Britain May Soon Outlaw Spanking

"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.

On 19 Nov 2003 04:10:33 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

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?

If you haven't snipped some of the post that addressed it folks could
see that you are too stupid to remember that the point was, "before"
they escalated to abusive injury.

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)

Bull****. No one knows what would have happened to the children in
their own rapist, vicious, parents care.


2x chance of death by Child Abuse

As above.

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

But The Plant claims sexual abuse is down. Which is it, scummy dummy?

I don't endorse angry spanking, and I have never heard
of any pro-spanker endorsing angry spanking.

That's because deep down even vicious little cretins such as you know
that it to embarrassing to admit to. You are angry be definition. It
doesn't require being out of control to be angry. Cold nasty little
pricks like you are expressing your anger when you spank or punish.

Having anger under control while spanking is important.

It makes the child feels sooooooo loved to see their parent coldly and
calculatingly plan for and then execute a spanking.

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.

There is nothing moderate in a spanking.

In fact, 90% of a class
I went to was just about nothing but NON-SPANKING.

Liar. That flies in the face of claims of your own stinking little
buddies in aps. No chance in hell CPS clients would be non-spankers.

The other advice besides DON'T SPANK was skimpy.

That's because you put your fithy mind to work and interfered in the
class. Had it been a highschool math class you'd have been out in the
hall on your way to the discipline person for the school.

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 the hell is THAT about?

Oh wait...of course....it's about YOU again isn't it?

The worst part ofthe classes in the REAL world
is that they are assigned without basis and
when completed, the student gets no proof.

No proof of what, scummy dummy? That they got it? Well, that would be
a bit of a reach now, wouldn't it. I'd assume they expect to see
results before they decide if pricks like you got it. That takes time.

I talked to one woman who had to take them
THREE times because Child Protection idiots
kept pretending she had not participated.

Oh, she is another one of those folks that you, a liar yourself,
pretends everyone on YOUR side of the issue tells the truth. She lied
to you asshole. Wakeup.

There is also a problem with expecting to
force a political position onto somebody in
this way, when spanking is completely legal.

It's not in Minnesota and other states will follow. And you need to
understand something about force. Experts in law enforcement can tell
you all about it.

We are, as primary result of punitive parenting methods used in 90% of
our family, a nation of believers NOT in moral and ethical behavior
based on the development of conscience (because punished children have
a hard time developing a conscience) but on fear and intimidation.

Sad isn't it?

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.

What a stupid little man. They don't give a **** if you change your
attitude (though they probably would feel safer leaving a child with
you....rrrrr, notice the child ISN't with you now).

Their goal is to change your stupid brutal behaviors.

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

Bull****. That means anyone through any means that attempts to
influence you in any way is in violation of the 14th. Brilliant.

Dan would be with his wish you would place your head on the railroad
tracks...R R R R

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

The have the choice of changing their ways or losing their child. I
understand that there are drunk driving offenses punished by giving
the offender the choice of jail time or probation and attending a
class.

Is THAT in violation of the 14th Amendment?

What a Sap.


Partly, think of it this way.

Disrespecting parent rights does not help kids.

What rights? The right to give cold showers as punishment to children
that have wet themselves? The right to pound on a kid for failings of
the caregiver?

The right rent kids out to perverts for drug money?

The right to abandon children to the streets?

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

Oh, now the poor parent is abused. Wonderful.

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

Crock oh mindless selfdeluded ****.

(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.

Hell, that could have been one of those situation comedy oversights of
not knowing his divorce never came through because of courthouse
glitch.

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.

You don't even know if the worker HAD children. What a dummy.

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.

Nasty little piece of work, your "fiance." You deserve each other.

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.

Well then, you child abusing freaks should stop standing around
inventing and viciously gossiping about the lives of workers.

So tell us, bright boy, how did you come about such private
information about someone else? Got it from your fellow clients,
didjah?

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

Everyone has lives with problems. If I insisted on every professional
having a perfect life I'd have no doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.
left to do the work.

Kind of like Kane's potty mouth and vulgarity.

What is it about being labeled what you are, a vicious little child
abusing prick, that is "kind of like" your comparison to your
gossiping about your betters?

That really fits when supposedly trying to
bring civility to a situation.

YOU? Civility? R R R R R...what a prick.

It's you and your torturing of the child that is obscenely uncivil,
scummy dummy.

KANE

(Daniel) wrote in message ...

Agreed - most of the smacks I got were done in the heat of the moment - but the
times I screwed up, and thought I might get smacked I did feel awful - god
knows how I'd have coped if my parents had done their spankings after half an
hour or so "calming down"

Right. I feel for the poor kids who were forced to go & choose which
belt would be used for their beating, or sent into the yard to select
a branch or "switch" as some have called it. It's psychological
abuse.

On 19 Nov 2003 16:16:12 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Greg correctly understands what the Supreme Court held in

Ingraham v Wright

That trying to control the misuse of abusive CP in schools is not or
is adequately addressed by the use of civil suits?

That is had nothing to do with parents and children, but with school
personnel and children?

Naw, I'd say he missed by a mile.

Here, read and weep:

http://tinyurl.com/vl5a

And while you are at it find the sentence, paragraph, or whatever you
can find that shows that this finding gave parents the right to spank
and post it back here. We'd love to see what you can dream up.

This bogus claim has been made for years....and it didn't even give or
stop permission of the state to do was they wished in the matter of
spanking.


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

Yessir.

