Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[Hackney]

Timmy40 said:

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?

GBH rather than ABH?

[anonymous-user]

To stop a child running into the street, try grabbing the child's arm. More effective than a smack. A smack uses pain to make a point. Grabbing the child might or might not cause pain, and usually won't. Pain is not the medium of communication there, but with a smack the whole point is to communicate via pain. If you saw an adult about to step in front of a bus, would you smack him or her? I suggest you would not. You might grab his or her arm.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd July 07:15

[mph1977]

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.

I agree the defence of reasonable chastisement is outdated

while the case law is not as clear as some make out ( on both sides of the fence round the spanking bench ) consent is able to be applied as defence where an assault that is deemed to casue actual bodily harm is inflicted on a mentally competenent adult by another mentally competent ...

This is completely aside from lesson it teaches young children about how to get their way ...

Fortunately the repression and messed-up nature of the people it creates keeps PH in comedy gems such as the Clarkson thread and gives many pro-dommes plenty to do for clients reliving being spanked or caned by Mummy or Nanny and the strange conflict of arousal, punishment and guilt that brings ...

Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 1st July 21:03

[krallicious]

WestyCarl said:

Oh the irony

As in Alanis Morissette irony?

[julian64]

mph1977 said:

I agree the defence of reasonable chiastisement is outdated

while the case law is not as clear as some make out ( on both sides of the fence round the spanking bench ) consent is a able ot be applied as defence where an assault that is deemed to casue actual bodily harm is inflicted on a mentally competenent adult by another mentally competent ...

This is completely aside from lesson it teaches young children aobut how to get their way ...

fortunately the repression and messed nature of the people it creates keeps PH in comedy gems such as the Clarkson thread and gives many pro-dommes plenty to do for clients reliving being spanked or caned by Mummy or Nanny and the strange conflict of arousal, punishment and guilt that brings ...

Does this come with subtitles?

[Tonberry]

Pain focusses the mind and is the only sure fire way of getting someone to do what they should be doing, or at least what you want them to do.

It shouldn't be necessary to use pain to control a child but sometimes it is.

[jjlynn27]

julian64 said:

jjlynn27 said:

You seem to be very angry about an opinion, the IMHO part. An opinion.

In MY experience, children learn very well if you set up boundaries, and if you are consistent in what is and what is not acceptable. When you calm down, I'd like to hear a situation where you felt that it was necessary to inflict physical punishment on someone not able to meaningfully defend themselves.

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'. I have no real feelings either way about smacking or banning because I think people who have hard ideas one way or the other are simply calling on a limited experience.

I find your attempts to turn 'smacking' into 'inflict physical punishment on someone not able to meaningly defend themselves' funny. Any minute I expect you to post a meme of a seal pup being battered by a club. On the one hand it demonstrates that smacking has quite dark connotations to you , which you are applying to everyone who uses the term.

I therefore take the mickey out of said people.

We'll get there, eventually. How is 'smacking' child centered? Being good parent means that you don't need to resort to 'smacking' in order to induce desired behaviour. i don't understand part about clubbing pups. Where do you draw the line between smacking and physical punishment, since to you they are quite different things. I asked you to provide scenario in which you'd consider 'smacking' appropriate. You've failed to do so.

[Rovinghawk]

One Christmas my nephews & nieces were getting rowdy. My sister's dobermann has a lovely temperament and adores the kids- highly protective as if they were her own puppies. Nevertheless, the kids' behaviour was crossing a boundary.

Suddenly the dog leapt to her feet & nipped all the three kids on the thigh, with just enough pressure to put her point across. Consequently, the kids rapidly parked their rear ends on the sofa & quietened down.

It wasn't an attack- she would have been destroyed if we even vaguely suspected it. It was done as a disciplinary act and it worked superbly. The kids don't hate the dog, they don't fear the dog, they just respect her. We looked at the dog's actions & agreed they were considered & proportionate.

I don't kids so don't have an axe to grind one way or the other in this debate. I don't think you 'should' smack children, I certainly don't think you should 'beat' children (apropos of BV72's comments, there are a lot of emotive and/or misleading terms used by both sides of the debate).

I do, however, believe that smacking should be an available option. Not in anger, not for lack of any alternatives, purely for when it would be the most effective method of instilling a lesson.

"Law, without force, is impotent". (Blaise Pascal.)

[NicD]

+1.


Children can spot and exploit weakness from a very early age.

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

One Christmas my nephews & nieces were getting rowdy. My sister's dobermann has a lovely temperament and adores the kids- highly protective as if they were her own puppies. Nevertheless, the kids' behaviour was crossing a boundary.

Suddenly the dog leapt to her feet & nipped all the three kids on the thigh, with just enough pressure to put her point across. Consequently, the kids rapidly parked their rear ends on the sofa & quietened down.

It wasn't an attack- she would have been destroyed if we even vaguely suspected it. It was done as a disciplinary act and it worked superbly. The kids don't hate the dog, they don't fear the dog, they just respect her. We looked at the dog's actions & agreed they were considered & proportionate.

I don't kids so don't have an axe to grind one way or the other in this debate. I don't think you 'should' smack children, I certainly don't think you should 'beat' children (apropos of BV72's comments, there are a lot of emotive and/or misleading terms used by both sides of the debate).

