Common Sense Prevails

P

PDJ

On a break
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,132
Location
brum
Thank God that MPs showed some sense here. I appreciate that this is an emotive topic but I reckon parents should absolutely be allowed to smack their children. There are enough wayward children in the world who have no discipline and respect. Perhaps parents will instill some manners in their children.

Nailing my colours to the mast, I was smacked as a child and firmly believe that not only did it not do me harm, I benefitted greatly from it.

MPs oppose moves to ban smacking


Parents could be prosecuted if they cause 'actual bodily harm'
The government has survived a backbench bid to get the smacking of children banned in England and Wales.
MPs voted 424 to 75 against outlawing smacking children as a punishment. A government majority of 349.

Labour health committee chairman David Hinchliffe had argued the issue was one of the "basic human rights" as he moved his amendment to the Children Bill.

But the government urged MPs to back a peers' amendment banning smacks which leave marks or cause mental harm.

The government-backed compromise amendment, originally tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester, allows for a mild form of smacking and retains the notion parents should be allowed to physically chastise children.

Smacking is hitting and smacking hurts. It causes not only physical harm it causes harm inside too

Mr Hinchliffe


Backers of the ban argued the compromise solution was a "fudge", while Tony Blair has described it as a "common sense" solution.

But Children's Minister Margaret Hodge pledged to review the change outlawing all but the mildest smack in two years' time.

Moving the motion, Mr Hinchliffe told MPs: "At least one child every week - and over 50 every year dies - at the hands of its parents.

"Our record on child deaths is frankly appalling.

"Smacking is hitting and smacking hurts. It causes not only physical harm it causes harm inside too."

"So, yes, this amendment would criminalise hitting to exactly the same extent as hitting adults is criminalised.

"That is equality and children - far more fragile and vulnerable than us - deserve nothing less."

His experience of working with abused and vulnerable children had prompted him to act, Mr Hinchliffe said.


HAVE YOUR SAY
There is a world of difference between discipline and abuse

Richard, Sheffield, UK


Send us your comments

Mr Hinchliffe's amendment stated that "battery of a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the grounds that it constituted reasonable punishment".

But it argued smacks may be used in order to prevent danger to a child, another person, damage to property or a crime.

The children's minister argued that the Lords amendment toughened up the law on physical punishment but did not criminalise parents for administering a "light smack".

"There is a world of difference between a light smack and violent abuse. We should understand that difference.

"This (Mr Hinchliffe's) amendment would make smacks a crime.

"The government simply does not believe that every single instance of parental smacking should be an offence."

But Tory Andrew Turner urged MPs to remove the peers' amendment altogether saying it caused more confusion and worsens the Bill.

He claimed the Lords amendment removed the "reasonable chastisement" defence for assault and battery of a child but retained it for actual bodily harm.

'Loving parents'

Plaid Cymru's Simon Thomas pointed out that the common law defence once applied wives and servants as well.

Liberal Democrat Annette Brooke backed Mr Hinchliffe's motion saying smacking was an "inefficient punishment" which had other consequences such as engendering a physical disrespect of others.

Tory Andrew Robathan said those who backed the smacking ban were arrogant and saying they knew more than "loving parents".

Sir William Utting, spokesperson for Children Are Unbeatable - an alliance of 350 organisations which work with children and families - said it would be wrong for Parliament to back legislation that "allows children to be deliberately hit and hurt".

The Children Bill, which has generally been widely welcomed, also introduces a Children's Commissioner for England and places a "duty of care" on all services to prevent harm to children.

It also introduces many operational reforms of social services including the creation of a national database of records held on every single child, to improve tracking across different services.
 
Paul,

I'm with you on this.

I am sure that in your profession there are many times when you feel that there are lines that should be drawn with regard to what a child can do or say. In my days in school (middle of the last century) these lines were very clearly marked out and if a child stepped outside those lines it knew that there would be some sort of punishment. Luckily for the teachers at that time there was some form of discipline enforced at home, which meant that the idea of "rules" and respect for authority was instilled into the child.

Today, I am afraid, the impression I get is that the majority of parents just don't give a shit how they children behave, as long as they haven't the hassle of dealing with them.


Colin
 
I got smacked sparingly as a child but what I did get smacked for was fully justified as I could be an awkward little madam at times. But I never felt any fear or resentment towards my parents just healthy respect which I still have to this day. In addition, I learnt to respect my elders, something that is sadly absent amongst younsters today.

I spent the last 2 years of my school life in the 6th form at a boys school (now fully co-ed) and the boys used to get a choice of punishment - learning latin lines or the cane. They always chose the cane. The girls had to learn the poetry.
 
I find it incredible how much Britain is evolving into a Nanny State....how about rather than trying to criminalise good parents, doing something about those parents who let their kids run riot? The UK appears to be fast approaching the type of state that the US is in when it comes to crime rates (proportionally to the size of the population of course) and the fact that kids are allowed to get away with nigh on anything has a lot to do with that. Kids need to be taught to respect other people and the difference between right & wrong at an early age and a smack is the most effective way of reinforcing that.
 
smack them, beat them, hurt them kill them.

judge: Sir, can you tell me, what exactly happened when you gave those little disobedient brat of yours his fully deservedly smack?

defendant: oh its so sad sir, you know, why wouldn he obey....he simply did not respond to our lovely words

judge: never mind sir, we all know good enough that a little smack on the back of such a little beast will never do any harm, quite the opposite.

defendant: fully correct sir, it got a little better when we made this regular ruotine
in giving him two with the stick every time he behaved badly.

judge: and right so! fully justified. howe come he would resist this special last beating so obstinate and impudent

defendant: i d not know sir, i am so sorry. it didnt do any harm to ourselves as children , did it?

judge: ha ha, i well remember when i got the whip!as if it were yesterday. took the shit out of me!!!

defendant (in tears): my little boy, i miss him so much...

judge: calm down, was only a 10year old, after all, go ahead...

defendant: well it came out of my fist a little hard. uhm, hit him at his ass first, but the boy still grinning, had to knock him at the back of his head . what should i have done? and then, well, he was still laughing at me!! Stubborn little devil. so i gave him this deservedly punch on the nose. felt over like a pole to the stone floor. did not say or move much more afterwards.

judge: well done sir, he would have remembered his lesson, had he become conscoius again. anyway, my respect sir, NOT guilty , as our wise law says. now go back to your forum and let yourself be consoled!
 
I think you realise, Wassermusik, that nobody is condoning beating children - there is a world of difference between an occasional smack & beating a child to death. Besides, what difference is it going to make whether smacking is legal or not? Those animals that are going to beat their children to death aren't going to stop to think whether they are breaking the law or not before doing it any more than any other murderer/thug is going to think about whether or not what they are doing is illegal before using violence.
 
I blame the psychologists.

And don't get me started on Educational Psychologists :angy:
 
:o S/L if there was a deterrent (bring back hanging??) not so many children would be harmed/killed or grown ups for that matter, there is no deterrent at all and the law is a farce look at the guy yesterday (who pissed up in a BMW) had mown down that young couple coming home from midnight mass last christmas, he appeals and gets a year off his sentence 5 yrs now but will serve just 2 yrs you can just imagine the hurt those parents(of the young girl) are going through........

MO, bring back the cane too it done me no harm!!! but taught me what was right and what was wrong.

Its sadly lacking discipline in schools and it is the major cause of these kids (not all but a large percentage of them) running amok……………. :rolleyes:
 
Abolishing corporal punishment was the best thing to happen to Scottish schools in my 25 years' teaching.

It was difficult at first, but those difficulties forced through a whole raft of support measures and alternative strategies which, when implemented well, have most definitely worked. There is far less violence in the schools where I have taught than in the one I attended. You do hear of assaults on staff being on the increase but I'm more inclined to believe it's down to an increase in reporting of such incidents.
 
You certainly surprise me there MO; to see these idiots daily and their behavior needs a lot to be desired!!! or maybe the reintroduction of prefects may be a good idea? as it did stop bad behavior outside of the schools.......................... :rolleyes:
 
I'm sorry guys , I'm on the other side of the debate although I certainly agree that children need discipline and consistency in how it's administered . I just think there are better ways to do it .Shouting and screaming , waving leather belts and wooden spoons , chasing kids round the house until they're so terrified that they try to hide by climbing under their bed doesn't sound civilised to me :(
On the subject of corporal punishment , I had a teacher when I was about 7 who went completely over the top. She found me in the cloakroom one day at lunchtime , trying to get something from my coat I think . Because I wasn't outside when I should have been she gave me a thrashing . A few months later I fell into a patch of nettles and got really badly stung . The same teacher took me to the front of the class after lunch and lifted my skirt up in front of the whole class so they could see the stings . She then made me turn around while I stood here with my skirt in the air and told the class "this is what happens when you're stupid"
She died 6 months later from cancer . Although all this went over my head at the age of 7 I can both appreciate how her condition must have affected her psycological state but also It made me appreciate that children should never be placed in a position where they can be subject to such vague guidelines . That's in a nutshell why I personally oppose smacking and corporal punishment .
 
