Buggered if I can find it now, but I'm sure I wrote somewhere during the S59 clusterfuck that juries just wouldn't do what Bradford was trying to get them to do with her S59 bill. Whether I did actually write it or not, the SST reports today that at least one jury's told Bradford where to stick it.
(As a sideline to the post, note the headline: "Smacking acquittal outrage." As usual, the journo's had to work pretty damn hard for that headline, and even then it's not clear who's outraged. Bradford's been shoulder-tapped for comment, and naturally disagrees with the jury, but hardly seems to be frothing at the mouth over it. At least one juror seems outraged, ie the one who went to the SST - but that's outrage at the charges being brought in the first place, not outrage at the parents' acquittal. As usual, the journo's best efforts at whipping up a storm in a teacup seem a bit lame.)
Obviously, I'm reasonably chuffed with the decision. It refreshes my faith in human nature - ie, despite Bradford and Clark's efforts to make juries return the verdicts liberal hand-wringers would prefer to see, juries, and I'm picking especially the parents on those juries, remain resolutely opposed to slapping fellow parents with a criminal record just for attempting to impose some level of discipline on their disobedient children.
Favourite bit: Bradford's obviously learned jack shit about parenting in the interim. She says "...if a policeman did those things to an adult, you would be really angry and upset." Well, yes. Yes I would, Sue. Likewise, if a policeman ordered me to clean up my room or empty the dishwasher under threat of punishment I'd be really angry and upset. This is because the relationship between police officer and citizen is rather different to the one between parent and child - you'd think all those years of child-rearing would have brought her some realisation of this, but apparently not. My sympathies to her children.
366 days of gratitude
2 hours ago