiPoll poll of 200 parents of four-year-olds found that 9 percent of mothers and 8 percent of fathers smacked their children at least one a week. The figures were significantly down from those contained in four surveys by Waikato University psychologists Jane and James Ritchie from 1963 to 1997. The Ritchies found that about half of all parents of four-year-olds through those 3½ decades smacked their children at least once a week. The Digipoll results also show that two-thirds of both mothers and fathers still smack occasionally, despite the law change two years ago banning the use of force against children for the purpose of correction. However, the number who never smacked, which remained below 10 percent in the Ritchies' studies, had jumped to 39 percent of mothers and 33 percent of fathers. The poll also found that 78.5 percent of the parents questioned planned to vote in the referendum, with 14 percent saying they wouldn't be taking part and the rest unsure. Of those planning to vote, an overwhelming 85.4 percent said they would vote "no" to the question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Only 10.8 percent indicated they would vote "yes". Green MP Sue Bradford, who promoted the 2007 law change, said the fall in the smacking rate was positive. "I think that's a fantastic sign of hope for the future of our nation that there has been such a dramatic shift in the last 12 years," she told the Herald. But Family First New Zealand national director Bob McCoskrie, who is urging a "no" vote at the referendum, said the poll showed that many parents were continuing to flout the law. "Parents are ignoring the law because they simply don't agree with it and because it is so confusing," he said. "But what is most significant in this latest poll is that even parents who choose not to smack are opposed to it being criminalised." - NZPA

  • Motueka mother jailed

    Another Child abuse case since Section 59 amended:

    Motueka mother jailed

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2663474/Motueka-mother-jailed

    The Nelson Mail

    Last updated 13:12 22/07/2009

    A 22-year-old Motueka mother who shook her four-month-old baby, leaving the child with severe brain damage, has been sent to jail for three years and nine months.

    Cassandra Albert pleaded guilty at a depositions hearing in May to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to the baby with reckless disregard for his safety.

    She was sentenced in the Nelson District Court this morning.

    Albert’s 31-year-old partner Newton Samuel Moki was also sentenced to 22 months jail today.

    The court heard the couple’s son suffered serious non-accidental injuries including permanent brain damage over Labour Weekend last year.

    Moki and Albert were jointly charged with failing to provide the necessities of life for the boy after they failed to get help for him for nine hours, despite him suffering seizures and sweating uncontrollably.

    More serious charges against the couple of wounding the baby with intent were dropped in May.

    Moki was sentenced to a total of 22 months in jail on the failing to provide the necessities of life and an unrelated charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. It was Moki’s seventh drink-driving charge.

  • Kiwis Know the Difference Between Child Abuse and a Smack


    http://yaca.org.nz/?p=19

    Kiwis Know the Difference Between Child Abuse and a Smack

    Media Release
    14 July 2009

    Youth against Child Abuse New Zealand wishes to address the confusion surrounding the disciplinary action of smacking, and anger-driven child abuse. Too often these two actions are considered to be the same, a mistake that is often made by some of the advocates of the new anti-parental correction law.

    Yes Vote; the group that was created to represent the minority who will vote ‘yes’ in the upcoming anti-smacking referendum, are adamant that a light smack for the purpose of child correction is the same as child abuse. They claim, “A ‘yes’ vote is a vote to protect children from assault.”

    YACA believes that there is a great difference between child discipline that is carried out in a loving, controlled way in order to train a child, and child abuse which is the uncontrolled and unacceptable behaviour of angry parents.”

    A smack, given out of love for a child is completely different to beating a child out of anger, and all good parents know the difference,” Says YACA Canterbury Regional spokesperson, Charles Smith.

    YACA is also alarmed that the Yes Vote group are equating ‘physical discipline’ with ‘family violence’, something that the Government has been seeking to address in their ‘Family Violence, it’s not okay’ campaign.

    The Youth of New Zealand know this country has a terrible record on child abuse, but equating physical discipline with child abuse is just not okay as it undermines all the good parents who are trying to raise good citizens.

    “The horrific rate of child abuse in New Zealand has nothing to do with good parental discipline, because the motive for both actions are completely opposite to each other,” Says Mr. Smith. “Child abuse happens when parents lash out at their children in anger, while a smack given for the purpose of correction is given out of love, for the training of the child.”

    The polls have consistently shown since 2005 that more than 80% of the population see that there is a substantial difference between child abuse and child discipline.

