Repealing Section 59
Today is the last Members’ Day before the election, and MPs will be debating Sue B’s Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Back in June, when the Bill was drawn from the ballot, Sue B had this to say:
The debate around Section 59 has been heated, with supporters saying the law does not need to be repealed as the courts will decide whether parents have gone too far. But we have seen time and time again juries fail to convict parents who are charged with assaulting their children because Section 59 allows reasonable force to be used.
The current law has allowed parents to get away with beating their children with whips, canes and pieces of wood. On top of the physical violence inflicted, children and young people are left with considerable psychological damage as well.
New Zealand has laws that protect adults from being assaulted by other adults and even laws that protect animals from being mistreated, but not children.
I am pleased that New Zealanders will now have the opportunity to properly investigate and debate Section 59. I have campaigned hard to highlight this issue to ensure that this barbaric law is changed.
The Bill is expected to pass its first reading tonight, with Labour and the Progressives having pledged support. It will then be opened up to select committee scrutiny after the election.
Meanwhile, a Littlies Lobby poll of around 1400 parents has found that most of them believe smacking is not an effective way to get children to behave. Of those polled, 3 percent said they thought smacking was a highly effective way to guide children to behave well, compared to about 70 percent who said smacking was not effective.
July 27th, 2005 at 9:39 am
The repeal is long overdue. I support repeal as outlined by Sue B. I want to see it go to select committee and then progress positively through the house. Joy.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
how much money you bet joy, i give you $two to $one against.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Peter, it deserves to go through to the committee stage - its time has come. Joy.
July 28th, 2005 at 8:23 am
This is complete hypocrisy. Last week the Greens wanted to decriminalise Marajuana and effectively normalise it for “recreational” use. Then this week the Greens want to criminalise parents who smack their kids for discipline. The Greens should be pushing complusory parenting classes to new parents, funding of Plunket (like) organisations, prosecuting parents who do not send their kids to school, encouraging healthy diets for children and living your life drug free. Or am I simply asking for too much here?
July 28th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Hi Toa,
it is not complete hypocrisy for the Greens as you suggest, because Sue’s bill does not seek to criminalise parents who smack their children. It only seeks to make it so that that people who are charged with assault of their children can’t get off with it saying “I was only discipling my kids”. You explain to us, if the bill criminalises smacking, what new law does it create? What will parents who smack their children be charged with?
The hypocrisy (and irony) is actually from our political opponents. National radio, 27th July, Linda Clarke show, Sue Bradford debates
with Judith Collins the merits of Sue’s bill. Judith Collins says “we don’t want some law that’s going to criminalise ordinary parents” Er, so how come you support prohibition Judith, because that’s exactly what the cannabis laws do - criminalise ordinary otherwise law-abiding parents.
Also Toa, you appear to have a short term view of Green Policy. Both our cannabis law reform and our Children Policy are long-term committments, nothing last week about them. While National and Labour may swing with the wind and invent policy committments based on what other parties have announced, the Greens actually have principles and we document what our policy is and stick to it.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I know what Sue is up to with this repeal. The fact that she will not allow any clarification of reasonable force says it all. What most of NZ don’t realise yet is the absolute danger this bill poses to the children of NZ who will be exposed to the fanatical attention of any social worker who considers smacking to be abuse. Get smacked by your parents and risk being kidnapped by the state.
This occurs in Sweden now. They have the largest number of state sanctioned child abductions in the Western world for dubious reasons. An army of 300,000 social workers out of a population of 8 million, keeping an eye on all children in mostly state run schools and child care institutions. A well funded foster industry. An admin court that overlooks the removal of children that allows heresay evidence with no burden of proof.
This is what Sue wants for NZ. The Swedish Child Snatchers have been trying to export their ideas to the rest of the Western world. NSW and Britain have rejected the removal of reasonable force and instead more tighly defined it. Other Nordic countries have taken on the same types of legislation and are now in deep trouble, with an out of control social workers and terrified parents and children wondering if they will be next.
