Come back Mr Bumble, all is forgiven.

[Gobsmacked]

When Mr. Bumble (in Charles Dickens' ''Oliver Twist'') stated "If the law supposes that sir, the law is a ass" the law was nowhere near as much of "a ass" as it is today.

Alas we now have a situation designed allegedly to protect children from abuse, but which I fear will in fact do no such thing. Children are being given "protection" from and recourse to legal action against their own parents should those parents have cause to administer the mildest smack. The parents who thus lovingly admonish their children, and I do emphasise the lovingly, will now be criminalised.

I venture to suggest that this will not deter situations of actual abuse where a child is too terrified of the adult concerned to even consider reporting such abuse for fear of further "punishment". It will however affect the normal loving household where a child in a bit of a strop, having been chastised by a parent, will decide to "tell the police over you" and the situation will snowball far beyond what the child ever intended in the heat of the moment, or in fact ever contemplated. (How many children fully understand the consequences of their actions?) The parents could end up facing a prison sentence, thus depriving the child of the loving home environment whilst those whom this idiotic move claims to be protecting will continue to be abused and live in fear.

I quote this mornings "Comment" in the Daily Mail
"This has nothing to do with the genuine issues of child cruelty and abuse, which are shamefully prevalent in our society. The loathsome adults who mistreat children deserve every penalty of the law. But there is a huge difference between such savagery and the responsible discipline born of affection and concern"

Amen to that. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Acrylic-bob]

When did we vote to allow the NSPCC the right to promote legislation in Parliament? I must have been out of the country that day.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Have we got any laws to protect the parents when a child hits them and they can no longer do anything to protect themselves? Some teenagers are very strong, I know I've come across them in schools. Does the abused parent now have to simply sit back and take it for fear of being prosecuted?

[lettie]

Laws such as this do not stop abuse. I was only smacked once by my dad as a child, once was enough, the threat of another smack made me behave. I consider that this smack did me no harm. There are too many do- gooders in this country who are unable to see the wood for the trees. If you pop down to Accy social services on any day of the week there will be a case conference about a child protection issue. Unfortunately these families who abuse their kids are never infertile, so I have attended plenty of these. The abuse isn't always physical, sometimes it is a matter of neglect ie, children coming a cropper when left home alone - toddlers especially. Sometimes the abuse is emotional or sexual but there's plenty of genuine abuse going on. Maybe the law should be looking at ways to stop these sick individuals interfering with their kids before it picks on those who deal out a well timed and well deserved, one-off smack.

[Busman747]

The papers today are full of quotes from those that agree with the latest legislation and I notice that they use the word "hit" rather than "smack" to emphasise their point of view.

One person who was AGAINST the legislation was our own Greg Pope. He was amonst the rebels that felt that the government hadn't gone far enough and that parents should be fined/inprisoned for the gentlest of taps on their offspring.

He reckons that he has never in his life smacked his three children......but I wonder how much time and involvement he had with them when they were young, or did he leave that sort of thing to his wife?

(This is quite remenisent of a previous post )

[WillowTheWhisp]

I agree with Lettie that this law will not stop abuse. Those children whose parents actually hit them will be too afraid of being hit again to report to anyone. The only parents who will suffer (and consequently their children) will be the ordinary caring loving parents.

A lot of abuse is invisible too, such as emotional abuse which can leave far more permanent damage but no evidence.

Oddly enough we were in a butty shop today and whilst waiting for our turn I noticed a "Daily Star" which had a totally different report saying that the government had been defeated.

One thing I do find interesting is that Tony "I admit I smacked my older children when they were small" Blaire did not participate in the vote.

[-pixie]

My blood was boiling yesterday when this subject came on the news. In my opinion its the Nanny State going way too far.
I am 25 and look at some teenagers and just think that what they need is a smacked bottom. And that if their parents had given them that when they were little, they might not be such louts today.
I do NOT want my one year old turning out like that. And if I have to smack his bottom as a last resort once in a while its a small price to pay in my eyes. I rather a few tears from him over a smacked bottom when he was younger, than complaints about his behaviour in years to come and me wondering where it all went wrong.


I would just like to add that obviously I am not smacking my little lad NOW - he's only one. I'm just making the point that if its needed in the future myself and my partner fully reserve the right to smack.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think I now understand this apparent discrepancy in the reports which I read and the one Gobsmacked commented on.

ALL smacking is not banned, only something which results in a "mark" of any kind which on the surface of it is the distinction we were trying to make previously between a smack and a hit, where the former is a non-violent quickly administered admonishment and the latter is violent and harmful.

Some had wanted ALL to be banned, including the lightest tap, which would have been ludicrous because that could have got completely out of hand if a child took a parent to court for even placing a hand on their shoulder. Don't laugh because that has happened to teachers who have tried to hold a child back from pushing past others in a corridor for example and been accused of physical abuse. That part was defeated. What we are left with is a distinction between something which doesn't leave a mark and something which does.

The problem seems to be how to define "mark". As somebody said in my paper, some children's skin reacts more than others so that briefly a redness may appear even though the cause was not as severe as something suffered by another child whose skin shows no reaction. Also how do you later prove whether a mark was or wasn't there? Surely only something like bruising should be recorded as a mark?

I'd like to hope that common sense will prevail here and that it will mean that only those who physically harm their children to the point of bruising will be the ones who are punished. I can't help but think that it opens a way for children who are peeved at their parents to report something to the police as a gross exaggeration, and by the time they regret their actions the ball will already have started rolling and there'll be nothing they can do about it.

What about the neglected child who has suffered from a lack of discipline to the point of not knowing right from wrong. Isn't that also child abuse? You can't see it the same but you can certainly see the effects.

[-pixie]

It makes me wonder what sort of upbringing these so-called politicians had that makes them get their knickers in such a twist over such a small thing as a disciplined smack. I mean I used to get some right cracks across the back of my legs from my mum that hurt like hell when I was really bad, but I laugh about them now. Smacks like that left some great patterns on my legs.

I can only think that they a) didn't get smacked enough as a child, or b) they got smacked TOO much and it caused permanant brain damage.

[Busman747]

Originally Posted by -pixie

It makes me wonder what sort of upbringing these so-called politicians had that makes them get their knickers in such a twist over such a small thing as a disciplined smack. .

Maybe it has very little to do with the politicians up-bringing, and more to do with politics! The R.S.P.C.A is a huge charity and is one of the wealthiest in the country. I wonder what percentage of their income is spent on influencing political decisions instead of dealing directly with cruelty to children? I can understand them wanting a safer environment for minors and of course, should put pressure on M.P's but they, like the hunting fraternity seem to have far more "clout" than most other organisations

Saying that, I like your analysis (below) of politicians

Originally Posted by -pixie

I can only think that they a) didn't get smacked enough as a child, or b) they got smacked TOO much and it caused permanant brain damage.

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by Busman747

The R.S.P.C.A is a huge charity and is one of the wealthiest in the country. I wonder what percentage of their income is spent on influencing political decisions instead of dealing directly with cruelty to children?

Well, the RSPCA is certainly getting too big for it's boots if it is trying to promote childrens rights now, as well as those of animals.

[Busman747]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Well, the RSPCA is certainly getting too big for it's boots if it is trying to promote childrens rights now, as well as those of animals.

Damn! Willow "mentioned" my mistake after 4 hours in her company!! "Oooh, almost forgot Busman, you've dropped a clanger on the Accy web!" I knew someone would pick up on it before I could amend Anyway, N.S.P.C.C. ...But in my defence, I was thinking at the time that the R.S.P.C.A also "held" power over politicians and yes A-b, you win a coconut!

[WillowTheWhisp]

ops: I remembered........................but then I forgot.

[ShortStuff]

No child that is actually being abused (physically or otherwise) is going to speak up against their parents, as many people have already pointed out. Adults must speak up for them. I've read a few true stories were unfortunately the violence has been taken too far and a child has been killed. But what is almost as shocking, is when the neighbour testifies in court to say they often hear loud noises and then the child excessively screaming - if that was the case why didn't they tell the authorities? I couldn't imagine the guilt I would feel if I thought a child was being abused and I didn't do anything to try to stop it - even at risk of being proven wrong (which would be the better result anyway).

[WillowTheWhisp]

I agree with you there. It's far better to risk being wrong than to risk a child's safety and life.