Smacking your child

[Dig Dig]

It's not a thin line at all, Dig Dug. It doesn't what "one man's mild corporal punishment" is. The law clearly defines what is abuse and what isn't. Leave a mark - you've assaulted your kid. How clear does the law need to be?

 

Ok thanks Pap. Key is to cause a little pain, some intimidation and plenty of shock without leaving a mark.

 

Do the same rules apply to men who strike their wives?

[Thedelldays]

Ok thanks Pap. Key is to cause a little pain, some intimidation and plenty of shock without leaving a mark.

 

Do the same rules apply to men who strike their wives?

 

Does striking anyone without leaving a mark count as illegal?

[Dig Dig]

Does striking anyone without leaving a mark count as illegal?

 

Yes it does. It's called assault.

[Thedelldays]

Yes it does. It's called assault.

 

If I rubbed your hand and said, don't do that, could I, would I be charged with assault?

[hypochondriac]

Does striking anyone without leaving a mark count as illegal?

 

Even if it is legal or illegal is hitting your child without leaving a mark for whatever reason right?

[Lazlo78]

It's not a thin line at all, Dig Dug. It doesn't what "one man's mild corporal punishment" is. The law clearly defines what is abuse and what isn't. Leave a mark - you've assaulted your kid. How clear does the law need to be?

 

I realise you like to use that law to make a clear distinction between slapping and abuse - but is it really that clear? I should think that a law stating that you cannot lay hands on children would be clearer than some arbitrary rule saying that it's ok as long as you don't leave a mark. What is defined as leaving a mark - a mark for 5 minutes? An hour? Days? Are marks all over the body treated equally (I guess a good punch to the liver might not really leave a mark)? Just as most Norwegian parents secretly smack their children then English parents must know all sorts of great tricks to deliver pain with no marks, right? (not trying to provoke, just going with that previous example ...)

 

It's good to hear that the law helps you make a clear distinction, but I'm not sure it's the case for every parent... it leaves too much leeway for powerless parents to try to control their children within the boundaries of the law...

[hypochondriac]

Okay, I'll bite on this one more time then I'm done with it. The main reason I've joined in on this debate when I usually steer clear is that this whole issue is really so obvious that I'm confident that while this thread might make one or two people reconsider hitting their children, I don't believe anyone will be going the other way and deciding they need to start hitting, because no good reason has really been given and can't be. I would also like to point out that in none of my posts have I mentioned abuse, physical harm, crime rates or anything similar.

 

Your comment that I'm naive to believe that Norwegian parents aren't secretly smacking their children only shows how deeply entrenched it is in British culture that you can't picture a place where it isn't in the culture. suggesting that people here secretly hit children is about the same as saying most British people secretly hit their wives, that's about right for how it's seen here.

 

I have taught young children here and in Britain and read stories where smacking occurs. British children accept it as normal, but children here are shocked to hear about it happening. I teach about English speaking countries on my English courses for 16-18 year olds now. They ask me regularly if it's really true that British parents hit their children and they want to know why, it's very clear this is an alien idea to all of them. Explaining why, I can't tell them that that that's the only way to stop children doing something wrong, that it's a necessary last resort and that it's the only way to teach about boundaries, because they would laugh at me. They all grew up learning these things and they've never been hit.

 

Again referring to your comment that it's the only way to teach children not to touch a hot pan, well we managed it and I have known (literally) hundreds of children over here who seem to have learned it without being hit. Maybe our communication from the start has been better.

 

As a teacher over here, it's my duty by law to report if I suspect that any child is being hit, not abused, just being hit at all. In all of my time here there have only been a couple of suspected cases and both were immigrant parents. I've known a lot of parents over here, many of them immigrants and there has been a huge consensus that the laws against child-hitting are excellent. A lot of people are like me and might have fallen into the pattern of automatically accepting it as an option, but quickly realising we would have been wrong and it's really not necessary.