To that end, the Nordic countries have banded together to create the Nordic Committee on Human Rights Today. I would recommend that everyone here who does not want to become a useful idiot of the Greens read their website and take time to think about the horrendous rammifications of Sue’s Repeal bill.
NCHR Website Link
The Effects of the Swedish Anti-Smacking Law
July 28th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Yes but the swedish legislation was the “abolition of the physical punishment of children”. Sue’s Bill does not do that, it just removes the reasonable force provision.
You are being unecessarily dramatic and scaremongering IMHO.
There isn’t necessarily a link between a conviction for assault of children and the children being taken away from their parents. Children being taken away from their parents is dependent on separate legislation covering what CVF can and can’t do, and Sue’s Bill does not address that.
The Greens Children Policy does not contain much at all about social workers taking children away from their parents - but it does contain an acknowledgement that “It is also important to recognise and resource work that is done with families before their children end up in statutory care, or the parents in refuge or prison.” i.e. that the emphasis should be on care of children within their families and not on removing the children from their families or the parents from their families. Greens favour restorative justice rather than authoratarian measures such as imprisonment and putting children into care.
Anyway, no doubt that when this is heard by select committee they will receive evidence from legal experts who will advise on whether Sue’s bill will have the effect that she says, or the pie-in-the-sky effects that you suggest.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Stuey, Sue aims to abolish physical punishment in NZ as well. She said so on National Radio yesterday morning. She just realises that she has no chance of doing that, so is using this as a stepping stone.
And Stuey, you will find that Mother’s teeth and claws come out when you threaten their children. Just like in the wild, we will fight to the death to protect them.
This is the biggest threat to NZ’s children since the Care of Children Act, a mysogenist piece of legislation that redefines children as belonging to the state.
Care of Children + Repeal of Section 59 are the pieces of the puzzle to turn women into breeders for the state, no longer able to protect the children we create.
It doesn’t matter what the Greens tell you they intend, what matters is the potential effect. With full repeal rather than redefinition of reasonable force, if that is what is at issue, this piece of legislation will be used by fanatical social workers to remove children from homes. They already tell some people that they can remove children for smacking alone, even though it is not yet illegal. See : The Story Behind the Horsewhip Case
Line in the sand, Stuey. This is the line.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
“Sue’s bill does not seek to criminalise parents who smack their children. It only seeks to make it so that that people who are charged with assault of their children can’t get off with it saying “I was only discipling my kidsâ€?.”
stuey, either you’re attempting to be deliberately misleading with that statement, or you’re confused. Parents-under the law as it stands- can’t “get off” with excessive force. The law specifically states “reasonable force”. So there is a law in place that addresses the problem of violence against children and a jury has to decide whether or not the force was exessive.
What Bradford’s bill seeks to do is remove from parents the right to discipline their children and to replace the parents right to be judged by a jury of their peers with judgement by unelected, faceless bureaucrats who are accountable to no-one.
Their record to date has been appalling.
I find it depressing that so many people are perfectly willing to not only forfeit personal responsibility for the way they run their own lives, but to attempt to force the rest of us to do the same.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the State knows better than the vast majority of kind, responsible parents when it comes to the way they bring up their children–quite the opposite.
Thos few parents who abuse children can be adequately and effectively prosecuted under existing legislation.
July 28th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Sue’s Bill does not remove the right to be tried by a jury. It simply removes a “defense” that the parent(s) can use within that trial.
You say “Thos few parents who abuse children can be adequately and effectively prosecuted under existing legislation.” - this is apparantly not so, according to the cases that Sue has mentioned and the opinion of experts such as Plunket, the Family Court, Save the Children, the CPS and the Police, New Zealand Law Society and Every Child Counts.
Previous frog posts with evidence…
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/06/10/section-59/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/06/13/more-on-section-59/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/06/16/saving-the-children/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/06/18/reasonable-force/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/06/21/misrepresenting-sweden/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/07/03/section-59-2/
July 28th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
This is such an emotive subject with people often judging without looking into the real issue. Before there is frothing at the mouth, remember that one can oppose this without being a child abuser or using physical punishment as your primary tool of child care.
