[Closed] Smack my kids up!!

Once again scotlands socially liberal policies diverge further from Englands.

Honestly thought it already was. Im good with that, there are plenty of ways of disciplining a child without the use of physical force. Of course that requires discipline in the person dealing with the child rather than just taking the easy way.

I can remember being smacked once-or-twice, but it really was that infrequent, so I don't think I fit into the "was smacked as a child" category.

I now have two young kids - and wouldn't dream of smacking them. In my opinion, smacking is done out of parental frustration, rather than as a deliberate disciplinary strategy. Other peoples opinions will vary.... obvs.

Honestly thought it already was.

This ^

Like every other situation, if you have to resort to the application of physical violence, you’ve already failed.

"critics arguing that the current law is sufficient, and that the changes risk criminalising "good" parents."

Were I a parent I probably wouldn't have smacked my children but I think these are pretty valid concerns.

Were I a parent I probably wouldn’t have smacked my children but I think these are pretty valid concerns.

Care to expand on why?
My biggest concern is the current laws risk not criminalising shit parents who beat their kids.

Iirc I was smacked once or twice as a kid. It was always there as a threat though, which was probably quite an effective deterrent.

Presumably the sort of person who goes way ott and beats a child isn't going to care that the law has changed, so who is the law aimed at? (Genuine question btw, I don't have kids so I don't know if the threat of a smack is still a 'thing' amongst sensible parents)

But if you take smacking off the table then you weaken your negotiating position.

Honestly thought it already was.

Children's Act 2004.

Wasnt a complete ban, allows reasnoble punishment. Although I. Sure it was reported/interpreted as a ban at thr time.

We can still taser them though?

Since moving North in 2008 we've been a non smacking family.

I can say, as I'm sure some others will, that to my embarrassment I have smacked a couple of times when one of them had really pushed me. It's made me reflect on the fact that the smack was out of anger, not discipline. This has really helped me as a parent move on from needing to smack and sort out some of my own issues, without taking it out on the kids.

I'm supportive of this law.

I'm wth TJ - the longer I live up here, the more I see a real difference between nations in the UK, and I like the Scottish direction of travel. A lot.

We can still taser them though?

Duck tape leaves fewer marks.

But if you take smacking off the table then you weaken your negotiating position.

The perfect metaphor. It's quite literally a coup!

I fail to see why anyone would want to beat their children.  A shameful act of adult control by bullying, fear and aggression.

I’ve always felt that smacking a child once one has been driven mad by him or her is forgivable. It’s not right, but it’s a loss of control or temper. I’ve been close to that point many times - I’m sure many parents have. I got a few whacks as a kid but they were a failing of my dad’s control. He was human like the rest of us - I’d driven him mad and he cracked. It has no effect on me now, thankfully. I can remember that they didn’t work whereas stuff like grounding, loss of TV, etc had more of an effect.

However, I find the application of physical punishment in a controlled manner, be that in school or the home, as part of a “process” quite sinister. And that is what those who are against this kind of legislation seem to be defending. And they can **** off.

I find the application of physical punishment in a controlled manner, be that in school or the home, as part of a “process” quite sinister.

Been banned in school for years.

Been banned in school for years.

Really? I had no idea.

Good, it's domestic abuse.

Like every other situation, if you have to resort to the application of physical violence, you’ve already failed.

Bravo. This indeed.
All it serves as is an outlet for the smacker's anger. My son has made me utterly furious on several occasions, to the point I've had to leave the house and go for a wander to calm the **** down. But then again, so has my wife, and so have my colleagues. And I'd never dream of hitting any of them. So what the hell would give me the right to do it to a child based on the fact I am their parent, so have some sort of implicit right over them? Not a chance. The more countries that follow suit, the better.
And the 'oh, it was just a little tap' excuse - well, why? Surely, in your head if you're smacking someone it's to make an impact, a 'little tap' will have no impact, so why do it? So either it wasn't a 'little tap' and you were just losing control, or it was, and you'd just run out of ideas of how to effectively control your child, so fumbled wildly for anything you thought might work.

Yup, fully aware the above won't be a popular opinion, but meh, abhor violence of any kind, brought up by a child protection officer and someone who worked in a residential home for abused teenagers. So have experienced first hand stories of violence towards children at it's worst.

