Smacking your child in public

shellspeare · 09-12-2004 2:35pm #1

It has been reported that a Manchester father has been separated from his family for 6months due to smacking his 3year old son in public after he ran out into the road.
He has now been allowed back into the family home due to pleading guilty.

Is it me or is something seriously wrong with this? Eye witnesses claim the father warned the child three times but the toddler was determined to run off. He escaped from his dads hand and ran out into the road where a car had to swerve to avoid the child. The father then slapped the back of the childs hand, and a policeman witnessed it and arrested him, i mean come on!

dabhal · 09-12-2004 2:48pm

I dont agree, smacking children should be stopped.
If it takes a few over the top decisions to make the point so be it.
I would imagine the judge just wanted to make a point and thats why after the appeal he was allowed home.

I would not be impressed if this became the norm.
If if became frowned upon in society I think it would have a much larger impact.

Shells, do you agree with hitting children?

ixoy · 09-12-2004 2:56pm

The problem is that assault/abuse etc. can be a hard line to draw - if you think slapping is permissible, then to what degree? How many pounds of pressure applied to what part of the body? Do you have to factor in the child's physical size - some children are more vulnerable to pain than others. Remember, if you hit someone who had been frightened after a near accident, you'd be looking at a lawsuit for not just physcial distress but also probably emotional. That's what I'm assuming the legal problems with it might be.

The thing is children aren't adults. They can't always be reasoned with and talked to in the same way. A physical reprimand can create an immediate link with stupidity and pain. Therefore they learn. I was rarely slapped as a child (I was well behaved) but when it was done I don't feel resentful. The problem still is where you draw the line in the sand - when is it too much? For that, I can see why you may want to stop it all together.

BTW, this is more a Humanities issue than Politics.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 09-12-2004 3:00pm

my parents took the wooden spoon to me a few times when I was younger, and I (should) thank them for it. Put me in my place quickly enough, I knew that they loved me and I understood that I was being punished for doing something wrong. Usually very very wrong, if they resorted to the wooden spoon. Bruises heal, but I learned a few lessons about right and wrong I shan't soon be forgetting.

Gilgamesh · 09-12-2004 3:05pm

I don't want to sounds racist or anything, but my opinion in this matter changed when I moved to Ireland, personally I think a lot of the kids here, would be completely different if they would have been clouted every now and then, when they did something wrong.
this country proves, that just shouting at a kid or telling it off, doesn't have the same impact (doesn't bring the same respect) towrds their authority as getting smacked does.
I don't mean, beating the living day lights of of the child, but it is a fact that humans learn faster where their boudaries are, when they are hurt or receive a result they don't like.

The smack should be the last resort, and should only be used when really required.

How to you expect children to learn, what is right or wrong?
you can't reason with kids, especially young ones

Xterminator · 09-12-2004 3:13pm

I think the court decision in question is a disgrace.
I know abuse of children is all too common, but i dont belive criminalising parents who are parenting, will stop the behind doors abuse of children. IE Abusers will still abuse, but legitimate correction becomes demonised.

A slap on the hand or on the bum, to reinforce a childs behaviour pattern is acceptable to me. My older children do not have to be slapped, as they can be reasoned with (punishments like taking away computer privilidges and grounding are much more effective anyway!

My toddler cannot be reasoned with. She ids just too young. Several times, (while she was wearing a nappy) i slapped her bum, just hard enoght to let her know i displeased. I know that with the nappy on, there was no actual pain, but the action made her cry, and she quickly learned not to do things if told sternly not to.
(In this case we causght her about to take some headache tablets that had been lost!).

I think my action above could potentially save her life, not endanger it.

I beive parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children, (eg in the case of vandalism, bullying and criminal actions etc) but i cant see how if society prevents you from parenting as you see fit, you can then be responsible?

X

dabhal · 09-12-2004 3:13pm

Gilgamesh wrote:

this country proves, that just shouting at a kid or telling it off, doesn't have the same impact (doesn't bring the same respect) towrds their authority as getting smacked does.

What country exactly are you in? People in Ireland in the vast majority hit thier kids, I see it every day and it makes my blood boil.

Gilgamesh · 09-12-2004 3:17pm

dabhal wrote:

What country exactly are you in? People in Ireland in the vast majority hit thier kids, I see it every day and it makes my blood boil.

