Beating lobby loses the plot

51 comments on “Beating lobby loses the plot ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peter Martin 1

   26 August 2009 at 11:14 am

   ‘If Larry’s really looking for threats to New Zealand’s democracy I’d say the million dollars given to the ‘No Vote’ campaign by US-based Christian fundamentalists would be a far better place to start.’

   So true. So very true.
2. outofbed 2

   26 August 2009 at 11:23 am

   Why does Larry keep stirring
   I thought he had more important uses for his wooden spoon
3. Macro 3

   26 August 2009 at 11:27 am

   Larry also needs a lesson in elementary mathematics. 88% of 54% is 47.5% of total voters. ie almost half of the voting public saw the vote for what it was and chose NOT to vote AND less than half of the eligible voters in NZ were motivated enough to tick “No” – for whatever reason – and send in their vote. That can hardly be a mandate.
   • Pat 3.1

     26 August 2009 at 11:36 am

     Struggle at maths at school, Macro? By your logic you would need almost all of the 46% of the “Did Not Votes” to tick Yes to defeat the No vote – that’s some $1.3M to $1.4M Yes votes required out of a possible $1.4M.

     If anyone really truely believes that would happen, then please consult a psychiatrist.
     • Pat 3.1.1

       26 August 2009 at 12:36 pm

       The real numbers:

       Enrolled voters 3,002,068
       Votes Cast 1,684,402
       Valid Yes Votes Cast 201,541
       Valid No Votes Cast 1,470,755

       So if the remaining 1,317,666 who did not vote, actually DID vote, it would require 1,309,493 of them to vote YES to enable a small majority of only 10,000.
     • ak 3.1.2

       26 August 2009 at 12:51 pm

       ….who will enjoy your freudian slip Pat. $1.3M to $1.4M indeed….incidentally, do you think Jesus would be proud of your valiant efforts to retain the right to whack kids, Pat?
4. Pj 4

   26 August 2009 at 11:34 am

   god I hope national loses the next election because all the crazy christian childbeaters vote for the 5 different christian parties and they each get 3% of the vote and miss out!
5. The Voice of Reason 5

   26 August 2009 at 11:35 am

   New question for Larry:

   Should Psychological Abuse as part of Good Spousal Correction be a Criminal Offence in NZ?
6. randal 6

   26 August 2009 at 11:36 am

   larry is a twerp.
   any grown man that needs legislation to beat up on children is reprehensible.
   radio squawkback and radio ritalin have a lot to answer for.
   • So Bored 6.1

     26 August 2009 at 6:28 pm

     Spot on Randall,

     Baldock is a dangerous twerp though. As they say every dog has its day, this dog is a mangy flea ridden mutt with rabies, very dangerous near children..
7. Zepher 7

   26 August 2009 at 12:09 pm

   I think most people would find Larry’s response confusing. Anyone following the tv news would know John Key said people wont be prosecuted for light smacking. Anyone who thought the question was about light smacking wont have to worry and that’s probably most people who bothered to vote. Social workers and police weren’t bothering with light butt smacking anyway before John Key said not to.
8. JohnDee 8

   26 August 2009 at 12:21 pm

   We will probably be waiting a long time but i wait with baited breath for the so called journalists in NZ to take a very close look at the funding of Larry Baldock and that other twerp Bob McCroskie.
   There has been a serious obscene amount of money spent by this lobby and i for one would like to know were it came from.
   • r0b 8.1

     26 August 2009 at 12:52 pm

     John – start here – $1 million from American fundamentalists.

     But according to the No campaign they only spent $49,100 campaigning (on a limit of $50,000).
9. outofbed 9

   26 August 2009 at 12:55 pm

   Just when the kids thought they were safe
   John Boscawen’s Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bil has been drawn
   hmm
   • r0b 9.1

     26 August 2009 at 1:02 pm

     Further proof, as if any was needed, that fate has a nasty sense of humour.
   • Andrei 9.2

     26 August 2009 at 1:02 pm

     Well how’d that happen I wonder?

     Ain’t fate cruel sometimes
10. outofbed 10

    26 August 2009 at 1:00 pm

    What is a reasonable parent ?
    • r0b 10.1

      26 August 2009 at 1:05 pm

      One that thinks like me.
11. outofbed 11

    26 August 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Well how did that happen I wonder?

    I think it was divine intervention
    God always did like to give a bit of a bash
12. lprent 12

    26 August 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Talking about funding of the Fist. I still want yo know who is funding the sensible sentencing trust for most of the same reasons.

