HTG Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I don't recall ever being smacked by my parents. I do remember vividly getting the belt in primary 2 for "running on the grass". I know this isn't about the belt given how long that's been away but leathering a 6 year old for f**k all still outrages me and it's good to know that the c**t that did it will have been dead a long time now. I don't agree with hitting children so I'm fine with the ban. "Never did me any harm" is a bollocks argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB 4.2 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 12 hours ago, Gaz said: Imagine getting a hard-on for hitting kids an order of magnitude smaller and weaker than you. f**k's sake. 12 hours ago, chomp my root said: That's a whole different set of circumstances, beast thread for this pish. 41 minutes ago, chomp my root said: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 What also should be banned is parents getting their babies ear pierced. That is real child abuse. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 The “never did me any harm” line is clearly complete bollocks because it’s bred a generation of parents who think it’s acceptable to hit kids. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: Its not my first reaction. Its my last reaction. Dont touch that socket. Louder. Don't touch that socket. Louder. Dont touch that socker. Move towards child. Dont touch that socket. Grab arm. Loudly, don't touch that socket. Tap on bum, finger wag. Loudly, dont touch that socket. For example Why didn't you give a reason as to why she shouldn't touch that socket? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, whiskychimp said: Aye, but she's got legs Have you considered blocking access to/childproofing anything which might cause the child danger? Have you considered otherwise occupying the child? Have you considered something more intelligent than repeating something which isn't working before hitting the child? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB 4.2 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Is the buttocks skelp more effective than a Chinese burn ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, Bobby Skidmarks said: Why didn't you give a reason as to why she shouldn't touch that socket? She's not at an age to be reasoned with. When she is, that's what will happen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, HTG said: I don't recall ever being smacked by my parents. I do remember vividly getting the belt in primary 2 for "running on the grass". I know this isn't about the belt given how long that's been away but leathering a 6 year old for f**k all still outrages me and it's good to know that the c**t that did it will have been dead a long time now. I don't agree with hitting children so I'm fine with the ban. "Never did me any harm" is a bollocks argument. Its a very inarticulate argument but not necessarily a bollocks one. Just because it smacks of The Daily Mail doesn't mean it lacks validity, its somebodies first hand view/experience. While I share your 'judgement' to an extent, its still a fair point and as far as I can remember, one that hasn't been expressed so far, certainly not in those words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: She's not at an age to be reasoned with. When she is, that's what will happen Mine managed just fine without a smack. Its unnecessary imho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: She's not at an age to be reasoned with. When she is, that's what will happen She’s not at an age to be reasoned with but she’s at an age to be hit? Fucking hell. Honestly, that is genuinely disturbing behaviour. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: Is a tap on the arse not a very weak strike with an open hand? I'd say it is. If you like. I have never heard of any case where somebody was convicted of a weak strike/ tap/ firm relocation of another person. What the removal of s.51 of the CJSA 2003 will do is give children the same protection as adults in removing the defence of justifiable assault. An assault would still need to occur for an offence to be committed. The current position is that it is an offence to, for example, use an implement, leave marks or bruising or to commit a sustained assault. You could still give a kid a damn good whack on outer clothing without being in breach of the current law and relying on the protection of the current s.51 defence. That is what is being removed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: Mine managed just fine without a smack. Its unnecessary imho. And mine needs a tap, where's the issue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Don’t really see the big deal with it. I never did it to my daughter personally(did once and felt guilty) Did we have a bad society or unruly kids when it was common place? I don’t think we did. I’d rather deal with an adult that got smacked as a kid but had a bit of discipline now then one who never who thinks the world revolves around them and can’t take a telling which is what we appear to be getting on a societal issue with it dying out. I got smacked routinely as a wean. Got the odd proper kicking off my dad as well. Never did me any harm [emoji106] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: If you like. I have never heard of any case where somebody was convicted of a weak strike/ tap/ firm relocation of another person. What the removal of s.51 of the CJSA 2003 will do is give children the same protection as adults in removing the defence of justifiable assault. An assault would still need to occur for an offence to be committed. The current position is that it is an offence to, for example, use an implement, leave marks or bruising or to commit a sustained assault. You could still give a kid a damn good whack on outer clothing without being in breach of the current law and relying on the protection of the current s.51 defence. That is what is being removed. Depends on your point of view. To me a "tap on the arse" was a smack when I was small and still is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jimmy85 said: She’s not at an age to be reasoned with but she’s at an age to be hit? Fucking hell. Honestly, that is genuinely disturbing behaviour. What part of "tap" are you willfully ignoring? Your faux outrage is a sight to behold. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, whiskychimp said: Depends on your point of view. To me a "tap on the arse" was a smack when I was small and still is. Ok, so it is not just a wee tap to give them a bit of a fright or get their attention. Are genuinely talking about chastisement and causing physical pain to make your point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: What part of "tap" are you willfully ignoring? Your faux outrage is a sight to behold. Mate, you hit toddlers. It’s normal to be repulsed by that behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: And mine needs a tap, where's the issue The part where you are causing unnecessary pain to the child. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: Have you considered blocking access to/childproofing anything which might cause the child danger? Have you considered otherwise occupying the child? Have you considered something more intelligent than repeating something which isn't working before hitting the child? Childproofing is not a possibility. Unless you remove all furniture and pad the walls and floor. Distracting her would work but she'd return to the dangerous activity pretty quickly. I prefer to let her know at the time with a "tap" if necessary 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.