 

I find it a bit odd that you want examples of how to bring up children without hitting them. Surely you know there is no miracle solution to parenting and it's a constant thing that depends on parent and child and a relationship they build up right from the beginning. How you communicate with your children and reprimand them might be completely different from me and mine. I have explained thing honestly and carefully to my children right from the start. i don't like to do this because I think it sounds patronising, but you asked what my style of parenting is. I try to educate them as we go. I try to give them as much praise as possible for doing the right thing so that they are keen to do what's right and react quickly if they're told something isn't right. They respond to my tone of voice, because I only use certain tones when it's something immediate or dangerous, and when I'm wrong I admit it. Most importantly I try to set them a good example. If I say hitting is wrong, and I have, there is absolutely no way I can hit them or anybody else. these are some of the examples that come to mind, most of what I do I'm probably not really doing that consciously. Have you even seen ONE of those annoying programs about getting kids to behave where the "nanny" figure has said "Yeah, then you'd probably better just hit them, then they'll understand."?

 

Somebody else mentioned seat belts or car doors and falling under trains. Well, by the time they had seat belts they could undo themselves they were very aware of the dangers. When they were little I would never have left them alone by a train track.

 

My wife (Norwegian) just asked me what I'm writing and she actually laughed about what you've written and she assures me that hitting a child is seen as far worse than hitting your wife and that there is absolutely no chance that it is widespread in private, it's just an utterly alien idea in Norwegian society. She asked me three times if it genuinely is legal in Britain and i can understand why. The idea that that small children learn better from being hit while older children and grown ups are protected by law is ludicrous.

 

I can see that it's too ingrained in your culture for you to step outside of it and see that millions manage very well without ever hitting their children, but I genuinely hope one or two people have been given reason to think it over again. I'll finish by once more repeating the same question. Hitting may not cause physical damage, but if it's been shown that whole countries manage to raise children with clear boundaries and a sense of right and wrong and have managed to keep their children safe and well behaved WITHOUT hitting them, why hit? The only possible answer is that you just prefer doing it that way, which I find either strange or lazy.

 

You are completely correct. Please please do not think that hitting your child is something that is acceptable in British culture. The vast vast majority would consider it abhorrent.

[Thedelldays]

Even if it is legal or illegal is hitting your child without leaving a mark for whatever reason right?

 

Dunno. That is the question. It is within the law so I guess no one is right or wrong (at the mo) on this

[Dig Dig]

If I rubbed your hand and said, don't do that, could I, would I be charged with assault?

 

No but if you ***** slapped me across the chops you could be.

[pap]

I realise you like to use that law to make a clear distinction between slapping and abuse - but is it really that clear? I should think that a law stating that you cannot lay hands on children would be clearer than some arbitrary rule saying that it's ok as long as you don't leave a mark. What is defined as leaving a mark - a mark for 5 minutes? An hour? Days? Are marks all over the body treated equally (I guess a good punch to the liver might not really leave a mark)? Just as most Norwegian parents secretly smack their children then English parents must know all sorts of great tricks to deliver pain with no marks, right? (not trying to provoke, just going with that previous example ...)

 

It's good to hear that the law helps you make a clear distinction, but I'm not sure it's the case for every parent... it leaves too much leeway for powerless parents to try to control their children within the boundaries of the law...

 

I think that regardless of the law, there are always going to be cases of abuse that go unchecked for too long. Even with the law that we have in place, parents can collude with each other to hide abuse of children.

 

So why the distinction of the mark? In cases where a disturbance is reported, particularly if it suspected that children are being beaten or abused, a child with that has marks or bruises on it immediately empowers law enforcement officials to arrest the parents on suspicion of assault if there is a mark. It also provides parents with clear guidance on what is and what is not acceptable, meaning that those that choose to use corporal punishment within the law.

 

For the record, I never said that most Norwegian parents secretly smack their kids, just pointing out that they become criminals by doing so. The same applies in the United Kingdom. We just have a different judicial standard as to what constitutes abuse.

[richie]

My wife and I smack our two children. Only if they've been very naughty and particualrly if they have been warned not to do something.

 

We smack as a punishment and not because we think it will stop them doing it again because kids are kids and they will get into mischief no matter whjat you do or say. We use other punishments like depriving them of treats. no playing outside, no pudding at tea time, no tv etc etc but sometimes a smack on the bum is appropriate.

 

Our two children are adopted (they are brother and sister 4 and 6) and we love them dearly.

