Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: the_leander on December 09, 2004, 10:41:43 PM
-
from the Daily Mirror:
A LOVING father was barred from his home and parted from his family for six months after he smacked his three-year-old son in public.
The astonishing curb was imposed in a bail order while the 41-year-old dad-of-two waited 20 weeks to be tried for common assault.
Read more here. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14958606%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=banned%2dfrom%2dhome%2dfor%2dsmacking%2dson-name_page.html)
-
That's rediculous.
-
Something similar happened to a couple I know, way back in 1990 in Putney. The father smacked his daughter of 11 when she came home after midnight after she had been expressly told that she must be home by 10pm. She was with a boy of 15 who was smoking heavily and doing his best Marlon Brando impression, scowling at the father when he answered the door.
Well...next day, when the father went to pick his daughter up from school, he was greeted by the police. They took him to the station and charged him with child abuse. The wife came down to the station and tried to explain things to the police but they didn't want to know. The daughter was accusing the father of abusing her. After much of a to-do, the guy was released, put on a county-wide register and had to endure various visits and 'counselling' sessions with the authorities. The worst thing is the kid knew she had him by the balls and was openly gobby with him after that, and there was nothing he could do.
-
@Xray
The problem is is that this sort of attitude is growing (within the young population), afterall who in their right mind would say they're being abused if they're not? As kids get wise to this ever more quickly, expect to see similar things happening more often, and over more and more rediculous things. I mean looking from the police side of things, how can they really make an accurate judgement call on such an issue... As an offshoot of this, genuine cases may be dropped because police feel the kid is trying to pull a fast one.
For the article itself I say much the same thing, this sort of thing will increase as the PC brigade gains ever more momentum.. And theres little we can do about it, you me and I'd imagine everyone else on this board would say that this was totally over the top by the authorities, but this will become more common.
All because a frightened parent wanted to get across that running around on or around roads equated to pain.
Another thing I wonder is how many children will end up in state run facilities to theirs and the population as a whole's detriment.
I forsee large lawsuits in the making. And by large, I mean government breaking lawsuits.
-
The father smacked his daughter of 11 when she came home after midnight after she had been expressly told that she must be home by 10pm.
WTF is an 11 year old doing out at that time in the first place...me thinks poor discipline/parenthood at an early age has led to this turn of events.
-
@ ADZ
Here in the UK youngsters are often out quite late at night. I agree with you in that a 10pm curfew should be more than fair for an 11-year-old, but you can see why she got smacked for coming home after midnight.
-
Here in Sweden, a guy was freed from the accusations of child abuse a while ago. He publically slapped his 14 year-old daughter after she spat him in the face for not buying her a DVD-movie that she wanted.
There was a great outrage among children's-righs activists, and PC-lefties, but the court thankfully decided that a fostering slap is not child abuse.
-
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister of Justice wanted to make it unlawful to hit a child. His argument: people should learn that it is not right to hit a child. Of course he was steamrolled by almost everyone: the law won't prevent serious child abuse (which was its main selling point), and parents should have the right to administer a corrective, educational slap. It is not a right to be taken lightly, of course, and should be avoided whereever possible.
-
In my office right now I sit twenty feet from a 17 year girl.
She did in fact used to work for me, but at my request she's been moved next door. During her time in my office, she'd openly behave in an apalling way simply to try my patience. I've gone out of my way to be polite, professional and to make concessions and each time they've been spat back in my face. To list all the things she's done would take me far too long and would take even longer to explain why she is still an employee.
The only time she's ever on her best behaviour is when she's openly threatened with dismissal. Thankfully, the manager of the audit department has taken her under his wing, but is starting to experience the same problems as me.
By her own admission, she's been spoilt rotten and never taught how to behave at home. If she doesn't get what she wants, she spits out the dummy and stamps her feet in defiance.
This is the kind of chiled growing up today. I hate to say "when I was a kid" because I had a father who wasn't afraid to use bullying tactics on me, but for the most part we had respect for others.
Now the message is "do what you like kids, if you don't like it then no-one can do anything about it". Ordinarily I'd describe myself as a liberal-left wing type, but when it comes to matters of crime & punishment and delinqency I'm as right wing as it gets... Bring back the birch.
-
My girlfriend told the following story: there was a TV documentary about manners, and how to raise children in such a way that they are polite and kind to others. So the makers of that documentary went to a school and filmed classes of children being taught Manners 101. At the end of the day, the children left class, but the teacher had a small gift for each of them (I think it was a piece of fruit, or a small sweet). Each and every child said 'thank you'. One of the parents, who was witnessing the entire event, came up to her little child, and said, 'Yes, but you've got to remember that Mizz Teach is a bit old-fashioned, you don't need to say thank you.'
-
Actually, my ex assistant shares some amusing traits with this character from "Little Britain".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/pictures/wallpaper/images/school_1024.jpg
Matt Lucas said he got the inspiration for Vicky Pollard by watching teenagers in his local town.
-
EW!
:vomit:
-
@Whabang,
If you get the chance to see any clips of Little Britain, Vicky Pollards character is a fascinating insight into chav culture.
-
@ PMC
:lol:
That Pollard makes me laugh, man.
But seriously, I was a naughty little sod on many an occasion at school and I got a caning when I went to far. I also wouldn't dare speak to my parents (or any adult in fact) the way I've seen many a youngster here carry on. It is the lack of discipline and respect for others that will make crime difficult to control in the future. For instance I told a bunch of kids to stop throwing eggs at me from a balcony on a housing estate, and these kids responded with language I don't even use on the squash court. They know how to get away with it: one of their quips was that I must stop speaking to them because it means I'm a paedophile. And if I was to throw eggs back, or clip one around the earhole and he went crying to mummy, there would be one X-ray in jail and one smug little maggot beaming from the balcony.
-
whabang wrote:
Here in Sweden, a guy was freed from the accusations of child abuse a while ago. He publically slapped his 14 year-old daughter after she spat him in the face for not buying her a DVD-movie that she wanted.
There was a great outrage among children's-righs activists, and PC-lefties, but the court thankfully decided that a fostering slap is not child abuse.
The difference is that a 14 year old isn´t perceived as a child in this situation. If she had been 3-4 years younger I´m sure the verdict had been different.
-
Cymric wrote:
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister of Justice wanted to make it unlawful to hit a child. His argument: people should learn that it is not right to hit a child. Of course he was steamrolled by almost everyone: the law won't prevent serious child abuse (which was its main selling point), and parents should have the right to administer a corrective, educational slap. It is not a right to be taken lightly, of course, and should be avoided whereever possible.
The sad thing is that he was right.
It´s not okay to beat unknown people in the street or a shop that isn´t polite to you but it´s okay to hit your kid?
-
"...It´s not okay to beat unknown people in the street or a shop that isn´t polite to you but it´s okay to hit your kid?..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan, there is a slight difference between an unknown adult and a child for whom you have legal, moral, and parental responsibility.
If an adult cannot be reasoned with, you can walk away or retreat, but if it is your child, and he is too young to be reasoned with, you have to take action if the discipline is in the child's best interest.
-
Dan wrote:
The difference is that a 14 year old isn´t perceived as a child in this situation. If she had been 3-4 years younger I´m sure the verdict had been different.
I'm not sure about that.
Mind you, if she'd been 10 I doubt she'd recieved the same treatment. Perhaps he would have pulled her ear instead.
-
whabang wrote:
Here in Sweden, a guy was freed from the accusations of child abuse a while ago. He publically slapped his 14 year-old daughter after she spat him in the face for not buying her a DVD-movie that she wanted.
There was a great outrage among children's-righs activists, and PC-lefties, but the court thankfully decided that a fostering slap is not child abuse.
That's disgraceful. Had it been me I'd have slapped her too.
Moreover, she'd have forfeitted said DVD priviledges for the next six months.
-
whabang wrote:
Dan wrote:
The difference is that a 14 year old isn´t perceived as a child in this situation. If she had been 3-4 years younger I´m sure the verdict had been different.
I'm not sure about that.
Mind you, if she'd been 10 I doubt she'd recieved the same treatment. Perhaps he would have pulled her ear instead.
Or given her a good shake, earpulling is still questionable.
But I agree. And if she wanted that DVD so much she could have bought it for her own money the spoiled brat.
-
X-ray wrote:
"...It´s not okay to beat unknown people in the street or a shop that isn´t polite to you but it´s okay to hit your kid?..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan, there is a slight difference between an unknown adult and a child for whom you have legal, moral, and parental responsibility.
In other words you have all this power over the child and still need to hit it?
If an adult cannot be reasoned with, you can walk away or retreat, but if it is your child,
Parents don´t own their children.
and he is too young to be reasoned with, you have to take action if the discipline is in the child's best interest.
No child is to young to be reasoned with, hell you can even reason with animals to an extent. And how is it in the childs interest to hate it´s parent?
-
There was a time when there was no child or wifeabuse and people had the right to hit their kids and wife, heck it was even legal to hit farmhands and maids. There was no such thing as rape inside a marriage either it was just "fullfilling wifely duties".
It was called the 1800s, it´s over. Get over it!
-
If you think I´m unreasonable just think about that if it wasn´t for that law I would probably be in jail and my father would probably be dead.
-
@ Dan
"...Or given her a good shake, earpulling is still questionable..."
------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Dan, it is the other way around. You can get into serious trouble for shaking a kid and you c an do far more damage too. The worst you can do by pulling someone's ear is to tear alongside the earlobe, but a 'good shake' can result in serious life-threatening injuries. In medicine there is a 'shaken baby' syndrome, but there is no 'pulled ear syndrome'. That should tell you which one is more dangerous.
-
Who said anything about babies?
We where talking about a ten year old.
Get real, unless the kid has a hereditary disease of some kind....
-
@ Dan
You said: "...There was a time when there was no child or wifeabuse and people had the right to hit their kids and wife, heck it was even legal to hit farmhands and maids. There was no such thing as rape inside a marriage either it was just "fullfilling wifely duties".
It was called the 1800s, it´s over. Get over it!..."
----------------------------------------------------------
If you equate child abuse and wife abuse with discipline then perhaps it is just as well you don't believe in smacking. My standpoint isn't about supporting abuse. It is about recognising that a timeous smack can prevent a whole heap of trouble later on. Ideally, nobody wants to smack anybody. We don't look for excuses to do it, we do it out of necessity.
A few other things: when I mentioned the legal, moral and parental responsibility a father or mother may have for their child, you said "...In other words you have all this power over the child and still need to hit it?..."
Well, this goes hand in hand with your next comment that "..no child is too young to be reasoned with.."
Well, I don't know what fantasy land you live in, Dan, but young children are OFTEN impossible to reason with. This is because they have a limited perception and understanding of their surroundings and have an agenda that centers almost entirely on themselves. Ever seen a kid throwing a tantrum in a supermarket because his mom won't buy him a toy? Ever seen a kid that insisted on wanting to play with something around the house that he should not be playing with? You may have been the only angelic kid on the planet, Dan, but speaking for myself and the rest of the world, I got up to alot of naughtiness as a kid and I would be damned if I was going to always listen to my parents the first time they said something, especially if (according to my child-like logic) they were being unreasonable and I could see no reason why I could not continue behaving the way I was. I got quite a few smacks as a kid and I don't hate my parents. They probably saved me from becoming an insolent little Chav, or possibly hurting myself or someone else by doing things whose consequences I did not have the knowledge or experience to understand fully.
You also say 'Parents do not own their children'
Does this mean they are like those little Troll keyrings, that you have for a certain number of years, are obliged to feed and clothe, but simultaneously treat as equals? Who is responsible for the child, Dan? Is it the child himself or is it a benevolent pixie at the bottom of the garden? It isn't about 'owning' the child, it is about doing that which you are obliged to do to bring the child up according to your ideals, whilst simultaneously observing the law of the land. If this wasn't so, parents would not be liable for charges of neglect and they would be freely allowed to abandon chldren with no reproach.
-
I got a fair clip round the ear when I misbehaved as a youngster. It was never excessive, nor administered on a whim. Never did me any harm.
-
"...Who said anything about babies?
We where talking about a ten year old..."
-----------------------------------------------------
It's the mechanism, Dan. It is applicable to adults and geriatrics too. The effects of shaking have been well documented, especially in cases where meningeal haemorrhages have occured. Shaking is more dangerous (and in fact can be seen as abuse) compared to pulling an ear. I work in a hospital that handles suspected victims of child abuse (of all ages) and I'm pretty confident that my knowledge of these matters is not too shabby.
-
I´m sure you know the medical dangers best.
-
the_leander wrote:
from the Daily Mirror:
A LOVING father was barred from his home and parted from his family for six months after he smacked his three-year-old son in public.
The astonishing curb was imposed in a bail order while the 41-year-old dad-of-two waited 20 weeks to be tried for common assault.
Read more here. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14958606%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=banned%2dfrom%2dhome%2dfor%2dsmacking%2dson-name_page.html)
Commenting on the orginal article so I get that out of the way.
I´m not suprising that socialservice is blowing the whole thing out of proportion after all thats their reason to exist the petty powermade bureaucrats that they are. Social Services motto:
If a family isn´t screwed up when they get here, we will make sure that they are when they leave. :lol:
-
@ Dan
Welcome back :lol:
I must admit that Social Services pretty much sum up in one department my beef with the Civil service at large and for the reasons you describe.
Shame, because there are an awful lot of good people who are in the service that really do care but are stiffled into insignificance by the powers that be.
-
X-ray wrote:
You also say 'Parents do not own their children'
Does this mean they are like those little Troll keyrings, that you have for a certain number of years, are obliged to feed and clothe, but simultaneously treat as equals? Who is responsible for the child, Dan? Is it the child himself or is it a benevolent pixie at the bottom of the garden?
Ultimately society is responsible for all children(minors). Don´t be ridiculous.
It isn't about 'owning' the child, it is about doing that which you are obliged to do to bring the child up according to your ideals, whilst simultaneously observing the law of the land. If this wasn't so, parents would not be liable for charges of neglect and they would be freely allowed to abandon chldren with no reproach.
It is very much about owning the child, far to many people think that their children will be a minicopy of themself. That children shouldn´t have their own opinions.Every living thing has it´s own will. And finally I know no country where it´s illegal to turn over a child to social services if you cant take care of it.
The thing is that todays society doesn´t allow for the fact that bringing up children takes time.
-
X-ray wrote:
A few other things: when I mentioned the legal, moral and parental responsibility a father or mother may have for their child, you said "...In other words you have all this power over the child and still need to hit it?..."
Well, this goes hand in hand with your next comment that "..no child is too young to be reasoned with.."
Well, I don't know what fantasy land you live in, Dan, but young children are OFTEN impossible to reason with. This is because they have a limited perception and understanding of their surroundings and have an agenda that centers almost entirely on themselves.
Sounds like most living animals to me, especially most humans!
Ever seen a kid throwing a tantrum in a supermarket because his mom won't buy him a toy?
I don´t remmeber when I was that young but when my little sister did it my dad just said:-Let her scream she gets tried soon. And guess what? She did.
Ever seen a kid that insisted on wanting to play with something around the house that he should not be playing with?
So simply stop the child from playing with it. Hell there is a whole childsafety industry if it isn´t something that can be taken from his hands and put away.
You may have been the only angelic kid on the planet, Dan, but speaking for myself and the rest of the world, I got up to alot of naughtiness as a kid and I would be damned if I was going to always listen to my parents the first time they said something, especially if (according to my child-like logic) they were being unreasonable and I could see no reason why I could not continue behaving the way I was. I got quite a few smacks as a kid and I don't hate my parents.
And you never did as a child?
I remmember times when I got punished as a child and hated my parents because I tought they was unfair at the time. As i grew up I unedrstood why they did that but not at that time. As you say children have their own logic.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Dan
You said: "...There was a time when there was no child or wifeabuse and people had the right to hit their kids and wife, heck it was even legal to hit farmhands and maids. There was no such thing as rape inside a marriage either it was just "fullfilling wifely duties".
It was called the 1800s, it´s over. Get over it!..."
----------------------------------------------------------
If you equate child abuse and wife abuse with discipline then perhaps it is just as well you don't believe in smacking. My standpoint isn't about supporting abuse. It is about recognising that a timeous smack can prevent a whole heap of trouble later on.
Or maybe recognizing that it can bring a whole new level of trouble.
And where do you draw the line?
My point was that the Dutch Minister of Justice was rigth:
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister of Justice wanted to make it unlawful to hit a child. His argument: people should learn that it is not right to hit a child.
