Britain May Soon Outlaw Spanking

British parents set to lose right to smack children

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

Parents' right to smack their children would finally be abolished under a
historic attempt to outlaw physical punishment within the home. The
Government is expected to include new laws on protecting children from
abuse in the Queen's Speech next week, in response to the death of
Victoria Climbi, the little girl who was killed in London by her
great-aunt after social workers missed glaring signs that she was in
danger.

Labour MPs are planning to tack an amendment onto the Child Protection
Bill which would outlaw parental smacking, following warnings that too
many abusive parents cover up ill-treatment by insisting that bruises are
the result of 'normal' discipline. They are optimistic that Ministers will
allow a free vote on the issue.

'The abolition of a husband's right to beat his wife surely did something
about the status of women in our society, and in the same way this is
about another kind of domestic violence,' said David Hinchliffe, chair of
the Commons Health Select Committee.

'In every single classroom in this country there will be at least one
child getting hit [at home]. More than one child a week dies at the hands
of a parent or carer. For me, this is unfinished business and I want to
see this change through before I go,' he said.

Smacking has become a political hot potato, with Education Secretary
Charles Clarke said to be privately sympathetic to reform, but Downing
Street fearing an outcry over interfering in parents' behaviour. So far,
every attempt by MPs to get it banned has failed.

Two years ago, the Department of Health ruled out a ban, insisting that
most parents wanted the freedom to inflict discipline in any way they saw
fit.

Subsequent attempts by the Scottish Executive to ban parents from hitting
young children under two or from beating children with implements were
torpedoed last year by Assembly members after a public outcry, while
numerous attempts at Westminster to introduce Private Member's Bills
banning smacking have run into the sand.

However, MPs have noted that corporal punishment in schools was originally
abolished by a backbench amendment on a free vote, a device often used to
nod through social changes - including the legalisation of abortion -
which a Government finds too controversial to sign up to openly.

Hinchliffe was 'optimistic' Ministers would allow a free vote on smacking:
one recent survey found a majority of Labour MPs would back a ban if given
a free vote, making it overwhelmingly likely to be carried.

Although a study by the National Family and Parenting Institute last year
found there was no evidence that mild slaps delivered within a loving
relationship damaged a child, it concluded that physical punishment did
not work in changing behaviour - and there was statistical evidence that
parents who smacked were more likely to slide into more serious abuse.

More than 80 MPs of all parties have signed a Commons motion backing the
move, while Lord Laming - the judge who held a landmark inquiry into the
Climbi case - hinted strongly in evidence to Hinchliffe's committee that
he was personally against parental smacking.

However, many parents may fear being hauled through the courts for a slap
that had been delivered in the heat of the moment. Three-quarters of
parents in one Department of Health survey admitted they had hit their
children.

Hinchliffe will publish a presentation Bill - a device to raise the
profile of an issue, but which does not bring a change in law - on
Tuesday, calling for the abolition of the defence of 'reasonable
chastisement', under which a parent can defend hitting a child by arguing
it was proportionate discipline. But the real aim is to amend the Bill
when it is introduced in the coming year.

The Child Protection Bill is one of several child-centred initiatives
expected in the Queen's Speech - the Government's annual list of
legislation that it expects to push through - and in its manifesto before
the next general election.

Chris wrote in message ...
British parents set to lose right to smack children

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

Parents' right to smack their children would finally be abolished under a
historic attempt to outlaw physical punishment within the home.

Amen.

Fully support the idea, but how do you enforce it ?

Do you send the offending parents to jail ?

Who looks after the kids then ?

As for heat-of-the-moment. Hitting a child in anger is probably what kills
them. Not a calculated slap of the wrist.

People who loose their temper and become violent should have therapy and
perhaps they should have their children taken into foster care before it is
too late.

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message ...
Fully support the idea, but how do you enforce it ?

Do you send the offending parents to jail ?

Who looks after the kids then ?

Can we fine the parents, or perhaps commit them to community service?

On 18 Nov 2003 14:07:41 -0800, (Shorty
Blackwell) wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
"ChrisScaife" wrote in message ...
Fully support the idea, but how do you enforce it ?

Do you send the offending parents to jail ?

Who looks after the kids then ?

Can we fine the parents, or perhaps commit them to community service?