[Dig Dig]

You're trying to link a parent that disciplines their child with a spouse that beats their partner.

 

You're a troll.

 

I'm questioning the method of used to discipline not the need to do it itself.

 

I'm also questioning why the "hit but don't mark" policy applies to children but not domestic spouses or anyone else for that matter?

 

Are these not valid questions or am I still trolling?

[Saint_clark]

I'm questioning the method of used to discipline not the need to do it itself.

 

I'm also questioning why the "hit but don't mark" policy applies to children but not domestic spouses or anyone else for that matter?

 

Are these not valid questions or am I still trolling?

 

Because they're adults. Anyone under the age of 16 is a child and is the parents responsibility.

There is a clear difference.

[Scummer]

What about shouting at children? Do people see that as wrong? In my experience kids find being shouted at pretty scary, probably more so than a smack on the bum.

[buctootim]

Smacking your child is abuse and shows you have failed to manage the situation better - just like resorting to violence does in any situation. Pap talks about the shock value as being the reason it works - he's right. Kids are so shocked that you have hit them they are cowed and scared. Way to go.

[Dig Dig]

Because they're adults. Anyone under the age of 16 is a child and is the parents responsibility.

There is a clear difference.

 

The sole justification for it seems to be that because they are children it's ok. Doesn't that seem a little archaic to you?

[buctootim]

The sole justification for it seems to be that because they are children it's ok. Doesn't that seem a little archaic to you?

Quite. The fact they are children makes it worse if anything.

[Dig Dig]

Quite. The fact they are children makes it worse if anything.

 

Just don't leave a mark. That's the key. If in doubt, aim for parts of the body which are not exposed such as the bum or back of the legs.

[hypochondriac]

Smacking your child is abuse and shows you have failed to manage the situation better - just like resorting to violence does in any situation. Pap talks about the shock value as being the reason it works - he's right. Kids are so shocked that you have hit them they are cowed and scared. Way to go.

 

Agree with you tim. There is never an excuse for any sort of violence towards a child.

[Special K]

Smacking, hitting or any sort of physical shock tactics = lazy parenting

 

Very true. It's the easy way out and that's why it's generally performed and justified by bad parents.

[Saint_clark]

The sole justification for it seems to be that because they are children it's ok. Doesn't that seem a little archaic to you?

 

I don't have much of an opinion either way considering I don't have kids, I was just pointing out the difference with regards to responsibility.

When it comes down to it I probably wouldn't punish my kids with violence as I've always had a sort of mental block when it came to raising my hands to anybody, but I also believe there are some children who simply do not respond to the suggested tactics - removal of privileges, locking in rooms, taking away toys etc.

 

I remember seeing a post on here somewhere condemning the use of violence but then suggesting the use of "washing the mouth out with soap" when they swear or say something naughty. Personally that seems a lot more cruel in a pre-meditated kind of way than a light smack on the arse.

[pap]

Smacking your child is abuse and shows you have failed to manage the situation better - just like resorting to violence does in any situation. Pap talks about the shock value as being the reason it works - he's right. Kids are so shocked that you have hit them they are cowed and scared. Way to go.

 

How do you punish your kids, Tim?

[pap]

Agree with you tim. There is never an excuse for any sort of violence towards a child.

 

How do you punish your kids, hypo?

[buctootim]

How do you punish your kids, Tim?

 

I reason with them. Or simple rewards / sanctions directly (and quickly) tied to their behaviour.

[pap]

I reason with them. Or simple rewards / sanctions directly (and quickly) tied to their behaviour.

 

Sanctions? Such as?

 

Specifics please. Reason is not normally a punishment, btw.

[buctootim]

Sanctions? Such as?

 

Specifics please. Reason is not normally a punishment, btw.

 

You should try it. Might avoid the desire to hit them.

 

 

What do you want to know? No foods are banned in our house - they get to eat all kinds of crap occasionally but the deal is they eat vegatables as well. They can have fizzy drinks sometimes - but mostly its water, milk or juice. Mix and match, within reason are good phrases to live by. My kids always know why they are expected to do some things and the thinking behind it. Because they are treated like sentient rational beings, albeit small ones with with much less experience to draw on, they tend to respond that way.

