Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
Pesty said:
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.
This exactly. We keep raising the bar to criminalise basically normal people while being incapable of dealing with the real criminals. Pesty said:
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.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.
Pesty said:
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.
consequences is a nebulous concept for the under 7s as their intellectual capacity to process it is limited - people confuse fear of battery with understanding consequences in this age group ... there is also a difference between the use of battery as chastisement and the use of physical intervention to prevent harm - this is often confused by those advocating the battery of children.
Pesty said:
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.
you seem to assume there is no middle ground between the reasonably intelligent ( but still IMO wrong) use of the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' and battery amounting to physical abuse of a child ... there is and it;s the middle ground that is the problem , it;s the middle ground that teaches the less intellectually capapble and less self aware that the answer to a slight against the person who thinks they hold the power is violence. chris watton said:
catso said:
Am I the only person that finds the use of 'Tsar' by UK Government a bit t
ttish?...
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?...ttish titles. dandarez said:
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?
the problem is the NWNF types and the ' i know my rights' generation who have taught children that teachers etc cannot touch them or use hars h words towards them I attended school in the period after the ban of corporal punishment but before this kind of thinking too hold, staff were quite prepared to physically intervene and use 'open hand' control and restraint techniques to stop fights or stop pupils from doing dangerous / really silly things ... the problem is the childline generation would consider that some kind of abuse and the teacher would be suspended pending an investigation and even if cleared may struggle to remain at that school and struggle to move schools because of the history of an allegation ...
V88Dicky said:
I was smacked as a child, and it never done me any harm.
You never know. You might have developed a deep mistrust of those in authority, and fighting back against those who know better...V88Dicky said:
Why do the Government feel the need to interfere with everyday life?
Ahhh....mph1977 said:
dandarez said:
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?
the problem is the NWNF types and the ' i know my rights' generation who have taught children that teachers etc cannot touch them or use hars h words towards them I attended school in the period after the ban of corporal punishment but before this kind of thinking too hold, staff were quite prepared to physically intervene and use 'open hand' control and restraint techniques to stop fights or stop pupils from doing dangerous / really silly things ... the problem is the childline generation would consider that some kind of abuse and the teacher would be suspended pending an investigation and even if cleared may struggle to remain at that school and struggle to move schools because of the history of an allegation ...
The precipice is in sight.
I used to think smacking my chidren was ok. The problem was it didn't work, and you can't just escalate the violence.
Taking away of toys etc was far more effective. After the first few incidents I could simply tell my kids that if they carried on they would lose X or Y. They would stop.
I also found that we we were smacking, my son would hit my daughter when they had a spat. Its difficult to reason with a child that you can't solve differences with violence, when thats exactly what you go to them.
My kids have grown up well rounded without me needing the beat them, and Its something I'm happy about.
Taking away of toys etc was far more effective. After the first few incidents I could simply tell my kids that if they carried on they would lose X or Y. They would stop.
I also found that we we were smacking, my son would hit my daughter when they had a spat. Its difficult to reason with a child that you can't solve differences with violence, when thats exactly what you go to them.
My kids have grown up well rounded without me needing the beat them, and Its something I'm happy about.
98elise said:
I used to think smacking my chidren was ok. The problem was it didn't work, and you can't just escalate the violence.
Taking away of toys etc was far more effective. After the first few incidents I could simply tell my kids that if they carried on they would lose X or Y. They would stop.
I also found that we we were smacking, my son would hit my daughter when they had a spat. Its difficult to reason with a child that you can't solve differences with violence, when thats exactly what you go to them.
My kids have grown up well rounded without me needing the beat them, and Its something I'm happy about.
exactly , this is the kind of thinking that needs to prevail in this issue, rather than the treatment of children as chattells or the Rights without responsibilities thinking .Taking away of toys etc was far more effective. After the first few incidents I could simply tell my kids that if they carried on they would lose X or Y. They would stop.
I also found that we we were smacking, my son would hit my daughter when they had a spat. Its difficult to reason with a child that you can't solve differences with violence, when thats exactly what you go to them.
My kids have grown up well rounded without me needing the beat them, and Its something I'm happy about.