But it is civilised to have a child tell his mom to f*** off at a parents evening and mom just looks at me and says "I don't know what to do with him. I can't bring myself to hit him and I don't know what to do." Kids run riot these days and a large reason for that is the total lack of discipline in the home. Discipline does not necessarily mean smacking but I am in favour of that myself.
 
I sympatise entirely with what you say PDJ and you must have bitten your tongue sooo many times . I'm not a softy at all . I just don't like smacking because if it's allowed the guidelines are very oblique which my own experience bears out . I've no tolerance for spoilt ,precocious children but I'd hate myself if I resorted to violence because it's just non productive .
 
Originally posted by solerina@Nov 5 2004, 10:44 PM
I sympatise entirely with what you say PDJ and you must have bitten your tongue sooo many times . I'm not a softy at all . I just don't like smacking because if it's allowed the guidelines are very oblique which my own experience bears out . I've no tolerance for spoilt ,precocious children but I'd hate myself if I resorted to violence because it's just non productive .
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit extreme to say you wouldn't want to 'resort to violence' - there is a world of difference between a smack & being violent. I'd be interested to know what methods you suggest parents should use to discipline their kids? I say this because kids are brought up now to ignore what adults tell them; even if the parents try to instil discipline in them once they start school they soon learn from their peers that they can ignore what they are told; however if they realise they are going to get a smack from their parents that should make them think twice before misbehaving. It sounds like you didn't have the greatest of childhoods, for which I sympathise, but giving kids a smack doesn't necessarily entail a chase around the house screaming & shouting before the child has to hide - this would be the extreme end of the scale at which I honestly don't think that the people carrying out this type of punishment are going to be prevented from doing it just because it's illegal.
 
Two thoughts to put into the discussion.

Though some might think me mad I believe that smacking is only appropriate for very young children. By smacking I mean something that causes a minimum momentary discomfort sufficient to deter them from doing something in the future, not as a punishment. The classic examples are to deter a toddler from touching a fire or putting lolly sticks into the video. At the same time as smacking a sternly spoken 'No' instills into the child that going against ' No' or a stern voice is not to be done, then smacking becomes unnecessary. If that sounds like Barbara Woodhouse well maybe it is the same type of education.Once a child is capable of responding to reasoning then that and appropriate punishments like missing a TV programme can be introduced. Smacking as a punishment is to my mind unacceptable.

To those who recall that in their day corporal punishment worked in schools I suggest you think again about the environment in which that worked.

I went to a primary school in the hardest part of the East End at a time when corporal punishment was permitted however the number of times it was used was minimal.I can only remember one teacher who could be said to use it regularly and then it was a slap across the calf with a hand. This would be adminstered in class to someone who spat, a boy 'fiddling' with himself or some similar transgression. Only once do I recall a teacher deliberately hurting a boy who was repeatedly swearing at him. In that instance a strict but popular and effective teacher 'lost it' and from his subsequent actions it was clear he greatly regretted doing so.

The ultimate punisment was being sent to the Headmistress for the cane. The cane was a piece of bamboo ,perhaps a foot long, and was adminstered on the palm of the hand. I was one of the very few ever to be given the cane and since it was only raised about six inches above the hand it didn't hurt. What did hurt was my father's reaction to hearing that I'd got the cane.That was the real punishment for me. I would add that the most efficient punishment for the vast majority of miscreants was their parents being informed of their behaviour, not necessarily because parents would be violent, but because the parents were ashamed and would worry about how they would be regarded by other parents.

Given the above it is now clear that it was not necessary in those days for corporal punishment to be adminstered, however sparingly-parents took responsibility even in the poorest, hardest area.