Edited 6 August, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

You should try it. Might avoid the desire to hit them.

 

So essentially, you're unwilling to enumerate any punishment you've meted out for bad behaviour?

 

Doesn't seem like you are too confident in your methods if you are too ashamed to list them.

 

Easy to snipe, isn't it?

[The Cat]

If my children need punishing then I just ban them from tv, ds, laptop etc for a period of time.

 

Smacked one of my kids once and it made me feel so bad I won't do it again.

[pap]

If my children need punishing then I just ban them from tv, ds, laptop etc for a period of time.

 

Smacked one of my kids once and it made me feel so bad I won't do it again.

 

I see the "taking things away" approach used quite a bit and have used it myself on a few occasions.

 

It is loaded with its own problems, IMO. Stopping your kid from going to a party is fair enough, but when you punish them by removing material possessions, could be argued that you are unwittingly teaching a different lesson.

 

Doesn't work too well on a practical level either. Most of the time, your kids will moan you into submission and the punishment won't actually be applied.

 

Even parents who stick to their guns would still have difficulty if their child decides to do it anyway.

[norwaysaint]

I think what Tim means is that rather than give his kids a punishment, he takes them aside and talks to them about why they shouldn't have done what they did and what the consequences could be. Not the punishment consequences, but the practical reasons why we shouldn't do something. I'm the same with my kids. I try to use concentrate on praise and giving them pride in good behaviour rather than punishing bad behaviour. it generally works better but is a lot more work. I comment regularly on how nicely they spoke or how polite they were. It's hard to remember to do this and it's much easy to tell them off when they do it wrong, but as a teacher over the years I've found it works far better with all children.

 

If I do punish, it's usually something like saying we won't be doing something nice we'd planned to do. I still don't entirely understand how some of you teach your children that hitting is wrong if you're willing to hit them.

[pap]

I think what Tim means is that rather than give his kids a punishment, he takes them aside and talks to them about why they shouldn't have done what they did and what the consequences could be. Not the punishment consequences, but the practical reasons why we shouldn't do something. I'm the same with my kids. I try to use concentrate on praise and giving them pride in good behaviour rather than punishing bad behaviour. it generally works better but is a lot more work. I comment regularly on how nicely they spoke or how polite they were. It's hard to remember to do this and it's much easy to tell them off when they do it wrong, but as a teacher over the years I've found it works far better with all children.

 

If I do punish, it's usually something like saying we won't be doing something nice we'd planned to do. I still don't entirely understand how some of you teach your children that hitting is wrong if you're willing to hit them.

 

Tim can speak for himself, norwaysaint.

 

So far, he has declined, as he often does whenever asked a difficult question.

 

Credit to him, it's not the only trick in his arsenal, but it's telling that Tim only really weighs in when there's a mob forming.

[buctootim]

Tim can speak for himself, norwaysaint.

 

So far, he has declined, as he often does whenever asked a difficult question.

 

Credit to him, it's not the only trick in his arsenal, but it's telling that Tim only really weighs in when there's a mob forming.

 

Wow, petulance under pressure. Its a whole new side to you Pap. Gives the lie to your voice of reason and cogent argument persona so carefully cultivated.

 

I asked what you wanted to know - you failed to reply. Under those circumstances I didn't think the alternative, posting up every aspect of parenting my children over the past nine years was appropriate. If you ask a specific question - rather than lashing out, you may find it more productive - as with many aspects of life.

[The Cat]

I see the "taking things away" approach used quite a bit and have used it myself on a few occasions.

 

It is loaded with its own problems, IMO. Stopping your kid from going to a party is fair enough, but when you punish them by removing material possessions, could be argued that you are unwittingly teaching a different lesson.

 

Doesn't work too well on a practical level either. Most of the time, your kids will moan you into submission and the punishment won't actually be applied.

 

Even parents who stick to their guns would still have difficulty if their child decides to do it anyway.

 

My kids are still young (6&3) so this still works, although as they get older I can see it being a problem.

 

Still it's better than the naughty step which I used once on my oldest. Ended up with him working himself up, crying and coughing so much he threw up all over the stairs!!

[norwaysaint]

Tim can speak for himself, norwaysaint.

