[Closed] Smack my kids up!!

Ideally I want one you can use from a distance, to lessen the chances of getting my head kicked in.

It'll save me having to sneak up on them when they're sleeping.....

I was aggressively alienated,segregated and driven to the edge by 1 person for 3 years at school(6-7 years on and i could still LITERALLY KILL SOMEONE IF I FLIPPED)and what it took to hurt him was not lashing out but absolutely leathering him to the point that in his eyes he had the look of a frightened child..word spread ..his reputation as a tough guy was in tatters and now we flipped places..I was KING..and proved everyone was wrong ..am I proud..no ..was it neccisary yes..

Why did it work?..

Simple answer ...HUMILIATION..I was the the little weakling ..he was the tough guy..I made him afraid of me ..thus no one was going to try me again..they knew I could be very DANGEROUS..to this day hes still afraid of me ..

The damage he did is immeasurable..but I am stronger now..I had to resort to that to prove sometimes people DONT learn by conventional means.. and sometimes as an individual you must prove you are harder ,tougher,faster,BETTER then they are..and make yourself the pack leader...

I have numerous social misregestry disorders(dont understand how to react properly) but I have supreme control now..I RESPECT MYSELF FIRST..that taught me that I am not going to just get walked over and it took ..PUTTING FEAR IN THE PERSON THAT PUSHED ME THAT HARD..to do so..

Violence has its place..some people dont care if you dont want to hurt people ..so you have to show them that you CAN and WILL..

I have dealt with children(not my own-dont have kids yet) and they tried there luck luck..words got words..they laid a finger on me and I did it back HARDER ..they didn't do it again..and know when I say I'll do it ..I WILL..so that's enough of a threat ..

The answer I's equal force..words=words,violance=equaled violence.. they must be a healthy amount afraid of you in order to know your threats mean something.. and wont question that you will..

My dads only a handful of times lost it but ..when he does..you run..as hes a FREIGHT TEAIN when hes like that..I have HEALTHY FEAR of him..and that kept us all in line ..we all knew he could hurt us ..but he rarely did..he didn't need to..as we did have respect that he could ..

Theres no clear cut answer..but when I have kids if they need a smack or a punch to put them in there place ..so be it..atleast they know the threats not hollow..I'd rather be respected then trampled over..what happened to respecting your parents..as it seems too many kids are not now..I think they should..and any parent who wants to know the threats will work will need to do it..lids misbehave because of many things but if its things they cant help they need to be shown it's not acceptable..and sometimes being knocked about is the ONLY WAY..

Member
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.

Existing law in Scotland says that reasonable chastisement is possible defence unless it involves hitting the head, shaking or using an implement. The change removes that defence, which means it would be treated the same was as an alleged assault on an adult.

In that case if Scotroutes saw me about to pick up a pan that had just been on a camp fire and smacked my hand out the way it would not be an assault (the mens rea doesn't exist). Likewise if I saw Drac was paying too much attention to his ipad and was about to step in front of a bus and pushed him out the way, its not assault, even if he gets injured from the push.

Theres not actually a need for contact to constitute an assault.

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.

I don't think the law actually says that (certainly not in Scotland). its for the courts to decide what was reasonable in all the circumstances. Just as they would decide if, in the circumstances, throwing a punch or pushing someone in self defence, or in the defence of another was a legitimate defence (if walking away was viable it would not be).

Existing law in Scotland says that reasonable chastisement is possible defence unless it involves hitting the head, shaking or using an implement. The change removes that defence, which means it would be treated the same was as an alleged assault on an adult.

Thanks Poly.

I don’t think that is what you mean … but that is the result of taking your words literally.

So stop taking it so nth degree literally. Find someone else for a stupid argument.

I agree with Outofbreath about letting his daughter retaliate when bitten, provided it was just the one hit in response. I am assuming the biting phase didn't go on for long enough for retaliatory violence to become the norm.

I also agree with the point that madmechanist is making about respect being key although don't necessarily agree with the method of achieving it.

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.

