Beware - could be contentious - Smacking Bill - For or Against?

[JoolsToo]

They're trying to get a Bill through Parliament today to outlaw smacking altogether in Britain.

Your views anyone.

fyi - I'm agin it (the Bill not smacking) (oh what a surprise )!

It worked for my ds in that it stopped him doing whatever it was, quickly and without major distress. He was always warned in advance (unless it was a safety issue) but if he persisted, the threat had to be followed through. Being sent to the hallway/stairs WOULD have caused prolonged distress and would have spoiled precious time for both ds and me (or dh with ds). A quick tap... shock.... stop.... get on with enjoying ourselves....

To use a (slightly off the wall) grown up analogy - in your teens you might go to the cinema with a guy who you considered to be a good friend but no more. You are enjoying the film... but then his hand slips down on to your boob. You smack it away - but don't want it to spoil the friendship ... he just got the wrong idea, you put him right, incident over. He "did" something "wrong" - you "punished" him - but didn't hurt him.... back to being friends (you hope! )

I NEVER smacked ds out of anger. I may have shouted at him occasionally out of frustration (I AM human ) - but those are exactly the occasions when a smack would NOT have been appropriate, as it would have been to relive my own feelings rather than to resolve a situation.

There ARE times when I may have hurt ds - but not because I was smacking him. Holding on to his hand REALLY tightly, because he keeps on running away in a big shop for example.

BTW - I think I can count on one hand the number of times I have "smacked" ds.

am also against nanny state, but surely it's the state's responsibility to legislate for the most vulnerable in society...eg your child's teacher/childminder cannot hit your child and there are procedures in place if a medical professional sees a pattern of non-accidental injuries in eg A&E.

prettybird, but surely talking is a much more effective means of communicating a don't do that message than tapping...(eg I don't want you to do that now/ever is much more specific than a tap which can be misinterpreted and doesn't help the child to try and develop an understanding of situations, just a boring - after a while - smack whenever something goes wrong..)

(prettybird this is not specifically against you, it's one rather than you )

... yes, but in a cinema you don't get the chance to talk, unless you want to piss everyone else off and spoil your current enjoyment! That's partly why I used that analogy (plus personal experience! )

And anyway, that is EAXACTLY the point - you CAN'T have a conversation with an under 3 year old (my ds was a late talker!) And I only ever used it sparingly, so it never became "boring" - more shocking in its rareness. But ds was/is a generally very well behaved boy anyway

Bundle, can I just ask how you talk to and reason with a 2 year old? I would agree that a tap on the hand is sometimes relevant (just the same as sometimes it's not).

I would also agree with prettybird - I've seen a number of kids dragged up by their arms by parents in supermarkets. Does this mean they should bring out legislation as to hold we should hold our childs hands?

I think they should put more effort into protecting abused children, rather than this 'smacking' bill.

A quick tap, stop, shock, then where is the lesson learnt? More time to spend with DS where he is not distressed. Seems to me like you need to take more time to explain to your child what he is doing wrong rather than hit him and then get on like nothing has happened. What does he learn from that if there is no reasoning just a physical consequence? Violence breeds violence, then how do you react when you see your child hitting another, by hitting them? As adults we can be penalised for hitting other adults so why shouldn't children be offered the same protection, there is no such thing as a reasonable level of smacking, do we say to our kids it is okay for you to smack so and so as long as you don't do it hard? Am not ducking as I strongly believe what i am saying, I don't want to argue as you couldn't possibly change my mind....sorry!

well I talk to - and try to reason with - my 2 year old. The idea of smacking her makes me feel physically sick.

my 18 mth old knows when she's done something wrong, and I say NO. Mine have had tantrums too but smacking would have just made the whole thing worse, i know it would. we teach our children by example and i don't want mine learning to hit people from me hitting them. even late talkers understand no.

Oops - forgot to add that the smack was always for a clearly defined reason and well warned in advance, so he knew waht it was for (contrary to my cinema analogy) - and NEVER for "just being naughty" or after the incident.

I'm against smacking, but have smacked my own when absolutely necessary. By smack I mean a tap on the hand when they are in a dangerous situation or when nothing else has worked.

Making smacking illegal won't protect children from abuse. Parents that abuse will do it, and do it whether its against the law or not.

My understanding is that the current bill (with the "Lester amendment") does not amount to a total ban on smacking. Quote from this morning's press briefing:

Asked if the Prime Minister would be voting on the "smacking bill", the PMOS said that he wasn't aware whether the Prime Minister would vote or not. The position was, as he had said yesterday afternoon, that there would be a free vote on the Lester amendment, but the Government would vote against proposals for a complete ban. The reason for that was that the Government believed that parents should be able to discipline their children, but obviously not cross into abuse. It was the prevention of that abuse which the Government had been concerned about, without taking away the right of parents to reasonably chastise their children, within limits. Those limits were contained within the Lester amendment.

Have to say that I do oppose an outright law on smacking:- it is a step too far in the state interfering with home life. Not all children who are smacked are abused, and I would suggest that a number who aren't smack may still be being abused (though through neglect for example). Yes we need to act to prevent child abuse, but I think that there are better ways of doing this.

Whilst I think that even with the Lester amendment the bill goes too far in reducing parental rights, I can live with those proposals - smacking which results in bruising or marking is a step too far.

The most badly behaved children I know are those smacked by their parents. The parents would probably argue they are badly behaved so need to be smacked. I disagree. I think if you show respect for your child, your child will show respect for others. Smacking is disrespectful and humiliating and above all I think it just looks stupid when I see someone smack their child.

So yes, I am for a total ban on smacking enforced by law. Smacking your children should carry a criminal investigation the same way as if you smack your partner. I agree this can sadly be difficult in practise, but above all I think such a law could over time bring about a change in attitude.

I wonder why people make negative correlations between smacking and child abuse - a bill outlawing smacking is simply a bill to make smacking illegal. Hope it goes through. Trying to define which kinds of smack are abusive is pointless and irrelevant.

can i smack my husband if he asks for it? (consenting adult and all that..............)

I'm with MI's first post!

I was physically abused by my stepfather and I really think that if smacking had been illegal it would have been a lot harder for the s**t to get away with it.

Because it is a bit of a grey area I think that he felt justified as long as it didnt leave a bruise. And when he did leave a bruise he would convince me that it was my fault for bruising easier.

I know the big difference between a tap and a beating - but feel legally it would be easier to ban it all. But then I am biased

Actually FM my DS is very well-behaved and he hasn't been smacked for at least 6 months now .. but I still do not regret anything in my parenting ..I believe I'm a bloody good mum and have used a smack as I've previously explained at the end of a warning system

I have seen so-called anti-smacking parents push their child across the room or even say "I don't love you when you do that" .. IMHO that's far far worse and more akin to 'abuse' than a tap on the bottom at the end of a warning programme

I'm bowing out of this thread before it gets to the 'you're a bad parent if you smack' stage and stultifies any opportunity for debate

I'm starting to wonder if my child is just exceptionally naughty!! Yes, he does understand what 'No' means, but he doesn't always listen. Or maybe I am just a 'bad' parent!

I also think that some of the language I have seen used towards children can be far more detrimental to them, than a 'smack' on the hand or bottom.

Although I disagree with smacking as a form of discipline (or a form of anything else come to that!), I am against this bill. Parents run the risk of being accused of assault for a relatively minor tap (sometimes necessary to stop a child doing something dangerous) - and, once older children are aware of their "rights" in this respect, they can use it as a weapon agains their parents without really appreciating the awful consequences.

It's another step on the slippery slope of complete state nannydom.

It's illegal to smack in many countries. The problem I see in the UK is that the majority of parents think smacking is ok and for some reason see discipline as a private matter. It isn't. Children should have basic rights too and I believe among them the right not to be smacked.

Twiglett - as usual - I concur

anyway the Bill has been overwhelmingly defeated.