http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4080293.stm

I think this is disproportionate punishment and something has gone wrong here.

would you prefer the police to ignore it and leave a child potentially at risk of harm? it has to be a hard smack to knock a child right over...

I was smacked as a kid and it hasnt turned me into a violent person. At the time I may have thought it was harsh and either cried for attention or because of the pain, but I only got it if I did something wrong, so I learned to be good.

When I eventually have kids I will smack them if I think it is necessary, certainly not as a first option.

If you don't hit them hard enough, later on in life you'll be sued for groping them ffs! :gag: Not only that, but a smack that doesnt hit home means you're more likely to misbehave again.

We're seriously lacking in deterrents in this country...

"Another witness describes the child being hit so hard he left the ground"

Sounds to me like if he had hit an adult with proportionally similar force, he would be facing charges of assault, battery, abh etc.

Is this to be condemned?

If a child is shown no disipline or taught respect for anything (including moving vehicles)by parents, who do we blame when things go wrong...teachers...that bad lot they knock around with...policemen...who is it ?
I think the 6 months sentence was pathetic, child abuse, yes but to smack a child on the bottom for what could have been a nasty accident, it speaks for itself.........or does it ?

Did you read the whole article? The kid was misbehaving by trying to run in front of a CAR!!

Boy can I understand if the father struck him with more emotion than is normally acceptable.

The kid will probably suffer more mental scars from the six month separation and the stress caused to the mother.

Yeah. Well done. :clap: :suspect:

Originally posted by pigupig
would you prefer the police to ignore it and leave a child potentially at risk of harm? it has to be a hard smack to knock a child right over...

Did the Police decide the punishment?

Originally posted by Strix
Did you read the whole article? The kid was misbehaving by trying to run in front of a CAR!!

Boy can I understand if the father struck him with more emotion than is normally acceptable.

The kid will probably suffer more mental scars from the six month separation and the stress caused to the mother.

Yeah. Well done. :clap: :suspect:

Well said.

And the boy concerned has had his family split apart and deprived of his father for six months - which for a young child is like an eternity. He has had a more severe punishment than the father.

So 'smacking' a kid with enough force that (s)he "leaves the ground" is not something to be condemned or even tolerated, but held up as an example of good parenting?

So, that is your idea of condemning it, is it?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So 'smacking' a kid with enough force that (s)he "leaves the ground" is not something to be condemned or even tolerated, but held up as an example of good parenting?

Doesn't take much force to move a child though, does it. My cousin is 11 years old and I can still push him over with one feeble hand (in a playfight fashion).

The policeman should probably have taken the father to the police station and left him to calm down for a bit. All this separation crap hasn't made things any better, he probably regretted hitting the child the minute it was done.

Leaving the ground is something kids are good at even when there is no smack involved, the answer no is usually a good indication, then there's the flinging themselves on the floor and the" I won't get up until i'm pulled up"does that warrant a 6 months sentence as well??

Originally posted by twinky1
Leaving the ground is something kids are good at even when there is no smack involved, the answer no is usually a good indication, then there's the flinging themselves on the floor and the" I won't get up until i'm pulled up"does that warrant a 6 months sentence as well?? Just what the conversation chez Strix had concluded

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, that is your idea of condemning it, is it?

Is what my idea of condemning what?


I'm curious that most contributors thus far are treating this story as if the man had smacked the child on the bottom as a loving reprimand.

So, just to recap - for people who have not read the linked story:

A father who was banned from his family home for six months after smacking his son in public has been allowed back after admitting common assault.

A man has admitted common assault after an incident where he hit his three year old child so hard that the boy left the ground. He wasn't prosecuted under "smacking laws".

He pleaded guilty in court. He was sentenced to a 2 year rehabilitation order, which does not preclude contact with his son at all.

The sixth months of no contact had nothing to do with the court verdict, it was a matter of length of time to come to trial.

It's got to be a traumatic experience for the whole family. Easily avoided - as the man himself admitted - the force he had used was excessive.

I was smacked also as a child and it did no harm to me.

It taught me some respect of authority and that does no harm

However, I doubt when I have kids that I will smack them. I will teach them self discipline!

So exactly what are we discussing it for Phan??

I know. Ban the forum. After all, if the mods think we're not entitled to a point of view :rolleyes:

Admitting guilt without joining 'fathers for justice' is a good indication he IS a responsible and caring parent.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Is what my idea of condemning what?


I'm curious that most contributors thus far are treating this story as if the man had smacked the child on the bottom as a loving reprimand.

So, just to recap - for people who have not read the linked story:



A man has admitted common assault after an incident where he hit his three year old child so hard that the boy left the ground. He wasn't prosecuted under "smacking laws".

He pleaded guilty in court. He was sentenced to a 2 year rehabilitation order, which does not preclude contact with his son at all.

The sixth months of no contact had nothing to do with the court verdict, it was a matter of length of time to come to trial.

