Should parents be allowed to SMACK their child?........ Debate on ITV ........ THIS MORNING

[RTKangaMummy]

Smacking

When John Saunders' son began playing up during a shopping trip, he told the boy to behave himself. But the little boy who had rammed a trolley into his older sister, took no notice so his father gave him a slap on the legs. But only four days later John answered a knock at his front door and was confronted by two police officers. John, discovered he was under investigation for assault after a fellow shopper reported him. John joins us today, along with Denise Robertson and Carolyne Willow from the Children's Rights Alliance who believes that there should be a total ban on smacking.

.

Heavens no MOM - was said in a jokey way.

Absolutely, completely agree Jools.

Don't want to get into another smacking debate, but as someone who was smacked, and grew up to be a well balanced, respectful adult with a fantastic relationship with her mother, I'm pig sick of being told that smacking causes lasting damage - it doesn't!!!! Look at your friends - and I defy anyone to tell my that they can tell who out of your group was smacked occasionally as a child.

That said, I think there are other ways of discipling children, but I will not be lectured or told what I can and cannot do to discipline my children by the Govt.

One final point - will all parents who do smack be prosecuted? And then what? Prison? Fines? Criminal records? Not being able to gain employment as a result? Get real.

JoolsToo you are right about a lack of discipline. It is prevalent in all aspects of society. There is a huge lack of self-discipline generally. People seem to think that they have a "right" to everything and have responsibility for nothing - including themselves. We live in a blame culture, which encourages people to look everywhere else rather than to themselves.
How can we expect to encourage our own children to be self-respecting & self-disciplining children who grow into adults with the same values, when they don't see that example lived out before their own eyes. Don't do as I do, do as I say - does not work!!!
I feel that the problems with respect and responsibility & self-esteem generally are probably far more profound than smacking.
However, I still resolutely believe that it is not necessary to smack or hit children in anyway to teach them how to be self-respecting, responsible members of society!

ok I know I said 'parp' but just had to comment on

"Don't do as I do, do as I say" - had to laugh at that - my dad said that regularly to me (usually when I was answering back! He's 84 now, bless him, I love him to bits! (he smacked me too!)

Slightly back to our primitive beginnings here, but if you've ever watched wildlife programmes, or seen animals in the wild, then just observe the way they chastise their young. They do it by walloping them with a paw. And why do they do it? because if the young animal strays beyond the boundary that young animal is likely to be killed. And generally animals live together in harmony, the society that is the animal kingdom is balanced. And while it's true that as humans we have inteligence beyond that of animals, you only have to look at human society to see how different it is without the discipline which exists in more primitive settings.

I actually believe that psychology has been taken too far, because for every argument there is a counter argument. When I was a child, time out was ruled to be an absolute no-no because psychologists then said that it led the child to feel rejected by his/her parents, and it was not advocated as a form of discipline, and yet now time-out is seen to be the answer to many of our discipline problems, so will the tide turn again? in 30 years will someone tell our children that the way they were raised was abusive?

I was smacked as a child, but i was also disciplined verbally. And I don't remember the odd smack, not because I blotted those bits out of my life, but because it was over with in seconds. But I do remember very vividly being shouted at, being told that my parents were "sick of you", being put into time-out for probably longer than is now the recommended amount of time now. And I remember crying myself to sleep at nights because I genuinely believed, after having been told off, that no-one loved me. Just to be clear, I was not abused as a child, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that my parents loved me, but I think the words can often hurt a lot more than we think.

I do not smack my own child, I have never had to, and yes I do use time-out, but I always explain why after the event, and then we move on. But that doesn't mean that if my son put his hands up to the cooker I wouldn't smack them to stop him burning himself.

Meanoldmummy, I have the same view as the NSPCC. Are they also fundametalist fanatics?

Have read a few of these posts and I am of the view that smacking and I mean a smack on the hands or legs is sometimes warranted and can be the only way of reasoning but its something I would only use when I have spoke to them and warned them various times.

I really do believe and agree with Joolstoo that the children of today have totally no respect for authority even less so than when I was at school (am almost 34). The worst thing that could happen in school was "someone getting caught in the toilets smoking", the topic of conversation in high schools now is whether they will be stabbed in the corridor or have their face slashed in the canteen.

Am absolutely dreading my children becoming teenagers, will worry every single day.

wannabee, always a bit worried about likening ourselves to wild animals. Lots of species of animal will kill their young or refuse to nurse their young.
We are so different to animals, I think it is can be misleading to try and draw comparisons.

I'm currently reading The Toddler Taming book and the author who does not personally agree with smacking, acknowledges that in the real world, parents in loving homes will use it when they feel it is warranted. He also says that he worries that the anti-smacking brigade are lumping those who occasionally smack their children with those who ritually beat them. He also mentions other forms of abuse that is ignored by those lobbying to outlaw smacking in the home, e.g. emotional abuse, those parents who use their children as weapons during a bitter divorce.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with smacking. I and my brothers were smacked and all of us have turned out to be sane, psychologically balanced, hardworking tax payers! I was more afraid of my mother when she raised her voice than when she smacked me on the hand! I personally think that continually screaming and yelling at or completely ignoring your children is more damaging than the occasional smack.

Unfortunately, I think the anti-smacking brigade have made decent, law abiding parents feel uneasy and guilty about how they discipline their children and that is probably why many people do not now smack in public. The people who really abuse their children have always done it out of sight of everyone else because they know what they are doing is wrong. I think it is really sad that decent parents are judged to be in the same camp as real abusers.

i agree with you completely . my dd1 has been smacked previously to no avail. shouting does work better imo

Fairymum - the NSPCC may broadly share your view, but they have a great deal more skill and experience at expressing and explaining it to people. I find NSPCC literature/adverts about abuse very disturbing and high-impact but never have I detected from them a tub-thumping, hectoring attitude that puts up the backs of ordinary decent parents who love their children but reflect a range of different approaches and methodologies. The NSPCC may support a ban on smacking - that doesn't surprise me - but I have yet to see them making foam-flecked generalisations lumping in parents who tap the hand of a naughty toddler with evil child-beating sadists. They wouldn't get far if they did. You can't standardise parenting, not even by frightening people and making them feel guilty.

Meanoldmummy, that's exactly why I posted the link to the website where the NSPCC explain why they want a ban on smacking. Noone is lumping child abusers and parents who give the occasional smack together as one, but there is clearly a problem in this country. Since you haven't read the website I will cut and paste a quote which I think is quite shocking:

"The prevalence of corporal punishment in the family, including "severe" corporal punishment, remains very high in the UK. Recent Government-commissioned research involved interviews with over 400 families. It found that 97% of the four year olds were physically punished, almost half more than once a week. Three-quarters of the one year-old babies were smacked in their first year. Almost a quarter of seven year olds had experienced "severe" punishment by mothers (defined as involving "intention or potential to cause injury or psychological damage, use of implements, repeated actions or over a long period of time"). www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/

I supposet hese are the decent parents you are talking about. I find it shocking. BUt that, I guess, is just me being a fundamentalist whatever it was you called me....

Recent govt research with 400 families? Hardly a large study now, is it?! I also suspect that the NSPCC, given the nature of the work they do, is more concerned with families were real abuse is taking place from a very early age. The vast majority of ordinary families (some of whom will chose smacking as one option, often the last resort) will not come into contact with the NSPCC in the course of their lives.

I absolutely respect your opinions on smacking, Fairy, and you've obviously made the decision that you won't use a occasional smack as a form of punishment. That's fine - but I do with the anti-smacking brigade would stop trying to pass laws that will see other parents branded as criminals and all that goes with that.

There are other forms of abuse eg verbal, emotional that just as damaging, and I do wish that the same attention was given to those.

Paolosgirl, The quote was actually taken from the website for the childrenare unbeatable alliance which NSPCC is a part of:

"The "Children are unbeatable!" Alliance calls for a ban on all forms of physical punishment. The Alliance numbers over 350 organisations and projects (including the Royal Colleges representing paediatricians, psychiatrists and general practitioners, Women's Aid Federations, the NSPCC, churches and many parent-support agencies) as well as many prominent individuals. The Alliance recognises that parents who smack are usually acting with good intentions according to social expectations. The aim is not to denounce or prosecute parents, but simply to move society along - just as we have moved on from condoning the hitting of wives or servants."

People who want a ban on smacking are not some mad fanatics, but as you can see above we are in very good company

While technically this would criminalise any assault of a child, trivial assaults, like trivial assaults between adults, would not be prosecuted. There already exist adequate means to prevent unwarranted or unhelpful prosecutions. It would on the other hand ease prosecution in serious cases. It would eliminate the current dangerous confusion over what is acceptable and provide a clear basis for child protection.

I'm not quite sure what exactly they are aiming for? They call the odd smack 'trivial' as far as I can see, and they will not call for prosecution. OK - we have that at the moment. It would ease prosecution in serious cases.....mmmmm, so we're not actually talking about the odd smack here are. SO what exactly is the point.

Also - re the Royal Colleges joing. No - what it is are Forums. Completely different from the Royal Colleges themselves backing it. Finally, no-one is doubting that serious abuse should be against the law (which it already is), which is why that organisations "have agreed to join" (does that mean actually joined?), but it still needs to be kept in perspective. The odd smack does not constitute abuse.

...fanatic. That was what I called you.

If 97% of the four year olds in the study you cite were smacked, then I would think your chances of seeing a total ban are fairly slim. Unless of course fascism wins through over common sense and democracy!

Yes they damn well should be allowed to smack there children, I am fed up with all this airyfairy namby pamby giving a child a smack is abuse talk. It really makes my blood boil.

What people need to be spending there time on is a shake up of SS so that when a child really is being abused sometimes to the point of death it does not go un-noticed.

... and not allowing interfering do-gooders to clog up the system persecuting ordinary loving parents so that the really urgent abuse cases get buried or ignored!

Meanoldmummy, you are calling most child protection organisations in the UK interfering do-gooders and fanatics. This isn't something I personally made up you know. Noone is interested in persecuting what you call loving parents. I think you fail to understand what you are reading and missing the bigger picture. And you still haven't read my link, so you are obviously not really interested in this issue. It's so much easier to dismiss it as airy fairy. Do you really think prisons in Scandinavian countries are full of parents who once gave their child a light smack on the hand?

I had in fact read the site your link leads to previously, inaddition to a raft of other information on both sides of the debate. I don't tend to express forthright opinions in a debate unless I have accquainted myself with the facts and major themes first. However, much as it may come as a surprise to you, not everybody reaches the same conclusions from the same data. That doesn't automatically imply a lack of understanding, just a different point of view. I believe that the social and legal climate/culture in Scandinavia is sufficiently different from our own to support different legislation. I do not believe that a total ban imposed from above on something which most of our citizens don't want banned would be ludicrous and immoral. I certainly do say - from wide-ranging experience - that most of the child protection agencies in this country are riddled not only with interfering and dangerous attitudes but also damning incompetence. And I think you are someone who finds it difficult to accept that your own fervent belief in something does not justify the forcing of an unwilling majority to abide by it.

Well I think the NSPCC has got a touch of the fanatics on some things. Until it realised how unpopular it would be if it was publicised a lot, it used to support a ban on babysitters under the age of 18. And I'm sure unless its website has changed, it used to define shouting at a child as a form of abuse. But it didn't say what kind of shouting, it just said shouting. Thus condemning about 99% of parents in the country as abusers.

97% according to Fairymum!

Oops...no, 97% was the percentage of four-year-olds smacked in the NSPCC study...so a society ripe for conversion then?!?!?

Studies have shown that banning smacking saves the lives of a few children every year. I think even if banning smacking doesn't result in more prosecutions, it sends a clear message that smacking isn't ok.

My problem with it is that I suspect that nice middle class people who smack their kids wouldn't be prosecuted, but the undeserving poor would be.

I just feel very uneasy about a law being brought in which everyone assures us will not be used. Using the law to change social attitudes is a very very dangerous thing to do. The thing about laws, is that the police, lawyers, politicians etc., do end up using them, or at least intimidate people they don't like with the threat of using them (look at this latest ding dong about that Muslim bloke who said something negative about homosexuality). I think prosecutions would occur, but that the law would not be applied equally.