BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON

[X-ray]

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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

"...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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

"...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.

[X-ray]

"...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?

[X-ray]

"...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?

[X-ray]

"...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.

[X-ray]

@ 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
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]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.