I do, however, believe that smacking should be an available option. Not in anger, not for lack of any alternatives, purely for when it would be the most effective method of instilling a lesson.

"Law, without force, is impotent". (Blaise Pascal.)

So the dog 'nipped' kid on the thigh, but since you 'didn't suspect' anything, all is good. And good doggy is deciding when kids are crossing the line and what level of force is appropriate. I'm glad that you don't have kids. Would be even better if your sister didn't have them.

Only on PH.

[Rovinghawk]

jjlynn27 said:

So the dog 'nipped' kid on the thigh

Yes, three of them. Not a mark, not a bruise, just a fairly hefty squeeze. This from a dog fully capable of ripping them to shreds.

jjlynn27 said:

since you 'didn't suspect' anything, all is good.

I didn't need to suspect, I saw it all from start to finish.

jjlynn27 said:

And good doggy is deciding when kids are crossing the line and what level of force is appropriate.

As far as we all could see, she judged it perfectly.

jjlynn27 said:

I'm glad that you don't have kids.

Me too.

jjlynn27 said:

Would be even better if your sister didn't have them.

The doting grandparents also saw everything & agreed that the dog was fully in control at all times & behaved with perfect restraint. It was exactly what she'd have done with her own puppies & it worked entirely as intended.

[s2art]

Rovinghawk said:

The doting grandparents also saw everything & agreed that the dog was fully in control at all times & behaved with perfect restraint. It was exactly what she'd have done with her own puppies & it worked entirely as intended.

That sounds right, the dog had identified the kids as equivalent to pups from her own pack. As this type of behaviour is common amongst the mammals, it can only be evolutionary forces that has brought it about; it conveys an advantage. Going against evolution in teaching very young kids is not likely to be a good idea.

[Driller]

This thread just got very silly!

[mph1977]

julian64 said:

Does this come with subtitles?

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion dear ...

SPaG flaming is so lower sixth

[With these feet]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

So the dog 'nipped' kid on the thigh

Yes, three of them. Not a mark, not a bruise, just a fairly hefty squeeze. This from a dog fully capable of ripping them to shreds.

jjlynn27 said:

since you 'didn't suspect' anything, all is good.

I didn't need to suspect, I saw it all from start to finish.

jjlynn27 said:

And good doggy is deciding when kids are crossing the line and what level of force is appropriate.

As far as we all could see, she judged it perfectly.

jjlynn27 said:

I'm glad that you don't have kids.

Me too.

jjlynn27 said:

Would be even better if your sister didn't have them.

The doting grandparents also saw everything & agreed that the dog was fully in control at all times & behaved with perfect restraint. It was exactly what she'd have done with her own puppies & it worked entirely as intended.

I have a dog, its quite small, but if he decides to can draw blood with a bite.
He is without a doubt the most loyal dog Ive ever had.
However, he was around for a year before my son was born and has never seen my son as above him in the pecking order. Therefore I warn my son - who is now 8 - that if when playing with the dog he growls, its him telling you he's not happy. Keep doing that and he might bite you. We often see the dog with a blanket over it trying to get it off or having a funny 5 minutes running at you barking but kids need to know the boundaries. Whether it be a nip from the dog for trying to detach its tail or a slap round the legs for being naughty.

[johnfm]

julian64 said:

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.

What? You threaten children with violence??

Breadvan has pretty much summed this topic up - except he says adults smack kids because they want to. I think it's because they know they won't get hit back. How many smackers still hit their kids when they're big enough to hit back?

[anonymous-user]

With these feet said:

I have a dog, its quite small, but if he decides to can draw blood with a bite.
He is without a doubt the most loyal dog Ive ever had.
However, he was around for a year before my son was born and has never seen my son as above him in the pecking order. Therefore I warn my son - who is now 8 - that if when playing with the dog he growls, its him telling you he's not happy. Keep doing that and he might bite you. We often see the dog with a blanket over it trying to get it off or having a funny 5 minutes running at you barking but kids need to know the boundaries. Whether it be a nip from the dog for trying to detach its tail or a slap round the legs for being naughty.

There's so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to start.

The dog should know it is at the bottom of the order, that's your job to teach it. Your dog should never be growling at your child, that's your job again, as is not letting your child annoy the dog. You shouldn't be letting your dog growl or your child annoy it and you shouldn't need to slap your child's legs. Are you really a dog owner and a parent? fking hell.

[Rovinghawk]

johnfm said:

What? You threaten children with violence?

A smack doesn't necessarily involve beating the crap out of the child, you know.

[s2art]

Driller said:

This thread just got very silly!

So you dont believe in evolution?

[johnfm]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

What? You threaten children with violence?

A smack doesn't necessarily involve beating the crap out of the child, you know.

"Don't do X or I will hit you" or "Do X or I will hit you" is the threat of violence.

Doing so to strangers is bad enough. Doing it to children is pretty low. Doing it to your own children is pretty much an admission of an inability to communicate and dressing it up as 'just a smack' is trying to justify an adult hitting a child.

Weak as piss, as we'd say where I'm from.