Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[Pesty]

mph1977 said:

There are thousands of boys and young men who believe that the way to show your displeasure is by hitting someone - because their powerfully built (tm) father uses physical chastisement excessively - this spills over into schools and the streets where the 'punishment' for percieved 'disrespect' by a peer is to hit them or worse...

Yes there are boys like that but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it's powerfully built fathers doing it. I'd wager that was at least an equal amount of boys being violent who don't have any fathers around to hit them at all.

Also what's this powerfully built thing? Most if the nastiest people I've met have been scrawny and small.

I was hit as a child and I don't go around hitting people I imagine most of ph are the same but I'm not suggesting me being hit is why I don't hit others. That would also b a huge assumption and equally as wrong.

I think other things cause it culture for one in your example of respec. I

[mph1977]

Pesty said:

<snip>

Also what's this powerfully built thing? <snip>

'powerfully built' is a bit of PH meme , as is 'powerfully built company director' - which is used to give an impression that the poster is some adonis like captain of industry making million pound decisions day in day out, when in fact they are a roid-head tradesman or a key board warrior IT geek.

[GTIR]

Spanna said:

GTIR said:

Spanna said:

I don't think people having been smacked as kids is that relevant to this (non)issue. Who smacks their kids now, would be the relevant question. Personally, I haven't smacked my child of 4 at all, in my experience there are other more effective ways of letting a child know they're wrong or for punishment, both physical and vocal without resorting to actually hitting the kid.

I'm not against smacking at all, I don't think it is harmful as a once in a while quick sharp punishment for certain children. I would be against it if it were to be a daily occurence, the parent should recognise at that point the punishment isn't good enough and seek other ways to deal with them.

I think you're right, however, in some environments it's needed.

I'm not with my kids mum and believe me I can't stay too long in their house after I've dropped them off because they're all so unruly it's untrue. Throwing themselves on the floor crying, throwing rubbish and food on the floor, pulling crisps out of the cupboard when explicitly told by their mother not too, not eating their food and throwing it around and crying etc etc.
The trouble is she's never given them any discipline because it's "easier to let them do whatever"!

So when they come to mine they've got to adjust but sometimes they slip!

She hits her other boy (in the face. Not my kid) and he's a nightmare!

She's also got one about to pop.

5 kids!

I'm also a single dad and my ex is the same with my lad. Can't be arsed to do things right and he almost always comes to me in a right mardy. He knows I won't be putting up with it and he comes to his senses pretty quickly. He is one that needs some firm but fair discipline but doing that gives both of us a great time with each other.

I think the lack of consistency causes an issue, lines need to be drawn and the discipline for the lines needs to be set for your own sanity as much as the child's. My ex goes all softly softly most of the time, then he can do the smallest thing like answer back or spill a drink and she explodes.

The one thing she doesn't do though, is smack.

The thing is I won't need to do anything when he's (and his twin) older, say 5yo. They already do as they're told but occasionally laps.
I must admit I'm harder on the boy because I don't want him to be a big wuss like I was (am).

[Pesty]

mph1977 said:

Pesty said:

<snip>

Also what's this powerfully built thing? <snip>

'powerfully built' is a bit of PH meme , as is 'powerfully built company director' - which is used to give an impression that the poster is some adonis like captain of industry making million pound decisions day in day out, when in fact they are a roid-head tradesman or a key board warrior IT geek.

Ok would you care to address the other points? I think it's a huge assumption to suggest violent behaviour is cause by coporal punishment.

[WinstonWolf]

Randy Winkman said:

REALIST123 said:

Randy Winkman said:

There are already lots of countries where hitting children is not allowed. People aren't running about punching each other or getting run over all the time there. In fact, they generally have lower crime and accident rates than the UK. Perhaps because people better learn the reasons for good behavior.

So, no smacking equates to lower crime? Really?

As usual, this is govenrment meddling with trivialities whilst important matters get left alone or fudged.

Whether adults should hit children is a "triviality"?

No, smack. A parent can differentiate. Are you a parent?

[anonymous-user]

I think that any adult who thinks that it is OK to strike a child thereby disqualifies him or herself from being left alone with or in charge of a child. The imbalance of power, and the use of force instead of reason, are no nos in my book.

I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.

[AnonSpoilSport]

Breadvan72 said:

I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.

zygalski said:

It's a fantastic way of releasing angst after working a 12 hour day too, let's not forget.

You should buy a puppy zygalski. No, on second thoughts, don't!

[grumbledoak]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that any adult who thinks that it is OK to strike a child thereby disqualifies him or herself from being left alone with or in charge of a child. The imbalance of power, and the use of force instead of reason, are no nos in my book.

Sadly, reasoning with a three year old is about as much use as it is with Guardian readers.

[mph1977]

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that any adult who thinks that it is OK to strike a child thereby disqualifies him or herself from being left alone with or in charge of a child. The imbalance of power, and the use of force instead of reason, are no nos in my book.

Sadly, reasoning with a three year old is about as much use as it is with Guardian readers.

however none violent physical intervention, and the use of behavioural techniques ( naughty step / shop dummy hold ) do work ...

