Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[julian64]

Breadvan72 said:

If smacking is not physical punishment, what is it? Adult smacks adult - criminal offence, absent self defence. Adult smacks child with exactly the same amount of force - no offence if reasonable chastisement. Tho is an outmoded anomaly.

Not sure of your point here. Adult smacks adult. Happens day in day out all over the country and virtually never ends up as a prosecuted offence. Had a girlfriend when I was younger that would smack me for reasons varying between she thought it was sexy, all the way to me insulting her dress sense. In fact the last memory I have of her when she slapped me because the relationship had ended.

So your attempt to make every slapping between two adults an offence that will lead to the police being the slightest interested is somewhat odd.

Even though your first point made no sense to me, your attempt to link a slap between two adults, to that between an adult and a child is even more odd.

Although I realise you are a proponent of the 'no smacking' argument, I'm a little surprised you can't still see both sides?

[anonymous-user]

julian64 said:

Not sure of your point here. Adult smacks adult. Happens day in day out all over the country and virtually never ends up as a prosecuted offence. Had a girlfriend when I was younger that would smack me for reasons varying between she thought it was sexy, all the way to me insulting her dress sense. In fact the last memory I have of her when she slapped me because the relationship had ended.

So your attempt to make every slapping between two adults an offence that will lead to the police being the slightest interested is somewhat odd.

Even though your first point made no sense to me, your attempt to link a slap between two adults, to that between an adult and a child is even more odd.

Although I realise you are a proponent of the 'no smacking' argument, I'm a little surprised you can't still see both sides?

I'm not sure what your point is, it's just a grubby story about your ex that had issues.

[StottyEvo]

jjlynn27 said:

IMHO, if you are 'forced' to resort to physical punishment, you've failed as a parent.

It depends how you define failure & success really doesn't it.

[anonymous-user]

StottyEvo said:

It depends how you define failure & success really doesn't it.

Being able to bring up children without having to resort to hitting them is usually a good start.

[julian64]

el stovey said:

julian64 said:

Not sure of your point here. Adult smacks adult. Happens day in day out all over the country and virtually never ends up as a prosecuted offence. Had a girlfriend when I was younger that would smack me for reasons varying between she thought it was sexy, all the way to me insulting her dress sense. In fact the last memory I have of her when she slapped me because the relationship had ended.

So your attempt to make every slapping between two adults an offence that will lead to the police being the slightest interested is somewhat odd.

Even though your first point made no sense to me, your attempt to link a slap between two adults, to that between an adult and a child is even more odd.

Although I realise you are a proponent of the 'no smacking' argument, I'm a little surprised you can't still see both sides?

I'm not sure what your point is, it's just a grubby story about your ex that had issues.

Because although breadvan is obviously an educated chap he has a recurrent theme in his posts. Quote law to justify law. He always startes with the premise that whatever is currently enshrined in law, is an undeniably solid starting point, even when he's had to grasp the longeest, most tenuous straw he could find.

Grubby? issues? I don't think so, escaping from me was the best favour she ever did herself.
.
.
.
.


But my real annoyance with the smacking and anti smacking lobby is that the smackers think its a human rights thing, and the antismackers think they are sorting out child abuse.

[WestyCarl]

julian64 said:

Not angry, just pointing out that your post is parent centred rather than child centred and therefore inconsistent with your aim of being the 'good parent'.

But being a good role model to your kids is child centred.

What message does it send to kids that physical violence is a perfectly acceptable way of getting people to do what you want.

[Timmy40]

WestyCarl said:

julian64 said:

Not angry, just pointing out that your post is parent centred rather than child centred and therefore inconsistent with your aim of being the 'good parent'.

But being a good role model to your kids is child centred.

What message does it send to kids that physical violence is a perfectly acceptable way of getting people to do what you want.

Partly why I don't do it, I spend a lot of my time policing various bust ups between them and their friends, telling them off for hitting hardly seems consistent with hitting them myself.

[bobbylondonuk]

WestyCarl said:

julian64 said:

Not angry, just pointing out that your post is parent centred rather than child centred and therefore inconsistent with your aim of being the 'good parent'.

But being a good role model to your kids is child centred.

What message does it send to kids that physical violence is a perfectly acceptable way of getting people to do what you want.

if you were threatened with physical violence would you not do what you are told? It is the way nature works. Might not be an acceptable way to get things done in our society, but st gets done when you get collared.

[StottyEvo]

el stovey said:

StottyEvo said:

jjlynn27 said:

IMHO, if you are 'forced' to resort to physical punishment, you've failed as a parent.

It depends how you define failure & success really doesn't it.

Being able to bring up children without having to resort to hitting them is usually a good start.