 

 

Yes he can and he already had. That's what I was explaining to you. Reasoning isn't the punishment. It's an effective replacement for punishment, but only for parents who have put in the work to bring up their children that way.

[Frank's cousin]

I think what Tim means is that rather than give his kids a punishment, he takes them aside and talks to them about why they shouldn't have done what they did and what the consequences could be. Not the punishment consequences, but the practical reasons why we shouldn't do something. I'm the same with my kids. I try to use concentrate on praise and giving them pride in good behaviour rather than punishing bad behaviour. it generally works better but is a lot more work. I comment regularly on how nicely they spoke or how polite they were. It's hard to remember to do this and it's much easy to tell them off when they do it wrong, but as a teacher over the years I've found it works far better with all children.

 

If I do punish, it's usually something like saying we won't be doing something nice we'd planned to do. I still don't entirely understand how some of you teach your children that hitting is wrong if you're willing to hit them.

 

I believe this is key point - even if you forget the moral and ethical issues with hitting children, given that kinds learn so much from examples that are set, Norway's question is fundemental to the argument. I will also repeat, that I simply do not understand why some 'want to keep it as a last resport' etc, when there are alternatives that WORK - as proven by the fact that children are well brought up in countries in which smacking/hittig is banned. If some counter this with 'but it could be that there are other social factors as to why they are well behaved'' well yes there are undoubtedly are, but that s irrelevent to this debate. If we have greater social problems in this country that cause problems with youth behaviour, then we solve the social problems. Surely its illogoical to suggest that social issues are a justification for maintaining hitting of kids?

 

I have tried not to judge on this, and generally, have in the past had an open mind, but to me the arguments against (from those more eloquent and experienced as parents than I) it are simply so much stronger, morally, ethically and practically as there are workable alternatives.

 

I would add, from a PERSONAL perspective, If I ever hit/smack my daughter, I will consider it my failing as a parent.

Edited 6 August, 2012 by Frank's cousin

[Dig Dig]

I don't have much of an opinion either way considering I don't have kids, I was just pointing out the difference with regards to responsibility.

When it comes down to it I probably wouldn't punish my kids with violence as I've always had a sort of mental block when it came to raising my hands to anybody, but I also believe there are some children who simply do not respond to the suggested tactics - removal of privileges, locking in rooms, taking away toys etc.

 

I remember seeing a post on here somewhere condemning the use of violence but then suggesting the use of "washing the mouth out with soap" when they swear or say something naughty. Personally that seems a lot more cruel in a pre-meditated kind of way than a light smack on the arse.

 

 

Yes I actually watched as this happened to a friend of mine when I was quite young. It was horrible to watch and very distressing to my friend. Agree that this is far worse than a smack on the bum but the trouble is, this sort of thing is still seen as "mild corporate punishment" reserved for parents to dish out as they please. Most people wouldn't even do this to an animal so how can they do it to their own kids?

[The Cat]

Yes I actually watched as this happened to a friend of mine when I was quite young. It was horrible to watch and very distressing to my friend. Agree that this is far worse than a smack on the bum but the trouble is, this sort of thing is still seen as "mild corporate punishment" reserved for parents to dish out as they please. Most people wouldn't even do this to an animal so how can they do it to their own kids?

 

I know a bloke (he's not a friend I'll hasten to add!) whose daughter used to pinch his fags to sell at school. When he found out he made her eat a packet of them.

[pap]

Wow, petulance under pressure. Its a whole new side to you Pap. Gives the lie to your voice of reason and cogent argument persona so carefully cultivated.

 

I asked what you wanted to know - you failed to reply. Under those circumstances I didn't think the alternative, posting up every aspect of parenting my children over the past nine years was appropriate. If you ask a specific question - rather than lashing out, you may find it more productive - as with many aspects of life.

 

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I tend to read the ends of threads for updated information. It never occurred to me that someone would do a super-edit to make their point look slightly more reasonable than it did at the time.

 

Think you're rather being rather disingenuous with your timeline. At the time, you weren't really asking what I wanted to know at all. Your entire response is in my immediate response. So let's not pretend that you had that idea at the time, shall we? Besides, still haven't seen any firm indication of what a punishment constitutes in Chez Tim.

