Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

by Whaleoil on September 25, 2009 · 34 comments

So Sue Brad­ford the woman who was going to save all the kid­dies of New Zealand has decided to bolt, no doubt to some cushy gov­ern­ment funded lobby organisation.

Her legacy to New Zealand is one of acri­mony, death and injury. I will not be sorry to see the end of this med­dling com­mu­nist bitch. there should be a wall at par­lia­ment called the Brad­ford Wall of Shame that lists every child that her med­dling law failed to protect.

Pop­u­lar­ity: 6% [?]

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

{ 34 comments }

billhicks September 25, 2009 at 6:39 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Two things Sue brad­ford did not quit she was forced to go,thank fuck. And FrOg you must be fuck­ing jok­ing or croaking…….Here is frog enjoy­ing him­self with his boyfriend think­ing of the late sue.http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

crabby September 25, 2009 at 12:22 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Ter­akhi lips is goneeeeee!! YUSSSS

mediatart September 25, 2009 at 1:31 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The child thrash­ers are rejoic­ing!
How­ever you for­get the entire national party voted for the law. And it will out­last you lot

Michaels September 25, 2009 at 6:36 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Labourslut, like so many of you bent left fuck­ers you always fail to men­tion why National backed the law (to which I dis­agreed with) but it was with a slight adjust­ment to the law, so in future face the facts not the leaning.

Rakaia George September 25, 2009 at 1:38 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Sue Brad­ford quits…and I can go to sleep tonight in the happy knowl­edge that my kids really are safer than when they woke up this morn­ing. Cheers!

crabby September 25, 2009 at 1:51 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@ Medi­atart – No the peo­ple who use a light smack as part of parental cor­rec­tion can now rejoice! now all we need is some democ­racy so the the Tards in the Tard­hive actu­ally lis­ten to the voice of the peo­ple who voted in the referendum!

meditart September 25, 2009 at 4:23 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

As I said thrash­ers . So you want to slap your kids for hav­ing an unmade bed ?

As for democ­racy … to late, Athens was 2400 years ago.

What we have is REPRESENTATIVE democ­racy…. exactly so idiots dont get a look in.

As they say in sport, regard­ing coaches, when you lis­ten to the fans its time to join the fans ( in the grandstand)

frog September 25, 2009 at 2:33 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

What a loser Wha­le­Oil. Sue has done more for chil­dren in this coun­try than Labour or National in the last three decades – so much so that they voted for her work, and con­tinue to sup­port it! Get over it.

Whaleoil September 25, 2009 at 2:38 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Fuck­ing bull­shit and get fucked you lit­tle green fucker

Hurf Durf September 25, 2009 at 6:28 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Brad­ford is a can­cer. And like all can­cers, they have to be force­fully excised from the body.

Michaels September 25, 2009 at 6:33 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

All she has done for chil­dren is give them rights that fuck over good par­ents, your a fuck­wit Kermit!!

The Gantt Guy September 25, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

What Whale so elo­quently said, but also frog, are you seri­ous? The anti-smacking law is one of the most dan­ger­ous pieces of leg­is­la­tion passed in the last decade. It was sold as a mech­a­nism that would force brown peo­ple to stop bash­ing and killing their kids, when in real­ity it has had (and will have) pre­cisely zero effect on those appalling fig­ures. In real­ity it was noth­ing more than a social­ist grab for more con­trol over peo­ples’ lives. And it is to the cur­rent government’s shame that they (a) sup­ported the trav­esty in the first place, and (b) refused to respond to the wishes of 90% of the pop­u­la­tion who dis­agreed with it.

The Gantt Guy September 25, 2009 at 3:11 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

What Whale so elo­quently said, but also frog, are you seri­ous? The anti-smacking law is one of the most dan­ger­ous cons of the last decade. Sold as a mech­a­nism that would force brown peo­ple to stop bash­ing and killing their kids, in real­ity it has had (and will have) pre­cisely zero effect on those appalling fig­ures. It was noth­ing more than a social­ist grab for more con­trol over peo­ples’ lives. And it is to the cur­rent government’s shame that they (a) sup­ported the trav­esty in the first place, and (b) refused to respond to the wishes of 90% of the pop­u­la­tion who dis­agreed with it.

Robert Winter September 25, 2009 at 4:23 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@ crabby

The idea of ‘a light smack as part of parental cor­rec­tion’ sounds so innocu­ous. Why not use strong words like ‘hit’ or ‘thump’ or ‘bat­ter’, for that is where a cul­ture of vio­lence which starts with ‘a light smack’ ends up. Medi­atart is spot on.