No you risk being investigated and explaining why you stopped your kid from getting squashed by a car.

I don’t think the law actually says that (certainly not in Scotland). its for the courts to decide what was reasonable in all the circumstances. Just as they would decide if, in the circumstances, throwing a punch or pushing someone in self defence, or in the defence of another was a legitimate defence (if walking away was viable it would not be).

Yes Poly of course it would possibly go to court for your defence if the CPS thought it was necessary.

madmechanist is making about respect being key

I'm not sure respect through intimidation is any sort of respect I'd be interested having.

Thanks to Poly a bit more detail on English Law here:

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6886/10/chastisement.html

The Charging Standard states that for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' is no longer available.

However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling, a charge of common assault may be laid against the defendant for whom the reasonable chastisement defence remains available to parents or adults acting in loco parentis.

I agree with Outofbreath about letting his daughter retaliate when bitten, provided it was just the one hit in response. I am assuming the biting phase didn’t go on for long enough for retaliatory violence to become the norm.

Yeah, I have to also say this wasn't a planned strategy that I regard as best practice parenting. It just seemed the right thing to do at the time on a couple of occasions. I just introduced it in this thread as an interesting moral consideration.

but when I have kids if they need a smack or a punch to put them in there place ..so be it..

Whoah there big boy! I don't think you should consider a career in parenting if you think punching a child could ever help solve an issue.

Ssshhh, don’t rile him!

I find it really funny that some folk on here are so keen to condemn the SNP for anything they do that they are making fatuous arguments conflating self defense, defense of others, restraint to stop someone injuring themselves and beating children

After this law is passed you will still be able to protect yourself even if attacked by a child. Thats a different bit of law

You will still be able to intervene if one child is beating another even if that involves hurting the bullies - thats a different bit of law

After this law you will still be able to restrain a child to prevent it from doing something you do not want the child to do be that something dangerous or something you don't want them to do - thats a different bit of law

After this bit of law you will still be able to use reasonable force to remove a disruptive child from a situation - thats a different bit of law

What you will no longer have is an exception to the laws on assault to allow you to assault a child. that seems reasonable to me. There can never be a moral justification for beating a child

I don’t recall being smacked by my mum for being a brat, but I do recall one occasion when I was being taken to bed against my will, and I kicked off, literally, going up the stairs, and kicked my mum on her leg. She kicked me back, quite hard. It didn’t happen again...
I was about three or four.

Named person scheme (Now quietly defunct, tho’ it lived on for a while after being declared illegal).

Many local authorities operated versions of the named person scheme for years prior to the botched national roll out and continue to do so now. I know a few very vocal critics of it who were surprised to learn it had been running in their area for ages and the world had not come crashing down.

Where does this new law stand on withholding pudding?

What you will no longer have is an exception to the laws on assault to allow you to assault a child. that seems reasonable to me. There can never be a moral justification for beating a child

The existing law never allowed for beating a child. We need to choose our words very carefully in this debate.

Mmm...my dad was quite happy to give me or my brothers a clip round the ear or kick up the backside but...it was always for being cheeky or showing a lack of respect to other people or for lying etc.... I never felt abused or anything like that ; I just learnt about respect.
I think about that quite often when I ask the school kids if they might like to put their litter in a bin instead of throwing it on the ground. The response I normally get is the offer to go and perform a sexual act on myself.

spin - I did chose my words carefully. Hitting a child = beating them in IMO

Beating? Lay off the hyperbole.

spin – I did chose my words carefully. Hitting a child = beating them in IMO

So you chose that word based on your own definition of it rather than the generally accepted / dictionary definition. Beating implies repeated and quite forceful hitting which was already against the law.

Use of such emotive words isn't really helpful.

OK - checked the dictionary and you are right. So maybe it sounded much more hyperbolic than intended

You can get into a whole philosophical debate over this and if one hit is OK Is two? how about 3? when does a smacking become a beating? How many smackers just stop at one blow?

Its much easier to have a clear line - no hitting a child.