    YACA is looking forward to the New Zealand public showing their agreement with this by voting NO in the upcoming referendum.

    ENDS

  • Trial over hitting nephew with pillow

    Trial over hitting nephew with pillow

    A Wellington man who hit his nephew on the head with a sofa cushion has been committed for jury trial, charged with assault on a child.

    The assault allegedly took place last New Year’s Eve, following an argument whether the boy’s mother was being too overprotective of her children, she told Wellington District Court today.

    Though no injury was found on the boy from the alleged assault with the small decorative cushion and she said did not see the actual attack happen, it was “definitely not” just a pillowfight, she said.

    The boy’s mother admitted she had used physical violence to discipline her son in the past.

    Defence counsel Paul Knowsley questioned the mother over a story her son told a police officer during a filmed, evidential interview.

    The boy told the police officer his uncle had once used a sword to battle gangsters in a local park.

    “Some children have a tendency to tell stories … [the six-year-old] comes into this category,” she said.

    Speaking from behind a protective screen shielding him from the accused, the boy told the court the pillow-hit had not really hurt and he felt no ill-will toward his uncle.

    The boy said he had been hit on the top of the head and was not sore afterward.

    During his appeal to the presiding Justices of the Peace to have the case dismissed, Mr Knowsley repeatedly asked whether he was dreaming.

    “It is almost bizarre you can hear repeated admissions that the child has been repeatedly hit by his own parents but that this is going to a full jury case. Frankly, it’s preposterous,” he said.

    After re-confirming his not guilty plea, the alleged attacker was remanded on bail to an address in Wanganui, though his bail conditions stated he was not allowed to drink at all or have any contact with his sister’s family.

    He would reappear in Wellington District Court for a full jury trial on September 22.

    – HAMISH STUART/NZPA

  • England: ‘Evil destruction’ of a happy family

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

    ‘Evil destruction’ of a happy family

    A system involving social workers, police and courts took a child away from loving parents for no apparent reason, writes Christopher Booker.

    By Christopher Booker
    Published: 5:48PM BST 18 Jul 2009

    Comments 287 | Comment on this article

    Two weeks ago I reported as shocking a story as this column has ever covered. It described how a loving family was torn apart when the parents were arrested by police on what turned out to be wholly spurious charges, so that their three children could be taken into care by social workers. As reported on another page, it now seems this awful episode has come to a happy ending.

    However a new case has lately been surfacing, if anything even more shocking. This also involved the arrest of two parents and the abduction of their child by social workers, in a story so bizarre that, at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Gordon Brown was asked about it by the family’s MP, Charles Hendry, who has long been concerned with the case because the mother is a vice-chairman of his local Conservative Association. The family’s horrified GP says that, in 43 years of medical practice, he has never “encountered a case of such appalling injustice”.

    I first planned to describe this case in April, but was pre-empted by the draconian reporting restrictions on family cases, which, for reasons which will become tragically clear, have now been partly lifted.

    The story began in April 2007 when “Mr Smith”, as I must call him, had a visit from the RSPCA over the dog-breeding business he ran from the family home. He had docked the tails of five new-born puppies – a procedure that had become illegal two days beforehand. Unaware of this, he promised in future to obey the new law.

    Three days later, however, at nine o’clock in the morning, two RSPCA officials returned, accompanied in cars and riot vans by 18 policemen, who had apparently been tipped off, quite wrongly, that Mr Smith had guns in the house.

    Armed with pepper spray, they ransacked the house, looking for the nonexistent guns. The dogs, released from their kennels, also rampaged through the house. When Mr Smith and his wife, who was three months pregnant, volubly protested at what was happening, they were forcibly arrested in front of their screaming five-year-old daughter “Jenny” and taken away. Two hours later, with the house in a shambles – the dogs having strewn the rabbit entrails meant for their dinner across the floor – social workers arrived to remove the crying child.

    Held for hours in a police cell, Mrs Smith had a miscarriage. When she was finally set free, she returned home that evening to find her daughter gone. It was the beginning of a barely comprehensible nightmare.

    Her husband was charged with various offences connected with the dogs, including the tail-docking, but was eventually given a conditional discharge by a judge who accepted that he was “an animal lover” who had not been cruel to his dogs.