My secondary education was at a well regarded public school where 'beating' was a well used form of punishment. 'Beatings' were adminstered on the backside with a long, whippy, bamboo cane often with the beater taking a run-up and swinging the cane from high above the shoulder. Some beatings from masters were recorded but the vast majority of them, by both prefects/monitors and masters, were not.
They could be given for almost any offence no matter how trivial such as talking in the dorm, not having one's bed made to the satisfaction of a prefect( even if it was better made than any other in the dorm.

A favourite way for a prefect to get at someone they didn't like was to find an excuse to beat that person and to come into the dorm later when no-one was talking calling out for those talking toown up.Of course no-one did and therefore the prefect would adminster a double dose of the beating to the person he had beaten before. Since every time one was given a beating within a seven day period the number of strokes doubled it was possible to receive a very large number of strokes at any particular beating.

I do not recall one instance where a beating stopped the 'offender' from committing the 'offence' at a later time. What I am aware of is that as a reasonably bright, enthusiastic,cockney(and cocky),12 year old kid the number of beatings I took from 17 and 18 year old prefects turned me into an unpleasant scheming little sod determined to make their life hell in anyway possible.I became mentally immune from the beatings and began to cultivate a reputation as a hardnut, not afraid of anyone or anything.It took me a long time to recover and a legacy still remains

If corporal punishment works it can only work as a deterrent but once it is used it is no longer a deterrent, not unlike the MAD policies of the Cold War. It's effectiveness ,if any, was in causing humiliation. Nowdays the kids of all ages would not find it humiliating as they know it is wrong and therefore would rebel even more against it. Unfortunately the most effective punishment from the time of my schooldays, informing the parents, only works when parents really care about their children, but then the majority of ill-behaved children have parents that don't care and their child's behaviour is the result of their attitude.

To summarise don't beat the kids because their parents don't care.
 
The situation mentioned by PDJ is one which is extremely frustrating. I've also had parents tell me they expect me/us to sort out the child's discipline in and/or out of school.

One parent insisted she wanted to support the school in getting her daughter to wear the uniform, "but if she says 'no' what can I do?" I really had to bite my lip there. My whole being was urging me to shout at her "You wimpish, mealy-mouthed f*cker! I could give you off the top of my head 20 sanctions to impose but you wouldn't have the f*cking b*llocks to do any of them."

I'd say if it happened up here (ie swearing in school, even if it was at a parents' evening) would result in a minimum 3-day suspension.

At the risk of being very controversial, I'd say faith schools are the answer. Up here, RC schools have better discipline because everything that hapens around the school is embedded in an ethos of living gospel values. In non-denominational schools - some of which are excellent with very good discipline - there is still a lowering of the common denominator of acceptable language and behaviour.

I'd like to see Anglican, Church of Scotland, Jewish, Muslim, etc., schools set up to promote their faith's values and non-religious people can choose to go to whichever, provided they toe the line.
 
Mo, I live across the road to a catholic school primary mind (11 and under and I very rarely get any sort of trouble from these children its the comprehensive school about 800 yds up the road, they use the street I live in to access the shops twice a day and cause havoc in doing so) Recently in conversation with one of the catholic mothers who I have known for 8 yrs possibly she said to me and I quote " the school has gone really bad if it was not for my Johnny!! only having less than 1 year to do/go I would move him to another school".

So is it something akin to the area? or is it the demise of discipline in the schools? I am also certain that some of these parents really do think its the teachers responsibility not theirs, to instil right and wrong into their children and to give them the love that they lack to give these children, so it seems they want to pass the buck onto these teachers as they are totally inadequate of bringing their own children up to have proper manners and to behave in a cordial manner too.

BUT MY CHILDREN IF OR WHEN ACTING UP HAD A SLAP OR WERE PUNISHED BY BEING DENIED THE RIGHT TO GO OUT (sent to bedroom) AND PLAY UNTIL THEY LEARNT RIGHT FROM WRONG OR APOLIGISED FOR DOING SUCH WRONGS.

Its a very old adage you must learn right from wrong and discipline is parramount and I am in favour of giving children a slap if it so warrants it for misbehaviour etc.

I wont tell you how I was punished!! if out of line, but I know if someone gave you a bollocking because you had cheeked them etc and you came home and told your parents ,you had another slapping for doing so, off of them................

Just a thought................
 
Back
Top