Archives
|
Sep 25, 2009
Uncategorized
Ding Dong the Witch is DeadSo 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% [?] Back to Gotcha    
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
1080734 Commentshttp://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/09/25/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-2/Ding+Dong+the+Witch+is+Dead2009-09-25+00%3A19%3A39Whaleoil
Post a Comment
Comments are closed.
|
Whaleoil TV Recent Posts Recent Comments
Who’s online
|
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...
Terakhi lips is goneeeeee!! YUSSSS
The child thrashers are rejoicing!
However you forget the entire national party voted for the law. And it will outlast you lot
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!
@ 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!
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.
Fucking bullshit and get fucked you little green fucker
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.
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.
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)
@ 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.
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”
Bradford is a cancer. And like all cancers, they have to be forcefully excised from the body.
Because a “light smack” is not a “hit” or “thump” or “batter”. Stop blurring the line, you bloviating shitstain.
All she has done for children is give them rights that fuck over good parents, your a fuckwit Kermit!!
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.
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.
lol bill that is gold!
Spot on Bevan
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
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...
Hope she don’t take out her frustrations on her kids
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.…
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.…
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.
Go back a few weeks to ‘a filthy rich white bloke’ covered extensively by the Whale
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.
@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.
@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.…..
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.
Try, for example, Durrant in “Family Violence Against Children: A Challenge for Society, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York, 1996. (pp.19–25)”
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.
@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.
‘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.