help - have to go on radio at 3.30 to talk about what mumsnetters think about smacking

[CarrieMumsnet]

Very loose brief we've been given is the discussion is based on this article and they want to know
a) how Mumsnetters are "coping" during half term. Think we're probably right in saying most Mumsnetters won't be resorting to smacking as a half term special
and b)the general Mumsnet consensus (consensus - Mumsnet, they don't know us at all ). On smacking. Again think we're right that majority feel that smacking is a bad thing.

One thing we're not as sure about is how folks feel about the legislation. I'm sure there are a ton of threads on this, and apologies for starting another one, but time is tight !

Thanks for your thoughts

eek.......thats short notice!!!!

Smacking wrong, obv. Have been guilty of it myself, and think it's pointless, as it does nothing to change the bad behaviour you8 are supposedly punishing

As for legislation, think it's futile, because people will still lose their tempers, and it would be difficult to police, unless the govt want CCTV in all homes (wouldn't surprise me)

the 'marking' legislation?

i think it protects those children at risk from more severe punishment,but only if indeed the parents even know about the legislation and the exact 'rules'.

I also think that is still endorsing the fact that smacking is seen as OK, and not as abuse.

sorry....no help there at all!!!

will think and post again!

also half term - not half term special smacking!! key to it is getting out and about.

Smacking to me is awful and i don't use it.

Have you seen today's article in the Telegraph Online? It quotes Mumsnetters and although I only skimmed it, it seems to be suggesting that Mumsnetters are in favour of it....

Smacking is not neccessary when we have so much information about alternative forms of discipline that are effective at moulding the behaviour we want; parents and carers (not just mothers I hasten to add) should 'model' behaviour that we want our children to copy.

Smacking is just not needed.

Sorry for lecture

It's called "Why smacking has become a hit again"

I don't smack and would support legislation outlawing it.

Legislation will not stop children from being smacked.

If they don't "intend to hurt their child" then why are they smacking them, exactly?

Did these parents who allegedly hit their chidren without intending to hurt them, not think that perhaps a cuddle or a nice sit down with a bag of sweets breadstick be less likely to injure them?

Might be a good chance to refute it's conclusions!

i was smacked as a child, and it made me very resentful and bitter. also, i've heard that as a parent, if you were smacked as a child then you are more likely to smack your own child as you repeat learned behaviour.

Carrie have you seen Hunker's thread? will link you if you haven't. which radio station btw?

Is intent used as 'subtantial mitigation' in other crimes? What about drunk driving, for instance? Does it make a toss of difference if you got in the car while pissed but not intending to hurt anyone?

I feel quite upset about the proposed legislation. I quite agree smacking is not "good" parenting, but there have been a few occasions when I resorted to it -- not because I was out of control angry, but as a calculated measure because I felt like I had exhausted every other option I could think of (for instance, get a 3yo to stop deliberately tramping on flowers after I told him repeatedly to stop and even restrained him).
I'm not sure if it ever works and as I said, it's not best practice or something I do often; but I can't see the value in criminalising such actions.
Also, the argument that children should have the same protection as adults: rubbish. We parents are responsible for what our children do, we have a duty to control much of their behaviour. It makes no sense to argue that children should have 'exactly the same protection as adults', unless you are arguing kids should have the same responsibilties, rights and duties as adults, too (which obviously they shouldn't).

While most people agree that smacking is undesirable, the law doesn;t seem to be very workable (do they really intend to fit CCTV in every home?) and is yet another example of the current Government's obsession with controlling as much of everyone's behaviour as they possibly can.

Now, a few months ago, my DS tried to run into the road when a car was coming, I grabbed his arm and yanked him back on to the pavement. That yanking back left a slight mark on his upper arm. Should I have been prosecuted?

I mean "its", of course

what sheikyerbouti said.

I really personally think that this smacking/anti-smacking debate is completely pointless.

how on earth can it be upheld as there is no way to see behind closed doors to know what parents do in their own privacy.

and lets be honest....how hard is it to get some kiddies to admit to serious abuse, let alone the 'odd' smack????

there are many many mothers here who are anti-smacking, and there are a few that are pso-smaking, but we all seem to agree that there is a line on which it becomes serious abuse as opposed to part of your discipline technich (argh, sp?).
I will admit to having smacked mine in the past, but coming to MN makes me see that smacking is more part of ME losing contole rather than teaching my children anything other than it is ok for me to hit them, even when I say it is very very wrong for them to hit......talk about hypricitical(?) parenting!!

I have learnt thro MN better parenting technichs (I hope) and better ways for me to teach my children right from wrong.

I do know tho, that since smacking has stopped (well, 99.9% as I am not perfect.....yet), my children are much better and calmer, as am I, and they are listening more and feeling listened to more too.

BUT............it is not going to be upholdable surely in real life, and in some ways, just gives the government yet more ways to criminilize the decent people and not go after those who they should really worry about.

sorry.....an essay there

you smacked your child for standing on flowers?

It should be up to the parent how they discipline their child and the term 'smack' can be very wide, ranging from a tap on the back of the hand to a wallop with a slipper. The use of physical punishment on a child that is carried out in rage can never be condoned. It is these such as these when parents lose control that places the child in danger because sometimes the parent cannot stop. When a child has bruises or red marks or an implement has been used then this is too much.
There are alternative methods of discipline that should be attempted first, smacking should always be a last resort. It does nothing to tell the child that their actions are not apropriate, it teaches them that it's ok for them to hit someone who does something wrong. If we want our children to respect each other then I don't think that smacking is the way to go. It is not teaching them patience and tolerance, it's giving them an excuse to hurt someone. However, it should be a parents right to discipline their child how they see fit. I have hit my son twice in 8 years. The first, he was 3, having a tantrum on a stone floor. He was headbutting the floor and had placed himself in danger so I tapped his thigh, which made him stop. I did try all other methods first. The second, he was placing a smaller child in danger by trying to push her off a high rocking horse. I tried all other methods first and tapped his hand.

SauerKraut - can you link to tel online article with Mumsnetters? Ta

No TheUrbandDryad - haven't seen - have been sucked into other MN business all day - could you link to hunker's thread?

Is for Southern counties radio

Smacking is bad and it doesn't work.

Legislating against smacking won't work either.

The parents who believe that it does work and do actually smack their kids will ignore it and smack them at home (wait till I get you home, young man!)

There may be the occasional mum or dad at the end of their tether that lash out in public and are then arrested and put through the mill, but what good will that do?

There are waaaaaaay more important things that the government should be worrying about imo

That article keeps going on about intent to cause injury... if a parent actually intended to cause injury to a child then that is abuse and we already have laws in place to prevent abuse. Whether they work or not is another matter entirely.

What radio station is it on?

The problem is that there are 3 types of smackers:-

a) the abusive

b) the frustrated parents who lashes out very occasionally but with instant regret

c) some who view smacking as a discipline tool, and who do not smack out of ill temper.

The government has had a go at outlawing the first category without criminalising the other 2, but it is far from certain that they have achieved it. Whilst MN as a whole may be anti-smacking, this doesn't mean that they would want catergories b and c criminalised. But rather than delivering a clear anti-smacking message, they are just leaving a very mixed message "smacking is OK if it can't be seen".

Smacking is not an 'ideal' punishment. Legislation sends the message that physical abuse is not acceptable against adults or children.
In the real world however if it's a choice between a child, especially toddlers who do not have the verbal understanding, running across the road, or sticking something in an electrical socket, i think smacking has less dangerous results.
Also agree with Sheik's comment about people losing their temper irrespective of legislation, and is it really a potentially jailable offence?