So I pointed out a period when it was socially acceptable to hit children. There was no difference between an educational smack and child abuse. That isn´t so long ago just ask my dad who is born 1923. In that time administering corporal punishment was a part of how you was supposed to raise your child. I was born 79 so I was a very late child, my dad became a pensioner when I was still in elementary school, people always tought he was my granddad. Now the law against corporal punishment became a line he would never cross,which was a good for both him and me. He just needed a excuse to not hit us, you know it was expect of him because that was the proper way to raise children for somebody of his upbringing. Apart from the usual punishments(no TV, being grounded, no pocketmoney, sent to bed/my room) he used another one, simply throwing me out of the house until dark/diner time I think that was a good one because it meant we both had time to calm down and think over the situation and I had time as kid to think over what I had done wrong. I realise this wouldn´t work in the city but thats just the cities faults.
Did you know that when my dad went to school in the 30s one teacher who used what we would call modern teaching methods got sent to a mental institution? That he didn´t use corporal punishment was just one factor, but the last straw was probably that he didn´t give a {bleep} if the kids learnt the daily psalm. Then they got a real sadist who pulled their ears til they bleed and the ruler over the fingers and the whole thing. My dad still hate that asshole 70 years later. But those where the good old days when there was discipline in the schools, eh?
Now where to draw the line between a "justified" smack and childabuse?
The only way is zero tolerance just like with drinking and driving(was also socially accepted once). Otherwise what can teachers and other people around the child do? There are many things that doesn´t leave any mark.
The Dutch Minister of Justice was absolutetly right and that supposedly educated people can´t see that is quite frankly scary!
I am suprised that Netherlands didn´t already have a that law. :-o
Ideally, nobody wants to smack anybody. We don't look for excuses to do it, we do it out of necessity.
The "necessity" is an excuse.
Now take a cow, cows are hardly the most intelligent of animals but if you use violence to get the cow where you want it then the cow are going to get payback someday. With an animal that has been threated that way you always have to be on guard because anything can make them snap and that can be lethal. If you are nice but firm towards the cow on the other hand you are going to get a calm eventempered cow.
It´s exactly the same with humans.
The only thing that prevents a 3 year old from hitting back is the sheer physical size difference. Quite a few of those hair-, earpulling and pinching mothers kids get very good at kicking adults on the lower shins at a young age. Is one of a kids first lessons in life gonna be that Might is right? :pissed:
We once had a thread about "What is evil", I answered hitting children and animals. It really is as simple as that.
Wasn´t the first moral rule that you learnt: "Never hit anyone that is smaller than you and never beat an animal." It was the first I learnt and it´s the most important one.
-
"...I remmember times when I got punished as a child and hated my parents because I tought they was unfair at the time. As i grew up I unedrstood why they did that but not at that time..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You have proved my point. I may not have liked being smacked as kid, but I understand now why it happened and I don't hate my parents.
"...So simply stop the child from playing with it. Hell there is a whole childsafety industry if it isn´t something that can be taken from his hands and put away..."
How do you stop him playing with it? Do you lock everything in a top cupboard (all your kitchen items, your car keys, your tools, everything that isn't nailed down), or do you simply give the child a smack if he hasn't listened the first time? If my parents had locked all the things away that they didn't want me to play with, they would have needed a second house. I was a curious little guy and I wanted to see what everything was. That includes picnics and country outings. My parents chose to rely on discpline to enforce what I was allowed to do and not allowed, which is just as well because otherwise they would have needed to put me on a leash or had the stream at the picnic site fenced off prior to our arrival.
Another thing: you seem to vigorously reject any notion that a parent has a special responsibility for their child, over and above what anybody else has. This happened simply because I mentioned 'his child'. You said it sounded like ownership. Well, if a parent has no special responsibility for their child, and if you claim the child is the responsibility of the whole society, what happens if you find yourself in a society whose ideals are not the same as yours? Must you then resign yourself to 'going with the flow', or do you still try to bring the child up according to the ideals of you and your family?
-
I have a 7yr 8yr and a 6 month baby
my 7 and 8 yr olds have both given me the rules on hitting as they were told by there teachers at school
they use it against me all the time they even threaten to say ive hit them
if i dont do what they want me to do cause they have been told the police will take me away
so what in the hell do i do to punish them ? i send them to there rooms they refuse i cant smack them
if i lock them in there room its against the law im off to jail
the juvenile crime rate is so high here and its because as parents we have no rights any more
we might as well just hand them all loaded guns as their born and just let them go for it
when i was growing up if i did anything wrong i got the belt and i always thought twice about misbehaving
-
X-ray wrote:
"...I remmember times when I got punished as a child and hated my parents because I tought they was unfair at the time. As i grew up I unedrstood why they did that but not at that time..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You have proved my point. I may not have liked being smacked as kid, but I understand now why it happened and I don't hate my parents.
Now if you rely on smacking how the hell do you discipline bigger kids. Try smacking a 12 year old or 15 year old into following your rules :lol:
I see kitchen knifes being used not just threatening with...
"...So simply stop the child from playing with it. Hell there is a whole childsafety industry if it isn´t something that can be taken from his hands and put away..."
How do you stop him playing with it? Do you lock everything in a top cupboard (all your kitchen items, your car keys, your tools, everything that isn't nailed down), or do you simply give the child a smack if he hasn't listened the first time?
Basically yes you lock away everything. Given swedish law smacking isn´t an option. There is also the third alternative: When you pull the cats tail you are going to get clawed, if you play with a saw then you are going to cut yourself. when I grew up kids usually had a bandaid somewhere.Life and nature is hard the sooner a kid finds out the better.
WOW if you parents tell you to not pull the cats tail and you do it anyway, then you find out that there is a reason to obey rules other than avoiding your parents punishment.
Being raised on a farm, if I hadn´t known my dad was serious when he said Watch your feet! Stay away! and Don´t go there! I would propably be dead or atleast maimed.
If I didn´t walk between a tethered cow and a wall just to avoid my dads punishment, meaning I would do it when he wasn´t around it would be a closed coffin funeral. it´s the same with traffic.
If my parents had locked all the things away that they didn't want me to play with, they would have needed a second house.
Hardly, what it takes most is time controlling that everything is in place.
I was a curious little guy and I wanted to see what everything was. That includes picnics and country outings. My parents chose to rely on discpline to enforce what I was allowed to do and not allowed, which is just as well because otherwise they would have needed to put me on a leash or had the stream at the picnic site fenced off prior to our arrival.
Then dont have picknicks at that site, its you who claim that children is sole the parents responsibility guess what that means for any picknick by the dangerous water
Another thing: you seem to vigorously reject any notion that a parent has a special responsibility for their child, over and above what anybody else has. This happened simply because I mentioned 'his child'. You said it sounded like ownership. Well, if a parent has no special responsibility for their child, and if you claim the child is the responsibility of the whole society, what happens if you find yourself in a society whose ideals are not the same as yours? Must you then resign yourself to 'going with the flow', or do you still try to bring the child up according to the ideals of you and your family?
Since I am an anarchist guess...(BTW children is as much members of the society as adults)
-
poweramiga2002 wrote:
I have a 7yr 8yr and a 6 month baby
my 7 and 8 yr olds have both given me the rules on hitting as they were told by there teachers at school
they use it against me all the time they even threaten to say ive hit them
if i dont do what they want me to do cause they have been told the police will take me away
so what in the hell do i do to punish them ? i send them to there rooms they refuse i cant smack them
if i lock them in there room its against the law im off to jail
Is it really illegal to lock them up during the evening, I know the toilet is one problem otherwise as long as you stay in the house I don´t see the problem.(theres an idea design new houses with the kids rooms as jail cell with their own toilets:lol:) as I said my dad used to throw me out of the house until dark but that only works in the countryside.
When I got older and questioned my dads right to contol my tv watching , my dad simply locked away the antenna cord, then when I bought spare cords he took the antennaamplifier.:-)
Don´t just cave in that way the children will just push the limits futher
pocketmoney is both carrot and stick, any parent(and kid) knows that:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
the juvenile crime rate is so high here and its because as parents we have no rights any more
we might as well just hand them all loaded guns as their born and just let them go for it
It´s not that parents doesn´t have any rights anymore it´s simply that the children got rigths to. Most kids can be brougth around its just a question of time.
when i was growing up if i did anything wrong i got the belt and i always thought twice about misbehaving
No you simply thought twice about misbehaving when anybody could see you!