Apparently, frustrated and angry parents are putting their kids into cars and driving to England to administer punishment.. Berwick upon Tweed is being inundated by what are being called smack cruises.

With both fracking and smacking being banned today at Holyrood, fans of both snacking and bush whacking were heard to issue a huge sigh of relief.

the liberal left snowflakes are at it again, small wonder discipline is on its arse.

58 countries have "no hitting children" laws. these include many of the countries we see as the nicest most civilised places to live

In my group of friends some of us were regularly smacked growing up. Not beaten, not abused, but got fairly regular smacks when we tried our parents patience.

Out of the two groups, guess which one has more problems with anger control and is still getting into fights even as we edge towards our 40s.

But yeah, smacking never did us any harm!

Nice anecdote there Bruce

This is bad news for the world of professional wrestling...

the WWE WithdrawalofwifiDown won’t be quite as exciting.

nice inductive fallacy there Bruce

Yes, of course. My anecdote contradicts all statistics and should therefore be disregarded.

But naturally, anyone who says 'I was smacked growing up and it never did me any harm' is making a perfectly valid contribution.

is making a perfectly valid contribution.

No, that would also be anecdote.

mental abuse is just as bad a physical, my parents actually used to shout at me too! this has obviously left me with anger issues and mental scarring, perhaps i can sue them?
where were my human rights to do as i please without the threat of real consequence when i was growing up? my childhood was robbed, i never even got to back chat adults!

Just to be clear, does the no anecdote rule apply to all discussions on STW? Because I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure I've seen other people using personal anecdotes to make their point on other threads.

No.

Only on this thread then? I think if you look back you might find an anecdote or two on this very thread.

Is there something about my anecdote in particular that breaks the rule?

Did someone not get coco pops for breakfast?

Have you given up?

im trying so hard to resist, and i havent checked, but im pretty sure ive never seen any other people using personal anecdotes to make their point ever on STW threads.

no there is no rule, unfortunately your comment has been responded to and called out, im sorry you feel picked on. perhaps if i wasnt smacked as a child i would have more empathy and wouldnt criticise and devalue another persons comment regardless of whether its true or not

You sound weird. If we were in the pub this would be the point I abruptly stopped talking to you and started ignoring you. Try not to jump up and down desperately trying to attract my attention. It's embarrassing for both of us.

Good idea imo.I think it damages a persons self esteem tbh.
As a little boy I used to get a good hiding off my mother ,every Thursday ,whether I deserved it or not. Plus many thumps,punches and kicks up the stairs whilst fleeing!
She still says I'm not too big for a slap!
I haven't smacked Jnr J but I have had to physically restrain him when he's gone totally bonobo.
However ,I have told him I will defend myself if he ever gets fisty with me. Ha.
(he's a little blighter at times!)

BRUCE....BRUCE...BRUUUUUCCCCEEEEEEE!!
name calling..
im so sad Bruce, and i thought we were friends having a bit of banter
if we were in the pub this would be the point i abruptly threw my lager shandy at you for ignoring me

Must say Drac's resorting to obtuse comments instead of explaining why he didn't like (?presuming sarcasm in his first response) Bruce's message is a little bit weird. But hey ho

Sorry for making a joke DezB.

No problem here, but I don't think Bruce got it either, seemed a bit irritated.

I think he has anger issues.

The existing law never allowed for beating a child. We need to choose our words very carefully in this debate.

Which to me is why there are at least 2 different things being debated.
At one end children are beaten to death. It's not legal... but yet it happens.

There seems to be some argument that slapping a child on the wrist for turning on the gas or trying to stick their fingers in a plug inexorably leads to said child being beaten to death with a hammer.

This itself seems to be because of some idea that if a parent disciplines a child with a slapped wrist the parent is doing this through anger rather than simply trying to keep their child alive and well.

There is a further implication that all parents have the same skills and all children behave in the same way and if a parent uses one way they are a bad parent.

There is another statement being made that violence is somehow ALWAYS wrong with a claim that a smack on the wrist is somehow teaching a kid that the best way to respond to any argument is by punching someone in the face.

