NationStates Jolt Archive

If we were still allowed to smack our children?

You can't smack your children? Oh lawdy.

You might win a game of cricket?

You'd have a generation of people who resort to violence far too easily. I figure that'd lead to more violent crime from all parts of society.

You'd have more kids growing up with a sado-maso fetish?

You'd have a generation of people who resort to violence far too easily. I figure that'd lead to more violent crime from all parts of society.

Ohh hehe you mean seemingly like our present crop of youth, with their propensity to pick up the knife?

You'd have more kids growing up with a sado-maso fetish?

Not a bad thing surly?:D

Ohh hehe you mean seemingly like our present crop of youth, with their propensity to pick up the knife?

Yes, except much more of the youth than just the chavs. And of course you'll have a hell of a time trying to get some leaders out of a generation of chavs.

Wonderful I would move there so I could smack em hard :cool:

I worry about you.:eek:
wouldn't be very nice as a kid, but it wouldn't change things drastically, when you say "allowed to smack our children" do you mean, have it passed as a law? or that it becomes an accepted norm in society. as the two are very different on some occasions.

No I mean having the newly created law saying that we can't smack our children repealed. Going back to the way we have been brought up for generations, with our parents instilling in us a firm idea of right wrong, and punishment. You know taking things back a decade or so, so that our teachers are allowed to grab an unruly kid, you know so the kids don't grow up believing that they can't be touched, nor punished.

Wonderful I would move there so I could smack em hard :cool:

I worry about you.:eek:
wouldn't be very nice as a kid, but it wouldn't change things drastically, when you say "allowed to smack our children" do you mean, have it passed as a law? or that it becomes an accepted norm in society. as the two are very different on some occasions.

Not a bad thing surly?:D

That depends. ;)
If I remember correctly, beating of bottoms with a stick or crop is known as "English" in most European countries. I'd want my country to be synonym for a nicer practice, really... like dping.

Hmmmm Im gonna start becoming a brit already what kind of tea do you drink does it have fruit flavour or herbs or something else?

and also Im going(not gonna starting already) to start saying marvelous and other british words.

There isn't an outright ban on smacking as far as I knew.

I thought it was just the case that chastisement by smacking wasn't a defence if you cause actual bodily harm to a child

Ohh hehe you mean seemingly like our present crop of youth, with their propensity to pick up the knife?

Because, as is commonly known by all right thinking members of the gentry, all of today's youth go out and knife with reckless abandon!

For instance, I am a young gent, and earlier on this afternoon I felt compelled to set upon this gormless fellow I encountered. Clearly there wasn't enough violence and physical injury in my childhood!

Ah, had mummy only beat me...

Hmmmm Im gonna start becoming a brit already what kind of tea do you drink does it have fruit flavour or herbs or something else?

and also Im going(not gonna starting already) to start saying marvelous and other british words.

I think the number one Brit word you must start using has to be innit! Innit?

Yes, except much more of the youth than just the chavs. And of course you'll have a hell of a time trying to get some leaders out of a generation of chavs.

Hehh since when have our leaders come from the working class?

Because, as is commonly known by all right thinking members of the gentry, all of today's youth go out and knife with reckless abandon!

For instance, I am a young gent, and earlier on this afternoon I felt compelled to set upon this gormless fellow I encountered. Clearly there wasn't enough violence and physical injury in my childhood!

Ah, had mummy only beat me...

Really? Then you are one of them wot I mean huh!

No I mean having the newly created law saying that we can't smack our children repealed.

Which law are you referring to?

Section 58: Reasonable punishment

236. Section 58 removes the defence of reasonable chastisement in any proceedings for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, or cruelty to a child. It also prevents the defence being relied upon in any civil proceedings where the harm caused amounted to actual bodily harm, which has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defence would still be available in proceedings before the Magistrates Court for common assault on a child.