It also put you in this situation with your kids.
The thing is that the kids need to know that the parents rules really are for the kids best. Establishing that isn´t easy but it works so much better.
-
"...Try smacking a 12 year old or 15 year old into following your rules..."
I got smacked at the age of 12 at home, and at the age of 15 I was caned at school. I pretty had pretty much learned to follow the rules by then and physical punishment dwindled as I became more mature.
"...Then dont have picknicks at that site, its you who claim that children is sole the parents responsibility guess what that means for any picknick by the dangerous water..."
Hmmm, that hardly seems to be fitting advice from an 'anarchist'.
Just as well my parents weren't like you. I would have had a very restricted childhood: maybe a padded cell as a room?
-
@poweramiga
If you childrens teacher has told them that you will go to prison if you smack them then go to the education authority and make a complaint.
I am currently half way through the PGCE (Masters Degree for teachers), and it really is not ok for this person to do or say anything like that. It is more than likely the teacher is seen by the prinicpal as a bad teacher if the teacher has been saying things like that (They aren't stupid), so this would make it much easier for him/her to sack the teacher.
I'll check up on the legality of what this teacher has said too. If it's against the law then you should go to the police.
-edit
AFAIK smacking is still not illegal in the UK, your childs teacher has commited gross misconduct by knowingly telling lies to your children with the sole point of causing friction between you and your child. This is a sackable offence. If a teacher gets sacked for gross misconuct, then they will never work as a teacher again.
-
"...he used another one, simply throwing me out of the house until dark/diner time I think that was a good one because it meant we both had time to calm down and think over the situation and I had time as kid to think over what I had done wrong. I realise this wouldn´t work in the city but thats just the cities faults..."
and
"where do you draw the line between smacking and child abuse"
I think the above statements clearly show that you have a, shall we say, 'unique' perspective on this.
-
Karlos wrote:
I got a fair clip round the ear when I misbehaved as a youngster. It was never excessive, nor administered on a whim. Never did me any harm.
Same for me, it never did me any harm, but I will NEVER hit my child in anger.
Contemplate this:-
Women smack children more often than men do, but they aren't as powerful as us and the motherly instict is always there. When it isn't that's when abuse happens.
If a man gets so angry and worked up to the point of frustration that he would hit a child (abuse not included), then that child will probably be severely injured.
I know if I whacked my 6yr old across the head, it'd probably kill him.
Also for everyone reading this thread, please take time to look up the meaning of the word discipline in the dictionary. Jesus had 12 of them I believe. :-)
-
@ mdma
"...I know if I whacked my 6yr old across the head, it'd probably kill him..."
-------------------------------------------------------
Well then I suggest you see a physician, because you have a motor control problem. If you can't give someone a controlled smack on the butt without injuring them, then you have control issues.
"Also for everyone reading this thread, please take time to look up the meaning of the word discipline in the dictionary. Jesus had 12 of them I believe."
I think it is you who needs to read the dictionary, mdma:
discipline:
1) training or conditions imposed for the improvement of physical powers, self-control etc.
2) systematic training in obedience
3) the stae of improved behaviour, etc
4) punishment or chastisement
5) a sytem of rules for behaviour
6) a branch of learning or instruction
7) the laws governing members of a church
8) to improve or attempt to improve the behaviour, orderliness, ertc., of by training, conditioning or rules
9) to punish or correct
From the Collins dictionary and Thesaurus
(I think the word you are thinking of is disciple)
-
X-ray wrote:
@ ADZ
Here in the UK youngsters are often out quite late at night. I agree with you in that a 10pm curfew should be more than fair for an 11-year-old, but you can see why she got smacked for coming home after midnight.
Even that is too late, my 11 year old daughter is in bed by 8:30-9:00pm every night.
-
I know where MDMA is comming from, and the key to that is the part where he said "When he was angry" and this part is of absolute importance, by all means chastise your child, physically if necesary. But do not resort to smacking *whilst angry*.
As for PowerAmiga, You kids teacher is talking bollox, and your kids need a good clip. I watched very very closely what was actually decided on this issue, which btw I don't think comes into force next year, but basically its just a rehash of the previous law, a quick slap is ok, beating them liberally around the head with a rubber mallet isn't. Though I suspect that the latter is in your current crisis a damned tempting option, well, for the teacher at any road.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ mdma
"...I know if I whacked my 6yr old across the head, it'd probably kill him..."
-------------------------------------------------------
Well then I suggest you see a physician, because you have a motor control problem. If you can't give someone a controlled smack on the butt without injuring them, then you have control issues.
"Also for everyone reading this thread, please take time to look up the meaning of the word discipline in the dictionary. Jesus had 12 of them I believe."
I think it is you who needs to read the dictionary, mdma:
discipline:
1) training or conditions imposed for the improvement of physical powers, self-control etc.
2) systematic training in obedience
3) the stae of improved behaviour, etc
4) punishment or chastisement
5) a sytem of rules for behaviour
6) a branch of learning or instruction
7) the laws governing members of a church
8) to improve or attempt to improve the behaviour, orderliness, ertc., of by training, conditioning or rules
9) to punish or correct
From the Collins dictionary and Thesaurus
(I think the word you are thinking of is disciple)
1. I do not have a motor control issue, I have a very strong punch. Especially when provoked. This comes from years of martial arts in two completly differing styles. And as leander said , i wrote "NEVER hit my child in anger". If I smacked him then it would do no physical damage. If I hit him (or you, or any other adult for that matter), whilst angry and not in control of my emotions then yes, it is very likely I would kill him, or at the very least cause permanant brain damage.
2. Do you know what emoticons are for? I know that you Afrikaaners have trouble understanding subtle sarcasm and irony, but when there is a bloody smiley face right next to the offending sentance it kind of gives it away.
-
I do try to be very scrupulous in my english, though its easier when its other peoples ;-)
I love the language, there are just so many levels and so many styles of it to be explored. To someone like myself, it's a paradise.
If my spelling (and grammar) was better, I'd consider myself a pedant :-D
-
Do you know what emoticons are for? I know that you Afrikaaners have trouble understanding subtle sarcasm and irony, but when there is a bloody smiley face right next to the offending sentance it kind of gives it away.
The problem is that the :-) was read as a :roll:.
At least that's how I saw it. Perhaps a :-P or a :-D would be more appropriate.
But then I am Swedish... :-P
-
Is it really illegal to lock them up during the evening
It is illegal in Sweden too (kränkande behandling, och vid en faktisk inlåsning olaga tvång och ev. framkallande av fara för annan).
-
To sum it all up:
A small slap, or a spank is Ok in my eyes. I never approved of it when I was a kid, but looking back at it I realise it was for my own good! :lol:
There is a long way to go from child-fostering to litteral child abuse. There are so many factors involved in raising a child, especially phycological, and I believe that one's attitude towards the child can do far more damage than a quick pull in the ear or a slap.
I once had a friend whose parents abused him phycologically. Of course he got pulled in the ear sometimes (who didn't), but he was also pushed so far that he broke the ties with them at the age of 13. I never saw it until it was too late, and he's now in prison. The scary thing is that when we were 4, his mother told mine (they are friends) that I would end up in jail if she didn't start following her example.
-
@ mdma
"...i wrote "NEVER hit my child in anger". If I smacked him then it would do no physical damage..."
Good. That's what this thread is about, smacking, not HITTING.
"...Do you know what emoticons are for? I know that you Afrikaaners have trouble understanding subtle sarcasm and irony, but when there is a bloody smiley face right next to the offending sentance it kind of gives it away..."
Firstly, your comment about the word disciple is hardly sarcastic. Well, if that was your intent, it didn't come off as intended. Where's the sarcasm? Can you explain it to me (as I obviously have trouble understanding subtle sarcasm).
Secondly, an Afrikaner (note the spelling, which is probably a useful thing for you to do anyway, as a teacher), is a white native of the republic of South Africa whose mother tongue is Afrikaans. See also Boer: a descendant of any of the Dutch or Hugenot colonists who settled in South Africa.
Just for your education: my mother tongue is English. My maternal ancestors can be traced to England, and my paternal ancestors can be traced to Italy. I suggest you get rid of whatever crystal ball you have been rubbing, or alternately you stop eating cheese at night, as it gives you weird dreams.
Edit: that last sentence was sarcastic. For your reference.
-
poweramiga2002 wrote:
I have a 7yr 8yr and a 6 month baby
my 7 and 8 yr olds have both given me the rules on hitting as they were told by there teachers at school
they use it against me all the time they even threaten to say ive hit them
if i dont do what they want me to do cause they have been told the police will take me away
so what in the hell do i do to punish them ? i send them to there rooms they refuse i cant smack them
if i lock them in there room its against the law im off to jail
the juvenile crime rate is so high here and its because as parents we have no rights any more
we might as well just hand them all loaded guns as their born and just let them go for it
when i was growing up if i did anything wrong i got the belt and i always thought twice about misbehaving
Sadly this kind of thing is becoming an epidemic in Australia, schools seem to focus more on teaching children their rights than theaching the three "R's". However, this is not the case for all schools, if I were you, I would consider changing their school or consider boarding school.
When I was a child I tried to scare my parent with that kind of talk after coping a whack, the one that followed set me straight. Besides, it isn't illegal for you to smack a child on the backside, it is however illegal for you to beat them around the head several times. Besides, if all your kids can think about is sending you to jail at the first indication they are going to cop a whack, then perhaps you need to take a serious look at the relationship that exists between you and your children.
-
X-ray wrote:
"...Try smacking a 12 year old or 15 year old into following your rules..."
I got smacked at the age of 12 at home, and at the age of 15 I was caned at school. I pretty had pretty much learned to follow the rules by then and physical punishment dwindled as I became more mature.
As I said: Kitchen knives. the most common murder weapon of all.
Try to use a corporal punishment on a 15 year old chavs. :lol:
-
mdma wrote:
1. I do not have a motor control issue, I have a very strong punch. Especially when provoked. This comes from years of martial arts in two completly differing styles.
There's a simple way around that. Never hit anyone closed-fisted, unless you really want to do some harm. An open hand* itself can't do that much damage to a child, no matter how how hard the blow is - at worst you break your hand. And anyone who hits someone hard enough to break their hand needs serious anger management, but at least you aren't going to cause any major damage to anyone. And getting your hand broken is a pretty quick way to lose that anger...
(* Of course chops and palm strikes are also out, especially if you are an experienced martial artist. But I wouldn't go to the extreme of never chastising the children - that's how chavs are born.)
-
It's a deeper problem than just being about corporal punishment, it's about respect.
When I was a kid, I was taught respectful behaviour both by my mother and my teachers at school. These days, with so much in society geared towards kids, the notion of respect for oneself and others has gone out of the window. I certainly don't advocate corporal punishment in all cases (indeed my father used it excessively and without warning on me, causing more damage than good), but some sort of deterrant is needed.
Personally, I feel those diabolical teenies who go around breaking into cars and homes without fear of prosecution should either be sent to boot camp or publically birched. Either way, the notion that one's actions have consequences must be brought home to them in some way. After all, within ten years they may have children of their own.
Society needs to preserve the rights and wellbeing of children without resorting to hysteria. Corporal punishment (ie, a short, gentle slap across the buttocks) has been used for countless centuries, but now we're supposed to use other means to discipline our children.
For example, I've two neices aged seven and four. Normally I absolutely adore then, they give so much unconditional affection and bring smiles aplenty, but they do have their dark sides.
With my eldest neice, I've been able to reason with her since before she could walk. Taking the time to explain why she mustn't do something would work more often than not, thus avoiding harsh words.
The youngest is a different matter, everything you say she mustn't do becomes a challenge. If you say no to her, she'll do it anyway and she simply won't listen to reason. Sometimes a simple hard stare will stop her, other times you have to make a threat (ie, go to your room etc) and carry it through. Backing down in front of a child is a sign of weakness that they'll exploit. Each time she misbehaves when I babysit, I explain to her that it's her choice whether I stay and read her a story, or send her to bed immediately, depending on the course of her actions.
With both, I always try and instill some respect. Yesterday they came to see me and Hannah (eldest) said:
"Playstation!".
My response was simply
"Pardon?"
We carried this game on until she managed
"Uncle Paul, can I play Playstation please?"
My brother seems quite happy for me to take some disciplinary responsibility while they're in my care, and although I love them both to bits, I believe that fundamental things like good manners and respect are vital skills for any child to learn.
-
@X-Ray
You say potato, I say spud! ;-)
-edit
My spelling is atrocious, but it would be considering I'm dyslexic.
Anyways, I was only poking fun at you.
Some of my best friends are saffers, but I wouldn't wanna live next door to one! ;-)
btw I teach C/C++, i've mastered spelling the reserved words!
-
whabang wrote:
Do you know what emoticons are for? I know that you Afrikaaners have trouble understanding subtle sarcasm and irony, but when there is a bloody smiley face right next to the offending sentance it kind of gives it away.
The problem is that the :-) was read as a :roll:.
At least that's how I saw it. Perhaps a :-P or a :-D would be more appropriate.
But then I am Swedish... :-P
Or maybe a wink would have been better? ;-)
-
My brother seems quite happy for me to take some disciplinary responsibility while they're in my care, and although I love them both to bits, I believe that fundamental things like good manners and respect are vital skills for any child to learn.
You have hit the nail on the head there.
Children behave well when they respect you, and for them to respect you then you have to show them respect also.
It's a two way thing thing. If we as adults don't respect hypocrites then, why should a child?
-
X-ray wrote:
"...he used another one, simply throwing me out of the house until dark/diner time I think that was a good one because it meant we both had time to calm down and think over the situation and I had time as kid to think over what I had done wrong. I realise this wouldn´t work in the city but thats just the cities faults..."
and
"where do you draw the line between smacking and child abuse"
I think the above statements clearly show that you have a, shall we say, 'unique' perspective on this.
Of course, as I already said my dad was old enough to be my grandfather. That makes for an unusual situation. A situation which could have ended tragically, if it hasen´t been for the law against corporal punishment. As for being throw out it was just a more boring version of go to your room, very "Emil i Lönneberga" :-P
-
X-ray wrote:
"...Then dont have picknicks at that site, its you who claim that children is sole the parents responsibility guess what that means for any picknick by the dangerous water..."
Hmmm, that hardly seems to be fitting advice from an 'anarchist'.
You have no idea what anarchism means have you?
Just as well my parents weren't like you. I would have had a very restricted childhood: maybe a padded cell as a room?
See option three, there is a reason for rules, if a parent say its dangerous then it is. just as well that you wasn´t raised on a farm, your parents method would never have worked, you would be maimed. If I was told to not touch anything, I {bleep}ing knew that it was for my own best. I also knew that other adults was serious when they told me to stay away from something.
-
PMC wrote:
It's a deeper problem than just being about corporal punishment, it's about respect.
When I was a kid, I was taught respectful behaviour both by my mother and my teachers at school. These days, with so much in society geared towards kids, the notion of respect for oneself and others has gone out of the window.
Exactly, finally somebody with a commonsense.
Personally, I feel those diabolical teenies who go around breaking into cars and homes without fear of prosecution should either be sent to boot camp or publically birched. Either way, the notion that one's actions have consequences must be brought home to them in some way. After all, within ten years they may have children of their own.
Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet, New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.
-
@mdma
We need more emoticons!
-
I have an idea!
Make military service compulsorary again! That'd put some discipline into them!
-
Dan wrote:
Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet, New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.
About 14 - 15 years ago we had a spate of car crime in the UK. Insurance policies trebled in cost (the insurance companies used the joyrider as an excuse to hike premiums) and all of a sudden the press was full of stories about the then chav class going out and stealing cars.
Problem was that no-one made them take any responsibility for their actions. There was national outcry when they were either banned from driving for a year or two (most were aged under 17 anyway) or in a few cases were sent on "character building" junkets to Kenya....
What should (IMHO) have happened was - as I've said before - instilling a sense of self discipline into them. They need to know that not only do they have a duty to live by the rules of society but also that they can make a worthy contribution. Those that went away to Kenya after TWOCing someone's prized Golf GTi and burning it out afterward must have felt very smug with themselves, instead of being made to see their actions have a consequence and being punished accordingly. If it means being strapped to a bench and having salted birch twigs applied to their bare backsides in public then so be it, I don't have a problem with that.
Instead, we live in a culture where a burglar can sue his victims for injuring him (and increasingly her) while he/she attempts to rob their proporty. The victim meanwhile cannot expect much in the way of compensation and if they dared sue the burglar for damages it would probably get laughed out of court.