    There are quite a few groups running around NZ with no visible forms of income doing purely political work. I think that is likely to become even more corrupting over time. At least political parties are required to at least give some idea of their income types. These twerps aren’t.

    And before anyone gets banned (as it is on my kill list) by people failing to read the about or policy. I fund all of this sites monetary costs. Volunteer writers are volunteers……. They don’t get paid to write here.
13. Noko 13

    26 August 2009 at 3:51 pm

    “There are quite a few groups running around NZ with no visible forms of income doing purely political work. I think that is likely to become even more corrupting over time.”

    This is the perfect summing up of what happens, and what we don’t want continuing. Groups like these, the SST and other related ones (including on the left-wing side of the debate) along with government indifference are allowing us to slide into an almost proto-corporatist state where groups like unions, lobby’s and the rest have all the power and are always on the consultation list for inquiries but the people it actually affects never are.
14. Scribe 14

    26 August 2009 at 5:01 pm

    If Larry’s really looking for threats to New Zealand’s democracy I’d say the million dollars given to the ‘No Vote’ campaign by US-based Christian fundamentalists would be a far better place to start.

    Eddie,

    That comment is obviously false. Focus on the Family didn’t give $1 million to the “No Vote” campaign; your source doesn’t even attempt to say it did. Why just make stuff up when there are plenty of valid things to criticise in this whole debate?
15. richgraham 15

    26 August 2009 at 5:19 pm

    How many wee kiddies were killed last week in NZ ?
    Did Mrs Bradford’s bill make any difference ?
    Looks as if it did – the child-killing is worse than it was.
    Never mind, they’re only defenceless children, who cares about them when we can
    pass silly laws and waste millions of hard-earned worker’s taxes on referenda.
    Why waste time solving real problems when we can waste time elsewhere ?
    What a bunch of rotters you lefties are, what a rotten bunch – the founders of the Labour Party would puke at the sight of you.
    • Maynard J 15.1

      26 August 2009 at 5:46 pm

      So it is Labour’s fault that a Greens bill that was never meant to stop child abuse, and which passed in the house with cross-bench cross-party support has not done what it did not said it would do.

      Well dicky-gee, if that is your best contribution, I have one of equal measure and worth: suck my balls.

      I support this law because I believe it has greatly enhanced the profile of child abuse, something which should never be swept under the carpet.

      I support this law because I believe it allows the police to bring prosecutions without fear that a valid case will be thrown out of course because of an amendment we do not see fit to include in the animal welfare act when disciplining pets.

      I support this law because I believe a violence-free society will not spring fully armed from Zeus’ brow, and that this is a very good place to start.

      So fuck you and your shallow obnoxious adolescent view.
      • RedLogix 15.1.1

        26 August 2009 at 5:52 pm

        Bravo. Eloquent, earthy and perfectly formed.
        • outofbed 15.1.1.1

          26 August 2009 at 6:30 pm

          just like me apart from the eloquent bit
          • roger nome 15.1.1.1.1

            27 August 2009 at 12:03 pm

            Are you single OOB? I’m not kidding – you make yourself sound rather appealing.
      • Gordon Shumway 15.1.2

        26 August 2009 at 6:38 pm

        No fuck you Maynard.

        Some people try and have a sensible debate on how best to deal with the fact that far too many young New Zealanders are being tortured and beaten to death by their parents.

        Stop polishing your own fucking halo and and least acknowledge there are some subleties to the issue. Eddie’s shameful (and frankly prejediced) latest tactic is to whip up a frenzy of hate for the “religious right” and to use outrageous slurs such as “beating lobby”. Take your hand off it.

        The point being made by Rich Graham is that, to read some of the sanctimonious claptrap on this site, you’d assume that the passing of the “no smacking” law has ended child abuse, and that anyone who questions the current law wants to “beat up” their children.

        It hasn’t. They don’t.

        Now try and be a big boy and acknowledge there could be arguments out there which have merit, even though they may be contrary to yours.
        • felix 15.1.2.1

          26 August 2009 at 6:53 pm

          “… to read some of the sanctimonious claptrap on this site, you’d assume that the passing of the “no smacking’ law has ended child abuse …”

          I must have missed that. Can you show me some examples?
          • Gordon Shumway 15.1.2.1.1

            26 August 2009 at 7:52 pm

            Haha! Nice one.