I think he has anger issues.

I think you said something stupid, got called out for it, made a snippy comment, and then sensibly shut up. Then you decided to jump back in.

And yes, for the record, I do have anger issues which is a symptom of Borderline Personality Disorder. My first reaction in ANY confrontation is to punch someone in the face. Luckily I generally manage to keep it under control but it puts a huge strain on all my relationships, especially with my kids.

I used to think it was OK that my parents used to hit me and it didn't do any harm. Now that I have my own kids I can see that the only reason people hit their kids, no matter how they want to justify it or dress it up, is frustration. And I say this as someone who wants to smack his kids at least two or three times per week.

So, any clarification on when it's OK to use anecdotes or not?

I think you said something stupid, got called out for it, made a snippy comment, and then sensibly shut up. Then you decided to jump back in.

I think you’ll find it was the other way around.

There is no rules on anecdotes but don’t be surprised if people point out that’s all it is no matter what the view point.

Sorry if my joke on your anger issues was too personal that wasn’t my intention

I think you’ll find it was the other way around.

I shared an anecdote as others have done on this thread. It's a personal anecdote that backs up the what the studies show. I searched but I couldn't find any research showing smacking is beneficial.

You said something stupid and you got called on it, hence the Coco Pops 'joke'.

If you can find any studies that back up the 'it didn't do me any harm, how else are you supposed to discipline kids' anecdotes feel free to post them.

With Bruce here.

Also, what's with all these new folk I've never seen suddenly appearing on threads to stir shit? Don't tell me the mods haven't noticed.

I shared an anecdote as others have done on this thread. It’s a personal anecdote that backs up the what the studies show. I searched but I couldn’t find any research showing smacking is beneficial.

You said something stupid and you got called on it, hence the Coco Pops ‘joke’.

It’s still an anecdote just like others are yes, you took it personal as I only quoted you. The Coco Pops joke was because you were acting like a spoilt kid.

There’s a big difference between beating kids and given them a gentle slap to try and teach them not to touch something that could seriously injure them.

We’ve noticed Squirrel.

Also, what’s with all these new folk I’ve never seen suddenly appearing on threads to stir shit? Don’t tell me the mods haven’t noticed.

You're imagining things. No new users on this thread, unless their posts been removed.

I shared an anecdote as others have done on this thread. It’s a personal anecdote that backs up the what the studies show.

Not sure if me wading will help, probably not, but anyway... When I read your post I probably read it a bit too quick and actually thought you were making the opposite point as you asked us guess rather than you stating it (Asking people to guess usually means the answer is surprising ime). You then finished with a line stating the exact opposite of the point you were making. Re-reading it I can see it is meant as sarcasm. Sorry for the misunderstanding, not that you would know as I didn't comment until now. I wonder if any others are getting more het up and what they read rather than what you wrote. That happens a lot on here and on the internet in general

Nice anecdote there Bruce

Which happens to be backed up by proper research, according to the news coverage on this story.

There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes to support the data. The problem is when people use anecdotes as an argument against the data. I have no problem ridiculing people who try to argue against helmet effectiveness studies by saying 'I crashed my bike once and if I hadn't been wearing my helmet...'

Are you 100% sure I'm the one who is acting like a spoilt kid in this little exchange?

There’s a big difference between beating kids and given them a gentle slap to try and teach them not to touch something that could seriously injure them.

Nothing my parents did could be described as a beating. Whenever I frustrated them enough I got slapped on the leg. I couldn't tell you how often it happened but from what I remember it was several times per week.

Taking out your frustrations on your kids, even if they are the reason you are frustrated, is not OK and for parents who regularly smack their kids, that is exactly what they are doing.

I would be very surprised if anyone got prosecuted because they smacked their kid once because they tried to run into a road. If this legislation makes parents who smack their kid when they don't get dressed quickly enough think twice then it can only be a good thing.

There is a further implication that all parents have the same skills and all children behave in the same way and if a parent uses one way they are a bad parent.

