Barnardos seem to be putting politics rather than children first, as they quickly capitalize on the recent headlines created by the infamous "Riding Crop" case to push their agenda. The "new" case hasn't even been judged yet, but as usual, judgment is quickly passed by organisations that should know better.
But since we are asked to "pause and reflect" by Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos New Zealand, I will.
Murray muses: "Perhaps the latest incident would have been avoided if the community, through the court, had told the family that the use of physical force in child discipline was unambiguously wrong."
Well, perhaps the latest incident could have been avoided if CYFS had not removed her younger son against his will from his mother and sister, and kept him away from the family for two years now since the mother was acquitted. Does Murray see any correlation between being found "not guilty" and the psychological damage that follows when the state removes her child anyway?
But let's wait until the court case is complete and the full facts of the matter come out, before we let the vultures in for the kill. Nice one Murray Edridge.
Related Link: Barnardos Swoop for the Kill
PS: This story relates to her older son of 17 or 18 who does not live with her. He allegedly punched her in the jaw and fractured it, whilst they were in the car. For some reason, this angered the step-father who stopped the car, got out and pulled the lad out to "sort him out". This part was witnessed by another driver who called the cops and they came over and sorted them all out. In the end, they were all seen as idiots and the case was closed.
A year later, just before the s59 law change goes to the vote, some-one up high decided to re-open the case and re-prosecute. Note therefore the timing. Note that the newspaper article implies it is the same boy that got a smack with the riding crop. Note that they don't mention any of the details (like it's the step-father and the 17/18 year old also in the court - and that the mother was the victim of violence in this case.
A little bit of political manipulation you think?
But since we are asked to "pause and reflect" by Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos New Zealand, I will.
Murray muses: "Perhaps the latest incident would have been avoided if the community, through the court, had told the family that the use of physical force in child discipline was unambiguously wrong."
Well, perhaps the latest incident could have been avoided if CYFS had not removed her younger son against his will from his mother and sister, and kept him away from the family for two years now since the mother was acquitted. Does Murray see any correlation between being found "not guilty" and the psychological damage that follows when the state removes her child anyway?
But let's wait until the court case is complete and the full facts of the matter come out, before we let the vultures in for the kill. Nice one Murray Edridge.
Related Link: Barnardos Swoop for the Kill
PS: This story relates to her older son of 17 or 18 who does not live with her. He allegedly punched her in the jaw and fractured it, whilst they were in the car. For some reason, this angered the step-father who stopped the car, got out and pulled the lad out to "sort him out". This part was witnessed by another driver who called the cops and they came over and sorted them all out. In the end, they were all seen as idiots and the case was closed.
A year later, just before the s59 law change goes to the vote, some-one up high decided to re-open the case and re-prosecute. Note therefore the timing. Note that the newspaper article implies it is the same boy that got a smack with the riding crop. Note that they don't mention any of the details (like it's the step-father and the 17/18 year old also in the court - and that the mother was the victim of violence in this case.
A little bit of political manipulation you think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete