Mother followed home by plain clothes policeman for threatening to smack her child in a supermarket!

[wheelsonthebus]

Extraordinary.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkou t.html

erm, because some parents are nasty alchoholc scum, would it be right to follow them home because they bought a bottle of whiskey like the one they bought the week before?

that's a daft analogy. A bottle of whisky isn't illegal, a "good hiding" is. And rightly so.

If I'd heard 'i'll give you a good hiding like the one you had earlier' I'd assume they had been smacked earlier. It certainly wouldn't sound ominous to me because as I said I heard it frequently as a child and it didn't mean anything sinister.

Yes dutchmanswife but you weren't there. You didn't hear how it was said. The officer did.

I see so many threads on here like...

I was shopping today and the woman in front of me's two children were just playing normally, messing about. The mother turned round and screamed/hissed/shouted 'I'll give you a good hiding like the one you had earlier'. The youngest, around 4, looked terrified. Had tears in her eyes, sat frozen in silence. The eldest looked equally frightened. I felt so useless.

And what are the responses? I wish in situations like that that a social worker/off duty officer was there to hear it. Oh God those poor children. Goodness only knows what was waiting for them.

Hurrah that in this case those children were fine.

I too wish somebody had stepped in when they heard my Dad threatened. Might have saved a lifetime of depression and self harm caused by a childhood of abuse.

If I heard anyone under the age of, say, 40, using the expression "a good hiding" I would be concerned. It's not an expression in common use nowadays, is it?

erm, lets just point out something odd - if she'd smacked him there and then, there wouldn't have been an investigation.
she'd have done something legal in a public place.

she didn't smack him- she threatened him. this apparently was worthy of investigation.

seem odd to anyone else?

Nope.

Show of Hands - both yours and my view of 'a good hiding' is subjective. I didn't have an abusive childhood so I don't hear anything sinister. I am 42, so maybe my age does have a part to play. Maybe the expression was more common when I was a child.

No, it doesn't seem odd. If she had gone beyond "reasonable" in the public smacking she could have been charged with assault. What she said and how she said it and how her children reacted gave the police officer cause for concern and it was investigated.

Why are people automatically on this woman's side?

I don't think people are automatically on her side but the story does raise some questions.

1. If the police officer was so concerned why did he not intervene straight away?

1. If the police officer felt they were at risk why did the authorities wait 6 weeks?

1. If an investigation found no problems within the home why is her name to be held on record.

No my view is not subjective in this instance, it's wholly objective. I acknowledge that it could be harmless joking but it could be something more sinister. I didn't have an abusive childhood btw. Was the happiest time, never a raised voice in fact. It depends upon how it was said and the reaction it caused. We didn't hear this. The officer did. And that officer saw something of concern.

Apologies Show of Hands - I read your post wrong. I read it was you not your dad. Hope I read it right this time.

1. I do not know and there's no way of knowing

1. They contacted her after 6 weeks. This doesn't mean they were sitting around twiddling their thumbs in the interim period.

1. This has been answered several times throughout the thread. You keep all records or none. You can't have it both ways. Abuse isn't always caught the first time even though there are warning signs. The record provides a history and a case in those terrible cases where there is abuse happening. If there is no abuse then it's irrelevant but on the chance that there is something happening then of course it's recorded, otherwise people would be on hear querying why there is no record of investigation in cases that have had the worst case outcome.

here apologies

had concerns.
were proved to be negative.
yet the woman still has this taint to her record. and questions could be asked, if her child later has what could be a normal accident, she will be looked at in a different light to say one of you, who has never had this on your record.

Yes, my Dad but don't worry about the misread. He received many hidings. He has the scars and poorly set broken bones to remind him of it.

The records should show that concerns, investigation, completely unsubstantiated and that the mother has been .... relieved of all ...
Should show that she is free of ...
Is that the way it does work, in reality ?

Why should records show she has been cleared of anything? She obviously hits her children, so it's just a matter of degree.

She hits them 'as a last resort' and 'about 3 times a year', but had already hit her son that day for arguing with his sister? Hardly the crime of the century.

If one of her children subsequently turned up in hospital looking like they'd had 'a good hiding', I'd like to think that the previous threat would be considered, when the child looked nervous and said they'd fallen down the stairs.

she hasn't done anything illegal.
As they would have investigated, under the duty of care to the children, if they thought the children were at risk, or in danger.
It must have been proved that the children were not in danger, or else this would have escalated.
Thus, she should be cleared of everything.

and yet when you see badly-behaved children in public, the newspapers always blame the parents...

It's no wonder teenagers often have no respect for adults - they know that anyone who dares to look at them a bit funny will be investigated to within an inch of their lives and have their names kept on record.

Unless the person who looks at them a bit funny happens to be a police officer, then they'll have their DNA taken and put on file for ever, even if there is no crime, let alone being found innocent. Like any other walk of life, you get good, bad and indifferent police officers.

Heathen, smacking is not (yet) illegal.

Heather what do you think should be noted on her file ?
Assault ? Neglect ? Child at Risk ? Child in danger ?
Mother smacks ? You do know thats not illegal, don't you ?
Bad parenting ?
What do you think should be recorded on her file ?
What are you charging her with ?

Lol at "setting moral boundaries". I will hit you if you don't do what I want you to do. Daft.

I'm not suggesting charging her with anything. I assume they have some sort of child protection system that flags up incidents like this, in case something untoward does happen to the child.

Slightly facetious example, but if someone overheard my husband threatening to kill me in a supermarket, and I later turned up dead, I'd like to think the earlier threat wouldn't be dismissed as him having a bad day...

Re: setting moral boundaries; If she'd said 'Do that again and there'll be no TV for a week' we wouldn't be here having this debate, would we. And the Mail would've had to run with some actual news on its front page...