Much respect to Matt OAB up there for reflecting on his reasons and making a decision based on that reflection.

I can say, as I’m sure some others will, that to my embarrassment I have smacked a couple of times when one of them had really pushed me. It’s made me reflect on the fact that the smack was out of anger, not discipline. This has really helped me as a parent move on from needing to smack and sort out some of my own issues, without taking it out on the kids.

I’m supportive of this law.

Just to say absolutely +1 on this. It doesn't solve anything, when it has happened to me (and to my wife, who is much more mild mannered than I am in general...) it's been desperation, anger, frustration and all sorts of negative feelings; having understood that has really cemented the idea in my mind that it's not something you can use to bring up your children, it's rather something you default to when you've stopped trying or are no longer able to educate them properly because you're overwhelmed by your own emotions or something.

Three points:

1) I'm sure I recall smacking being banned a few years back.

2) On reflection, I'd be amazed if smacking was ever legal. For it to be legal there would surely need to be some kind of exception for chastising a child in the various bits of assault legislation and I bet there isn't. Can someone who knows about the law confirm or debunk that?

3) I smack my young kids in playfights all the time, but it's never occurred to me smack them as a punishment. In our playfights my "objective" is to smack them and their 'objective' is to wrestle me into a position where they can jump on me. (...and that *does* hurt.) I dunno why, that's how it's evolved. They laugh all the way through and come back for more which confirms my memory as a child that the fear of being smacked was far more about the humiliation than the pain. Any punishment of a child is going to be unpleasant. We use the naughty step and I guess the punishment there is boredom/humiliation/shame.

According to the teachers I know humiliation of kids is the standard punishment in school these days. If you use a wounding wise-crack to make the misbehaving kid looks small in front of his mates he behaves.

So yeah, we've rightly stopped smacking our kids in the modern world but we shouldn't slap ourselves on the back too much - we're still using punishments that the kids hate and always will, how else do you get the message across to a 2 year old that they shouldn't bite? The only way to avoid chastising a child in a way they dislike is to not have children. (...and the planet would thank you for that!)

I'm with Matt - I'll admit I have smacked one of mine, once. She was too young to reason with, I was exhausted and at the end of my tether, and she risked hurting herself.

I felt, and still feel, awful that I resorted to it. But it stopped the tantrum so I could get her safe. Never did it again.

Should I face a criminal record for that?

I've got 2 kids 11 and 9. Never smacked them and they're both doing really well. Yeah they can be a pain in the arse at times but generally respond to removing x box or tv for a bit.

Oh and I'm English and my parents never smacked me or my sisters either. We're not all racist brexiteer monsters TJ!

tj

Once again scotlands socially liberal policies diverge further from Englands.

But lets remember a few other things,
Named person scheme (Now quietly defunct, tho' it lived on for a while after being declared illegal).
Tuition fees policies effectively restricting number of poorer scottish people able to attend scottish universities.
Scrapping participation in comparative educational statistics when results are negative.
Police Scotland centralisation.
Less spent on NHS than England.
Greater cuts to council budgets than in England.

Not everything looks liberal up here when you don't drink the kool-aid.

All it serves as is an outlet for the smacker’s anger.

I grew up when smacking was broadly deemed ok at home and that wasn't how it worked. I have no direct memory of being smacked but I know I was and the procedure was more like a judicial process: ie "You pushed your brother near the busy road, go to your room and think about what you've done and when he gets home your dad will smack you.". It was never done in anger.

So AFAIK lashing out at a child in anger is not 'smacking' used as a punishment.

Can you still lock them up under the stairs and play ghost sounds to them?

I’m with Matt – I’ll admit I have smacked one of mine, once. She was too young to reason with, I was exhausted and at the end of my tether, and she risked hurting herself.

I felt, and still feel, awful that I resorted to it. But it stopped the tantrum so I could get her safe. Never did it again.

Should I face a criminal record for that?

If you smacked her to calm her down to stop her hurting herself you were morally in the right AFAIC.

If you smacked her in because "I was exhausted and at the end of my tether" then you were morally in the wrong.

By mixing the two up you've made it pretty hard to judge!

All IMHO.

Here's another moral question. How about allowing your kids to physically punish each other? My son went through a biting phase at two. If he bit his sister she would hit him back immediately. I often pretended not to see the retaliation because I (rightly) figured an immediate smack in the face every time he bit would help him stop biting. (And also because putting them both on the naughty step when he'd started it and his violence had left visible marks and her's hadn't seemed unfair to me.)

....and... ...can I be the first in this thread to say "NO PUDDING!".

How about allowing your kids to physically punish each other? My son went through a biting phase at two. If he bit his sister she would hit him back immediately. I often pretended not to see the retaliation because I (rightly) figured an immediate smack in the face every time he bit would help him stop biting.

Not really a difficult one imho.
You're teaching both children that the answer to violence is violence. And if you then don't punish both of them afterwards you're saying you're ok with that.
Not the route I'd personally take tbh.

My son once did similar in retaliation to another kid biting him. He was on the step quick as a flash. He's never done it again. Now he just walks away. (Obviously he's weak, right? Don't care. Makes me proud)
/Leftiehippy

As a child of the 70s, born into a poor mining & military family (born in England to a Welsh dad and a Belfast mum) - I was never smacked and nor was my brother and we both pushed the limits of my dads self control on a regular basis. My dad worked away a fair bit, so to hear him say over the phone "I'm disappointed in you son" would hurt more than a smack on the backside ever could.
I've also never felt the need to smack my kids either. As others have said, the biggest threat to them is removal of other "liberties" - pocket money and ipad/iphone for a weekend is generally the threat we use.
But, I can see how things could be different. I'm blessed to have a fairly easy family life and as poor as my upbringing was - we all lived relatively easy normal lives. My kids generally behave, we don't really have any worries and live happily. So we don't have the same stress and general cr@p other people have to deal with on a day to day basis. While I'm not condoning smacking, I can see how different people are conditioned to deal with life.
And just because there is a law against it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Its a step in the right direction, but the administering of the law is what is important.

My mum used to hit us all the time, many a wooden spoon was broken on my ass, I think she was compensating for us not having a dad. Who knows. I havent hit my son who is almost 9 now.

You’re teaching both children that the answer to violence is violence.

As opposed to what?
If someone hits my kid with a big stick am I to tell him to curl up and ask then nicely to stop whilst he's still conscious?
If someone comes and tries to steal his bike should he ask them nicely for a name and address?

Ask the risk of being shouted down I believe that sometimes a smack is useful armoury to have - this is speaking as a single parent of three boys for 15yrs from when the youngest was 1yo. A total ban on smacking is not going to help abused children but it will put at risk discipline in families that are struggling. To quote my oldest son when mid teens he said he could do anything he liked at school because "they couldn't do anything to you" Being a single parent is tough, sometimes you don't have the benefit of one to one parenting to explain a child's wrong doing without giving them a bit of a shock. I can count on one hand the number of times that I ever smacked them but to criminalise me for that ffs. PS now a happily married father of 5 fully fledged (1 still in the nest) adults. Flame away 🔥

As opposed to what?

Really?
Walking/running away. I don't care what that makes you think of me/my son. If rather he were safe.

If someone tries to nick property from me then then meh, it's material possessions. It's not worth getting the shit kicked out of me for. It's why my car keys are by the front door and the car is insured.

Flame away 🔥

I just think you are wrong, I dont see how smacking helps. Its gone 30s after its done.

I "smacked" my daughter once, hitting her across the back of the hand, when she was about to burn herself in a fire. It was an instant, responsive, action on my part. I didn't see it as punishment. Still don't.

Not really a difficult one imho.
You’re teaching both children that the answer to violence is violence. And if you then don’t punish both of them afterwards you’re saying you’re ok with that.
Not the route I’d personally take tbh.

No I'm not. In that specific case I'm teaching them the Dad doesn't see *everything* they do wrong which they already know. They still know that retaliation is wrong and gets you punished from the times I *do* see it.

...and I refuse to believe that your lad stopped retaliating after *one* trip to the naughty step! Retaliation is an everyday part of the life of a toddler, it takes thousands of trips to the naught step and a bit of maturity to fix in all of us.

I “smacked” my daughter once, hitting her across the back of the hand

Smacking is a flat hand to the butt. Hitting a child on the head is *not* smacking!

socially liberal policies

I have to say that, whilst I agree with a ban on smacking, it's not a liberal policy, is it?

