Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[turbobloke]

Can we still smack the Children's Tsar?

Just asking - in jest of course.

[turbobloke]

AnonSpoilSport said:

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?

But does anyone whack Guardian readers?

I often feel like it but resist the urge.

Totally understandable even down to the stoic resistance

Meanwhile has human biology not demonstrated the existence of a fast track link from ass to brain in sentient but imperfectly reasoning 'creatures'

[Oakey]

If a child is misbehaving why on earth would they remain on the 'naughty step' / in the corner?

[NWTony]

Breadvan72 said:

The difference is that criminal sanctions are applied to adults and(controversially) to children over ten (arguably that age is too young) according to a system of rules that is ascertainable in advance, and following a process that affords rights to those subject to it. We lock up those who have failed to act according to what Society sets as rules of reasonable conduct (including those who use unlawful force). Curbs on liberty and free choice are also used at school and by parents.

I don't think this is distinctly different to parents chastising a child. You can fall foul of laws and be punished for that without ever knowing that law exists. Is deprivation of liberty a distinctly different punishment to a smack? Is locking someone away better or worse that a smack?

Would you feel better if parents locked their child away in a small room for 22 hours a day as punishment for transgressions?

[turbobloke]

How would the law define a smack or slap to be watertight and manageable in terms of legislation?

The trouble is, there are fifty shades of grey to this smacking malarkey.

[voyds9]

article said:

Parents should be banned from smacking children, the Children's Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson, has said.

She told the Independent the law gave pets more rights to protection from violence than children.

Perhaps they should also be walked around on leads and put down if they bite anyone.

[Hairbrakes]

If I misbehaved as a child, I got smacked.

As a result, I now suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others"

[nightflight]

I still remember the time I was caned at school, just for throwing a rugby ball down a corridor. I got four strokes for that, and when I got home, my Dad slippered me across my very sore arse "for getting caught". I suppose that would be abuse these days.

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

How would the law define a smack or slap to be watertight and manageable in terms of legislation?

The trouble is, there are fifty shades of grey to this smacking malarkey.

The Law ( statute and case) as it stands defines and interprets the meaning of the offences of Common Assault, Battery, Actual Bodily Harm and so on , banning the physical chastisement of children would only need the removal of the statutory excuse of 'reasonable chastisment' when someone strikes a child.

[Countdown]

Hairbrakes said:

If I misbehaved as a child, I got smacked.

As a result, I now suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others"

"Respect for others" is possible without the need for smacking.

Tbh I'm not overly keen on Governments legislating for anything and everything. However my own view is, if I ever need to smack one of my children, it could well be my parenting skills that need looking at.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Hairbrakes said:

If I misbehaved as a child, I got smacked.

As a result, I now suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others"

"Respect for others" is possible without the need for smacking.

Tbh I'm not overly keen on Governments legislating for anything and everything.

Nor me.

Countdown said:

However my own view is, if I ever need to smack one of my children, it could well be my parenting skills that need looking at.

No problem. Smack yourself first, just to be sure.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Anyone every watched that Supernanny programme. She seems to manage to pull the most obnoxious little brats into line without laying a finger to them! I admit to occasionally smacking my 2 lads, up until the oldest was about 4 and the youngest 2. Then we were round at some friends one day and I saw how he dealt with his misbehaving kids, without smacking, and decided I would alter my strategy. I never smacked them again. Now 17 & 15 and are great lads, very proud of both of them. Never given my any problem, great exam results etc etc.

People who smack their kids do so because they lack the skills to deal with the problem without resorting to violence. I can say this as I was one of them!

[anonymous-user]

NWTony said:

Breadvan72 said:

The difference is that criminal sanctions are applied to adults and(controversially) to children over ten (arguably that age is too young) according to a system of rules that is ascertainable in advance, and following a process that affords rights to those subject to it. We lock up those who have failed to act according to what Society sets as rules of reasonable conduct (including those who use unlawful force). Curbs on liberty and free choice are also used at school and by parents.

