Police abuse ‘No smacking law”
You see someone doing something excellent for people and then you see them hurting people ….. which matters to you?
Michael Laws is a difficult one for me to work out. I can’t tell if he is a good guy or a bad guy. Some time ago (2014) I got a phone call to say I was being discussed on the radio and so I phoned the radio station and learned it was Michael Laws. I spoke with him about the NZHerald article he was talking about to listeners live on air and he simply hung up on me when I tried to add something sensible….. that is, add common sense to the situation. I then phoned the NZHerald and spoke to the journalist who basically said, “Don’t take him seriously, don’t fall into his trap”. (not the exact words but same meaning)
Michael Laws makes money on being controversial. He picks at topics and what people say but selectively. He will leave out a whole lot of information which simply makes him a ‘shit stirrer.’ But then again, his shit stirring can be helpful, thus, the good guy, lol.
I came across 2 articles in the NZHerald moments ago and both are about Michael Laws. One is about a new child added to his small tribe of 5 children…..,
The former shock-jock and politician has not signed the birth certificate after his former girlfriend of four years, Trina McLachlan, gave birth in July.
McLachlan, a one-time political protege of Laws, split with Laws late last year.
A friend of McLachlan’s said the Department of Internal Affairs had been in contact with Laws.
The friend said McLachlan, a student and solo mum, was being deprived of access to a Working For Families benefit because the birth certificate was unsigned.
When asked if he had declined to sign the birth certificate, Laws said he had “no information at all that would confirm what you’re saying to me”.
Laws said he had been subject to an “ongoing vendetta” after claiming on his RadioLive talkback show that Herald on Sunday journalists were rabid and should be shot.
and the other about the controversial ‘No Smacking Law’.
Police have given former Wanganui mayor Michael Laws a formal warning after he was accused of smacking his child.
A nurse phoned the police to say she witnessed Michael Laws smacking one of his children while visiting his ex-wife in hospital for a stroke.
IF YOU THOUGHT this article is about MICHAEL LAWS, you are mislead. It’s about SUE BRADFORD. The “No Smacking article” is what I want to talk about.
The controversial anti-smacking law, championed by former Green MP Sue Bradford, came into effect in 2007, and removed the defence of reasonable force for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.
Bradford said on Friday police were administering the law well, including the use of warnings.
“I don’t know any details but it sounds like the police have acted in the usual way … I hope that [Laws] takes what’s happened seriously. It sets a very poor example from someone who has held public office.”
Sue Bradford is considered a champion of the lower class in New Zealand and when I write lower class, I mean the defenseless, those who don’t have access to top lawyers or other means of halting police corruption. The gap between rich and poor has widened meaning, IMO, that the bar for the ‘defenseless class’ is not that low ANYMORE.
She is also considered a fabulous left winger and stands….. really STANDS while Labour leaders seem to get comfortable in political seats looking forward to an early retirement with excellent benefits, IMO. They are generally middle class and few understand what their voters are going through, also IMO.
Sue Bradford seems to have been given opportunities for putting through the ‘No Smacking Bill’ back in 2007. Her thesis on whether we should have a left wing left tank has the potential to help save New Zealanders, once again IMO. I am soooo supportive of her.
But I can’t ignore my own experiences. I can’t ignore that police are extremely corrupt in New Zealand and that it’s getting worse. The defenseless sure do need champions to help them survive and especially save their children now that National has locked us into legal child theft. Sue Bradford is responsible for police corruption because she gave them the power, …… IMO.
This is what really happens in New Zealand
If CYFs wants your children, they use whatever means to get your children, right or wrong. It’s not about children, BTW, it’s about adults. It’s a them against us game and CYFs social workers want to win as much as parents want to save their children from systematic abuse. Only, one side has the system and the other side has ‘nothing’ thus defenseless.
New Zealand police are a means to get your children. They work hand in hand, or more precisely, they will use what ever means available to do CYFs bidding, for after all, they are just humans doing their job and if CYFs says children are unsafe, then unsafe they are. No cop, lawyer, or other is going to risk their hard earned career for a stranger.
They investigate parents and if they can’t find something to use against them, they say to parents, “You can either admit you’ve smacked your child in the past and we’ll give you a warning, or we will investigate you and lay charges if we find you have smacked your children, in the past”.
Of course the defenseless are going to jump at the opportunity to get out of trouble for they can’t afford a lawyer, but moreso, most people trust the police to protect citizens because that’s what adults are taught in their childhood.
What happens afterwards is shocking.
The police walk out the door and social workers walk in the door – it can be that fast though they also take the kids from school. The kids are uplifted and the parents don’t have a leg to stand on, so to speak. Police also use ‘police safety orders’ when there’s no safety issues and when the person in question doesn’t even live at the property. They also say they are using orders against you when in fact they don’t. There is no paper trail. They say things to give them time. They do everything and anything in their power for ‘possible abuse’ is a crime and people really need to get their head around the word “POSSIBLE’. You don’t need to commit a crime in New Zealand, there only needs to be a ‘possibility’ of committing a crime.
Again my question… You see someone doing something excellent for people and then you see them hurting people ….. which matters to you?