 

It's not really that hard a question to answer, is it? Just looking at the steps you use to punish your kids where reason has failed. You may not agree with my stance, but at least I have the balls to be honest about it.

 

Seems like you're having difficulty being honest with basic chronology, trying to retcon some semblance of "not being a complete helmet" into your original b!tchy response. My advice? If you're going to lie about the way things went down, at least have the decency to be imaginative.

Edited 6 August, 2012 by pap
changed "they" to "it". Honest editing ain't hard.

[buctootim]

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I tend to read the ends of threads for updated information. It never occurred to me that someone would do a super-edit to make their point look slightly more reasonable than it did at the time.

 

Think you're rather being rather disingenuous with your timeline. At the time, you weren't really asking what I wanted to know at all. Your entire response is in my immediate response. So let's not pretend that you had that idea at the time, shall we? Besides, still haven't seen any firm indication of what a punishment constitutes in Chez Tim.

 

It's not really that hard a question to answer, is it? Just looking at the steps you use to punish your kids where reason has failed. You may not agree with my stance, but at least I have the balls to be honest about it.

 

Seems like you're having difficulty being honest with basic chronology, trying to retcon some semblance of "not being a complete helmet" into your original b!tchy response. My advice? If you're going to lie about the way things went down, at least have the decency to be imaginative.

 

Congrats Pap. You appear to have lost reason and temper, as evidently you do with your children. The school holidays, or lets say the hot weather don't seem to be agreeing with you.

 

Your response to my post was posted at 3.20pm. My fleshing out of my 3.16 post was was posted at 3.21. So yes someone is being disingenous - claiming I read your response immediately and was able to craft a response and type 100 words inside 1 minute in order to misrepresent, is, like your recent posts, risible.

Edited 6 August, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

Congrats Pap. You appear to have lost reason and temper, as apparently you do with your children. The holiday season or perhaps the Olympics dont seem to be agreeing with you.

 

Your response to my post was posted at 3.20pm. My fleshing out of my 3.16 post was was posted at 3.21. So yes someone is being disingenous - claiming I read your response immediately and was able to craft a response and type 110 words inside 1 minute in order to misrepresent, is, like your recent posts, risible.

 

I replied to your original point as I saw it, Tim. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not going to retroactively trawl previous posts just on the off chance that someone has made an edit to make themselves look less of an arse. Not sure many people do.

 

Besides, if you'd actually taken the time to do the complete post instead of trying to get your snipe in quick smart, wouldn't be an issue, would it?

 

You're not interested in making a point. If you were, your response might actually have been tailored to the information I've been good enough to share. You seem more interested in making someone else feel bad. I wonder why that is sometimes.

[saint lard]

I have never had the need to physically chastise my 6yr old son.

if he does something knowingly against my will the mere fact I raise my voice,not shouting I might add,and change its tone is all he needs to know.

i couple this with it being stern and forceful and facial expression that makes him sit up and take notice.

i reinforce the fact with telling him why he must stop and behave,he has to acknowledge what I am saying and repeat back what I have told him.

i leave him a few moments to ponder his actions,and mine,then I give him praise for listening to me and taking notice of what is right and wrong.

i have always felt that verbal explanation should always be given,otherwise the child does not learn a lesson.

on the whole,I am extremely lucky with the little mans behaviour thus far,he has had the same form of 'telling off' from the word go.

 

I personally do not condone any form of physical 'punishment' as that is all it is and that is all the child will remember.

all IMO.

[Bearsy]

No offence pap, we've always been good forum allies or whatever, but you do come across a bit defensive on this thread. You know when someone gets a bit blustery arguing cos deep down they have a niggling guilt?

 

Just an observation. Still love ya!

[pap]

No offence pap, we've always been good forum allies or whatever, but you do come across a bit defensive on this thread. You know when someone gets a bit blustery arguing cos deep down they have a niggling guilt?

 

Just an observation. Still love ya!

 

None taken, Bearsy.

 

I'm just the mug sticking his head above the parapet. Too many posters have equated legal disciplining of children with some other pretty horrible activities, some of which I have personal experience of.

