[News] Scotland to ban smacking children

[Questions]

No you could wait until they are teenagers though....

 

[Questions]

There are other weapons to threaten a child with other than the fist. If my 2 year old starts being overly cheeky, or happy, i start running the bath with that you know what's coming sort of face. I wouldn't ACTUALLY drown him, but, you know, he needs to know who is boss.

Waterboarding works as well MB

 

[el punal]

If there wasn't state policing of parenting, what would be the alternative?

Common sense, responsibility and love. But then I’m a decent, law abiding, honest citizen who knows right from wrong - the same as 99.99% of us. It’s the other 0.09% that don’t give a shit.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Common sense, responsibility and love. But then I’m a decent, law abiding, honest citizen who knows right from wrong - the same as 99.99% of us. It’s the other 0.09% that don’t give a shit.

63% of people have issues with percentages, the other 52% are fine.

 

[el punal]

Common sense, responsibility and love. But then I’m a decent, law abiding, honest citizen who knows right from wrong - the same as 99.99% of us. It’s the other 0.09% that don’t give a shit.

Sorry - I mean 0.01%.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Waterboarding works as well MB

Well, i do that to his mother and say to him is this really what you wanted to happen?
He doesn't comprehend it entirely, sometimes chortling at the sight of his breathless and panicking madre, but i feel he gets the gist of my message. Don't, and i repeat, DON'T, MESS, WITH, DADDY MEADE, AND HIS VEGAN-PUNCHING WAYS.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I can't speak from parental experience so ignore this if you like, but as a child, a smack and the threat of one was effective discipline and did no harm.

Responsible parents control their children . Too often a pleasant coffee shop treat is ruined by unruly kids . It is not the role of the State to intrude in family life unless real abuse takes place.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I agree with the legislation change in Scotland, but people being people I can see it going wrong.

i.e. Child A hurts Child B in the soft play area. Parent of Child A gives Child A a clip round the ear. Parent of Child C thinks he's Batman and criticises Parent of Child A for physical abuse, it kicks off between Parent A and Parent C.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Behaviour breeds behaviour.

Smack your child when they’ve done something wrong and they’ll smack their friends when they feel wronged.

 

[dingodan]

Just to reassure you, the law clearly incorporates space for bad parenting. There was a judgement in case law that said something along the lines of: ‘Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent’. An example of that is in practice is is those parents in the Argus the other week who let their children do what they want.

I think rather than an insidious intervention of this state this is an attempt to safeguard children. Whilst some parents might might be able to stop at a light tap, the fact is that a lot can't. If this law stops children turning up at school with bruises and being scared to go back home in the evening, then I view that as a good thing.

But the laws which already exist make beating your children illegal. These laws aren't about that, they are about a smack on the bottom. I personally don't think a smack on the bottom is neccessarily effective parenting, although it depends on age etc. But like I said, if you don't draw a line, a line above this kind of thing, then you've thrown out the right to decide how to parent children completely.

Why should parents be allowed to feed their children McDonalds when it is clearly bad for their health? Why should parents be allowed to teach their children their political or religious views when those are so contentious and children cannot think intellectually for themselves. The only answer, if you believe that the state must protect children, not from abuse or neglect, but from "bad parenting" (whoever gets to decide what that consitutes), is to take children from parents and bring them up in a state institution on the basis of clearly defined state rules on the upbringing of children.

Who is responsible for children, the state? or their parents? I tend to think that on balance I would rather that children be raised by their parents, with all of the variations that can involve, some of which I may not agree with, than to have children raised by the state based on the social and political whims of the current majority.

What I am suggesting about the future might sound extreme, but want to take your children on holiday without the states permission? Get a fine, or if you don't pay the fine, maybe prison. Want to discipline your child with a smack on the bottom? Criminal. Well the more empowered the state becomes in this area, and the less empowered parents feel, the more responsibility the state will take, the less responsibility parents will take - this is already happening, and it's only going to get worse with moves like this IMO.


“Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.”

- Vladimir Lenin

 

[METALMICKY]

Definitely a generational divide on this, I reckon.

My Dad smacked me as a kid, and I don’t think it really adversely affected our relationship.

Yet, as a youngish (33) Dad of an 18-month-old, I genuinely can’t imagine ever attacking my son.

Seems to be a contradiction there? In one breath it's not an issue but the next you are using highly emotive language like " attacking ".

 

[Mellotron]

Seems to be a contradiction there? In one breath it's not an issue but the next you are using highly emotive language like " attacking ".

Quite.

These are my mixed feelings about it. The dichotomy inherent is intentional.