Some interesting research from the Families Commission . Only 100 families involved, but still useful results: The most common disciplinary techniques for under 5s were: Time Out 82% Distraction 77% Rewards 76% Praise 69% Withdraw Privileges 60% Reasoning 58% Smacking 41% Shouting 41% Ignoring 38% Hugs and Smiles 31% Make child apologise 18% They also rated effectiveness: Time Out 43% Withdraw Privileges 30% Distraction 27% Rewards 24% Praise 11% Reasoni
A recurring advertisement from the Juvenile Instructor of 1915:
That is the only way to describe Green MP Sue Bradford's decision to retire . Bradford has been one of the most - if not the most - effective backbenchers in the recent era, having successfully navigated three member's bills - including the highly controversial Child Discipline Act - into law. I cannot think of a single MP since 1987 who has managed that; according to my records (which I will admit are incomplete) only two other - Mark Peck and Nandor Tanczos - have even managed two, and
The New Zealand Truth has become the Truth Weekender , so the publication both there and here of my regular article there will be a bit later in the week from now on. This week I focus on the aftermath of the child discipline referendum. Last week the result of the child discipline referendum came out. There is no question that the number of those voting ‘no’ was stunningly high. However, I would have a lot more respect for the outcome of the refendum if the question originally aske
I’ve been saying all along that all this anti-smacking spin and nonsense is not primarily about child discipline . It has come about because Sue Bradford and her fellow travellers wanted to use those who cannot tell the difference between a smack and assault to advance the state's control over families. I’ve been suggesting you should never forget that Sue is still at root a Marxist -- and Marx called explicitly for the nationalisation of children and the abolition of the family . And along
Next Page »
