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 )!

Jools Too, you keep saying it won't work and that a law cannot prevent abuse...but in Sweden there has demonstrably been a change and abuse has been reduced and so have child deaths. So the argument a change in the law would be ineffective against 'real' abuse clearly isn't a very good one, surely?

And I can't wait for a smoking ban either. Long overdue IMO!

Point taken MariaL and I still don't condone what the guy did, it's just that I wouldn't like to have been the whistleblowing witness.

I did witness something once that made me feel uncomfortable. It made me think should I say something and cause a mega scene? In the end I didn't because in weighing up all the scenarios if I had it would have blown something perfectly innocent out of all proportion with dreadful after effects.

And whilst I did not say anything in this case I would if I genuinely thought something was amiss.

The Bill is about giving the right message and is the first step in the long process to educate parents into not smacking their children. Private schools were still allowed to administer corporal punishment till about 1995 for goodness sake, even though it had been banned in the state system some years earlier. The message has to be the right one to start with, problems like how to enforce are second. It's about creating a different climate.

I have not had time to read the whole of this thred but would like to add my views. I have smacked dd's hand away from fires, cookers, hot cups at friends houses that are not child proof. She is a very intelligent child and can be extremly wilfull and although we can reason with her, now that she is nearly three, this does not always work. If she is doing something wrong which could result in harm to herself or someone else she is given three distinct warnings and then if her behaviour does not improve she is punished either with time out, a withdrawal of the tv or her toys or a smack on the hand. the punishment depends on the severity of the behavior. DD knows that she is very much loved but she is also learinig to behave appropriatly. I have not had to smack for three months the simple threat of this action is now sufficient to stop unwelcome behaviour. However as with treats, if you tell a child you are going to do something you should do it so i cannot say that i will never smack her again. There is a huge difference between a corrective smack and beating a child. DH would never smack, not because he does not agree with it as a punishment but because he belives that as a man he does not allways realise his own strength and that therefore it is unacceptable for a man to smack a child he belives that should be left to mum as we are more aware of or strength. I know a lot of people do not agree with my views but then if we were all the same life would be boring. The goverment should not be intruding on home life, if you have a system of punishment and reward that works well for you and your family and does not cause great distress or harm for your individual child you should be able to run with it. The bottom line is i feel that smacking is ok in certain circumstances as long as the child is reassurued and is never allowed to forget that you love them very much.

I was smacked in private as well as in public, Caligula, as a child, and I can remember being deeply humiliated in either setting. I was also afraid of my mother's temper - even at a young age, I knew she was lashing out. I love my mum very much and have lots of respect for how she dealt with her own atrocious upbringing but as far as I can I am breaking the chain of hard smacks for small children in my family as of when my two were born.
I am following Cam round like a nodding dog agreeing with everything she says (and others too). This Bill is about starting to change opinion. Noel Edmunds might attend the opening of a paper bag to get publicity, but if the NSPCC and so many other agencies involved in children's protection are behind Children are Unbeatable, then that's good enough for me.
Controlling tobacco use in public places and in the presence of children has been mentioned here as a more legitimate child protection issue. I worked for a number of years in the field of international tobacco control and there is demonstrable evidence of initiatives to reduce smoking initially being derided as "nanny state intervention", before being cautiously accepted and finally embraced. The process can take years. It did in Australia, Sweden, Canada and NZ. It is starting to happen in the UK. Everyone said they'd have trouble making public places smokefree in Eire...can't be done...but it has been a roaring success. Where Dublin leads, we will follow, I hope.
I think legislation explicitly forbidding violence against children will happen. IMO it's one of the cornerstones of a civilised society.

just say i was shocked to find out Labour MP's were ordered not to vote for a total ban

Joolstoo-after a scene I witnessed in Claire's Accesories I wish they would ban piercings for babies. DD used to enjoy going in for a look a girly rubbish but now won't look in the window because "that's where they hurt babies"

I was mightily heartened by the discussion on Question Time last night - common sense still prevails. Only one 'pro Bill' - a young man of about 20 with no children(!) - oh and woman who thought the Bill had been passed!

And there I leave the thread I started - VERY interesting discussion - I'll just have to agree to disagree with some of you on this one! Thanks for the debate - nice that it hasn't descended into the usual fracas these emotive subjects can cause.

I will come back to read any more posts - but I don't see the point of commenting anymore - I haven't read anything here that has changed my mind - its always going to be a divisive subject. As far as I'm concerned Parliament should be spending more time trying to come up with a decent solution to dealing with paedophiles (scum of the earth imho ) - that?s a far more pressing issue than trying to stop parents 'smacking' their kids!

I think that if smacking is to be banned, then there should be provision to teach parents other parenting strategies. Any loss of control, be it smacking or shouting, is bad news and potentially damaging for all concerned. I had a very wilful first child who had lots of tantrums and I had little experience of managing children. I must admit I smacked him on occasion (never hard) - but it made no difference to his behaviour. I also put him on time out on numerous occasions and for every time I smacked him there were 100s of times that I patiently put a kicking and screaming child into time out and listened to sometimes up to an hr of him screaming. I no longer smack him and I don't smack my younger son (now 2) either but it has taken me 5 years to build up experience and confidence in my parenting. One of the childcare experts (I think Dr Christopher Green) says that smacking an average/easy child might make a difference but so will other measures (so what's the point in smacking), and smacking a difficult child will make no difference and will damage both parties and the relationship between the parent and the child in the long run. I think this is true and I think that people need more support to be assertive rather than aggressive with their children. A straight smacking ban might go some way to helping but it doesn't give parents the next step.

do you know what the next step is arcadio? anti-smacking and genuinely interested in alternatives...give me the benefit of your experience???

Joolstoo - I couldn't agree with you more. This has been a good debate without any mudslinging. Ladies I thank you but must bid you good night. I've had a fraught day, I'm knackered and at 28 weeks pregnant, fed up trying not to wee myself when I sneeze. So I'm off to get into my hideously large smock frock, hillwalking socks and unattractive woolly jumper and vegetate in front of the TV for a whiley!

V. interesting debate this one (and no flouncing too - there's an achievement!).

I can see all sides of this one. I was 'smacked' occasionally and think nothing of it - my parents were always told how well behaved we all were in public and we have not grown up to be violent delinquents. We are also the closest family I know - hugs and kisses every time we greet, family holidays with parents and brothers even though now grown up. OTOH, I avoid it as much as possible with my own ds's as I don't really like doing it and recognise that if it's done all the time it will just become ineffective. I've done it when it really has been the only thing left to do OR if the circumstance requires a sharp shock (like running into the road or something equally dangerous).

IMO, like others have said, there are many other things I personally consider to be far more abusive but that in noone tries to intervene - piercing ears of small children for one, smoking around children and leaving a screaming 6 month old baby in day care (sorry, it's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it).

sees last message and runs away from thread .......

Sorry, feel I've come across a bit OTT there - I don't think those things are 'abusive' but just don't, personally, agree with them but at the same time would try not to judge someone for doing them. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a 'smack' (ie tap on hand on bottom) for me is no worse than ear piercing, smoking in public, leaving a clearly unhappy baby at nursery (and I stress, baby).

Probably digging myself a deeper hole and people made the point far better than I did earlier in the thread.

Sophable:re experience/smacking alternatives, all I can say from my own experience, is that there is a lot to be said for keeping calm. I am a naturally impatient person, but I have had to employ lots of techniques to keep myself calm. These range from simply counting to 10 to making provision in my life for more relaxation and 'me' time (and sleep!).

To be honest, sleep is and was the biggest issue for my family. I am capable of dealing with my children in a sensible and assertive manner when I have slept properly, so teaching the kids to sleep properly (so that I can sleep) is something I made a priority after my (now 5 yr old) eldest turned 3 and I realised he hadn't slept through the night ever!

That old chestnut - look after yourself and you can look after them. Be assertive and consistent in all you do with the kids and make sure everyone knows the score. Easier said than done eh....

Absolutely right Arcadio - much easier to handle difficult situations after a proper night sleep. But how do you get them to do that without 'evil' controlled crying?

I don't have an answer for that. Controlled crying worked quite well for my second (now 2) - we only had to do it 3 nts, so it didn't seem too evil, and he was sleeping through (we did that at 10 mths).

Our experience with my eldest was, on the other hand, quite evil (for us as well as for him). He got sick so many times in his first yr (from the nursery he was in) that it just didn't work. He was (is) also a much more wilful child, who perfected the art of vomiting to order within 90 seconds of my leaving his bedroom. So when he was about 15 mths we completely abandoned any attempt to control 'cry' him. When he was three we tried another version of control -also Richard Ferbrer -which involved leaving the door open if he was good and didn't get out of bed, and shutting it if he wasn't. That worked a bit and a star chart worked a bit as well. But by that time I was also working less hrs so he was responding better to me anyway.

So I don't really know how you get babies to sleep without control crying (or control something or other) at some stage. Some people can manage it on consistent routine. Again something I was reluctant to do first time round, but second time became keen on, was keeping bedtimes and naptimes and mealtimes the same every day, which also probably helped the night time sleeping (for both children).

Arcadio, I agree with you!! Used it for ds1 and worked in just 3 nights. Haven't needed to use it for ds2 or ds3 because I've probably used a feeding and nap time routine from much earlier on.

Just that on another thread today there's an article about how children can apparently be psychologically damaged by 'some methods' of parenting and GF/controlled crying was an example.

However, the people who agree with that probably also feel smacking is wrong and what I'm saying is that I agree with you that you can avoid smacking much easier if you're refreshed and awake! BUT, how do you get like that without routines and methods of getting difficult sleepers to finally sleep through?!?!?

Couldn't agree more, Gobbledigook. I wish that all the issues you raised (and more) attracted the same publicity as the smacking issue, and aroused the same emotions.

you sit and watch your child sleep you comfort them and they learn - controlled crying is not necessary unless you need a quick method of doing it and can cope with making your child crying - Obviously I am anti smacking as well

But I tried sitting with them and they just stay wide awake for an age. Leaving them for 2 mins and going back, leaving for another 2 mins and going back really wasn't that bad and it only took 3 nights - hardly causing any long term psychological damage.

What about leaving an upset baby at day nursery - is that OK?

DD has just gone to sleep in my arms with no feeding, no rocking, no cc. She does "moan" before going to sleep though and it sounds awful but I know she's tired and will go to sleep quickly.
I know that wont work for every child though.

She will though probably wake up in the night. Havent sussed that bit out yet but as cosleeping I dont get up.

Who has left an upset baby at nursery?

hercules when she goe in her bed it takes about a week of getting up if tehy wake upuntil tehy get used to it all - I don;t know think a point was trying to be made,