I'd probably look more towards the kids happiness and general quality of life whilst growing up and an adult as apposed to something as trivial as a smack. Branding parents bad/good on a single metric is quite narrow minded.

[anonymous-user]

Not every slap of an adult results in prosecution, but the slap is still an offence, absent some limited exceptions. If someone steals your car, is it only a crime if the thief is prosecuted? Of course not. Can the smackers really not see the anomaly in making every use of force against an adult an offence (contact sports and self defence excepted), whilst permitting the use of force against children? I cannot see a single rational argument in favour of smacking. The only arguments are emotional, or appeals to tradition. Smacking is not needed, as other methods work as well or better. The disparity in power makes smacking immoral, as with all bullying. Adults only smack children because they want to.

[anonymous-user]

Re the quote law to justify law position, you could not be more wrong. The law allows smacking. The law is wrong. I disagree with a great many legal rules on many subjects. The law is sometimes a good guide to behaviour, but in this instance it is not.

I ask again, if smacking is not physical punishment, what is it?

[Driller]

I have a 19month old daughter. I could not imagine ever hitting her with my hand or anything else. The thought is just abhorrent.

I can only imagine that anyone doing this is severely lacking in patience and imagination.

[Timmy40]

Driller said:

I have a 19month old daughter. I could not imagine ever hitting her with my hand or anything else.

Wait until she's 19. I guarantee it'll cross your mind.

[julian64]

Breadvan72 said:

Re the quote law to justify law position, you could not be more wrong. The law allows smacking. The law is wrong. I disagree with a great many legal rules on many subjects. The law is sometimes a good guide to behaviour, but in this instance it is not.

I ask again, if smacking is not physical punishment, what is it?

Its an alternative when the mental punishment would be deemed too severe.

Its dependant on context. Personally, its a threat like a nuclear weapon. Effective only when it isn't used.

[Ridgemont]

Breadvan72 said:

Re the quote law to justify law position, you could not be more wrong. The law allows smacking. The law is wrong. I disagree with a great many legal rules on many subjects. The law is sometimes a good guide to behaviour, but in this instance it is not.

I ask again, if smacking is not physical punishment, what is it?

Aren't you confusing an action with an intention? I may decide to physically punish someone but the means by which I do it varies. Likewise I may smack someone but it is not intended as physical punishment?

As an example I would have no problems slapping my child's palm as an admonishment/warning if they had done something to which verbal guidance had not illicited a response (for example start to run out in front of traffic on a busy road). It isn't intended as 'physical punishment'. It is an urgent warning by way of a smack.

[krallicious]

There are some thoroughly bizarre posts in this topic. If you were smacked your parents have failed at parenting, they are bad role models, they swear at the their children and damage them?

That is a bloody big brush some of you are wielding!

Both my brother and I were smacked or caned if all else failed. We turned out fine. It is starting to get antiquainted but sometimes kids need to learn where the boundaries lie and pain is a way of defining this.

[Timmy40]

Ridgemont said:

As an example I would have no problems slapping my child's palm as an admonishment/warning if they had done something to which verbal guidance had not illicited a response (for example start to run out in front of traffic on a busy road). It isn't intended as 'physical punishment'. It is an urgent warning by way of a smack.

In my experience a shout is just as effective, the smack simply isn't required. It will have no more effect than a telling off. But is less controllable.

An ex-gf of mine had her ear drum perforated when her father hit her as a child, it wasn't abuse, he just didn't realise how hard the smack actually was.

Are the smackers on here really that good at calibrating the exact force of a smack?

[anonymous-user]

So, a smack is not physical punishment if you do not intend it to be? The child has to read your mind? On this basis, is it ok for me to smack you to get your attention, or for your boss to smack you if you do not perform a work task? Seriously, how can a smack not be physical punishment? A smack is the application of force. Why be coy about this? I know why, but you are deceiving only yourself by playing these casuist mind games.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 1st July 17:08

[WestyCarl]

krallicious said:

Both my brother and I were smacked or caned if all else failed. We turned out fine. It is starting to get antiquainted but sometimes kids need to learn where the boundaries lie and pain is a way of defining this.

Oh the irony

[0000]

Breadvan72 said:

So, a smack is not physical punishment if you do not intend it to be? The child has to read your mind? On this basis, is it ok for me to smack you to get your attention, or for your boss to smack you if you do not perform a work task? Seriously, how can a smack not be physical punishment? A smack is the application of force. Why be coy about this? I know why, but you are deceiving only yourself by playing these casuist mind games.

Shaking hands with someone is an application of force. There's a scale at play here.

Mind you, I rugby tackle my 2 year old so I probably shouldn't be allowed an opinion.