chomp my root Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, HTG said: I don't recall ever being smacked by my parents. I do remember vividly getting the belt in primary 2 for "running on the grass". I know this isn't about the belt given how long that's been away but leathering a 6 year old for f**k all still outrages me and it's good to know that the c**t that did it will have been dead a long time now. I don't agree with hitting children so I'm fine with the ban. "Never did me any harm" is a bollocks argument. Its a very inarticulate argument but not necessarily a bollocks one. Just because it smacks of The Daily Mail doesn't mean it lacks validity, its somebodies first hand view/experience. While I share your 'judgement' to an extent, its still a fair point and as far as I can remember, one that hasn't been expressed so far, certainly not in those words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: She's not at an age to be reasoned with. When she is, that's what will happen Mine managed just fine without a smack. Its unnecessary imho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: She's not at an age to be reasoned with. When she is, that's what will happen She’s not at an age to be reasoned with but she’s at an age to be hit? Fucking hell. Honestly, that is genuinely disturbing behaviour. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: Is a tap on the arse not a very weak strike with an open hand? I'd say it is. If you like. I have never heard of any case where somebody was convicted of a weak strike/ tap/ firm relocation of another person. What the removal of s.51 of the CJSA 2003 will do is give children the same protection as adults in removing the defence of justifiable assault. An assault would still need to occur for an offence to be committed. The current position is that it is an offence to, for example, use an implement, leave marks or bruising or to commit a sustained assault. You could still give a kid a damn good whack on outer clothing without being in breach of the current law and relying on the protection of the current s.51 defence. That is what is being removed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: Mine managed just fine without a smack. Its unnecessary imho. And mine needs a tap, where's the issue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Don’t really see the big deal with it. I never did it to my daughter personally(did once and felt guilty) Did we have a bad society or unruly kids when it was common place? I don’t think we did. I’d rather deal with an adult that got smacked as a kid but had a bit of discipline now then one who never who thinks the world revolves around them and can’t take a telling which is what we appear to be getting on a societal issue with it dying out. I got smacked routinely as a wean. Got the odd proper kicking off my dad as well. Never did me any harm [emoji106] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: If you like. I have never heard of any case where somebody was convicted of a weak strike/ tap/ firm relocation of another person. What the removal of s.51 of the CJSA 2003 will do is give children the same protection as adults in removing the defence of justifiable assault. An assault would still need to occur for an offence to be committed. The current position is that it is an offence to, for example, use an implement, leave marks or bruising or to commit a sustained assault. You could still give a kid a damn good whack on outer clothing without being in breach of the current law and relying on the protection of the current s.51 defence. That is what is being removed. Depends on your point of view. To me a "tap on the arse" was a smack when I was small and still is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jimmy85 said: She’s not at an age to be reasoned with but she’s at an age to be hit? Fucking hell. Honestly, that is genuinely disturbing behaviour. What part of "tap" are you willfully ignoring? Your faux outrage is a sight to behold. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, whiskychimp said: Depends on your point of view. To me a "tap on the arse" was a smack when I was small and still is. Ok, so it is not just a wee tap to give them a bit of a fright or get their attention. Are genuinely talking about chastisement and causing physical pain to make your point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, whiskychimp said: What part of "tap" are you willfully ignoring? Your faux outrage is a sight to behold. Mate, you hit toddlers. It’s normal to be repulsed by that behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: And mine needs a tap, where's the issue The part where you are causing unnecessary pain to the child. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: Have you considered blocking access to/childproofing anything which might cause the child danger? Have you considered otherwise occupying the child? Have you considered something more intelligent than repeating something which isn't working before hitting the child? Childproofing is not a possibility. Unless you remove all furniture and pad the walls and floor. Distracting her would work but she'd return to the dangerous activity pretty quickly. I prefer to let her know at the time with a "tap" if necessary 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, heedthebaa said: The naughty step I cringe when this term is used My 22 month old granddaughter would just hurl it at you when she's in top form. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: If you like. I have never heard of any case where somebody was convicted of a weak strike/ tap/ firm relocation of another person. What the removal of s.51 of the CJSA 2003 will do is give children the same protection as adults in removing the defence of justifiable assault. An assault would still need to occur for an offence to be committed. The current position is that it is an offence to, for example, use an implement, leave marks or bruising or to commit a sustained assault. You could still give a kid a damn good whack on outer clothing without being in breach of the current law and relying on the protection of the current s.51 defence. That is what is being removed. It just seems to me that nobody likes to see a kid get a wee whack in the queue for the tills at the supermarket when mum is at the end of her tether. We all cringe inside, even those that have been there, I doubt bringing in rules will help. Certainly not for the kids who get a hiding at home. If you are lucky enough to have a kid that behaves or are a mature and wise enough parent or are dead set against laying a hand on your kid then fair enough, its a bit tight to try and prohibit those that maybe do need it or lack another option to give their kid a wee whack/skelp as opposed to a beating. It really won't have much of an impact () long term, at least in my, my mates that I have talked to tonight (text) or my daughters experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: I’d rather deal with an adult that got smacked as a kid but had a bit of discipline now then one who never who thinks the world revolves around them and can’t take a telling which is what we appear to be getting on a societal issue with it dying out. Child development - no reading required anyone can have a go !!! Unfortunately for your homespun wisdom the actual academic evidence points to exactly the opposite of the nonsense above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 You'd think going by some posters reactions on here that people who have smacked their children's bottom have instead actually kicked f**k out of them and left them lying like SweeperDees da.I think Bairnardo has it spot on when it comes to this law being introduced. As for smacking, I was smacked on occasion by my parents when I was younger, it was a wee bitty sore but it certainly taught me a lesson. Would I smack my kids if I was to ever have any? No. I think there are better ways to discipline children and like other things it's probably a very old fashioned technique now. There are two extreme attitudes from people on both sides of the fence being posted on this thread, both equally as cringeworthy as the other. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: Ok, so it is not just a wee tap to give them a bit of a fright or get their attention. Are genuinely talking about chastisement and causing physical pain to make your point? No. I class a tap as a smack. A smack can range from a tap to a wallop. A smack, by definition doesnt state it's force. Thats personal opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: The part where you are causing unnecessary pain to the child. What pain is that? Ive never hurt a child....... ......since I was a child 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 My parents never hit me but my brother who's 5 years older than me would if I did something bad. Like a proper punch to the back of my head or a rock thrown at me. Where does that come under the law? Is that OK? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, chomp my root said: It just seems to me that nobody likes to see a kid get a wee whack in the queue for the tills at the supermarket when mum is at the end of her tether. We all cringe inside, even those that have been there, I doubt bringing in rules will help. Certainly not for the kids who get a hiding at home. If you are lucky enough to have a kid that behaves or are a mature and wise enough parent or are dead set against laying a hand on your kid then fair enough, its a bit tight to try and prohibit those that maybe do need it or lack another option to give their kid a wee whack/skelp as opposed to a beating. It really won't have much of an impact () long term, at least in my, my mates that I have talked to tonight (text) or my daughters experience. The evidence in Sweden after decades of having this in place is that there never was any increased criminalisation of parents as a result. The result was a change in the ways in which people brought their children up disciplined/ educated them. People, not you I'm being broad now, are always at pains to say how this law/that law wont change xyz because.. insert extreme examples.... It is true to say the kids that take serious hidings now will continue to take serious hidings the same way some people still dont wear a seatbelt or still smoke in their cars with kids in or still drink and drive but the long term aim is to shift the average and the studies where this has been in place for years suggest that has been successful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.