Anyway, aside from that, I would never hit my children, I can't logically justify it, the most likely reason for punishment would be their inappropriate, possibly violent, behaviour. My ex has once (to my knowledge) lost it and smacked one of them. He behaves better when he's with me than with her.

Good parents that smack their children just don't exist. Other forms of discipline are available, which don't give the impression that physical strength should be used to solve disputes, and are far more effective.

Your aim is to teach, not punish. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences, E.g. I take my kids to do fun things, which have an element of risk. I need them to be able to show me that they are responsible enough to do these activities, therefore these won't happen if they've been misbehaving - this isn't a punishment, just a consequence. If they won't get ready in the morning, we still have to do all the chores but have less time for fun stuff.

I don't think the law differentiates according to the part of the body.

…and I refuse to believe that your lad stopped retaliating after *one* trip to the naughty step! Retaliation is an everyday part of the life of a toddler, it takes thousands of trips to the naught step and a bit of maturity to fix in all of us.

In his entire life, I can't recall more than about 5 times I saw or heard a report of him hitting someone. Obviously I'd like to believe that's due to the environment he's been bought up in, but it could just as easily be luck, selective memory, denial, or he's very good at hiding shit from us 😀

Of my two kids I have only smacked one once. It was on the hands when he was 3 and started playing with the gas cooker. I did it as it was dangerous (turning the gas on) and he hadn’t stopped from previous non physical punishments for doing the same thing.

It did work he never touched them again.

But it has never crossed my mind to do it again nor would I now they are older and have a better understanding of dangers and verbal communication.

I do agree that smacking should not be used as routine punishment but there is the odd exception.

Just a thought experiment for those of you who have smacked kids or think it's OK.

Try replacing child with partner, and read your statement back, and see how it reads. If you have to, imagine your partner had some sort of reduced mental capacity, say dementia or a brain injury.

Phil

Perfectly fine to use force if it is in situations where life could bein danger.

I don’t think the law differentiates according to the part of the body.

I'm sure it doesn't. Any contact anywhere is assault.

Sure, I would forcefully pull/carry my kids away from danger, and shout at them. As I would a partner who was putting themselves in danger.

Care to explain why you'd hit somebody in this situation? And what purpose it would serve? And, as per my thought experiment, why it would be different hitting one weaker party than another?

Really?
Walking/running away. I don’t care what that makes you think of me/my son. If rather he were safe.

I'm not judging you or your son, I simply don't see how that is meant to actually work.
Quite seriously, if you saw a couple of youths kicking the shit out of a pensioner what would you say to him? Get up and walk away or hang on I'll call the police?
What if it's your son having the shit kicked out of him? Would you just stand there and try and reason with them?

<quote>
If someone tries to nick property from me then then meh, it’s material possessions. It’s not worth getting the shit kicked out of me for. It’s why my car keys are by the front door and the car is insured.

I really can't see how in general keeps you or him safe?
If someone is going to steal your wallet or phone what makes you think they aren't going to give you a good kicking anyway?

I respect your view, however I don't respect the thugs who menace people and from experience they don't even respect themselves or each other and they most certainly don't repect you.
Why would you even try and bargain if someone say's "give us your phone and we'll not beat you up" ? Do you really think that will be an end to it, that they will just let you walk away?

Try replacing child with partner, and read your statement back, and see how it reads. If you have to, imagine your partner had some sort of reduced mental capacity, say dementia or a brain injury.

Imagine if you forced your partner to sit on a step for one minute for every year of their age of imagine if you banned your partner from going out for two days. Both would be illegal too. Which punishments do you think *are* acceptable to inflict on a partner and why?

(I'm not in favour of smacking kids but I thought I'd answer anyway.)

My example above had a 3 year old with an obsession for turning the gas cooker on. Shouting, time outs, toy bans didn’t work. Same if there about to put there hand in a fire the minor pain they feel means they are likely to recoil rather than resist you pulling them back.

Would I do it with a mentally impaired adult yes and more so as they would have the strength to overpower my attempt to pull them away.

Afterwards you discuss it with them explaining exactly why you did that. It’s not a hit and forget thing you need to explain why you did what you did and why it’s an exception.

