I watched the big Question on BBC1 this morning and the government is still pushing to ban the smacking of children. The arguements against banning smacking was that it is an common assault to smack an adult, so children should have the same rights. While I believe that hitting a child is wrong a smack on the hand or leg is acceptable within limits, but we also need to make sure that love and affection are within the home too. While I have smacked my children I havent found the need to with my 16 year old since he was about 4 at which age you can reason with a child. They say smacking breeds violence I have 3 children twins 11 and a 16 year old. My children have never hit another child or caused pain to another child or animal.
So are there findings true in a caring loving enviroment where smacking is a last result?
What are your views?
Should parents like us be punished when all we are trying to do is bring our children up with the right morals and respect for others?
Would locking me up for smacking my children make for my child to be a more stable being?
What are your views?
I do believe that there are parents that need to be accountable for their actions, but dont tarnish everyone with the same brush!!
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Should smacking children be banned?
Sex God
No it shouldn't....
Sex God
Nope, it shouldn't be banned.
they should be told off not struck and understand when if that fails then firmly held and violently shaken until all breathing stops 
only joking,
Now! do wild animals correct the young? Of course they do and so should we!
you should able to do with your child as you see fit and not have a nanny state tell you what you can and cannot do.
only joking,
Now! do wild animals correct the young? Of course they do and so should we!
you should able to do with your child as you see fit and not have a nanny state tell you what you can and cannot do.
No.
I once witnessed a woman literally whacking her daughter over her head, I was furious and before I could say anything another mother went up to her and warned her that she might receive the same back.
Whilst I agree a child should be chastised, a simple tap on the back of the legs is fine, full on head whacking/smacking/hitting is NOT acceptable.
Personally I've only ever had to smack my daughter very few times(on her nappy and back of legs) my glare was always enough to stop her in her tracks!
I once witnessed a woman literally whacking her daughter over her head, I was furious and before I could say anything another mother went up to her and warned her that she might receive the same back.
Whilst I agree a child should be chastised, a simple tap on the back of the legs is fine, full on head whacking/smacking/hitting is NOT acceptable.
Personally I've only ever had to smack my daughter very few times(on her nappy and back of legs) my glare was always enough to stop her in her tracks!
There's a huge difference between smacking for discipline and physical abuse. Unfortunately, some people don't know the difference and need a good slap themselves 
I say no, it shouldn't be banned. They're MY kids, I will discipline them MY way and if that needs a smack, then a smack they get. Thankfully, my boys are too old for a smack but it certainly worked on them when they were little and the number of times they did get smacked I could count on the fingers of one hand.
I'd bring back the cane in schools but then I'm not very PC on the subject of unruly kids, bad parents and elder abuse.
I say no, it shouldn't be banned. They're MY kids, I will discipline them MY way and if that needs a smack, then a smack they get. Thankfully, my boys are too old for a smack but it certainly worked on them when they were little and the number of times they did get smacked I could count on the fingers of one hand.
I'd bring back the cane in schools but then I'm not very PC on the subject of unruly kids, bad parents and elder abuse.
the reason why they want to ban smacking of children is there can sometimes be a fine line between what is classed as a smack and what can be contstituted as child abuse. I believe that we have now reached the stage as a nation where it should be banned to protect children from some people who are perhaps too violent in their smacking and also to protect adults from the fact there will always be someone who will turn round and say it is child abuse. Remember the amounts of children who were taken from their families in the 90's due to the cleveland child abuse case and the lives of those families were wrecked when in many cases the child abuse couldnt be proven. As a parent that is a situation that I personally would not want to be in
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I watched the big Question on BBC1 this morning and the government is still pushing to ban the smacking of children. The arguements against banning smacking was that it is an common assault to smack an adult, so children should have the same rights. While I believe that hitting a child is wrong a smack on the hand or leg is acceptable within limits, but we also need to make sure that love and affection are within the home too. While I have smacked my children I havent found the need to with my 16 year old since he was about 4 at which age you can reason with a child. They say smacking breeds violence I have 3 children twins 11 and a 16 year old. My children have never hit another child or caused pain to another child or animal.
So are there findings true in a caring loving enviroment where smacking is a last result?
What are your views?
Should parents like us be punished when all we are trying to do is bring our children up with the right morals and respect for others?
Would locking me up for smacking my children make for my child to be a more stable being?
What are your views?
I do believe that there are parents that need to be accountable for their actions, but dont tarnish everyone with the same brush!!
Everything in moderation and that includes smacking. I did smack my kids but only if they seriously over stepped the mark. Luckily I only ever had to do it a couple of times. But usually love and parental boundaries does the trick!!!!
