Justice for Longley

*Warning The following article contains profanity*

Is justice really so difficult to get these days? How long will it take to convict a psychopathic stalker who murdered his girlfriend in cold blood? In today's world, the politically correct hope to portray Elliot Turner as an innocent victim, driven to rage by his girlfriend's careless actions. The reality paints a bleaker mosaic. With credible witnesses coming forth, high shelves of mounting evidence and the Turner family's feeble attempt to deny all charges, it may be months before any punishment is given. Taking so long to convict a blatant murderer is an injustice to Emily's spirit, her family, friends, communities, countries, everyone.

From the day the trial began, Elliot Turner's infatuation for Emily shone through. "Elliot was obsessed with Emily. He spoke about her a lot and rang her a lot too. I do not feel she cared about him as much as he did about her," Emily's closest friend Carla Simons says. It's an elaboration on Mr. Turner's unhealthy obsessive, lustful desire for attention. Placing anyone on a pedestal is a dangerous game. In Francis Scott Fitzgerald's brilliant novel "The Great Gatsby," Jay Gatsby suffered from his idealism of Daisy Buchannan with his life. Mr. Turner's idealism has left an effluvium of innocent blood on his hands. More witnesses have come forth to testify; Luke Ashford, a friend of Elliot's also stood before the jury. "Turner had sent him a text on the night before Longley's lifeless body was found that read 'hello darling, meet mrs mallet'." http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/emily-longley-trial-murder-accused-s-mate-slept-teen-4854260. He further mentions, on the night she was murdered, Mr. Turner, engulfed with rage said ( in a haughty manner) "that bitch is going down tonight." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/emily-longley-murder-model-had-809733. Is anyone really going to be audacious enough to express that all of this is one great misunderstanding? His incessant threats to murder were just for a 'larf.' The unwonted texts sent out were just a great misunderstood joke. Well Mr. Turner, here's some news with more news for you. Everyone forgot to laugh. You missed the mark.

Elliot Turner's rather lame attempt at defending himself has opened up many onerous occasions, from just before his arrest, remarking "It is weird. God works in mysterious ways," to a more feeble in depth account in Court. "I wouldn't say it was very hard but it was quite hard. She was kneeling on my bed and from that position I pushed her down on to the bed and she went backwards. She was flat on her back and I then pressed down on her neck. All together I held her neck for about five or six seconds at most." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142199/Emily-Longley-trial-Elliot-Turner-held-girlfriends-neck-5-6-seconds-died.html#ixzz1uVlGS4tq. Before continuing further, here is what Mr. Turner really means. "With considerable force, I pushed her onto the bed. I then proceeded to strangle her, until she stopped breathing." Withing today's shamble of a justice system in the United Kingdom, anyone on trial for a major crime is able to present an argument that its not their fault for their own actions, and escape punishment. Journalist Peter Hitchens discusses the imperative need for a "code, you can expect that people who rob, kill , cheat rape or destroy will be deterred by stern laws, and caught and punished if deterrence fails. Also that people who break the law will get no advantage out of it." http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/06/why-weak-justic.html
Presented with such a great opportunity to digress away from the shambolic justice system which has surfaced in recent time, it's time Mr. Turner is sentenced accordingly. He is not the victim here and a fabricated story of Emily lashing out at him in a crazed fit of hysteria is not an adequate reason for taking her life. Grabbing someone to "calm them down" without thinking about hurting or killing them is not thoughtfully considerate; they are malign. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/208886/longley-murder-accused-expressed-no-sadness

It's a damning wall of cold hard facts vs a gushy whiff of slipstream sentimentalism. Against every piece of evidence-- friends, family, police recordings, retrieved documents information, forensic analysis-- against Elliot Turner and (in the wider circumstance) his parents, Leigh and Anita, there is nothing but denial. Explicitly asked if he in any way is responsible for Emily's murder, Elliot says "No, I don't believe so." The Turner family is either trying to seek small pittances of sympathy from the public or have just topped themselves up with arrogance for $4.95.

