I was interested to read that they suggest allowing moderate smacking but not if it reddens the skin. Obviously none of them have ever touched a child before - just holding hands with Brandon makes his skin red temporarily (and I assume they don't mean making reddening skin permanently, I beleive that's called tattooing not chastisement!)

There is a time between movement and understanding (2-3 years) when I think smacks ARE appropriate, especially for the very worst of offenses doing something after being told several times not to do it because it's dangerous for example.

I'm sure that many people will agree with me when I say that there is no need to smack for the smaller reasons, though. Brandon's the best behaved child I know - lucky me!

The same people talk about the inability to enforce the law amongst those same people, sensible (as opposed to actually abusive, and yes, I do believe there is such a thing, though I don't think ABH is a useful line in the sand) disciplining when young is going to stop people growing up into uncontrollable wild youths with no respect for anyone else. Unfortunately, living where I do, I've seen a few of that type of person, as some will know. As far as I can tell, there has been no sensible parenting of them. It's almost as stupid as the parents going to prison for the child's truancy. But then I'm starting to wonder if the government are just passing the most outrageous laws they can get away with to see how far it will go before they have to be voted out. Personally, I think that point came quite a long time ago...

I guess the law is aimed at preventing the sorts of physical abuse that cause more mental than physical scarring. And to a certain extent I guess it's right to try and prevent that. The fact that such laws cause more problems than they solve is fairly representative of our time.

As the law was described by the Lord bringing in the amendment it would ban smacking where it causes "actual bodily harm" (ie bruising) or "mental harm", is it just me or can anyone else imagine what's going to happen once some 'anti' lawyers get on this and start pushing the angle that any smacking causes mental harm.

Oh and how long before a general "everything is illegal in bringing up a child except the stuff which we have approved" ruling from the state which makes nannies look positively liberal.

One of the problems (I've ranted about this before) is that parliament is full of economists and lawyers and the only solutions they see to problems are changes in tax rules and new laws.

I agree entirely. That's more or less what I meant when I said The fact that such laws cause more problems than they solve is fairly representative of our time. I guess it's lawyers who exploit every possible loophole in the law who gain us laws like this.

It's simpler than that: parliament is full of politicians who get elected by claiming that they will solve problems. Something Must Be Done, passing a law is something, therefore we must do that. In fact, the only things that parliament really can do is pass law and change the tax rules, and hand out money. They have the "bully pulpit", but most people ignore them.

The newspapers have an important role to play in this in regulating public hysteria.

I think the preferred method in that case is shutting them up in a different room, or possibly playpenning. Except that there's a time when they can climb out of a playpen and still havebn't learnt that if you play with fire, you get burnt.


Basically, this is something I decided long ago was stupid, and tend to ignore.

So, bruises, scratches and reddening of the skin are physical harm and Evil and Bad apparently. That's ridiculous - you could give a child all of those just by grabbing hold of its arm when he/she runs into the road. Doesn't mean you've abused them, though. Some parts of the body (arms, legs) show bruises incredibly easily, whereas other parts (stomach, back, chest, face) are a bit harder to visibly bruise (for me at least). Doesn't mean it's a better idea to hit a child in the face/back/stomach than it is to smack a wrist though.

Doesn't mean you've abused them, though.

Sadly these days I suspect it does -- after all, you've maliciously and deliberately taken away the child's Human Rights by stopping it running into the road. This does of course mean the child will make it as far as adulthood... so that it can sue you for every penny you own when it fails to get a job because of 'childhood trauma'. :-(

Lots of stuff in the news about the "rights" of children but there's never anything about teaching kids that with rights comes responsbilities.

The UN Convention on the Responsibilities of the Child is what we need right now... but you can bet that would lead to bleating about how that just infringes the child's right to be a(n irresponsible) child!

What you said. Children require very different treatment to adults, which is why they have different human rights..

and if you've watched children playing I think we can safely conclude that children are not human >:) There's nothing more nasty and vicious than a group of 11 year old girls.

Quite personally I think the conclusion to be drawn from that is that humans are not as bloody nice and advanced as we pretend to be, and that maturing and becoming a member of society is a process of forcing into the juvenile mind basic behavioural constraints to stop them acting like the primates we all fundamentally are.

