Wales to bring in smacking ban. Watch

Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#81
Report 3 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by Sammylou40)
PRSOM
Sorry, I'm not that into TSR but I believe this means you are supporting my opinion so thanks, if not then oh well.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#82
Report 3 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by Sammylou40)
Not just referring to smacking diddy. If a parent believes that the type of punishment they mete out is correct then they will carry on doing it. You can tell parents they cannot smack. They may stop. They may not.
Psychological abuse causes far more damage than a quick light smack
If they don't stop then they are opening themselves up for prosecution, I shouldn't have to explain how the law works.

The important part here is that children can be protected from this kind of violence rather than it being deemed acceptable.

Abuse is wrong, why do I have to keep saying this.
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 3 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Andrew97)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51266509

Today it was announces that after a vote passed by the Welsh assembly, Wales will bring in a smacking ban in 2022 following Scotland.

It has caused some spilts, the Conservative Parties Janet Finch Saunders stated that " the state was stepping into the private lives of families"

The legislation removes the reasonable punishment in cases of common assault. Julie Morgan, who broke a Labour whip in 2015 to suppport this, praised the move and added it could extend to shaking.

Labour and Plaid backed the law, whilst the Conservatives were split.


Should The rest of the U.K introduce this? At what point do laws of this nature cross the line from protection to getting too involved in people's lives.
I think it’s good that we legislate against the physical abuse of minors; after all, hitting a dog, a woman or a man is frowned upon and classed as assault so why is it okay for kids?
4
reply
WoodlandSorcerer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#84
Report 3 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by Sammylou40)
Not just referring to smacking diddy. If a parent believes that the type of punishment they mete out is correct then they will carry on doing it. You can tell parents they cannot smack. They may stop. They may not.
Psychological abuse causes far more damage than a quick light smack
I'm sorry, but this argument is nonsense. It's true that you cannot personally have surveillance on everyone, but this argument you're espousing applies exactly the same to things like extreme child abuse, be it physical or sexual. If a parent believes it is right to do so then they can technically continue doing it in the privacy of their home without anyone else knowing about it, and yet I hope that even you would agree that that doesn't make it OK or that there shouldn't be laws against that.

Also, again, any kind of abuse is wrong. Why does there seem to be the dichotomy on this thread that parents who refuse to engage in physical abuse will instead resort to mental abuse? There are ways to discipline a child without hitting, insulting or humiliating them, why is this so difficult to grasp? Go into any bookstore and there must be tonnes of books in the parenting section about this.
Last edited by WoodlandSorcerer; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#85
Report 3 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by WoodlandSorcerer)
I did provide some examples in the subsequent post and it doesn't take more than a few seconds to think of ways that you can punish a child without hitting them. A 2 second Google search can help you with that.



People in this thread have already linked data and studies that show physical violence can have damaging, long-lasting effects so yes, evidence has been provided, it seems that you just don't want to look at it. Also, I never said physical discipline doesn't work, it can in the sense of making your child terrified of you and cowering them into behaving, but my point is that this is clearly not the healthiest way to do so and that there is significant risk for long-term damage, so why do it?

What I personally want isn't that relevant. There are abused wives who keep returning to their abusive husbands and don't want to press charges, but that doesn't make the abuse OK. The relationships here are very complex, you can still dislike and fear your parents striking you without being brave enough or wanting to report them and possibly irreparably damaging any future relationship, but that is not at all an argument for the abuse being acceptable. Also, how is an underage child (in most cases) going to even consider or be able to think about how they're going to come up against an adult or utilise the power of the law? That's precisely why we have child protection laws in place that don't depend on the child's personal wishes, Stockholm Syndrome and so on. There was nothing that me being slapped as a child achieved that could not have been done using non-violent methods.
Yes I know you can but I was simply saying that you did not, that's all.

Again, yes I know they have but I am not an expert once again and so am voicing opinions, not facts. There is risk in any punishment for long term damage. Of-course everyone has a different up brining and maybe I was just lucky as wasn't scared and had long term damage but what I say saying is that verbal punishments can probably (see how I'm not saying they definitely do) cause long-term damage. Like you said, just take mental abuse for example. Some people say that mental abuse is far worse than physical and vice versa. What I'm getting at here is people are affected in different ways and I don't think a smack on the bottom will make a child cower and tremble with fear to their parents. They would most likely fear the punishment, not the parent. Abuse if different to a smack on the bum.

