Smacking Ban

[ayrmad]

43 minutes ago, heedthebaa said:

The naughty step  I cringe when this term is used

My 22 month old granddaughter would just hurl it at you when she's in top form.

[chomp my root]

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.

It just seems to me that nobody likes to see a kid get a wee whack in the queue for the tills at the supermarket when mum is at the end of her tether.  We all cringe inside, even those that have been there, I doubt bringing in rules will help.  Certainly not for the kids who get a hiding at home. If you are lucky enough to have a kid that behaves or are a mature and wise enough parent or are dead set against laying a hand on your kid then fair enough, its a bit tight to try and prohibit those that maybe do need it or lack another option to give their kid a wee whack/skelp as opposed to a beating. It really won't have much of an impact () long term, at least in my, my mates that I have talked to tonight (text) or my daughters experience. 

[invergowrie arab]

3 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

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.


 

Child development - no reading required anyone can have a go !!!

Unfortunately for your homespun wisdom the actual academic evidence points to exactly the opposite of the nonsense above.

[1320Lichtie]

You'd think going by some posters reactions on here that people who have smacked their children's bottom have instead actually kicked f**k out of them and left them lying like SweeperDees da.

I think Bairnardo has it spot on when it comes to this law being introduced.

As for smacking, I was smacked on occasion by my parents when I was younger, it was a wee bitty sore but it certainly taught me a lesson.

Would I smack my kids if I was to ever have any? No. I think there are better ways to discipline children and like other things it's probably a very old fashioned technique now.


There are two extreme attitudes from people on both sides of the fence being posted on this thread, both equally as cringeworthy as the other.

[whiskychimp]

3 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

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?

No. I class a tap as a smack. A smack can range from a tap to a wallop. A smack, by definition doesnt state it's force. Thats personal opinion.

[whiskychimp]

3 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said:

The part where you are causing unnecessary pain to the child.

What pain is that? Ive never hurt a child.......

......since I was a child

[Cerberus]

My parents never hit me but my brother who's 5 years older than me would if I did something bad.
Like a proper punch to the back of my head or a rock thrown at me.

Where does that come under the law? Is that OK?

[invergowrie arab]

Just now, chomp my root said:

It just seems to me that nobody likes to see a kid get a wee whack in the queue for the tills at the supermarket when mum is at the end of her tether.  We all cringe inside, even those that have been there, I doubt bringing in rules will help.  Certainly not for the kids who get a hiding at home. If you are lucky enough to have a kid that behaves or are a mature and wise enough parent or are dead set against laying a hand on your kid then fair enough, its a bit tight to try and prohibit those that maybe do need it or lack another option to give their kid a wee whack/skelp as opposed to a beating. It really won't have much of an impact () long term, at least in my, my mates that I have talked to tonight (text) or my daughters experience. 

The evidence in Sweden after decades of having this in place is that there never was any increased criminalisation of parents as a result.

The result was a change in the ways in which people brought their children up disciplined/ educated them. 

People, not you I'm being broad now, are always at pains to say how this law/that law wont change xyz because.. insert extreme examples.... 

It is true to say the kids that take serious hidings now will continue to take serious hidings the same way some people still dont wear a seatbelt or still smoke in their cars with kids in or still drink and drive but the long term aim is to shift the average and the studies where this has been in place for years suggest that has been successful.

 

[chomp my root]

3 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

You'd think going by some posters reactions on here that people who have smacked their children's bottom have instead actually kicked f**k out of them and left them lying like SweeperDees da.

I think Bairnardo has it spot on when it comes to this law being introduced.

As for smacking, I was smacked on occasion by my parents when I was younger, it was a wee bitty sore but it certainly taught me a lesson.

Would I smack my kids if I was to ever have any? No. I think there are better ways to discipline children and like other things it's probably a very old fashioned technique now.


There are two extreme attitudes from people on both sides of the fence being posted on this thread, both equally as cringeworthy as the other.
 

I agree with a lot of what you say, apart from the extreme on both sides, some onone side are accusing anyone who physically chastises a child as some kind of ogre, the other side isn't exactly telling everyone to beat their weans. 

[invergowrie arab]

6 minutes ago, whiskychimp said:

No. I class a tap as a smack. A smack can range from a tap to a wallop. A smack, by definition doesnt state it's force. Thats personal opinion.

Well you talked originally about "a tap" and said it is now a criminal offence - it isnt.

A wallop is and quite right too.

[ayrmad]

23 minutes ago, Jimmy85 said:

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. 

I think it's the opposite that's the bigger problem in society,  there are far too many disrespectful,expect everything for nowt fannies in the world for my liking.

[whiskychimp]

9 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said:

The part where you are causing unnecessary pain to the child.

Take 4 fingers, not the palm and put them 3 inches above your thigh or wherever. Drop them without force, not letting the palm or thumb touch.

Now do that through a nappy. Come back and tell me if it's painful. Btw Ive just tried it. Its barely noticeable.

[invergowrie arab]

9 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

I think Bairnardo has it spot on when it comes to this law being introduced.

 

There is no "law being introduced"

The defence of justifiable assault on a child is being removed to bring it into line with adults.

[ayrmad]

25 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?

Aye, I remember my then toddler showing me how to open the child proof cupboards.

[Jimmy85]

Just now, whiskychimp said:

Take 4 fingers, not the palm and put them 3 inches above your thigh or wherever. Drop them without force, not letting the palm or thumb touch.

Now do that through a nappy. Come back and tell me if it's painful. Btw Ive just tried it. Its barely noticeable.

 

You put a nappy on? 

[Bobby Skidmarks]

Just now, whiskychimp said:

Take 4 fingers, not the palm and put them 3 inches above your thigh or wherever. Drop them without force, not letting the palm or thumb touch.

Now do that through a nappy. Come back and tell me if it's painful. Btw Ive just tried it. Its barely noticeable.

Your skin isn't as soft as a toddlers. 

If it isn't causing them pain to react then seriously whats the point of it? If its a threat, then use something other than the threat of violence.

 

[invergowrie arab]

2 minutes ago, whiskychimp said:

Take 4 fingers, not the palm and put them 3 inches above your thigh or wherever. Drop them without force, not letting the palm or thumb touch.

Now do that through a nappy. Come back and tell me if it's painful. Btw Ive just tried it. Its barely noticeable.

and also not assault now or in future

[whiskychimp]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

Well you talked originally about "a tap" and said it is now a criminal offence - it isnt.

A wallop is and quite right too.

Depends on your opinion. I'd say the tap has become a criminal offence because, to me, it is a smack. 

 

[chomp my root]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

The evidence in Sweden after decades of having this in place is that there never was any increased criminalisation of parents as a result.

The result was a change in the ways in which people brought their children up disciplined/ educated them. 

People, not you I'm being broad now, are always at pains to say how this law/that law wont change xyz because.. insert extreme examples.... 

It is true to say the kids that take serious hidings now will continue to take serious hidings the same way some people still dont wear a seatbelt or still smoke in their cars with kids in or still drink and drive but the long term aim is to shift the average and the studies where this has been in place for years suggest that has been successful.

 

I'm not sure you're on the right thead, this is a well put argument backing up your viewpoint. I get the notion of a shift of conscious, its how society evolves.

One thing I will say is that what works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another, I'd love to see a Scotland (or anywhere else) where this would work but there are a range of differences between Sweden and Scotland (or the UK). We can cherry pick but its a big picture that is the issue, there are a lot of differences between the cultures of the Scandanavian coutnires and 'us'. We could learn a lot though.

[whiskychimp]

Just now, Bobby Skidmarks said:

Your skin isn't as soft as a toddlers. 

If it isn't causing them pain to react then seriously whats the point of it? If its a threat, then use something other than the threat of violence.

 

Read back to see me explain, in depth, what the point is.

"Your skin isnt as soft....."  Dear lord, shes not made of filo pastry.