Leigh Turner told Anita "He fucking strangled her." Seized computers at the household indicate Elliot was searching methods for "death by strangulation" and "how to murder someone and get away with it." Elliot's mother, Anita worked with Leigh to remove vital evidence from the room Emily's lifeless body was in and prolonged calling paramedics to hide or destroy any evidence which could link their beloved "victimised" son to the trial. If the Turner's want to continue denying their involvement in any type of wrong doing, they can do so. Making such a bold claim though is precarious and absurd in the face of mounting evidence against them. Had they believed their names could get cleared, without any convictions for murder or perverting the course of justice, no effort would be made the cleanse the bedroom, no criminal es searches will have been made and more than anything, Emily Longley's dead body would not be in the bedroom, with Elliot Turner's DNA underneath her skin or bearing classic signs of asphyxiation.

Time has run out for Elliot Turner and his parents. A prison cell must be prepared for them now. His parents are guilty of destroying vital evidence and perverting the course of justice. Elliot is guilty of murdering an innocent young woman. Ominous warning signs were shown early on by Mr. Turner in front of friends and likely around family too. A life sentence for murder is not harsh. Its due punishment for taking someone's life. Every action of his, leading up to and including the murder had a malicious, psychopathic intent; a young man, idealistic and over paranoid about his girlfriend cheating on him (despite being a promiscuous womanizer himself). Bring Justice for Emily Longley. It'll bring rest to an agonising period in her friends and family's lives and make society a little more delectable, with a murderer and his accomplices behind bars.

John Key's Gambling addiction

There is no question as to whether or not John Key backs the addition of pokies at Skycity Casino. He's smiled in front of them and no doubt tried his luck on a few of them too. Why the Prime Minister had to stoop so low for a solution to fix the Gambling debt present in the current budget is beyond most people. Mr. Key has made his position known now, and he better well stay in favor of it, rather than retreating back into the centre room politics the Nim-wit Nationals thrive on.

Author Peter Adams puts it straight, saying "Mr Key has clearly joined a long line of politicians who have approached gambling as a quick-fix for expensive social and economic development issues." http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6812881/Who-exactly-is-it-who-wants-more-pokies The incoming flux of poker machines reeks of cheap opportunism, taking advantage of helpless souls addicted to the bright lights and loud noises of these ridiculous machines. What's that Mr. Key? "SkyCity will probably get a few more pokie machines, a few more at the margins, but with this sinking lid policy what will happen is over time there will be less." http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/pm-dismisses-skycity-pokie-deal-concerns-4845770. Rather than admit that this idea of attracting people to the convention centre is a sensationalist move by both parties, Mr. Key would rather waffle on about how National is outperforming Labour in reducing gambling problems. Don't buy into the balderdash more pokies in one place will reduce gambling. If anything, it will attract masses of addicts, intent on a win all or lose all policy.


It's clear that Mr. Key has a love of gambling. He loves borrowing massive amounts of money to fund the middle ground agenda his party rather uselessly upholds, breaking election promises and happily waving it off as "recessionary spillovers," unwilling to admit its his party's economic mismanagement giving the budget a red return. Nobody must forget the position he has taken, nor allow him any wriggle space to escape from encouraging people with 1/1000 of his wealth to waste their lives away. How incredible is it these days that the person who is meant to speak for the people is in fact speaking on his own behalf, and Skycity Casino's behalf.

Gambling is rooted deep within Mr. Key;

and don't expect that to change anytime soon.

The rum soaked reality of Dipsomania

Where have the days gone where alcohol was consumed for the hard hitting taste and used moderately in social settings? How many people remember a night out in the city where everyone left with their dignity intact, without stumbling about pathetically or spitting out slurred sentences? Recalling such an occasion would be very difficult. Now remember the last time you heard about an alcohol fueled incident? Several such events will spring to mind straight away. Anyone wanting to defend this childish drunken behavior occurring all to often, should speak with the highest levels of contrition. The dangerous reality is that the binge drinking pretense is seen as socially acceptable and often encouraged. Truthfully, the side affects of uncontrolled drinking leave families ruined, bodies wrecked (no you're not invincible Mr. Cool), and noisome people walking the street with complete disregard for their actions.



In Britain today, parents allegedly "understand that society has changed and that it is not the end of the world if their teenager experiments with alcohol." A politically way of saying "they get drunk earlier and have a good chance of carrying this nasty habit on for longer." http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/05/parents-open-alcohol-drugs-sex. However ignorant the kids may be about the topic of alcohol, no justice is done if parents fail to warn them about the dangers of their actions. Underage binge drinking is becoming an increasingly big problem and yet the very people who are entrusted with educating the world's future leaders and citizens, are losing interest in their child coming home from parties drunk. In Australia, these sorts of teenagers were behind careless looting of a Recycling lot, with the manager Cameron Holmes baffled at their intentions. "There is absolutely no reason for this." http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/drunk-teenagers-trash-wodonga-shed/2139544.aspx.




