[BBC News] Pair held after double stabbing

[keyboarder]

Usually, this is when the child has refused to take the safety of itself, or others, into consideration.

 

How would you like a slap for the occasions when other people's safety is not quite at the top of your list of considerations? As a taxi driver I should imagine these occasions are quite frequent. Hang on, you might be on to something here..........

[Lonan3]

Usually, this is when the child has refused to take the safety of itself, or others, into consideration.

 

How would you like a slap for the occasions when other people's safety is not quite at the top of your list of considerations? As a taxi driver I should imagine these occasions are quite frequent. Hang on, you might be on to something here..........

Clearly, you weren't smacked often enough as a child - but I bet it wouldn't be difficult to find volunteers to help make up for it now.

[keyboarder]

Clearly, you weren't smacked often enough as a child - but I bet it wouldn't be difficult to find volunteers to help make up for it now.

 

Actually I was smacked on a regular basis and this helped to formulate my views on the subject from an early age. It therefore follows that if you don't approve of how I turned out then your theories are nonsensical. Hitting anyone is violent, the only good thing about hitting kids is that they're unlikely to hit you back. Much kinder to lock them in a dark cupboard under the stairs.

[Lonan3]

Clearly, you weren't smacked often enough as a child - but I bet it wouldn't be difficult to find volunteers to help make up for it now.

 

Actually I was smacked on a regular basis....

Around the head? This would explain a great deal.

[rallybug]

Actually I was smacked on a regular basis and this helped to formulate my views on the subject from an early age. It therefore follows that if you don't approve of how I turned out then your theories are nonsensical. Hitting anyone is violent, the only good thing about hitting kids is that they're unlikely to hit you back. Much kinder to lock them in a dark cupboard under the stairs.

 

Therein probably lies your issue = "regular basis". Smacking on a regular basis is not good - I was smacked on maybe 3 or 4 occasions in my childhood years, and each time I probably deserved it, and it was one smack to the legs or bottom.

[Typhoid]

Typhoid, couple of questions.

 

1. Are you a parent ?.

 

Actually, no, just one question, Are you a parent ?.

 

Let me know and I can then reply accordingly to your post.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes. And I am proud to say I have never assaulted my daughter.

[Typhoid]

Typhoid

There's a world of difference between smacking a child and beating a child - trying to lump anyone who smacks their kid into the child abuse category is astoundingly ignorant.

 

I would agree there is a difference, but only in degrees. If you feel you have to smack a child in order to keep control/discipline then, IMHO, you have failed as a parent.

 

I have a question for you, manxblue and jimbms: if it is illegal to 'smack' an adult, why do you think it is OK to smack a child?

[Typhoid]

Typhoid

There's a world of difference between smacking a child and beating a child - trying to lump anyone who smacks their kid into the child abuse category is astoundingly ignorant.

 

Some more questions:

 

Who decides where the abuse marker rests?

Does it depend on what part of your child's anatomy you hit?

How many times you hit him/her?

How regularly you deploy such discipline?

Whether a physical injury is apparent?

The reason you hit them?

Is it OK if it's an open hand?

Does it depend on the psychological effect it has on the child?

 

Let's pretend for a moment that I agree with your viewpoint, i.e. that hitting kids as a means of discipline/to teach them right from wrong (despite how nonsensical that phrase may be) is justifiable. At the same time I'm assaulting my child because they hit their sister there's a mother next door using slightly more force than me to discipline her son. Next door to her there's a father who employs physical discipline a little more often; in another house down there are parents who hit their naughty kids on a regular basis whenever they misbehave, whether it be for not washing their hands before dinner or stealing from the local shop. The penultimate house on the street is inhabited by a father who takes a belt to his 9 year old son's bum when he disobeys him once or twice a year; and in the end house lives a mother who employs physical discipline, but sometimes arbitrarily when she's in a bad mood. While you may note distinct moral differences, all of these parents would most probably escape legal action.

 

Which is abuse? How should the law be altered to prevent the incidents of abuse and permit incidents of non-abuse?

 

Here's a couple of interesting articles:

 

One child said: "You feel you don't like your parents any more" and another said: "It makes you feel horrible inside."

 

The comments also showed that many children did not see much difference between parents smacking children and other forms of hitting. They compared smacking with being hit by bullies and realised they could not hit back when they were smacked because their parents could hit harder.

 

[...]

 

Last September [1998], the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British law on corporal punishment in the home failed to protect children's rights, after considering the case of a boy who had been beaten by his stepfather with a three-foot garden cane between the ages of five and eight.

 

The stepfather was acquitted by a British court of causing actual bodily harm. He had argued that the beating was "reasonable chastisement".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/252607.stm

 

Smacking children, however lightly, should be outlawed because it increases the chances of aggression and anti-social and criminal behaviour in later life, a new report concludes.

 

An outright ban would 'reduce criminality in the long run but also send out a message about the kind of society we want to be, according to the study by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

 

[...]

 

But Margo said a total ban on smacking would also reduce the number of children turning to crime. 'There is a lot of evidence that children who are smacked regularly - once a week - are more likely to develop aggressive personality disorder,' said Margo. 'Hitting a child teaches them to act out on emotional impulses. We need to give out the message that children should be nurtured and taught to manage their behaviour. We should ban corporal punishment properly.'