I'm not advocating a return to kangaroo courts of old, but a return to common sense values. The victim should receive some satisfaction that justice is done and the perpetrator should be aware that when they choose to waive their responsibilities to society, they also in turn waive rights also. Only then will our society take crime and punishment seriously. We can blame the media, Urban Music and pop culture as much as we like, but all these things are a reflection on society, not the other way around.
-
PMC wrote:
Dan wrote:
Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet, New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.
About 14 - 15 years ago we had a spate of car crime in the UK. Insurance policies trebled in cost (the insurance companies used the joyrider as an excuse to hike premiums) and all of a sudden the press was full of stories about the then chav class going out and stealing cars.
Problem was that no-one made them take any responsibility for their actions. There was national outcry when they were either banned from driving for a year or two (most were aged under 17 anyway) or in a few cases were sent on "character building" junkets to Kenya....
What should (IMHO) have happened was - as I've said before - instilling a sense of self discipline into them. They need to know that not only do they have a duty to live by the rules of society but also that they can make a worthy contribution. Those that went away to Kenya after TWOCing someone's prized Golf GTi and burning it out afterward must have felt very smug with themselves, instead of being made to see their actions have a consequence and being punished accordingly. If it means being strapped to a bench and having salted birch twigs applied to their bare backsides in public then so be it, I don't have a problem with that.
Instead, we live in a culture where a burglar can sue his victims for injuring him (and increasingly her) while he/she attempts to rob their proporty. The victim meanwhile cannot expect much in the way of compensation and if they dared sue the burglar for damages it would probably get laughed out of court.
I'm not advocating a return to kangaroo courts of old, but a return to common sense values. The victim should receive some satisfaction that justice is done and the perpetrator should be aware that when they choose to waive their responsibilities to society, they also in turn waive rights also. Only then will our society take crime and punishment seriously. We can blame the media, Urban Music and pop culture as much as we like, but all these things are a reflection on society, not the other way around.
Careful now! You almost sound like Wiliam Hague! :lol:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!
I can't fscking wait for someone to try and burgle my house while I'm home! The day this bill gets passed will be a very happy occasion for all decent people.
-
mdma wrote:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!
Yeah, what a stupid, idiotic law. Not because of what it does, but because of it's ambiguity. So if I can work around laws and assault or murder an intruder, there's nothing here to say can't I work around other laws and use firearms, explosives, or chemical and biological agents if I deem them necessary? Can I throw acid at intruders if I feel my property under threat? Can I fire ricin-coated darts at them?
The Labour government is the greatest at making these new laws but leaving them so vague that they're totally useless.
-
KennyR wrote:
mdma wrote:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!
Yeah, what a stupid, idiotic law. Not because of what it does, but because of it's ambiguity. So if I can work around laws and assault or murder an intruder, there's nothing here to say can't I work around other laws and use firearms, explosives, or chemical and biological agents if I deem them necessary? Can I throw acid at intruders if I feel my property under threat? Can I fire ricin-coated darts at them?
The Labour government is the greatest at making these new laws but leaving them so vague that they're totally useless.
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.
I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.
Once this law has been in place for a while and burglars have made the mistake of breaking into the house of someone who is not afraid to batter them senseless, then the burglary rate won't be as high. The smackheads will just move on to easier targets like commercial properties.
I don't give a flying feck if a business gets burgled. It's not my problem. It is my problem when my house or the house of someone I care about gets turned over.
See, I'm left wing without being liberal! ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
Careful now! You almost sound like Wiliam Hague! :lol:
Oh shhhhh.... Now you've upset me :lol:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!
I can't fscking wait for someone to try and burgle my house while I'm home! The day this bill gets passed will be a very happy occasion for all decent people.
Yeah, hopefully it marks a return to common sense. Unfortunately common sense policies only ever appear once every four years, usually prior to a general election.
-
mdma wrote:
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.
I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.
That's not my point. My point is, the government will screw it up so badly that the intruder will still be able to sue you. Or justify themselves killing householders as self-defence! And people will find loopholes to commit other crimes under the pretence of protecting property. Like my chemical weapons example.
Their law just isn't solid enough. It has no foundation and nothing to back it up in other laws. And they can never make it solid without going straight up against the court of human rights. It'll be a complete mess, mark my words.
-
KennyR wrote:
mdma wrote:
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.
I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.
That's not my point. My point is, the government will screw it up so badly that the intruder will still be able to sue you. Or justify themselves killing householders as self-defence! And people will find loopholes to commit other crimes under the pretence of protecting property. Like my chemical weapons example.
Their law just isn't solid enough. It has no foundation and nothing to back it up in other laws. And they can never make it solid without going straight up against the court of human rights. It'll be a complete mess, mark my words.
Just like every other law that gets passed.
To paraphrase the great Rab C Nesbitt, the Chavs and the Toffs get all the benefits of the law. The working class and the middle class hate each other with a passion, yet it's these two groups that always come off worst.
-
(http://www.hkpro.com/image/gmgcover.jpg)
It's for home protection! :-D
-
whabang wrote:
(http://www.hkpro.com/image/gmgcover.jpg)
It's for home protection! :-D
Honestly officer, the wife bought it at an Ann Summers Party! ;-)
-
Dan wrote:
Cymric wrote:
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister of Justice wanted to make it unlawful to hit a child. His argument: people should learn that it is not right to hit a child. Of course he was steamrolled by almost everyone: the law won't prevent serious child abuse (which was its main selling point), and parents should have the right to administer a corrective, educational slap. It is not a right to be taken lightly, of course, and should be avoided whereever possible.
The sad thing is that he was right.
It´s not okay to beat unknown people in the street or a shop that isn´t polite to you but it´s okay to hit your kid?
Most of what needed to be said was already put into words by many other posters---I simply forgot about this thread. I just want to comment on your reply.
First, the Minister was not right. His goal was to prevent serious child abuse by outlawing any form of contact other than a soft touch in 'neutral' areas. People who abuse their child will not be impressed one iota, and go ahead beating the child senseless anyway. Plus it doesn't do anything about psychological abuse, nor prevent other gruesome methods of torture. If you want to hurt children, you needn't do that by hitting them. Despite the fact I don't have any children, I can understand his worries and anxieties. But he is barking up the wrong tree, and fighting symptoms instead of working on, say, improved monitoring, keeping the anonymous hot line for child abuse open (it is most likely going to be closed), and making sure that all officials have the right information to have them step in quickly and quietly when necessary.
Plus it introduces the rather curious problem what to do about children hitting other children. That's just as bad as adults hitting children. Sometimes even worse since adults are supposed to know restraint and reason, despite them being much stronger. I speak from bitter experience of being the butt-end of a number of brainless bullies for a few years. (Their bullying only ended when I kicked one in the balls, causing him to walk funny for a day or two, and really hit another on the nose, causing a nose bleed of epic proportions. I was lucky I didn't break anything.) You want to try and get a law preventing this sort of thing through government? I give you a snowball's chance in Hell of it passing.
Or what about administering drugs like Ritalin to active and difficult children to quiet them down and make them more 'managable'? I hear it's all the fashion these days. Is that okay?
Second, there is a not-so-subtle difference between hitting a child, and what I cryptically (and, in hindsight, rather anal-retentively) called administering a corrective, educational slap. With the latter I mean either a slap on the hand, or a slap on the buttocks. Never anywhere else, most especially the head. If you alter position, apply more force than you would apply during hand-clapping, or use anything other than an open palm, you're crossing the line. Period. That's when it becomes hitting, and people ought to seek out professional help if they did this more than once. (I think I got slapped about five times in my life, and only once in the face, but that was when I was 21 or thereabouts.)
Third, I specifically said that slapping really is a last resort. I would try peaceful methods first: moving things out of reach, taking away candy, not buying what the child wants. If that doesn't work: halting allowance, grounding them, putting them in their room, using psychological tricks. (My girlfriend told me she was once put under a cold shower, fully dressed. Harsh, but it got the job done quite effectively.) And only then, if all that fails, or if things demand immediate action, a slap. You're just as much crossing a line if you need to slap yourself out of every situation; other methods are often a lot more effective.
Finally, you really cannot compare hitting someone in the street with a slap you give a child when it's being headstrong, or throwing a temper tantrum.