I don't think this is distinctly different to parents chastising a child. You can fall foul of laws and be punished for that without ever knowing that law exists. Is deprivation of liberty a distinctly different punishment to a smack? Is locking someone away better or worse that a smack?

Would you feel better if parents locked their child away in a small room for 22 hours a day as punishment for transgressions?

I am not the one comparing the penal system to hitting children, you are. The inadequacies of the UK prison system (in PH hang'em flog'em terms, inadequate because 22 hours isn't long enough, I assume) have no bearing on whether adults should use violence against children.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 29th December 08:56

[ClassicMotorNut]

Countdown said:

"Respect for others" is possible without the need for smacking.

How would you teach that to an especially foul four-year-old? In a lot of cases it would often be easier to teach a child that something is wrong (e.g. by smacking them) before explaining why it is wrong. It's not because parents are incapable of explaining why it's wrong but it helps that the child knows it's wrong so they listen when they are sat down and spoken to.

[Champhill]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

If I tripped over as a small child, holding my adoptive mother's hand, I would get a smack for "giving her a fright". Want to guess on the state of our relationship now?

[Mr GrimNasty]

Hairbrakes said:

If I misbehaved as a child, I got smacked.

As a result, I now suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others"

I developed forward planning skills, placing a heavy comic down my trousers, before misbehaving.

[Countdown]

ClassicMotorNut said:

How would you teach that to an especially foul four-year-old? In a lot of cases it would often be easier to teach a child that something is wrong (e.g. by smacking them) before explaining why it is wrong. It's not because parents are incapable of explaining why it's wrong but it helps that the child knows it's wrong so they listen when they are sat down and spoken to.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but I don't think children are "born" foul. i.e they didnt suddenly decide one day to turn into a screaming brat in tne sweetie aisle at the local Asda. My guess is that, from birth, they learn a set of behaviours that achieve the results they want. For parents It's a constant process of setting boundaries, rewards and sanctions, in order to get the right behaviours/outcomes.

Maybe it's because parents don't have the time or inclination to teach their children how to behave so smacking is seen as a quick'n'easy shortcut to achieving a desired result.

[Randy Winkman]

ClassicMotorNut said:

Countdown said:

"Respect for others" is possible without the need for smacking.

How would you teach that to an especially foul four-year-old? In a lot of cases it would often be easier to teach a child that something is wrong (e.g. by smacking them) before explaining why it is wrong. It's not because parents are incapable of explaining why it's wrong but it helps that the child knows it's wrong so they listen when they are sat down and spoken to.

Do you think that people in Sweden lack respect for others?

[Bullett]

Oakey said:

If a child is misbehaving why on earth would they remain on the 'naughty step' / in the corner?

Because if they come off the naughty step they get more time. Kids are not stupid.
I have spent 20 minutes stepping over and around my daughter having a screaming fit about not getting a biscuit (or something like that). She eventually gave up. Each occurrence took less time for her to realise no was no.
The younger they are the more immediate the punishment must be. Take a toy away, naughty step etc works, saying you will not go to X is useless at toddler ages.
I don't smack mine, I always thought a controlled chastisement would be fine but I can't tell the kids not to hit and do it myself. The other thing is that at the point when a smack become relevant control is not often is huge supply.
I rarely shout either. They get the 'calm' voice. That's bad news. I reserve a shout for immediate danger 'stop' messages overuse will spoil the effect.

[NWTony]

Breadvan72 said:

I am not the one comparing the penal system to hitting children, you are. The inadequacies of the UK prison system (in PH hang'em flog'em terms, inadequate because 22 hours isn't long enough I assume) have no bearing om whether adults should use violence against children.

That's true but your initial argumanet was that the imbalance of power and the use of force was the problem, which is the same MO as the state uses, presumably you are OK with punishment dished out by the state?

I'd say the point of any punishment is to associate an unwanted action with a negative consequence.