            There are some people (yes even the “religious right”) who reckon controlled “smacking” (as opposed to assaulting) of kids does not cause the child or society any harm.

            That whole part of the debate is not being properly canvassed. Instead, people who dare profess support for that view are called names such as “religious right”, “basher brigade”, etc.

            Less time demonizing people whose views differ slightly from your own, more time thinking about the proper isse (which is that far too many parents kick, punch, throw, burn and kill their children).

            See the difference?
            • Pascal's bookie 15.1.2.1.1.1

              26 August 2009 at 8:56 pm

              I take your point, but the thing is that there are elements of the christian right that really are a beating lobby.

              james Dbson, who funds Family first here advocates some fairly aggressive techniques. 18 months isn’t too young for him. (he has also recommended that fathers shower with their sons so that the boy can see that daddy has a penis just like theirs only bigger. this is to stop them turning out gay, but that’s another story.)

              A few years back here in NZ there was a minor controversy about a leaflet some outfit was handing out on how to ‘lovingly’ discipline your kids. It stated that children have satan in them, and that satan needed to be driven out. It highlighted that shock wasn’t enough, for a spanking to be effective it had to hurt. It recommended the use of paddles, and that spanking should be the near to the first resort, as it let the child, (and presumably satan), know that the boundaries being set were real. You expect to have to spank your child at least weekly.

              That’s some fairly strong stuff, and there was some controversy, but there were also defences of this along the lines of “hey, I’d not do that personally but that’s their beliefs” etc.

              There were some schools a couple of years ago that got in trouble for administering corporal punishment, again, using paddles or switches or the like, again ‘fundy’ christians.

              Just the other day, Larry got in a dispute because he thinks you should be allowed to use implements to apply the smack.

              One of the things that this whole shitstorm has done is changed opinions quite rapidly. Or at least stated opinions, which can serve as a proxy for social acceptance levels I guess.

              When the riding crop woman got let off, she had many vocal defenders asserting that the jury got it right, it was her call as to how she disciplined her children etc. Now, even the smacking advocates have retreated to this “light smacking’ rhetoric. That’s a good thing, but I don’t think for a second that some of them wouldn’t be comforatable going back to the the paddles, canes, jug chords, switches and so on that they found acceptable just a few years ago.
            • Gordon Shumway 15.1.2.1.1.2

              26 August 2009 at 9:21 pm

              PB – see this leads us into sensible territory for working out the best policy response…

              If I was god, this whole area of law would have changed as follows:

              1. Define the highest priority problem (too many murders and massive serious assults on kids) (i.e. not too much “smacking” – by which I mean one quick slap with an open hand across the ass)

              2. acknowledge that certain religious and cultural groups practice corporal punishment more often than others. Consult with them up front because we all know that people will not change their religious beliefs just because a law is passed. The goal is to convince these groups that only “smacking” (as defined above) is acceptable. [but wait, there’s more below.]

              3. Get the religious/cultural groups above to join the fight against murder/massive assaults. Appreciate that they have an important platform for getting the message out and helping in that battle.

              4. appreciate that Rome isn’t built in a day. Sure, we’d love a world where there is no “smacking” either, but we might only get there once attitudes have changed over a generation.

              Against that background, we would have looked at the following:
              1. Get religious groups to accept that, in this day and age, using implements/tools is unacceptable as discipline. Get them to accept that modern “smacking” (as legislatively defined) still allows them to follow their religious beliefs and will not make them criminals.
              2. Defined smacking in a way that’s clear and unambiguous (e.g. open hand across buttocks or child’s hand, delivered once).
              3. Get the religious groups to help change the practices of their constituency having had their initial buy in.

              The whole process has been terribly and insensitively handles right from the outset. By starting off with “you must not lay a hand on your kids”, Bradford and supporters alienated a huge number of loving New Zealanders who were either “smacked” by their own parents or very occasionally “smack” their own kids (again, in each case as defined above).

              The alienation has created all the referendum bullshit and blurred the message.