That's why I have a hard time taking anyone serious who seeks to limit my (to be) paternal judgement by making the slap illegal. What's next on the list of things You Can't Do To A Child? Forbidding to send them to bed without dinner because it leads to malnutrition? Forbidding psychological tricks on ground of it hampering their mental development? No. Hitting children is Bad, but forbidding it won't solve anything, and giving a child a slap under very extreme circumstances is permissable.
-
Cymric wrote:
Second, there is a not-so-subtle difference between hitting a child, and what I cryptically (and, in hindsight, rather anal-retentively) called administering a corrective, educational slap. With the latter I mean either a slap on the hand, or a slap on the buttocks. Never anywhere else, most especially the head.
This so, so true. I would like to add something to this. Discipline is NOT administered to get revenge on your child. It should never be done in anger. It is an act of love which is done in love because you care for your child. It is not done because a child is bad. Children are not bad but behavior can be. This is a crucial difference which may seem trivial on the surface. Never call a child bad, call the misbehavior bad.
-
Wow!
If I'd known that this was such a powerful issue, I'd have put up something like this sooner! Of all the threads I have ever created, this on has recieved the most replies by far!
Fascinating discussion too :-)
-
@ mdma
"...I can't fscking wait for someone to try and burgle my house while I'm home! The day this bill gets passed will be a very happy occasion for all decent people..."
--------------------------------------------------------
Definitely. In fact maybe half of them should go to your house and the other half should come to me. I'd love to slap a few of them around.
@ Kenny
Yup, they will need to make some good clauses about this burglary law. If it was up to me I'd do it like this:
1) An illegal weapon may not be used to defend oneself or one's home. It is illegal, period. The houseowner should not have had it on the premises, and so if he uses a handgun to shoot a burglar, he goes down for the crime of possessing a firearm (and ammunition) that he is not allowed to have under Section 6 of the 1997 Firearms Act (IIRC).
2) The test of what a reasonable response was, and whether the appropriate force was used, can only be decided on an individual basis. A granny who sticks a knitting needle through the eye of an aggressive burglar should get much more slack than a guy like me who puts a crossbow bolt through a burglar's leg while he is on his way out of the house with my TV. What I mean is, the question should be (and perhaps this can only be decided by a jury): "What would a reasonable person in the same situation have done?"
If Blobzie is at home and a belligerent chavette breaks in looking for money, it will be up to the jury to decide whether it was reasonable for Blobzie to take the Chav's hand off with a meat cleaver, after first bashing the Chav with a frying-pan. It's about the scale of the threat in proportion to the defender, and the defender's ability to use whatever resources were available in their defense.
-
Cymric wrote:
Or what about administering drugs like Ritalin to active and difficult children to quiet them down and make them more 'managable'? I hear it's all the fashion these days. Is that okay?
No it isn´t, its another symptom of the fact that educating and raising children aren´t allowed to take time or cost money.
Get this all swedish elementary schools are built with classrooms for 30 children. Now they have changed the law to allow 34 children in a class(unless they have changed it again, who can keep up with budget cuts). this means thats either four of them are facing straight into the blackboard having to turn their head to look at the teacher or that authorities are relying on them to skip school(thats with the most cramed in arangement of shoolbenchs possible).
We had one of those "problem" with to much energy kids in my class he was one year younger than me( we were an agemixed class, there where more than the maximum 28 for a class in our area). He was lucky that he was in our small class with 9 kids my age and 8 kids his age. He just couldn´t sit still in the bench, but as long as he keept quite and did his math and stuff, what harm did it do that he was sitting on the bench instead of on the chair or that he was lying on the floor and working in his book? He calmed down in fourth grade.
Sure, we was giggling the first times he climbed up on the desk and played with his crocodile-eraser, but we soon tired of it.
"Class now tell Jon that he should work in his mathbook"
And we did and he did and there was never anybody slapped.
But that are kids that need medication like that kid at the same school how just threw himself at the ground/floor and just bit and clawed anyone that tried to move him. And get this there was one guy hired just to take care of this kid and even he couldn´t handle him. When he was trying to carry the kid inside after a break, because the kid refused to walk inside himself he usually was bitten or clawed by the kid. The kid needed serious medical and psychological treatment so he was moved to a special school. Today he would just be drugged unconscious and put in a normal class.
It´s more economical thats what they think anyway.
-
Cymric wrote:
Plus it introduces the rather curious problem what to do about children hitting other children. That's just as bad as adults hitting children. Sometimes even worse since adults are supposed to know restraint and reason, despite them being much stronger. I speak from bitter experience of being the butt-end of a number of brainless bullies for a few years.
Was these bullies older than you?
What was the schoolyard rules? (I never understood why you was gay if you fought on a Thursday, maybe that one was started by tired teachers :lol:)
You want to try and get a law preventing this sort of thing through government?
No, by a changed attitude in the whole society.
There was a kid in third grade who started bulling us first graders a few weeks after the schoolstart. Now the teachers couldn´t do anything because they never saw him doing anything and he wasn´t so stupid as to admitt anything. Now the sixth grade noticed and executed schoolyard justice, they put him upside down in one of those large plastic trashcan(big like a laundry basket) only his leg stuck out of it. Just so you know nobody in my class or the other first grade class had a brother in sixth grade.
Thats how the childrens own law about school figths is upheld. I got more examples but you get the idea.
Now it might be naive to think that there should be rules and justice in the world, but I´m a product of swedish 80s.:lol:
-
Cymric wrote:
First, the Minister was not right. His goal was to prevent serious child abuse by outlawing any form of contact other than a soft touch in 'neutral' areas.
I don´t know the guy, but I tought he was trying to change an attitude. That why we got the law here in Sweden. Law and massive information campaigns before and after.
People who abuse their child will not be impressed one iota, and go ahead beating the child senseless anyway.
People who are already are doing it now, no. But the changed attitude might influence some borderlines.
Plus it doesn't do anything about psychological abuse, nor prevent other gruesome methods of torture. If you want to hurt children, you needn't do that by hitting them.
No arguement there.
Despite the fact I don't have any children, I can understand his worries and anxieties. But he is barking up the wrong tree, and fighting symptoms instead of working on, say, improved monitoring, keeping the anonymous hot line for child abuse open (it is most likely going to be closed), and making sure that all officials have the right information to have them step in quickly and quietly when necessary.
If they are closing that hotline at the same time then they are simply bigots!
Second, there is a not-so-subtle difference between hitting a child, and what I cryptically (and, in hindsight, rather anal-retentively) called administering a corrective, educational slap. With the latter I mean either a slap on the hand, or a slap on the buttocks. Never anywhere else, most especially the head. If you alter position, apply more force than you would apply during hand-clapping, or use anything other than an open palm, you're crossing the line. Period. That's when it becomes hitting, and people ought to seek out professional help if they did this more than once.
And are those people likely to do that?:-?
Finally, you really cannot compare hitting someone in the street with a slap you give a child when it's being headstrong, or throwing a temper tantrum.
NO?? How about the death penalty? Actually I think thats a better comparison.
That's why I have a hard time taking anyone serious who seeks to limit my (to be) paternal judgement by making the slap illegal.
And I have a hard time taking people opposing such a law seriously because if it prevents or lead to discover of just one case of childabuse then it´s worth it.
Slapping children is nothing but a quick fix of the symptoms much like the drug use you talked about.
qouting myself:
Dan wrote:
The only thing that prevents a 3 year old from hitting back is the sheer physical size difference. Quite a few of those hair-, earpulling and pinching mothers kids get very good at kicking adults on the lower shins at a young age.
Now do these "little Kung Fu-masters" act the way they do?
Because they have no reason to obey rules other than avoiding punishment.
The problem is the general attitude about it in society, much like drunk driving.
When I was a kid in the swedish 80s in a middleclass area in the country side(either farmers or detached house owners, mortgage on the house almost paid off, 2 cars, wife working halftime, 2 kids and a dog and/or cats, an A500 or C64 in everyhouse) if somebody pulled their kids hair or ear the whole room went quiet and everybody stared, sometimes somebody elses parents even spoke up.
If there was a case of childabuse in the news everybody assumed that they was either alcoholics or religous wackos because sane normal people just didn´t do that.
It´s much like drunk driving, sure there has always been laws but not much happened before the promille limit got so low that there was no room for any experimenting with percentages. When ligthbeer or cider to the food was all that it was possible to drink before driving it changed the attitude. Did people pick the carkeys of drunk people at parties in the fiftys? Hell no.