Section 59 reads as follows:
59.Domestic Discipline –
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing is subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of Section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
The problem lies in the interpretation of “reasonable in the circumstances”, not with the Act itself. The force must be used “by way of correctionâ€? and be “reasonable in the circumstancesâ€?. The true problem lies with the interpretation of what would be reasonable circumstances and that is where this should have been aimed – at setting a sequence of guidelines so there is no room for misinterpretation.
To use an exaggerated example, it’s like removing manslaughter as a crime because it’s too difficult to judge if it’s murder or not. All this bill does is create a sense of feel good social engineering while opening the doors for rogue Social Workers to take children away from their parents against their will. Don’t believe it is possible? It is opening the doors wider for this type of behavior. Look at the recent case of ‘horse-whipping’.
“Two social workers from CYFS arrived at my place of work two weeks later and in a very high handed and officious manner insisted on “interviewing” me in front of my staff and members of the public, telling me I was abusing my child. They clearly had made up their minds that this was the case before even talking to me.
They kept on insisting that it was against the law to hit a child, including smacking, and quoted ‘violence begets violence’. When they refused to leave, I left work myself and drove away as I was managing a tourist attraction and it was entirely inappropriate for them to even attempt to conduct an interview there.
The social workers took exception to my abrupt ending of their power trip and rang the police. They filed to the family court - without even investigating fully the circumstances of discipline and without offering the family any support - an exparte order seeking interim custody for my son on the grounds that he was being physically abused. The exparte order meant we were not even informed they were doing this and we had no right of reply to defend it. The court awarded CYFS interim custody of my son, based on the hearsay of one social worker alone and without calling evidence to substansiate the social workers claim.
The social worker then set on a campaign to get the police to prosecute me in order to bolster his claims of abuse.”
That is quoted from an interview with the mother involved from Big-News. It seems as if all Sue wants is to make it easier for that to happen! As the Swedish example should show us we need to tread really really lightly with this.
July 28th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
stuey, I wade through enough links as it is, all day and every day so I’ve no intention of working my way through a “reading list” supplied by you.
You’ll notice I made my point without resorting to the same.
The bill most certainly does remove the right of a jury to decide what is “reasonable force” and to claim that it herefore doesn’t remove the right of parents to be tried by a jury is disingenuous at best.
According to your reasoning. parents can still have a trial, but a crucial element of their defence will be removed beforehand.
I seem to remember the Soviet Union had something similar–they were called show trials.
July 28th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Stuey, thankyou for gathering those links together, you’ve saved me a lot of time.
1. There are no links to actual cases there that go into the details as to why the juries found the parents not guilty. And you accuse me of being “unecessarily dramatic and scaremongering”.
2. Plunket. Govt funded lobby group. President wants to outlaw smacking.
Every Child Counts is an umbrella group that includes Plunket and Save the Children. Good technique to make it appear there are more groups when in fact there are only a few run by fanatics.
3. Save the Children. Govt funded lobby group (53%). Opinion only.
4. Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier - Opinion only.
5. Sweden. Tisk, tisk, tisk. Read my link on The Nordic Committee of Human Rights, blows this argument away competely.
6. Yes it is an anti-smacking bill. More tisking here. Your only way of proving it isn’t is to tell everyone here where in law parents will be protected from prosecution and their children protected from abduction if this bill goes ahead.
July 28th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
I have been trying to find evidence where there was a court case where excessive force was applied to a child, and the defence of s59 was successfully used.
So far, it seems that parents/care-givers who have hit their children, and tried that defence have lost if the doctors found any marks or bruising that indicated excessive force, and lost when there was no evidence of harm.
Some of the cases people have tried to use in the past crumbled when I managed to get further evidence. The “horsewhip” case is one example. The item used was not actually a horsewhip - which conjures up a long stock whip, perhaps like the cat of nine tails, rather than an 18 inch leather riding crop.