237. The section removes the defence by providing that battery of a child cannot be justified as reasonable punishment. Battery is any unwanted application of force to the body of another and is more commonly called "assault". However it has long been recognised by the law that a parent or person with parental authority may use reasonable punishment to correct a child. This is the defence of reasonable chastisement or "reasonable punishment". Other defences to battery are not affected by section 58.

238. Subsections (1) and (2) remove the defence in relation to the offences mentioned above. The parent is thus in the same position as if he had assaulted an adult or a child over whom he exercised no parental role.

239. Subsection (3) removes the defence in civil proceedings for any battery if the battery caused actual bodily harm. Subsection (4) provides that 'actual bodily harm' in subsection (3) has the same meaning as has been established in relation to criminal proceedings.

240. Subsection (5) repeals section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in consequence of subsection (2)(c).

The Government has ruled out a complete ban on smacking on the grounds that the majority of parents oppose such a move.

Kevin Brennan, the children's minister, said the law would stay as it is but that steps would be taken to encourage "positive parenting".

Despite calls from many organisations for a ban, Mr Brennan said the evidence was that fewer parents now use smacking to discipline their children.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/nsmack125.xml)

Did you know, one similarity between Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin was, they were all beaten by their fathers, and that their mothers were who loved them the most?

I got smacked as a kid, i'm okay, i'm not saying it will be the same for all people, but i don't see how passing a law on smacking children will affect people.
What i mean is if the parent is cruel to their child they'l smack them anyway, if they're "nice", they would probably use other methods to discipline their children.
But on the other hand i can see that if it was accepted to smack children it could escalate into violence when older.
What i think would be more affective is to give teachers more power over unruly children, and more parent support for their children going to school.

Which law are you referring to?

I think he's misunderstanding the act i've quoted

I think he's misunderstanding the act i've quoted

Indeed. I thought I smelled some tabloid-style sensationalism here.

I think the number one Brit word you must start using has to be innit! Innit?



Yes marvelous I will start immediately chap.

I think he's misunderstanding the act i've quoted

That is quite correct.

Yes marvelous I will start immediately chap.

oi! thats "English" slang, not British, in fact there probably isn't British way of speaking at all, Scots speak with different accents to the Northern Irish, so do the Welsh, and all have different words (at some point) to describe various things. But the accepted language is English, it can sound different depending on what part of the country you go to.
E.g. if you said that in Cardiff they would think you're bonkers.

Did you know, one similarity between Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin was, they were all beaten by their fathers, and that their mothers were who loved them the most?

I got smacked as a kid, i'm okay, i'm not saying it will be the same for all people, but i don't see how passing a law on smacking children will affect people.
What i mean is if the parent is cruel to their child they'l smack them anyway, if they're "nice", they would probably use other methods to discipline their children.
But on the other hand i can see that if it was accepted to smack children it could escalate into violence when older.
What i think would be more affective is to give teachers more power over unruly children, and more parent support for their children going to school.

I have to disagree with parts of this. The violence we see in society hasn't really gotten worse(I do not believe) and I was smacked, as was my dad, and was his dad etc... so you would expect a higher level say 20 years backwards and counting.

So ask if the level of violence in our society has decresed since the legislation, provided by Dundee, has been passed?

oi! thats "English" slang, not British, in fact there probably isn't British way of speaking at all, Scots speak with different accents to the Northern Irish, so do the Welsh, and all have different words (at some point) to describe various things. But the accepted language is English, it can sound different depending on what part of the country you go to.
E.g. if you said that in Cardiff they would think you're bonkers.

Yeah but some words such as the Northen 'Nowt' seem to be freely used all over.

Yeah but some words such as the Northen 'Nowt' seem to be freely used all over.

T'is a funny word is all :)

To the OP: It would be much better, if smacking were also supplemented by other proper, decent parenting methods.

To the OP: It would be much better, if smacking were also supplemented by other proper, decent parenting methods.

Yep yep I agree.

I was smacked as a child, and I apologise for tooting my own horn, but I was (and still am, in some regards) much better behaved than some of my peers, whose parents couldn't care less.

Everyday I seem to walk by mother's who just cannot keep control of thier children, and have no idea what to do, because they don't learn consequences anymore.

Sometimes I see errant, misbehaving children being rewarded for bad behaviour, as thier parents buy them some sweets to shut them up.

That's not how it went down when I was a kid. If I did something bad, there'd be consequences.

And I'm glad to say I grew to be a much better man because of it.

You are still allowed to commit common assault on your child (eg restraining or smacking), but not to commit assault ABH (eg giving them serious bruising) or GBH (eg breaking their arm).

I doubt whether very many responsible parents will fall foul of this.

Nothing would change, whatsoever. I didn't even realise we weren't allowed to spank children.

I was smacked as a child, and I apologise for tooting my own horn, but I was (and still am, in some regards) much better behaved than some of my peers, whose parents couldn't care less.

I was smacked as a child and I'm still a lazy little shit :)

I doubt whether very many responsible parents will fall foul of this.

what if your child scratches the car? :p

Nothing would change, whatsoever. I didn't even realise we weren't allowed to spank children.
We're not.

Every parent should have the right to smack the buggers upside the head. You know, set it right. I'm not talking you know, a full body beating, just a smack on the back of the head when the brat gets uppity.

Much the same. Obviously.

My parents didn't smack me as a child. They utilized other forms of punishment - denial of computer privileges was the most common.

The problem is that many parents don't know any methods apart from smacking. I will use denial of privileges on my children.

My parents didn't smack me as a child. They utilized other forms of punishment - denial of computer privileges was the most common.

The problem is that many parents don't know any methods apart from smacking. I will use denial of privileges on my children.
One woman looked horrifiedly at me when I suggested thumbscrews as a punishment.

HOW ELSE WILL THE YOUTH OF TODAY LEARN WHAT IS RIGHT?

My parents didn't smack me as a child. They utilized other forms of punishment - denial of computer privileges was the most common.

The problem is that many parents don't know any methods apart from smacking. I will use denial of privileges on my children.

That is my profered punishment technice also, but some times a smack upside the head works wonders.

If we were still allowed to smack our children?
Exactly the same as now, because it is still allowed.

One woman looked horrifiedly at me when I suggested thumbscrews as a punishment.

HOW ELSE WILL THE YOUTH OF TODAY LEARN WHAT IS RIGHT?

When you say "YOUTH" do you mean, all young people? or the ones you see on TV committing crimes.
What do you mean as "RIGHT"?

When you say "YOUTH" do you mean, all young people? or the ones you see on TV committing crimes.
What do you mean as "RIGHT"?

The phrase, 'The youth of today' is used by us oldies to mean those youth we see reported in the news with their stabbings, and their drug wars, and their gangs and shit, innit!

Not to be used when talking about good little boys and girls.:D

The phrase, 'The youth of today' is used by us oldies to mean those youth we see reported in the news with their stabbings, and their drug wars, and their gangs and shit, innit!

Not to be used when talking about good little boys and girls.:D

oh.:)
What do you mean by "good"? As in not convicted of any crimes or not committed any crimes according to the law, or i dunno don't wear ridiculous clothing?
'youth of today', seems a little patronising to me, but maybe i'm being too sensative.
Maybe it's just part of culture to blame young people in groups. What is worse fear of the youth or the youth themselves?

oh.:)
What do you mean by "good"? As in not convicted of any crimes or not committed any crimes according to the law, or i dunno don't wear ridiculous clothing?
'youth of today', seems a little patronising to me, but maybe i'm being too sensative.
Maybe it's just part of culture to blame young people in groups. What is worse fear of the youth or the youth themselves?

Heh yeah I know wot you mean. I felt exactly the same when I was a youth. Well actually I was not a good little boy.

Good means, doing what you parents tell ya, not getting into trouble, being a non-typical teenager.

We still can. You just can't leave a mark.

Ahh yeah, a punch in the belly then?

If we were still allowed to smack our children?

We still can. You just can't leave a mark.

Heh yeah I know wot you mean. I felt exactly the same when I was a youth. Well actually I was not a good little boy.

Good means, doing what you parents tell ya, not getting into trouble, being a non-typical teenager.

I have and look where it's got me, posting on NSG.!
I think i'll start,
The People's Front Of Liberal Rights And Conservative Activists In Association With Lots Of Money And Gettting Drunk On The Weekends Then Wonder Why Hangovers Are So Bad Group.
T.P.F.O.L.R.A.C.A.I.A.W.L.O.M.A.G.D.O.T.W.T.W.W.H.A.S.B.G. Are our initials so far i'm the only member,
i have no current ideals but the clue is in the name.

I have and look where it's got me, posting on NSG.!
I think i'll start,
The People's Front Of Liberal Rights And Conservative Activists In Association With Lots Of Money And Gettting Drunk On The Weekends Then Wonder Why Hangovers Are So Bad Group.
T.P.F.O.L.R.A.C.A.I.A.W.L.O.M.A.G.D.O.T.W.T.W.W.H.A.S.B.G. Are our initials so far i'm the only member,
i have no current ideals but the clue is in the name.


Ohh I would have joined that, tell me are you planing a Socialist branch?

Ohh I would have joined that, tell me are you planing a Socialist branch?

maybe, does it have any fruit on the end of it? sorry
sure why not.

The People's Front Of Liberal Rights Combining Socialists And Conservative Activists In Association With Lots Of Money And Gettting Drunk On The Weekends Then Wonder Why Hangovers Are So Bad Group.
T.P.F.O.L.R.C.S.A.C.A.I.A.W.L.O.M.A.G.D.O.T.W.T.W.W.H.A.S.B.G.

what if your child scratches the car? :p

That's what the provocation defence is for. With the added bonus that it can be applied to anyone, not just to a child in your care.

There's an even bigger issue here than just whether mild physical punishment will actually improve the behaviour of your child though, isn't there? I'm sure if you were to sample the social groups which these so-called 'chavs', or 'the youth of today' belonged to, you'd find a very definate class divide between poorer sections of society, where crime is worse and school drop-out rates are higher, and more well-off sections, where there are less instances of this.

I'm 18, and live in the UK (South Wales), I may have been smacked once or twice as a child, but never in public, and very infrequently. I really feel that my self-determination and the confidence I would get from praises for good works are what has put me where I am now, still in education at degree level, and with a decent part-time job on the side. I went to a comprehensive secondary school and my experiences were that many of the underachievers and trouble-makers within the school also happened to live in the poorer communities (large council-estates and former factory-orientated villages).

I'm not saying that it's all the fault of the break-up of the family, but I think that there are people who end up in such areas because of mistakes and bad choices who will never have a chance to learn otherwise, and will very rarely break-out of their background to progress and achieve. I think that this 'chav' epidemic that the press in the UK are terrified of is little more than a lost generation of people who will live in the most deprived areas, go to the worst schools, and increasingly are more likely to be brought up by those who had nearly identical experiences. I think if kids from these areas can really be reached and convinced that they can achieve then things would improve. You could smack your kid everyday but that wouldn't change what the world was like outside your front door.

There's an even bigger issue here than just whether mild physical punishment will actually improve the behaviour of your child though, isn't there? I'm sure if you were to sample the social groups which these so-called 'chavs', or 'the youth of today' belonged to, you'd find a very definate class divide between poorer sections of society, where crime is worse and school drop-out rates are higher, and more well-off sections, where there are less instances of this.

I'm 18, and live in the UK (South Wales), I may have been smacked once or twice as a child, but never in public, and very infrequently. I really feel that my self-determination and the confidence I would get from praises for good works are what has put me where I am now, still in education at degree level, and with a decent part-time job on the side. I went to a comprehensive secondary school and my experiences were that many of the underachievers and trouble-makers within the school also happened to live in the poorer communities (large council-estates and former factory-orientated villages).

I'm not saying that it's all the fault of the break-up of the family, but I think that there are people who end up in such areas because of mistakes and bad choices who will never have a chance to learn otherwise, and will very rarely break-out of their background to progress and achieve. I think that this 'chav' epidemic that the press in the UK are terrified of is little more than a lost generation of people who will live in the most deprived areas, go to the worst schools, and increasingly are more likely to be brought up by those who had nearly identical experiences. I think if kids from these areas can really be reached and convinced that they can achieve then things would improve. You could smack your kid everyday but that wouldn't change what the world was like outside your front door.

Some very good points, to which I would add. This has ever been the case, and at the present time this does appear to be getting worse.

I'm a father and one of the biggest differences in the way that I was bought up vs they way I perceive kids being reared now, is simply the perception that us parents have of the streets not being safe for our kids. As a consequence of this, children do not have the same freedom to roam as I did, and those that do, are often caught up in the very violence that our media portrays.

Now I grew up in the late 70's and 80's and even then 'they' where getting rid of the parkies in the parks, and shutting down youth clubs and sporting clubs all over the place.

There are, I have no doubt many, many, reasons why this perception persists, I wonder if the closing of these sorts of amenities for our youth have much to do with it?

Possibly. Certainly having such institutions around wouldn't be a bad thing, and operating as part of a group, even allowing some to take responsibility for certain aspects of the youth club or whatever would probably actually be really beneficial. The only two problems with youth clubs as a lone step against the problems with youth culture in Britain today is that, certainly where I'm from, it is mostly dominated by religious groups which many young people don't subscribe to and are therefore put-off by, and secondly, that the attitude they have when entering the establishment could be hard to change if they have some problems to start with. Plus a youth club will just kick these people out once they are out of their teens, so short of establishing their own youth club, they'll still be stuck in a rut. Schools and other institutions will have to follow the lead of such organisations and give young people something to aim for, though giving kids something to do would, in my view, probably help to an extent.

If I remember correctly, beating of bottoms with a stick or crop is known as "English" in most European countries.haha...that's great.

and there are better ways to get a point across - there are cultures where physical punishment was never accepted, and never necessary.

If we were still allowed to smack our children?

Less little shits?

I remember when I was young if you gave lip to older lads they would beat the shit out of you...now I get 10 year olds asking me for cigarettes and telling me to fuck off If I dont give them one...no discipline...I say they need a hiding...I used to get a slap on the back of my legs as a kid if I done something wrong...not enough to hurt bad...just shock...I certainly knew not to do it again...im all for smaking kids...though in moderation of course...no kid deserves a smack in the mouth from their elders but you get the idea

Hehh since when have our leaders come from the working class?
You miss my point, and apparently don't understand the word 'generation'.
To the OP: It would be much better, if smacking were also supplemented by other proper, decent parenting methods.
Don't be silly. If beating isn't working then you're just not beating your children enough.
Heh yeah I know wot you mean. I felt exactly the same when I was a youth. Well actually I was not a good little boy.

Good means, doing what you parents tell ya, not getting into trouble, being a non-typical teenager.

Because typical teenagers are all the offspring of working class parents. They're all chavs, and the females are all trying to get pregnant as soon as humanely possible so they can get a council flat, and the males are all dealing drugs and killing each other until their 20s, then they take up impregnating the females and fleeing. And if we took to beating these already violent kids, they'd learn to stop being so violent and be good little kids. That little working class thing, that's not really a problem at all. All those things you hear about poor, disadvantaged children being the most likely to be juvenile delinquents, that's just a great big pile of lies.

Pity the real world isn't all that similar to what tabloid newspapers report.

You miss my point, and apparently don't understand the word 'generation'.

Don't be silly. If beating isn't working then you're just not beating your children enough.


Because typical teenagers are all the offspring of working class parents. They're all chavs, and the females are all trying to get pregnant as soon as humanely possible so they can get a council flat, and the males are all dealing drugs and killing each other until their 20s, then they take up impregnating the females and fleeing. And if we took to beating these already violent kids, they'd learn to stop being so violent and be good little kids. That little working class thing, that's not really a problem at all. All those things you hear about poor, disadvantaged children being the most likely to be juvenile delinquents, that's just a great big pile of lies.

Pity the real world isn't all that similar to what tabloid newspapers report.

Wow you just got out of bed and hit ya head on the wall or summit huh!? Take three painkillers and you'll be right as rain.


So what was your point, and what do YOU mean by generation then?

When you say "YOUTH" do you mean, all young people? or the ones you see on TV committing crimes.
What do you mean as "RIGHT"?
...

It was what the French call "L'ironie" (note : may be lies).

I'm shocked at the people saying that smacking children as a form of punishment is a bad thing. There is a difference between smacking and hitting. Smacking would be an open-handed moderate 'slap' on the wrist or the arse to discipline unacceptable behaviour. A hit would be a heavy-handed slap, or even punch, that would hurt the child and is disproportionate to the 'crime' committed by the child.

Of course, smacking children shouldn't be the only discipline. Sanctions, for example, are often very effective. Taking treats such as chocolate and crisps away from them, or restricting their social access by sending them to their room, not only teaches the child that they have done wrong, but also helps them recognise the difference between a right and a privilege. Something that seems to be lacking in my (youth) generation.

Wow you just got out of bed and hit ya head on the wall or summit huh!? Take three painkillers and you'll be right as rain.


So what was your point, and what do YOU mean by generation then?
My point was that when children are brought up thinking that violence can be used to solve one's problems, they'll use violence to solve their problems. And so, instead of violent youths being primarily from working class families, they'd be more widespread. As in spanning the generation, as in all the people born at roughly the same period.

My point was that when children are brought up thinking that violence can be used to solve one's problems, they'll use violence to solve their problems. And so, instead of violent youths being primarily from working class families, they'd be more widespread. As in spanning the generation, as in all the people born at roughly the same period.

Ahhh then if that was your point,you are correct, I totally didn't get that.

I don't think that anybody was advocating teaching kids that violence will solve their problems though. Nor do I believe that if you smack your children they will grow up with such a belief.

My point was that when children are brought up thinking that violence can be used to solve one's problems, they'll use violence to solve their problems. And so, instead of violent youths being primarily from working class families, they'd be more widespread. As in spanning the generation, as in all the people born at roughly the same period.

Thats bollocks...I grew up getting smacked when I done something wrong and I didnt grow up thinking violence was the answer...I just grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong...If you are brought up in a stable environment having the odd smack will not effect your mental morals...it is what your parents instill in you...good parenting will win through whether you are smacked or not.

I just wish that caning was still permitted in schools...see how cocky kids these days would be with a few lashings of the cane...the reason of the social decline is because of that very fact...there is no discipline...kids do as they please because they know there will be no repercussions...what message does that send out to our youth? That they can do whatever the hell they like without consequence

Thats bollocks...<snip>

I was walking down the road the other day past this little estate and this young man walked out in front of me with two dogs(off the lead) one was this cute little pitbull puppy, then other looked like a lurcher cross breed.

Anyhoo the puppy, tail wagging and all that, bounds up to have a sniff at me, I bend down and give the little thing my hand to sniff at as a precursor to giving it a nice head rub and ear scratch. The chap carries on walking, and glances back when he notices he only has one dog following him, and calls the dogs name.

What was the name?

I kid you not people it was, Asbo!

I think Children would be more disciplined from an earlier age.
Right now youth crime is on the up but if from an early age children knew that what they did results in punishing they might be more reluctant to commit crimes in their teens

I was at one of the last schools in Britain to cane kids, if not the last, a small prep school in Buckinghamshire. At that time, the law required parental permission and dammit if my parents didn't give it.

Did it teach me not to break the rules? No, it taught me not to get caught. I'm not bothered in any way that I was caned, it did no real harm overall.

So the point is, and as those who've been smacked can testify, smacking or not makes very little difference - unless it crosses the line to abusive - and, further, if your reason not to do something is to avoid pain then you haven't really learned much.

Since it makes little difference, it's not really necessary. I'm not sure I'd ban it outright but I'd recommend parents not to resort to it.

Withholding privileges works as long as it's consistent - if you say you're going to do it, do it - and the rules made very clear from the start. Just punishing a child by, for example, taking away a toy for no real reason other than to punish isn't that constructive either.

Nor do I believe that if you smack your children they will grow up with such a belief.

To be honest, I'm not totally convinced b the argument either, just from personal experience, but I'm not opposed to the law as it is now, even if it is just another attempt to legislate society by New Labour. :-/

To be honest, I'm not totally convinced b the argument either, just from personal experience, but I'm not opposed to the law as it is now, even if it is just another attempt to legislate society by New Labour. :-/

Well having read what Dundee provided I'm not too sure that I disagree myself, but there just seems something wrong with government interfering in how people choose to bring up their children.

I'm shocked at the people saying that smacking children as a form of punishment is a bad thing. There is a difference between smacking and hitting. Smacking would be an open-handed moderate 'slap' on the wrist or the arse to discipline unacceptable behaviour. A hit would be a heavy-handed slap, or even punch, that would hurt the child and is disproportionate to the 'crime' committed by the child.


Perhaps you could draw us a graph showing us the actual point where a 'smack' becomes a 'hit'.

Thats bollocks...I grew up getting smacked when I done something wrong and I didnt grow up thinking violence was the answer...I just grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong...If you are brought up in a stable environment having the odd smack will not effect your mental morals...it is what your parents instill in you...good parenting will win through whether you are smacked or not.
Then why smack at all if it isn't necessary for good parenting? I mean, if you can raise your children without hitting them then why would you choose not to?

I just wish that caning was still permitted in schools...see how cocky kids these days would be with a few lashings of the cane...the reason of the social decline is because of that very fact...there is no discipline...kids do as they please because they know there will be no repercussions...what message does that send out to our youth? That they can do whatever the hell they like without consequence
Just because the consequences aren't physical pain doesn't mean they don't exist. And weren't you just saying that you don't think violence is the answer? Because it looks like you're suggesting that is is.
I think Children would be more disciplined from an earlier age.
Right now youth crime is on the up but if from an early age children knew that what they did results in punishing they might be more reluctant to commit crimes in their teens
Source?

The problem with non-violent approach is that once kids grow to school age the class bully has that much more power.

The answer isn't smacking children around when they're young but ingraining moral code early, encourage kids to turn in the troublemaker and give authorities (primarily school) more power to intervene in case of a child who has clear difficulties following good behaviour.

We should make clear that bad behaviour is NOT accepted and that such behaviour DOES hurt other people.


Personally, I most certainly wouldn't punish a kid with a slap because it's a too light punishment compared to more creative penalties: Taking away privileges (TV, computer, cell phone, candy, stylish clothes, make up...), freedoms and threats (looooks like it's family visit time!) is much more effective and damag...disiplining to a kid so I heartily encourage deprivation and psychological violence over bodily violence.

Well having read what Dundee provided I'm not too sure that I disagree myself, but there just seems something wrong with government interfering in how people choose to bring up their children.

At what point does it seem to become wrong?

At what point does it seem to become wrong?

Thats a good question. Should the government interfere at all with how you choose to rear your children?

Would it be okay for example for the goverment to tell you what faith to bring your kids up?

In regard to smacking though we already have laws governing violent conduct, if you can get arrested for drunkenly punching another bloke in the face, then the law that governs this should be sufficient to prosecute a parent that does the same to his child.

I honestly see nothing wrong in using smacking to punish your children, so I would say that the point at which the government tries to stop this is when it seems wrong.

In regard to smacking though we already have laws governing violent conduct, if you can get arrested for drunkenly punching another bloke in the face, then the law that governs this should be sufficient to prosecute a parent that does the same to his child.

I honestly see nothing wrong in using smacking to punish your children, so I would say that the point at which the government tries to stop this is when it seems wrong.

However you already have more lee-way in regards to how you treat your children than you would with an adult. If you want the laws regarding interaction between adults to apply equally between parents and children then shouldn't you be against smacking completely

However you already have more lee-way in regards to how you treat your children than you would with an adult. If you want the laws regarding interaction between adults to apply equally between parents and children then shouldn't you be against smacking completely

Naaa I don't see how that logically follows. I'm not against smacking your kids, nor am I really against violence in general. Some people deserve a good smacking, although I will say that I am always loath to resort to violence, sometimes you really do need to.

Naaa I don't see how that logically follows. I'm not against smacking your kids, nor am I really against violence in general. Some people deserve a good smacking, although I will say that I am always loath to resort to violence, sometimes you really do need to.

It's probably just due to my not fully grasping the post I last quoted but the gist I got was that:

1. In your opinion it should be sufficient for laws applicable to how adults interact should apply to the interaction between parents and children
2. You feel that there is no need for the government to specifically legislate for the treatment of children by parents as these laws already exist for interaction between strangers. Therefore these laws should encompass all of society

So if you can't smack and adult why, in your proposal, should you be allowed to smack a child

If you can't detain an adult, why should you be allowed to detain your child

If you want these differences doesn't it follow that you have to accept that the government is making specific legislation as to how you can treat your child and at present they are giving you more freedom than for other situations outside of your role as parent

1. In your opinion it should be sufficient for laws applicable to how adults interact should apply to the interaction between parents and children

In some cases yes. The laws we have that govern violent conduct should be applicable for all citersens.


2. You feel that there is no need for the government to specifically legislate for the treatment of children by parents as these laws already exist for interaction between strangers. Therefore these laws should encompass all of society

I feel this is so with regard to violence.


So if you can't smack and adult why, in your proposal, should you be allowed to smack a child

You can indeed smack an adult, I have witnessed such a thing many times.



If you can't detain an adult, why should you be allowed to detain your child

Sorry that's irrelevant to this at the mo.


If you want these differences doesn't it follow that you have to accept that the government is making specific legislation as to how you can treat your child and at present they are giving you more freedom than for other situations outside of your role as parent

As it has already been shown that you know more about this than me, I really can't answer that one. I will say though that even if you are right, that is not the common perception now is it.

You can indeed smack an adult, I have witnessed such a thing many times.

You can speed in your car but that doesn't make it legal. If you smack an adult they have a legal right to have you charged I believe


Sorry that's irrelevant to this at the mo.

Fair enough

As it has already been shown that you know more about this than me, I really can't answer that one. I will say though that even if you are right, that is not the common perception now is it.

Which isn't the governments fault so much as sensationalist journalisms

As for the bold that's only because google knows much more than me :D

You can speed in your car but that doesn't make it legal. If you smack an adult they have a legal right to have you charged I believe

All true, but the adult decides whether or not to press charges. I think then we need to decide the difference between a smack and a 'smack'

Think of this one, you are in the pub with your mates, one of them gets a bit leary, you take it outside and have a bit of fight. This has happened, and does happen almost every weekend.

So do you make it up or does your mate try to get you charged?

Which isn't the governments fault so much as sensationalist journalisms

Perhaps.

So do you make it up or does your mate try to get you charged?


I don't see what this point has to do with this debate.

It doesn't matter what would be the best choice for all involved for that situation but it does matter that the 'victim' of such a scenario is perfectly able to report a fight where they were touched without consent or were threatened with violence