              I agree – attitudes have/are changing. A better and more sensitive change to the law in the first place would have achieved all that and more. Our pollies have seriously let us down in their implementation.
    • So Bored 15.2

      26 August 2009 at 7:43 pm

      Ouch Richg, we rotten lefty rotters really are rotten to insist on child safety. How rotten of us to want to afford children the same rights of legal protection from assault that adults have, truly reprehensibly rotten. You might have noticed that it was a right wing religious rotter who was responsible for the rotten expenditure of left wing rotters taxpayer dollars on a rotten referendum.
      You however made the most rotten comment, your truly coprophilous reference to the founders of the Labour Party. You are a complete rotter.
16. Scribe 16

    27 August 2009 at 9:02 am

    james Dbson, who funds Family first here

    Are you sure about that, PB? Are you getting “Family” organisations confused?

    You are right that there are some fringe people who adhere to this “beat Satan out of them” concept, but they are so few they’re not even really worth discussing. They’re probably as numerous as the number of people who think abortion is the answer to global warming.
    • Pascal's bookie 16.1

      27 August 2009 at 9:14 am

      ” Are you getting “Family’ organisations confused?”

      Could well be. Thanks. Focus on the Family perhaps?

      In any case they are more infuential and better funded than anyone who thinks abortion is the answer to global warming. Who would that be?
17. Maynard J 17

    27 August 2009 at 11:58 am

    “No fuck you Maynard.”

    Later on, you tell me to act like a big boy. Hmm. Not off to the best start. I was not even addressing you, I was addressing someone who believes people like me are wasting time deliberately and ignoring problems. That is not an opinion I give any sort of respect to, and quite frankly, nor should I. It implies I am happy for children to die while I make a silly point elsewhere. Blow that for an adult opinion – and what does that say about your standards, to come in guns blazing in support of such an idea?

    “Some people try and have a sensible debate on how best to deal with the fact that far too many young New Zealanders are being tortured and beaten to death by their parents.”

    Oh, so saying “Never mind, they’re only defenceless children, who cares about them when we can pass silly laws and waste millions of hard-earned worker’s taxes on referenda.
    Why waste time solving real problems when we can waste time elsewhere ?
    What a bunch of rotters you lefties are, what a rotten bunch the founders of the Labour Party would puke at the sight of you.”

    is starting a sensible debate? Maybe you and richgraham can find a corner for your wee circle-jerk if that is the level of debate you are after. I gave reasons as to why I support the law, you spout off vapid rhetoric about what you think other people think.

    “Stop polishing your own fucking halo and and least acknowledge there are some subleties to the issue. Eddie’s shameful (and frankly prejediced) latest tactic is to whip up a frenzy of hate for the “religious right’ and to use outrageous slurs such as “beating lobby’. Take your hand off it.”

    I did not pass the law, but I supported it – if you want to act like an adult and talk about “subleties”, try to address my points, instead of making up your own ones because they fit into some pre-conception you find convenient to disparage because you are too lazy to engage people.

    “The point being made by Rich Graham is that, to read some of the sanctimonious claptrap on this site, you’d assume that the passing of the “no smacking’ law has ended child abuse, and that anyone who questions the current law wants to “beat up’ their children.”

    More of your own words. Some do, but most who voted no sure do not. This is about Baldock, not the normal folk who voted in the referendum. You appear to be too stupid or unwilling to distinguish between the drivers of this and those who merely had their say – do not come crying over here with your specious generalisations. I am not surehow you managed to attribute that point to richgraham though.

    “It hasn’t. They don’t.”

    Never said they did, at least we can agree on something.

    “Now try and be a big boy and acknowledge there could be arguments out there which have merit, even though they may be contrary to yours.”

    I am aware that people have different opinions, are you trying to tell me that you thought RG’s contribution had merit? I also made some fairly useful points there – your sum of contribution to address them was “fuck you” – take your own advice eh sunshine.

    As said – calm down. You are not stupid as evidenced by later comments where you try and engage the issue, instead of applying some eye-patch based filter to read what you want, without having to engage with ideas you disagree with – a weak and lazy attitude.
    • Gordon Shumway 17.1

      27 August 2009 at 2:27 pm

      Maynard –

      “Fuck you maynard” was stupid and I apologise. (By way of explanation, but not excuse, it was in response to the invitation to suck your balls, which I though had set the tone somewhat 🙂 )

      It seems you keep telling yourself that all the opposition is extremist rather than addressing the very real issue that the MIDDLE GROUND are upset about this, too. The centrists do not like having supporters of the law come over all sanctimonious and holier than thou. The centrists do not need to be branded “Criminals” whiile you deal with the extremists.