Hurf Durf September 25, 2009 at 6:28 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Because a “light smack” is not a “hit” or “thump” or “bat­ter”. Stop blur­ring the line, you blovi­at­ing shitstain.

crabby September 25, 2009 at 7:06 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Because, Mr Win­ter, thats exactly what I meant. ” A light smack”. After using it once, the mere men­tion of it is enough to cor­rect most chil­dren. No law is going to stop peo­ple who ‘beat’ their chil­dren. In the heat of the moment when they loose con­trol are they going to say “Aw fuck thats right, theres a law to stop me beat­ing my chil­dren” Pull your head out of the sand and stop being an Ostritch.

onelaw4all September 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Robert, don’t drag the rest of us into your own per­sonal experiences.

And many would pur­port that a “cul­ture of vio­lence” starts with wel­fare and drug depen­dancy and a lack of basic ethics/morality.

Oh yeah, and per­haps the small mat­ter of them wak­ing up to the fact that their “meal ticket” makes a lot of noise, soils them­selves, and gen­er­ally incon­ve­niences their “lifestyle”

crabby September 25, 2009 at 7:11 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Spot on Bevan

mediatart September 25, 2009 at 7:33 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Bull­shit . Vio­lence to chil­dren ( and women) crosses all social boundaries.

The dick­heads that assault their chil­dren bash the wife as well.

We can nar­row down 95% of vio­lence to MEN…… and then they are vio­lent because some­one was vio­lent to them as a child.

Sue couldnt change the cur­rent gen­er­a­tion but the future gen­er­a­tio­nis a lot bet­ter because her.

And the lead­ing politi­cians know it. Thats why they ignore the rav­ing loonies

thor42 September 25, 2009 at 10:55 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

BULLSHIT!
Care to com­ment on the research here?
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/swede...
– which shows that in Swe­den (which has banned smack­ing), (and I quote) – “per­pe­tra­tion of crim­i­nal assaults against 7–14 year-olds is increas­ing most rapidly in age groups raised after the law against smack­ing was passed.“
I rest my case – piss off to your social­ist nir­vana, mediabitch….

thor42 September 25, 2009 at 11:02 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Absolute bull­shit!
Care to com­ment on this research?
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/swede...
It shows that (and I quote) – “per­pe­tra­tion of crim­i­nal
assaults against 7–14 year-olds is increas­ing most rapidly in age
groups raised after the law against smack­ing was passed.“
Go back to your social­ist fuck­ing nir­vana, mediabitch….

Ciaron September 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Yeah, like that filthy rich white bloke who beat the shit out of his mis­sus & kids the other week, did you read about that?.

No?

That’s right, because IT DOESN’T BLOODY HAPPEN.

And because 88% can’t be right.

mediatart September 25, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Go back a few weeks to ‘a filthy rich white bloke’ cov­ered exten­sively by the Whale

crabby September 25, 2009 at 7:07 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

lol bill that is gold!

thor42 September 25, 2009 at 7:34 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hurf Durf and crabby are right. There is a SHITLOAD of dif­fer­ence between a light smack, and a child-abuser ***belt­ing the fuck*** out of a child.
From the “Fam­ily First” web­site –
”“A response received this week to our Offi­cial Infor­ma­tion Act request shows that there have been nine pros­e­cu­tions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed. Many of these cases have
resulted in the par­ent being dis­charged with­out con­vic­tion, sent to a par­ent­ing course, or receiv­ing a sus­pended sen­tence. Other par­ents have been referred to CYF and had chil­dren removed while an inves­ti­ga­tion takes place. This is highly trau­matic for any fam­ily.
“The Prime Min­is­ter can­not say that he has seen no evi­dence when he is not will­ing to view that evi­dence,” says Mr McCoskrie.“
*********************
Another indict­ment of Horse-lips Bradford’s social-engineering is this arti­cle, which shows that Sweden’s ban on smack­ing has utterly failed –
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/swede...

Johnboy September 25, 2009 at 7:53 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hope she don’t take out her frus­tra­tions on her kids

thor42 September 25, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Proof that medi­a­bitch needs to jump on the clue train. This arti­cle is about the smack­ing ban in Swe­den, intro­duced in 1979.
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/swede...
From the above arti­cle –
”… the best indi­ca­tors of phys­i­cal child abuse showed a
489% increase in phys­i­cal child abuse cases clas­si­fied as crim­i­nal
assaults in Swe­den from 1981–1994. The best evi­dence sug­gests that per­pe­tra­tion of crim­i­nal assaults against 7–14 year-olds is increas­ing most rapidly in age groups raised after the law against smack­ing was passed.“
Game over, medi­atart. Piss off back to your social­ist hellhole.

Robert Winter September 25, 2009 at 11:48 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@Mediatart

And then, apart from the National per­son­al­ity, there was that ter­ri­bly per­son­able young pakeha TV per­son who beat up his part­ner. and that intel­li­gent, PhD edu­cated pakeha in Dunedin who slashed his ex-partner to death, and that well-respected horse breeder in Mata­mata who is alleged to have killed his wife……..no, no vio­lence to be seen in rich, white house­holds at all – Cia­ron must be right.

I also reflect on the qual­ity of feel­ing reflected in some of the responses above – the qual­ity of vio­lence is palpable.

Ciaron September 26, 2009 at 12:57 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1, Per­son­able young “pakeha” up to his eye­balls on elicit drugs. (no death of chil­dren)
2, Dunedin “pakeha” lec­turer, not rich, would have real job.(again no death of chil­dren)
3, Not famil­iar with case, you don’t cite death of children.

This is about white peo­ple (or Indi­ans, or Asians of any other non-pacific group) not killing their kids with the same fre­quency as the natives

if you can­not gather that from my post I sug­gest it is your qual­ity which is lacking.

thor42 September 26, 2009 at 12:47 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@Robert Win­ter – care to com­ment on this arti­cle?
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/swede...
From the above arti­cle –
“Those in favour of a ban on smack­ing often quote Swe­den as a role
model. Swe­den banned smack­ing in 1979. A pri­mary aim of the
ban was to decrease rates of child abuse and to pro­mote sup­port­ive
approaches for par­ents rather than coer­cive state intervention.

Evi­dence sug­gests the ban has totally failed to achieve these aims.
Far from any decrease in vio­lence there has been a sharp increase
in child abuse and child-on-child violence.

The best indi­ca­tors of phys­i­cal child abuse showed a
489% increase in phys­i­cal child abuse cases clas­si­fied as crim­i­nal
assaults in Swe­den from 1981–1994.

Thirdly, the best evi­dence sug­gests that per­pe­tra­tion of crim­i­nal
assaults against 7–14 year-olds is increas­ing most rapidly in age
groups raised after the law against smack­ing was passed.

Let’s see your rebut­tal to this……

Robert Winter September 26, 2009 at 6:23 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Try, for exam­ple, Dur­rant in “Fam­ily Vio­lence Against Chil­dren: A Chal­lenge for Soci­ety, Wal­ter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York, 1996. (pp.19–25)”

Ciaron September 26, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

All good warm fuzzies, does not address child on child assault.
“It was also intended to edu­cate par­ents about the impor­tance of giv­ing their chil­dren good care.” Where does our ver­sion mir­ror this?.

How­ever, the law’s imple­men­ta­tion and the atti­tude shift that accom­pa­nied it can­not be viewed in iso­la­tion from the social con­text in which it devel­oped. The social devel­op­ments that led up to its imple­men­ta­tion include:”

Not sure these have occurred in N.Z., if they have, then they have not reached com­pa­ra­ble penetration.

Try Again.

thor42 September 27, 2009 at 3:08 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@Robert Win­ter – I’m afraid that arti­cle that you posted is filled with vague phrases and “wor­thy, motherhood-and-apple-pie” state­ments. It does not in any way answer my post.
My post gives fig­ures which prove that Sweden’s law has failed. I’d be very inter­ested to see any fig­ures show­ing any pur­ported “suc­cess” in other coun­tries which have banned smack­ing. Fig­ures, not vague wor­thy waf­fle like that arti­cle had.

Robert Winter September 27, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Waf­fle’ which points out that your fig­ures are unlikely to be based on the lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies required to say any­thing sen­si­ble about effects of a law change. Larzelere pro­vides no evi­dence of sci­en­tific lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies on smack­ing in Swe­den, and, at times, has to resort to news­pa­pers as ‘sources ’ for its empir­i­cal data. I have now read your ‘chris­t­ian’ text, which is, of course, an attack on Dur­rant, and apart of an extended debate between Dur­rant and Larzelere, in which the for­mer at least holds her own against Larzelere. If you are going to enter the aca­d­e­mic debate (as opposed to pick­ing and choos­ing bits that suit your pur­pose) you have to pro­vide the response to Durrant’s sub­se­qunet cri­tiques of Larzelere. The data on these mat­ters are contested.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: