When will Labour ban hitting children (finally)?

[BurbageBrook]

I use the term hitting not smacking because 'smacking' minimises it. Since this has been banned (and about time too) in Wales and Scotland surely it will be a priority now that Labour have got in? Has anyone heard anything about it? It wasn't in the manifesto but maybe that's because it's only relevant to England, not the UK. I know Labour support banning it but I'm keen for it to happen ASAP as I feel really strongly about this. Has anyone heard anything?

I’m not saying it is, you’re the one who claimed you wouldn’t be arrested in the US for what you ate at home, so I was just providing a small number of examples of common food products that would lead to your arrest in the US.

You don't get arrested for eating those products, but for trying to smuggle them into the country - most countries have rules about foodstuffs being brought in. It's not relevant.

It used to be called justifiable assault back when I was studying family law in Scotland. No hitting with an implement, leaving a mark or hitting on the head.

The poster I quoted is the one who brought it up, if you’re concerned it isn’t relevant to the thread you need to take it up with them. When I lived in the states it would most certainly against the law to handle unlawful goods.

It has been banned for years in NZ, sadly does not seem to make any difference to the number of children being killed by their family members.

You were the one who made the ridiculous comment about trying to bring in various foodstuffs in the first place!! The poster you quoted merely said she wouldn't be arrested for eating bacon, you were the one who muddied the waters. I can read you know.

I admit it's not something I've thought deeply about, @Userxyd, and I have never seen the way a law might be written up. But I think it would be immensely complicated, immensely difficult to police, and would involve nuances that are often beyond most people. I tend to be very cautious about policing private behavior, such as speech.

Obviously, there are horrible stories where a parent is so vicious that the child ends up in the hospital. But, well, how about spanking? Some people think that's horrible. How about a smack on the hand?

I have a smart, fun friend who I not only like, but very much admire professionally, who is very close with her mother. Imagine my shock when she told me one day that her mother used to occasionally beat her with a belt. Now, none of us can see into others' hearts and minds, but she strikes me as one of the most "well-adjusted" people I know. Would it have been better to arrest her mother and send the two daughters into foster care?

I don't know the answer.

What nuances are involved?

Don’t hit kids. It’s not complicated.

I have a smart, fun friend who I not only like, but very much admire professionally, who is very close with her mother. Imagine my shock when she told me one day that her mother used to occasionally beat her with a belt. Now, none of us can see into others' hearts and minds, but she strikes me as one of the most "well-adjusted" people I know. Would it have been better to arrest her mother and send the two daughters into foster care?

I know a lot of wonderful, intelligent, amazing people who have various been assaulted, abused, shit some of them have been kidnapped in war zones.

Your argument appears to be that because they are OK, the crimes against them are no ordeal. Is that it?

Maybe if it had been illegal, your friend wouldn't;t have been abused.

I think it’s far more common for children to hit their parents, than the other way round these days.

Yes agree completely MrsTP.

I think it's perhaps more normalised in some parts of America maybe and don't realise how horrifying the idea of being hit with a belt is to most of us over here?

Simialarly I'd like hitting a hold at all to have that same reaction and I think making it illegal sends that message.

It's the whole "I'll bring the kids up how I want" and "didn't do me any harm" but yes I have survived all sorts of things in my childhood that were wrong but doesn't mean we should say they're okay because I'm okayc(ish). It's a ridiculous argument isn't it.

I can't read the whole article but the first bit is scary enough.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/01/19/it-is-still-legal-to-hit-children-in-school-in-19-american-states

I know it's not common at all in most of America but there are schools where it is.

Same here: I thought it was banned in the 1980s when I was a teenager!

Well, @MrTwatchester, if you are unable to see nuances - the difference between smacking a child on the hand if he reaches for someone dangerous, versus spanking a child for outrageous behavior, versus beating a child to the point of requiring a hospital visit - then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

@MsAmerica, or instead of hitting the child, you could actively parent and remove the dangerous object from the childs reach. Pretty simple to do that instead of assualting someone.

I'm undecided on the question of whether it's ever justifiable to physically discipline a child, but I certainly think there are nuances based on personal experience.

I was given a "tanned arse" by my DF on, from what I can recall, only two occasions, both times with a slipper. I can't remember what it was for, but it will inevitably have been for the usual backchat, being told a million times and not paying attention, or incessant squabbling with my sibling. In any case, it's not something I ever spend any time thinking about unless the topic is brought up and it's prompted. It's a total non-factor in my life.

At one point in my teens DM took to frequently, and repeatedly, smacking me around the side of the head until such point my ear was bright red, ringing, and twice it's normal size. This was for any sort of perceived transgression, not necessarily something that was actually true and often for things that she'd decided I'd done when I actually hadn't. This was always accompanied by a finger wagging, peering in until her face was no more than a few inches from mine, and a screaming, ranting lecture about my failings as a child and inability to just be normal. Things I can remember being smacked around the head for include leaving a teaspoon in the sink, using the telephone when I actually had not, skipping school one day (fair enough, caught me), and no doubt a load of other perceived irritants and things that DM disapproved of.

In total contrast to being slippered as as child, I absolute do remember my DM's behaviour when I was a much older teen, I absolutely do resent her for it, I absolutely do think it was unreasonable and did so at the time, and it's also notable that it stopped as soon as I was significantly taller than her and made noises about not being willing to simply stand there and take it. She has never even acknowledged this behaviour, never mind explained it or apologised for it.

The first I consider perfectly reasonable discipline that hasn't harmed me in any way, the latter, an assault on a child that has caused long-lasting resentment and contributed to a completely broken relationship.

So yes, I think it's important to differentiate between "smacking" a child for disciplinary reasons, and "assault" or "beating" a child, and I do get annoyed when any and all physical discipline of a child is described as the latter.

I can’t see why hitting is necessary in any of those scenarios.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX you're absolutely kidding yourself that being hit with a slipper by your father was acceptable. Your mother was MORE abusive, so you're minimising what your father did. It's understandable, as you want to see your father in a good light. However, you were treated disgustingly by both of them.

Yebbut I'm in Wales. There's still a section of society who won't give a toss and will do it whatever the government say.

Excuse me, but your idea of what's "necessary" is irrelevant.

Maybe you might think it's not "necessary" for someone to yell at a sibling, or splurge on a fancy haircut, or study intensely to decide how to vote, or euthanize an ill pet, or throw an elaborate birthday party. Your personal idea of what's necessary or appropriate isn't the basis of law for the rest of the world.

What are you on about?

You suggested it's too complicated to legislate against hitting children, because you believe it's acceptable to hit them.

There are other ways to stop children coming to harm, than by hitting them (and thus causing them a different type of harm).

There is no nuance here, except for people who think it's okay to hit. If the law says don't hit kids (which it does in many countries), you don't hit them.

Nothing complicated about it, and no reason to bring up other hot button topics like, erm, haircuts and birthday parties.

I would presume if you hit a child the government banning it won't stop you

This. I know far more people who were smacked by their parents in NZ than I do in England. I'm pretty sure that there are many here in NZ that still do smack their children...

What’s your point? That we shouldn’t bother with any laws that people break?