Imagine if you forced your partner to sit on a step for one minute for every year of their age of imagine if you banned your partner from going out for two days. Both would be illegal too. Which punishments do you think *are* acceptable to inflict on a partner and why?

(I’m not in favour of smacking kids but I thought I’d answer anyway.)

Leaving them.

This is not an option with kids.

Edit- thinking about this a bit further, I would ask a partner to think about what they'd done for a few minutes - the purpose of "the naughty step" anyway.

Obviously banning them from going out isn't an option, but if anyone (friend or partner) were doing things that I thought unacceptable, I would just have to make sure this didn't affect me. In an extreme case I might report their behavior to the police, who might ultimately stop them going out for considerably more than 2 days.

Imagine if you forced your partner to sit on a step for one minute for every year of their age of imagine if you banned your partner from going out for two days.

This kind of stuff is happening all around you right now. Between two adults it gets called domestic abuse I think.

Given this is Scotland we're talking about is there a danger that the natives could get a little confused as to which sort of smack they wont be allowed to give their spawn?

I just think you are wrong, I dont see how smacking helps. Its gone 30s after its done.

When I was a kid I was told "wait until your Dad gets home" ...
That hour or whatever is what persists... I don't remember my father ever smacking me in any sort of anger ever.

Once again scotlands socially liberal policies diverge further from Englands.

Yeaaay go Scotland

If someone hits my kid with a big stick am I to tell him to curl up and ask then nicely to stop whilst he’s still conscious?

Quite seriously, if you saw a couple of youths kicking the shit out of a pensioner what would you say to him? Get up and walk away or hang on I’ll call the police?
What if it’s your son having the shit kicked out of him? Would you just stand there and try and reason with them?

If someone is going to steal your wallet or phone what makes you think they aren’t going to give you a good kicking anyway?

This is where the difference between defence and retaliation kicks in and you are conflating the two. People are free to defend themselves by whatever means of opportunity are proportional to the attack in question. Always have been. Going after the mugger after the fact and giving them a kicking is not defence.

Using physical force to control behaviour is wrong. Using said force exclusively because you are older/bigger/stronger etc. is abuse if not outright bullying.

Imagine if you forced your partner to sit on a step for one minute for every year of their age of imagine if you banned your partner from going out for two days. Both would be illegal too. Which punishments do you think *are* acceptable to inflict on a partner and why?

It would depend on whether your partner has the mental age of a child. Although, if that were the case I would say there were bigger questions to be asked.

My mum used to smack me with the back of a hairbrush when I was a bad little mofo.

I'm now pretty much sans-hair on top.

Makes you think.

This is where the difference between defence and retaliation kicks in and you are conflating the two. People are free to defend themselves by whatever means of opportunity are proportional to the attack in question. Always have been.

I'm simply posing the question as to if violence is ever the answer as there seems top be some objection on the grounds that meeting violence with violence is never the answer.
You also skipped answering the question... so the pensioner is allowed to defend themselves but if I was to intervene then it's retaliation by default since I'm not defending myself?

Going after the mugger after the fact and giving them a kicking is not defence.

That is a different question ... I'm simply questioning "violence is never the answer"

Using physical force to control behaviour is wrong. Using said force exclusively because you are older/bigger/stronger etc. is abuse if not outright bullying.

Now you are contradicting yourself.... If the behaviour I wish to control is 3x 18yr olds kicking the shit out of a pensioner are you truly suggesting I can't intervene based on the fact I'm over 50 and the pensioner can't defend him or herself merely because they are older?
I don't think that is what you mean ... but that is the result of taking your words literally.

My main point however is can you/we/STW/society accept that the statement "violence is never the answer" is wrong.

You’re teaching both children that the answer to violence is violence.

I think I'm with Steve on this. Violence is rarely the answer but there can be exceptional circumstances.

For instance: I was bullied at school. I never fought back because, somewhat ironically perhaps, I didn't want to hurt anyone (not that there was a great risk of that anyway). This went on for three years. It only stopped when I snapped one day and leathered him.

Simple questions have complicated answers, who'd a thunk it.

Try replacing child with partner, and read your statement back, and see how it reads.

