Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
hornetrider said:
jjlynn27 said:
Translation; 'I don't read books, don't have the time, too busy failing as a parent, and lovingly smacking lil dah'lings. My mistake.'
You're welcome.
"Legalese" indeed.
The irony of this of course is that your response has shown you can't even read the thread. You're welcome.
"Legalese" indeed.
I'm disappointed in BV as he lost the argument and resorted to name calling. Which I view as bad form.
You seem to be infatuated with BV's profession for some reason.
42.
hornetrider said:
Well, that's your view. It's not the view of many...
That is what you actually said. We are now to understand that not the view of many means not the view of some people you know. Or does it once again mean that a large number of people think or do not think something? If you have reverted to broad statements rather than sharing with us the views of the fortunate few admitted to your inner circle, no doubt you can show us some evidence to support your general statement.Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 3rd July 18:56
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
Well, that's your view. It's not the view of many...
That is what you actually said. We are now to understand that not the view of many means not the view of some people you know. Or does it once again mean that a large number of people think or do not think something? If you have reverted to broad statements rather than sharing with us the views of the fortunate few admitted to your inner circle, no doubt you can show us some evidence to support your general statement.Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 3rd July 18:56
Breadvan72 said:
Smacking involves pain or humiliation as a message delivery system. Pain may be a secondary consequence of restraint, but is not the object of restraint. Smacking is chastisement, reproof, punishment. Restraint is undertaken to protect the person restrained or others.
Could it not be the shock factor that is the biggest element of it? Of any disciplining technique? Especially with younger children who cannot rationalise.I'm relatively new to the parenting lark (3yr old and a 6wk old) but one thing I have very much learnt is that you need to be very careful judging the approaches of other parents as until you're in a particular scenario yourself it's very difficult to say precisely how you'll act/react (obviously "techniques" at the extremes of the spectrum don't count - zero discipline and absolute violence).
Thus far we've been able to rely on naughty steps, withdrawal of privilege, stern/sharp words etc etc (I'm obviously not referring to the 6wk old!). But kids can stretch even the most saintly (my Mrs, not me), especially when tiredness gets to extreme levels. And discipline in young children is essential.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Also this post refers to physical smacking, but using psychological punishment rather than smacking, can just as easily lead to some unpleasant (pshycological behaviours on the part of the child.
I agree about psychological punishment - I expect it is possible to do just as much or more damage psychologically.Pan Pan Pan said:
The anti smackers seem to be trying to imply, that a smacked child always turns out to be a monster, whereas a child who has not been smacked, always turns out to be a fluffy loving angel.
I'm not speaking for all, obviously, but I don't believe I have implied anything like that. I certainly didn't intend to. I was smacked as a child. I'm pretty much OK and have not hit anyone yet (well, I did as a child). I'm still not going to hit my son.Pan Pan Pan said:
You have just proved my point, with your comment `I really don't want my son to be scared sh*tless of me and his mother' so yes, you are fearful, and scared that your child will not like you if you administer reasonable chastisement.
As I have mentioned, I don't hit him, as I don't need to. I would not wish to do that for many reasons, ranging from not needing to, through not believing in it actually working the way I might imagine, all the way up to not wanting him to fear me. Even so, I'm sure he won't like me sometimes. I'm his dad; I need to accept being disliked.Pan Pan Pan said:
and again you are equating reasonable chastisement with using implements or uncalled for violence on a child. Why can you not understand that the two, are not the same? so why do you try to make out, that they are?
I didn't equate reasonable chastisement with implements or anything else. I assume you are reading someone else's posts and conflating them with mine. Either it is that or you are quite odd.Pan Pan Pan said:
If you saw another child, seriously beating your own, would you just stand there simpering `don't do that it isn't very nice, to the perpetrator, in the `hope' that the aggressive child would stop doing it? If you did I would have little hope for the future of your child, or his respect for you.
Yes, I think perhaps it is that you are quite odd.hornetrider said:
I didn't say you did.
I expect it does happen too. However kids who don't get smacked also become bullies. What causes them to become bullies? Who's to say what the link is if indeed there is one. I think it's more about personality type of the individual.
Fair enough. On the basis that there is or may be no link, you might as well not hit children as it has no useful effect - it would just then be parents smacking their kids because they think they ought.I expect it does happen too. However kids who don't get smacked also become bullies. What causes them to become bullies? Who's to say what the link is if indeed there is one. I think it's more about personality type of the individual.
Edited by aizvara on Saturday 4th July 00:10
Wales is looking to introduce a full smacking ban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-406285...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-406285...
Jinx said:
Randy Winkman said:
Good. The UK should follow them into the modern world.
Not sure which modern world you are living inbut the one I'm stuck in has violence everywhere and it appears to be on the increase.......Randy Winkman said:
Is it carried out by people that weren't hit by their parents?
