Would you ban smacking? Take our two-question-takes-less-than-10-seconds poll (and be entered into this week's comp)

I dont think smacking should be banned as sometimes children will only respond to 'the short sharp shock treatment' as we call it at home but I am talking about a small tap on the leg or bum. not being beaten with a big stick or completely hammered. I dont see how they can ban it completely tbh but we shall see. The panel of parliment members probably either have wonderfully perfect children or dont have any at all.

It'll make no difference at all to those who are smacking in an abusive manner ( ie losing control & battering the hell out of the weans, flinging them up against the wall etc etc) and criminalise parents who are just giving a wee tap when their 2yo tries to jump into the fast lane of the M1.

Does entry to the comps depend on our answers?

I think banning this is pointless - any movement like this creates a backlash of people saying "How dare the government tell me what to do in my own home etc etc" anyway, and it's unenforceable. Waste of time IMO.

I don't agree with smacking personally, although I was smacked ("and I'm OK"). The thing I dislike about smacking is that often it happens because the parent has lost it, not because the child has done something which warrants it. So it is often disproportionate to the crime, so to speak. All it taught me (not that I was smacked a lot, but I witnessed younger siblings on the receiving end of it fairly frequently) was that the way to deal with anger is to lash out. Obviously this is not a good way to live life and I have to deal with this and try to find alternatives, which is something very difficult. Only since having a child of my own have I really grasped the ease with which I could perpetuate the problem.

I think a lot more good could come of providing more resources and support for parents facing tough times, and efforts need to be made to destigmatise this. What's the point in banning something if people are not educated about the alternatives?

I dont agree that that the SS do a fantastic job MT and that isnt because of my personal view or my experience with SS tbh I dont think the resources are there for them
They left me and my family totally upset at the allegations and they sent me a letter 9 months after the allegation
(within them 9 months me and dh could of beaten ,belted punched and kicked them)btw i am being sarcastic so where would of been that follow up and intervention..

My point is you cannot criminalise decent parents throw allegations at them leaving them bemused and bewildered and not follow it up...this does not make sense

oh sorry, and the other point is this - I would never say this about people who hit their partners, because that is a different relationship. A partner is not in the position of 'teaching' their partner anything, and as an adult, their partner is responsible for their own lives.

But parents are in the position of teaching their child how to behave. I don't agree that smacking is necessarily the best way of teaching that, but there have been many examples on here already of parents saying that at particular ages, a sharp smack on the hand has been the only way to stop a child doing something that is actively dangerous.

If my DP runs into the road in front of a bus and is killed, then noone would blame me.

If my child runs into the road and is killed, and I didn't teach him that cars were dangerous and that he shouldn't do that? I would be pilloried.

Can I be quite clear, I don't agree with smacking children, and I don't think it's right, I'm not defending the practice. I felt thoroughly ashamed of myself on the one occasion that I smacked DS, and hope I never do it again.

"But hitting undermines that. It says "well it's OK because I just lost it". How is that OK and what message does it give a child? We want them to respect us, we should respect them." - I entirely agree snowleopard. But I think we should leave parents to be the ones to make that call. I don't agree that legislation is what's needed here, and I don't think it's the law's place to get involved in parenting at this level.

I think we can and should help people to be good parents, through education and support. We should teach people about how to discipline their child in effective ways. We should also try to remove some of the huge sources of stress that our current society places on parents. And we absolutely should sanction cases of abusive or neglectful parenting that cause harm.

But in the middle, you have to give people the freedom to make their own parenting decisions, otherwise you end up in situations where parents cannot parent at all, because their every move is under scrutiny.

there seem to be quite a few people who have a rather black and white idea of what law is, what role it performs, how it is used by society, the police and the courts. This black and white view seems to lead them to say stuff about this law criminalising/watching over good parents who once in their life lost their rag. As well as individual pieces of legislation outlawing this and that we have a wealth of principles that are applied, we have case law, we have concepts like reasonableness, we have different ways of bringing prosecutions (private and crown), we have a range of defences, we have mitigating circumstances - we have all manner of stuff that would apply and be relevant, in addition to this prohibition. the law (by which I mean the law as a whole, not this particular piece of legislation) is a nuanced, complex thing and can and is applied carefully and thoughtfully - by police and by judges. I agree with snowleopard - you can allow for many complexities and you can note that a law might be difficult to apply, but it's a baseline. we shouldn't hit children.

"But is there any evidence that the odd smack in extreme circumstances (I shan't call it a tap, that would be disingenuous) causes harm?"

Just imagine you were saying this about men who hit their wives LMD.

But LMD, look at your last post and replace child with adult. It isn't OK to hit an adult, whatever the circumstances. It isn't forgiven because they were really riling you, or because they came to no long-term harm. It's just wrong. And that's true of adults with learning disabilities and elder;y people with alzheimer's who may behave like children and not understand explanations etc etc etc. It's just disrespectful, wrong and illegal and somehow we manage to take that on board. I think we can manage the same for children - if not I think it shows a serious lack of imagination.

I was hit as a child - not all the time and not violently battered, and I wasn't badly hurt. But it was the humiliation and knowing that this person was prepared to hit you that did the damage.

I am aghast at the lack of discipline a lot of children grow up with these days and I am very in favour of firm discipline and boundaries. But hitting undermines that. It says "well it's OK because I just lost it". How is that OK and what message does it give a child? We want them to respect us, we should respect them.

That was a genuine question, MonkeyTrousers. I'm interested to know how far you think the state should be involved in our parenting decisions.

My personal view is that unless a child is in danger of serious physical or emotional harm from sustained violent or abusive behaviour, the state has no business telling us how to be parents.

Just as they have no right to tell us what to eat, what to wear, or whether we need a coat on cold mornings.

They should advise. They should support. They should inform and educate.

But legislation should be reserved for the point at which people are causing actual harm to someone else.

And people have talked a lot about the harm caused by violence and beating, which I completely agree is wrong. But is there any evidence that the odd smack in extreme circumstances (I shan't call it a tap, that would be disingenuous) causes harm?

I'd be genuinely interested to see any evidence of this, not trying to be inflammatory, just interested.

Yeah That's what my whole post was about wasnt't it. Note the new paragraph

So would you outlaw shouting at your child as well?

It's impossible to comment on any hearsay people post here. The police and SS aren't perfect yes, but neither are they idiots. J3's story is not hard evidence against un;ess we can actually know all the details, whcih we can't here.

Well I think there is a middle ground. We do have laws already and they seem to work fine. That's the slippery slope that gets everyones knickers in a twist. The idea that they would not be alllowed to use their common sense when parenting. That is the case and a law againbst smacking does not change that.

People who are violent, alcoholic, abusive are already sanctioned by law as parents. Social services do a fantastic job.

We do not want primary carers (and for the most part that means women) in a headlock here. We must not forget that most parents are caring and bring up their kids as well as they can. They have to be allowed to make choices based on their own personal circumstances - but that choice should not sanction any use of violence - and that said by someone who has smacked - albeit very rarely - but I've known I have totally renaged on my paretning and protecting duties when I have done and looked for help andf advice so I can lessen the chances of it happening agaon.

The same for abusive almost constant shouting. It's just as harmful.

MonkeyTrousers I think j3's post illustrates completely beautifully that ordinary people WOULD and COULD be criminalised by this.

You cannot compare smacking a child to smacking an adult. I have smacked my son on 2 occassions and know that on both, it was th ewrong thing to do.

On the first occassion, he sunk his teeth into my boob and my reaction was immediate and unthought. Had he been an adult, I would have decked him!

On the second occassion he trapped another child's finger in the door (accidentally) and then proceeded to laugh at that child's pain. This was such a horrible thing to do that I just felt rage at him. An adult would never react like this and if they did, you would probaly seek psychiatric care for them.

My point is that children act in a way that adults do not and are often uncontrolled. So while I agree that it is never appropriate to hit them, I think there are occassions when it is understandable and should not be criminalised.

It is a criminal offence to brutalise a child, but an exasperated parent acting out of desperation does not need the threat of intervention from the state. When ds bit my boob we were in Tescos carpark and I was already at the end of my tether. The though of all those well meaning busy bodies reaching for their phones would have probably been more than I could have born at the time.

Totally agree MTS/SL - I am a liberal at heart, but do feel that the state does need to intervene in teaching some people to bring up their children, because communities no longer do so. The nanny state has only had to grow since families stopped living in close contact with their nannies, and mothers and honorary aunties who lived down the road, who would previously have intervened if children were being mistreated by their parents.

And we need laws that tell people how to parent - we really do. Because children are the only people who are forced to live with and have their lives totally ruled by someone allocated to them by random chance - ie their parents. And that could be - and often is - someone violent, alcoholic, abusive - we all know that. The law is what they have to protect them. Everyone who says "It's every paret's own business how they bring up their child and no one else's" - that's actually total nonsense, if you think about it.

I think all of you who are trying to push this as some invasion of human rights need to serioulsy take pause.

"The law will ne there to send a massage to all parents.."

lol

That might work actually - 'here, 'ave a massage luv and while your at it, a think about what you're doing..'

I meant message thoigh

Adults hitting each other is impossible to police fully. It happens and people get away with it. But that law means that we all know it's illegal and wrong. And it means we have recourse if someone really is getting hurt. Why shouldn't children have the protection we have. Should we reverse all prohibitions that are hard to police - drug-taking, speeding, drink-driving? Er, no.

I'm so sick and tired of being told how to parent my child and this culture of monitoring and assessing and looking over parents shoulders the whole time. Did anyone see the NSPCC supplement about emotional abuse in The Guardian yesterday? I can't find a link to it but the underlying assumption seemed to be that schools should be monitoring children constantly for signs of emotional abuse, and that parents are all basically guilty.

How on earth can one parent effectively in this kind of Big Brother culture?

I am totally against smacking, I have smacked DS once and felt so awful about doing it and hope I never do it again, but as previous posters have said, laws like this do not prevent real and serious abuse of children - all they do is criminalise parents who are trying to do the best they can and have just lost their rag once in a while.

Totally unenforceable, pointless and ridiculous.

People are falling down the slippery slope too quickly here!

The police aren't idiots. We cannot being to have a serious debate about this unless we begin from the position that the police are not maniacs and won't be arresting parents willy nilly like jobsworth robots.

The law will ne there to send a massage to all parents to find other strategies than smacking - but crucially it will tell those that smack their children every dau or every week that it is unacceptable and if they continue on such a course, noit addressing their shortcomings as a parent, they may get into real troubel for it.

I also suspect it will get more women suffering from PND and PMT into their GP's surgeries to getr tyreatment to manage these symtoms and improve their, and their lids lives, immeasuably.

We need to stop thinking about this on a personal level and think about the greater good it could do.

Education is not working. That is why this step is alwasy being debated, because every initiative to raise awareness fails and while we all whinge about police resources and our personal automony kids are being beaten every day and threads started on here asking 'should I have called the police' when someone see's a chuld being vicioulsy hit in the street.

Absolutely ban it. It's not allowed for adults, and we have to manage with the grey areas that throws up, so it shouldn't be allowed for children. 100% ban and that means private schools and everywhere else as well.

I think we in the UK really do have a problem with according respect to children. It's totally beyond me how it is illegal to strike an adult but not a child. And the "leaving a mark" thing is totally stupid as all children are different, have different sensitivity, different skin colour etc.

The law should of course be interpreted sensibly so that people don't get a record for one-off rag losing, just a warning if they are arrested - which of course they almost always wouldn't be. But the fact of it being illegal would make us all more aware and try to resist it harder. The fact that hitting children is legalised gives us all the wrong baseline IMO.