-
Dan wrote:
Cymric wrote:
Or what about administering drugs like Ritalin to active and difficult children to quiet them down and make them more 'managable'? I hear it's all the fashion these days. Is that okay?
No it isn´t, its another symptom of the fact that educating and raising children aren´t allowed to take time or cost money.
We are in agreement then, although I will say that it should not be forbidden, either. If there are pressing medical reasons, the option should be there.
-
Dan wrote:
Finally, you really cannot compare hitting someone in the street with a slap you give a child when it's being headstrong, or throwing a temper tantrum.
NO?? How about the death penalty? Actually I think thats a better comparison.
I don't see why. I'm very anti capital punishment, but corporal punishment has been a means of correcting a child's errant behaviour for countless centuries and there are occasions when it's justified IMHO.
What I'm talking about here is a simple slap across the buttocks or back of the legs, not a slap across the face or anything like that. It also shouldn't be something that's administered as an alternative to other punishments, but as a last resort with a clearly defined warning like "if you do that once more then you'll get a smack. It's up to you whether you get a smack or not".
Slapping children is nothing but a quick fix of the symptoms much like the drug use you talked about.
No. It should be the very last resort and should be made clear to a child that unless they desist from whatever they're doing they will receive a smack.
Dan wrote:
The only thing that prevents a 3 year old from hitting back is the sheer physical size difference. Quite a few of those hair-, earpulling and pinching mothers kids get very good at kicking adults on the lower shins at a young age.
Yeah, my youngest neice won't think twice about attempting to scratch / strike and adult when being chastised. I have very, very strict rules about the use of violence when caring for my nieces (ie they aren't allowed to hit one another) and so far Abby hasn't either tried to scratch me or lash out at me in any way. However, if a child of mine did that to me, they'd be immediately rewarded with a swift slap across the back of the legs.
Now do these "little Kung Fu-masters" act the way they do?
Because they have no reason to obey rules other than avoiding punishment.
It's why a child should be taught the notion of responsibility for one's actions. Disclipline isn't something that should be the first line of defence, it should be something that's accompanied with an explaination as to why it's being administered. That way the child quickly learns to correlate their actions with a consequence. It may sound medieval, but sometimes you can't reason with a child, and they're just as good at mind games as any adult I know.
The problem is the general attitude about it in society, much like drunk driving.
When I was a kid in the swedish 80s in a middleclass area in the country side(either farmers or detached house owners, mortgage on the house almost paid off, 2 cars, wife working halftime, 2 kids and a dog and/or cats, an A500 or C64 in everyhouse) if somebody pulled their kids hair or ear the whole room went quiet and everybody stared, sometimes somebody elses parents even spoke up.
If there was a case of childabuse in the news everybody assumed that they was either alcoholics or religous wackos because sane normal people just didn´t do that.
So how does a Swede deal with a brattish child?
It´s much like drunk driving, sure there has always been laws but not much happened before the promille limit got so low that there was no room for any experimenting with percentages. When ligthbeer or cider to the food was all that it was possible to drink before driving it changed the attitude. Did people pick the carkeys of drunk people at parties in the fiftys? Hell no.
In some ways it is. You can legally consume a small amount of alcohol and still drive, it should be the case that gentle physical punishment is allowable but striking of the face or anything excessive is considered cruelty.
-
Dan wrote:
Was these bullies older than you?
What was the schoolyard rules? (I never understood why you was gay if you fought on a Thursday, maybe that one was started by tired teachers :lol:)
Yes, they were, one to two years. That doesn't mean much now, but as a kid of 6, it does. (I skipped grades which immediately singled me out.)
Schoolyard rules? They were made up on the spot, noone ever told me, and then I could of course be bullied because I didn't know them. The school administration had not experienced a grade skipper before; it was also viewed as a sign of parents pushing the child. (Which they never did.) Some parents were very vocal about that particular opinion, which caused a lot of tension. I was simply 'weird' and thus the perfect victim.
You want to try and get a law preventing this sort of thing through government?
No, by a changed attitude in the whole society.
This sounds very naive: kids will be kids. After all, deep down, they are still tiny little animals. But it is not my place to comment other people's ideals.
-
Dan wrote:
People who abuse their child will not be impressed one iota, and go ahead beating the child senseless anyway.
People who are already are doing it now, no. But the changed attitude might influence some borderlines.
I doubt the number of cases would significantly decrease. In fact, it might even increase since the standard of what is considered 'abuse' has changed. That is dangerous
If they are closing that hotline at the same time then they are simply bigots!
Quite.
And are those people likely to do that?:-?
Not likely by themselves, true. What I meant was that they ought to be helped. Sloppy phrasing on my part, my apologies.
Finally, you really cannot compare hitting someone in the street with a slap you give a child when it's being headstrong, or throwing a temper tantrum.
NO?? How about the death penalty? Actually I think thats a better comparison.
The subject is obviously a very sensitive one for you, so I have to be careful with how I voice my opinion, which is very different from yours. So please try not to take this personal: I find your comparison of a slap on the buttocks to the death penalty excessively emotional, and way out of line. I am therefore not going to discuss this any further: I have made my point sufficiently clear already.
Slapping children is nothing but a quick fix of the symptoms much like the drug use you talked about.
Have you read the paragraph where I talked about when, in my humble opinion, a parent is justified to slap his child? Honestly, I don't think you have, otherwise I cannot imagine what caused you to write the above.
-
Cymric wrote:
Dan wrote:
People who abuse their child will not be impressed one iota, and go ahead beating the child senseless anyway.
People who are already are doing it now, no. But the changed attitude might influence some borderlines.
I doubt the number of cases would significantly decrease. In fact, it might even increase since the standard of what is considered 'abuse' has changed. That is dangerous
Do you mean because some parents will just carry on and even might take it further prevent discovery? :-?
-
PMC wrote:
So how does a Swede deal with a brattish child?
Today? No time, no time , look at the clock, no time -Stop that,Stop that, -I SAID STOP THAT, FOR {bleep}S SAKE. STOP IT! JUST STOP earpull scream Waaaaahaaa.
Well not everybody but increasingly common. Is it really strange that we have a increasing youth crime problem(blaming immigration is just an excuse)?
Back then and good parents today.
-Stop that or you will be grounded. You can do that because....
The methods has already been listed. Most extreme no allowance and grounded for a month, confined to your room for a couple of days. Or if you break it you pay it which could mean no allowance for upto a year.
-
Cymric wrote:
You want to try and get a law preventing this sort of thing through government?
No, by a changed attitude in the whole society.
This sounds very naive: kids will be kids. After all, deep down, they are still tiny little animals. But it is not my place to comment other people's ideals.
And even animals has rules(hard ones yes). And are you saying that animals can´t be trained without slaping them?
Generally people that are good with animals are good with kids and the opposite is true to.
I feel like I am talking in circles so I will take the timemachine fifty years forward back to the present.
-
Dan wrote:
Do you mean because some parents will just carry on and even might take it further prevent discovery? :-?
No, just that what was previously acceptable in terms of chastisement would now be illegal. The bar, so to speek, has been lowered.
Which is why when it was said it takes social change, not legislation for good reason. The above reason in fact.
Social change ultamately is the true power in a society. Law only punishes those who cross the line. pressure by society is much better in getting people to stop what they are doing then the threat of jail time.
Conversly, or perversly depending on your point of view, it could be that law becomes such a burden to the person with regards what he is legally allowed to do to chastise his or her child, that the parent says: "Sod it, theres nothing I can do without getting banged up, so the state can deal with the brat, if the state wants to be nannying, then who am I to deny it that role".
And tbh I can see this comming from some people who have been harshly dealt with, or the fear therof. Society has at least a little more discretion in matters such as these.
-
In Pennsylvania, a week or two ago, the cops arrested a 10 year-old girl for being caught with scissors!?!?
The cuffed her and took her downtown, if you can believe it. The cops latter apologized.
WTF!?!?
-
Absolutely ridiculous and yet, so totally in line with many such incidents by police officers in both the USA and the UK, minor things (or in the case you described, non issues) get the absolute works thrown at them, whilst major crime and criminals get light to pathetic sentences.
I could quote a dozen such instances I've read about just in the local newspaper over the past 6 months, but I figure you get the picture.