It's not implied. We, and the law in Scotland, don't agree with hitting kids. This means you're a bad parent if you choose to hit your kids.

We don't disagree with using force where necessary, but this is different. Think police restraining a suspect or even firing at an armed suspect vs getting a sentence of 500 lashes or whatever.

If we were talking about corporal punishment of adults, the majority of people would rightly say it's the sort of thing wacko regimes employ that belongs in the middle ages. Why any different with children?

Other approaches are more effective and less damaging. This has been shown by research, and anecdote.

If you hit a child because you're angry and frustrated, you're in the wrong and need to find some better way of dealing with things. If you do it when you're not angry or frustrated, you're a ****ing psycho and need to take a long look at yourself in a mirror.*

I would be very surprised if anyone got prosecuted because they smacked their kid once because they tried to run into a road. If this legislation makes parents who smack their kid when they don’t get dressed quickly enough think twice then it can only be a good thing.

Which is what the current law allows and yes smacking your kids for not getting dressed quick enough is never a good thing.

'If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket'

If you slap your kid on the leg because they run out in traffic and a policeman sees you, then yes, you could get arrested. After the report has been sent to the Procurator Fiscal then yes, they could decide it's in the public interest to charge you. You could then plead your innocence and a jury could convict you. This is all possible but I would argue that it's doubtful the police would even bother arresting you. A warning would be the most likely outcome given that it's a heat of the moment thing.

On the other hand, the kid who goes to school with four red finger marks on his leg every day can now expect a visit from the plod and to me that is what this law is for.

On the other hand, the kid who goes to school with four red finger marks on his leg every day can now expect a visit from the plod and to me that is what this law is for.

The new law might make it easier but the current law doesn’t actually not allow that.

who are these new users? the cheek of them to post on a public forum!

It’s not implied. We, and the law in Scotland, don’t agree with hitting kids.

but careless and provocative language is fine?

We don’t disagree with using force where necessary, but this is different. Think police restraining a suspect or even firing at an armed suspect vs getting a sentence of 500 lashes or whatever.

If we were talking about corporal punishment of adults, the majority of people would rightly say it’s the sort of thing wacko regimes employ that belongs in the middle ages. Why any different with children?

Umm... because they are children?
What next allow 3yr olds to drive on the roads?

The criminal justice system recognises children as minors, hence why it is the parents job to bring them up and do the best they can.

Other approaches are more effective and less damaging. This has been shown by research, and anecdote.

That's strange because anecdotally the kid turning on the gas had a slight slap to the wrist and stopped... what is this "damage" that occurred? Has the child developed a life long phobia to gas cooking? Will this one off considered slap on the wrist result in something other than the kid not blowing the house up?

How exactly do you define effective and damage?
Is it more effective to explain to a 3yr old about the dangers of gas and naked flames and if they end up dead that's not "damage" ?

If you hit a child because you’re angry and frustrated, you’re in the wrong and need to find some better way of dealing with things. If you do it when you’re not angry or frustrated, you’re a **** psycho and need to take a long look at yourself in a mirror.*

Once again you have to resort to emotive language and your own amateur psychiatrist diagnostics?
From my perspective not taking a possible measure such as a slap on the wrist to prevent a toddler killing themselves because it's "unpleasant" doesn't seem that sane.

"Well Mr. Clapton, what measures did you take to stop your toddler opening the window"
"Well he got sat on the naughty step..."
"Any other measures Mr Clapton?"
"Oh he got sat on the naughty step lots... "
"Was that specific to trying to climb out of the window"
"Well no, lots of things... but he was sat on the naughty step specifically about trying to climb out of the window on numerous occaisions"
"Did it ever occur to you this wasn't an effective method"
"Well yes, but what else can you do... I increased the time on the naughty step but he just kept doing it"

"Have you ever taken drugs Mr Clapton?"

The new law might make it easier but the current law doesn’t actually not allow that.

My understanding is that you can't leave bruises, grazes or swelling. Red marks that fade quickly are fine.