New Zealand has sought to campaign against people smoking by graphically showing the damaging effects of tobacco in TV commercials. The beginning of each video message is "every cigarette is doing you damage." http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1052512/every_cigarette_is_doing_you_damage/. Advertisements of this kind would be of great benefit to anybody who believes they are young, tough, able to handle it and therefore immune from the negative side effects associated with excess alcohol consumption. Guess what..."Every big drinking session is doing you damage." An Australian website "Natural Therapy" has listed both short and long term damage which arises when one drink just isn't enough. These rather inglorious symptoms include "reduced concentration" and "aggressive behaviour" in the short term and "liver damage" and "high blood pressure" in the long term. http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/article/the_effects_of_alcohol Alcohol abusers be not proud of inflicting such abuse upon your body body for the sake of "a good time," "to fit in," or "because I need it."




The abject danger of binge drinking is rolling over into society. Streets, oozing with Rummies flout around city centres after a long night out, looking for trouble, starting trouble, acting childishly, waste police time and in the moment, are quite proud of doing so. Society, as a result has to put up with the careless behaviour of these alcohol abusers because rather than learn their lesson the first time round, a return is made to booze up and push one's luck. In November 2011 , All Black Zac Guilford was running around naked in Rarotonga, assaulting patrons in a Bar, including triathlete Kelly Pick. Rather than receiving sympathy and support for being harassed, Ms Pick was vilified, and one person had the audacity to blame her for Guilford's actions saying "your jogging attire may have contributed to the verbal onslaught." http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5991075/Guildford-drama-Rarotonga-triathlete-vilified. Law abiding citizens have had enough of people acting like Zac Guilford did in Rarotonga and rightfully so. The negative externalities of drunk people such as abuse, puerile behaviour, crude jeering and drink driving need to be given some serious attention.



Moderate alcohol consumption for enjoyment, health benefits or to enjoy a social occasion has never been dangerous. Drinking sensible amounts of alcohol doesn't make one go off. The cheap Sherry smell of the West's drinking woes can be fixed. The question remains. How long until the alcohol abusers become smart, moderate users?

The influence of Christianity in New Zealand

The other day there was an article in the North Shore times titled "Bible classes get the bash." At the heart of it were non-Christian parents (led by Peter Harrison), moaning and grumbling about "existing religious instruction being too exclusive" and how a Bible Class "does not reflect the multi-cultural profile of our country." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/6780068/Bible-classes-get-a-bash
Mr. Harrison referred to the Bible as "some archaic document" and having a class "covering common values like tolerance, love and integrity." It seems like a class Mr Harrison would benefit immensely from as he displays none of those values in his interview. Nor does he realise how much of an impact Christianity has influenced New Zealand or how his ethics class is doomed to fail.

As an English Colony, New Zealand derived a lot of its law, lifestyle and traditions from Britain and British Culture. Peter Hitchens summarised it perfectly when he said "our laws, customs, traditions, language, music, architecture, diet, everything you care to name, these are all based upon Christianity." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig-thN-xxqI (He says this from 20.16-20.24). Mr Harrison has debated himself into a corner immediately by dismissing the Bible as some unnecessary obsolete text. So much of New Zealand's law, ethics and culture have Christian foundations. One of the things that is so sad to see from Mr Harrison is just how educated he is attempting to make himself appear, when he brings forth nothing more than a narrow minded, ignorant attitude about just how significant Christianity is in the foundations of our laws. "Thou shall not murder;" "Thou shall not steal;" "Love your neighbour as yourself;" "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 20:15, Mark 12:31, Luke 6:31) These two moral laws and two guidelines are four of the many moral codes taken directly from Christianity and still very much as relevant in today's society as they were when written.

Mr Harrison's further claims that religious indoctrination "is too exclusive" and multiculturalism should come first. In that, he should be inspired by the occasion Jesus' invited the children to be with him, when his disciples were attempting to shoo them away. Mr. Harrison and the Non-Christian parents are the ones who are making these classes exclusive; so they ought to stop blaming everyone else for their own actions and start holding themselves accountable for this exclusivity. A true Christian church should never turn anyone away from attending their weekly services. They know it is imperative to stay true to 1 Peter 4:9 "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling." Also 1 Thessalonians 5:15 "Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else." These two verses affirm, that above all things, living harmoniously and in peace with our neighbours is one of the greatest guidelines to being at peace with others. This Christian attitude is evident in today's society with social acceptance becoming more common with groups which were previously discriminated against.

So what is Mr. Harrison's alternative to this all? An Ethics Education class, similar to the one in the New South Wales Primary Schools; it is now being taught to over 3500 students. An inevitable problem with this alternative is simple; Mr Harrison should realise now how unlikely this ethics class is to give lasting values to young children. . "Why should I do that?" "That ain't no use" are two popular remarks teenagers enjoy making . Anything which they take in from these Ethics classes are likely to be tossed out as they walk through the teenager door. If Mr. Harrison wants rational proof of this (like he seems to want, based on his various blogs and internet posts) he need only go down to Browns Bay beach on a Friday night and witness for himself youth who don't respect the law and lack morals and is contrary to a devoted Christian teenager who hold the Christian moral code close to their hearts. This is not to say Christian teenagers won't be rebellious and misbehave. They do believe though, that there shall come a time when they will be held accountable and have to give an account of why they acted unlawfully and immorally. In turn, the troubled youth down at Browns Bay live without care for anyone or anything but themselves. The ethics Education is nothing but a cheap quick fix gimmick a young student will have difficulty learning and be quick to dispose when they begin going through puberty.

Peter Harrison is no idiot. He merely lacks an understanding of the impact and influence of Christianity in our laws and culture. His alternative Ethics class won't make the lasting impression he wants it to. Maybe now, he will hopefully see that Christianity has had a huge influence on Kiwi culture. Bigger than he's probably ready to admit.

It's not passion, it's bad sportsmanship

Fifty years ago there was a silence or polite applause from the home fans when an away team scored. Fans and followers of that team were not afraid to show their enthusiasm and it was all in the spirit of the game. As young kids, we are always told by our parents to be humble winners and gracious losers and always upholding ourselves by giving our best and respecting the opposition. Why is it then that grown ups give their kids such valuable advice, yet run off to their favorite sport and boo the opposition? That's not pride for your side, or passionately supporting your team; its bad sportsmanship.

On April 16, 2012, in the FA Cup Semi Final between Tottenham and Chelsea, the crowd was asked to observe a moment of silence to mark the "23rd anniversary where 96 fans lost their lives." It was a short lived moment as a small group of Chelsea fans childishly started booing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9206300/Hillsborough-anniversary-Chelsea-embarrassed-as-fans-ruin-minutes-silence-at-Wembley.html
Liverpool's' fans behavior is even more abject. A fan wearing a Manchester United jersey comes to watch a Liverpool training session, only to be met with a reception of boos and jeers from onlooking Liverpool fans. A curious onlooker has every right to lambaste this puerile behavior. If respect cannot even be shown to a fan of another club, there's no denying it just gets worse the further one looks into soccer,* with players regularly bullying the referee and swearing at him, lauded on by their immature fans.

Don't assume this is a one off occurrence, or restricted to soccer* either. The Southern Hemisphere's premiere Rugby showpiece, the Tri-Nations is regularly subjected to sporting lowlifes who take every occasion the opposition has an opportunity to score point to boo the opposition kicker. An example is attached below. Listen at 11.50-12.00 just how loud these jeering noises are. Kids go to these games to watch their heroes play, only to see people around them pathetically chanting at the visiting teams' kicker. Retired Springbok Lock Victor Matfield has rather flatly dismissed home crowds booing as nothing more than "showing their passion" for their team. Eden Park tried and failed by asking the audience over the loud speakers to remain quiet while both kickers attempted shots, with little success. Passion for supporting your team comes from cheering them on when they're on the offense and praising them when they get the better of the opponent in defensive situations. Booing an opposition kicker when he shoots at goal and doing likewise when the referee makes a decision in favor of the visiting side is reminiscent to a child having a tantrum when they don't get the toy they wanted at the store.

Next time you're at a sporting venue and see a grown man or woman booing or jeering, ask them why they're doing it? Ask them just what it is that makes them arrogant enough to make such a low blow move? If they're audacious enough to give you an answer to each question, ask them how their actions are any different from a school student disrespectfully talking back to a teacher? Truth is that both the fan and the school student are rude, cynical, incredibly conniving, asinine and above all completely obstinate towards it all. Booing the opposition should have no place in any sport of any kind. Any fan that disagrees ought to put a diaper on.




*Soccer is used instead of Football so American and Canadian readers don't get confused.

The Poison Apple?

Apple has led the way in innovation, producing revolutionary products such as the i-Pod (released in 2001), the I-Phone (released in 2007), and more recently the i-Pad (released in 2010). Millions of units of each product have been sold and Apple has largely received positive reviews for ingeniously identifying, and satisfying, consumer demand for a product that ensures that a specific facet of people's life is better. easier, more enjoyable. In the process, the slick Apple marketing machine has made certain that the winsome products are ones which others must see you with. Underneath a blanket of 'wholesome-as-apple-pie' smiles though, there lies a supercilious attitude withiin Apple's senior management. It is a foolhardy attitude that their products are so superior, that any fault which these products (particularly the I-Phone) produces is to blamed on the customer, not the producer. Be wary of trying to get your 'i-item' repaired. The biggest adjustment will be to your bank balance.

An I-phone owner who used to jokingly refer to her mobile as 'god-in-a-rectangle' became dissatisfied with her I-phone when she noticed that her I-Phone "Home button" was beginning to respond erratically. It began to take four or five clicks to return to the home screen. "I went to the Apple Store at my local mall and told them about the problem. The store clerk said he could send it back to the supplier who could replace it for me. The catch 22 was I would have to pay $400 if I wanted to choose this option." As a cheaper alternative, this customer was advised to take the I-phone to an electronics repair shop, which she did, hoping that a change of stores would bring about a better response. It was to no avail. "The store said it would cost $45 just to send my I-Phone off to get repaired. On top of that were the actual repair costs themselves, which the shop owner estimated would cost anywhere from $60-$180. This, in effect, could be added to the original price of the phone. I realised I was being asked to pay about $100 to repair a relatively new phone." Outraged, and unconvinced the customer quipped, "I shouldn't have to be paying to fix a product which Apple knew was going to endure a lot of wear and tear." Don't assume in today's consumer marketing era Apple is going to show this customer (or the thousands of other customers who had endured similar technical faults with their I-Phones) any sort of sympathy.

Mass product recalls have never been uncommon and are frequently done if enough customers compain. Toddler tool made by Little Tykes had a mass recall "because of choking concerns." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44698187/ns/business-consumer_news/t/big-recall-little-tikes-play-tool-sets/#.T4lR_FGO13U
Toyota had flushed pink with embarrassment in 2008 and recalled 2.3 million of its cars that were at risk of randomly accelerating unmanned. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735#.T4lXYFGO13U
Apple's record for product recalls is far from impressive. It's pathetic at best. Thousands of customers, in vain, complained about the defective 1st generation i-Pod nano which completely burnt out and ceased to function properly, only to be told that they could not be reimbursed. It took five years before did Apple. eventually, admit there was the chance the Nanos could "overheat and possibly even catch on fire." But in their typical smug, supercilious fashion Apple were not willing to replace all of the first generation Nanos, only "those whose serial numbers match the units with defective batteries."

Apple (and Steve Jobs) honed a reputation for providing products that were focussed on the consumer. Is Apple really that consumer focused? No. Their products are not built to last and the Board of Directors are well aware of that. A short term push to increase profits and boost fat pay packages far exceeds any concerns about technical faults that a consumer might encounter. It's about time these frustrated I-Phone users started writing formal complaint letters to Apple. Abandoning consumption of their products won't persuade the Big Apples of Apple to change. I-Phones must be built to last because in today's technology driven age, the wear and tear of these products will be high, and customers have to trust the mobile phone purchase they have made is a good investment, not one where they have to dump and jump (to another brand) after the phone starts acting up after a measly 24 months of use. If you are still unconvinced this is just a rarity, have a skim read through the 23 pages of complaints about the same Home button problem on the Apple website. (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3022587?start=0&tstart=0)

Apple has some serious problems to address. It is only when the crown gets knocked off their head will they begin to realize, ultimately their customers are the people they should be listening to more than anything else in the orchard. And, rather than building cheap, crummy products, they should make efforts to invest in producing higher-quality, 'built to last' "i" products. Don't protest against them silently, let your voice be heard. Sooner or later, in doing this, the poisoned Apple will be discovered.