I think 'sentencing' them to some child care classes might be a better
solution. One of the most important jobs out there, but there is no
training available on being a good parent (and that includes
appropriate disciplinary measures).

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7 May 2003, 17 hours: sunrise to sunset (homebirth)

To e-mail use: megan at farr-montgomery dot com

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:29:10 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:

Fully support the idea, but how do you enforce it ?

Fines, assignment of services, attendance at classes, and if they
still don't get the picture, a little jail time. Too bad adults can't
be whipped any more legally. That might give them a bit of an idea of
what is happening when they hit a child and call it spanking.


Do you send the offending parents to jail ?


Naw, just the incouragable.

Who looks after the kids then ?

Relatives if it comes to that.

As for heat-of-the-moment. Hitting a child in anger is probably what
kills
them.

Yep, and also by the cold calculated escalation because with many
braver and tougher children, or more driven by nature to explore
children, spanking doesn't work very well.

Not a calculated slap of the wrist.

So death is not okay but injury is. Okay, I see now.

People who loose their temper and become violent should have therapy
and
perhaps they should have their children taken into foster care before
it is
too late.

Yes, that IS the problem now isn't it. But we have rights in this
country, and I understand in Britain as well, that limits the
government from doing that. One must be tried and found wanting to the
degree that the child would be in danger if returned.

Kane

As for heat-of-the-moment. Hitting a child in anger is probably what
kills
them.

Yep, and also by the cold calculated escalation because with many
braver and tougher children, or more driven by nature to explore
children, spanking doesn't work very well.

Not a calculated slap of the wrist.

So death is not okay but injury is. Okay, I see now.

Well no, I wasn't condoning that either, but definitely don't think the
heat-of-the moment excuse is valid!

On the other hand thinking back, sometimes you have to act, like when my son
tried to grab a baking hot pizza tray (not realising it was hot) I slapped
his hands away before he got burnt. Technically it was a slap I suppose, but
not for punishment. Where do you draw the line ?


People who loose their temper and become violent should have therapy
and
perhaps they should have their children taken into foster care before
it is
too late.

Yes, that IS the problem now isn't it. But we have rights in this
country, and I understand in Britain as well, that limits the
government from doing that. One must be tried and found wanting to the
degree that the child would be in danger if returned.

Kane

(Kane) wrote in message . com...

Too bad adults can't
be whipped any more legally. That might give them a bit of an idea of
what is happening when they hit a child and call it spanking.


It's a great point. I don't encourage violence toward any human
(adult or otherwise), but I do think, similar to the death penalty,
it's the dreadful apprehension of knowing you are soon to be hit by
your parent that causes a great deal of pain for the child.

ChrisScaife wrote
People who loose their temper and become violent
should have therapy and perhaps they should have
their children taken into foster care before it is
too late.

Before it is too late for what?

Kids in FOSTER CARE in the US:

8x more Child Abuse (maybe more taking into account the way CPS
agencies see Fosters as allies in their cause)

2x chance of death by Child Abuse

10x chance of sexual abuse (some from other kids in foster care)

I don't endorse angry spanking, and I have never heard
of any pro-spanker endorsing angry spanking.
Having anger under control while spanking is important.

Part of the problems anti-spankers have created for
normal conservative spankers is that all of the
Parent Skills classes are totalitarian anti-spanking
and don't teach moderation. In fact, 90% of a class
I went to was just about nothing but NON-SPANKING.
The other advice besides DON'T SPANK was skimpy.
Regarding a villifying ex or relative, the best
suggestion was to ignore it. Some of you might
already know that this sort of problem often
does NOT go away when ignored, and can fester and
get worse.

The worst part ofthe classes in the REAL world
is that they are assigned without basis and
when completed, the student gets no proof.
I talked to one woman who had to take them
THREE times because Child Protection idiots
kept pretending she had not participated.

There is also a problem with expecting to
force a political position onto somebody in
this way, when spanking is completely legal.
Having a court order a person to change a
political view of something completely legal
is quite problematic. It gives the people
in the class the feeling they are in the
American Gulag.

It also violates the 14th Amendment right
to hold unpopular views.

Classes that people are forced into are
generally not as effective because of
them being forced onto the student.

Partly, think of it this way.

Disrespecting parent rights does not help kids.

Abusing parents does not teach them to be better to their kids.

Corrupt caseworkers with crappy personal lives
themselves don't impress parents as role models.

(One guy fathered 2nd kid with 2nd wife while
still married to his first wife with his first kid.)
Fathering a child in adultery doesn't impress parents.

Another caseworker got beat all to heck, up and down,
then ran down to the courthouse to lift no-contact
order immediately. If one of her client mothers had
done that, she would be filing for CHILD REMOVAL.
Even funnier, my fiance' watched her showing off
an engagement ring at the courthouse and the female
state idiots were fawning all over her, the whole time
knowing her fiance had beat her terribly just 6
weeks before. My fiance was joking about
subliminally uttering "wife beater" while
clearing her throat.

The cure is worse than the disease.
Partly because of having corrupt liars standing
around gossipping, lieing and pointing fingers.
People who don't have their OWN act together first.

Their usual solution is to try to conceal the dirt
which oozes out of their own lives, but it often
gets out anyway.

Kind of like Kane's potty mouth and vulgarity.
That really fits when supposedly trying to
bring civility to a situation.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
ChrisScaife wrote
People who lose their temper and become violent
should have therapy and perhaps they should have
their children taken into foster care before it is
too late.

Before it is too late for what?

For their story to be written in a newspaper.

Kids in FOSTER CARE in the US:

8x more Child Abuse (maybe more taking into account the way CPS
agencies see Fosters as allies in their cause)

2x chance of death by Child Abuse

10x chance of sexual abuse (some from other kids in foster care)

I don't endorse angry spanking, and I have never heard
of any pro-spanker endorsing angry spanking.
Having anger under control while spanking is important.

Part of the problems anti-spankers have created for
normal conservative spankers is that all of the
Parent Skills classes are totalitarian anti-spanking
and don't teach moderation.

What moderation, Greg?

In fact, 90% of a class
I went to was just about nothing but NON-SPANKING.
The other advice besides DON'T SPANK was skimpy.
Regarding a villifying ex or relative, the best
suggestion was to ignore it. Some of you might
already know that this sort of problem often
does NOT go away when ignored, and can fester and
get worse.

What sort of problem?

The worst part ofthe classes in the REAL world
is that they are assigned without basis and
when completed, the student gets no proof.
I talked to one woman who had to take them
THREE times because Child Protection idiots
kept pretending she had not participated.

Maybe she was pretending she did participate.

There is also a problem with expecting to
force a political position onto somebody in
this way, when spanking is completely legal.
Having a court order a person to change a
political view of something completely legal
is quite problematic. It gives the people
in the class the feeling they are in the
American Gulag.

It also violates the 14th Amendment right
to hold unpopular views.

Classes that people are forced into are
generally not as effective because of
them being forced onto the student.

Partly, think of it this way.

Disrespecting parent rights does not help kids.

Abusing parents does not teach them to be better to their kids.

It's abusive to the parents to teach them that there are better ways to
discipline their children than spanking them?

Corrupt caseworkers with crappy personal lives
themselves don't impress parents as role models.

Who cares about the lives of the CWs?

The parent (and you're not one of them , Greg) is only responsible for
themselves and their children.

To hell with the CWs.

(One guy fathered 2nd kid with 2nd wife while
still married to his first wife with his first kid.)
Fathering a child in adultery doesn't impress parents.

Why should you care?

A parent should be focussing on themselves and their children.

Another caseworker got beat all to heck, up and down,
then ran down to the courthouse to lift no-contact
order immediately. If one of her client mothers had
done that, she would be filing for CHILD REMOVAL.
Even funnier, my fiance' watched her showing off
an engagement ring at the courthouse and the female
state idiots were fawning all over her, the whole time
knowing her fiance had beat her terribly just 6
weeks before. My fiance was joking about
subliminally uttering "wife beater" while
clearing her throat.

"Subliminally????"

The cure is worse than the disease.

Explain what you mean, Greg.

Partly because of having corrupt liars standing
around gossipping, lieing and pointing fingers.
People who don't have their OWN act together first.

So if people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... they should
leave you alone to wait in the bathroom for the little girl to finish
showering.

Their usual solution is to try to conceal the dirt
which oozes out of their own lives, but it often
gets out anyway.

Who cares?

Kind of like Kane's potty mouth and vulgarity.
That really fits when supposedly trying to
bring civility to a situation.

You think spanking a nonrelated little girl brings civility to the
situation, Greg?

Just curious.