Anti-Smackers Wanted

[Xenia]

As a long term lobbyist against smacking children, spanking, slapping, etc etc whether a "little tap" or anything, I know there are lots of anti-smackers on Mumsnet too.

If you do share that view then respond to this consultation
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/definition-domestic-violence/dv-definition-consultation?view=Binary

on that issue - where it talks about violence against those under 18 there is no reason at all why the bill (which in some aspects I do not accept which is why I happened to be looking at it) should not be a great vehicle to get all smacking banned, not just smacking which leaves a mark which is the current ridiculous English law and is a typical British fudge.

You can respond direct to the consultation and/or ask your MP to take a particular stance on it.

On the other proposals in the consultation I would be against legal changes as there is too much scope for abuse of the proposed new law.

"parent taken off by th police led away from the house while ss interview the child and fishing for some deeper family scandal"

I have been investigated by SS in this country (for unfounded suspicions): it certainly didn't involve anything as dramatic as this. No policemen, no one being led away from anywhere.

I am afraid I don't get your logic, maypole

you think the inevitable result of an anti-smacking law would be that "a lot of loved children will end up either being removed or parents with criminal records"

and in support of this you argue that: "in the uk as it stands the threshold for removing a child is so low even know drug addicts are able to keep hold of their children"

so because not enough children are removed, the result of a new law will be that even more children are removed

At the moment the Children Act 2004 58 Reasonable punishment says that as long as there is no actual bodily harm the parent is not breaking the law. If the parent smacked their employee or husband or wife in the same way they would break the law. We allow physical violence against children in the UK in a way many other states do not.

The NSPCC rightly wants it banned as does the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists. It breaches the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by failing to provide children with
equal protection under the law on common assault.

The may many mumsnetters smack their children does in fact break the law and the more we can get chidlren to upload covert videos of it the more quickly we can break the cycle and make these silly parents who talk about the running into roads incidents start behaving like civilised adults.

This new consultation could be a good chance to ensure children are protected as well under the law as adults are. At the moment the British don't do that. Indeed we've never much liked children, give much more to animal charities than children etc. We need to improve attitudes. I always make sure if I see a parent assault a child in public that they realise this is very bad and not condoned by most of us. The more that we make this clear to the smackers the better. Shame on them.

I agree with Xenia, motherinferior, cory, Tyr etc.

When the CPS considers whether or not to prosecute someone, they decide whether or not it is in the public interest.
That is why is virtually unknown for a 15 year-old boy (for example) to be prosecuted in this country for having (consensual) sexual relations with a 15 year-old girl, even though she is under the legal age of consent and he is therefore breaking the law.
An otherwise half-decent parent accused of assaulting (smacking) their child would almost certainly NOT be prosecuted because it would not be in the public interest for that to happen.
So the argument that a law banning smacking per se would be a useful means of encouraging parents to try and find an alternative (and often more effective) method of disciplining their child is a good one.

There are loads of studies that show, time and time again, that physical forms of chastisement are not very effective at teaching a child right from wrong. Pretty good at teaching about shame and humiliation, though. And that the person you love most in the world can raise a hand against you if they want.
Don't take my word for it. Do some Googling.

What are we really teaching our kids if we smack them?

So, the 2 year-old who was smacked for running into the road now understands that roads are dangerous and they should be careful when near one.
Uh-huh.
So that 2 year old could now be trusted to walk next to a busy road unsupervised because a smack has taught them the error of their ways...?
No. They've learned to be afraid of what Mummy will do to them in that situation.
I agree, better that than the child being run over by a car.
But I also think there are non-violent ways of teaching a child about busy roads. And at the age of 2, is their toddler lack of self-control entirely to blame for their actions, or is more adult supervision needed? Is it age-appropriate to expect them to understand about the dangers of roads at 2?

I'm not having a go at you specifically, Molly. I just wanted to take issue with the example of a dangerous situation being a suitable case for smacking. I don't happen to think it is.

All this talk of tapping hands and running into roads is making my skin crawl.

I honestly do try to see all sides of debates such as these. However, in this instance I can't get my head around why so many people think hitting your child is an ok way to enforce discipline.

Maybe it is an effective way to enforce discipline and teach them a lesson. But that doesn't make it right. My puppy would probably have been house trained quicker if I hit him- but I am not cruel do I did it the longer humane way. My trainee would probably have learned his trade faster if u smacked him when he wasn't listening- but I didn't.....

There aren't any excuses for this type of lesson or discipline.

Makes me feel queasy......

Sorry, I meant so not do.

Immaculada- I think your last post was absolutely spot on, couldn't agree more.

I agree with Xenia et al. I don't understand why smacking is ever ok.

If children aren't going to be removed by SS after being smacked, what will the punishment be? Because a law against something isn't enough, you need a punishment for that law as well.

I happen to like the current British fudge (despite being against smacking) because something that leaves a mark is abuse, whereas a short sharp smack to shock a child (possibly doing something dangerous) is more reasonable. I never intend to smack though.

I with you Xenia, et al.

I am vehemently anti-hitting (and I refuse to soften it by using a euphemism; smacking = hitting).

It is lazy & abusive parenting and I can't wait for the law to change.

Not sure why you single me out there Maypole, I was very restrained on the subject. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to raise their children, but will never, ever approve of using violence on a child to teach them a lesson. Counter intuitive and frankly a slightly odd misuse of power...in my opinion of course. Which is what everyone is sharing is it not?

Sorry to labour the point but I don't understand the stance that several posters have taken that a smack may be required when a child has done something dangerous. Why is a smack seen by some as a good way of dealing with this?

It has no logic at all which is why I churned it out in my very first post. It's al laughable comment used by those of small brain. Toddlers are implusive. If you dont' hold their hands near roads you are being very silly. The fact you may have caused them pain and suffering 2 weeks ago when by a road and they ran into it does not stop them running into it again. They just don't have the brains to remember it. However they will remember that the person who loves them hurts them and that it is right to use violence.

Also either the smacker is very cross, smacked the child and wished they hadn't which isn't very good conduct or else which to my mind is much much worse, thinks that the calm parent inflicting the slap is some kind of moral god and doing it because it is good for the child which seems even sinister and of course many of us regard it as abusive.

What I would like to see is childline or NSPCC encouraging children to film parents engaged in these tactics and then put them up on youtube to shame them. Let's have a web site showing all the smackers - like that film of the teenage girl she made in the US.

Watch this

The girl waited 5 years until she'd left home and then put it up on the internet. Her father is a judge. He reckons his conduct is fine. Presumably the mumsnetters who are smacking their toddlers for running into the road think it's fine too. I'd prefer to have put up some footage of a typical mumsnetter giving one of these slaps which is so hard the toddler remembers and stops mis bheaving but apparently is not so hard it does not amount to actual bodily harm. It must be very hard for them to judge the strength of their blow.

What I would like to see is more support and help for parents actually. xenia apologies for bad form, but you speak openly and freely on practically every other thread about buying in help with parenting, which enables you to have the breathing space to parent and work effectively. Many other people aren't in that position. Maybe you could focus some of your energies on increasing the amount of practical help available to parents?

Xenia "make these silly parents who talk about the running into roads incidents start behaving like civilised adults."

What? Silly for wanting to stop my kid getting himself killed?

Immaculada - "So that 2 year old could now be trusted to walk next to a busy road unsupervised because a smack has taught them the error of their ways...?
No. They've learned to be afraid of what Mummy will do to them in that situation.
I agree, better that than the child being run over by a car.
But I also think there are non-violent ways of teaching a child about busy roads. And at the age of 2, is their toddler lack of self-control entirely to blame for their actions, or is more adult supervision needed? Is it age-appropriate to expect them to understand about the dangers of roads at 2?

I'm not having a go at you specifically, Molly. I just wanted to take issue with the example of a dangerous situation being a suitable case for smacking. I don't happen to think it is."

No I dont trust him totally near a road, but I trust him alot more than I did. And tbh if he was afraid of what I might do in that situation again for the next year or whenever until he really understands and appreciates that he cant just run into a busy road, well, better that than bury my kid. As it happens though he isnt scared of me in that situation, he just learned that he cant just run into the road .

And at the age of 2 my boys (keyword being my) lack of self control is to blame unfortunately. Hewent through a phase where having me tell him off was a hoot so I could not risk him doing that particular thing again. I have nothing to say about the lack of supervision comment, im sure you know really that it only takes a split second for something like this to happen, sadly

If we are talking about cases where smacking is suitable, I happen to think a boisterious 2 year old who at the time didnt want to be listen to why he shouldnt do that and thinking its hiliarious to nearly get himself killed is a bloody great one. I still get a chill down my spine when I remember those two instances, nothing like seeing a car miss your kid by a foot to put a little smack to prevent him doing it again into perspective.

Xenia - 2It has no logic at all which is why I churned it out in my very first post. It's al laughable comment used by those of small brain. Toddlers are implusive. If you dont' hold their hands near roads you are being very silly. The fact you may have caused them pain and suffering 2 weeks ago when by a road and they ran into it does not stop them running into it again. They just don't have the brains to remember it. However they will remember that the person who loves them hurts them and that it is right to use violence."

I did hold his hand, he broke free. And youre right about the pain and suffering, that sausage roll went right throgh his system.

Also Xenia - I see you have linked to a youtube vid if thats the one Im thinking of then no I think his bevhaviour is totally disgusting and is not the same as what I have referred to, not the same at all. I can only come to the conclusion that you havent actually seen that video.

I understand where the likes of the non smackers are coming from. Equally I would say be careful what you wish for.

I am a parent who likes my children to be happy and loved as do most parents. However, I am not a patient person, I cannot afford to waste time talking to my children so their eyes glaze over with boredom.

Not all parents are alike, there are those that spend hours gazing and talking to their kids and there are those, like me that spend loads of time working and really treasure the time with their kids. I don't want a day spoilt by gazing and talking, if someone did wrong, really wrong, they got a smacked bottom and that was it. However, this was when they were younger.

Now it's even worse, my 8 year old, who knows the signs, can outrun my slipper even whilst laughing, gets sent to his bedroom. I don't like this at all either but I am not going to be bullied by my kids ever.

If you don't teach your kids right/wrong, they will not get it. You might be a perfect parent who has the time sit, listen, communicate etc but in my household, we have tried the sitting listening and we all got bored. Much better having good family time in my opinion.

Thus proving the smacking didn't work then...

...or that the kid would be even worse if it werent for the occasional slipper. Who knows but the kids own parent

Good grief, you smack your child, with a slipper because you can't be arsed to find a way to sit down and reason with them?

So: Good reasons for hitting children:

1. Some people rape and murder them so what's a wee loving hit?
2. It's a bit boring talking to them and not hitting them.

So if smacking is essential to keep a small child safe, why is it that the number of children killed in accidents doesn't rise dramatically (or indeed at all) in countries that ban smacking?

And MrsCrafty, may I venture to suggest that "talking until their eyes glaze over with boredom" isn't the only way of telling a child off? Have you ever seen a really good teacher, the kind that the children love but would never cheek? Teachers are not allowed to use smacking and they can't take time off from the rest of the class to talk until eyes glaze over with boredom; they have to work on developing a kind of firmness and authority.

What I found in Sweden with the smacking ban was that it made more people realise that this was what they had to be aiming at. To be firm (but kind) from the start, to foresee a situation that might turn difficult and pre-empt it, to be firm and consistent. They had to up their game as parents- and not a bad thing either.

What I would hope from a smacking ban would be to see fewer scenes like the ones that are a standard feature on public transport around here: parent gets on with child, sits at other end of bus from child, does not interact or pay any attention to child, child starts playing up, parent shouts at child to stop it or they'll get a smack, child either ignores parent or bursts into tears, parent moves up the bus and smacks child, 5 minutes later child is defiant and starts playing up again, repeat ad infinitum.

Funnily enough, I never seem to see that kind of scene played out on the Gothenburg trams or buses (and I spend a fair amount of time on them). Parents know they can't get away with it, so they have think ahead about how they interact their children from the very start of the journey.

Finds it slightly annoying that anti smackers show a clip of someone getting assaulted and equate that to a smack? Wtf.

I think Xenia's analogy with beating adults is a very good one. Years ago, it was standard practice for employers to keep farmhands and other employees in order by physically chastising them if they were lazy or non-cooperative. There was no need to develop any kind of managing skills because a fist would do it,

If you had put it to a boss in those days that this should not be allowed, he would no doubt have pointed out that an employee who does not follow instructions is putting everybody into danger, that a short sharp shock is better than endless lectures, that they didn't have a lot of patience (and didn't see why they should have to develop it), that their farmhand worked harder after having had his ears slapped, that no outsiders had the right to judge others on how they treated their employees. And no doubt all these arguments would seem perfectly reasonable to the person proposing them. But we still managed to ban the practice, employers have simply had to take the trouble to develop different managing skills.

Cory "So if smacking is essential to keep a small child safe, why is it that the number of children killed in accidents doesn't rise dramatically (or indeed at all) in countries that ban smacking? "

I dont actually think it is essential to keep children (plural) safe, but for an individual child (singular) it may well be the only thing that works. On that note Cory do you have any stats that back your claim up?

Right here is the reason why 'antis' and 'pro's' will never meet common ground - in debates over smacking the 'antis' talk about children whereas the ones who have had to use smacking as a last and final resort are only concerned with their child and dont presume to tell anyone else that they are wrong.

FWIW I dont actually agree with smacking if the child has been naughty, I only think its 'ok' where the child has deliberately put themselves in danger and reasoning hasnt worked, but I would never tell another parent they are wrong unless I thought the child is in danger