Smacking kids 'should be banned', says children's tsar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

no one should be allowed to hit anyone? and especially children shouldn't be and if you say hitting children to discipline them is okay then good luck to you bc you have a primitive thinking goodbye

---

It's all very nice saying that everybody should dance around rainbows, live in peace and talk very nicely to children about their actions (which all of your posts appear to be)... but when you eventually have kids and are faced with them purposely winding you up in a supermarket or at home after a long day at work - often the only thing that will teach them a lesson and stop them is a good crack and throw them upstairs. Why? because getting smacked on your arse, legs or even a crack over the head bloody well hurts and next tiem you are naughty you'll think twice about whether to do it.

Of course that doesn't fit into New Age thinking because it's common sense rather than garbage spouted by a sociologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

Are you sure? If say teachers were allowed to hit children now I think they would react!

---

Well does that not just prove my point how far we've fallen as a society where CHILDREN now have the whip hand over parents and teachers? All the more reason for bringing back effective punishment into schools.

And I wasn't a goody two shoes - I would have had it [the cane] a few times, and would have deserved it 100%.

Depends how you define "smack". As far as I am aware a hard slap is already banned as it is technically a battery. A tap with four fingers (a type of smack) causes no damage and reminds the child they are being watched, and shouldn't be banned as it doesn't cause any harm and is as bad as a shout to stop the action they are currently undertaking i.e. picking a nose. "Get your finger out of there" *forceless but noticeable tap on arm* If a smack creates a redness on the skin, then it is bad. If it does nothing such as no redness to the skin where the impact was, and causes no pain or suffering, it shouldn't be banned. Saying "smack" is too wide a definition and use.

Smacking should be allowed as long as it doesn't bruise or cause long-term damage which I think is the law currently.

I think by the parent in a controlled environment it is allowed. - like a little smack on the bum for being naughty. Obviously beating a kid is obviously wrong on so many levels. But if it was just to prove a small point to a child that they have done something bad, then yeah it should be fine imo.

However I wouldnt want anyone else laying a hand in my child. So I think it should (and i believe is??) only acceptable by the parent, providing it's controlled and not a beating.

Of course children must be spanked (with controlled force), it's more efficient and better to a children be educated soon, than become adult and suffer more to change their habits, life is cruel and those who didn't recieve education will suffer.

It all depends on the children, some children are problematic (that disciplinary actions doesnt work) and others that are easier to educate, I don't thing a global rule would attend all differences between each people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It's all very nice saying that everybody should dance around rainbows, live in peace and talk very nicely to children about their actions (which all of your posts appear to be)... but when you eventually have kids and are faced with them purposely winding you up in a supermarket or at home after a long day at work - often the only thing that will teach them a lesson and stop them is a good crack and throw them upstairs. Why? because getting smacked on your arse, legs or even a crack over the head bloody well hurts and next tiem you are naughty you'll think twice about whether to do it.

Of course that doesn't fit into New Age thinking because it's common sense rather than garbage spouted by a sociologist.

---

You ruled out the part where there's actual verbal communication between children and parents which pretty much has the same effect on children as 'smacking' would ? Well you know what, a long day at work is actually a nice excuse to ease out your frustration on children when they misbehave. Silly me and my sociology garbage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

You ruled out the part where there's actual verbal communication between children and parents which pretty much has the same effect on children as 'smacking' would ? Well you know what, a long day at work is actually a nice excuse to ease out your frustration on children when they misbehave. Silly me and my sociology garbage

---

How can threats by parents have an affect on naughty children when those threats/language are not backed up with anything? That would be like a general in a war threatening the enemy at the gates, so the enemy calls his bluff (as children often do) and it turns out the general hasn't got any army so can't back up his threat. Children are very clever and cunning and they do exactly the same with the teachers.

Jesus christ with naff thinking like yours it's no wonder you see so many feral, out of control children about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

How can threats by parents have an affect on naughty children when those threats/language are not backed up with anything? That would be like a general in a war threatening the enemy at the gates, so the enemy calls his bluff (as children often do) and it turns out the general hasn't got any army so can't back up his threat. Children are very clever and cunning and they do exactly the same with the teachers.

Jesus christ with naff thinking like yours it's no wonder you see so many feral, out of control children about.

---

You still can be strict towards children without physically hurting them gosh you need to lighten up and stop with the notion that alll children are annoying little pests

there's no logical proof of efficiency of physical means while disciplining children while it has its fair share of side effects

there's a reason most child psychologists don't prefer the smacking method? :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

You still can be strict towards children without physically hurting them gosh you need to lighten up and stop with the notion that alll children are annoying little pests

there's no logical proof of efficiency of physical means while disciplining children while it has its fair share of side effects

---

I was a good kid but sometimes I crossed the line and got a smack for it. I deserved it 100%. You know, with all the problems this country is facing it's utterly a joke that the government and now the NSPCC (who I will NEVER give any money to as a result of this - ever) is now considering making criminals out of normal parents by making smacking illegal. Screw them.

Sometimes kids need a good smack to behave and that's just how it is. If you don't like it then don't smack your kids and have the chance of them running wildly out of control as so many kids so these days, meanwhile normal decent people will use it as a method of punishment to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. All of my friends were smacked and we were all well grounded kids - it's always the kids who weren't smacked and didn't have any control at home who were the naughty little *******s who played up for the teachers aswell.

It was proved in the way I acted sometimes infront of my teachers (who couldn't touch me) whereas I wouldn't have DARED acted in that way infront of my parents as I knew i'd get the hiding of my life if I had. That's exactly why I support bringing back the cane to schools aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

there's a reason most child psychologists don't prefer the smacking method? :S

---

Then let them raise their kids up and try and control them with how they see fit and butt out with everybody else.