    Far more serious, however, was that the social workers seemed determined to hang onto the child, now in foster care, on the sole grounds that they had found the house dirty and in a mess (the “animal entrails” played a large part in their evidence). This was despite the testimony of a woman Pc (who had visited the house a month earlier on a different matter) that she found it “clean and tidy”. Two hundred horrified neighbours, who knew the couple as doting parents of a happy, well-cared-for child, were about to stage a protest demonstration when they were stopped by the police, on the social workers’ instructions that this might identify the child.

    For more than two years the couple have been fighting through more than 100 hearings in the courts to win their daughter back. From a mass of evidence, including psychiatric reports and tape recordings made at meetings with her parents (only allowed in the presence of social workers), it is clear she has been desperate to return home. It is equally clear that considerable pressure has been brought on the child to turn her against her parents,

    One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have “been forced to have oral sex with her father”.

    After Mrs Smith alone had been subjected to four different psychiatric investigations, which came up with mixed findings, she refused to submit to a fifth, and this apparently weighed heavily with the judge who last December ordered that “Jenny” should be put out to adoption.

    In the Appeal Court 11 days ago, Mr Justice Bodey ruled that, because the mother had refused that fifth test, indicating that the parents put their own “emotional wellbeing” in front of that of their child, the adoption order must stand. When this judgment was reported, an independent social worker, who had earlier been an expert witness in the case, wrote to Mr and Mrs Smith to say he was “horrified” to learn that Jenny was “not back in their care”, having assumed for over a year that “she must have been returned home”.

    Their equally horrified GP, saying that he had never “encountered such a case of appalling injustice”, wrote “the destruction of this once happy family is in my opinion evil”. So shocked was their MP, Mr Hendry ,that he last Wednesday took the highly unusual course of raising the case with the Prime Minister at question time. Numerous others who know the family well have expressed similar dismay. One neighbour, herself a former social worker, whose own daughter often played with “Jenny”, said: “I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. It is disgusting.”

    What is clear in this case, as in so many others, is that a system involving social workers, police and courts in what is an obviously very close alliance should yet again have left a happy, loving family destroyed for no very obvious reason, Almost equally alarming is the way that system manages to shield itself from the world, through reporting restrictions which it claims are designed to protect the children but which too often end up by protecting only the system itself.

    Leave your comment here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

  • Police admit they may prosecute for smacking cases initially considered “reasonable force in the circumstances”

    FROM:

    http://www.big-news.blogspot.com/

    Police admit they may prosecute for smacking cases initially considered “reasonable force in the circumstances”

    Police have not ruled out prosecuting a parent who lightly – and with reasonable force – smacks their child, despite proponents of a law change on smacking saying it will never happen.

    Prior to 2007, if a parent was taken to court because they smacked their child, they were able to use a defence of reasonable force – and if that corrective action was minor, they would be acquitted. Currently,should that same parent be taken to court for the same action, that parent could have a criminal conviction as there is currently no defence in law for actions undertaken for the purpose of correction.

    Proponents of the law change say Police will not prosecute light smackers. Police, on the other hand, say it may well happen, adding the younger the child is, the more likely it is to happen. Police cannot say if a smacking prosecution – and there have been a few lately – would be of a kind that could have been successfully defended under the old law. As it happens one case in the last quarter was discharged without conviction, meaning Police thought it in the best interest to prosecute, but the court did not. One parent was prosecuted in July 2008 and subsequently convicted for smacking. That parent may well not have a criminal record had she been charged just over two years ago.

    This means that a smacker has been convicted under the new legislation. Yet the legislation has not prevented one child from being abused.

    However some events that are prosecuted as “minor acts of physical discipline” would generally be seen as outside what is considered reasonable in the circumstances. It is now the job of the police to determine this. However, police do not preclude reasonable smackers being charged for assault under a minor act of physical discipline either; all such prosecutions have progressed through the court system or the offenders are on bail.

    The way that Police are applying discretion is confirmation that Parliament has abdicated its responsibility in lawmaking. We do not elect a parliament to pass policy via an Act of parliament. Not only does parliament want police to do its job – make law – in deciding to use factors outside legislation in decisions to prosecute, parliament wants Police to do the courts job,in deciding what is reasonable in the circumstances under the guise of “no public interest to prosecute”. However, only for correction. In case of smacking for other purposes a reasonable force defence can be raised.

    If police get it wrong on correction, there is nothing the accused can do about it other than appeal.

    Labels:

    posted by Dave at 5:31 PM