h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. however, in practice there very often is...

theory first: (btw: if you are pro-violence you may as well skip this posting) if you are against violence against adults - men, women, servants, slaves, whatever - how in bobs name can you accept violence (in any kind) against small, defenseless children???

you are supposed to love your children unconditionally - they certainly take all your love for granted.

what do you think goes on in a childs mind when the one person that is supposed to love it unconditionally starts beating it?

- - -

practice: tolerance is the only thing that has to go two ways at the same time. while i can never condone violence as a punishment i can surely understand a slip of the hand as a reaction to a sudden incident. i have three kids of my own and i know too well that seeing a child running into the street, barely avoiding being run over by a truck, can cause irational behaviour like i.e. smacking said kid.

and yes, being a parent is a difficult job (all the more if you have a son with aspergers or the like). the manual for my hifi- and tv-set has over a hundred pages, when i got my kids i never got *one*.

in short: i can understand why a frustrated parent resorts to the last instrument of the otherwise powerless. in denmark and sweden the judge will bear that in mind should it ever come to a trial. but of course the court will never accept physical *punishment* of a child.

after all we have a penal code that forbids violence - and it does not mention any exceptions. they have just been a tradition in the past. this now history. thank heavens for that.



ps: on a lighter note:

Parent beating child: you realize of course i do this because i love you?
child: please stop loving me

Another parent beating child: This hurts me as much as it hurts you
child: please whack me a lot more and harder then

pps: in case you are wondering: yes, i was smacked as a child. i think we react different to it. i am sure it marked me for life - and not i a positive way.

In response to the child in the electrical shop question my answer is this. Hold the childs hand tightly, and keep him/her close to.

It is ludicrously unfair to ask the childless posters to justify themselves by saying "what would you do in this situation?" If you think that is justified, then stop talking about what the courts or politicians should do. You don't work as a judge, or an M.P, so by extension of this reasoning you have no say about what they do.

The reason a change in the law is needed is that it doesn't protect children. Parents are getting away with hideous levels of abuse under the defence of "reasonable chastisement." And yes, it's idiotic to think that this will stop people doing it, but it will afford better protection in law. Conversely, it's also pure sensationalism to claim that there will be a glut of prosecutions for minor offences. Unless it is a serious case the police and the CPS won't waste their time on it.

My . We should not pass judgement on what other parents fell the need to do, even if we have kids ourselves. I have never smacked my kid, never had to; but then she's been pretty well behaved since the day she was born. I know parents with kids who aren't well behaved, who play up and play up until they are somehow, metaphorically or otherwise, slapped down. Often these kids have been like this from birth, it’s often nothing to do with an abusive or neglected upbringing. I would never therefore pass judgement on a parent who felt they had to use slapping as a last resort.

I use the "go-to-your-room!" technique. However, this causes so many tears that I end up feeling horribly cruel and cut the punishment short (and yes, I know you're not supposed to give in). For the child, this is a protracted, psychological trauma. As someone suggested earlier on, this might cause far more serious long-term damage than a short, sharp slap. I don’t know. After all, the effectiveness of the slap is presumably in the shock value rather than in the pain it causes.

And on road safety, the thing that becomes blindingly apparent when you have kids is that roads and cars are EVERYWHERE (ditto plug sockets). To guarantee a child's safety you would have to keep them in the house at all times, or hold their hand constantly or put them on a short leash at all times when outside - not an option if they want to play in park for instance. Even in purpose built children’s country parks or theme parks there are always site vehicles moving around, which is another of my pet hates...but I'm rambling now.

Please stop accusing the people posting on this thread that admit to having smacked their children on occassion as child beaters.

Beating a child is a very different thing to smacking the back of a child's hand, when the child has been warned that as a consequence of it's behaviour, a smack would be administered. The word beating suggests a sustained attack - we are talking about the occassional light smack in an extreme situation here.

Beating a child, with an object such as a belt or a stick - or even your hands is illegal in this country as it should be. Child abuse takes many forms with physical abuse being the most obvious. People that abuse children deserve the full force of the law being thrown at them. Parents that administer a gentle slap on a rare occassion are not guilty of beating their children.

While we are at it, what about the mental abuse that people use against children? Bruises mend but being told you are worthless, useless, pointless stays with you for life. If people want to harm children, they will find ways of doing so that are not so noticable physically.

No-one that has posted here, and that has admitted to giving their chil(ren) the occassional small smack, has said that it is their only form of discipline with their children. They have all said that it is only in extreme circumstances where the child is in danger or is totally out of control. Please bear that in mind.

'Parents are getting away with hideous levels of abuse under the defence of "reasonable chastisement." '

Are they? If so then fine change the law but I've not seen any evidence to suggest this is true.

'Unless it is a serious case the police and the CPS won't waste their time on it.'

This is already the case surely?

No one has responded to my question about adults with learning disabilities. It's actually a sincere question. Should it be acceptable, and if not, why not?

I agree that mental cruelty is vile too. And it can cause physical damage as well, if you count the self harm that can occur later.

I can accept that people here have said that they only hit their children as a last resort, but who would say otherwise. A friend of mine told me about how his mother claimed that he was hit infrequently, not hard, and for his own good when there was no other way. He remembers a childhood of living in dread of random violence from his mother, never knowing if a question was going to be responded to with an answer or a slap. He felt demeaned by this treatment which had knock on effects with his school work and his ability as an adult to deal with authority.

On a lighter note, when he grew up the slaps stopped after he beat the living hell out of her. He promised that he would do the same if she ever even touched his younger brother or sister. Since then she has learned to raise a child without smacking.

Well said.

Going back to Blicky's point about parents not having foresight - children develop at an amazing & erratic speed. Many accidents happen because children suddenly acquire a new skill. It is impossible to watch them & be within reach 24/7 & even then, you cannot always be sufficiently prescient to forestall problems. My son managed to fall out of his highchair once when I was sitting beside him.

However, I have noticed that people don't seem to use reins much these days. I found them terrifically useful when my children were small - even if they managed to slip my hand, or I needed to let go (ever tried shopping totally one handed?) they could not go far. Also good to retsrain children in sshopping trolleys, buggies etc.

That was well said to mrs the wife - took a bit too long posting!

The legal issue that currently stands is this, as I understand it.

Smacking does not equal child abuse, if used as 'reasonable chastisement'; not leaving a red mark or bruising the child. This would bring the law regarding children into line with the law regarding common assualt and adults.

I also think that people must keep in mind that child abuse does not equal smacking either; even under the current, newly changed law. There are many ways of abusing a child without leaving a red mark/bruise. Whilst doing paediatrics, one can see that neglect is a common form of child abuse - and that does not require any contact at all.

You can strike a child without leaving a mark that teachers or friends will comment on, by choosing the area very carefully.

I seem to remember something that a lecturer once said to me regarding case-based law; 'difficult cases make bad law'. And although Victoria Climbie's case was a tragic one, the situation and events that led up to that tragic event were, undoubtably, unique. There are thousands of child abuse cases which do not get reported because they are not sensationalist enough for the newspapers, or the child has not died in the end - ideally, it should be these that the law is based on rather than tragic, yet extreme cases.

Stay ,
WD

**It is ludicrously unfair to ask the childless posters to justify themselves by saying "what would you do in this situation?" If you think that is justified, then stop talking about what the courts or politicians should do. You don't work as a judge, or an M.P, so by extension of this reasoning you have no say about what they do.**

The question was asked genuinely. Your idea of holding the hand tightly would be OK were it not for the fact that my tantrum throwing toddler is about as easy to hold onto as two and a half stone of angry eels covered in olive oil. Trying to carry her out to the car to get her out of the situation was impossible for the same reason.

**The reason a change in the law is needed is that it doesn't protect children. Parents are getting away with hideous levels of abuse under the defence of "reasonable chastisement." And yes, it's idiotic to think that this will stop people doing it, but it will afford better protection in law.**

Agreed. And parents that abuse their children deserve everything that they get. However, what about the police officer or social worker that as a final resort, smacks their child - will reason be used in those cases - after all even allegations (not even a conviction)of anything like this can end a career.

**Conversely, it's also pure sensationalism to claim that there will be a glut of prosecutions for minor offences. Unless it is a serious case the police and the CPS won't waste their time on it.**

I do have concerns that in the current litigious climate there will be ridiculous cases brought. We already have teachers suspended for unfounded allegations by unruly children. Older children (10 yrs upwards) certainly know their rights, we have had cases locally where they go into a shop, steal half of it and if anyone goes to restrain them the screams of assult start. Children can be extremely manipulative and I do wonder how many lives will be affected by inappropriate accusations.

**Parents are getting away with hideous levels of abuse under the defence of "reasonable chastisement."**

Abuse is abuse and such is already covered by law. If parents are 'getting away with it' there must be something wrong with the way that the CPS are prosecuting them. I find it very hard to believe that **hideous abuse** is not being punished with 'reasonable chastisement' as a successful defence. Do you know of any examples of this (I'm not trying to be difficult - just amazed that this may be the case and interested to see what actually took place).

Sorry for the tirade already covered by others... I keep having to work halfway through posting!!!

I can't point to a study or name individual cases, but I know several social workers and a child rights lawyer who have assured me of this. And these weren't cases where children were half killed. Those cases can be prosecuted, and the child more easily removed from abusive parents. I am talking about cases where children are smacked frequently without leaving lasting damage. The effect on these children of seeing parents as nothing but distributors of smacks was terrible. Kids self harming, suffering depression, basically aquiring life long mental health problems and nothing could be done because it was chastisement. If someone wants to hit their kid they can find an excuse, and excuses were being found daily. A slap to a 5 year old from a 6 foot, 12 stone guy will hurt. A slap round the head will cause damage to the brain, serious if repeated day in day out.

No one is talking about prosecution for one slap. I don't approve of it, but I can understand it and wouldn't want to see prosecutions for it. Realistically that wouldn't happen, prosecutions are expensive and difficult and the spectre of someone losing their job over it is unlikely.

Someone posted earlier that it is possible to strike a child without leaving a mark. True. This is why I would support a total ban. If that happened then there would be no confusion about how hard you could hit a child, you just wouldn't be able to, full stop. It wouldn't work, the law would be broken, but it would make parents think twice, and it really would become the last resort so many people claim it to be. I will happily break the law if my child was in danger and there would really be no other way but violence, and I believe that that would be accepted by the police.

So, any takers for the learning disabilities question?

I have no childrenof my own. If you think this disqualifiesmy opinonsthen please skip this post.



Saying what I said about parents who use running into the road and such like to excuse their child beating was not a debating ploy or point.

It was an emotional outburst.


If you cant look after your grandson properly perhaps you shouldnt be doing it thus avoiding the "need" to use physical punishments for things he can not fully understand and whats worseputtinghimin somuch potential danger.


I have a nephew who exhibits symptoms found in Aspergers, Autism and Fragile X though he has not been definatively diagnosed. When I look after him I dont ever need smack him. I didnt smack the girl who spat in my face three times at yout club because I excluded her for persistant use of bad language and bullying other young people. I didnt smack the two ten year olds who sneaked off after going to the toilet evading me and a teacher on a school visit last week.

If I was putting children in life threatening danger or feeling the "need" to smack them Id give up my job, but you parents who want to please yourselves as you and the government seem to agree it is your right to do so after all.

one love

"one handed shopping"

"two and a half stone of angry eels covered in olive oil"

Yep. I know exatctly what you mean thanks to my 3 yr old.

My wife and I also have a 13 yr old and between the 4 couples that we regularly socialise with, there are 12 kids between the ages of 2 and 13 that we all take turns looking after at one time or other.

I would never smack any of those that weren't my own and I don't beleive any of the parents within this group would either. Its a case of respecting how others bring up their kids and letting them decide where the boudries of acceptable behaiviour lie, and the punishment it incurs. (Not that I haven't thought about it on occasion)
Tell them off yes, but thats as far as it goes. Then tell the respective parent on return. This is usually greeted with " well you should have given them a clip round the ear" anyway.

I think blicky, this is why your opinions are looking from one side of the fence not having any kids of your own.

I have akid. I agree wholeheartedly with Blicky.

I notice that you don't practice life saving hitting, pie shifter. You seem able to control others children with a telling off, and the tone of your post suggests that it is retributive, rather than correctional. Som why do you feel that you have to hit your kids? At 13 surely your child must be able to speak and understand things?

"If you cant look after your grandson properly perhaps you shouldnt be doing it thus avoiding the "need" to use physical punishments for things he can not fully understand and whats worseputtinghimin somuch potential danger"

Is this directed at me?

"I have a nephew who exhibits symptoms found in Aspergers, Autism and Fragile X though he has not been definatively diagnosed. When I look after him I dont ever need smack him. I didnt smack the girl who spat in my face three times at yout club because I excluded her for persistant use of bad language and bullying other young people. I didnt smack the two ten year olds who sneaked off after going to the toilet evading me and a teacher on a school visit last week".

I never smack anyone else's child either.
"If I was putting children in life threatening danger or feeling the "need" to smack them Id give up my job, but you parents who want to please yourselves as you and the government seem to agree it is your right to do so after all"
So much "emotional outbursting"- "we parents" never put our children's lives in danger.

I really don't see where you are finding this arguement.
CHILDREN find their own danger.
We parents are trying to teach them to be SAFE.

"If I was putting children in life threatening danger or feeling the "need" to smack them Id give up my job"
You can't give up the job of being a parent.
It's a job for the rest of your life.
It's not over when they leave home, you still worry when they're married with their own kids.

I know this, I'm living it.

I have no contact with learning disabled adults, but I soon will have.

So will you smack them if they misbehave?

My dad gave up the job of being a parent, quite easily it seems. It happens quite a lot.

What a few parents here and more in RL hgave told me is that their toddlers are in positions where thay need to be smacked because they run into roads and mees with sockets.

If a creceh or other early years worker put kids in such positions the option of giving up their job would not even come into it, they'd be sacked, but parents by some strange quirk of behaviour know what is best for their children dont they and no one can tell them any different.



one love

That's because parents are not assessed for their suitability, expertise etc before they have children.

My, my.

It seems, because I admit to smacking my son (out of love, which is an idea you cannot even grap) that you have me down as an unfit parent.

It seems I'm not a fit grandmother either, even though I stated that I removed him from the care of a woman who was not looking after him properly.

It is a strange quirk of fate that I would kill anyone who so much as laid a finger on my son, yet I chastise him to keep him safe.
Does this make me a potential murderer?

The learning disabled adult whom I said I would be having contact with soon, is my own son. I don't have a crystal ball. No-one is telling me how to deal with him. No-one is preparing me for how to deal with his puberty/adolescence/adulthood.

His father also left without a backward glance.

When I said "parent for life" I meant the responsible ones.

But of course, you think me irresponsible!

How silly of me.

I can see I'm trying to have a conversation with close-minded people who are just adding to my stress, so I'll leave now, backing down and defeated.