Good old fashioned smacking

[heepie]

I don't believe it did me any harm and I do wonder why the previous generation, ie mine, was so much better behavied than the current, ie my kids. I find the softly softly, ignore bad reward good behaviour does not work with a strong willed child and find myself more and more thinking what was wrong with a good old smack? Peeing on the floor right in front of you with a big smile on the face surely warrants more than the removal of a star on the reward chart? And whacking little brother over the head with a heavy object? Not eating something very nice and edible that I have slaved over in the kitchen? Why must we never tell our children to eat what is in front of them when I wasn't allowed to leave the table until I was finished? I don't have an eating disorder. I think it's time I through all the modern how to bring up children books out of the window and remember how it was done when I was a child? Anyone else feel this way?

Bloss - did you read the link i posted last night? Is this any help? I haven't read any of the previous threads so i don't know what you have said in them (i can't spend my entire life on MN!!).

Thanks for the pdf, GodzillasBumcheek! (just had to type out your name )

Xenia - and before class boundaries became smudged it was the middle and upper classes who sent their kids to private schools where caning on the bare backside was the norm.

As it was also the norm in all state schools too. It was the norm in most families, wasn't it until those who are clever enough or educated enough realised the damage it did. That view has just not yet filtered down to the working classes and those who are not very bright but it will and if we can even remove the right of parents to hit without leaving a mark we will have moved this country a step forward.

Yes that's right, just ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Voluptua - do you really think caning/corporal punishment was restricted to the private schools?
it was absolutely a day to day occurrence in he schools I went to.
and I didn't exactly go to Roedean

The uneducated smack. The well educated tend not to. You only have to read the posts of smackers and compare them with those who aren't to know that's true or look around you in a supermarket or whatever. Anyway it's all irrelevant - most of it is illegal and more will become so so you might well not like the law but you'll all have to lump it.

imo its not a class, intelligence or education issue: its a moral one
i read

"When discussing nonabusive physical correction, throughout this study we shall refer to
?smacking? since this is the term by which it is most commonly known in the United
Kingdom. However, many of the authorities cited from the United States refer to ?spanking?.
The two words are interchangeable. In both instances what is being referred to is a
moderate and controlled physical sanction applied in a careful and responsible manner to a
child?s hand, leg or bottom, either with an open hand or a safe object. "
cut and pasted from godzillas pdf file (great name btw) and just feel and .

Why the and ? If you read the whole pdf you will understand why it says this. I do realise it is long though.

sorry godzilla cos it just sounds wrong , horrible and cruel.

I do believe that corporal punishment was banned in state schools before it was banned in independent (private) schools or correct me if I'm wrong. After all, I'm thick and stupid because I come from a working class background.

Harpsi - no I know corporal punishment was administered in all schools but it went on for longer in private schools. I also believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that private schools tended to use a cane rather than a belt which seems a heck of a lot more violent. Perhaps it was different in the rest of the UK but in Scotland I can only ever remember the belt.

I would like to see certain convicted criminals punished with violence but society just doesn't do this. Why should it be OK to do to children what we are not allowed to do to any other group in society?

It would have been banned in state schools first because the govt has direct control over those and you would get situation like my dp getting caned even though his parents (working class) are so so anti such treatment. Nothing to do with whether smacking is associated with class

Saadia, I don't think a smack that leaves no mark would deter many would-be criminals.

I have read your pdf Godzilla, and found it utterly twisted, bizarre, illogical and really very sad.

Is it possible to convince someone that hitting a child is a good idea, though, once they have realised that it is wrong? I doubt it.

heepie, a smack that leaves no mark wouldn't deter a naughty child either. Smacking either hurts, in which case it is cruel and illegal, or it doesn't, in which case it is pointless (and IMO fictitious)

Haven't read all the posts, but very interested to know what you intend to do with all these parents who do continue to smack if a ban does come in to play? Fines? Prison?

Here's the thing:

smacking when you have "lost it" might be understandable (if not excusable) but as godzilla's pdf itself argues destructive and dangerous.

smacking in cold blood may may have some beneficial effects in terms of behaviour BUT
a) i just can't condone it, as greensleeves says its utterly twisted
b) there are other ways to achieve the same objective

A smack that leaves no mark does deter MY child. If it didn't I wouldn't bother. A smack that leaves a last mark is illegal. That is the law. Whether if hurts or not is not legally relevant.

I am an expert on what goes on in my home, no-one else's. What makes you such an expert on what goes on in everyone else's home. How can you tell me what will and won't work on my own child?

Greensleeves, A smack that leaves no mark does deter MY child. If it didn't I wouldn't bother. A smack that leaves a lasting mark is illegal. That is the law. Whether if hurts or not is not legally relevant.

I am an expert on what goes on in my home, no-one else's. What makes you such an expert on what goes on in everyone else's home. How can you tell me what will and won't work on my own child?

i may be wrong here and please correct me if i am but i was under the impression that the smack had to leave a lasting mark, i.e. a bruise, otherwise i could get done for picking my dd up as she has red marks that last 10 minutes from just that, she marks so easily!

"Any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action."

from BBC website

By the way NCMA bans not only smacking, but also the use of a naughty step, in a childminding setting as they believe it is humiliating. Food for thought!

so a red mark which would hurt but not leave a lasting mark is legal. i'v esmacked dd's hand a couple of times in dangerous situations (as already stated somewhere on thie long thread), it obviously hurt her but never left a mark other than a red one for 10 mins max, the same mark she gets on her side when i pick her up or when shes sat in her highchair and gets a red mark across her back.