My parents used to hit me, and I had the cane at school, yet I have never once hit any of our kids. However, I never have because I could never bring myself to (cowardly) and also, I would hate for my children to grow up harbouring the same feelings I had for my parents for the minor abuse I suffered.chris watton said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is it carried out by people that weren't hit by their parents?
My parents used to hit me, and I had the cane at school, yet I have never once hit any of our kids. However, I never have because I could never bring myself to (cowardly) and also, I would hate for my children to grow up harbouring the same feelings I had for my parents for the minor abuse I suffered. I feel that childhood free from being physically punished is good for pretty much everyone. I think smacking is a poorly understood teaching aid.
Those who don't understand it shouldn't be using it.
Ate least half of those that think they do understand it require supervision.
Banning smacking for those that believe it has helped their parenting, is an abuse of democracy at best.
Bit like banning knives, or sulphuric acid. It shows an almost god like confidence in an opinion, while at the same time completely misunderstanding the problem.
Ms Dick- comment from this week in all the papers “That is what we are talking to the Home Office about. Why on earth would a normal person need sulphuric acid, for example, why would you need that?” Topical case in point and an absolute mirror of the smacking argument. The woman has no understand of why a normal person would ever buy sulphuric acid and therefore feels completely entitled to ban it.
Those who don't understand it shouldn't be using it.
Ate least half of those that think they do understand it require supervision.
Banning smacking for those that believe it has helped their parenting, is an abuse of democracy at best.
Bit like banning knives, or sulphuric acid. It shows an almost god like confidence in an opinion, while at the same time completely misunderstanding the problem.
Ms Dick- comment from this week in all the papers “That is what we are talking to the Home Office about. Why on earth would a normal person need sulphuric acid, for example, why would you need that?” Topical case in point and an absolute mirror of the smacking argument. The woman has no understand of why a normal person would ever buy sulphuric acid and therefore feels completely entitled to ban it.
Randy Winkman said:
Jinx said:
Randy Winkman said:
Good. The UK should follow them into the modern world.
Not sure which modern world you are living inbut the one I'm stuck in has violence everywhere and it appears to be on the increase.......julian64 said:
I think smacking is a poorly understood teaching aid.
Those who don't understand it shouldn't be using it.
Ate least half of those that think they do understand it require supervision.
Banning smacking for those that believe it has helped their parenting, is an abuse of democracy at best.
Bit like banning knives, or sulphuric acid. It shows an almost god like confidence in an opinion, while at the same time completely misunderstanding the problem.
Ms Dick- comment from this week in all the papers “That is what we are talking to the Home Office about. Why on earth would a normal person need sulphuric acid, for example, why would you need that?” Topical case in point and an absolute mirror of the smacking argument. The woman has no understand of why a normal person would ever buy sulphuric acid and therefore feels completely entitled to ban it.
Should the same apply to domestic violence? Should that never have been banned? Those who don't understand it shouldn't be using it.
Ate least half of those that think they do understand it require supervision.
Banning smacking for those that believe it has helped their parenting, is an abuse of democracy at best.
Bit like banning knives, or sulphuric acid. It shows an almost god like confidence in an opinion, while at the same time completely misunderstanding the problem.
Ms Dick- comment from this week in all the papers “That is what we are talking to the Home Office about. Why on earth would a normal person need sulphuric acid, for example, why would you need that?” Topical case in point and an absolute mirror of the smacking argument. The woman has no understand of why a normal person would ever buy sulphuric acid and therefore feels completely entitled to ban it.
Randy Winkman said:
chris watton said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is it carried out by people that weren't hit by their parents?
My parents used to hit me, and I had the cane at school, yet I have never once hit any of our kids. However, I never have because I could never bring myself to (cowardly) and also, I would hate for my children to grow up harbouring the same feelings I had for my parents for the minor abuse I suffered. I feel that childhood free from being physically punished is good for pretty much everyone. 
ds running round on mopeds throwing acid at all and sundry.WinstonWolf said:
Randy Winkman said:
chris watton said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is it carried out by people that weren't hit by their parents?
My parents used to hit me, and I had the cane at school, yet I have never once hit any of our kids. However, I never have because I could never bring myself to (cowardly) and also, I would hate for my children to grow up harbouring the same feelings I had for my parents for the minor abuse I suffered. I feel that childhood free from being physically punished is good for pretty much everyone. ds running round on mopeds throwing acid at all and sundry.One of the marvels of the modern age, combined with getting older, is seeing the same policy points rotate around on a never-ending merrygoround, at a regular interval.
Yesterday we had yet another attempt by the euthanasia lobby to legalise assisted suicide, despite the fact it was only 3 years that the Supreme court adjudicated on this last. A challenge spearheaded by Dignity in Dying, a campaign group.
We have another round of advertising standards aimed at 'banning' gender stereotyping this morning with the ASA looking responding to a series of complaints around Rimmel (1 complaint), Femfresh (17 complaints), Selfridges (1 complaint)
And we now have the regular 'ban the spank' driven by the 'Children are Unbeatable' action group that failed in 2015 to get the Welsh Assembly to push through the initial attempt to ban.