Even if I'm wrong about this, can you show me any examples of parents being prosecuted on the basis of red marks?

Even if I’m wrong about this, can you show me any examples of parents being prosecuted on the basis of red marks?

Of course not I’m not talking about just the red marks, I’m referring to the repeated red marks you mentioned. That is very different to a one off slap.

That’s strange because anecdotally the kid turning on the gas had a slight slap to the wrist and stopped… what is this “damage” that occurred? Has the child developed a life long phobia to gas cooking? Will this one off considered slap on the wrist result in something other than the kid not blowing the house up?

Since we're cracking down on anecdotes today, can you find me a single study that shows that smacking is an effective way of stopping your children doing dangerous things?

Steve - In your example - knocking their hand away would still be fine as would restraining them by force. Hitting them to teach them a lesson afterwards would not.

The nordic countries as ever are leaders on this - no hitting children has been in place since the 70s. I do not know of any social problems that occur as a result - indeed nordic countries have a reputation for polite children

Of course not I’m not talking about just the red marks, I’m referring to the repeated red marks you mentioned. That is very different to a one off slap.

I hate to break it to you but there are very nice people who are otherwise fine parents who smack their kids far far too often and it's completely impossible to prove.

This law stops that. It's a good thing.

Edit: This law obviously won't stop that. Hopefully it will at least make some of these parents think twice and gives an avenue to prosecution for those who won't.

Which happens to be backed up by proper research, according to the news coverage on this story.

not saying it isnt true but the only statement on the subject in the report that says "He also said there was "irrefutable" evidence that physical punishment damages children, is not an effective form of discipline and can escalate into physical abuse" is hardly irrefutable evidence backed up by proper research.
what exactly was the evidence and how did he determine his conclusion? guess we will never know.
it seems to me that peoples bars on evidence are pretty low and there seems to be little logic applied to a lot of arguments.
yes beating kids is bad, not sure a slapped leg on the other hand is necessarily bad parenting though. a lot of comments here are quite extreme examples "i was smacked every thursday etc", for most folk they probably got a clip a handful of times and it probably kept them in line.

I hate to break it to you but there are very nice people who are otherwise fine parents who smack their kids far far too often and it’s completely impossible to prove.

Of course there is but a school reporting that child comes in everyday with marks on their legs will help a prosecution.

I am not convinced the law is going to stop the parents that hit their kids regularly.

In other, unrelated news, there’s been strong sales growth in the rubber hose, phonebook and bag of oranges sectors

Of course there is but a school reporting that child comes in everyday with marks on their legs will help a prosecution.

But there haven't been any prosecutions for red marks. Smacking your kids is legal so long as you have a good reason but how do you define 'good reason'?

I am not convinced the law is going to stop the parents that hit their kids regularly.

Neither am I. But just because something isn't guaranteed to work is not a good enough reason not to try.

If the law leads to a reduction in smacking would you agree it is a good thing?

But there haven’t been any prosecutions for red marks. Smacking your kids is legal so long as you have a good reason but how do you define ‘good reason’?

I think we’re going around in circles.

Neither am I. But just because something isn’t guaranteed to work is not a good enough reason not to try.

True. I’m very indifferent about the change I can’t see it having much affect either way.

People are jumping on both extremes from “OMG! I can’t discipline my kids this is why Britain is broken” to “Anyone who disciplines kids is beating them”

Then there the “it did me no harm” and “well everyone one I know who were hit as kid have issues”

If the law leads to a reduction in smacking would you agree it is a good thing?

i would agree but first someone has to demonstrate that there are no examples where smacking was actually effective and caused no long term harm before we start limiting parents options.

Also, what’s with all these new folk I’ve never seen suddenly appearing on threads to stir shit? Don’t tell me the mods haven’t noticed.

I'll always check out anyone who seems exceptionally gobby or opinionated with a username I don't recall seeing before. Most of the time recently they've been primarily Bike Forum users who've been foolish enough to raise their heads in this bear pit.