But that's just me ;)

Actually the whole children thing and dealing with them was summed up nicely in the "World War" series by Harry Turtledove where the alien spawn were completely animalistic vicious little bastards who were no better than the lizards they were descended from. The whole focus of their education was in civilising them so they would be functional members of society. Apart from the scales, teeth and hissing I think the same could be said for human spawn.

What you said - several weeks later when LJ finally gets round to mailing me the comment notification.

The whole discussion strikes me as incredibly weird.
Of course it is not a good idea to hit your child up to causing injury. It is as always a question of reasonable means to achieve the required aim. If you need to protect a child from injury by fire/traffic/whatever every force required to safe the child from (more) serious harm is adequate. "Reddening skin" is also a too vague phrasing, that could mean anything from a healthy rosy glow (also achievable by excitement or by rubbing the skin with a cloth in the bath...) to swollen streaks.
Furthermore the discussion seems to neglect the question of intent. I see comparisons to the "rights of adults" and the act of "assault". If you involuntarily hurt an adult it is also not assault, even if there *may* be a claim to compensation.

And even more, there seems to be a general consensus to the observation that well-educated/well-behaved children are more difficult to come across, or rather that the uncontrollable children get a stronger issue. Now there are people who try to criminalise parents who love their children and try to educate them the best way they know but might find themselves in need of a "smack" or a strong grip of the childs hands to get their attention. And where are those people now with the Ultimate Solution To The Education Problem? Where's the Final Universal Guideline To Raise Children Smackfree?

As long as you don't impose a kind of 'driver's license' for raising children on everyone before they are allowed to get kids (and images of Brave New World or Gattaca come to mind with what kind of further regulations on getting children that might bring), criminalising parents for educating and raising the children the best way in their conscience is stupid and cynical.

So, that got long enough again. :-)

Given that the powers that be cannot agree from year to year on the best way to educate children in the basics (just watch over a decade or so and see the same ideas cycle round) I really don't want them telling me how to bring up the kids.

I agree.
What I meant to say was that the campaigners's strategy is flawed even in itself. I'm not under the illusion that anyone has got a useful solution/guideline. And certainly not those who are most actively driving such rigid laws ahead.

Oh yes, "no you can't do this but we're not actually offering any alteratives other than some nebulous 'we need to do more to help parents' promises [since when did we believe that government or 'do-gooder' organisations came good on their promises once they've got what they want].

Listening to the muppet on the radio this morning going on about how all he has to do is count to 3 and his kids fall into line. So just how did you reach that stage, what threats or forced punishments did you impose on the kids, what are you going to do when those don't work anymore?

I'm also expecting within five years more laws putting parents at threat of doing jail time / fines for not keeping their kids in line (I'll do a "mystic hamster predictions" post in a moment) while ripping away one by one the supports and methods we already have in place to deal with little anti-social buggers.

Oh, I can see it now.
Let's lock all those evil child-smacking parents away so the kids can have a better home and education...

I thought it was just me out of touch with the modern world. As a kid I did various things that were dangerous, and know that saying no wouldn't have helped.

I'm reminded, not entirely relevantly, of the other day walking down Stretten Avenue the other day there was a mother with six kids. Two of the little ones were playing in the road, and this white van came bowling down the road. The little ones were oblivious, as was their mother to them. I was wondering if I should do something. One of the older kids, twelvish, swore like a squady at the little ones and they came running out the road. Then the mother stopped, turned around, told off the big kid for swearing, and then carried on regardless.

My suggestion to everyone taking part in this discussion would be to actually read the proposed bill, specifically the added clause 106, "Reasonable Chastisement", thereby replacing speculation with knowledge. Parts (1) and (2) in particular, as part (1) is the bit which closes the old loophole and part (2) covers the meat of the discussion and the post which started it off.

Here's a handy URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/082/amend/ml082-iv.htm

Following this, your assignment for the rest of the day is: calm down. :)

My suggestion to everyone taking part in this discussion would be to actually read the proposed bill, thereby replacing speculation with knowledge.

It would be cruel and tactless to show up the British Press in such a manner. In order to demonstrate respect for tawdry editoral write-ups I insist on basing my comments on presumption and hearsay.

Given the language the Lord in question was using this morning and the outright lies he was telling this does not relax me one jot.

His amendment (in his own words) would make anything which leaves a mark illegal as would anything which causes "mental harm", personally I see this as weasel words which create the means by which a complete ban can happen in the courts. Hands up anyone who thinks that once some clever lawyers get their hands on that last bit they can't get some case law in place which makes all smacking illegal.

Also he claimed that the 'Children are unbeatable' campaign aren't advocating a complete ban on smacking. The rep who followed him corrected that pretty quick, they want to ban all physical dicipline, no exceptions.

I think a ban will happen, I believe it will be a bad thing and I think it'll do sod all to prevent cases where children are beaten until they suffer major injury or are killed.

If this bill passes, what goes into law will not be what he said this morning, it will be the text of the bill. So irrespective of the reportage, it is the text of the bill that we should be looking at in order to find out what it does.

I have, I admit, only read the Amendment, but that's what seems to be pertinent here, and the text of the Amendment looks to me like it's just bringing the law regarding children into line with the rest of the law in terms of Assault, ABH and GBH, with that "Reasonable Chastisement" exception where the child is in danger of harming themselves or property or of committing a criminal offence. You will note that the phrase "leaves a mark" is absent from the text of the amendment.

And the "Children are Unbeatable" campaign is just that, a campaign. They don't make the law any more than a "Pound Children Into Greasy Smears" campaign would.

A ban may happen, I don't know, but I doubt it will be a result of this Bill, and I doubt even more that this government would pass it, given that they've specifically instructed their members of the Lords to vote against the one that's currently before them.

"Assault" can include abusive or threatening words or behaviour, or any touching at all.

Actual Bodily Harm: Applies to an assault more serious than common assault whereby some pain, perhaps bruising and swelling but short of wounding occurs. Must be a link between the assault and the injury.

[1] Source: http://www.wisit.co.uk/snake/definition_of_crimes.htm

If I remember (and criminal law studies were a long time ago) assault is the the perceived threat of danger - and battery is the actual physical interference. If a man waves around an imitation pistol in the air and appears to present a real threat, then that is assault. Battery can be anything that physically affects the body - even surgery can be battery, where a patient has not given consent.

As for the whole debate, I'm quite interested to see that certain Scandinavian countries banned physical chastisement some time ago - and wonder whether any Swedish/Danish/Norwegian comments would add to the discussion.

On parenting itself - well, I have no children, so am supremely unqualified to say whether smacking makes better-behaved children than others. I have heard a mother complain that she couldn't keep her child under control now, as he was now bigger than her, and he ended up hitting her back when she smacked him. At the time, I thought that possibly, smacking should stop well before a child reaches puberty.

And I don't know the facts about whether a child behaves better if smacked, or the numbers of parents who *enjoy* the whole power trip of being a strong parent. Or the numbers of people who have left home, or been damaged, either physically or mentally, from such power-trips.

On balance, I object to the government changing something that is a highly personal matter, and part of the freedom of the individual. Because I object to all erosion of personal freedom without reasoned argument and proper evidence of necessity (as opposed to hasty legislation with no checks and balances and pushed through with negligible discussion). But I don't know - perhaps someone from Scandinavia could enlighten me - or someone who has been battered by a drunken bully of a parent could put me in my place.

I was beaten by a slightly nutso parent and smacked by a sane one, and I don't think smacking did me any harm. But I do think (with my gut; I can justify it with my brain, but I know that this is mainly a gut issue for *everyone* on both sides of the debate; see also abortion) it should be illegal, because I know I have Swedish relatives-by-marriage who never, ever smacked their kids and whose kids grew up into lovely adults. So I know it's possible.

I'm not sure how, of course :) But I think never smacking ever is a great ideal and it's one I aspire to.

Of course on the other side of that there are going to be morons in Sweden who were never smacked in the same way there will be well adjusted adults in this country which were smacked.

{Mother who can't control now smacking is not an option} She's missed the point, I agree that smacking should be a last resort and only used sparingly. For the record "this is going to hurt me more than it does you" does hold a large amount of water. For the child (this is after asking said small things) a smack is actually preferable because while it hurts it's over quickly, other punishments can last weeks[1]. Up to a certain age where rational discussion with a result is possible a smack is an effective method of getting the message across, normally meaning "don't do that again".