If my child ran into the road, I would grab her. I wouldn't hit her. Afterwards I would remind her why running into the road is dangerous. If she was too young to understand, I would take care not to let her go near a road without holding hands with an adult or responsible older child.
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.
I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.
What is the difference between a parent that smacks a child and a state that locks people away and deprives them of liberty to ensure compliance? By logical extension we should be able to reason with criminals to prevent re-offending.I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.
Same force instead of reason, same imbalance of power.
Just a thought.
Last week I was sat in a coffee shop, trying to relax, and some fking little creature started going off on one, because it's parent wouldn't buy it a biscuit. The thing was really screeching as well. Eventually the manager insisted that the parent removed the creature, from the establishment forthwith. I'd have got a smack round the legs if I'd have behaved like that at the creatures age 
. Spare the rod, spoil the child.
king little creature started going off on one, because it's parent wouldn't buy it a biscuit. The thing was really screeching as well. Eventually the manager insisted that the parent removed the creature, from the establishment forthwith. I'd have got a smack round the legs if I'd have behaved like that at the creatures age . Spare the rod, spoil the child.mph1977 said:
it's the middle ground that teaches the less intellectually capable and less self aware that the answer to a slight against the person who thinks they hold the power is violence.
^^^ This. Same problem with the use of military force during the last decade - a mistaken belief that if you punch someone in the face for long enough they'll eventually learn to like you.There shouldn't be any necessity for smacking. I've never seen it achieve anything worthwhile. There are better ways.
As i understand it a smack is a shock tactic to stun the child into realising what they have done was wrong. - it's physical contact but not with the intention of harm. As an adult you can work out for yourself what is acceptable force.
If a child associates the unpleasant shock with the word no - when they hear the word no in future they will stop before another smack is required.
Once the child is old enough to understand reason, then this can be used for discipline and smacking phased out.
Diversion instead of dealing with the issue is one of my biggest hates with parents these days.
trying to pacify a child with something else to lure them away from what naughty thing they are doing ensures a brain numbingly predictable cycle of repeat incidents.
Tell them NO, and deal with the fall out, it's your job as a parent.
If a child associates the unpleasant shock with the word no - when they hear the word no in future they will stop before another smack is required.
Once the child is old enough to understand reason, then this can be used for discipline and smacking phased out.
Diversion instead of dealing with the issue is one of my biggest hates with parents these days.
trying to pacify a child with something else to lure them away from what naughty thing they are doing ensures a brain numbingly predictable cycle of repeat incidents.
Tell them NO, and deal with the fall out, it's your job as a parent.
Ozzie Osmond said:
^^^ This. Same problem with the use of military force during the last decade - a mistaken belief that if you punch someone in the face for long enough they'll eventually learn to like you.
There shouldn't be any necessity for smacking. I've never seen it achieve anything worthwhile. There are better ways.
This country is fThere shouldn't be any necessity for smacking. I've never seen it achieve anything worthwhile. There are better ways.
ked. Bring back corporal punishment in schools, and hat wearing, and in a generation we may turn the corner.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.I often feel like it but resist the urge.
NWTony 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.
I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.
What is the difference between a parent that smacks a child and a state that locks people away and deprives them of liberty to ensure compliance? By logical extension we should be able to reason with criminals to prevent re-offending.I wonder do people who hit children also think it OK to beat dogs.
Same force instead of reason, same imbalance of power.
Just a thought.
Pixelpeep said:
<snip>
trying to pacify a child with something else to lure them away from what naughty thing they are doing ensures a brain numbingly predictable cycle of repeat incidents.
Tell them NO, and deal with the fall out, it's your job as a parent.
which is precisely NOT what is taught or advocated by many child rearing experts ... trying to pacify a child with something else to lure them away from what naughty thing they are doing ensures a brain numbingly predictable cycle of repeat incidents.
Tell them NO, and deal with the fall out, it's your job as a parent.
naughty step / standing in the corner etc works on the basis that being bad leads to a period of boring inactivity
the 'shop dummy' carry out deprives the child of the environment and audience they want and reinforces that misbehaving leads to being ignored ...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff