Brits: Keep Slappng Your Kids Around?

[Liar]

I read a short article in the news today that the British guv'ment have declared that it is still legal to beat one's offspring, as long as it "doesn't leave marks, and is administered restrictiveily". Tony Blair's spokesperson apparently explained this desicion by saying "we don't want to criminalise parents".

What kind of fucking moron excuse is that!? People who use violence against children are criminals, point blank, and deserves a good, hard slap back. Preferrably with a brick.

Am I reading it all wrong? Is this some bad joke? Any brit out there that can shed some light on this for me?

#L

 

[Guest]

I read a short article in the news today that the British guv'ment have declared that it is still legal to beat one's offspring, as long as it "doesn't leave marks, and is administered restrictiveily". Tony Blair's spokesperson apparently explained this desicion by saying "we don't want to criminalise parents".

What kind of fucking moron excuse is that!? People who use violence against children are criminals, point blank, and deserves a good, hard slap back. Preferrably with a brick.

Am I reading it all wrong? Is this some bad joke? Any brit out there that can shed some light on this for me?

#L

I'm not gonna say too much on this highly emotive issue, but I will just say that it's very clear from your post that you don't have kids (but I did know that anyway. ).

It is not legal to "beat our offspring". However, it is still legal for us to administer a light smack.

In your eyes, then, I am a criminal. Yes, I have smacked my children. However, a light smack on the backs of their legs is a far cry from beating them. I have very, very rarely smacked my children, but when I have, it was as a complete last resort. No, I'm not proud of myself, but I do love my children deeply and they love me, with all their hearts. I abso-fucking-lutely REFUSE to be branded as a child beater, so please don't.

Hit me, with a brick.

Lou

 

[LuceLastics]

Being British myself and a mother of 3 boys i have never once had to smack them - But a number of parents do indeed smack their offspring - some may only gently tap the back of their legs as a last resort to chastising them - and yes some do go alittle far and beat their children black and blue - But what i think the Goverment are saying is a slight tap to the legs or hands as a warning is acceptable - but like you i dont feel the need to chastise a child that way - taking away privelidges is far more hurting to a child than a smack. And its about communcation too - if you talk to down to your child then they will rebel - I Find talking to my children on an equal basis works better - they do have opinions too and like all relationships - even with your children you do have to find a common ground, and have rules on both sides to respect and adhere too.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: Re: Brits: Keep Slappng Your Kids Around?

I'm not gonna say too much on this highly emotive issue, but I will just say that it's very clear from your post that you don't have kids (but I did know that anyway. ).

It is not legal to "beat our offspring". However, it is still legal for us to administer a light smack.

In your eyes, then, I am a criminal. Yes, I have smacked my children. However, a light smack on the backs of their legs is a far cry from beating them. I have very, very rarely smacked my children, but when I have, it was as a complete last resort. No, I'm not proud of myself, but I do love my children deeply and they love me, with all their hearts. I abso-fucking-lutely REFUSE to be branded as a child beater, so please don't.

Hit me, with a brick.

Lou

I have to agree with Lou, not as a brit, which I'm not, but as a parent.
There is a major difference between discipline with a light smack on the butt and child abuse which is far more aggresive.

By today's standards, my mother would have been incarcerated. Despite what I seem to be on here, I did turn out well. I also learned respect.

Make it a red brick for me.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I would suspect that the reason language like that is put in is to create a little breathing room in the law.

Example: In a resteraunt, the food is just being served a a child reaches across for something and a parent gives the back of the childs hand a little tap because the child is being inpolite. Some goodie-goodie, trying to save the world is watching from the next table and doesnt like the way they are parenting. So she stirs up shit. The next day the department for children is on the doorstep.

If there is no leniency in the law then this parent could concievably be considered a child beater and face jail or loosing the child.

THe problem with this kind of thing is that it creates grey areas that make convictions of real criminals more diffacult.

 

[cloudy]

People who don't smack their kids on the behind occasionally apparently don't have small savages like I do.

I don't have to do it often, but I sure as hell have to occasionally.

Hello - you can't "reason" with a two-year-old...

I'd like a red brick as well, please.

 

[minsue]

Staying safely out of the rest of the argument, I do feel the need to toss my two cents in about one statement.

I will just say that it's very clear from your post that you don't have kids (but I did know that anyway. ).

I've known plenty of people who were never once smacked as children. Having kids does not automatically mean that one thinks they should be smacked. Even stated in jest, that got under my skin a bit.

 

[oggbashan]

There is a problem with our current law. It does not distinguish between what is 'normal' and what is 'abuse'.

The French have the same problem. Their law is so fierce about smacking children that very few parents are prosecuted. Would you class the offence as deserving the same sentence as a violent rape EVERY TIME? The French do for even a single slap - theoretically - and can't use their law.

The current situation is not tenable. Abusive parents can claim 'reasonable chastisement' and get away with almost anything short of causing death. One of the cases frequently quoted is of a nineteenth century schoolmaster who hit a boy so hard and so frequently that the boy died. That was decided to be 'unreasonable' but many cases that you or I would consider unreasonable have failed to reach a conviction because the parent(s) claim that reasonable chastisement was intended.

Up to the age of three or four my wife and I would tap a child's hand to warn that it was about to, or had done something wrong such as reaching for a hot saucepan. I mean 'tap' not 'slap'.

The 'terrible twos' and 'frightful fours' were a strain but the whole family survived without slapping. Reasoning with a two to four year old who is having a tantrum is not possible. Other means of discipline such as removal of offending food, or removal of the child to another place can be effective if immediate. Promises of future punishment or deprival of a future treat is useless. A child of that age doesn't fully understand 'tomorrow'. And "Just you wait till Dad gets home..." is disastrous.

The government is trying to get a balance between what most people would consider 'reasonable' and what most would consider to be 'unreasonable' or 'abuse'. That is not easy and the debate about it will continue.

The proposal from the House of Lords that punishment that leaves an enduring mark such as a bruise or cut is not acceptable seems a good basis to consider.

This debate will run and run.

Og

 

[Honey123]

I read a short article in the news today that the British guv'ment have declared that it is still legal to beat one's offspring, as long as it "doesn't leave marks, and is administered restrictiveily". Tony Blair's spokesperson apparently explained this desicion by saying "we don't want to criminalise parents".

What kind of fucking moron excuse is that!? People who use violence against children are criminals, point blank, and deserves a good, hard slap back. Preferrably with a brick.

Am I reading it all wrong? Is this some bad joke? Any brit out there that can shed some light on this for me?

#L

I have seen parents grab their children by the arms and nearly pull the limb off...I would have to say that I would have preferred them to smack the child on their behind before injuring a child's arm, perhaps for life.

A smack on the butt or hand every once in awhile is not a harmful act of discipline. I don't agree with smacking a child on the face, pulling hair, pulling body parts (i.e., arms, shoulders, etc.)

As a mother of an 8 year old, I think I may have tapped my child once in the face - and I cried like a baby afterwards. He, while having a tantrum, struck my face and I retaliated. He was stunned and so was I...like I said, I cried like a baby. It never left a mark, it was a light tap, but I felt horrendous. Something I will never forget.

Have I hit him since...honestly, no. Do I yell at him, HELL YES!

Do I believe in discipline...yes, of course I do and I do not disagree with parents who smack their children. But, there is a point of overdoing it and, I think that what you are saying in your comment above is, more or less, here is someone actually giving THOSE parents the right to discipline their children in a more abusive way.

When I was younger I taught religion to 1st graders. There was this young, beautiful little girl who would come in every Sunday with bruises on her legs and arms. Well, one day, she came in with a black eye! I approached her and she clammed up. I went to the principle and told her what I thought might be happening. I assumed child abuse. Who wouldn't? The principle said she would talk to the parents. Unfortunately, I do not know the outcome. The child was taken out of the class. I could only hope that by my intevening, the parents or parent who hit this child, did not take it upon him or herself and beat her up more, but hopefully got help.

