'Smacking ban' to be passed?

[ghost]

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

An answer for this is that its not an inconsistancy, call me slow but if I disipline a neibours kid for being a smart little prick its assault. Accept that. If I disipline a neibours kid for repeatedly running out on the road or throwing stones at cars, that too is assault, I accept that to.

BUT as a childs legal Guardian (an having a vested interest they they grow up straight and true) I am held legally accountable for their actions when they throw stones at cars, light fires, poke fingers in a socket etc there for I will dicipline them how i see fit, not with a jug cord, or whip, or fist, or boiling water etc, but in way that I know the message will get thru.

On a personel matter I doubt my little guy will get a smacked bum when hes old enough to understand and suffer consequences, (wash my car) ( no bike for a week ) but at the moment when he repeatedly tries to put his had on the hot oven he may get a smack instead of a burn.......

Im comfotable with that even if the socialists arn't.....they can garn get f*^%&&

[Ixion]

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. The law recognised that, a child being a wilful and unreasoning being, it would sometimes be appropriate or necessary to use force to coerce or restrain the child. Thus, if I see you putting a fork into the power point and grab your hand, and you yell "let go , I wanna", if I do not release my hold and allow you to have your forky fun, you may charge me with assault. But the law allowed for a parent to use force to coerce the child . A more reasonable example might be , eg, playing a game on the road, or swimming in a dangerous place. I may not coerce an adult from doing so against his will. But hitherto , the law allowed a parent to haul Junior out of the water , kick scream and refuse as he might . But the law restricted this discretion to the parent, for obvious reasons. The child is the responsibility of the parent , and only the parent is qualified to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

What is a more practical inconsistency is that, were it not for the late added amendment, much decried by Ms Bradford, it would be impossible for a parent to compell a child to do ANYTHING.

Nice family day at the beach. Time to go home. Come on Junior , into the car. "No. Won't I want to stay here. Get off. You can't touch me. I'm staying at the beach' And indeed Junior would be right. In Ms Bradford's ideal world, the family could not go home until Junior was willing . They cannot abandon him at the beach - CYPS would have a fit. They cannot use force to compell him.

Or, Junior misbehaves. "Time out. Go to your room. " Won't. You can't make me. Don't you dare touch me, I'll have the police on you".

I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.

[ZorsT]

There is no inconsistency. The law recognised that, a child being a wilful and unreasoning being, it would sometimes be appropriate or necessary to use force to coerce or restrain the child. Thus, if I see you putting a fork into the power point and grab your hand, and you yell "let go , I wanna", if I do not release my hold and allow you to have your forky fun, you may charge me with assault. But the law allowed for a parent to use force to coerce the child . A more reasonable example might be , eg, playing a game on the road, or swimming in a dangerous place. I may not coerce an adult from doing so against his will. But hitherto , the law allowed a parent to haul Junior out of the water , kick scream and refuse as he might . But the law restricted this discretion to the parent, for obvious reasons. The child is the responsibility of the parent , and only the parent is qualified to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

What is a more practical inconsistency is that, were it not for the late added amendment, much decried by Ms Bradford, it would be impossible for a parent to compell a child to do ANYTHING.

Nice family day at the beach. Time to go home. Come on Junior , into the car. "No. Won't I want to stay here. Get off. You can't touch me. I'm staying at the beach' And indeed Junior would be right. In Ms Bradford's ideal world, the family could not go home until Junior was willing . They cannot abandon him at the beach - CYPS would have a fit. They cannot use force to compell him.

Or, Junior misbehaves. "Time out. Go to your room. " Won't. You can't make me. Don't you dare touch me, I'll have the police on you".

I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.

This is so true.

The lady living next to us wouldn't smack her kids. It was 'wrong'. Even the youngest child (5 year old) was hugely out of control. She would scream and yell at them all day and it made no difference. They knew she could do nothing.

[Fatjim]

Well put mate

[Lias]

I support smacking, and am very opposed to the bill, as is my partner.

Our kids dont get smacked very often, but we very much feel its our right to have that option available if needed. The government and the liberal filth have no right to tell us how to raise our kids.