      Why is this only about the extremists? You are losing the middle ground by lumping them in with the religious nutters who paddle their children or use straps. I for one believe implements are totally over the top and unjustified, and wholly support a law that criminalises any implement against a child, yet you cannot find any common ground with me.

      As I said in another post, you NEED the middle ground (people who occasionally smack their kids with an open hand across the ass or hand) to help change the attitde of the extremists (people who kick, punch, burn, whip and murder).

      I have never before seen a clearer case in politics of winning the battle but losing the war.

      So you hate the extremists. So do I. Now can we discuss the middle ground and talk about how to make them happy?

      So again, take your hand off it.
      • So Bored 17.1.1

        27 August 2009 at 2:43 pm

        Gordon,

        The middle line for me is pretty simple: anybody smacks another person open hand, closed fist, push, clip etc, it is common assault. That is the law. I for one cannot see why adults who do the same to children get an exemption.

        The miidle ground for me also says that I dont need the government or its agencies telling me what to do other than setting fair and reasonable boundaries that try to ensure my safety from other peoples actions.

        To me an extremist is somebody who thinks he has the right to force his will on me by legislation or by violent coercion (such as smacking me).

        Which brings us back to smacking. Smacking is violence, violence begets violence. We need to break the cycle. Is that such an extreme thought?
        • Gordon Shumway 17.1.1.1

          27 August 2009 at 4:05 pm

          So Bored,

          Fair enough. You’ve stated your position/preference clearly – no “smacking” (i.e. open hand to butt) at all. I understand your position.

          My view is that open-hand-to-butt, delievered in a way that the suprise factor is what’s effective, is not inherently wrong. Some people will do it. Some won’t.

          A lot of reasonable, kind, good-hearted people disagree with your position. My Dad is one of them. He smacked me probably three times. He is not a criminal and even if, by some Hollywoodish fluke, my childhood were to restart tomorrow, he should not be branded a criminal if he brought me up again in exactly the same way.

          Does it help to say that my Dad or I want to “assault kids”? Are we really part of the “basher brigade”?

          So where to from here? I would suggest, for example, that science can help us understand how the “suprising slap on the butt” affects a kid’s brain/memory patterns and whether it’s a useful tool in bringing up a child and helping ingrain essential learning (e.g. do not go onto the road). Instead of moral or value-based judgments and insults (which both sides of the debate have employed), we can look at things sensibly and CONVINCE the majority of the merits of change. That science could also show that “beatings” have no corrective benefit, or show that parents when delivering them have the “anger” parts of their brains firing off. Whatever – I don’t claim to be an expert – but you see the point.

          That sort of sensible information, which really could assist in changing people’s views, has been MIA during the whole NZ debate on smacking. Instead we’ve had name-calling and extremism.

          Your position might be where society eventually gets to, but we are miles off it now. A bunch of religious types believe, for example, that paddling is OK. (What’s worse, some parents are KILLING their kids).

          Let’s work on the main problems and take a step-by-step approach towards “no smacking ever”. Otherwise we will win a battle, but lose the war.

          You are clearly a sensible person who wants the best for NZ children. So am I. So is 90% of NZ’s population. This law, however, has somehow managed to totally divide people who all share a common concern. That’s what I mean when I say the politicians have failed miserably and the whole debate has been hijacked. Total failure for all New Zealand and there’s no way to get it back on track now.

          (catchpa: “touched”)
      • Maynard J 17.1.2

        27 August 2009 at 3:51 pm

        Gordon, I did set the tone, but in response to another commentor who had set the bar fairly low. I chose to not hold the high ground there and I guess you did the same. Pretty strange to come in with personal abuse of your own when it is completely on a tangent to what I was saying, but apology appreciated. I will leave it at that.

        As I see it all of the vitriol is directed at those extremists, many of which are driving the ‘no vote’ side of the issue. I have never thought that all those who voted ‘no’ are extremists.

        Perhaps that point is drowned out by the shouting, but in most cases it is clear enough. “Beating lobby” is quite clearly referring to those who are driving it, and there was a choice example of what they are talking about given above by another commenter (Pascal’s bookie).