I always question myself and wonder if what I did was the right thing.

 

[Liar]

Ok, everyone, please, before I'm being beaten into pulp, let me first of all explain what I reacted on in the article.

Maybe it was poorly reported, but it gave the impression that abuse in form of diciplinary violence was ok in any form, as long as obvious bruises and scars were left out of the picture. A slap on a hand or whatever does of course not fall under that category. It was the rather fuzzy "restrictively" that I reacted against the most. I mean, who decides that?

I thought I did ask quite clearly if I in fact had misunderstood what this was all about. Apparently I have to shout it from the rooftops.

As for me not having kids... Well, first of all I can speak and have a valid opinion about many an issue that doesn't involve me in first person. Second of all, you're off base. I have worked with children, and have been just as present as a father figure in raising my kid brother as my parents ever was, loved and cared for him just as much as if he was my own son.

Lou, Cloudy et al. I'm not trying to judge people. What you've described doesn't sound at all like the kind of abuse I'm thinking off. I was no angel as a kid either, my tantrums and disorderly behaviour when I was in kindergarten age is of legendary status. Never did anyone lay their hands on me, other than to restrain me when I was being totally impossible. I suspect that that is similar to the force you might use.

But what that law sounds like to me, from reading that article, is a loophole for those who can not control themselves, and who would use administration of pain as a diciplinary tool on a regular basis, and not as a last resort.

No bricks from me, those are saved for those who use excessive and redundant violence against children.

I'd rather hit you with my luv thang.

#L

 

[Guest]

Staying safely out of the rest of the argument, I do feel the need to toss my two cents in about one statement.



I've known plenty of people who were never once smacked as children. Having kids does not automatically mean that one thinks they should be smacked. Even stated in jest, that got under my skin a bit.

I'm sorry that got under your skin, truly I am, but I obviously didn't state what I meant correctly.

I didn't mean that, just because somebody has kids they automatically think children should be smacked. You put words into my mouth there.

I meant, it is oh so easy to sit in judgement of parents, when you do not have children yourself. I am not saying that, just because somebody doesn't have children, they can have no opinion on this, I'm just saying that, it is often those without children who are so judgemental towards the way we parent our kids.

I have rarely smacked my children, as I said, and whenever I have I haven't just lashed out in a fit of rage, without trying to talk to them and reason with them first. It is a last resort. You must remember, as CD pointed out, a light tap on the back of the hand consitutes a smack, in this context.

My two are wonderfully happy, well-adjusted, confident, bright and bubbly little girls. They have wonderful manners and are so incredibly loving. Well, I guess I would say that.

Edited and deleted a bit, because I posted at the same time as Liar.

Lou

 

[Honey123]

Ok, everyone, please, before I'm being beaten into pulp, let me first of all explain what I reacted on in the article.

Maybe it was poorly reported, but it gave the impression that abuse in form of diciplinary violence was ok in any form, as long as obvious bruises and scars were left out of the picture. A slap on a hand or whatever does of course not fall under that category. It was the rather fuzzy "restrictively" that I reacted against the most. I mean, who decides that?

I thought I did ask quite clearly if I in fact had misunderstood what this was all about. Apparently I have to shout it from the rooftops.

As for me not having kids... Well, first of all I can speak and have a valid opinion about many an issue that doesn't involve me in first person. Second of all, you're off base. I have worked with children, have been just as present as a father figure in raising my kid brother as my parents ever was.

Lou, Cloudy et al. I'm not trying to judge people. What you've described doesn't sound at all like the kind of abuse I'm thinking off. I was no angel as a kid either, my tantrums and disorderly behaviour when I was in kindergarten age is of legendary status. Never did anyone lay their hands on me, other than to restrain me when I was being totally impossible. I suspect that that is similar to the force you might use.

But what that law sounds like to me, from reading that article, is a loophole for those who can not control themselves.

No bricks from me, those are saved for those who use excessive and redundant violence against children.

I'd rather hit you with my luv thang.

#L

I think topics like this are always difficult and are taken to heart by alot of people (parents and non-parents alike)!

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I think topics like this are always difficult and are taken to heart by alot of people (parents and non-parents alike)!

You got that right. The two things guaranteed to rile up the most people are hurting kids and hurting animals.

 

[Liar]

I would suspect that the reason language like that is put in is to create a little breathing room in the law.

I'm all for breathing room, but not when the only option is hangars full of it.

You wouldn't believe the amount of pain, temporary or lingering, that I can deliver to someone without leaving any visible traces or actually harming them physically. And then it's a scorned kid's word against that of a parent about just how restrictive and justified it all was.

Then again, as I said, I might hae gotten the wrong picture of what the law really says.

#L

 

[Guest]

Liar, I have to say that the title of your thread might have had something to do with the responses here. It could have been more tactfully phrased.

Otherwise, I'm staying out of this.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

I'm all for breathing room, but not when the only option is hangars full of it.

You wouldn't believe the amount of pain, temporary or lingering, that I can deliver to someone without leaving any visible traces or actually harming them physically. And then it's a scorned kid's word against that of a parent about just how restrictive and justified it all was.

Then again, as I said, I might hae gotten the wrong picture of what the law really says.

#L

Liar, the law that is being passed through the Houses of Parliament at the moment is actually a tightening up of the current law. The law will be stricter as a consequence, not more leniant.

A more comprehensive law was also put on the table, but this was rejected, in favour of the law you mentioned.

As Og stated, it is almost impossible to police and enforce a complete ban on smacking. It is the height of stupidity to eqaute a loving mother giving a child a light tap on the back of the hand, or legs, with something far, far worse, i.e. the beating until unconcious or the rape of a child. The two extremes do not even compare. But, if such a wide-sweeping law had been brought into place, that's exactly what would've had to have been enforced.

I, personally, think the House of Lords and now, hopefully, the House of Commons, have got this right.

You must remember, the Government puts forward these white papers, but it is the members of the two chambers that vote on them.

I hope it is a little clearer now.

Lou

 

[Honey123]

I'm all for breathing room, but not when the only option is hangars full of it.

You wouldn't believe the amount of pain, temporary or lingering, that I can deliver to someone without leaving any visible traces or actually harming them physically. And then it's a scorned kid's word against that of a parent about just how restrictive and justified it all was.

Then again, as I said, I might hae gotten the wrong picture of what the law really says.

#L

Well, that just it. What are we trying to "leave" when we are disciplining a child or a pet even?

I am trying to produce a specific type of behavior, not harm my child.

~~

Liar, I don't think you got the wrong picture at all. I think that we all read into things what we feel.

Here on Lit, we all know that we can have 1 story and 100 different comments and feelings.

I think it's what you take away with you that matters the most.

 

[Liar]

Liar, I have to say that the title of your thread might have had something to do with the responses here. It could have been more tactfully phrased.

True, P. I think it's a trait from my former news writing job. if I don't set enough of an attention-grabbing headline, I fear noone will read it.

Sorry if I offended anyone with that. But the content of the post, or at least my intention with it clarified later, stands.

#L

 

[Guest]

True, P. I think it's a trait from my former news writing job. if I don't set enough of an attention-grabbing headline, I fear noone will read it.

Sorry if I offended anyone with that. But the content of the post, or at least my intention with it clarified later, stands.

#L

Just out of interest, where does the law in Sweden stand, with regard to this issue?

Lou

 

[oggbashan]

Sweden were the first country in Europe to introduce a complete ban on smacking children.

Og

 

[Guest]

Sweden were the first country in Europe to introduce a complete ban on smacking children.

Og

Thanks, Og.

Yes, I've just been doing some research and reading up on this.

I found a very interesting article here, if anybody else cares to read it.