By all means clarify the law so that it closes the loopholes that allow kids to be beaten with alkythene pipes or jug cords or whatever, but to pointblank outlaw a good solid smack on the bum with a hand (or even the trusty wooden spoon!) is lunacy.

Then again I also firmly believe we should have coproral punishment in our schools again, and our legal system as a whole (ala singapore) so I may be somewhat biased. I cant help but think that the reason society is going to shit so much and the huge increase in youth violence etc is directly linked to the removal of corporal punishment from school. I'm pretty close to being one of the last generations to have experienced any sort of it, with it being outlawed when I was around 7-8ish from memory.

[SPman]

Hey if your old man wants a stand in tell him I will volunteer to do the whacking for him just as long as he gets the retribution not me.(lol) (I bruise to easy)
There is nothing wrong with the young people of today, they are every bit as good (or even better) as them in the "good ole days".
The percentage of fuckwits among them seems bigger because there are more of them and the media has much more effect today than it did in the good ole days.
I dislike hearing the older generation berating the young today as if they themselves were better examples of proper behaviour and manners compared to kids today.
What bullshit the cheeky buggers were just the same as the kids today and I was there to witness a lot of it.
Life is harder for the kids today too but they handle it pretty well, all things considered. (In my opinion anyway).
27! shit I am 40yrs older than you, better disregard the offer of assistance to your father, he might have to assist me! Cheers John.

But.....they've been doing it for at least 5000 yrs if recorded complaints are right...........can we claim traditional rights?
The 10 Commandments...."Honour thy mother and thy father..."..obviously the kids were stroppy as all shit then, as well! Needed an edict from their God to back up the oldies.

Its all about how you treat your kids - honour and respect flows 2 ways.
I hit each of my boys once only, when they were young. Thats all I had to. The little sods were just testing boundaries and I felt worse than they did.
The kids will tend to reflect the values of the parents!

[yungatart]

A wee story for you, and I swear it is true!
Some years ago I had had one of those totally unpleasant mornings that only parents of teenagers can truly understand.
The then teenager was being a stroppy little shit, disrespectful, antisocial etc etc.
Off I went to work, stormed (yes, I was still wound up) in to the staff room and said in a loud voice " By God, he deserves a good smack and when I get home, he's going to get one!"
At that point two police officers made their presence known..leaving me with a red face. So I boldly stated that when one of my kids gets out of line and won't get back in, then I will smack them, and hard - and there isn't anything that you can do to change that!
One of these cops - the local youth aid officer said, "Pity we didn't have more parents like you, who are actually prepared to discipline their kids.It would make my job much easier"
Interesting, huh?

[mstriumph]

........................................I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.

- the trick is not to let it GET to that point or, if he does, have fair systems in place to underline his/her place in the pecking order...
f'rinstance, looked at from the OTHER end, a parent can't be compelled by the child to do/provide anything other than basic food, shelter, education etc either ...................

bigger kids understand the principals of self-interested co-operation /give and take/fair play/one hand washes the other .... it's only when they percieve their parents will provide playstations, trips to exotic places and designer jeans WITHOUT expecting acceptable behaviour on the home front that they start to subvert the system
........and any parent that provides 'rewards' in the absence of acceptable behaviour is the author of their own downfall surely?

smaller kids - yup, a smack in time serves as both immediate deterrant and longer-term training mechanism .... sue me, too!

[Winston001]

Well we all really share the same views. Children need discipline - no argument.

The problem is that some politician has given the issue the catchy and emotive title "Anti-smacking law" It isn't. It is an anti-bashing law.

My wife and I smacked our 3 children maybe once a year up until the age of 6. In fact I can't even remember doing it but it did happen. They are approaching teenagehood now and are good children - I'm proud of them. They don't fear mum or dad, they are polite, they don't hit other people.

It wasn't easy and I'll freely admit to seeing a red rage at times but I held back. Hitting would have been oh-so-easy and I'd have never been able to take that moment of fear and pain back. The one thing I was determined on was that my children would never be scared of their parents.

[SPman]

..... Hitting would have been oh-so-easy.........

And therein lies the answer............