[mph1977]

Pesty said:

mph1977 said:

Pesty said:

<snip>

Also what's this powerfully built thing? <snip>

'powerfully built' is a bit of PH meme , as is 'powerfully built company director' - which is used to give an impression that the poster is some adonis like captain of industry making million pound decisions day in day out, when in fact they are a roid-head tradesman or a key board warrior IT geek.

Ok would you care to address the other points? I think it's a huge assumption to suggest violent behaviour is cause by coporal punishment.

corporal punishment teaches people that the solution to not getting your own way is to commit Battery against those who defy or disrespect you ...

those who claim legitimised criminal battery by parents and others in Authority are very lucky - sdadly many parents do not have the necessary intellectual capacity to make the determination of what is appropriate , when it is appropriate and the impact it has on their offspring.

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that any adult who thinks that it is OK to strike a child thereby disqualifies him or herself from being left alone with or in charge of a child. The imbalance of power, and the use of force instead of reason, are no nos in my book.

Sadly, reasoning with a three year old is about as much use as it is with Guardian readers.

So, whacking a sentient but imperfectly reasoning creature is fine, eh?

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that any adult who thinks that it is OK to strike a child thereby disqualifies him or herself from being left alone with or in charge of a child. The imbalance of power, and the use of force instead of reason, are no nos in my book.

Sadly, reasoning with a three year old is about as much use as it is with Guardian readers.

So, whacking a sentient but imperfectly reasoning creature is fine, eh?

No, but smacking is. The problem is some people can't differentiate.

[anonymous-user]

A smack is a euphemism for a blow. If you smack an adult, that's an assault. We are stuck with Victorian law on "reasonable chastisement" of children, which dates from a vanished world.

[catso]

Am I the only person that finds the use of 'Tsar' by UK Government a bit tttish?...

[mph1977]

Breadvan72 said:

A smack is a euphemism for a blow. If you smack an adult, that's an assault. We are stuck with Victorian law on "reasonable chastisement" of children, which dates from a vanished world.

exactly , ironically the 'reasonable chastisement' of spouses is now such an issue that things , if you did them to a unrelated adult in private , result in mandatory arrest of one or both parties and a fanantical approach to seeking an admission or conviction even against the wishes of the victim ( as the system fails to recognise difference the reaction of the battered spouse who 'luvs him innit and it wuv mi fault' with the reasoned action of a spouse who is not a basttered spouse who has either called the police in the heat of the moment or become the unwillingsubject of the actions of nosy neighbours)

[chris watton]

catso said:

Am I the only person that finds the use of 'Tsar' by UK Government a bit tttish?...

Yes, me! The word Tsar is Russian for Caesar. I guess they like to make themselves feel more important than they actually are with the use of tttish titles.

[Pesty]

mph1977 said:

corporal punishment teaches people that the solution to not getting your own way is to commit Battery against those who defy or disrespect you ...

those who claim legitimised criminal battery by parents and others in Authority are very lucky - sdadly many parents do not have the necessary intellectual capacity to make the determination of what is appropriate , when it is appropriate and the impact it has on their offspring.

So why don't I go around hitting people? I think it may be a factor but if it is it's a tiny one. Hitting people because of some perciceived slight or lack of respec has nothing to do with have a slap as a kid I don't hit people for stand on my toes in a crowd.

As for reasoning. Ok your three year old child runs out in the road. I'd wager a quick slap would get the point across where a reasoning wouldn't. Because a three year old would not understand the consequences.

As I said I never hit mine I didn't need to. I just don't think a law like this would have any effect in the type of people who beat their kids. That's the thing with criminals they tend to ignore laws while a woman who slaps her child's leg in a car park because it was nearly killed will get the full force of the law.

[dandarez]

From my experience I'd say this. Corporal punishment was banned in schools. Have a look at today compared to say when I was in school in the 50s and 60s: what's disruption etc like in classes today?

Smacking of kids, I don't agree with. But again, go back to 50s and 60s, I was smacked (more times than I care to remember! But I was what was termed 'a little bugger!' (well, lanky bugger!). Did it do me harm? I don't know. But let's come to today - it's probably a lot, lot less widespread. How often do you see a kid smacked in wide view of others? If you do, and I have seen the odd occasion, and everybody looks aghast (usually uttering what goes on behind closed doors with that child?). BUT then how if this tsar idea was implicated would you know what was going on behind closed doors? Then what, take the child away, lock the parent (guardian) up? Might have been a one off.

State interference causes more problems than it ever solves.

[Pesty]

Actually good point. I can't remember the last time I noticed a child being hit.

I do recall in years gone past seeing kids beaten. But perhaps that's why I noticed they were more than just a tap.

[dandarez]

Oh yeah, forgot to add I had the cane a few times too! Mind you, some times it would work the other way. I remember getting beat up a few times by an unruly lot in first year - not just me either - this 'gang' would go round give us first years a good thump and 'you not told anyone have you?' No. 'Right, 'ere's another (wallop) just to make sure you don't.'
Then one day they hit one of my friends a bit too hard, so I did tell.

All six of 'em were lined up in front of the school at assembly and caned!!


Still a good pic in my mind after all these years. It worked too, never got bullied again.