On the point where I said the parents can be prosecuted I, of course, wasn't talking about a child going to the police. I was talking about someone reporting the parents and them being taken away from their children during an investigation. That is probably pretty distressing for the kid and could cause serious mental damage being taken away from their parents who they could be prosecuted if proven to have smacked the child's bum.

Once again. I am not an expert, I have done no prior research into any of these areas and into the new law and never have said I was an expert, so do not believe what I am saying just because I am saying it, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I am a poster on TSR voicing an opinion.
Hope that clears it up.
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#86
Report 3 weeks ago
#86
Abuse is wrong on all levels. Discipline is not abuse. If you think it is then you must think that verbal discipline (telling your child something is wrong) is mental abuse as you are causing distress to the child.

Also, lighting tapping your dog on the nose is a quick way to let it know that what is it doing is wrong and is used widely in dog training I believe.
0
reply
WoodlandSorcerer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 3 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
Yes I know you can but I was simply saying that you did not, that's all.
I consequently did and you're conceding you can think of some, so you don't really have much of a point.

Again, yes I know they have but I am not an expert once again and so am voicing opinions, not facts. There is risk in any punishment for long term damage. Of-course everyone has a different up brining and maybe I was just lucky as wasn't scared and had long term damage but what I say saying is that verbal punishments can probably (see how I'm not saying they definitely do) cause long-term damage. Like you said, just take mental abuse for example. Some people say that mental abuse is far worse than physical and vice versa. What I'm getting at here is people are affected in different ways and I don't think a smack on the bottom will make a child cower and tremble with fear to their parents. They would most likely fear the punishment, not the parent. Abuse if different to a smack on the bum.
There is risk to potentially anything, but what we're assessing here is common sense and probability. You don't need to be an expert in any field to know that hitting a child and causing them physical pain, especially if on a regular basis, is going to have a far higher potential to leave long-lasting damage than most forms of punishment that don't physically damage or belittle them. This really goes without saying.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think verbal abuse is acceptable either?! You don't need to insult or verbally attack a child to get them to behave. And verbal abuse possibly being worse (questionable) shouldn't be used in an attempt to excuse or mitigate the harmful effect of striking children. Also be aware that a verbal punishment =/= verbal abuse.

But a smack on the bum is still intended to cause pain and humiliation, tell me, what other reason is there? The punishment is intrinsically linked to the parent administering it, I don't think you can cleanly separate the two. And anyway, fearing the punishment and not the parent doesn't change anything, you're still in fear of being physically damaged.

On the point where I said the parents can be prosecuted I, of course, wasn't talking about a child going to the police. I was talking about someone reporting the parents and them being taken away from their children during an investigation. That is probably pretty distressing for the kid and could cause serious mental damage being taken away from their parents who they could be prosecuted if proven to have smacked the child's bum.
I really can't believe what I'm seeing, that a child should be kept in an environment where they're being hit just so that the parents aren't prosecuted. This is nonsense. If a parent has broken the law and they're found to have done so then they need to face the consequences, end of. One could equally argue that a child in a more abusive home could be extremely relieved that they're no longer in the presence of abusive parents. That's why we have laws that apply to all people equally and the severity of the crime would then be in the hands of the CPS and a jury, but you cannot possibly argue that a parent shouldn't face legal consequences for hitting (if hitting becomes illegal) because of a hypothetical situation where a child may be distressed, and any such argument would rightfully be laughed out the room. It would be judged that any potential distress caused to the child would be outweighed by the source of the abuse (parent) being locked up or removed from the home. That could also apply to a child who is being sexually abused, who could technically also become distressed if their parents are taken away for questioning.

Once again. I am not an expert, I have done no prior research into any of these areas and into the new law and never have said I was an expert, so do not believe what I am saying just because I am saying it, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I am a poster on TSR voicing an opinion.
Hope that clears it up.
I know that, doesn't mean I can't challenge what you say though.
Last edited by WoodlandSorcerer; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#88
Report 3 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
By mental abuse, I meant verbal punishments. Of course, abuse is wrong, I never said it wasn't. What I said was discipline and abuse are different things. Sooner or later it will be prosecutable for verbally punishing your children as you are casing them distress. If physical punishment is prosecutable (I mean a smack on the bottom, not a punch in the face), then verbal might be next.