Given the ability of pressure groups to generate PR yardage, and media's ability to constantly rehash these arguments with absolutely no critical assessment, until a sufficient level of steam has built up that 'something has to be seen to be done', I'm coming to the view that the nexus between PR>Media>politics is pretty much broken.
The same groups, rehashing the same points, presenting a neverending low volume hum which wastes airtime, chews up political debating time and actually is just pretty anti democratic, as it appears that the objective is to continually present the Courts, Parliament, etc with the same issues regardless of the response of those bodies, until such time as they relent and adjudicate/legislate 'correctly'.
Everytime this particular campaign has been presented, the legislative response has been to decline to legislate, partly for reasons of enforceability, and partly due to existing legislation, and partly because the general public in no way shape or form wants legislation (for example 85% of Welsh adults were smacked as children and close to 70% agree that it is at times necessary to smack a naughty child).
And yet again, here we are.
Yesterday we had yet another attempt by the euthanasia lobby to legalise assisted suicide, despite the fact it was only 3 years that the Supreme court adjudicated on this last. A challenge spearheaded by Dignity in Dying, a campaign group.
We have another round of advertising standards aimed at 'banning' gender stereotyping this morning with the ASA looking responding to a series of complaints around Rimmel (1 complaint), Femfresh (17 complaints), Selfridges (1 complaint)
And we now have the regular 'ban the spank' driven by the 'Children are Unbeatable' action group that failed in 2015 to get the Welsh Assembly to push through the initial attempt to ban.
Given the ability of pressure groups to generate PR yardage, and media's ability to constantly rehash these arguments with absolutely no critical assessment, until a sufficient level of steam has built up that 'something has to be seen to be done', I'm coming to the view that the nexus between PR>Media>politics is pretty much broken.
The same groups, rehashing the same points, presenting a neverending low volume hum which wastes airtime, chews up political debating time and actually is just pretty anti democratic, as it appears that the objective is to continually present the Courts, Parliament, etc with the same issues regardless of the response of those bodies, until such time as they relent and adjudicate/legislate 'correctly'.
Everytime this particular campaign has been presented, the legislative response has been to decline to legislate, partly for reasons of enforceability, and partly due to existing legislation, and partly because the general public in no way shape or form wants legislation (for example 85% of Welsh adults were smacked as children and close to 70% agree that it is at times necessary to smack a naughty child).
And yet again, here we are.
Oakey said:
WinstonWolf said:
It's worked well for the little bds running round on mopeds throwing acid at all and sundry.
I suspect the little sds running round on mopeds throwing acid at all and sundry.t who lives up the street whose mother is phoning the police on him on a daily basis never got smacked as a child. I was smacked as a child. Caned at school. Usual for the times, I guess.
The smacking emanating from my parents inability and frustration to react intelligently to the problem of parenting and resort instead to anger and violence; to give in to their base instincts rather than behave in a civilised manner and encourage civilised parenting skills.
Make no mistake, parenting is a skill. Not everyone can be a good parent. Everyone who smacks their child and justifies it in any way is simply someone looking to mask their own failings. They cannot parent properly. They are failures. End of.
I wanted to smack my two kids but managed to resist. I found other solutions - and zero punishment beyond the temporary confiscation of a toy or video game. My wife and I managed to reason with them 99% of the time without resorting to anything more than a discussion.
I'm not suggesting I'm a great parent but I don't consider I failed.
Obviously some children will be harder to deal with and in extreme cases, professional help may be required but recognising that and using that approach is, to me, a sign of a parent performing good parenting instead of aggression and violence.
All this talk of "I got a good hiding and look how well I turned out" is just ignorant rubbish. Been there, got the canings, disrespected the Authority doing so and learned one will encourage a far better outcome for all if we abandon our primal, animalistic behaviour and employ more intelligent solutions.
The smacking emanating from my parents inability and frustration to react intelligently to the problem of parenting and resort instead to anger and violence; to give in to their base instincts rather than behave in a civilised manner and encourage civilised parenting skills.
Make no mistake, parenting is a skill. Not everyone can be a good parent. Everyone who smacks their child and justifies it in any way is simply someone looking to mask their own failings. They cannot parent properly. They are failures. End of.
I wanted to smack my two kids but managed to resist. I found other solutions - and zero punishment beyond the temporary confiscation of a toy or video game. My wife and I managed to reason with them 99% of the time without resorting to anything more than a discussion.
I'm not suggesting I'm a great parent but I don't consider I failed.
Obviously some children will be harder to deal with and in extreme cases, professional help may be required but recognising that and using that approach is, to me, a sign of a parent performing good parenting instead of aggression and violence.
All this talk of "I got a good hiding and look how well I turned out" is just ignorant rubbish. Been there, got the canings, disrespected the Authority doing so and learned one will encourage a far better outcome for all if we abandon our primal, animalistic behaviour and employ more intelligent solutions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff