Smacking still legal

[LittleSarah]

Well

Smacking is still legal in the UK... why is it so when I know so many are against it? On mumsnet anyway? Is it such a terrible thing, or just an unfortunate disciplinary tool?

Wisteria, you know that what you did wasnt wrong and hasnt harmed them, as do I.
There is ahuge difference between using a physical reprimand and beating a child.

..and I noticed your post dragon and applauded it wholeheartedly, since I agreed with you there was no need to post - I think possibly nobody could think of a retort as there isn't one

(Although I do rescind the rights to tv for dp now and again when I've really had enough of the footie )

i'm not saying anyone is a better parent i just find it odd [and distressing] that anyone would think it is right to make someone learn through causing pain. And people are'nt always so aware, especially as young adults/older children what upset them as a child. that is why a lot of people have layers of hang ups that they need therapy to understand. I'm not saying your children will have those Wisteria. But I wouldn't assume too much.

seeker, there is a village in a land far far away, that is built around hotpools which weren't fenced. when the children are very small they dip a finger in, so they recognise that it's hot and dangerous. (well they did when i went there on a school trip many moons ago) they do remember and recognise the danger so stay away from the pools.

not suggesting we go dipping our lo's fingers into fires, boiling kettles etc... but does illustrate that children can learn danger from a young age.

I do love MN. A debate about anything can turn into a discussion of semantics.

If we were in the US, we wouldn't use the word 'smack' at all, because over there it means 'thump' or 'punch' and therefore would be inaccurate to describe most parental smacking for discipline. Over there, they say 'Spanking', which I always think has slightly ribald connotations.

IMVHO I think a small amount of discomfort is a small price to pay if it deters children from breaking the rules of your home and society. In order to create a law abiding and respectful generation of teenagers. As has been pointed out so often on this thread we are from a generation of parents who smacked and very few of us have issues with our parents and have respect for them and other members of society. We had severe consequences for our actions which I totally agree with. The number of unruely children at schools, out in restaurants and in supermarkets that I see every day, with the mother or father calmly saying 'don't do that darling' clearly suggest that talking/time out alone is not effective or the child would behave in those places.

I know I am a good parent and have no embarrassment at all, or guilt for my actions. The proof of the pudding so to speak is a daughter who I can take anywhere and not be ashamed of her poor behaviour.

i think you are very wrong. And you can't use examples of people not taking children's bad behaviour seriously as justifcation for you causing your child pain [or discomfort]. If you want to do it, you're allowed to, apparently. So tap ahead.

I will

I don't smack because I don't like it. I don't believe it's necessary or the most effective way of disciplining my children.

I really genuinely don't care if other people smack their children or not.

Odd, Wisteria, how no one who thinks that answered the question. I must say that as I typed my post I thought "actually, I can think of a couple of adults who could do with a session on the naughty step..."

I am curious though, for those who want to ban smacking, what should the penalty be?

I can understand the motivations behind wanting to ban smacking, but I haven't really seen a good dissection of the consequences...

A minute on the naughty stair for each year of their age

My dp has just pointed out that fairly often I would benefit from 34mins from it ...

I think I would look forward to 36 minutes of "time out" or "naughty step" every now and again....bliss

Parents who smack should be fined, and put on compulsory parenting classes.

People often say that children need to be smacked, because they are incapable of understanding reason. This is an absurd argument, for two reasons:

(1) Children who cannot understand reason will not be able to understand the reason for the smack, so smacking will be ineffective. If the child does understand why he/she has been smacked, then they are capable of understanding reason, and do not need to be smacked in the first place.

(2) There are many adults who are incapable of understanding reason, such as the mentally disabled, and elderly people with Alzheimer's. Why are they not smacked when they do wrong? Because it is cruel? Why then is it not equally cruel to smack a child?

And I'm sorry - but I can't get my head round smacking a less than 2 year old for tipping up her plate. Talk about disproportionate punishment........

"compulsory parenting classes" Oooh yes, because parents who occasionally smack are automatically Bad Parents whereas those who don't are Perfect.

Ban shouting.
Ban grounding
Ban the naughty step/time out
Ban sanctions

Because you don't do those to mentally disabled or elderly adults either do you?

This is my problem with banning smacking. I don't like it at all, but there are other things I dislike just as much, and which I suspect are equally as damaging.

Lots of shouting for instance (my personal bad parenting 'tool' ), or emotional blackmail ("don't do that darling, it makes mummy so sad").

If you ban one imperfect parenting 'tool', you criminalise one group of imperfect parents, while leaving the rest of us potentially smug in the knowledge that whatever we may do, we don't smack.

Am I really damaging my children less when I shout than tori32 is when she 'taps'?

I agree with seeker.
I think this whole thing about "tapping" and "smacking" and "a considered walloping" is a bit disingenous too.
in law, the seriousness of the assault is not determined by the intentions or the experiences of the person doing the assaulting but the person being assaulted.
how can you know how much it hurts the person being smacked/tapped? it might hurt a lot, or not at all.
who knows?
obviously in order to "shock" it has to be hard enough.
if you are genuinely trying to shock, then why isn't a raised voice, or a firm tone of voice, or moving the child from the situation, why aren't these things enough? why is it necessary to hit too?

Where has anyone said anything about "a considered walloping"?

I have smacked DSs but the only time they've ever expressed any distress is when I've shouted and they've begged me not to.

dragon it was a joke

Ha de ha.

oh well that's a little rude.
never mind, I am sure it was meant in a loving way.

It was a laugh

Harpsicorpse - FWIW, In English and Welsh Law the seriousness of the assault is determined by the injuries recieved (Common Assault being the lowest to which parents currently have a lawful defense), then ABH, GBH and GBH with Intent.

Parents do not have any lawful defense against causing bruising, swelling, scratches etc to their child as this would be an ABH or higher.