Does any-one have any real examples of the court cases this is supposed to protect us from?
Secondly, why are the Greens opposed to re-wording the Act to clarify what reasonable force is? Is it that the belief is that physical discipline does not work, and that smacking is seen as abuse?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Stuey, you are a real nutter, aren’t you.
Bradford does not “intend” to ban smacking. I don’t care what Bradford “seeks to do” What Bradford “intends or “seeks a bill to do” is irrelevant. What is more important is what that bill will do. She should answer this question. “What section of the Crimes Act will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered. In fact I challenge anyone to answer that question
But you won’t, will you? You need to back up your views with cold hard facts, not ideology.
You asked what parents who smack their children will be charged with. How does assault sound?
July 28th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I can’t believe some of you are arguing about your rights to hit children. Madness!
There are a number of databases by which you can access case law relating to section 59. Try LexisNexis and search cases where section 59 has been successfully (depending on how you look at it) argued as a defence.
And, please - think about what you are actually arguing for - the right to hit your child? Just who’s rights are you trying to defend?
July 28th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
No one is arguing the right to “hit” children, Kaituhi. What we are arguing for is the right to raise our children without interference from busybodies like you. If you can’t discern the difference between a disciplinary smacks and hits, then you have a serious problem. I would urge you to read up on what has happened in Sweden as a result of the 1979 anti-smacking law. It’s resulted i a 489% INCREASE in child abuse cases and a massive increase in real violence in the 7-14 age group.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Thanks for the link.
I am arguing about CYFS “right” to remove children from parental custody based on heresy evidence and I am also arguing that I have the best interests of my child at heart and I don’t need some do-gooder making false accusations of abuse. These false accusations begin when people claim:
1. A smack is abuse.
2. A smack does not discipline.
I personally don’t feel the need to smack my children, and there are many tools in my parenting kit to help discipline and educate my children, but that is not the point.
As others have said on this thread, I am not concerned with the “intention” I am concerned with the actual effect of this law change. I have taken the time to read a huge variety of sources, and as a concerned parent, my opinion is that this is a dangerous piece of social engineering.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Can someone PLEASE answer this?
What section of the Crimes Act will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered.
July 28th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
dave, no part of it. The intention behind repealing this section is to outlaw smacking, whatever the proponents may claim.
Kaituhi: Either you don’t understand what most reasonable people mean by “smacking” or you’re using the term “hit” to deliberately muddy the waters here.
July 28th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Hi Stuey,
This Bill is just ridiculous, of course it criminalises parents. Imagine this scenario if the law is amended. Mum is in Mc Donalds with little Jim (5) and John (3). Jim punches John in the face and John cries. Mum “lightly” smacks Jim and Jim cries. At the time Jim is smacked Jan walks into McD’s and sees this occur. Jan takes exception to Mum smacking Jim and tells her so because it is against the law for parents to smack their children. Mum rather heatedly tells Jan to mind her own business. Jan takes exception to Mums behaviour and reports Mum to CYFS. Once CYFS learns of the incident the huge bureaucratic wheels are set in motion and before you know it Mum is in court defending herself against a charge of child abuse. If section 59 is removed you tell me which parts in the amended law will Mum be able to defend herself with. Do not tell me this will not happen because there is absolutely no way you can guarantee it will not and I refuse to write it off as collateral damage.
July 28th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
LexisNexis appears to require upfront fees to search. I don’t want to register and spend money right now. If any-one has some real cases that are accessible I’d be interested. I’ll review LexisNexis after investigating other options.
Dave, I am not sure any-one CAN answer that. I was told we have to rely on the police deciding to not apply the law. Trouble is, it will be the CYFS that will instigate the complaint. They will make an assessment, and then declare assault. Proof will not be required. They will interview the child without the parents knowledge (its happened before). They will ask leading questions. They will get the police involved who will “be required to act”.
The parent will be on the back foot from the start. The presumption of guilt will be “in the best interests of the child”. Threatened with the permanent removal of their child, the parent may be bullied into making an incriminating statement, in the belief they have “negotiated” for the child to be returned provided they take a “parenting skills course” or something. Then the CYFS officer will have a change of mind.
This is happening in Sweden. Hell, it’s happening already in NZ.
The cases repeatedly mentioned in the papers don’t hold water upon close investigation. The current s59 does not excuse excessive force. Why do people believe that any reasonable judge and jury would accept harming a child is excusable as long as the defendant mentions is was because the lad didn’t eat his brocolli?
I agree that it would be worthwhile to further clarify the act. No problem with that. But that is not the ultimate objective here.
The Greens want to outlaw smacking. They want a smack to be interpreted as assault. They do not accept a smack can be delivered as controlled discipline. If this is about harming a child then I submit emotional damage can be just as easily generated by screaming, by telling children they are unwanted, are hopeless, are unworthy. Physical damage is done by feeding them crap diets, by smoking around them, by poor insulation, uneven temperatures and so on.
These are the real issues to tackle. The time spent on this is about social engineering, not actually fixing the real problem.
And I note nothing is suggested to allay concerns about putting in safety checks over zealous CYFS workers as a check on their powers, and a process to help parents falsely accused.
July 28th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
I am absolutely astounded by the number of correspondents who are passionate about hitting their children. I do not even hit my dog! Children are, as far as I am aware, the only group who can be hit and for the action not to be considered assault. Even domestic pets and farm animals have protection in law. Joy.
July 28th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
joy, I assume you’ve either just woken up and are still groggy, or the medication has worn off.
Anyone who can claim from the dialogue above that people discussing this are “passionate about hitting their children” has serious problems comprehending the meaning of words.
“Even domestic pets and farm animals have protection in law.”
Take a deep breath, because I have some exciting news for you–SO DO CHILDREN!
July 28th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
dave, you are absolutely right that there will be nothing in the crimes act that “will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered”.
In return I’ve got a question for you:
What section of the Crimes Act will prohibit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered?
July 28th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Keith - How do you define ‘hit’? I googled an online dictionary quickly - and searched for ‘hit’ and ’smack’. Definitions below:
Hit: To come into contact with forcefully; strike. To reach with or as if with a blow, To cause to come into contact, To deal a blow to.
Smack: a blow from a flat object (as an open hand), deliver a hard blow to.
Not so different.
July 28th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Well, we seem to be getting to the truth of the matter. This is good.
The truth of the matter is that the Greenies want to prohibit smacking. Ban smacking. So those empty words by Sue B. that the repeal of this act was not “about banning smacking” was simply because she LIED to convince the fence sitters this was a safe move.
It is alright to LIE to get your way, because this is about the greater good isn’t it. Smacking is abuse. Hugging is sexual assault and children are exactly like dogs when it comes to training.
What’s next? Lets see. If you give a child a wee smack on the hand, and it doesn’t change their behaviour, the next thing is you are thrashing them with a broken bottle. Yep, and if time-out for 5 minutes doesn’t work, the next thing is they are locked under the stairs for 10 years.
Of course, if CYFS turn up and remove the child they may be no physical damage from being locked under the stairs, but welts across the body would be enough for assault by most standards.
>>>
Toa, I didn’t notice your comment before I posted, sorry for the repetition. Your example is quite good - there have been cases like that in Sweden and they always go badly. It can take months to sort out, but the over-zealous social workers whisk the kid off with the full backing of the State. You can’t get that time back, and the emotional damage is INCREDIBLE. The Frogs seem to avoid talking about consequences.
The argument indeed is trying to make out we are craven, immoral, uncaring brutes should we have ever smacked our child. That sounds like criminalising normal parents to me.
Again I say, it would be an EXTREMELY rare occasion for me to feel a smack is the appropriate disciplinary measure for that situation, but the power of the affronted women in MacDonald’s who reports you for smacking your child (even if you didn’t) is relevant.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
I’m confused - was the ‘getting to the truth of the matter’ bit about what I said? All because I said I couldn’t believe people seemed to be defending their right to hit kids? Hee hee. Assumptions are abundant on this thread…
July 28th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
> Children are, as far as I am aware, the only group who can be hit and for the action not to be considered assault.