I live in Ireland now, as mentioned, dublin to be exact, and I have never seen a kid been disciplined in the 4 years I have lived here.
Just gets me thinking about why 12 year olds are running around the streets at midnight in groupsm looking for trouble.
Sorry, but this is my experience

Rev Hellfire · 09-12-2004 3:34pm

Nothing gets my blood boiling than listening to pompous busy bodies who go on about children getting slapped (normally those without children of their own).
Now no one will condone a child been hit to a degree that a mark is left, but the simple fact is children are not mini-adults no matter what you say (and cannot be reasoned with as such), and sometimes you need to make a point in a forceful and immediate manner.
I think it would be safe to say that while the majority of people if quizzed would say they are opposed to it ( and simply for fear of been stigmatised as some sort of child abuser), the majority in practise do or would use it if required.

the fnj · 09-12-2004 3:43pm

I was having a debate with my dad about this before, and he made the point that sometimes a child just gets completely hysterical and is beyond reasoning with, one sharp slap was the only way to get the child to settle down.

The anti smacking liberals need to release that most reasonable parents are not trying to harm or injure their children by smacking them and they do in fact love their children. Of course there will always be cases of parents abusing children but you can’t make a law for a few hard cases and either way an abusive parent is going to be abusive regardless of the law. The parent of a child knows what is best for the child most of the time, not the government.

Gilgamesh · 09-12-2004 3:47pm

I think the question of parents been 'opposed' to it, is a bit broad, they should rather ask if they think that sometimes it is necessary to slap a kid, the polls would be completely different.
Been opposed to something, doesn't mean you don't do it, it moreless goes by the principle 'this is going to hurt me more than it does you' blabber

dabhal · 09-12-2004 3:57pm

some points I found on the web:

Here are some points to consider if you do use slapping as a form of discipline:-
When you slap your child you are demonstrating to them that it's okay to hit out when you are angry - after all that is exactly what you are doing. Children learn from modeling the behavior of those around them - they will learn that slapping can be used to get their own way e.g. with their friends or siblings.

You are losing a valuable opportunity to teach your child an alternative way of behaving.

Slapping can interfere with the co-operative and loving relationship you have with your child.

Physical punishment does not teach your child how to solve their problems and conflicts in an effective and humane way.

You could physically harm your child - shaking children, especially babies, can be very dangerous and has lead to injury of the brain.

Rather than teaching children the type of behavior that meets with approval, slapping hurts and frightens them and teaches them to avoid getting caught.

Sometimes children misbehave because they are looking for attention - even though slapping is a negative experience for the child it does get them attention. If you are finding that you are having a lot these negative interactions with your child take a look at the positive times you spend together. If they are infrequent, your child's misbehavior could be a signal that they need more attention from you.

Adults who were smacked as children have been found to have lower self-esteem.

Once you use slapping regularly you will find that you have to gradually hit harder therefore risking physical and emotional trauma to your child.

dabhal · 09-12-2004 3:58pm

DISCIPLINE WITHOUT SMACKING
1-3 years
DEMONSTRATE RIGHT FROM WRONG:

Children this young may not understand words but they can learn from our actions.

For example, your toddler takes another child's toy. By picking your child up and removing him/her from the room for a few minutes at a time whenever he/she does this, the child will gradually associate taking another's toy with being taken away from the fun completely.

The first time you take the child away from the toys etc there will inevitably be tears and discontent which can be upsetting in itself for a parent. But this method of discipline not only teaches a child right from wrong but also about making their own choices i.e. he/she can take from others but will be removed from the fun completely or choose to behave and continue to play.

Children aged 4+
TIME OUT:

By giving a child time out you are giving the child time to consider his/her behaviour.

The most important thing about time out is that the child spends this time in a boring environment e.g. the hallway, as opposed to the T.V. room or his/her bedroom.

Time out makes it clear to the child that you will not give attention to tantrums and bad behaviour and it also gives you a chance to calm down.

It is recommended that time outs aren't used with children under 4 and that when opting for this discipline parents should allow a minute for each year of the child's age e.g. a time out for a child of 5 should ideally last for 5 minutes only and so on.

CHOICE:

Teach children right from wrong by giving them choices.

For example, if a child refuses to do homework you can accept that in a calm way but let them know that the alternative to not doing homework is going to bed early.
Dont agree with that myself, teachs kids that bed is a punishment.

Rev Hellfire · 09-12-2004 4:06pm

If I was you I would avoid attempting to raise your child using articles you found on the internet

Lafortezza · 09-12-2004 4:09pm

dabhal wrote:

Children aged 4+
TIME OUT:
By giving a child time out you are giving the child time to consider his/her behaviour.

Everytime I hear that "Time Out" phrase I think of Dr. Phil or Oprah or something. When me and my friends were misbehaving when we were small and smack was one sure way to make us stop and calm down.
I think part of why it worked when you were a kid is that you knew when you were smacked that your parent wasn't happy and as a small child you never want to make mammy or daddy unhappy.

dabhal · 09-12-2004 4:19pm

Rev Hellfire wrote:

If I was you I would avoid attempting to raise your child using articles you found on the internet

Theres no harm in getting a different opinion of things.

BTW I'd like to make 2 points

1) this should be moved to the parenting forum
2) When I talk about parents hitting kids I'm talking about parents I've seen lifting kids off the ground with one arm while belting them with the other.

I doubt anyone here would admit to doing that.

I think part of why it worked when you were a kid is that you knew when you were smacked that your parent wasn't happy and as a small child you never want to make mammy or daddy unhappy.

And as a child you learned that when you are unhappy it's OK to hit people and your children to express it?

bonkey · 09-12-2004 4:21pm

What I find interesting is that - generally speaking - it is people who have been hit by their parents who believe that its ok on the grounds of "well, it didn't do me any harm".

These same people often (in my experience) tend to ascribe many/all of the problems with "the yoof of today" with a lack of discipline, and their parents/teachers/whoever not being given a free hand (pun intended) to raise them.

Both sides have - to be honest - very valid points. There is benefit to be gained, in some situations, to using physical discipline. There is, likewise, problems with the use of physical discipline in other situations.

The biggest problem the law faces is that all people are not equal. A simple (and slightly flawed) example...I know someone who is quite literally incapable of dafely controlling a car at about 30 mph, but the law allows them to drive at 60 on open roads. I know plenty who are well capable of controlling a car at speeds on the open road in excess of said limit. So is the limit right or wrong? Should it be higher, because I know more people who can handle it than who can't? Or should it be lower, because of the few shouldnt-be-drivers-but-are?

Same for allowing physical discipline. SItuation, mentality of parent, physical characteristics of parent, mentality of child, physical characteristics of child, and a host of other things all combine to determine whether a given situation would benefit or suffer from the use of physical discipline. There is no way to legislate to the necessary granularity, so ultimately we must have a law that is sometimes too lax, sometimes too draconian.

Personally, in that case, I'd err in favour of "too draconian", with a mind to reviewing the law periodically to see if it can be improved.

jc

spongebob · 09-12-2004 4:26pm

shellspeare wrote:

Eye witnesses claim the father warned the child three times but the toddler was determined to run off. He escaped from his dads hand and ran out into the road where a car had to swerve to avoid the child. The father then slapped the back of the childs hand, and a policeman witnessed it and arrested him, i mean come on!

The Cop is a moron. The Prosecutor who took the case to court is a moron. The judge who did not throw the case straight out is a moron.

Whether you smack a child or not is essentially your own business as a parent and should be allowed as a last resort. It seems that is what yer man in Manchester did. In this case the kid behaved in a manner which was a danger to himself and others after being told not to. He had to be dealt with straight away. Had the witnesses said that he 'thumped' the kid it could be a different ballgame .

The same cop , prosecutor and judge woulda done the father had the car run over the kid ...and the driver too probably.

The same cop , prosecutor and judge probably woulda done him had he 'only' ticked the kid off after dragging him off the road and probably slapped an ASBO on the family for good measure to keep them away from Roads for 5 years or so. .

The poor bastard could not win, could he. Its not that the law is an ass here but rather that the administration of the law is an ass.

M

Lafortezza · 09-12-2004 4:29pm

dabhal wrote:

And as a child you learned that when you are unhappy it's OK to hit people and your children to express it?

Nope, as a child I learned where the boundaries were because when mammy/daddy raised their voice and I received a slight smack on the rear, I knew that I was pushing it. And stopped whatever bad behaviour I was doing.

Children aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be.