        As far as I am concerned, the middle ground was catered to by this law, but those who are extremists are agitating to make people believe that is not the case, in order to advance their agendas. This is why the ‘assault’ phrase has come up (in the other thread). Walking into someone is assault, but I do not feel criminalised every time I do it. Thus I find the ‘no vote’ argument utterly dishonest and flawed.

        A deliberate smack for discipline is covered under virtually all circumstances in the current law. There are those who want ‘the middle ground’ to believe otherwise, but their message “you have all been made criminals by the government” has gotten across better than the yes vote’s “that is untrue, and there are better ways to parent”.

        I think this very debate and all the furore surrounding it is changing attitudes in NZ, and for the better. I know there must have been a better way to do it, but what is done is done. I do not know what could come next, now that there is this rift of ideas and perceptions.
18. Ianmac 18

    27 August 2009 at 12:32 pm

    I certainly didn’t claim or expect that the Repeal would stop serious assault or murder of kids. The only time I have read/heard that, it is from the pro-smackers, like Gordon who say that we did so claim. Who? Where?
    However if Sweden is an example, then over 25 years since they banned smacking, the violence against kids and the violence by youth has dropped to serious all time lows. Good things take time.
    • gargoyle 18.1

      27 August 2009 at 12:47 pm

      “However if Sweden is an example, then over 25 years since they banned smacking, the violence against kids and the violence by youth has dropped to serious all time lows. Good things take time.”

      Do you hold the view that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth ?
      • Ianmac 18.1.1

        27 August 2009 at 1:21 pm

        gargoyle: What a strange thing to say.
        Sweden brought in a ban in 1989. True?
        Sweden rate of child abuse deaths dropped from 4 per 10000 (not sure of the zeroes)to 2 by 2006 (NZ is 6-10 currently.) True?
        Youth crime is 25% lower than ever before 2006. True?
        So what is your problem?
        • felix 18.1.1.1

          27 August 2009 at 1:44 pm

          His problem is that he’s stuck on a fountain, spitting water, when he really wants to be under a bridge, scaring goats.
          • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.1.1

            27 August 2009 at 1:55 pm

            LOL – brilliant
          • So Bored 18.1.1.1.2

            27 August 2009 at 2:46 pm

            Good words Gruff, very droll.
        • gargoyle 18.1.1.2

          27 August 2009 at 3:38 pm

          Hi Ian

          No Sweden bought in a ban in the 70s I believe. There is no data supporting the supposition that the ban has affected a lowering of what was already a very low rate of assaults against children in that country.

          Although I accept that this has been argued back and forth multitudinous times.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213

          I also agree with the post here by r0b………….. “one day we might be able to have a rational discussion about the causes of child abuse, and what to do about it.”

          I don’t think much of the debate around smacking whether it be from the Yes or No side has really been very helpful in that respect and I apologise as my previous post also wasn’t very helpful from that perspective.
19. Ianmac 19

    27 August 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Gargoyle: You’re right 1979 not 1989. Maybe the discussion could centre on better ways to instil respect and self-confidence in tomorrows adults. When strapping was dropped from schools, teachers did find better ways to handle pupils, though other society problems have confused the issue of effectiveness. (The youth today isn’t what……) Acknowledgement rather than reward is one area worth exploring.
    • gargoyle 19.1

      27 August 2009 at 5:53 pm

      Ian

      “Maybe the discussion could centre on better ways to instil respect and self-confidence in tomorrows adults.”

      I agree completely – you might be interested in the article below from the paediatric society which I found quite informative, raises some interesting discussion points.

      http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/acp.sub.32005.pdf
      • Ianmac 19.1.1

        27 August 2009 at 6:51 pm

        Gargoyle: Thanks for that link. I have not read it all yet but it does seem that there is little evidence so far to prove one method against another in preventing child abuse. So far I note a comment that any evidence that supported a particular point of view was used- to the contrary ignored. Thats us eh? And that there was more careful monitoring of the effectiveness with pet medicine that with child abuse research. Sigh.
        You did right to point us to this information and so we should all read. Of course it might be that now would be a good time to set up NZ Research programme and perhaps lead the way. I will carry on with the reading – slowly (my brain hurts 🙂 ) Thanks.
20. Rodel 20

    28 August 2009 at 10:23 pm

    The best comment I heard about the referendumb was the age old saying:
    ‘ Ask a a silly question and you get a silly answer.”
    So true.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS