TV1 Little Angels

Why is it we have what seems like almost 23 hours of crap now on free to air TV each day and every time we listen to the news on TV or radio, people do not know about a program that has been screened on TV called “Little Angels”

This program shows how “we” can bring up your children without smacking giving results just as good, maybe even better than smacking.

Before you protest over the anti-smacking law been past now by our government use your brains not your mouth and watch “Little Angels” next time it gets shown on TV,

As I have seen some of these children shown on this TV series have been “gross bl**dy shits” smacking would not be called for, they needed “beating up” would be the order of the day, but bl**dy good people like Dr Tanya Byron and her team have shown us TV viewers they can be fixed without “bad temper parent management”

read more at
http://uktv.co.uk/index.cfm/uktv/Style.item/aid/530373

Dr Tanya’s Top Tips
http://uktv.co.uk/index.cfm/uktv/Style.index/aid/530370

Subscribe to our mailing list

About the author

Bio
Hi! Why not add a quick bio to your profile?
More from this author »

  • Richard Principal

    A very sad time for children all over NZ

    I am totally blown away by the (80%) opposition to the anti-smacking law, I saw “little angles” on TV I was lured into the program by program advertising and was blown away by the success of each program, proof you don’t need to smack your children to train them to behave well.

    I rang a friend the other night, he was not home but his wife said she was against the bill, she had never seen a program like “little angles” and does not like been told by the government what to do. I was a bit surprised as I understand it, all the bill does is “outlaw the more vicious harmful smacking” 99% of all those opposed to the new law change would be unlikely to go that bad.

    What else can you do? cancel the bill, cancel cheap doctor visits for children, and make all parents go to some school and get certified in “parenting” before they get discounts for their children at the doctors.

    As I learnt from the program, ignore children when they are bad, this is their problem “they think been bad is good” so they be bad to seek attention, when you yell at a bad child they go worse to play the game better. You praise them when they are good. You really need to visit the UK web site from the link on the posting that started this thread to see more tips.

    There is another program to be seen soon on TV called the “Nanny” but without the high tech cameras and “teacher-student” radio communication, I wonder how many people opposed to the bill will ignore to see that program if they have not seen one these similar programs already.

  • campgrrls

    There is so much mis-information about this bill and the mainstream news media is a lot to blame for this. As for the polls, they are so badly worded that they are strongly biased against the bill – even the one by statistics NZ which I thought would have known better. They used the language of the people who are campaigning against the bill ie “anti-smacking bill”, and “making smacking illegal” – just like the mainstream media.

    The bill is about outlawing the defence of reasonable force. Force can still be used to stop a child hurting themselves or otnhers, or if the child is being disruptive. It is against using force as a punishment or at least against using it to correct behaviour.

  • campgrrls

    I also think its interesting that the people campaigning against the bill have shifted the focus from protecting children to the focus on parents rights – and this in the context in which NZ has an appalling record of violence against children. It’s like a massive neurosis when large numbers of people in NZ can’t face up to the real problems we have in the way we treat children.

    The TV news have not made any attempt to look clearly and carefully at the issues on all sides, they just use the biased and emotive language of the people who are hysterically avoiding the real problem.

  • Richard Principal

    Maybe the biggest mistake was calling it the “anti-smacking bill” might be a bit late to change it to “better parenting”

    I got this Email from Sue Bradford
    –~–~———~–~—-~————~——-~–~—-~

    Thanks for your email.

    I do read and appreciate all considered correspondence on the Crimes (Substituted Section 50) Amendment Bill, especially those in support!

    The opposition to the bill has been loud and organised, so the voices of those who support the bill are incredibly important. It will be the efforts of people like you that will help us create a society safe for all children. It also makes a real difference to me personally.

    If you, like me, are hearing a lot of misinformation about the bill, and would like some simple facts to counter them, then please feel free to use the fact sheet at: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10707.html

    Thanks again for your support on this important issue.

    With kind regards

    Sue Bradford MP

  • campgrrls

    I was going to reply on another thread where someone said that TV One has more balanced news than TV3. Not so last night when TV 3 gave a more balanced report on protests for and against the Bradford Bill than TV One. TV One focussed on the opposition.

    BUUUT tonight, TV One surpassed themselves. They said that “anti-smacking bill” was really the wrong name and, FOR ONCE gave the Bill it’s correct name “Crimes (Substituted Section 50) Amendment Bill”, and explained the purpose – to remove the defense of reasonable force.

    Cool, Richard, that you got that letter.

  • bobscoffee

    i will bet my house that this bill will not reverse child abuse statistics

  • campgrrls

    I think the bill won’t do A LOT to stop some people abusing children on its own, but I also don’t think it will do all the nasty things the bill’s opponents are claiming.

    No law can bring about the culture change needed on its own, but it’s an important step in the right direction. Instead of wasting so much energy on opposing the bill, some people should be talking more about how how to treat children better – about how to change our violent culture.

  • campgrrls

    BTW a lot of opponents to the bill keep saying that they don’t want to be arrested for smacking a child in the supermarket. I can’t ever recall seing an adult smack a child while I’ve been in a supermarket. I’ve seen noisy and disruptive children, but parents deal with it without hitting. So why suddenly do lots of people want to hit their kids in a supermarket?

  • Richard Principal

    Thank you for your reply campgrrls
    I get the feeling those who are against the bill are just a bit paranoid (might be one way to put it)

    As I come from the Electronics trade I have to do First aid refresher & safe working practices every two years.
    I get the feeling as I do each season every two years and read between the lines, if you follow all the rules, do all the right things and have a accident you can walk away scot free, But if you don’t have a first aid box (that’s fill), there no safety signs, no safety equipment and you have the same accident or smaller accident you get screwed (to put it crudely).

    Or how about this, you go out into a supermarket car park, you tell your child watch out for the trolley that it does not scratch that car parked nearby, your child ignores you and the nearby car get damaged. I am sure the police are not going to fine you for smacking your child.

    On the other had you smack child because you will not buy your child a ice cream and your child throws a tantrum, well maybe that is a bit over the top, but I am sure you will see the difference between the two cases.

    Maybe that is what is wrong with the government, Nobody has received their example list on what is “OK smacking” and what is “unlawful smacking”

  • campgrrls

    Well I don’t think they can provide a list of what’s OK smacking and what is not, because, as with the law on assault the police take into account context and amount of prior examples by a person etc.

    I do think the mainstream media has not really given enough info to show the basis for police & court decisions. At the moment the laws on assault say any unwanted touching is assault & this applies to touching children Section 59 currently adds the proviso that it’s lawlful to use force with children if “reasonable force” is used. This is the defence section 59 aims to remove because its been used by abusers.

    However they also have written into the section 59 that force can be used with children if they’re going to hurt themselves or others and if they’re being disruptive. But not if it’s used as a punishment.

    As one blogger put it, you don’t see the police hanging around Queen Street waiting to arrest anyone who bumps into someone else even tho it’s technically asault.