Beruthiel · 09-12-2004 4:37pm

lafortezza wrote:

Everytime I hear that "Time Out" phrase I think of Dr. Phil or Oprah or something .

maybe so
but it worked an absolute treat for me all the way through my daughters childhood - she has grown to be a grand teenager without me ever raising a hand to her, taking the time to discipline a child without smacking is an awful lot of hard work and takes total commitment and consistency to not let your rules slide, smacking is the lazy mans way and if you have put the work into discipline without smacking it should never be required

that said
I cannot believe the man was arrested for a slap on the hand, if that is all he did then the arrest was waaaaay over the top!

/my parents also used a wooden spoon, handle of a brush or stick on us all the time, I hated their guts for years for it, there was a time I'd have been quite happen if my mother was dead, slapping left a lasting impression on me for a long time, unlike Mordie, I do not thank them for it as to this day I do not believe I ever did anything bad enough to deserve the beatings they handed out

spongebob · 09-12-2004 4:47pm

I smacked my lad old once, and only once. He was intent on clattering his mothers head with a hurley while she slept. I therefore decided that he needed a quick contextual lesson on the meaning of inflicting pain .

Of course I could have taken the hurley off him but he could have clattered her in her sleep with an equally hard object while I wasn't around.

I don't think I'll ever have to smack him again ....thank God.

M

dabhal · 09-12-2004 4:56pm

lafortezza wrote:

Children aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be.

I'm not making children out to be dumb :eek:
The complete opposite infact. I can (and do) talk to a child and explain to them why something is wrong.
Why do you hit your kids, you must believe as some posters have said that a small child cannot be reasoned with? ie they dont have the intelligience.

Zulu · 09-12-2004 5:00pm

Poor parenting leads to children being smacked.

There is no reason to hit a child - ever.

Gurgle · 09-12-2004 5:01pm

dabhal wrote:

you must believe as some posters have said that a small child cannot be reasoned with? ie they dont have the intelligience.

A-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Its not whether they can be reasoned with, its whether they want to be reasoned with.

And no, I don't smack my kids when they refuse to be reasoned with, I pick them up and carry them kicking and screaming to the car/shop/bed/bath/wherever they didn't want to go.

koneko · 09-12-2004 5:07pm

I'm at odds over this, I don't agree with smacking a child at all, a slap on the back of the hand I guess, but the problem is if your kid doesn't listen, will you increase each time? From a tap, to a slap, to a smack? Where does it stop? Reasonable people can set boundaries and try something else if it doesn't work, but there's an AWFUL lot of people out there not fit to be parents.

Muck wrote:

I smacked my lad old once, and only once. He was intent on clattering his mothers head with a hurley while she slept. I therefore decided that he needed a quick contextual lesson on the meaning of inflicting pain .

And the strange thing about this is, you're using violence to teach him violence is wrong. In the long run, I don't personally see it as the best solution.

Xterminator · 09-12-2004 5:09pm

Beruthiel wrote:

maybe so
but it worked an absolute treat for me all the way through my daughters childhood - she has grown to be a grand teenager without me ever raising a hand to her, taking the time to discipline a child without smacking is an awful lot of hard work and takes total commitment and consistency to not let your rules slide, smacking is the lazy mans way and if you have put the work into discipline without smacking it should never be required

that said
I cannot believe the man was arrested for a slap on the hand, if that is all he did then the arrest was waaaaay over the top!

He wasnt just arrested.

He has been excluded from the family home, and effectively had his rights as a father removed for 6 months.

That removal of the father will cause for more long term damage than any slap, to the psyche of the children in question.

I know smacking is not nessacary with all children, but i do believe it can be warranted, depending on the child, the circumstances etc. Nobody honesly say that because your experience of bringing up the children you were blessed with with your methods, makes you able to say it would work for all children.

Also nobody has touched on the point that parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children, in the eyes of the law and society, yet society is taking away the right to dicipline you child as you see fit.

i believe there is a contracdiction there.

X

pickarooney · 09-12-2004 5:09pm

The point is to demonstrate to the child that you are in a position of authority and thath your experience and knowledge is worth something. Kids, especially the brighter ones, won't just accept this as gospel. The fact that from birth they had complete control over you just be crying refutes it.
You don't have to be angry to punish a child, maybe even the opposite. If it's clear to the child that if he does bad action A he gets punishment B, it's his decision whether or not he wants to avoid the punishment by not doing the action. Screaming randomly at a kid, threatening without ever hitting and belittling him are all worse than a physical reprimand I reckon. As long as the cause and effect is clear and it's not just Mammy/Daddy in a bad mood lashing out, a small slap is no harm.

Boggle · 09-12-2004 5:11pm

There is a world of difference between smacking a child and beating a child.

A smack should only sting a little. It is an effective means of communicating to the child when it is misbehaving. There is no harm to it and no mental harm UNLESS the child is abused. (It's in our nature)

By the way mental punishment, in my opinion, such as "TIME-OUT" and "OVER-CORRECTION" (not mentioned), ignoring, etc. can have far more damaging effects to a childs self esteem....

pickarooney · 09-12-2004 5:13pm

Xterminator wrote:

He wasnt just arrested.

He has been excluded from the family home, and effectively had his rights as a father removed for 6 months.

That removal of the father will cause for more long term damage than any slap, to the psyche of the children in question.

Yeah, his authority was completely undermined. The kid has no reason to ever respect his rubber-stamped child-abusing criminal father again. Hardly an ideal situation.

Sleepy · 09-12-2004 5:23pm

What is wring with slapping a child? Nothing. What is wrong with beating a child? Everything. There's a big difference between the two. Honestly I think that those parents that talk about being able to raise their kids without ever having to slap them have been extremely lucky in their children. As a child I was a complete little bastard at times. Nowadays most parents would laugh off my actions as having been "boisterous". If I'd been brought up with parents like that I'd have had no sense of right or wrong because I'd have just kept pushing the boundaries further and further.

And another thing I'd question about the idea that smacking your children is a terrible thing is the alternates promoted by the anti-smacking lobby. A light tap on the arse hurts for a split second and the pain is gone. We know enough about biology to understand that. The psychological games suggested to be used in place of smacking are, to my mind, potentially far more damaging. We don't fully understand the human mind so it's a dangerous thing to play with.

Maybe it's just me getting old but from what I can see, the ten and twelve yar olds of today are far worse behaved than when I was a child. And the number of toddlers throwing screaming tantrams in Dunnes on a Saturday morning seems to increase by the week. During this time the number of parents slapping their children has decreased dramatically and generally parents have become less authoritive while trying the American ideal of "being your child's best friend" (at the expense to that child of a parent). Maybe there's no correlation between the two, but it seems to be a pretty obvious case of cause and effect to me.

Gurgle · 09-12-2004 5:38pm

Sleepy wrote:

What is wring with slapping a child? Nothing. What is wrong with beating a child? Everything. There's a big difference between the two.

But how do you differentiate in law ?

Sleepy wrote:

Maybe it's just me getting old but from what I can see, the ten and twelve yar olds of today are far worse behaved than when I was a child.

Yes but aren't those the ones who weren't slapped and weren't diciplined in any other way either ?

Since smacking became politically incorrect, many parents just do nothing and their children are little monsters.

Parents are still responsible for teaching their children right from wrong. Many chose not to use violence (myself included) but you have to use other methods instead. You often have to physically restrain a child but this can be done gently.

Occidental · 09-12-2004 5:51pm

Zulu wrote:

Poor parenting leads to children being smacked.

There is no reason to hit a child - ever.

Poor parenting also leads to little bastards who think they can walk on water, or anyone else who happens to be in their way.

I have a six year old girl and we get on most of time. We have our ups and downs, strops, huffs etc, but we work things out without any slapping. Maybe this makes me the fabled good parent, but personally I just think I've been bloody lucky, so far.

To me a good parent is one who raises their kids to have manners and to be fair and kind to others. This can be quite a challenge when half their mates have been trained to make themselves No1 in all things with an attitude to match. The occasional slap is the least of my worries. The parents who’ve absolved themselves from any responsibility for their child’s upbringing are the ones who need a look at.

the_syco · 09-12-2004 6:06pm

dabhal wrote:

What country exactly are you in? People in Ireland in the vast majority hit thier kids, I see it every day and it makes my blood boil.

If I smacked you, you could hit back. If a child hit you, you'd better run, as you can't hit back. And when there's 10 of them, all about 13 or 14 each, theres not a damn thing you can do about it.

Except kick the sh|t out of them.

=-=

So yeah, kids should be taught to respect other people.

jbkenn · 09-12-2004 6:08pm

shellspeare wrote:

It has been reported that a Manchester father has been separated from his family for 6months due to smacking his 3year old son in public after he ran out into the road.
He has now been allowed back into the family home due to pleading guilty.

Some years back I was driving through a junction in a urban area when I spotted a family on the traffic island with a boisterous child of about 3 or 4. As I drew abreast of them the child ran from his father, and hit the wing of the car (the sound of the smack will stay with me forever), I braked immediately and went over a bump in the road, I stopped, convinced I had run over the child, and got out of the car in a shocked state. The child was screaming, and a passerby assured me he had simply hit the wing of the car. A passing patrol car stopped and took the child and his parents to a local hospital, leaving a Garda with me at the scene, as the patrol car drove around the block to take the child to hospital the driver put on the sirens and I was sure the child must have taken a turn for the worst. The Garda with me called his colleague on the radio, who told him he just turned on the sirens to distract the child and stop him crying.

As it was a road traffic accident the Gardai had to investigate, and take measurements of the scene, and statements from witnesses, in case there might be a sudden case of "compensationitis" from the family (the Garda's words, not mine) and call them the following day to see if the matter would be taken any further. The witnesses and family confirm what had happened was not my fault, but, it was a worrying 24 hours for me.

I feel for the father in this case, as a parent myself, do you smack the child or have him killed? which is the lesser of two evils?.

Political Correctness gone mad

jbkenn

cajun_tiger · 09-12-2004 6:17pm

well i'm a mammy of a 4 yr old and she is more stuborn than me, she's so inteligent. so much so that if she doesnt want to listen to what i'm saying she won't. i've been so angry that i screamed at her for 20 minutes after darting across a busy road, never would i raise my hand.. as a child my father did and it went from a tap on the back of the legs to a slap an the tush to a smack on the back of my head which turned into 5 stiches. now he hit my daughter once. and i totally lost the rag at him and threatened to hit him if it ever happened again, he was so taken back that he sat down and started to talk but just babbled for 5 minutes then nothing for the rest of the night.

cajun_tiger · 09-12-2004 6:22pm

Gilgamesh wrote:

I don't want to sounds racist or anything, but my opinion in this matter changed when I moved to Ireland, personally I think a lot of the kids here, would be completely different if they would have been clouted every now and then, when they did something wrong.
this country proves, that just shouting at a kid or telling it off, doesn't have the same impact (doesn't bring the same respect) towrds their authority as getting smacked does.
I don't mean, beating the living day lights of of the child, but it is a fact that humans learn faster where their boudaries are, when they are hurt or receive a result they don't like.

The smack should be the last resort, and should only be used when really required.

How to you expect children to learn, what is right or wrong?
you can't reason with kids, especially young ones

but for years children where hit and beaten and abused in this counrty we've learned from our mistakes

pete · 09-12-2004 7:40pm

shellspeare wrote:

It has been reported that a Manchester father has been separated from his family for 6months due to smacking his 3year old son in public after he ran out into the road.
He has now been allowed back into the family home due to pleading guilty.

Is it me or is something seriously wrong with this? Eye witnesses claim the father warned the child three times but the toddler was determined to run off. He escaped from his dads hand and ran out into the road where a car had to swerve to avoid the child. The father then slapped the back of the childs hand, and a policeman witnessed it and arrested him, i mean come on!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Chief Superintendent Alan Cooper, of Greater Manchester police, said he was confident the force used on the child merited the punishment.

He said: "I personally have copies of witness statements which claim the level of force which was used was over and above what is necessary to discipline a child.

"Another witness describes the child being hit so hard he left the ground and slid across the pavement. I am satisfied that the officer acted appropriately."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4080293.stm

Magnolia_Fan · 10-12-2004 12:18am

I work weekends in a shop and I can safely say that one of the few perks to the job is the endless child beatings that I get to see....its so funny when they run...Hell I make their ice cream cones lob sided on purpose so they drop them and get beat! mwuhahhahahahah

Magnolia_Fan · 10-12-2004 12:22am

Note: I was joking my cones are always perfect just like Kelly Brooks

luckat · 10-12-2004 12:33am

Only stupid people have to hit each other. (And that includes children.)

Intelligent people don't bring their children into dangerous situations.

Gurgle · 10-12-2004 9:33am

luckat wrote:

Only stupid people have to hit each other. (And that includes children.)
Intelligent people don't bring their children into dangerous situations.

Exactly, when walking along/across a road with a child, you should have a death-grip on their wrist. If they decide not to co-operate, you carry them.

You can't expect a child under 5 to have common sense when it comes to road safety.

MrPudding · 10-12-2004 9:41am

Gurgle wrote:

Exactly, when walking along/across a road with a child, you should have a death-grip on their wrist. If they decide not to co-operate, you carry them.

You can't expect a child under 5 to have common sense when it comes to road safety.

So it OK to hurt and possibly bruise them with a "death grip" but you can't give them a smack which is more symbolic than painful?

Have you never had to smack your child Gurgle? What age are you children?

MrP

bonkey · 10-12-2004 10:01am

Gurgle wrote:

Exactly, when walking along/across a road with a child, you should have a death-grip on their wrist. If they decide not to co-operate, you carry them.

And if they scream and wriggle and do all in their power to get out of your grip/carrying hold? If they pull your hair and slap your face while you carry them in order to be let down? If they get so distressed they literally get convulsions?

And before you decide that only kids raised with bad parenting would behave in such a manner bear in mind that if :

You can't expect a child under 5 to have common sense when it comes to road safety.

...then you also can't expect them to know what is and is not acceptable behaviour when dealing with their parents/guardians. So simply seeing another child do it might give them sufficient impetus to misbehave.

luckat wrote:

Only stupid people have to hit each other

Tell me...if an adult attacks you without provocation...how stupid are you (as another adult) for defending yourself?

The point - lest it be lost on some - is that luckat's line of reasoning is a convenient oversimplification of reality.

jc

Gurgle · 10-12-2004 10:11am

MrPudding wrote:

So it OK to hurt and possibly bruise them with a "death grip" but you can't give them a smack which is more symbolic than painful?

Death grip meaning holding your hand rigid enough that they can't squeeze their hand out. Not neccessarily cutting off circulation.

MrPudding wrote:

Have you never had to smack your child Gurgle? What age are you children?

No, I don't think theres any such thing as having to smack a child. IMHO, smacking usually occurs when the parent loses his/her temper. Its not really about teaching the child, its just venting frustation.

On the other hand, a light tip on the back of the hand, just enough to get their attention is probably much more effective than smacking. That way they know they're being rebuked. If you smack them they're not learning anything because their are distracted by pain.

Two boys, older is 5, younger is 21 months.

The 5 year old is very well behaved, we've been extremely lucky with him. He has also had road safety drilled into him since he learned to walk but its still only within the last year that I would trust him to walk along the footpath more than arms-length away.

The baby thinks the funniest thing in the world is to sprint off in a random direction with no warning except the squeals of laughter. We live in a quiet cul-de-sac but I still make a point of catching him before he gets to the road.

Basically, I try to teach them to think of the road as though it were actually on fire.

climaxer · 10-12-2004 10:52am

Gurgle I agree with you that smacking is usually the parents frustration/losing their temper. I don't agree with smacking but do believe there is a big difference to a light tap but still don't do it. I have never smacked my son. My daughter I gave a light tap too on a rare occasion but hated myself for it. She was around 2 and kept pushing her little 11mth old cousin who was starting to walk and kept doing it - obviously jealous of the attention he was getting. The small tap didn't work either and I just asked her would she mind her little cousin and praised her for being a great big girl and she didn't do it again. I use the ignore when naughty and praise when good method and it works a treat.

Also kids whom are smacked aren't necesserily going to turn out to be well behaved. I know kids who are smacked and they are still brats. My kids are well behaved most of the time and my eldest who's 11.5 is grounded or gets no pocket money or has to go to bed early if she misbehaves. She was a handful as a toddler and can still be sometimes and my son who's the total opposite to her is so placid and easy going and quite shy until he's used to you and rarely plays up. Its amazing how different their personalities are really.

I'm always saying that parenting is soooo hard and it can be so draining at times when they suck every ounce of patience out of you and I would give most parents the benefit of the doubt. I also think a parent who smacks in public is probably less likely to beat a child. I hate parents who give their kids that look in public and you know they are going to get a severe beating when they get home.

MrPudding · 10-12-2004 11:04am

Ah. I think there may be some confusione here as to what I consider a smack to be. For me it is purely symbolic and is not to cause pain. It is simply to focus attention. Mostly it is a tap on the nappy.

I have a 6 year old girl who is very well behave and can be reasoned with. There is also a little fella of almost 2. He can sometimes be "difficult" and requires attention focusing.

MrP

Gurgle · 10-12-2004 11:09am

bonkey wrote:

And if they scream and wriggle and do all in their power to get out of your grip/carrying hold? If they pull your hair and slap your face while you carry them in order to be let down? If they get so distressed they literally get convulsions?

I had all of that ocassionally during the terrible twos.

Luckily I'm considerably bigger and stronger than a two year old, so I could restrain him without hurting him. Along with pulling hair and slapping, they have nails like little razors and they can really do damage. You can't hold that against them though, at that age the world revolves around them and they have no real concept of hurting someone else.

bonkey wrote:

then you also can't expect them to know what is and is not acceptable behaviour when dealing with their parents/guardians. So simply seeing another child do it might give them sufficient impetus to misbehave.

Any child is going to chance his arm with all kinds of disobedience, thats how they learn what they can get away with and what you're serious about. In a dangerous situation you can't give them the opportunity.

Do you think smacking is a useful parenting tool are are you just playing devils advocate as usual ?

Sleepy · 10-12-2004 11:22am

Honestly one of the best bits of parenting I ever heard with regard to children biting/scratching etc. was one of my friends mother's who when the conversation came up said that my mate had only ever bitten her once and learned never to do it again: she bit him back! I think that's a great way of educating a child to respect others and the consequences of their actions "Do unto others..." if you will.

And before the PC brigade jump on me for condoning this "canabalistic" behaviour, I'm sure she just gave him a light nip, not ripped flesh from his bones!

Gurgle · 10-12-2004 11:25am

Sleepy wrote:

Honestly one of the best bits of parenting I ever heard with regard to children biting/scratching etc. was one of my friends mother's who when the conversation came up said that my mate had only ever bitten her once and learned never to do it again: she bit him back! I think that's a great way of educating a child to respect others and the consequences of their actions "Do unto others..." if you will.

lol
And those cutsie little toothies are bloody sharp.

bonkey · 10-12-2004 11:31am

Gurgle wrote:

Luckily I'm considerably bigger and stronger than a two year old

Fair enough. Is every parent big enough and strong enough to manage a two-year old? A three-year old? (and so on)?

Gurgle wrote:

Do you think smacking is a useful parenting tool are are you just playing devils advocate as usual ?

A bit of both really

I think there are situations where it can be a useful tool....but I think I already more or less admitted as much. I already pointed out in this thread that the difficulty arises at where one can draw the line in law. In reality, you'd need to take everything on a case by case basis to determine if - in this case - what was done was unacceptable, which just isn't possible. I'd also point you back to where I did say I'd prefer laws to be too strict than too lax - that children be offered too much protection rather than too little.

My major objection is to the over-simplified comments like luckat's. However, I also have an objection to anyone taking a stance that smacks of "because it worked with me / my kids / people I know, its what should be done and what our standards should be based on".

I'm not saying that this is what you're doing, but rather pointing out that anecdotal evidence based on a handful of cases which themselves effectively highlight how all kids are different is not a basis for legislation nor for standards-setting.

You could queue up hundreds of people who will give evidence as to how they were raised without slaps, or how they never slappe d their kids, and how it all worked out fine. In response, I'd say it was equally possible to queue up hundreds of people who could admit that they drove while drunk without harming anyone, and ask if that evidence of a happy outcome in a number of situations means that this this is the right thing to do?

(Note to those prone to over-reaction...I'm not saying that not slapping your children is wrong. I'm saying that a good outcome in a non-representative sample doesn't mean that something is the right & only way that things should be donr.)

So...in return I'd ask you whether or not you believe that yoru way is the right way for everyone, or if you're more just pointing out that a lack of physical discipline isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

jc

Gurgle · 10-12-2004 11:52am

bonkey wrote:

So...in return I'd ask you whether or not you believe that yoru way is the right way for everyone, or if you're more just pointing out that a lack of physical discipline isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
jc

bonkey wrote:

A bit of both really

I don't think under any circumstances a child should be 'taught a lesson' with a beating but there isn't anything wrong with a little tap to focus their attention on the fact that your not impressed.

Consistancy is probably the most important factor in teaching a child dicipline.

If you let a two year old run around on the road when its quiet but go ballistic when they try to run out when its busy, they get mixed messages. To them the presence or absence of cars isn't terribly important.

Likewise with any misbehaviour, if you give them sweets to shut them up one time and a smack the next, they will have to try that particular form of misbehaviour a few more times before they know what to expect.

Smacking your child in public

Comments