My first reaction here was "ooh, good point!" but as an analogy it's kinda flawed. The dynamic is different, with a partner you're supposed to be equals whereas with a child you are in charge. I'm struggling to think of any situation where it would be appropriate to mete out some sort of "punishment" on a partner (unless they were into that sort of thing and consented, anyway).

I once smacked my oldest child when she was 5. We were in the street and she was flailing about and trying to run across a busy road. I still think it was deliberate on her part - obviously she did not understand the physical ramifications of getting run over, I was at my wits end trying to control her and walloped her on the legs, hard. She went dead silent and did exactly what I wanted. I regretted it.
My worry is that what is a very minor incident in both our lives could have become a court case over me smacking her.
The police are allowed to use reasonable force, when they decide, I think we should trust people to do so too. There are existing laws that deal with abuse etc.

I can't imagine any scenario where I'd feel the urge to hit my kid. The love is too strong (blleurgh! but literally the case!).
He's punched me and given me a dead arm a few times 😆

My mum knocked me off a stool and kicked me once when I was a kid - it was punishment for shouting F OFF! at her. Quite deserved in the scheme of things.

Imagine if you forced your partner to sit on a step for one minute for every year of their age of imagine if you banned your partner from going out for two days. Both would be illegal too. Which punishments do you think *are* acceptable to inflict on a partner and why?

In a telling off of my sun he insisted he was right.  I said I’d sit on the naughty step if i was proven wrong.  20 minutes later I honoured my agreement and spent 46 mins on sitting on the stairs during which I formed an appropriate apology to him.

No better demonstration than all things are equal imo

What happens if your child refuses to sit on the naughty step. I'm not advocating a wallop by the way, I just want to know how people deal with children that like to escalate their non compliance.
I think a 'deliberate' smack as a punishment is outside of my boundaries, but I think a necessary smack for safety is OK.

I “smacked” my daughter once, hitting her across the back of the hand

Smacking is a flat hand to the butt. Hitting a child on the head is *not* smacking!

He said hand. Not head.

interesting thoughts here.

The point about it being more about humiliation or fear is spot on. I used to get smacked on the hand or forearm by my mum (quite literally 'a slap on the wrist'). One day, I was maybe 11, she shouted and demanded my arm to smack. I must have twigged at some point that it didn't hurt much, so volunteered it with a sarcastic 'go on then, see if i care' vibe. She never smacked me after that - I later realised that she wasn't actually hitting hard, and didn't want to. Now I can't remember how much it actually hurt. It must have hurt at some point. But mostly it was about the fear of being hurt.

My mum was brought up in a strict school in the 50s and 60s, and she and her siblings still talk with disbelief at how viciously the nuns used to beat them, and for what tiny transgressions. Violence, the fear of god, and public humiliation in church were all used to keep people in line.

She was also in her early 20s when I was born. A lot of parents these days have kids a bit later.

I don't know what point I'm making. Probably a good thing that it's banned. But I think a slap on the wrist could be appropriate if they're being a danger to themselves or others.

What happens if your child refuses to sit on the naughty step. I’m not advocating a wallop by the way, I just want to know how people deal with children that like to escalate their non compliance.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/why-time-out-and-the-naughty-step-are-not-good-parenting-1.3594852

Therapeutic parenting has mostly been aimed at kid who've experienced extreme trauma in their lives, but there's evidence that it works with all kids.

I've read about that before.
In the end I took all my lessons from https://www.bookdepository.com/How-Talk-so-Kids-Will-Listen-Listen-so-Kids-Will-Talk-Adele-Faber/9781848123090.
It advocates starting with empathy, seeing it from their point of view. I'm not that good at it mind, I keep forgetting. When I remember it works quite well.
I don't adhere to the whole book, but the point about empathy is so powerful that normally communications flow easily so you can work the rest out. They are older now and you can reason with them. I found up to about 3years old very hard as we found it diffuclt to understand each others needs.

I think I’m with Steve on this. Violence is rarely the answer but there can be exceptional circumstances.

This is where I'm trying to go... the point is being able to recognise when and being able to teach your kids when.

For instance: I was bullied at school. I never fought back because, somewhat ironically perhaps, I didn’t want to hurt anyone (not that there was a great risk of that anyway). This went on for three years. It only stopped when I snapped one day and leathered him.