Take this case for example. An Australian man was being prosecuted for smashing his daughter's phone. You can read the article yourself but the TL;DR version is that she misbehaved and he threated to smash her phone. She then misbehaved again I believe and he followed through on his actions, destroying her phone. He apparently dragged her by her wrist and there was a little bit of an altercation but the dad showed a different side. The judge dismissed the case as being a waste of everybody's time.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nds-court.html
Verbal punishments are not necessarily mental abuse, they are two entirely different concepts. A verbal punishment should not cause any harm to your child.

Mental or emotional abuse is already a punishable offence under UK law and rightly so.

More to that story than the Daily Mail let on.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/dad-charge...122519420.html

Andrew remains on a good behaviour bond and said that he hasn’t seen his daughter in four months since the incident.
He was given good behaviour bond (Aussie non custodial sentence) while having the assault charge dismissed. His daughter now won't even see him.

****ing outstanding parenting, only resulted in a non custodial and estrangement :congrats:
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 3 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
Abuse is wrong on all levels. Discipline is not abuse. If you think it is then you must think that verbal discipline (telling your child something is wrong) is mental abuse as you are causing distress to the child.
So you support physical discipline in the workplace, if not then you must think that an employer telling an employee they've done something wrong is totally unacceptable?
2
reply
Sammylou40
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 3 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
Verbal punishments are not necessarily mental abuse, they are two entirely different concepts. A verbal punishment should not cause any harm to your child.

Mental or emotional abuse is already a punishable offence under UK law and rightly so.

More to that story than the Daily Mail let on.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/dad-charge...122519420.html



He was given good behaviour bond (Aussie non custodial sentence) while having the assault charge dismissed. His daughter now won't even see him.

****ing outstanding parenting, only resulted in a non custodial and estrangement :congrats:
I’ve heard various versions of that story with different situations.
The outcome is absolutely ridiculous.
That girl now believes she can behave any way she wants
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#91
Report 3 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by WoodlandSorcerer)
I consequently did and you're conceding you can think of some, so you don't really have much of a point.



There is risk to potentially anything, but what we're assessing here is common sense and probability. You don't need to be an expert in any field to know that hitting a child and causing them physical pain, especially if on a regular basis, is going to have a far higher potential to leave long-lasting damage than most forms of punishment that don't physically damage or belittle them. This really goes without saying.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think verbal abuse is acceptable either?! You don't need to insult or verbally attack a child to get them to behave. And verbal abuse possibly being worse (questionable) shouldn't be used in an attempt to excuse or mitigate the harmful effect of striking children.

But a smack on the bum is still intended to cause pain and humiliation, tell me, what other reason is there? The punishment is intrinsically linked to the parent administering it, I don't think you can cleanly separate the two. And anyway, fearing the punishment and not the parent doesn't change anything, you're still in fear of being physically damaged.



I really can't believe what I'm seeing, that a child should be kept in an environment where they're being hit just so that the parents aren't prosecuted. This is nonsense. If a parent has broken the law and they're found to have done so then they need to face the consequences, end of. One could equally argue that a child in a more abusive home could be extremely relieved that they're no longer in the presence of abusive parents. That's why we have laws that apply to all people equally and the severity of the crime would then be in the hands of the CPS and a jury, but you cannot possibly argue that a parent shouldn't face legal consequences for hitting because of hypothetical situation where a child may be distressed, and any such argument would rightfully be laughed out the room. That could also apply to a child who is being sexually abused, who could technically also become distressed if their parents are taken away for questioning.



I know that, doesn't mean I can't challenge what you say though.
The fact that you think that a smack on the bottom is equal to a punch in the face is laughable. If you are going by the logic that a smack on the bum could cause physical pain to the child then you can say that verbal punishment could also cause emotional pain the child. I agree with you you should not be hitting your kids but have said in past posts that a smack on the bum is very different to being hit in the face. I know both would cause physical harm but verbally disciplining your child would cause emotional harm and so why shouldn't that be prosecutable aswell.

Going by your logic, if light physical discipline is prosecutable for causing physical pain then verbal discipline should be too as it can cause the child emotional pain and distress.

Also where you say physical pain is worse I would have to heavily disagree with you there. For example, an acid attack would hurt, a lot (of course) and can cause long-lasting physical pain. But I personally believe living with the injuries after can be a lot more challenging for some and the mental stress it puts people through can cause them serious harm and could lead them to physically harming themselves. Abuse at any level is not tolerable, but lightly smacking a child's bum is not abuse imo. It's like you think parents are punching their children in the face to discipline them.
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 3 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
Abuse is wrong on all levels. Discipline is not abuse. If you think it is then you must think that verbal discipline (telling your child something is wrong) is mental abuse as you are causing distress to the child.

Also, lighting tapping your dog on the nose is a quick way to let it know that what is it doing is wrong and is used widely in dog training I believe.
It’s too easy for physical discipline to tip over into abuse though; think about it, when you’re angry with your child are you thinking rationally? In most cases no, so the kid gets smacked but if the parent wasn’t angry would they really be hitting their own child? No, so physical discipline is born mostly out of anger and other negative emotions in the part of the parent. It’s a lazy substitute
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 3 weeks ago
#93
Another encroachment by the state.

People are arguing about if it is right or wrong to smack children. That is largely irrelavant.
This is the state taking direct action in the raising of your child and encourging people to snitch on you.
Imagine if you have to be a bit forceful with your child because he/she is playing up. No smacking involved but it could be seen as someone somehwhere as aggresive behaviour against a child.
They report you and now you could face possible legal consquences.

Remember this is not a ban on smacking. A ban on smacking is clear cut everyone knows what smacking is.
This is a ban on physical acts. That is very open to interpretation.
Last edited by adam271; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 3 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by Sammylou40)
I’ve heard various versions of that story with different situations.
The outcome is absolutely ridiculous.
That girl now believes she can behave any way she wants
The outcome is perfectly reasonable, he acted outside of the law and was punished for it. Should people who break the law not be punished?

You are merely speculating about what that girl may or may not believe, you have absolutely no way of knowing.
0
reply
WoodlandSorcerer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#95
Report 3 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
The fact that you think that a smack on the bottom is equal to a punch in the face is laughable.
I don't and have never even implied that so you're attacking something I haven't said.

If you are going by the logic that a smack on the bum could cause physical pain to the child then you can say that verbal punishment could also cause emotional pain the child.
A verbal punishment is not verbal abuse and we're talking about degrees here. No one is saying that a child will never suffer any kind of distress for the 18 years or more they live with their parents, but what we're dealing with is potentials. Being physically and even verbally attacked is obviously more harmful than a punishment that doesn't involve being struck or shamed, not the mention the more damaging and lasting effects that the former could have.

I agree with you you should not be hitting your kids but have said in past posts that a smack on the bum is very different to being hit in the face. I know both would cause physical harm but verbally disciplining your child would cause emotional harm and so why shouldn't that be prosecutable aswell.
But why is a smack on the bum and a punch in the face different, in principle? A smack is intended to humiliate and cause pain, even if much less severe than a punch.

Going by your logic, if light physical discipline is prosecutable for causing physical pain then verbal discipline should be too as it can cause the child emotional pain and distress.
It has already been said that a verbal punishment is not the same as verbal abuse. Mental abuse is already unlawful.

Also where you say physical pain is worse I would have to heavily disagree with you there. For example, an acid attack would hurt, a lot (of course) and can cause long-lasting physical pain. But I personally believe living with the injuries after can be a lot more challenging for some and the mental stress it puts people through can cause them serious harm and could lead them to physically harming themselves. Abuse at any level is not tolerable, but lightly smacking a child's bum is not abuse imo. It's like you think parents are punching their children in the face to discipline them.
I'm not saying that one is necessarily worse than the other as it will depend entirely on the situation. A punch in the face will be more painful than a very light insult, whereas a vitriolic, racist verbal attack will be worse than a very light slap on the bum. And being hit isn't always a light slap on the bum and you know this. I think it's fair to say it's common for an angry parent to slap you significantly harder than that when they're pissed off with you because they're not really thinking straight and just want to physically punish you.

OK, but then explain to me exactly what you're trying to achieve by slapping a child's bum lightly and why you feel you can't achieve the same effect without doing so?
Last edited by WoodlandSorcerer; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 3 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
Verbal punishments are not necessarily mental abuse, they are two entirely different concepts. A verbal punishment should not cause any harm to your child.

Mental or emotional abuse is already a punishable offence under UK law and rightly so.

More to that story than the Daily Mail let on.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/dad-charge...122519420.html



He was given good behaviour bond (Aussie non custodial sentence) while having the assault charge dismissed. His daughter now won't even see him.

****ing outstanding parenting, only resulted in a non custodial and estrangement :congrats:
You say verbal punishments are not mental abuse but say a lite smack on the bum is physical abuse. How come there is a line with verbal abuse but not physical. What if you tell your child off and it cries? That child is distressed is it not? Why shouldn't that be prosecuted against?

Also when you say mental or emotional abuse is already punishable I know it is. So is physically abuse. You really think if a parent was disciplining a child by punching them in the face it would be deemed discipline. No Of-course not that would be physical abuse.

Also what you say about the news story I don't agree with. If you're a parent and are using verbal discipline to a child you have to follow through. If you misbehave you will be grounded, etc. What he was doing was verbal discipline, saying he would smash her phone if she didn't behave. She didn't behaviour and he had to follow through, or the daughter would know she could get away with it. Now because of this silly nonsense, a family has been broken up. You're telling me that won't have any mental effect on the child? Some things should always be personal and family matters and should stay that way. Of course, if you are committing crimes against your children then yes, authorities have to get involved.
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#97
Report 3 weeks ago
#97
Yet you can also be extremely over the top verbally to a child to which could cause them serious distress also. Where is the line between verbal discipline and verbal abuse? If a smack on the bottom is physical abuse what does that say about all the parents who discipline their child by shouting at them, making them cry. That child is distressed and so should they be punished?
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#98
Report 3 weeks ago
#98
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
Yet you can also be extremely over the top verbally to a child to which could cause them serious distress also. Where is the line between verbal discipline and verbal abuse? If a smack on the bottom is physical abuse what does that say about all the parents who discipline their child by shouting at them, making them cry. That child is distressed and so should they be punished?
Hitting a child, even if it’s just a snack on the bottom, teaches a child that hitting someone when they displease them is acceptable to society. This is harmful to society as we see many psychopaths and serial killers were themselves abused growing up. We need to be moving people away as a society from this cave man like thinking that’s its okay to hit people and progress. In a workplace disciplinary would you expect your boss to hit you if you made a mistake? No, you’d be shocked and rightly so

Verbal discipline can be as a bad if it turns into verbal abuse but generally speaking calling names doesn’t land kids in hospital or dead if it’s overdone. That’s the difference
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#99
Report 3 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
You say verbal punishments are not mental abuse but say a lite smack on the bum is physical abuse. How come there is a line with verbal abuse but not physical. What if you tell your child off and it cries? That child is distressed is it not? Why shouldn't that be prosecuted against?

Also when you say mental or emotional abuse is already punishable I know it is. So is physically abuse. You really think if a parent was disciplining a child by punching them in the face it would be deemed discipline. No Of-course not that would be physical abuse.

Also what you say about the news story I don't agree with. If you're a parent and are using verbal discipline to a child you have to follow through. If you misbehave you will be grounded, etc. What he was doing was verbal discipline, saying he would smash her phone if she didn't behave. She didn't behaviour and he had to follow through, or the daughter would know she could get away with it. Now because of this silly nonsense, a family has been broken up. You're telling me that won't have any mental effect on the child? Some things should always be personal and family matters and should stay that way. Of course, if you are committing crimes against your children then yes, authorities have to get involved.
I have never said that smacking is physical abuse what I have said is that it is violent.

Children require some discipline in order to become civilised members of society, verbal discipline when used correctly does not cause damage to the child or their wellbeing.

If you are a parent and you threaten to the break the law then go on to break the law to make a point you should expect to be prosecuted for breaking the law. You are setting a terrible example to your children by breaking the law to punish your child.

She didn't behaviour and he had to follow through
He had to break the law? Seriously?

He broke the law and estranged his family because he couldn't control his anger and you are blaming the state for his actions. Incredible.
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report 3 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
You are still failing to answer the question, what makes children unique to be targets of violence when all other members of society are protected from it?

It shouldn't be that hard to answer if slapping is so inconsequential in your eyes.
It's easier to teach children obedience when younger than it is an adult. Though to be fair, there are some people in today's society who could have benefitted from corporal punishment as a child and even as an adult
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (378)
67.14%
No (185)
32.86%

Watched Threads

View All