Don’t listen to Sue Bradford, listen to your parenting intuition

Sue Bradford has always had a reputation for being controversial. A former back-bencher politician, she successfully managed to pass three proposed bills into law. One, which is totally valid, is making the minimum wage equal for 16 and 17 year old students and adults alike (that a youth’s ability to scan items or pack shelves should be rewarded with inferior remuneration compared to someone 10-30 years their senior, is baffling). Her second bill, that prison mothers be given further entitlements to keep their babies longer, is open to debate. One cannot, however, mention Sue Bradford, without bringing into account an incredibly unpopular third bill that she put through parliament. The Crimes Amendment Act 2007 was put through in 2007, removing a parent’s right to use reasonable force as a way of disciplining their child. One big question must be addressed about such a law. Why should we even listen to Sue Bradford?

Listening tentatively to a politician and taking their word for it on situations has rarely proven fruitful or beneficial. John Key promised not to raise GST levels, only to later backtrack on it, providing weak-kneed excuses. Julia Gillard adamantly said no carbon tax would be put on sources of energy Australians would be unable to function properly without, only to sneakily push it through by blaming Australians for lack of environmental concern. If one is unable to trust a Prime Minister, why trust anyone sharing a political bedroom with them?

Mrs Bradford, to be frank, is a lying, vainglorious, undemocratic sensationalist woman. It is to the benefit of the New Zealand people that she no longer serves in parliament. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ&feature=player_embedded

Her first address as to why the Bill should be passed, asserts that children are entitled to their own rights. Children do have rights, the right to be loved and cared for and brought up in a household where the parent(s) have provided for them a stable home so they are able to flourish through their schooling. Children, right up until their mid-teen years, are still immature with their decision making and if an incessant negligence for the rules arises, no law should prevent a parent using reasonable force to correct their children. Mrs Bradford, though, thinks otherwise. "While on the surface it might appear like a simple smack or a simple hit - what we don't know is what else is happening in that family either with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4061/Bradford-says-anti-smacking-law-working-well She has fed an intrigued New Zealand media lies that any parent who disagrees with her warped ideology is some deluded, neurotic person who simply doesn’t cut the mustard. 99.9% of parents want their children to be the best they can be, and are willing to make sacrifices for them to achieve that. Talking to the child, giving them a time out or screaming at them just doesn’t work at times. It must be a parent’s right to know that if a smack prevents their child from being naughty, then a smack ought to be administered.

From day one the Bradfordtism Section 59 Amendment proposal was met with an outcry of public disapproval against the adjustments. A staggering 85% of people were against the law when it was passed and that number remained largely unchanged when an Anti-Smacking referendum was launched in 2009. A multitude of opinions compiled by the New Zealand Herald supports these views. One respondent Sean says “We vote for you to represent us, our ideas, our opinions, how can you ignore them now!” Blomfield mentions that the government should “Stop making criminals of parents who choose to bring up their child (children) in a loving and disciplined manner Focus instead on the real issue of violence towards children.” All opinions voiced can be found in the attached link. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10431340
Knowing all too well she wouldn’t find favour with the common citizen, Mrs Bradford “adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics,” choosing to go from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2009/05/sue-bradford-the-greens-futile-left-option.html Not only was this completely ignoring New Zealand’s democratic system, it suggests the true colours of a person intent on imposing communist-style attributes onto our political system. Even today, Mrs Bradford doesn’t seem content to let society have any input into her unpopular bill. “I think it should be up to the New Zealand Parliament to decide whether it wants to overturn the law.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ

If a parent doesn’t want to smack their child as a means of correction, that’s fine. If they believe there are better ways to bring up their child, they’re entitled to do so. Many great citizens exist who were never smacked. What is not acceptable is Bradford’s attempt to intervene and prevent parents from using force as a means of correction. Parents love their children and want the best for them. If smacking is their way of disciplining their child, so be it. If it isn’t, so be it. Don’t listen to Sue Bradford parents; listen to your parenting intuition.

***It has been confirmed by liberal apparatchik Conrad Reyners that the anti-smacking bill was done as a deliberate act of policy. In a guest column with the blog Norightturn he says "The law is very clear. Section 59(2) clearly states that it is illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction." Reyners goes onto say that "Smacking a child is assault. It is child abuse by definition." Any person who says this bill was never designed to prevent parents smacking their children must no explain  why Conrad Reyners statements are false and provide the sections in the bill which provide parents with the authority to use legal force to smack their children.