I think the irony is probably that simply fighting back would have stopped the bullying.
You don't even need to leather em, or even "win".

A while ago 3 blokes tried to rob me with menaces (pre mobile phones that long ago) so a punched one fully expecting the others to pile in...I didn't even hit him very hard... his 2 mates ran off. It was like some comedy panto... I ended up chasing 2 blokes who were running away round parked cars... they didn't even seem to give a toss about their mate.

What happens if your child refuses to sit on the naughty step. I’m not advocating a wallop by the way, I just want to know how people deal with children that like to escalate their non compliance.

I meant to ask the same question. Being a teacher must be nightmare these days, what do you do when a kid is disobedient then basically stands there going "what are you going to do about it, you can't touch me"? Back when I was little the threat of parental involvement would have been sufficient to keep most kids in line, but would that type of kid be concerned about that even?

I think the irony is probably that simply fighting back would have stopped the bullying.
You don’t even need to leather em, or even “win”.

Perhaps. Who knows, this was 30 years ago now. I doubt very much that I'd ever have "just" fought back had the red mist not descended that day. Something inside me just went "enough" and I lost it, it was highly out of character.

Wait till they ban the removal of WiFi...

If you aim to never smack your children, then you'll probably smack them about the right amount.
Seemed to work for me and my children.

Don't have kids but i do remember being smacked a few times as a kid myself (born 72 so i guess mid-late 70's) and i got the belt/strap at primary school a couple of times - didn't bother me then and doesn't bother me now apart from i never deserved the belt as i was only standing up to being bullied, i did use a cricket bat and there was loss of teeth but he ****ing deserved it. What was far more worrying was the fact my dad was away fishing at sea for 2 weeks at a time and the thought of dad (big hairy bearded 6ft fisherman...gulp...) coming home and being angry at me was ****ing terrifying, "just you wait till your dad gets home, he's not going to be happy with you" and i would much rather have had a belt across the arse from mum and then have nothing to worry about.

Never smacked any kids but i did pick one up and threaten to bury him headfirst in his own shite then threw him back over his hedge for repeatedly throwing stones at my windows and leaving a 2ft bare metal scratch on my car, he's now in his late 20's and always apologies to me for being a little **** when he was small, i fix his kids bikes and they bake me rice crispy cakes.

The only additional part on the law is any form of physical punishment, the current law states that a temporary redness is classed as reasonable. Beating a child isn’t and the law is quite clear on that.

drac, can you re-phrase I don't understand what you mean?
EG are you saying that the new Scottish law allows temporary redness, but not punishments? Surely a smack causing temporary redness is a punishment?

I meant to ask the same question. Being a teacher must be nightmare these days, what do you do when a kid is disobedient then basically stands there going “what are you going to do about it, you can’t touch me”? Back when I was little the threat of parental involvement would have been sufficient to keep most kids in line, but would that type of kid be concerned about that even?

From what I gather, they can be removed from the class using a restraint if causing serious disruption - as quoted from Nidirect.

This sounds reasonable to me, you have to, at some point learn that public disorder and refusing to co-operate will see you bundled into the back of a police van.

Yes. As the law currently stands a gentle slap of tap is fine if it at worse it leaves temporary redness.  Anything worse than that is illegal ie bruising. Scotland has now ruled that even a gentle slap is not Ok. It’s hardly a massive step.

Oh you edited your post.

Agree with the sentiment of the thread, however it must be a complete nightmare for parents with kids who rage out Drac. Even holding someone’s arm with some strength can bruise them.

I “smacked” my daughter once, hitting her across the back of the hand

Smacking is a flat hand to the butt. Hitting a child on the head is *not* smacking!

He said hand. Not head.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake Doris5k.

Sorry Scotroutes, I'm sending myself to sit on the naughty step to think about what I did and how it made you feel.

Oops. I wondered what the connection was as it didn't seem to follow on from my post. 😊

Ok, that makes sense, thanks.

It’s hardly a massive step.

It is though, if you are faced with a child willfully running into the road or some other safety incident you risk breaking the law. I wouldn't want to inhibit a mum from using force to save her child.

The thing is, I reckon that at least two of my kids could take me in a straight fight.....

We can still taser them though?

Of course. We’ve got new and better ones now if you want another go?