Are you saying, "bendaredonedat"?

I thought so.

t gives the people
in the class the feeling they are in the
American Gulag.

Well said! Well, at least you are a participant in the compelled
Child Abuse
Industry SCAM. ;-))

Greegor the Whore? I would have sworn he was a victim...r r r r

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


Gosh, I wish folks could get together and force a FED LAWSUIT.

They aren't as stupid as you, or as childlish, Caladium.

Cross state lines. Is there anything like this on bigclassaction
site?

Slaver, drool, spittle flying, the Sap Leaking Pine Tree delivers yet
another brilliant essay on the evils of CPS.


Disrespecting parent rights does not help kids.

Indeed, it fosters DISRESPECT FOR THE ENTIRE system.

I don't think CPS gives, or should give, a whit for "RESPECT" or dis.

It's purview is child protection, not popularity.

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

It is the refuge of the coward and those who have no real argument.
Just AD
HOMS.

I'm so tickled that you don't use ad hom style posting..... r r r r

Just one thoughtful sharing after another all backed by solid academic
sourcing with easy to access citations...yessireeebob...

From the Latin "to the man". As in, when you have no rational
response you
ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE MESSENGER.

Well, I have to admit to a fit of pique now and then at how you talk
about me in your posts...tsk....

Doesn't work at all. In fact, it encourages backlash. So keep it
up, K-9.

Funny, I notice a resounding silence, from all but you, and the
sockpuppet dipwads that can't figure out how to mount a decent flame
let alone a real argument with factual support.

Now if I have to be afraid of "backlash" from you and The Whore, I'll
tell you, I'm just terrified.

R R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R R R R R .... gasp.... R R R R R R R
R

Please, you are breaking me up. Even with that A number one report
back on my annual physical I am old yah know and yah wouldn't want to
be the death of me, wouldyahnow? R R R R R R R

wheeze

Kane

"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.


I have 2 thoughts on this:

1. It is really pathetic that we need a law to keep us from hitting each
other. My favorite... I was at McPlayland with my son the other rainy day. A
mom intervened with her 4yo son who just hit another kid. "Don't hit" she
says as she smacks him on the behind.

2. Despite #1, it gives me the shivers to think of a government getting in
the middle of the family. I wish there was another way.


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.

On 19 Nov 2003 09:57:56 -0800, (Shorty
Blackwell) wrote:

(Daniel) wrote in message ...

Agreed - most of the smacks I got were done in the heat of the
moment - but the
times I screwed up, and thought I might get smacked I did feel
awful - god
knows how I'd have coped if my parents had done their spankings
after half an
hour or so "calming down"

Right. I feel for the poor kids who were forced to go & choose which
belt would be used for their beating, or sent into the yard to select
a branch or "switch" as some have called it. It's psychological
abuse.

From project no spank web site at:

http://nospank.net/lndgrn.htm


"Never Violence
By Astrid Lindgren
Reprinted from Father Times, Spring 1995, Volume 3, Issue 4. Astrid
Lindgren is author of Pippi Longstocking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above all, I believe that there should never be any violence. In 1978
I received a peace prize in West Germany for my books, and I gave an
accepting speech that I called just that: "Never Violence." And in
that speech I told a story from my own experience.

When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor's wife who told me
that when she was young and had her first child, she didn't believe in
striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a
tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day when her son was
four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking -
the first of his life. And she told him that he would have to go
outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a
long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her,
"Mama, I couldn't find a switch, but here's a rock that you can throw
at me."

All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the
child's point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it
makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it
with a stone. And the mother took the boy onto her lap and they both
cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind
herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think
everyone should keep in mind. Because violence begins in the nursery—
one can raise children into violence."

Chris,

So many countries have legally banned the barbaric prractice of hitting and
hurting little children in the name of discipline. I've always believed that
in time Britain would follow suit, and it now appears that that this legal
action may happen.

What do you see in the future of children in the US?

LaVonne

Chris wrote:

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.

Fern5827 wrote:

Won't pass, except by trickery:

Why does it disturb you so much that a country may pass a law that protects
children?

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.

And if it does passes, it will be rapidly repealed.

Fern is now omniscient. She predicts the future! Wow! What a useful
person to have on the ng (grin)!

Seriously Fern, thank you for your continued presence on
alt.parentinig.spanking. You provide a constant example of why the US needs
law that protect children from being hit and hurt in the name of discipline.

LaVonne



Ever see the debates from the BBC from the Houses of Lords and Commons?

Sure beats the US style of debate.

Chris is smoking something illusory:

Subject: Britain May Soon Outlaw Spanking
From: Chris
Date: 11/18/2003 4:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:


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.

And it couldn't happen soon enough!

Shorty Blackwell wrote:

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.

ChrisScaife wrote:

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

By passing laws that send a clear message that spanking children is not legal
or acceptable. Over time, this changes normative thinkking.

Do you send the offending parents to jail ?

Not unless the child's life is in danger. This law does not have to include
jail time. Many laws do not include jail time.

Who looks after the kids then ?

Unless the child's life is in danger, the child remains with the family. A
massive education campaign on the dangers of spanking and alternatibes that
have far better outcomes should occur prior to passage of the law. If this
doesn't happen, each parent who appears in court due to spanking should
receive inforation.

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

We are talking about parenting strategies. Hitting in anger may kill more
children but calculated heating demonstrates violence as an acceptable way to
deal with anger and with people who displease us. Is that what we want to
teach our children?

LaVonne



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.