 

I'm not having it. There are plenty of decent parents who discipline their children within the law. They should not be rolled in with wife beaters and child abusers.

[Frank's cousin]

The 'niggling guilt' thing is a possibilty, but lets be honest, many dont feel its wrong simply because they were smacked, it did no 'real harm' and they turned out balanced human beings... Thing is the evidence from those countries where it is banned suggests that in a single generation we lose this attitude - eg Sweden were 50% in favour of smacking in the 1980s and now its just 11%... I guess a recognition that 'oh well, seems it was not necessary' - and everyone moves on.

 

I guess problem is that its always a very sensitive issue when in effect if you are against smacking, even if not intentional, there is always going be 'criticism' implied... add to the cliche of 'no one has the right to tell me how to bring my kids' and its hardly condusive to 'pain free' debate.

 

On that note though - have to say I think teh 'no one has the right to tell me how to bring up my kids' is total boll ox - for one thing, ALL parents dont have a fricken clue when teh first one comes a long and so advice whether from books, our own parents, friends etc was invaluable to me - learning on teh jo all teh time and when it comes to parenting, I am am more interested in learning how to do it right than whether my ego is getting bruised because someone 'had to tell me, what I was doing wrong' - the kids come first and their welfare, education and discipline are not something I want to feck up because I am to worried about being given help.

[Frank's cousin]

None taken, Bearsy.

 

I'm just the mug sticking his head above the parapet. Too many posters have equated legal disciplining of children with some other pretty horrible activities, some of which I have personal experience of.

 

I'm not having it. There are plenty of decent parents who discipline their children within the law. They should not be rolled in with wife beaters and child abusers.

 

True, but some are just pointing out that the law is ...well probably out of date. Pap, you sound like a rational, intelligent sort who takes his parenting responsibilities seriously - but are you seriously suggesting that you get everything right? I suspect you would be more than happy taking advice from your own folks or close friends on other aspects of parenting, so why is it that smacking/hitting becomes an area where so often those that do it are offended when someone suggests its not right? - This is where the power of the 'cycle' is so so strong - it is constantly reinforced with each generation - if you break it, its gone.

[pap]

True' date=' but some are just pointing out that the law is ...well probably out of date. Pap, you sound like a rational, intelligent sort who takes his parenting responsibilities seriously - but are you seriously suggesting that you get everything right? I suspect you would be more than happy taking advice from your own folks or close friends on other aspects of parenting, so why is it that smacking/hitting becomes an area where so often those that do it are offended when someone suggests its not right? - This is where the power of the 'cycle' is so so strong - it is constantly reinforced with each generation - if you break it, its gone.[/quote']

 

I'd be lying if I said I got everything right, Frank's Cousin. No parent does, particularly with their first.

 

I'm not offended by someone saying it's not right. What I do find offensive are the lazy comparisons between parents operating with the law and stuff that falls well outside the law.

[Frank's cousin]

I'd be lying if I said I got everything right, Frank's Cousin. No parent does, particularly with their first.

 

I'm not offended by someone saying it's not right. What I do find offensive are the lazy comparisons between parents operating with the law and stuff that falls well outside the law.

 

Its tricky, because in those countres where its been banned, its been done so, because morally they see no difference - its classified a violent act and or abusive. I think the point about comparisons say with domestic violence, was more a criticism of the law i nsome respects, in that we have laws that quite rightly mean you cannot hit another adult, mark or no mark, yet teh law allows no mark hitting of children - the question I guess remains, is this morally right?

 

The remark Turkish likes to keep coming back to was my comment on abuse of children being cyclic - he took it out of context as usual, but it was merely a comment on how there is very strong evidence that shows a cycle to these behaviours and indeed similarly with those that use smacking - or maybe defend its use... the 'it never did me any harm card'.

 

I think its wrong to smack a child - morally, and I do believe it sends them a wrong message, that its OK to hit/smack - In addition I believe that there are equaly more effective alternatives so it should not be necessary and would therefore welcome a ban. I may get the whole parenting thing worng and produce a monster... but If so I very much doubt it will be because she was NOT smacked.. just my opinion.... which has not always been the case - I was all for smacking before she was born... wife said no, and I learned how to do the discipline bit with out it and TBH, it was pretty easy, becaus even though she is now 7 going on 14 - I still see that tiny fragile wee innocent and the though of me ever raising a hand to her would make me feel like a coward.

[pap]

Frank's Cousin. First of all, thanks for debating this in a reasonable way.

 

You're right - the "mark" distinction doesn't exist for adults. I know you're trying to make the point that adults have better protections than children, and on a very technical and theoretical level, you're right - but no more.

 

In order to prove this, let's consider this theoretical case which keeps on getting posited - the assault of an adult that leaves no mark or lasting damage.

 

First of all, what evidence would the prosecution have? The OB can't rely on physical evidence on the body, because there is none. I suppose you might be able to call witnesses if they saw it.

 

Next, what about the CPS? Do you think it'd be worth their time and trouble to bring an assault case to court in which no-one was seriously harmed?

 

Even if we get a result on the evidence and "actually prosecuting" front, what adult in their right mind would even bother to press charges for an "assault" so light that it doesn't leave a mark? People emerge from horseplay in more damaged states.

 

The adult-child "mark/no-mark" comparison is ultimately empty, because it is extremely unlikely that the adult "assault" would ever reach court. It may be a technical judicial standard, but practically, it's nonsense when partnered with the tiniest bit of common sense.

[buctootim]

Surely you aren't trying to conflate the separate issues of whats legal; whats provable and whats right as an excuse?

[Frank's cousin]

Frank's Cousin. First of all, thanks for debating this in a reasonable way.

 

You're right - the "mark" distinction doesn't exist for adults. I know you're trying to make the point that adults have better protections than children, and on a very technical and theoretical level, you're right - but no more.

 

In order to prove this, let's consider this theoretical case which keeps on getting posited - the assault of an adult that leaves no mark or lasting damage.

 

First of all, what evidence would the prosecution have? The OB can't rely on physical evidence on the body, because there is none. I suppose you might be able to call witnesses if they saw it.

 

Next, what about the CPS? Do you think it'd be worth their time and trouble to bring an assault case to court in which no-one was seriously harmed?

 

Even if we get a result on the evidence and "actually prosecuting" front, what adult in their right mind would even bother to press charges for an "assault" so light that it doesn't leave a mark? People emerge from horseplay in more damaged states.

 

The adult-child "mark/no-mark" comparison is ultimately empty, because it is extremely unlikely that the adult "assault" would ever reach court. It may be a technical judicial standard, but practically, it's nonsense when partnered with the tiniest bit of common sense.

 

Well debate should be reasonable and it makes a change on here to see that for the most part ... well at least some are happy to keep it that way

 

Agreed that from a legal perspective, there is perhaps a more difficult argument here, and I accept what you are trying to say. Thing is we all know plenty of legal issues where such problems arrise or where we might from a common sense perspective consider the law ambiguous at best or inadequate at worst.

 

In this situation, we also have the emotive subject of, in effect potentially criminalising parents for something that is still seen as normal parental tools, used by normal and loving parents - I accept that this is currently an attitude that within Britain is normal and therefore I dont go along with wanting to ostricize parents who do - it would be wrong to do so. However, thats not to say we cant 'shift' that attitude, but it might take a legal change and a generation for it to be accepted within the population as a whole. Often its only possible to do this with a legal change.

 

I guess its why I am still happy to trot out the Nordic/German examples because they have shown that you can quite quickly see a major shift in attitude within a poulation over a single generation and that it took a legal chage to kick start the shift.

 

For me, and I can only speak for myself on this, I am very grateful that my wife said NO to this, because in some respects it prevented me from doing something that I would feel ashamed of - and made me learn how to cope with the times when it looked like nothing but a smack would do it - and this is why for me it wa sso important, but those occasions when I have felt like that, I know that really it was most likely down to my own frustration at not knowing what else to do - in effect it was going to cover up my own 'failings' or lack of experience as a parent.. which was very hard to admit to myself.

 

Yes I am sure there are some lessons that have taken longer to teach, others that have still to be done and may have already been learned... but I consider this MY issue not my daughters, as she is afterall still ayoung child and has a wee bit more learning and growing to do than me! (although the missus might contest that point )