May's government would be undemocratic to ban smacking

What you are arguing for is, in fact, a massive power grab by the state over parenting, and a strike against the cohesiveness of the family unit.

The state rightly forbids parents from harming children, but beyond that and a few other responsibilities the task of raising the child is left to the parents. What we are increasingly seeing is the state trying to exercise control over ordinary, non-harmful familial interactions. The 'historical anomaly' you speak of is the assumption that in ordinary situations families are better place to look out for their children than the government, which is increasingly being challenged by people such as you.

Indeed, you seem to be proposing that the assumption should in fact be that parents have no more rights over their children than they do over any other person, except in circumstances where the government (for purely practical reasons) condescends to allow an exception. This is an outrageous encroachment on the the family as the very bedrock of society.

Of all the ridiculous false-equivalences in this thread, this is probably the stupidest.

What's the difference between robbing a corner shop with a sawn-off shotgun and taking your kid's toy away because they've misbehaved?

I always give them a gentle smack
I think my two girls are well behaved
I smacked them regularly since they were toddlers
I have never had much grief from them
I am pro-smacking it is vital to maintain discipline

That is two different things. I put it to you. What is the difference between hitting a child, hitting an adult or hitting an animal? Answer, currently, it is perfectly legal to hit a child as long as it is your own child.

What kind of crazy world do we live in where it is illegal to hit a dog, but perfectly acceptable to hit a child?

With The planned Ban in Wales and Scotland on smacking Children it is reported today that the Theresa May government are considering banning it.
I want this to be a debate forum, so please do not judge me on my parenting, I think it is PC gone mad for government to tell as how we can raise our children, I think parents are too soft with kids now days mine are both girls 7 and 8.
I am 31 and a single mom, I always give them a gentle smack on the bum or on the hand when they are naughty, I think saying no don't do this or that is not enough a little smack is needed, I only smack behind closed doors, I think my two girls are well behaved ,mostly at home and at school due to a little smack regularly, I smacked them regularly since they were toddlers and I have never had much grief from them up till now, they know if they naughty they will get a little smack. I am pro-smacking it is vital to maintain discipline, off course there is a difference between a smack and a beating What is the point of being a parent if you haven't got control over your children? And if you can't chastise your children then what's the point of being a parent in the first place?The problem is that kids probably never got a smack and were never told no means no. people can say I was wrong or anyone else who smacks their children are wrong, just saying get up stop it is not enough you need to be a bit cruel to be kind. Smacking scares kids so they don't misbehave again. What are your views on this its controversial I know.

Of all the ridiculous false-equivalences in this thread, this is probably the stupidest.

What's the difference between robbing a corner shop with a sawn-off shotgun and taking your kid's toy away because they've misbehaved?

With The planned Ban in Wales and Scotland on smacking Children it is reported today that the Theresa May government are considering banning it.
I want this to be a debate forum, so please do not judge me on my parenting, I think it is PC gone mad for government to tell as how we can raise our children, I think parents are too soft with kids now days mine are both girls 7 and 8.
I am 31 and a single mom, I always give them a gentle smack on the bum or on the hand when they are naughty, I think saying no don't do this or that is not enough a little smack is needed, I only smack behind closed doors, I think my two girls are well behaved ,mostly at home and at school due to a little smack regularly, I smacked them regularly since they were toddlers and I have never had much grief from them up till now, they know if they naughty they will get a little smack. I am pro-smacking it is vital to maintain discipline, off course there is a difference between a smack and a beating What is the point of being a parent if you haven't got control over your children? And if you can't chastise your children then what's the point of being a parent in the first place?The problem is that kids probably never got a smack and were never told no means no. people can say I was wrong or anyone else who smacks their children are wrong, just saying get up stop it is not enough you need to be a bit cruel to be kind. Smacking scares kids so they don't misbehave again. What are your views on this its controversial I know.

Banning smacking would only have the effect of putting good, loving families on the wrong side of the law.

That would indeed be a crazy world, which is why it is not illegal to hit a dog. In a very similar fashion, animal cruelty is illegal, but giving your dog a rap on the nose or something like that if it's doing something naughty is not.

Todays standards or the standards of the day - make no difference to me.

The simple fact is that to argue that smacking always results in failure is simply not true based both on current times and historical times. Its very clear that its possible to smack a child and raise a good child.. but its also possible to smack a child and to abuse a child.

So for me that part I take issue with is the general negative brush. I don't mind people saying that there are better ways to do things.. what I mind is people tarring all parents who ever smack their children as 'unfit'. Take the Op - we have never met her children, they could be lovely, clever, rounded, polite individuals for all we know.. or not.

...The positive about smacking though is its incredibly easy for bad parents to understand and implement. Even the most disinterested, awful, lazy parents can understand: kid does something bad to many times = smack. Its much clearer and easier then the more complicated reason-based discipline that my business helps parents to utilize...

No, what there is no justification for (literally) is your wild pontifications on exercise of authority.

What it comes down to is this: given that parents need to be able to control their children, can a light smack be used as an effective, harmless and quick form of discipline? A question to which the answer is obviously yes.

If you don't like it, or think there are better methods, then don't use it on your own kids. But if you want to go around telling other people how to keep theirs in line you're going to need much stronger arguments as to how a smack light enough such that it doesn't leave a mark is harmful to the child.

Well, for instance, yes.

Have I walked through the looking-glass and not noticed.

Not only is smacking a child evil, but if they act out you can't even take away a toy for a while as punishment! What would you people do to discipline a naughty child?!

This is patently ridiculous. Does a light smack often make a child stop doing something naughty? Yes. Obviously. All the time. This is why people do it in the first place, they didn't just decide they enjoy it and look for justification.

If you're looking at long term outcomes the waters are slightly muddier, and if you don't want to do it to your own kids then fine! .

How would this be enforced? We can't stop people drink driving, using mobile phones whilst driving or doing other dangerous activity...

The wife-beating example is patently ridiculous. It is not just that I wouldn't hit my wife, even trying to "discipline" her in the way one would discipline a child would be absurd. The situation is radically different in innumerable ways.

Secondly, lawful physical chastisement does not cause physical harm, basically by definition. What you're talking about is something rather less, the idea that smacking causes worse statistically worse outcomes, on average. Which is perfectly reasonable point to make in general, but even if it could be statistically proven that smacking children led to worse outcomes on average (and I do dispute that point, but even so) then that would not nearly be sufficient to ban it. Because if it were sufficient then that would concede that the government has the right to legislate on optimal parenting styles. Parents who don't read to their kids are hurting their life chances, but I wouldn't legislate to force them.

Parents should not be allowed to do things which directly and provably cause harm in the specific instance. Things which statistically might on average cause worse outcomes later in life sometimes is way, way too low a bar to set.

Firstly, child-psychologists are not right up there on my most-trusted-professionals index, and in all honesty that article is a good example of why. I'm not saying there are not perfectly reputable people who are against smacking, but that guy sounds like a complete quack (or whatever the child-psychologist equivalent is).

You are deliberately conflating physical harm (which is actually a pretty objective concept) with other adverse correlations which are only allegedly visible if you look at meta-analyses of thousands and thousands of people. The law is nuanced enough to treat these things differently, so maybe you should to.

If it were my own children then yes, absolutely, my opinion should win out. The assumption should be that you know my children and you know what's best for them, except in situations where physical or mental harm can be proven, or even is likely. And with the best will in the world it would be hard to prove an instance of legal smacking is likely to cause harm. I have a lot of respect for the NSPCC et al there, but parents are allowed to disagree because parenting has not yet been completely outsourced to government statisticians.

I mean a lot of those groups will tell you the damage you do to a child by giving them fizzy drinks. I'm not going to deny the truth of that (indeed the case for long term harm is somewhat stronger in this case) but would you make it against the law for parents to do it? If not, why not?



When something bad happens, the idea that we should all have seen the warning signs is a powerful one. So powerful in fact, that it is possible to fall headlong into your non-sequitur. The fact that in those instances brutal, life-threatening beatings were preceded by legal-smacking does not mean that smacking normally prefaces such things, or even that banning it might prevent such incidents. People who get away with child abuse for long enough for something terrible to happen know the difference between what they can get away with in public and the privacy of their own home. The idea that these people can restrain themselves in public to within the law at present (no smacking hard enough to leave a mark), but once we go the whole hog they'll suddenly be found out, I find somewhat unconvincing.

Indeed, the point you seem to be making that by giving your child a quick slap on the back of the legs you are giving succour to brutal child killers is patently absurd. Normal parents discipline their children out of love, not a desire to inflict suffering.



Once again, you are deliberately associating smacking with something completely different. It's almost as if you struggle making the case on its own merits, so you're throwing sh*t-bombs about child-killers and wife-beaters. But you know what, I'll bite.

Wives are equal partners in a relationship, children are not. The realm of things which it is completely reasonable to do to a child but which would be considered abusive in an adult relationship go way beyond smacking. You make choices for children whether they like them or not, you set boundaries and impose discipline when those boundaries are broken. To a child you are an authority figure, and one of the ways authority might be imposed is reasonable physical chastisement. The change you spoke about in the marital relationship was just this one of authority, and rightly so. But unless you think parents should not have authority over their children the analogy fails somewhat.

To be honest this is an important point. It's not that I think parents should not trust experts, but parents should absolutely be allowed to make decisions for their child except in specific instances where they are directly, provably causing harm. The government simply must not bow to the authoritarian temptation to start banning things on the basis of jumped-up experts with questionable statistics.

To be honest that's a completely reasonable rationalisation. These sorts of correlations are just the sort of things a sensible researcher ought to consider. One of my big bug-bears is the poor quality of statistics which emanate from various public or independent bodies, especially when they push up against politically correct shibboleths. Here they have noticed a correlation and then leapt to the conclusion they wanted all along without considering viable alternative explanations.

'Anecdote' is a bizarre way to characterise the higher burden of proof I advocated.

If I remember correctly (and I can drag up stats for this if you want) most parents in the UK have at some point used physical chastisement. If you stick to your ridiculous "child abuse" rhetoric, your clear and slanderous implication is that most parents are child abusers. Now, I think this makes you sound like a complete idiot, but maybe you don't.