>you are absolutely right that there will be nothing in the crimes act that “will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered�.
>Smack…Hit…Not so different.
>What section of the Crimes Act will prohibit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered?
We seem to be going somewhere with this discussion. Indeed, what section of the Crimes Act will prohibit smacking if the bill goes through? Given that adults have no defence to smack a child as a disciplinary measure, can we ask what section of the Crimes Act allows charges to be laid if one adult smacks another? Therein would lie your answer.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Sorry, would have been clearer to say:
e seem to be going somewhere with this discussion. Indeed, what section of the Crimes Act will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered?
Given that adults would then have no defence using a smack as a disciplinary measure, the same section of the Crimes Act which allows charges to be laid if one adult smacks another would apply to an adult smacking a child. The effect is criminalisation of the action, to be defended in court. The effect in Sweden was an increase of 489% in reported abuse cases and an explosion in social workers - something like 300,000 workers from a population of 8 million.
July 28th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
um yes, precisely. Violence against children being treated in the same way as violence against adults - doesn’t that seem sensible to you?
July 29th, 2005 at 12:26 am
Stuey,
S194. Read it sometime. Read Bradfords bill. it says “The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.
So now I expect a public statement from you stating that repealing S59 will mean a smack is a crininal offence under S194 or a complete explainatin as to why it won’t be.
GO on. I dare you.
July 29th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Kaituhi, the dictionary definitions of “hit” and “smack” are all but irrelevant here. I was talking about the use of emotive language to muddy the waters.
“kill” and “euthanase” are the same thing, but we use the words differently to convey different circumstances and meanings.
Following your logic, we can use “smack” and “batter” pretty much interchangeably.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:30 am
stuey you’ve said it again. You equate a smack to violence against children.
We come back to the Greens trying to push the bill through on the basis it is not about banning smacking. Going from the comments here, it certainly is. Smacking = Abuse and Violence, so it must be banned.
Instead of LYING about that stand, the Greens should at least have the integrity to say that is EXACTLY the agenda, rather than trying to hoodwink the fence sitters.
Then the debate might be a bit more honest.
July 29th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
stuey,
still awaiting your response. Don’t tell me you’ve chickened off because you`re cornered?
August 1st, 2005 at 8:28 pm
hey I’m busy, remind me what I’m supposed to be replying to?
perhaps it is: “you’ve said it again. You equate a smack to violence against children.”
well I have never equated a smack with violence, not once, and certainly not twice, because I don’t personally believe that a smack is violence. Re-read what I wrote and if you can find where I did that I’ll eat my hat or apologise for using misleading words.
My whole point in saying “Violence against children being treated in the same way as violence against adults - doesn’t that seem sensible to you?” was to try and get across the point that if section 59 is repealed, then the laws against violence against people will be equal if the recipient is adult or child. It was not to say that smacking a child is violence.
If you smacked an adult, would they report you to the police? Would the police follow it up? I hope not because it is so minor. If you smacked a child would anyone report it? Would the police follow it up? I hope not, because it is so minor. But if you beat up an adult or beat up a child then that is violence.
I would say that it is you pro-Section 59ers who are equating a smack with violence against children, not me.
Actually the main reason I stopped replying was that I figured that this thread had turned into a you said I said you said I said thread that was going nowhere and of no interest to any other readers.
However, if I have to clear my name…
Keith: I didn’t provide a reading list expecting you to go and read the articles. I simply provided my references for the assertions I made. It’s good practice to provide references and presumably if I hadn’t you would have accused me of making my facts up.
Dave: I’m not a “real nutter”, and I would ask you to remain civil and maybe you can try and understand that people can hold different views from yourself and still be intelligent.
I’ve given up replying, its pointless, lets just let it drop until it is studied by select committee eh?
August 6th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Thats right, when the goings tough, give up…Well done stuey.