It's got to be a traumatic experience for the whole family. Easily avoided - as the man himself admitted - the force he had used was excessive.

Yes - That was one of the bail conditions - why?

It may be that the man used too much force in administering the smack. But it was a single smack - not a repeated action.

Did this really merit the disproportionate, heavy-handed response? Was there any evidence that the child was in danger of repeated abuse?

The child could have been put on the 'at risk' register, and the situation monitored. As it was, the mother was left to fend for herself, trying to care for two young children, the father being forbidden to help. I say that is disproportionate for one smack, which was deserved although given with too much force, although nobody has suggested that the boy was caused any serious injury as a result.

It has to be a traumatic experience to see your child nearly killed in a RTA, the father may have reacted with more force than would usually be given, but the smack would not have been as bad as the result could have been.
The father obviously did not pre-meditate the smack so it wasn't any real kind of abuse.

Perhaps it's just coz they were a 'normal' family. If they'd been dole scroungin' spongers, and the dad had a criminal record, the 'authorities' would have protected the father better.

But that's wandering into the realms of assumption

Originally posted by Strix
So exactly what are we discussing it for Phan??

Well you tell me Strix. Why are you discussing it? I am discussing it because many contributors thus far seem to think that the 6 month separation that family suffered, was somehow a punishment meted out by the court, when it fact it was caused by normal child protection procedure and a very lengthy time to trial, neither issue having been raised thus far.

The thread is titled: Smacking children - How about this for a court verdict? which appears to have led to a series of erroneous assumptions.


I know. Ban the forum. After all, if the mods think we're not entitled to a point of view :rolleyes:

What are you on about? Me or Lickszz?
Do you suffer from a persecution complex, or have I in any way whatsoever implied, inferred or directly stated in any of my posts, ever, that you or anyone else are not entitled to a point of view? Perhaps there is a third, more innocuous explanation for your disparaging attitude. I look forward to it.

Admitting guilt without joining 'fathers for justice' is a good indication he IS a responsible and caring parent.
I agree, not simply admitting guilt in court but admitting he had used excessive force.

I don't think a 2 year rehabilitation order is a harsh punishment. Am I alone? Surely the man has admitted comitting a criminal offence. Tough on crime and the causes of it right?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Tough on crime and the causes of it right?

So long as they can say they've reduced crime, that's all that matters. The criminals are fast becoming you and I, the honest, easy to catch ones - not the nasty b**tards who actually need to be caught.

Smacking a tot for running out in front of a car - I did the same once and I was smacked too. Hard as well. Taught me not to do it again. Would not expect my mum to be taken away for 6 months for it. Never.

it wouldnt have taken 6 months to come to trial if the father had admitted it straight away and therefore the separation was self inflicted whilst he fought the court action before eventually admitting it. once charged, people are bailed to court within about a week and if they are pleading guilty then they are dealt with straight away.

Trying not to ramble and bore anybody to death:

I hope the conviction does not affect this guy's ability to keep/find a job to support his family in the future.

If life were as cut and dried as you are portraying Phan, it would be alot simpler.

sounds like an issue of the system causing a problem.
Without seeing it we can't really judge, but he was presumably arrested with the intention of being tried under the new smacking law, i wonder why it was changed to assault.

It seems silly that because he didn't admit guilt immediately the system then seperates him from his family and leaves them to fend for themselves. A case where whoever was applying the system might have been able to use a little common sense and see that that would benefit no one?

Surely he could also have had the message pushed home simply by being arrested and kept in a cell overnight. Unless you're a hardened criminal that has to be a big shock to anyone.

The 'if this were an adult' argument doesn't hold much water for me.
If it were an adult you can let them run in front of a car and learn the hard way what the consequences are, or if you're feeling generous you can talk to them and explain. It's a bit more difficult to get across to a 3 year old why it's a bad thing to run towards a busy road.

Just a point though that I think that it's more important for the police to spot proper criminals rather than parents that smack their children.

I would hope (being that this is the British Criminal Justice system that is one BIG hope) that all areas of family life were taken into account when this man was being sentenced.

This is basically child protection and it would be sensible to weigh up the damage that would be caused by removing the father figure from the home at such a stressful time (new baby).

I also hope that there is now support for this family and probably some anger management or parentcraft classes for the father in question...otherwise what was the point in removing him in the first place?

Moon

While I understand that the father brought the six month separation on himself by not admitting guilt, I feel it was a little harsh... unless he had previously convicted of a violent crime... perhaps being arrested and offered anger management courses, and parenting classes, would have been a good alternative to a conviction.

I think smacking (I don't mean a light tap) a child should be treated as common assault, as children should have the same protection we adults as given. I realize that children cannot be seen as exactly the same as adults, but then again I wouldn't smack a pet if it did something wrong either.