 

[...]

 

'This is an extremely important report,' said Rosalyn Proops, the child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. 'Like all people, paediatricians have a variety of opinions. However, the majority believe that all forms of smacking are an assault of a child and should not take place.'

 

[...]

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb...amp;feed=uknews

[Miss Take]

You're asking the questions as though there are straightforward answers, when you know damn well there aren't. The simplest thing to say is that it depends on the adult and it depends on the child. I remember being smacked, though not often, and I'm convinced that I turned out better for it. Another child in the same situation might have reacted otherwise.

 

It should be down to an individual to decide what's best for their own kids. After all, a parent is in the best position to know whether their child is genuinely distressed or not.

 

Where observations of a child suggest that abuse may be a factor, then it moves outside of the adult / child relationship to one of outside enforcement.

 

I'm sure that you can pick holes in everything I've written, but that's how I think it should be.

[Typhoid]

You're asking the questions as though there are straightforward answers, when you know damn well there aren't. The simplest thing to say is that it depends on the adult and it depends on the child. I remember being smacked, though not often, and I'm convinced that I turned out better for it. Another child in the same situation might have reacted otherwise.

 

It should be down to an individual to decide what's best for their own kids. After all, a parent is in the best position to know whether their child is genuinely distressed or not.

 

Where observations of a child suggest that abuse may be a factor, then it moves outside of the adult / child relationship to one of outside enforcement.

 

I'm sure that you can pick holes in everything I've written, but that's how I think it should be.

 

As I've mentioned, I don't agree with ever smacking a child. However, I'm sure the scenario you've outlined is an ideal situation for a lot of people. The problem is, how do you legislate for it?

[P.K.]

With regards to smacking (and speaking as someone who has raised 4 children of his own + two step children), there are occasions when a slap is preferable to any other form of 'punishment'. Usually, this is when the child has refused to take the safety of itself, or others, into consideration.

It should never be the first option, but it should be an option - and the child should be aware of it.

Totally agree as it's exactly the rule we used. If it's life-threatening then punishment is swift and more importantly remembered. The classic offence being when the child runs out into a road.

 

What is unacceptable to me is when a child does whatever and the parent hits it in anger and retaliation and basically in an uncontrolled way. I'm sure it does neither of them any good but lets face it, the little darlings sure can wind you up!

[Typhoid]

Someone should launch a range of clothing and assorted tit-tat, like key-rings and fridge magnets, with the question, 'What would Supernanny do?' emblazoned on them.

[keyboarder]

'What would Supernanny do?'

 

I doubt there's anything that spunky mare wouldn't do and it would probably involve the naughty step.

[Albert Tatlock]

I would agree there is a difference, but only in degrees. If you feel you have to smack a child in order to keep control/discipline then, IMHO, you have failed as a parent.

 

I have a question for you, manxblue and jimbms: if it is illegal to 'smack' an adult, why do you think it is OK to smack a child?

Adults are deemed mature enough to be subject to the boundaries of the law, children are not deemed mature enough to be subject to the boundaries of the law, but are subject to the boundaries set by their parents who maintain responsibility for them until they generally reach adulthood. Maturity is based on general mental and physical development in most areas of the law.

 

I agree that smacking is the result of poor parenting to a great degree, but no one can ever claim to be a perfect parent IMO - no one. I see smacking as the result of the abject failure of communication between parent and child. But people have to not be so naive as to pretend that on occasions in a family this never happens - and that children can be reasoned with as adults or even as children sometimes (adrenaline, over excitement, tiredness, naviety to danger etc. etc.).

 

I hardly smacked my two children (both boys), but I did on several occasions - either across the backside or top of back of their legs. I came up with 'my own system' that was based on traffic lights. 1. If they did wrong they were told off, and had explained to them what they were doing 'wrong' 2. if they didn't correct their behaviour they were told off again this time in a particularly gruff voice, 3. the next time the gruff voice just shouted 'you are on an amber alert' - and 4. a gruff voice 'red alert' meant a smack was imminent. Depending on the seriousness e.g. fighting sometimes stage 2. was left out.

 

This worked perfectly for me, and I think for them too, because they learned the boundaries in our family and knew when they were going too far, and what to expect at each stage. 95% of the time, things never progressed past amber.

 

When they were very little - e.g. crawling towards power points, cables or where hot things were located etc. even though we had those covers, fireguards, plastic coated patio doors and all that stuff - it would be a light tap on the back of the hand and a glare with a sharp 'No' that usually instigated a good cry (my change in face that is) - i.e. eye contact and a very non-smiley face - the tap on the hand only to get them to realise the start of the 'No' process and get their attention.

 

Taking away smacking sounds wonderful, but in the real world, parenting just doesn't work like that. You might as well try and make war illegal. It's just NuShite idealist socialist clap trap.

 

The law is already very clear on the difference between physical abuse (assault) and smacking - and you should perhaps concentrate your efforts on dealing more with the physical and mental abusers, and those with piss-poor parenting skills, and make life better for everyone - rather than target the majority of parents who bring up rational decent children, occasionally using the odd smack to keep them in line and within the boundaries of behaviour acceptable in that family.

[scottishcriminal]

message for the judge vvhy call me a tosser yoo no nothing you fuckin idiot.