https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49908849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe they need to focus their attention on banning smack 1st with the deep rooted heroin issues over the wall.

Pretty sure heroin use is banned in Scotland also.

Good. While most adults around now were smacked at some point in their childhood, there’s a much better way of dealing with discipline with kids.

Hitting shows that addressing things with violence is right. Which clearly it isn’t.

I know generations are getting mard. And don’t dispute that. But hitting a kid should be banned.

Only thing that would worry me about this is false or exaggerated claims.

I think they need to concentrate on the ones who beat the **** out of their kids first.

What a ridiculous law. If you "assault" your child, the current laws should deal with it - but that doesn't sound trendy enough these days though.

I think the OP may not have read the article properly. He need not worry cos if he wants to dress up as a baby and pay for big fat domineering ladies to smack his behind then that will still be perfectly legal.

Stop hitting children.

I don't know why that sentence is controversial to some people, but whatever.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Stop hitting children.

I don't know why that sentence is controversial to some people, but whatever.

Very hard to argue with that.

But sadly, in the real world, not every libtard issue is quite as black and white as that.

tarkys_ears wrote:Very hard to argue with that.

But sadly, in the real world, not every libtard issue is quite as black and white as that.

Violence against children isn't a binary issue?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Violence against children isn't a binary issue?

No.

I used to smack my kids-one of many regrets in my life to date

I don’t think the odd ( and pretty rare ) short sharp smack to the legs of a very unruly child who has persistently ignored requests to behave has ever done anyone any harm in all fairness .
Admittedly walking around Tesco randomly administering discipline to other people’s naughty kids has occasionally led to a wry smile and a wink from grateful mother’s as I implore them “ don’t spare the rod” as the now red hand marked child screams the store down .

mdd2 wrote:I used to smack my kids-one of many regrets in my life to date

I don’t think it’s something to regret. It’s probably what you learnt yourself. And most kids were at some point. Usually across the legs for misbehaving.

If it wasn’t abuse or intimidation it’s probably never affected 99%.

There’s a woman nearby where we moved to who verbally abuses her son every day. Horrific to see. And in my eyes far worse than a smack to the legs. Luckily those who need to be aware of it now are and seems to be being addressed.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:I don’t think it’s something to regret. It’s probably what you learnt yourself. And most kids were at some point. Usually across the legs for misbehaving.

If it wasn’t abuse or intimidation it’s probably never affected 99%.

There’s a woman nearby where we moved to who verbally abuses her son every day. Horrific to see. And in my eyes far worse than a smack to the legs. Luckily those who need to be aware of it now are and seems to be being addressed.

I think the law wont be implemented to try and catch and prosecute parents for the odd smack round the legs. What it will do is help remove grey areas in the law in cases of abuse (like your neighbour) so that where there is physical violence involved it is far easier for social services and the police to charge, prosecute and find parents guilty

Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.

Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.

Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.

Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.

Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.

Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.

The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.

It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.

Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.

Banning smacking is unwise.

Devils_Advocate wrote:I think the law wont be implemented to try and catch and prosecute parents for the odd smack round the legs. What it will do is help remove grey areas in the law in cases of abuse (like your neighbour) so that where there is physical violence involved it is far easier for social services and the police to charge, prosecute and find parents guilty

I worry it will be the complete opposite.

It will catch parents smacking legs in public but do nothing to stop the hideous specter of child abuse.

If a child known to social services has been beaten and marked it should not require a new law banning smacking for the state to intervene.

The problem being that the alternatives can be very difficult to administer. They involve a certain level of intellect, patience, self discipline, determination, consistency etc. More so for the single parent who needs double the reserves of the energy needed. I suspect it’s easier for the middle class parents in leafy suburbs than it is for the parents in rough areas trying to keep their children on the straight and narrow. I would rather a child be given an odd smack than go unpunished, which might now be the case if parents are worried they will be prosecuted if they do smack their child.

Rowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.

Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.

Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.

Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.

Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.

Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.

The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.

It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.

Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.

Banning smacking is unwise.

Not so regarding dogs, if you believe what scientists think, such as:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/p ... claim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If true, there's no point ever smacking a dog, as they won't know why you're slapping them.

Wow Rowls smacking dogs is commonly thought to cause aggressive behavior in them in later in life. Anyway not the point of this I have never smacked my kids I don’t see the benefit of hurting your child deliberately. Others do which is strange to me but hey everyone to there own.

FactualFrank wrote:Not so regarding dogs, if you believe what scientists think, such as:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/p ... claim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If true, there's no point ever smacking a dog, as they won't know why you're slapping them.

No, that's not what the article says. The article backs up what I have said - that dogs do not understand even basic reasoning. They are far too simple.

The dog doesn't need to consciously understand a thing. It simply needs to associate the undesired behaviour with the negative response.

JarrowClaret wrote:Wow Rowls smacking dogs is commonly thought to cause aggressive behavior in them in later in life. Anyway not the point of this I have never smacked my kids I don’t see the benefit of hurting your child deliberately. Others do which is strange to me but hey everyone to there own.

Wow!

You haven't understood a word I said.

I had complete control over my dogs when they were in my company.

You are undoubtedly making the mistake of conflating smacking, or rather the threat of smacking, and hitting.

I've explained the difference in my original post, which you clearly did not read or did not understand.

Stay childless, Rowls.

Classic uptheclarets. Yesterday we had numerous people advocating racism and now we have people who think that it's fine to physically abuse children.

What a strange world we live in.

Rileybobs wrote:

Classic uptheclarets. Yesterday we had numerous people advocating racism and now we have people who think that it's fine to physically abuse children.

What a strange world we live in.

Classic UTC - people imagining others are advocating child abuse.

Dike Muff wrote:Stay childless, Rowls.

If I ever have kids I know I won't have to smack them because the idea of it will be enough.

As for yourself, you can stay classless.

Rowls wrote:If I ever have kids I know I won't have to smack them because the idea of it will be enough.

Spoken like a true childless person.

RMutt wrote:The problem being that the alternatives can be very difficult to administer. They involve a certain level of intellect, patience, self discipline, determination, consistency etc. More so for the single parent who needs double the reserves of the energy needed. I suspect it’s easier for the middle class parents in leafy suburbs than it is for the parents in rough areas trying to keep their children on the straight and narrow. I would rather a child be given an odd smack than go unpunished, which might now be the case if parents are worried they will be prosecuted if they do smack their child.

Well said. I also think how the parent themselves were brought up must play a huge part too in how they deem fit. I don't believe there's one size fits all here, at all. With some it could make them more aggressive, with others it could make them earn respect and help them. A lot of variables to take into account.

Some people are truly archaic it is worrying

The trouble with smacking is it starts with a slap on the legs and as the child grows it escalates to harder smacking and then hitting. My father used to punch me in the head when I was a young teenager and he was 18 stones.

I'm proud to say, as an older teenager, I never hit him back but I came very, very close.

The problem is we are not educated in how to bring up children. All we have for reference is childhood memories on how we were brought up.

It's really sad. To many of us, it was the norm.

Tell someone you've hit your wife to discipline her and you'll get abused.

Tell someone you smack your kids to discipline them and people will applaud you.

Hitting kids is weird. An adult is massive compared to a child, why would you want to instil fear into something so small?

ClaretAndJew wrote:Tell someone you've hit your wife to discipline her and you'll get abused.

Tell someone you smack your kids to discipline them and people will applaud you.

Hitting kids is weird. An adult is massive compared to a child, why would you want to instil fear into something so small?

I was agreeing with the final line.

Rowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.

Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.

Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.

Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.

Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.

Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.

The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.

It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.

Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.

Banning smacking is unwise.

I think I speak for the board when I say

**** off Rowls

Rowls hits children and dogs.

There's probably a few adults who may benefit from a smack rather than children

The problem is those who abuse children will continue to abuse them anyway. All that will happen is those who use fair discipline will get caught in the crossfire.

There’s nothing wrong with using physical punishment such as a smack to discipline a child. They will learn quicker and far less likely to become feral as they get older. As Rowls mentioned earlier the threat of a smack is generally enough to ensure a child learns what is acceptable and what isn’t.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think I speak for the board when I say

**** off Rowls

No you just speak for the snowflakes

Right_winger wrote:The problem is those who abuse children will continue to abuse them anyway. All that will happen is those who use fair discipline will get caught in the crossfire.

There’s nothing wrong with using physical punishment such as a smack to discipline a child. They will learn quicker and far less likely to become feral as they get older. As Rowls mentioned earlier the threat of a smack is generally enough to ensure a child learns what is acceptable and what isn’t.

Why do you have to use physical violence as a threat?

Why can't you use other ways of doing it, like saying "No"?

Right_winger wrote:No you just speak for the snowflakes

JFW

The trouble is, where is the line? One smack? Until they stop? Do you smack them until you've calmed down?

I’ve smacked my 3 year old son once when he was hitting his baby sister hard on the hand with a magnifying glass.


I didn’t smack him very hard but it was hard enough to shock him. I smacked him because I was shocked and angry.

I regret it massively. I should have just put him on the step with a timer which is his normal punishment when he is being naughty but I lost control. Il never do it again

Lancasterclaret wrote:Why do you have to use physical violence as a threat?

Why can't you use other ways of doing it, like saying "No"?

And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?

A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.

Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.

Right_winger wrote:And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?

A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.

Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.

Does the death penalty deter murderers?

Rowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.

Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.

Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.

Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.

Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.

Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.

The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.

It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.

Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.

Banning smacking is unwise.

I knew I should have stopped reading after the first three words.

JohnMcGreal wrote:I knew I should have stopped reading after the first three words.

I wish I had.

ClaretAndJew wrote:Does the death penalty deter murderers?

Whoosh

Your way off course.

For most people punishment and/or the threat of IS a deterrent.

Right_winger wrote:Whoosh

Your way off course.

For most people punishment and/or the threat of IS a deterrent.

Then there must be lots of evidence that shows smacking improves children's behaviour.

Right_winger wrote:And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?

A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.

Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.

Naughty steps

X-box bans

Grounding

Lancasterclaret wrote:Naughty steps

X-box bans

Grounding

Even the threat of the naughty step usually works.

Problem is when kids are being naughty away from
Home. I find distracting my son when he’s being naughty the best way to go.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Naughty steps

X-box bans

Grounding

With the older kids yes these are deterrents yes but they aren’t anywhere near as effective as a smack. The earlier a child learns boundaries the less issues they will have later on in life. Discipline is an important aspect of growing up.

Right_winger wrote:With the older kids yes these are deterrents yes but they aren’t anywhere near as effective as a smack. The earlier a child learns boundaries the less issues they will have later on in life. Discipline is an important aspect of growing up.

We just said "No" to our kids a lot.

Right_winger wrote:No you just speak for the snowflakes

If being against violence to children makes me a snowflake, I guess I am a snowflake! Doesn't sound a bad thing