>I tell you what group is a piece of crap – those that advocate against using a smack or, as in the case below, a wooden spoon to discipline their children.
A Victorian woman has been questioned by police and threatened to be charged with assault after hitting her 9-year-old daughter with a wooden spoon.
That’s why we have police. To hunt down wooden-spook smackers.
Claire Davidson was warned by police that she risked an assault-with-a-weapon charge after her child revealed in a classroom discussion that her mother hit her with the spoon.
How did it come about that she ‘revealed’ this information?
Ms Davidson said she was shocked when a support worker from Yea Public School reported the smacking to police.
Did the support worker deliberately go fishing for the information? Why didn’t she, and I assume it’s a she, talk to the mother first? Is being a support worker the same as being one of those apartment ‘managers’ in Soviet Russia that were an extension of the tentacles of the KGB? The support worker is an immoral piece of crap.
“We only use the wooden spoon and that is only when she is being naughty and we give her fair chance to rectify the situation and we talk her through it,” she told the Herald Sun.
She said her daughters gets three warnings and, then, “it is spoon time.”
Seems remarkably fair to me. I never got the three warnings as a kid. My mother stopped hitting me with a wooden spoon when she kept breaking them. The fact I was laughing might also not have helped.
Ms Davidson of Flowerdale, north of Melbourne, was told by police she would be charged with assault if another instance of her daughter being hit with the spoon was reported again.
So, the police will charge the mother even if the daughter simply makes it up?
The incident has sparked a debate about smacking between parents and child-welfare advocates.
Child-welfare advocates have a horrible history of producing destructive outcomes for children and families. The sooner that various Departments of Community Services are completely restructured the better off kids will be.
A criminal lawyer said that whether parents are charged with assaulting their children or not depends on how severe the smacking is.
“Just because you are mother or daughter doesn’t make you exempt from the law,” criminal lawyer James Dowsley said.
More nitwittery, this time from the legal profession.
Violence is one thing.
Discipline, which includes light smacking, is entirely another.
The whole point of violence is to inflict serious injury.
The point of light smacking is to discipline the child.
Now, are there some fathers and mothers who go too far? Of course there are but blanket banning of light smacking DOES NOT STOP those who are inclined to violence in the first place.
So now we have a good and loving mother with a potential conviction for assault.
Chalk up another innocent victim for the cultural left in Australia.
What do Australians feel about it? Here’s the poll from today’s ninemsn:
I wonder how many of those who voted no have kids.
>Say it ain’t so…
A security van was sent on a 120-mile round trip to move a prisoner 200 yards to avoid breaching his human rights.
People who think that European civilization is not going down the gurgler at a rapid rate simply need to take a long, hard look at what passes for ‘human rights’ these days.
Mark Bailey, 35, was taken to a Crown Court but after a brief hearing sent immediately to the magistrates’ court across the road.
Police said Bailey could not be walked across the street in handcuffs because it would breach his human rights – so a van was scrambled from 60 miles away for the 30 second journey.
Campaigners and MPs branded the decision “a shocking waste of money” and said it was “no wonder” Britain’s criminal justice system was in such a state of chaos.
Bailey appeared from custody before Northampton Crown Court Tuesday morning charged with stealing cable from a railway line.
A judge decided it was better dealt with by magistrates and Bailey was ordered to appear the same day. However, by this time the prison van had gone. Police refused to walk him across Victoria Road, which separates the buildings, so a van was called from Cambridge, 57 miles away, to pick him up and drop him off.
Police refused? What sort of police are these? Pathetic.
He finally arrived at the magistrates’ court two hours and 40 minutes after the van was called. Charged with theft and going equipped, Bailey, from Northampton, was remanded in custody.
A spokeswoman for Northamptonshire police said it would “not be appropriate” to walk a prisoner down a public street. She said: “Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation.
“It would not be appropriate for prisoners to walk in a public area while in custody for many reasons, including public safety issues, as well as the safety and human rights of the prisoner.
“Until someone has been convicted of an offence they are innocent in the eyes of the law and it would therefore be inappropriate for them to be escorted across a busy main road in handcuffs.”
Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South, said: “I’ve never heard such nonsense. Why we should have to suffer such ludicrous incompetence, and pay for it, is beyond me.
“In my view, Bailey should have been escorted across the road but if they were worried about him absconding, they could have put him in a squad car – the police station is just around the corner.”
Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “This is absurd and a total waste of money.
“No wonder our prisons are in such a state of chaos, if they can’t even manage to escort a prisoner 200 yards between buildings.
“If anyone had shown a bit of initiative this could have been sorted out in five minutes, but instead taxpayers had to foot the bill for this wasteful trek.”
A barrister at the court – who wishes to remain anonymous – said: “The transport of prisoners to court is ludicrous and a joke.”
A spokesman for Global Solutions Limited, responsible for the movement and security of prisoners, said: “It was an unplanned movement and the van had gone to do other things. It is not a taxi service and has a range of duties to make best use of taxpayers’ money.
“It is more efficient doing it this way than having a load of vehicles sitting around outside court just in case.” He said he did not know whether the van came from Cambridge.
On one hand the PC police are doing the politically correct thing while on the other being completely un-PC by pumping out all of that unnecessary CO2 because they couldn’t be bothered using a squad car.
Does that mean human rights trumps climate change in the grand politically correct scheme of things?