But please use the 'report post' link (or email moderator@) if you see anything you think is untoward, we can't read every single thread.

brucewee

Since we’re cracking down on anecdotes today, can you find me a single study that shows that smacking is an effective way of stopping your children doing dangerous things?

Not without searching.

I'm sure Singapore will have some but honestly that's not the point.
Before actually banning something like how parents bring up their kids it's a good idea (IMHO) to actually justify it by proper studies and show some actual real benefit.

In this my belief is parents should be free to choose within reason.
There are numerous studies showing the damage to children who are beaten but where are the studies proving that a single slap on the wrist aged 3 has ANY damaging effect at all.

I slapped my son once, when he was 2 or 3 when he had a habit of removing safety devices from plugs and then trying to stick objects in.
This was after a LOT of trying everything else. We had asked friends/relatives ... and trhis was a LAST RESORT. The alternative was probably to let him get an electric shock ... so anecdotally it worked like the gas cooker worked for someone else. I didn't WANT to do it and his mother and I practically drew lots as to who would have to do it.

It probably worked so effectively because it was an absolute one off.... other than his mother once slapping his wrist a couple of years later after repeatedly running through a car park pushing a trolley that is the total number of times he ever got slapped.

I find it VERY hard to believe that this has deeply affected him and he will grow up to be an axe murderer...

tjagain

Steve – In your example – knocking their hand away would still be fine as would restraining them by force. Hitting them to teach them a lesson afterwards would not.

hence my problem.... one of these in combination with naughty step and long explanations didn't work, the other worked, immediately and with a single application.

The nordic countries as ever are leaders on this – no hitting children has been in place since the 70s. I do not know of any social problems that occur as a result – indeed nordic countries have a reputation for polite children

Ah, you mean the countries that perform IQ tests on parents and take the kids away if they fail?
Or do you mean the ones practicing eugenics up to 1976?
There is a LOT of baggage in that area.

sailor74

not saying it isnt true but the only statement on the subject in the report that says “He also said there was “irrefutable” evidence that physical punishment damages children, is not an effective form of discipline and can escalate into physical abuse” is hardly irrefutable evidence backed up by proper research.
what exactly was the evidence and how did he determine his conclusion? guess we will never know.
it seems to me that peoples bars on evidence are pretty low and there seems to be little logic applied to a lot of arguments.
yes beating kids is bad, not sure a slapped leg on the other hand is necessarily bad parenting though. a lot of comments here are quite extreme examples “i was smacked every thursday etc”, for most folk they probably got a clip a handful of times and it probably kept them in line.

Exactly... not to mention the BIG one, being what does this even mean by "physical punishment".
Clearly there is plenty of evidence that beating children until they lose consciousness damages children. Classing that with a slap on the wrist is just grasping at staws.

Then there the “it did me no harm” and “well everyone one I know who were hit as kid have issues”

Only one of those statements has data to back it up. I could post studies showing that to be the case but there's so much I wouldn't know where to start. Here's a meta analysis but I would recommend people do their own research:
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ffam0000191 (disclaimer, I haven't read it, just the conclusions)

And like I said, I'd like to see any study that shows smacking is beneficial. The closest I've seen is one saying it does no harm provided the smacking is offset with lots of love.

steve - the evidence on hitting children is clear - and the only way to have a workable line is to make it a clear one ie no hitting children.

Your argument about the nordic countries is nonsense - at least two generations have grown up since the 70s!

Yes its harsh that it penalises people in your position - but greater good of the greater number and all that?

Only one of those statements has data to back it up

No, only one has evidence that it can happen it does not mean everyone will have issues. Which ironically is what those who saying “I’m fine” supports too as it’s not everyone.

No, only one has evidence that it can happen it does not mean everyone will have issues. Which ironically is what those who saying “I’m fine” supports too as it’s not everyone.

The most interesting quote I found in the article I linked above:

“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,” she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.”

That article is behind paywall so I can’t read it in detail.

Are they really suggesting that one off slap has the exact same effect as abuse?