The argument that because smacking only works until the child is large enough to hit the parent is false. If the same logic is applied to other areas of child rearing we should either keep children in nappies until they leave home or not use them at all. We should either start feeding them on solids immediately or never feed them solids at all.

There is no "one size fits all" when dealing with children.

Assuming the law is as trailed rather than it appears from the actual wording then the change is something which I can live with. However I strongly suspect that social workers and other groups who want to ban smacking will be pushing for the tightest interpretation of the wording possible which I fear will see smacking banned by the backdoor and parents criminialised.

Final thought, if smacking is as evil as is stated by the anti smacking group then can someone explain the number of children and adults who have been smacked who are perfectly nice people, hell by their logic both D & K should be violent evil children who are well on their way to becoming child beaters themselves.

[1] David was recently 'room grounded' until he actually tidied the exercise in chaos theory which he called his own space, it took two weeks of sitting staring at it and two days of actually removing finger from orifice and tidying, the lesson appears to have been learnt, at least for the moment.

Read 106 again. It specifically disallows punishment (use of force after the event), and only allows the use of force to avert danger or crime (before the event).

Under that 106 you would no more be allowed to hit your children after they had committed a crime than Tony Martin would be allowed to shoot burglars in the back.

I have no need to read 106 again, because I got what you're saying from it on the first read through.

Use of force after the event is largely irrelevant in the case of danger, as if they haven't learned from the experience (assuming they survived it) then hitting them isn't going to make much difference. When I put my hand on the electric cooker ring that time, I didn't need to be smacked in order to learn that they stay hot for quite some time after they turn black. I was able to work that out all by myself. Would I have preferred a slap on the wrist and to be told "No, that's very hot" beforehand? Absolutely. Would it have made any difference in the aftermath? I very much doubt it.

As for the rest, well, concerned parents are just going to have to make sure that any punishments they devise for their children are sufficiently lacking in violence that they don't constitute assault, ABH or GBH. As was mentioned before, all this does is bring the law into line so that children are afforded the same level of protection as adults. I honestly cannot see why any parent would have a problem with that.

GHB is already illegal against children.

It's unecessary legislation which does not help in the slightest and potentially makes many parents criminals for doing something which in the last resort helps them get the message across to children who are below the age where they can be reasoned with. It will not stop children being beaten or killed, social services doing their job stands more of a chance of doing that. If the amendment is passed we will see parents being threatened with having their children removed from them based on reports by 'concerned citizens' who see a slight reddening on part of the child's body. To be frank as someone who has had a malicious accusation made I have no faith in the system.

Unless you were convicted because of the false accusation, I find that statement to be rather strange. If you were falsely accused and the accusation was proved to be false and you were acquitted, then it seems to me that the system is working pretty much how it should. It would, of course, be better if there were no malicious accusations, but for that to happen we'd have to have people who didn't lie and I can't see that coming any time soon.

Just out of interest, if a child is below the age of reason, what message are you imparting to them by hitting them?

Because of a malicious and anonymous accusation of "their child looks badly dressed and isn't properly looked after" (or words to that effect) against us, we now have a permanent record with the Social Services. This is regardless of the fact that the accusation was found by Social Services to be groundless within 12 hours of them receiving it. This means that should we be accused at some point in the future, either by someone being a bastard or by some well-meaning but mis-guided twonk, they are much more likely to take it seriously and possibly even re-open the old accusation despite it having been found groundless. (BTW, I have _no_ objection to the investigation that was undertaken - they got a complaint and had to investigate, the officer was polite and did her job the best she could - and we made it easy for her.)

Forget convictions, we are living in country where an accusation is required to be kept on file _regardless_ of its validity. The current push (mostly media fueled, but also heard from government types) for a national database where all allegations can be kept on file is just a horrifying concept. There's also been calls for a national database of children that is accessible by _all_ professionals who work with children - so a teacher flags the database that the child is tired; a few months later the GP flags that the child is underweight... *bang* grounds for investigation for possible abuse.

What's next? Take children away at birth so that they can be raised in the government (read pressure group) approved manner instead of by these untrained parents?

We don't need more laws... we need people like Social Services doing their jobs and not being hampered by notions of political correctness and worry about being called racist/bigot/feminazi/whatever. The laws to protect children from abuse are already there, let's use _them_.

> Just out of interest, if a child is below the age of reason, what message are you
> imparting to them by hitting them?

"Don't do $foo again", if smacking is used then it needs to be used while the 'action' or whatever is actually going on otherwise it just causes confusion as the two events are not linked.

Just as a matter of interest how would you try and train / educate / whatever a child to (for example) stop drawing on the walls.

I think the message you're imparting to them is "if you do this you'll be hit". I think there's a difference between those two messages.

What might I do? Take the crayons away. Would it work? I don't know, I've never tried it. It would certainly mean there'd be no more drawing on the wall. But, presumably, following the same line of reasoning, they ought to learn that "drawing on the wall leads to crayons being taken away", no? Assuming you take the crayons away while the action is going on.

More "action" == "discomfort"

Taking the crayons / pens / whatever away, trust me it works with some children doesn't work with others, with some it just means they go hunting for different drawing materials, ever tried to find every single pen, pencil, crayon etc etc in a house with children in?

To be honest even once they can understand explaining and showing why something shouldn't be done (we try to avoid "because I said so" as a reason) they'll still keep doing something either because "I want to" or through short term laziness. However once they reach an age where explaining works other punishments can kick in. (groundings, sitting in a corner, chores [beyond the norm], no TV (which has to be specified as including no Video / DVD / Playstation, they've got a future as lawyers).

Something which clicked with us a number of years ago was that while lecturing / telling off / talking to David he was giving all the signs of listening but he was in fact in a completely different place. We have since developed methods of ensuring that both of the kids are listening to us and more importantly are comprehending what we're saying both to the letter and the spirit of what we're trying to get across.

What I'm trying to get across is that smacking is one (very useful, in my opinion) tool in the arsenal parents have or have to learn in bringing up children. Unfortunately what I'm seeing from certain groups is that smacking is an evil which should be done away with but not actually offering any alternatives. There is no one size fits all solution for children just a large number of solutions to certain problems, some of which work with some children in some circumstance but don't work with others. Removing one of those weakens the ability of the parent to bring up the child and strengthens the hand of those who would impose their views of how children should be brought up on everyone.

My aims to are ensure that the kids are fed, healthy, educated, be able to use their brains and defend themselves in all areas of life and be people I can be proud of.

What I want to see the politicians do is to let parents get on with what is a bastard of a job without the constant erosion of our rights to do what we think is best for the children and stop undermining our ability to look after them. If they did that then just maybe I could accept the recent laws which put parents in jail for not exercising parental authority over children.

Once upon a time you might have found me in the 'smacking is okay to prevent danger' camp. I was under the mistaken impression that that was reason the majority of smacks were dealt out. But on reading some studies I found that most smacks have nothing to do with dangerous situations, they're to punish other things. Also, most parents felt frustrated or tired because of something else before smacking their child.

It has been argued that smacking is needed to prevent children from endangering themselves because nothing else would work. If this were so, why is Sweden's child accident rate one of the lowest in the world?

Btw, as far as I'm concerned, rmc, restraining your brother would have been a perfectly acceptable solution. If seatbelts are okay, then putting your brother in reins or something is okay too.

I daresay Sweden is going to be waved about a lot as an example, but I do think they got it right. Their law's primary purpose was to educate not criminalise parents. Prosecutions have gone down not up. Sweden has support mechanisms to help parents, like lengthy parental leave when a child is born, which the UK lacks. If the UK government wants a partial or total ban on smacking to work, they need to put those supportive measures in place.

I also think the human rights issue is important. Hitting an incompetent adult is illegal, hitting a child isn't. Why the difference? I helped to care for my grandmother before she moved to a senior citizens' home. Imagine a child capable of not only reaching a hot stove element but capable of turning the stove on and leaving the gas going. Who will not listen to 'don't touch the stove', no matter how often you say it. But I wasn't allowed to hit her to stop her from endangering herself and others.