Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
lincsls2 said:
Timsta said:
Timsta said:
Ok, so, at what age is it unacceptable to smack someone?
I don't seem to be getting an answer to this. Any pro-smackers care to answer?Actually, scrap that. I'd try to calmly reason with them and suggest a spell on the naughty step.
Getting silly? Side tracking? Maybe.
At present, the law is as follows: slap your child as "reasonable chastisement" when he is aged 17 years and 364 days - fine. Slap him for any reason other than self defence when he is aged exactly 18: not fine. The slap can be exactly the same, but its legal nature changes. Even a threat of a slap would be common assault if the person threatened is 18. Using the common law terminology, assault does not require contact. Battery does.
Nowadays, the reasonable chastisement defence applies only to common assault. Its application was removed from more serious assaults by legislation in 2004. This is an area in which legislation has already intervened. Society did not collapse.
As for the idea that those who don't slap are "weak" (those who smack children are presumably "strong"), that ranks up there with the "a loving smack does not hurt" offering of a page or two ago.
the accused said:
That's an impossible question, like the question of the age of consent to sex. Depends on the offspring and the situation and many other things too.
If you came home to find your 17 year old schoolchild son had punched his mother in the face would you: a) call the police b) give him a lengthy lecture on your opinions of the morality of use of violence c) kick his ass hard.
Yeah too right, easiest thing to do is give him a good slap. That will sort his violence out. Erm so if your son is violent towards his mother, it's best to beat him up? If you came home to find your 17 year old schoolchild son had punched his mother in the face would you: a) call the police b) give him a lengthy lecture on your opinions of the morality of use of violence c) kick his ass hard.
"noting wrong with smacking, it never did me any harm"
Breadvan72 said:
Was she tasty?
Could have done with a touch more seasoning...It was on the advice of my parents. She turned into a bit of a biter when she got her teeth, anyone was fair game including other kids and she would try to take a chunk out of them. Mum said give her a nip back so she understands how much it hurts. I did and she stopped biting other people from that moment.
It's all about the right deterrent at the right time IMO
WinstonWolf said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
Are they my daughters parents? No. I know what's best for my own flesh and blood at any given time, not the state.
If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child, what would your response be? TwigtheWonderkid said:
If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child...
Regardless of personal opinions which we can all hold in good conscience, you might have worded that somewhat differently by saying that, at present, medical staff can apply for a child to be made a Ward of Court where parents refuse permission for a life-saving blood transfusion. Parents are almost always represented in Court so their views are considered. In other words, current legislation is adequate. Just as it is in the context of this thread. turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child...
Regardless of personal opinions which we can all hold in good conscience, you might have worded that somewhat differently by saying that, at present, medical staff can apply for a child to be made a Ward of Court where parents refuse permission for a life-saving blood transfusion. Parents are almost always represented in Court so their views are considered. In other words, current legislation is adequate. Just as it is in the context of this thread. If you want to find an argument to justify smacking, then "I'm the parent and I know what's best" doesn't cut it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child...
Regardless of personal opinions which we can all hold in good conscience, you might have worded that somewhat differently by saying that, at present, medical staff can apply for a child to be made a Ward of Court where parents refuse permission for a life-saving blood transfusion. Parents are almost always represented in Court so their views are considered. In other words, current legislation is adequate. Just as it is in the context of this thread. If you want to find an argument to justify smacking, then "I'm the parent and I know what's best" doesn't cut it.
BV72 finds himself in a very good place. Never a smack in sight. That is where we’d all prefer to be, but in the real world all children are different, all parents are different, all environments are different, and a range of parenting tools requires to be available for use as appropriate. Though BV72 has managed a faultless score on the smacking front, I’m sure the perfect parent has not yet been invented, so there’s likely some aspect of BV72’s regime which could attract criticism, even (faux) horror. But that’s irrelevant.
I brought up four kids and smacked all of them. None of them were smacked more than two or three times in their lives. On each occasion a smack was administered to focus the child’s attention, an explanation was given, a lesson was learned, a cuddle was forthcoming and we all went on, the better for it. On each occasion I judged this the best way to manage the risk of the child’s unknowingly dangerous/anti-social behaviour. These were not violent attacks, my kids were not battered nor traumatised. I believe this is an entirely appropriate manner to deal with children. It is not a punishment; there is no malice; and no affection is withdrawn by the parent.
Whereas I could be envious of BV72’s parenting approach, I don’t see state control or individuals sermonising/sloganeering as helpful.
I brought up four kids and smacked all of them. None of them were smacked more than two or three times in their lives. On each occasion a smack was administered to focus the child’s attention, an explanation was given, a lesson was learned, a cuddle was forthcoming and we all went on, the better for it. On each occasion I judged this the best way to manage the risk of the child’s unknowingly dangerous/anti-social behaviour. These were not violent attacks, my kids were not battered nor traumatised. I believe this is an entirely appropriate manner to deal with children. It is not a punishment; there is no malice; and no affection is withdrawn by the parent.
Whereas I could be envious of BV72’s parenting approach, I don’t see state control or individuals sermonising/sloganeering as helpful.
Countdown said:
WinstonWolf said:
Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?
Do you think those who "smack" do so primarily for the benefit of the child or primarily because it's the quickest and easiest way for the parent?So how do you discipline your children?
Countdown said:
WinstonWolf said:
Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?
Do you think those who "smack" do so primarily for the benefit of the child or primarily because it's the quickest and easiest way for the parent?lincsls2 said:
Countdown said:
WinstonWolf said:
Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?
Do you think those who "smack" do so primarily for the benefit of the child or primarily because it's the quickest and easiest way for the parent?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff