x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

Chris Grayling defends child smacking
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18241		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  pcernie [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Chris Grayling defends child smacking
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21311916

I've no problem with it, but it does depend on how far the parent goes and the specific 'needs' of the kid.
Author:  big_D [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
I don't see the problem, if it is used as a punishment of last resort. If it becomes a "daily ritual" for every little thing that the child does wrong, then it isn't a good punishment and the parents need to be dealt with.

On the other hand, I was smacked probably a dozen times during my childhood. Each time I had done something seriously bad or dangerous and when I received a smack, I knew I had done something very wrong and I would think about it and I certainly wouldn't repeat it!

I agree about the prisons as well. It is supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday camp.
Author:  cloaked_wolf [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
There's child smacking and there's child abuse. The former is a form of discipline and IMO acceptable. The latter is inexcusable. The problem is that it can be a thin line and parents can sometimes be pushed over it.
Author:  JJW009 [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
Parents need some form of quick punishment of last resort. You can't use "the naughty step" in every situation.

However, physical punishment can create resentment and distrust in the child. That's not healthy for the family. It's also very easy for a parent to get angry with a child who simply will not stop whatever, which can lead to a smack turning into something a lot harder than they might have really intended.

For most young kids, simply raising your voice firmly is sufficient. The same is true for most dogs. However, what do you do with a kid (or dog) that really is determined to be bad? Sometimes you just want to strangle the little *&%$$!

Balanced discipline isn't an easy line to tread. Luckily of course, any child of mine would be acute little angle.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
JJW009 wrote:
For most young kids, simply raising your voice firmly is sufficient. The same is true for most dogs. However, what do you do with a kid (or dog) that really is determined to be bad? Sometimes you just want to strangle the little *&%$$!

I found that the solution was to raise my arm straight up when my dog wanted to ignore me. Once he saw that, he knew he was in trouble and would come knowing that he was going to be hit. The quicker he came the less painful the smack. The longer I waited the harder I hit the dog. Though it was became unnecessary as the dog became deaf and that would be cruel so I stopped. Though the dog used to keep an eye out for me so would follow me it became unnecessary as well.
Author:  l3v1ck [ Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
cloaked_wolf wrote:
There's child smacking and there's child abuse. The former is a form of discipline and IMO acceptable. The latter is inexcusable. +1

I have no problem with smacking as long at it's a last resort rather than the standard punishment.
My boy is four and I've only had to resort to smacking him twice, and one of those was an instinctive reaction to him biting me when he was quite young. Normally I find 'time outs' to be very effective.
Author:  jonlumb [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
I think if there is to be smacking (and personally I'm fine with it) there needs to be two significant caveats; it shouldn't be a first resort, and it should always be done under control. I'd probably add as well that it shouldn't be done in public either.
Author:  Spreadie [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
I don't smack my kids, but I reserve the right to; should the need arise. Whatever that need is is my frikkin business - I raise them, and I have the right to discipline them. I accept that some people will take it too far, but a ban on smacking won't stop people like that abusing kids.
Author:  l3v1ck [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re: Chris Grayling defends child smacking
jonlumb wrote:
I'd probably add as well that it shouldn't be done in public either.

I disagree with that. The one example my wife uses for when she'd smack, is if a child did something dangerous, like running out into a road.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/