nspcc

[Flanker8]

I have just found out that the NSPCC is backing a total ban on smacking, and have therfore cancelled my monthly donation.

 

Anybody any ideas where my donation can go? I'm after a kids charity that benefits UK kids only.

 

I understand the need for legislation on abuse, and I'd rather avoid smacking if I can, but nobody is going to tell me that I can't discipline my child with a smack on the back of the hand/back of the legs if I see fit.

[Flanker8]

No bernardo, the law may tell me I can't smack my child on the back of the hand, but it certainly won't stop me.

 

And let's face facts, do you honestly believe that this ridiculous law (if it becomes law) will stop those utter scumbags who do abuse their children? Of course it won't.

 

I was also hit as a child, and it certainly didn't do me any harm: what it did teach me was respect and discipline, which is something sadly lacking in many kids today since the liberal stance has come to the fore(hmm, have we struck upon a common denominator?).

[tartanwiz]

Well done, Flanker, good on you. 3 questions for bernardo: (1) do you have children? (2) what would you do if your child was insolent to you, or to an elderly neighbour? (3) if smacking was illegal, how do you think the State should 'punish' parents who break that law?

[tracymort]

If you smacked an adult with the same force you use on a child it would still be classed as assault and you could press charges.

Also from the comment i take it you think it's ok to smack an 18 month old!!! As if that'll work. They can't associate the smack with the action they carried out that you didn't like beforehand. until they can understand distraction is the best way to deal with unwanted behaviour and it's pretty easy to do. If you can't respect your kids you can't expect it back.

[Oneeyedvic]

tracyh - not sure where you come from, but if I were to smack a person with the same force as I would a child and they went to the police they would be laughed out of the station.

 

Go on try  it - I would even admit to the charge just to see peoples reaction.

[Bangkok]

Out of curiosity, can the pro-smackers say how they explain to their children that it is ok for them to be smacked for being rude (or whatever your example would be), but it is not ok for the child to hit a friend for being rude (or whatever your example would be)

[newtron]

I agree with oneeyedvic.  Children should not have the same rights as adults.  To have rights requires responsibility and we are not born with this sense of responsibility.  We are taught responsibility as children.  I was spanked when I was a child, but only as a last resort.  When I look back now, I definitely deserved every spanking I got.    And like Flanker8, I believe it taught me respect. 

[bernardo]

Why can't people relaise there is a big difference between hitting and smacking - and sorry Bernardo - smacking is not assault!

 

No there isn't; and yes it is.       

 

Assault: noun 1 a violent attack. 2 Law an act that threatens physical harm to a person. 3 a concentrated attempt to do something difficult

Bernardo - if you think smacking is the same as 'a violent attack' then you are misrepresenting the word smack!

No I'm not.

 

A smack on the hand / backside is a 'reasonable' chastisement and is NOT illegal in this country thank heaven. 

 

The point is that it should be.

 

 
 

[bernardo]

And let's face facts, do you honestly believe that this ridiculous law (if it becomes law) will stop those utter scumbags who do abuse their children? Of course it won't.

 

Indeed not, but that fact that some people will still commit the crime does not therefore mean that it should not be a crime.

 

I was also hit as a child, and it certainly didn't do me any harm

 

You have contradicted yourself.  Here you are advocating that children should be assaulted.  That's a strange definition of "didn't do me any harm".

 

3 questions for bernardo: (1) do you have children? (2) what would you do if your child was insolent to you, or to an elderly neighbour? (3) if smacking was illegal, how do you think the State should 'punish' parents who break that law?

 

1. No

2. If I were a parent then I would explain to a child why he was being naughty, what was naughty or bad about his behaviour, and apply a reasonable sanction according to the circumstances, such as being shut in his room or being made to sit in a boring corner, or deprivation of toys for a while, or whatever.

3. They should be prosecuted and punished for the crime of assault in the usual way - fines, community service, and imprisonment in severe cases.

[jimmer]

And a merry christmas to you Bernardo

Exactly tracy. "a smack never did me any harm" well that's a moot point flanker. Most of your posts seem to refer to inflicting the "ultimate sanction" on someone or other. The NSPCC are a pressure group who are successfully raising the debate about children's safety. The rather sensible idea behind their stance is to reduce the harm inflicted on children by those who are supposed to protect them. The law as it stands should protect children but a two year old would find it difficult to initiate a prosecution hence the need for further legislation.

Take the case recently when the kid ran into the road. his dad  hit his kid so hard that he took off. the father claims a reasonable chastisement and goes crying to the sun. the fact is he was an utter thug and got found guilty. But he didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

I've seen some of my friends smack their kids (not hard mind) and on every occasion they have done so out of sheer frustration. All this proposed law does is tell otherwise decent parents to have a think about what they're doing.

jim

[bernardo]

The point here is about what can one do effectively to change the behaviour of a naughty child.  When I was a child, I was smacked often and yet I continued doing the same naughty things repeatedly.  Why?  Because nobody bothered to explain what it was that I was doing wrong, or why it was seen as wrong.  It is no use pretending that, just because the child has become the victim of an assault, it will therefore somehow realise that what it did was somehow wrong or naughty, by some sort of magical process of telepathy or osmosis.  If I had been old enough to articulate at the time what I was thinking, then I would have asked my parents "If you think I have done something wrong, then why didn't you just say so in the first place, instead of hitting me?  How am I supposed to know if you don't explain?"

 

The real reason why some parents smack children is because it makes them feel better, and it makes them feel that they have somehow "done something" to deal with the problem, even though it doesn't work.

 

For people to suggest that it is (or that it should be) legal for person A to assault person B, just because there is a specific relationship between A and B, and just because person B is below a certain size, is about as logical as saying that breaking into someone's house and stealing things somehow doesn't count as burglary if the house is only a bungalow and the owner's surname begins with F.

[newtron]

I think many people underestimate children's intelligence or their ability to grasp certain concepts.  By interacting with even rather young kids, you can tell that they can figure out a cause-effect relationship and they can also understand the difference between their parents and their peers.  The key is clear communication. 

[Oneeyedvic]

Bernardo - you ususally give sensible arguments - saying yes samcking is the same as assault with out any backup is just being sensible - maybe you deserve to be sent into the corner.

 

No I do not think being hit as a child has done me any harm - I am a 'sensible' adult (in the loosest sense of the word) and do not advocate beating, but am in favour of reasonable chastisement - ie smacking.

 

I am afraid your no tolerence to smacking / beating is the same as saying there is no difference between driving at 31 mph in a 30mph limit anf doing 60mph in a 30mph limit - clearly to the majority of rational thinking people there is a major difference between the two.

[bernardo]

And yes we discriminate against children becasuse they are not adults and are not capable of making adult decisions - hence the reason they cannot vote, drink (in a pub) drive etc etc.

 

Do any of you 'do gooders' think that this discrimination is terrible as well, and that 5 year olds should be able to drive.....

 

Of course not.  Of course children are not capable of making adult decisions.  That's why adults need to explain things to them.  The point is that hitting doesn't work as a method of explanation.

by the way, I am proud of being a do-gooder as I consider it to be preferable to being the alternative (a do-badder)

[bernardo]

Bernardo - you ususally give sensible arguments - saying yes smacking is the same as assault with out any backup is just being sensible

 

I'm glad that you now agree with me as a result of my brilliant persuasiveness and rational argument, wiothout any need for me to hit you.

 

I am afraid your no tolerence to smacking / beating is the same as saying there is no difference between driving at 31 mph in a 30mph limit and doing 60mph in a 30mph limit - clearly to the majority of rational thinking people there is a major difference between the two.

 

No I'm not saying that.  Of course there is a difference between smacking and severe beating, and of course there is a difference between 31mph and 60mph.  But the point is that 31mph is still illegal, and is not considered to be lawful on the grounds of "reasonable speeding"

[Oneeyedvic]

31mph may be illegal, but how do you (as a driver) measure it accurately? - and I also know of no police force who would try to enforce a prosecution on 31mph.

 

I am glad that you think you can rationalise with a 2 year old with presuasive arguments - congratualtions - I find that 2 year olds cannot rationalise though.

 

"Of course there is a difference between smacking and severe beating, " is what you just said - but earlier made comments that smacking is the same as assault!

 

But most importantly - just beacuse you may 'usually' make sensible arguments, does not mean that I agree with you!

 

Merry Christmas to all

[newtron]

Bernardo, I agree with Oneeyedvic.  You usually do have very sensible arguements, but not this time.  I garantee you many people have used smacking in their parenting techniques effectively.  Just like any tool, it works if used properly.  As I said before, it is all about clear communication.  Your parents obviously didn't  clearly communicate to you why they were smacking you.  The use of smacking should not be done as a emotional reaction.  It should be a clearly communicated consequence that the child knows will happen if he/she does not modify his/her bevavior in certain instances. 

[Flanker8]

Ah, I see bernardo would rather inflict mental punishments such as deprivation - personally, I think this would damage a child much more than a gentle smack on the back of the hand.

[Yeah Bee]

You go Bernardo, there is no room for legal domestic violence. People who are beaten as kids grow up to beat others. I the kids follow they rules because they are afraid that they will get beaten then you have failed as a parent. You should followe the rules cuz you accept and understand them. What if the police would beat people (more then they do now) if people broke the law, that would cause an outcry

[Yeah Bee]

I find it sad that some people doesn't find your question disturbed

[bernardo]

"Of course there is a difference between smacking and severe beating, " is what you just said - but earlier made comments that smacking is the same as assault!

 

Both statements are correct.  Smacking is assault, and assault comes in different levels of severity - just as most crimes do.  Thus there is no contradiction between the two statements, as you seem to be implying.