Doctors call for smacking ban.

[Bruce Banner]

Protect children from smacking in England and Northern Ireland, say doctors - BBC News

What about parents who can't control their children any other way, should their children be taken into "care"?

Just to be absolutely clear, we're talking about a light smack, as I believe that a smack that leaves a mark is already covered by legislation.

[regprentice]

less discipline for children proposed at the same time as we see headlines like teachers 'fear going to work' as abuse on rise with pupils as young as seven turning violent and the number of suspensions from school per year doubling in the last 7 years link

[Casual-observer]

At some point the average teenage lad will challenge the authority in the household and the only thing in his way is if there's another more powerful authority in the house (i.e. a man) who can face down that challenge. 

It's a farcical concept this can always be accomplished over a cup of tea and a handshake. 

[scottbeard]

1 minute ago, Casual-observer said:

At some point the average teenage lad will challenge the authority in the household and the only thing in his way is if there's another more powerful authority in the house (i.e. a man) who can face down that challenge. 

Are you basically just saying that your Dad used to hit you, and this has now normalised that physical violence is a good way for people to achieve the results they want?

I remain profoundly unconvinced that hitting children - be they tiny tots or strapping teenagers - is the way to produce rounded, healthy adults.  

[Big Orange]

But at the same time kids need to be taught boundries and a certain degree of agreeables (without turning into a walkover).

EDIT - I'm old enough from UK schools being a bit too strict (like North Korea) and then lurching into too much of the opposite direction, becoming a free for all for brats (like Haiti).

Edited April 17 by Big Orange

[Bruce Banner]

40 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I remain profoundly unconvinced that hitting children - be they tiny tots or strapping teenagers - is the way to produce rounded, healthy adults.  

How about a strapping teenager who is about to leave the house carrying a knife? (Edit; Actually in this case a crime is being committed so one could make a citizen's arrest and use whatever force is necessary.)

Or a tiny tot, out of control and trying to break free of mothers grip yards away from a busy main road?

 

Edited April 17 by Bruce Banner

[Pebbles]

I don't think it should be banned however anyone doing the smacking must remember they can expect a retaliation so must have the biggest threat in the house on side. I remember when smacking ended in my home it was when the eldest realised they couldn't inflict more damage on my mother than she could on them. It wasn't a good sight.

[nero120]

It's a farcical suggestion, as much as I might agree with the sentiment. I don't agree with hitting kids, and I don't believe authority requires violence in order to establish itself (the few times I get angry my son sh1ts himself and I've never had to raise my hand to him).

However, you can't "protect" kids from bad parents. If you want to do the right thing for kids then stop producing bad parents by incentivising them to have kids that they treat like accessories. You might as well make it illegal to be a "bad person". 🤡

[TheResponsibleHouseBuyer]

smacking ban, ban on smoking, attending conferences in Brussels, presenting on GB news, busy playing rwandan roulette... Meanwhile 1st world problems ignored.

[Timm]

I think smacking is like nukes.

Sensible to have the option in theory.

In practice, if you use it, you have lost.

[scottbeard]

54 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Or a tiny tot, out of control and trying to break free of mothers grip yards away from a busy main road?

Let's be clear - I'm not saying parents can't use physical force!  Indeed with toddlers it's necessary many times every day, whether that's picking them up and forcing them into a car seat, or breaking up fights, or whatever.  But there is a world of difference between using physical force to stop a child running into the road and smacking i.e. hitting them as a punishment or a deterrent.

Where my toddlers have been unsafe near a road like that I used physical force to restrain them from running into danger, and then next time they have to go in the buggy as they have demonstrated they aren't ready to be walking by the road yet.

I cannot reconcile a logic that says "Hitting people is bad - don't do it.  Except when I hit you, because you deserve it."

I can reconcile a logic that says "Hitting people is bad - so you only do it in defence of yourself or others."

(which might include taking a knife off a teenager - though goodness knows what previous parenting has gone wrong to end up there).

[scottbeard]

8 minutes ago, TheResponsibleHouseBuyer said:

smacking ban, ban on smoking, attending conferences in Brussels, presenting on GB news, busy playing rwandan roulette... Meanwhile 1st world problems ignored.

Whether a ban on smacking and smoking is good or not isn't really impacted by other policies effectiveness.

24 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

I remember when smacking ended in my home it was when the eldest realised they couldn't inflict more damage on my mother than she could on them. It wasn't a good sight.

Indeed.   It's rare that throwing violence into the mix doesn't just result in more violence, whether you're bombing Iranian diplomats or beating up children.

4 minutes ago, Timm said:

I think smacking is like nukes.

Sensible to have the option in theory.

In practice, if you use it, you have lost.

Agreed.  There's such a lot of tools at parents' disposal before you get there too, especially if you have all the money and they don't.  Frankly with toddlers you can probably achieve a lot of what you want to achieve by just confiscating a toy or shutting them in their room, you don't have to wallop them.

[Bruce Banner]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Just to be absolutely clear, we're talking about a light smack, as I believe that a smack that leaves a mark is already covered by legislation.

7 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

you don't have to wallop them.

WALLOP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

 

Cambridge Dictionary

https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › wallop

 

 

 

to hit someone hard, especially with the flat part of the hand or with something held in the hand: She walloped him across ...

[14stFlyer]

Is this a good thread to support those who claim HousePriceCrash is frequented by boomers living beyond their death by date?

Smacking kids is difficult to condone and leads to the problems described above rather than preventing them.  In my view.  

Scottbeard excluded of course. 

Edited April 17 by 14stFlyer

[fellow]

2 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Is this a good thread to support those who claim HousePriceCrash is frequented by boomers living beyond their death by date?

Smacking kids is difficult to condone and leads to the problems described above rather than preventing them.  In my view.  

Is this the most off topic thread of all time?

[scottbeard]

19 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

WALLOP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Definitely adds lots of value to dive into the semantics of one word and not talk about the issue....🙄

[Bruce Banner]

6 minutes ago, fellow said:

Is this the most off topic thread of all time?

Probably. Important though because it could result in the death of children whos' parents are incapable in getting instant obedience any other way in dangerous situations. I won't attempt to list possible scenarios as there could be many. 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Bruce Banner

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Definitely adds lots of value to dive into the semantics of one word and not talk about the issue....🙄

See above

[Casual-observer]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Are you basically just saying that your Dad used to hit you, and this has now normalised that physical violence is a good way for people to achieve the results they want?

I remain profoundly unconvinced that hitting children - be they tiny tots or strapping teenagers - is the way to produce rounded, healthy adults.  

Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort and neither am I suggesting anyone whacks kids on the regular. 

I'm simply saying  without a clear authority in the house teenage boys WILL and DO run amok. I've seen it regularly where single mothers become victims without such a figure and your warped idea that a kid will turn into a well rounded adult on the farcical belief no one can EVER meet them head on when they're upping the anti to such degrees. 

 

[scottbeard]

8 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

I'm simply saying  without a clear authority in the house teenage boys WILL and DO run amok.  I've seen it regularly where single mothers become victims without such a figure and your warped idea that a kid will turn into a well rounded adult on the farcical belief no one can EVER meet them head on when they're upping the anti to such degrees. 

Agreed: but authority and violence are not the same thing.

Unless the kid hits you I can't see how it helps to hit them, all you're doing is noting what they did and doing something worse.

[scottbeard]

41 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Smacking kids is difficult to condone and leads to the problems described above rather than preventing them.  In my view.  

Scottbeard excluded of course. 

Quite.  No-one is saying you can't discipline children - indeed you have to.

For a small child there's almost always a better solution than smacking, and for a teenager a "light smack" is not a deterrent anyway and anything more is already rightly illegal as assault.

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Quite.  No-one is saying you can't discipline children - indeed you have to.

For a small child there's almost always a better solution than smacking, and for a teenager a "light smack" is not a deterrent anyway and anything more is already rightly illegal as assault.

Agreed. But sometimes, when instant and unquestioning obedience is imperative, (in dangerous situations) a smack may be required by some parents to achieve said instant obedience from that particular child. If that is a serious parenting flaw, should those parents have their children taken from them and put into state care?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Bruce Banner

[Hullabaloo82]

I was never hit as a kid and I've never needed to hit my kids. 

I can't but feel it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're the kind of person who hits their kids, at some point your kids are going to fight back. If you don't, you have more mutual respect. 

Of course I pushed boundaries but my parents never needed to use actual violence to bring me back into line, partly because they'd showed me that basic respect in the first place. 

 

[scottbeard]

9 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Agreed. But sometimes, when instant and unquestioning obedience is imperative, (in dangerous situations) a smack may be required by some parents to achieve said instant obedience from that particular child. If that is a serious parenting flaw, should those parents have their children taken from them and put into state care?

What a loaded question!  Taking a child into care is a very serious matter that needs far wider judgement than on a single matter.

But clearly if they are unable to control their children in dangerous situations that would certainly be a factor that would need to be taken into consideration when considering the child's safety and best interests. 

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

What a loaded question!  Taking a child into care is a very serious matter that needs far wider judgement than on a single matter.

But clearly if they are unable to control their children in dangerous situations that would certainly be a factor that would need to be taken into consideration when considering the child's safety and best interests. 

So that's a yes then.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.