A lot of bleeding heart liberals minx will of course say " you dont have to smack your child ", but some children DO deserve a smack. I am not talking a whack around the head but, a stiff smack across the back of the legs. There has to be some kind of discipline for kids and some will just laugh at you if you ban their playstations for a day! :shock: IF smacking breeds violence then what about the parents who allow their 11 or 12 year olds to watch 18 only dvds? Do they not have extreme violence? Will that not make them into mass murderers? Of course not! Some kids will do as you want them to with you just asking, but there are other horrid kids who def deserve a smack at times. Only the parent or parents can judge when that can be.
The Liberty brigade should find better things to do, and leave parents to do what parents do!! In my view if there was more discipline in the home maybe teachers would have an easier job and there would not be thousands of ferel youths out there, causing mayhem, with their " you cant touch me attitude ". Because If I did something wrong as a kid and was caught, I knew what my Father would do. Do I hold a grudge against him for smacking me? Of course not as he did what he thought was best at the time for ME.
Smack your child if they deserve it because the day when that becomes an offence, is the day when children have won the right to do exactly as they please!! If that time has not already come. Dont believe me? Then wander down your local high street at night and see the gangs of ferel youths out there. Scared? We all should be, and what a sorry state of affairs it is.
Quote by kaz_allen
the reason why they want to ban smacking of children is there can sometimes be a fine line between what is classed as a smack and what can be contstituted as child abuse. I believe that we have now reached the stage as a nation where it should be banned to protect children from some people who are perhaps too violent in their smacking and also to protect adults from the fact there will always be someone who will turn round and say it is child abuse. Remember the amounts of children who were taken from their families in the 90's due to the cleveland child abuse case and the lives of those families were wrecked when in many cases the child abuse couldnt be proven. As a parent that is a situation that I personally would not want to be in
While I see your point, I don't see how banning smacking will stop abusive parents from harming their kids. You see children with bruises all the time but most of the time, the threat they receive from their abusers if they tell anyone is enough to make them cover up the tracks of those scumbags.
Most abuse, whether it be sexual, physical or emotional, is carried out behind closed doors where no one can moniter their behaviour. Unfortunately, it'll never be wiped out completely and that's a crying shame.
More needs to be done to protect children but the onus should be on families keeping an eye open for signs, better monitering by social services of children at risk and more training for their staff. Another possibilty would be to add parenting courses to the high school curriculum to get these potential parents BEFORE they get knocked up far too young and find themselves raising a horde of kids without any knowledge of life.
**soapbox put away and off to the GFZ**
i actually don't think it should be banned......thou i think it is totally wrong that any parent should smack their child. If you revert to violence ( sorry but that is what a smack is) then you have simply lost the argument..and just being a bully, by saying i'm bigger and stronger than you, and so yo will do what i say. Maybe i am just lucky...but i have found sitting down with my daughter, and firmly explaining things, has always worked.
What is it with this Labour government and their incessant desire to interfere in every aspect of our lives with their ever-widening of trying to nanny us?
If it's not smacking (impossible to ban, it will carry on), it's drinking (making 24/7 opening hours and then wondering why binge drinking is off the scale), or it's CCTV intrusion, DNA database expansion even for innocent people, opening up which organisations can view previously private personal data etc etc.
Nanny doesn't always know best but what amazes me is how these clowns are continually voted in. They may be Labour my name but they aren't Labour by nature.
If it's not smacking (impossible to ban, it will carry on), it's drinking (making 24/7 opening hours and then wondering why binge drinking is off the scale), or it's CCTV intrusion, DNA database expansion even for innocent people, opening up which organisations can view previously private personal data etc etc.
Nanny doesn't always know best but what amazes me is how these clowns are continually voted in. They may be Labour my name but they aren't Labour by nature.
Sex God
It should not be banned, it should be left up to the parents to disipline as required the law is all because of the few that go *overboard*
Banning smacking will only lead to more unruly children some kids need it some dont
Banning smacking will only lead to more unruly children some kids need it some dont
Warming the Bed
Having a child myself....i have smacked her (on the bottom) but now she knows and a stern word normally works with her now...
It should not be banned as said before how can they monitor it
as alot of abuse happens behind closed doors.
I was smacked as a child....Didn't do me any harm and i learned my lesson.
I do wonder what they will try to ban next???
It should not be banned as said before how can they monitor it
as alot of abuse happens behind closed doors.I was smacked as a child....Didn't do me any harm and i learned my lesson.
I do wonder what they will try to ban next???
Sexpert
No
and kids who assault teachers, should be allowed to clobber them back in defence.
Two were even last year. Glad I never went into that profession.
and kids who assault teachers, should be allowed to clobber them back in defence.
Two were even last year. Glad I never went into that profession.
Quote by swcpl2005
What is it with this Labour government and their incessant desire to interfere in every aspect of our lives with their ever-widening of trying to nanny us?
If it's not smacking (impossible to ban, it will carry on), it's drinking (making 24/7 opening hours and then wondering why binge drinking is off the scale), or it's CCTV intrusion, DNA database expansion even for innocent people, opening up which organisations can view previously private personal data etc etc.
Nanny doesn't always know best but what amazes me is how these clowns are continually voted in. They may be Labour my name but they aren't Labour by nature.
Why do you feel the need to blame Labour? I'm not going to start sticking up for them but the Family and children are paramount on their agenda and that can only be a good thing. If you haven't already, read up on Victoria Climbie, if ever there was the need for intervention there you have it.
I'm not going to start a political barney but all I'll say is because of the above.... 'Surestart' came about which has been brilliant for helping put the safety of children first.
I'm not going to prattle on but whichever party is in, someone will have something to say - we could always revert back to 'every man for himself'?
Sex God
Quote by AshaandAlex
No
and kids who assault teachers, should be allowed to clobber them back in defence.
Two were even last year. Glad I never went into that profession.
Two what? Teachers? :shock:
Do you mean the teachers should be allowed to clobber the kids back?
I've actually had parents tell me to 'clip him/her around the ear'.
And the parents of Muslim children who have told me that I am the child's parent when they are in school and that I should beat them to make them behave (literally beat them with a stick).I've also recently been at the mercy of children who have made accusations that I have been hitting them. All lies and I have my TA with me at all times. But it had to be investigated and statements taken from adults and children. Made me feel like packing it in, I have to say.
I think it should be banned.
I do think that for some people there is a clear line between abuse and a smack. That doesn't mean that I advocate smacking or abuse.
I believe it should be banned as it is too hard to say clearly and universally what is a smack and what is abuse.
I would never smack an adult I professed to love. I would never think that an adult that smacked me loved me. I would think that the adult was violent, aggressive and also incapable of reasonable communication. They would certainly not be getting my respect any time soon.
I do think that children need communicating with in different and more creative ways than adults do. But I think that smacking is not a way to communicate in any circumstance.
Teachers consistently have to maintain the respect of a classroom of, sometimes unruly, children without laying a hand on them. Perhaps the ones they are least able to communicate with are those that are smacked at home? That is obviously conjecture as I am not the parent of a whole classroom of children.
I do think that for some people there is a clear line between abuse and a smack. That doesn't mean that I advocate smacking or abuse.
I believe it should be banned as it is too hard to say clearly and universally what is a smack and what is abuse.
I would never smack an adult I professed to love. I would never think that an adult that smacked me loved me. I would think that the adult was violent, aggressive and also incapable of reasonable communication. They would certainly not be getting my respect any time soon.
I do think that children need communicating with in different and more creative ways than adults do. But I think that smacking is not a way to communicate in any circumstance.
Teachers consistently have to maintain the respect of a classroom of, sometimes unruly, children without laying a hand on them. Perhaps the ones they are least able to communicate with are those that are smacked at home? That is obviously conjecture as I am not the parent of a whole classroom of children.
Sexpert
oooooo minx u can smack me anytime; can you handcuff me first though?? 
Jaymar - why blame Labour you ask, well that's because they are the political party who are the incumbent Government and hence responsible for the introduction of laws into our land and I stand by my accusation of them having a nanny attitude towards telling people how to live their lives.
Have I heard of the Climbie case? Yes I have and a quick look at the inquest's website and the wikipedia entry makes for very depressing reading. She didn't die from smacking, it was due to a combination of the abuse she suffered (which included being burnt with cigarettes, being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours and hit with bike chains, hammers and wire) plus hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition. Both she and her two guardians were well known to Social Services, the Police, the NHS and the NSPCC prior to her death and at the trial, the judge accused all of them of "blinding incompetence". You mention intervention well if those people charged with her protection had been doing their job properly (there were at least 12 occasions when she could have ben saved) she would have been alive today and in my opinion the linking of her tragic death to smacking is slightly distracting from this discussion - her death, as sad and avoidable as it was is well outside the scope of a mild admonishment to a child who may be misbehaving. The Climbie case is nothing more than institutional evil at its very worst and no new laws would have prevented it.
Where I do agree with you is the need to give Labour credit for taking on some of the recommendations (e.g. Surestart). If it prevents just one more Climbie then it's had some success.