Lou

 

[Liar]

Last thing before I have to leave the computer. Diciplinary violence have been 100% illegal in Sweden since 1979. Of course a light tap and an a little bit too forceful tug now and then is nothing that puts anyone behind bars. Adninistring pain as punishment or routinely for upbribnging however is. You can restrain a disobedient child, but you can't deliberately deal out pain.

Of course the police can't enforce the law fully, but themn again the police can't enforce a law against shoplifting of jaywalking fully either. It's a statement from society that hurting kids is never right.

I happen to agree with that statement. Does that mean that I am being naive or that I don't understand what it means to raise a child? Then so be it.

I won't judge a light slap or even a firm one, if nesecary, if the reason for it is the right one. Og mentioned keeping kids away from hot pans - a good example. Smacking as subsequent punishment IMO falls out of that frame.

Excessive use of force however, real child abuse, I hate with vigor. The way I understand it, this new law is an improvement, but still leaves way too much room for that.

#L

 

[Guest]

Last thing before I have to leave the computer. Diciplinary violence have been 100% illegal in Sweden since 1979. Of course a light tap and an a little bit too forceful tug now and then is nothing that puts anyone behind bars. Adninistring pain as punishment or routinely for upbribnging however is. You can restrain a disobedient child, but you can't deliberately deal out pain.

Of course the police can't enforce the law fully, but themn again the police can't enforce a law against shoplifting of jaywalking fully either. It's a statement from society that hurting kids is never right.

I happen to agree with that statement. Does that mean that I am being naive or that I don't understand what it means to raise a child? Then so be it.

I won't judge a light slap or even a firm one, if nesecary, if the reason for it is the right one. Og mentioned keeping kids away from hot pans - a good example. Excessive use of force however, real child abuse, I hate with vigor. The way I understand it, this new law is an improvement, but still leaves way too much room for that.

#L

But, Liar, according to that article, actual child abuse in Sweden has risen in the past 25 years and is rising year on year. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

Please, don't get me wrong, I do actually agree with most of what you've been saying. But, you threw out the bait, and I've taken it, with gnashing teeth.

Lou

 

[Liar]

But, Liar, according to that article, actual child abuse in Sweden has risen in the past 25 years and is rising year on year. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

Please, don't get me wrong, I do actually agree with most of what you've been saying. But, you threw out the bait, and I've taken it, with gnashing teeth.

Lou

In the 60's, approx 9 of 10 kids in sweden got beaten by parents at home. In the beginning of the 80's, after a long and loud debate (one of the more prominent voices was late child book author Astrid Lindgren) when the law passed in -79, that number was coser to 1 of 10, according to the Swedish social bureau's statistics. It has been called "one of the most effective social behvour modification campaigns ever" by sociologists.

I wouldn't call that an increase. If it has increased again since then by 25% is to me just a clear indicator that it is time to bring the issue into the limelight again.

#L

 

[Guest]

In the 60's, approx 9 of 10 kids in sweden got beaten by parents at home. In the beginning of the 80's, after a long and loud debate (one of the more prominent voices was late child book author Astrid Lindgren) when the law passed in -79, that number was coser to 1 of 10, according to the Swedish social bureau's statistics. I wouldn't call that an increase. If it has increased again since then by 25% is to me just a clear indicator that it is time to bring the issue into the limelight again.

#L

There you go again. "Beaten by parents at home."

How do they know this? Where did thsoe figures come from? Was almost every child in the nation battered and bruised? I doubt it very much.

From that article:

"Recent investigations (SOU 2001:18 'Children and abuse') show that of a population of 2000 university students 300 admitted to having been physically punished as children. Evidence on Swedish trends indicates sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of 7. This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase."

And:

"The Swedish government boasts about the success of the law. Yet we keep reading headlines like the following: "Child abuse is increasing. Many beaten children call the BRIS (Children's rights in the society) help line". (Gothenburg Post, 26 March, 1999); "Alarming increase of deadly child abuse" (The Swedish Daily 26 October, 1996; "Increased violence against children in Sweden - Twenty years after the law against smacking many children are still being ill-treated" (Gothenburg Post 25 April, 1999)). "

Lou