Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Smacking laws - compromise is backed by Lords

28 replies

Hulababy · 10/07/2004 21:58

BBC article

The compromise has just been backed by the House of Lords by 200 odd to 91.

"Mild smacking allowed

Smacking banned if:

  • it causes bruises
  • scratches
  • reddening of the skin
  • mental harm
  • implement used "
OP posts:
Fio2 · 10/07/2004 22:00

well after what I witnessed yesterday, as in my earlier thread. I agree totally. god there are some vile horrible people around and I have smacked on occassion....dh likes it

coppertop · 10/07/2004 22:18

I can't help wondering how they are going to decide whether smacking has inflicted "mental harm" on a child. How do they define it? How do they prove it?

Original poster
Hulababy · 10/07/2004 22:32

I haven't found anything on how they will enforce such a law either. Anyone?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 10/07/2004 22:37

this makes me so so so . look, if i slapped dh not hard, it's v unlikely that i would be prosecuted for it...but it is absolutely right that it is illegal...how on earth is it right that i can't smack an adult but i can a child under the law. in practise, we all know that the only cases that would be taken to court would be the really violent ones...but the principal that hitting should be illegal (especially hitting children) is right. in terms of how it would be implemented, as i've said above, it would be implemented in exactly the same way that it is for adults: light slaps don't get to court altho they are illegal...however, abuse does and should. I am against smacking. i may do it one day without intending to, but that doesn't mean that it should be sanctioned by a law dating from the 18th century. i think a compromise position is totally nonsensical...we don't have degrees of ABH do we? but the law works. it seems incredibly simple to me. yet another example of this goverment not having the stomach to take on the daily mail...makes me

lou33 · 10/07/2004 22:38

Red marks immediately after smacking, or marks that stay, and for how long afterwards? What is mental harm? These all seem too vague to put into practise.

Heathcliffscathy · 10/07/2004 22:40

i bet a lawyer is going to come on and say there are degrees of abh! but hope you all know what i mean?

coppertop · 10/07/2004 22:46

I think it will be almost impossible to police. People who smack in public would probably get caught but what if it happens behind closed doors? And unless there's an obvious handprint, how will anyone know whether the bruise was caused by a smack?

Should add that we don't smack. I'm just interested in how this is all going to be put into practice.

Heathcliffscathy · 10/07/2004 22:50

but how do we implement the law with regards to adults or children coppertop? i know you're not (i don't think) but surely this isn't an argument for not making it illegal?

Original poster
Hulababy · 10/07/2004 22:51

The BBC news at 6pm had an interesting take on this law. It said that it isn't that long ago when a very similar debate occured in RL and in the Houses about the right for a man to chastise his wife. At the time it seemed a huge thing for laws to be introduced to stop that from being allowed. Now it would seem absurd that a debate would be needed to decide that it is wrong for a man to smack his wife.

Is this much difference? In a few more years time will this debate seem as absurd?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 10/07/2004 22:51

sh%t sorry, that should have read adults or animals!

Heathcliffscathy · 10/07/2004 22:52

yes it will hula imo

coppertop · 10/07/2004 23:03

Sorry. I should have made it clearer that I'm not against this change at all. Far from it! I would just hate for it to be one of those laws that sounds great in principle but is so full of holes that it's essentially useless. It's the ex-law student in me that makes me automatically look for the unclear areas and the sections which future defendants may use to escape a conviction.

Piffleoffagus · 10/07/2004 23:26

I grabbed my son as he was about to gallop across a road aged 2, I had to grab him by the hair and arm... He got red marks on his arm, he also got one driver to skid into 2 parked cars and injure two people.
If anyone had challenged me then...
Arrghhh tis I think the only time I reddened his skin though, it also ended up as fingertip bruising.
It prob was my fault he did it but I had a bee sting me and lost concentration for one second only and let go of his hand...
I am pretty much anti smacking after the age of 5, never saw it being helpful after that in my lifestyle, but used it very rarely for things like power points, roads and cars etc.. Alwys firmly and not with anger...

Original poster
Hulababy · 10/07/2004 23:29

BBC update

OP posts:
Original poster
Hulababy · 10/07/2004 23:30

Children are unbeatable

This is the anti smacking campaign's website with further information.

OP posts:
Original poster
Hulababy · 10/07/2004 23:32

Sorry - this is the BBC update

OP posts:
GeorginaA · 10/07/2004 23:44

I'm in two minds about this. Well ... maybe 5 or 6 minds!

On the one hand, I do think that anything that helps tackle child abuse is a good thing. On the other, this law is in danger of criminalising otherwise perfectly good parents (see Piffle's example, or a nail catches the hand of the child when giving a slight tap, or an older child decides to stir by declaring loudly "my mum smacked me with a hairbrush" when mum did no such thing). Then there's the fact that existing laws aren't being used effectively to prevent children being beaten up (Victoria Climbie anyone?) Then there's that bloke on the radio dh was telling me about who was saying something along the lines of "well we won't bother prosecuting anyway, don't worry" - THEN WHY THE FUCK BOTHER?! Then there's the vague suspicion I have that it's just yet another nanny state law to delve into the minutae of all our lives and tell us how to live them again.

I still think the more effective way to reduce smacking is to provide more support for parents and to provide more education on alternative methods of parent/child communication.

Oh, and can there be a law to prevent my child hitting me please?! I think I can claim at least 4 of those 5 conditions meeting the ban...

sis · 10/07/2004 23:47

I am dissapponted that smacked isn't banned outright but I am glad that they have introduced this change. Surely, the fact that there are so many grey areas in the new provisions will mean that many parents will question whether the smack they have just given or are about to give will break the law and hopefully, they will err on the side of caution and so, very, very, very slowly, we may just get the change in outlook by society as a wholeso that smacking children is not accepted as 'just another tool' for parents to use in disciplining their children.

I am sure it will take many years (decades, probably ) before smacking can be banned without causing an uproar but I think that this law is a move in the right direction.

ScummyMummy · 11/07/2004 00:07

fudge

Original poster
Hulababy · 11/07/2004 00:21

smacking laws in other countries

It would appear that we are quite different to many other European countries in that we don't have any form of ban.

I realise that I haven't really done much of the debate on here and merely posted links, etc. I guess as I don't smack and have no intention to do so, I feel that these laws will not affect me a great deal. I really doubt that parents who have a minor smack for some drastic reason - as examples stated in various places/sites - are not going to get into loads of trouble, and at the most may get a warning to remind them.

I would however link to think that some form of law may help at least one child out there and make more people think before they hit out.i really do agree that people need educating about alternatve forms of punishment. I think programmes like the BBC Little Angels do help a bit but probably the people who need to see it don't watch. But where would this take place - school? parenting classes before or after birth? I think an education programme should go hand in hand with any law changes.

OP posts:
prettycandles · 11/07/2004 00:29

I want it to be against the law to harm a child, but the laws we have now aren't adequately implemented in any case. Is it stated anywhere that ABH cannot be inflicted upon a child by their parent? Isn't it ABH no matter who inflicted it upon whom? On the other hand, I believe that as a parent I have the right to discipline my child (which right it is now accepted that husbands do not have over their wives) and I do not appreciate the Nanny State interfering with that.

However, I do not hit my children - God knows I've come close, but never have done and hope never to do so. I've got the education and resources to be aware of alternatives and to be able to look for help. Not everyone does, and, quite frankly, I do wonder whether the sort of parents who would smack their child 'excessively' (another can of worms) would bother to consider the legality or repercusions of their actions.

This compromise is unworkable, but I would not support an outright ban.

eddm · 11/07/2004 00:33

I wonder what stats they have to back up the claim that reasonable chastisement is used as a defence by child abusers? Maybe it is, but surprised I haven't seen any figures quoted if that is the case.
Personally I support a ban as long as it doesn't criminalise the use of proportionate physical force to remove a child from immediate danger i.e. running into the road. The arguments used to support a husband's right to beat his wife were exactly the same yet we'd all agree wife- (or partner- or any other adult) beating is wrong today.

eddm · 11/07/2004 00:36

Oops hadn't read thread thoroughly before my post, Hula already made the point about wife-beating.

leander · 11/07/2004 00:36

I dont think that a ban on smacking will make that much difference to some people. If they are evil enough to smack their child so hard that it injures them, or beat them then they're are not going to take much notice of the law.
I am not totally against smacking, if my ds is extremely naughty then he will get a light tap on the hand or bottom but everyone has their own brand of punishment.

prettycandles · 11/07/2004 00:42

I'm sure that some child abusers justify their actions as reasonable chastisement - but would a specific law make any difference to them? Call me a cynic, but I doubt it.

Any legal minds out there? Cannot the laws that already protect the rest of us against physical assault be applied to children hit by their parents?

Swipe left for the next trending thread