Have I heard of the Climbie case? Yes I have and a quick look at the inquest's website and the wikipedia entry makes for very depressing reading. She didn't die from smacking, it was due to a combination of the abuse she suffered (which included being burnt with cigarettes, being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours and hit with bike chains, hammers and wire) plus hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition. Both she and her two guardians were well known to Social Services, the Police, the NHS and the NSPCC prior to her death and at the trial, the judge accused all of them of "blinding incompetence". You mention intervention well if those people charged with her protection had been doing their job properly (there were at least 12 occasions when she could have ben saved) she would have been alive today and in my opinion the linking of her tragic death to smacking is slightly distracting from this discussion - her death, as sad and avoidable as it was is well outside the scope of a mild admonishment to a child who may be misbehaving. The Climbie case is nothing more than institutional evil at its very worst and no new laws would have prevented it.
Where I do agree with you is the need to give Labour credit for taking on some of the recommendations (e.g. Surestart). If it prevents just one more Climbie then it's had some success.
I'd bring back the cane in schools but then I'm not very PC on the subject of unruly kids, bad parents and elder abuse.
I understand your comments here, but I feel that the children that are misbehaving at school are the ones that might get abused at home. So schools seeming to add to their punishment might not be the answer. I think parents should be more accountable for their childrens actions, and their parenting skills need to be looked into. They might need to be educated on how to raise a child.
This is just my opinion!
I understand your comments here, but I feel that the children that are misbehaving at school are the ones that might get abused at home. So schools seeming to add to their punishment might not be the answer. I think parents should be more accountable for their childrens actions, and their parenting skills need to be looked into. They might need to be educated on how to raise a child.
This is just my opinion!
Quote by deancannock
i actually don't think it should be banned......thou i think it is totally wrong that any parent should smack their child. If you revert to violence ( sorry but that is what a smack is) then you have simply lost the argument..and just being a bully, by saying i'm bigger and stronger than you, and so yo will do what i say. Maybe i am just lucky...but i have found sitting down with my daughter, and firmly explaining things, has always worked.
I think your comment that we think we are bigger and stronger is incorrect, older and wiser might be more of a correct statement. I am glad your daughter is able to see reason I am not sure how old she is, but not all child have the same ablitity I have three. One of which I have never had to smack a look is enough. All I wish for as a parent that my children come to no harm and that they lead a happy and fullfilled life and smacking doesnt get in the way of this as I have a very well adjusted 16 year old son whos great. And I was smacked as a child and have always and still have a great relationship with my parents. And did I deserve this punishment yes I did.
:smackbottom: :smackbottom:Quote by Freckledbird
I've also recently been at the mercy of children who have made accusations that I have been hitting them. All lies and I have my TA with me at all times. But it had to be investigated and statements taken from adults and children. Made me feel like packing it in, I have to say.
That's dreadful FB; I hope it was sorted out without too much distress for you.
Should smacking children be banned? Probably. It would be impossible to police, most of it happening out of sight, but at least it would set the standard.
Should children be smacked? Probably not - doesn't it teach by example that the way to get someone to act the way you want them to is by violence?
If you smack your children, you probably learnt that from your own parents. I'd like to be the generation that breaks the pattern.
Do I win the oscar for most 'probably's in one post?
Sexpert
all this talk of the nannie state makes me want to mention my adult baby fetish..........
Quote by swcpl2005
Jaymar - why blame Labour you ask, well that's because they are the political party who are the incumbent Government and hence responsible for the introduction of laws into our land and I stand by my accusation of them having a nanny attitude towards telling people how to live their lives.
Have I heard of the Climbie case? Yes I have and a quick look at the inquest's website and the wikipedia entry makes for very depressing reading. She didn't die from smacking, it was due to a combination of the abuse she suffered (which included being burnt with cigarettes, being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours and hit with bike chains, hammers and wire) plus hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition. Both she and her two guardians were well known to Social Services, the Police, the NHS and the NSPCC prior to her death and at the trial, the judge accused all of them of "blinding incompetence". You mention intervention well if those people charged with her protection had been doing their job properly (there were at least 12 occasions when she could have ben saved) she would have been alive today and in my opinion the linking of her tragic death to smacking is slightly distracting from this discussion - her death, as sad and avoidable as it was is well outside the scope of a mild admonishment to a child who may be misbehaving. The Climbie case is nothing more than institutional evil at its very worst and no new laws would have prevented it.
Where I do agree with you is the need to give Labour credit for taking on some of the recommendations (e.g. Surestart). If it prevents just one more Climbie then it's had some success.
Helloooo, I'm not asking you to bow down from your beliefs and I respect anyone's views. One thing though? were they your thoughts or Wikopedia's
I didn't say she did die from smacking - it was an example of Labour bringing in legislation to help prevent children being hurt and abused. I know full well of the horrors of the Climbie case and the services' neglect therein - Lord Laming in his report asked for ways of preventing this type of horror happening again. That is when Labour introduced 'Every Child Matters'.
Our discussion is simply about government interventions and not child abuse as such, let's keep on track before this thread spirals into a different topic area
Quote by swcpl2005
Jaymar - why blame Labour you ask, well that's because they are the political party who are the incumbent Government and hence responsible for the introduction of laws into our land and I stand by my accusation of them having a nanny attitude towards telling people how to live their lives.
Have I heard of the Climbie case? Yes I have and a quick look at the inquest's website and the wikipedia entry makes for very depressing reading. She didn't die from smacking, it was due to a combination of the abuse she suffered (which included being burnt with cigarettes, being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours and hit with bike chains, hammers and wire) plus hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition. Both she and her two guardians were well known to Social Services, the Police, the NHS and the NSPCC prior to her death and at the trial, the judge accused all of them of "blinding incompetence". You mention intervention well if those people charged with her protection had been doing their job properly (there were at least 12 occasions when she could have ben saved) she would have been alive today and in my opinion the linking of her tragic death to smacking is slightly distracting from this discussion - her death, as sad and avoidable as it was is well outside the scope of a mild admonishment to a child who may be misbehaving. The Climbie case is nothing more than institutional evil at its very worst and no new laws would have prevented it.
Where I do agree with you is the need to give Labour credit for taking on some of the recommendations (e.g. Surestart). If it prevents just one more Climbie then it's had some success.
Sums it all up for me...a good post!!
Quote by kentswingers777
Jaymar - why blame Labour you ask, well that's because they are the political party who are the incumbent Government and hence responsible for the introduction of laws into our land and I stand by my accusation of them having a nanny attitude towards telling people how to live their lives.
Have I heard of the Climbie case? Yes I have and a quick look at the inquest's website and the wikipedia entry makes for very depressing reading. She didn't die from smacking, it was due to a combination of the abuse she suffered (which included being burnt with cigarettes, being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours and hit with bike chains, hammers and wire) plus hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition. Both she and her two guardians were well known to Social Services, the Police, the NHS and the NSPCC prior to her death and at the trial, the judge accused all of them of "blinding incompetence". You mention intervention well if those people charged with her protection had been doing their job properly (there were at least 12 occasions when she could have ben saved) she would have been alive today and in my opinion the linking of her tragic death to smacking is slightly distracting from this discussion - her death, as sad and avoidable as it was is well outside the scope of a mild admonishment to a child who may be misbehaving. The Climbie case is nothing more than institutional evil at its very worst and no new laws would have prevented it.
Where I do agree with you is the need to give Labour credit for taking on some of the recommendations (e.g. Surestart). If it prevents just one more Climbie then it's had some success.
Sums it all up for me...a good post!!
But no one is agreeing or disagreeing with it, it was in reply to something I said
Quote by swcpl2005
What is it with this Labour government and their incessant desire to interfere in every aspect of our lives with their ever-widening of trying to nanny us?
If it's not smacking (impossible to ban, it will carry on), it's drinking (making 24/7 opening hours and then wondering why binge drinking is off the scale), or it's CCTV intrusion, DNA database expansion even for innocent people, opening up which organisations can view previously private personal data etc etc.
Nanny doesn't always know best but what amazes me is how these clowns are continually voted in. They may be Labour my name but they aren't Labour by nature.
I thought I would just mention here the new law about smoking that is being discussed by government too. Not only can we not smoke in a public place, which as a smoker I agree has worked. The government I have heard are trying to bring in a new law whereby smokers need a permit priced i believe to be £10 a month to smoke in the streets, in peoples own cars etc. This has been discussed on the radio. It could be a aprils fool joke.
Should it be banned?
Yes 100%. I think it is abuse.
I think that just as corporal punishment has been outlawed in schools, in years to come, it will be outlawed everywhere else. I think it is barbaric.
I have no children, so you may think I might hold a different opinion if I did. I'm open to that possibility.
Maybe I would feel differently if my childhood had been different.
Yes 100%. I think it is abuse.
I think that just as corporal punishment has been outlawed in schools, in years to come, it will be outlawed everywhere else. I think it is barbaric.
I have no children, so you may think I might hold a different opinion if I did. I'm open to that possibility.
Maybe I would feel differently if my childhood had been different.
Sexpert
i used to have a smoking fetish but i quit....