I did get smacked as a child, about three times as I recall, but I wasn't allowed out near the road until I was old enough to know not to run out in front of cars (maybe that's where parenting classes will come in useful, this kid was THREE!!). My mother would make sure we held hands at all times when near a road.... and what happened to reins, never see them anymore?!?

Originally posted by Snook
I wasn't allowed out near the road until I was old enough to know not to run out in front of cars You can't keep a child indoors for seven years!!

Originally posted by Snook
and what happened to reins, never see them anymore?!? It was discovered to be a good way of smashing a child's face to smithereens when they fall over (as all kids this age do, loads) You don't see baby bouncers or baby walkers anymore for similar reasons.

Originally posted by Strix
You can't keep a child indoors for seven years!!

I wasn't kept inside for seven years at all... I wasn't allowed near roads when I was three either. AS I SAID :rolleyes: I had to keep hold of my mothers hand at all times... is this too much work for some parents? If this was the case and the child broke loose, then maybe it's understandable, but I doubt this was the case, I often see children this young being allowed to walk near roads without being under the parents control.

As for reins, I was just wondering, you don't see them anymore. :D

Originally posted by Snook
I did get smacked as a child, about three times as I recall

I was smacked more than that, did me no harm whatsover.

I'm unsure as to what the law on smacking children is now...

When I was a child if I got into mischief (and that was a lot:nono: ) I would get a crack of the old fella, it never did me any harm and I never got into trouble in my teen years. I had the uppermost respect for my elders because thats the way my dad taught me,I also knew that my dad would be very mad with me if I were to get involved in bad circles. I still have the uppermost respect for my father regardless of the number of backhanders I got for being naughty.
Now I am myself a parent of two children the eldest being 9 hes a prime example of P.C gone mad hes got some problems and is classed as mentally disabled, but he is by no means uninteligent, he does however continually push his luck knowing that he wont get a crack. We get the "you cant hit me its against the law" line when he knows hes in trouble. Now dont get me wrong its not like a scene from the simpsons in our house and I dont agree with violence towards children in the slightest but theres a difference between a crack on the backside for being a little bugger and beating ten bells out of a child for the sake of it.
Personally I feel that most of the problems we have with the youth of today are a product of this social worker age where smacking is forbidden. Children need to learn to respect thier elders.

Originally posted by honeyplanet

Personally I feel that most of the problems we have with the youth of today are a product of this social worker age where smacking is forbidden. Children need to learn to respect thier elders.

I agree, in principle. I was 'smacked' as a child...when I was repeatedly naughty (serves me right!). I have clipped my kids in the distant past, they are all respectable, reasonably well behaved, doing well at school, not in gangs, never been in trouble and help their mum and me without being asked.

Blind respect for elders though? Wouldn't want my kids respecting anyone older than them just because its expected. And I can't see why any kid should automatically respect their parents even if their parents are bone idle, foul mouthed yobs.

Whenever I got a smack, it was explained to me why I got it....i.e "I've told you half a dozen times about that, now maybe you'll behave in future." Never did it again!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So 'smacking' a kid with enough force that (s)he "leaves the ground" is not something to be condemned or even tolerated, but held up as an example of good parenting?

Come on Phan, surely it's better that the kid was lifted off his feet by the flat of his Father's hand, than by the bonnet of a car, the difference is quite marked. One equals red marks and possible bruising. Second, probable broken bones, and possible death. No contest.:(

And where would the father be if the child had died from being hit by enough force to lift him off his feet? Manslaughter charges bought, perhaps? Or do we all think he would have still been justified in the amount of force used?

This was an assault on a human being who had no chance of retaliation, it was seen by many witnesses and the father, eventually, pleaded guilty to assault. Irrespective of why he hit the child, supposedly to prevent him running into the road, a fully grown adult still assaulted a 3 year old child.

Originally posted by owdlad
Come on Phan, surely it's better that the kid was lifted off his feet by the flat of his Father's hand, than by the bonnet of a car, the difference is quite marked. One equals red marks and possible bruising. Second, probable broken bones, and possible death. No contest.:(

That is making sound like it was an either/or choice. EITHER you smack him OR he dies.

False Dichotomy mate.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That is making sound like it was an either/or choice. EITHER you smack him OR he dies.

False Dichotomy mate.

Maybe if you'd had a few clips round the ear as a kid Phan, you wouldn't have become a habitual user/advocate of drugs? ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Maybe if you'd had a few clips round the ear as a kid Phan, you wouldn't have become a habitual user/advocate of drugs? ;)

If you really want to investigate the twinkling origins of my almost ingrained contempt for violence, institutionalisation, establishment and authority, you need look no further than the fact that I was beaten at school, by teachers.

So, no. If I had had a few clips around the ear I would have most likely started "trangressing" much earlier.

I was brought up by loving and non-violent parents from a country well known for its "excessive" child protection laws. I was only struck once by a parent. What differentiates that from being beaten at school was that my parent showed remorse at having lashed out in anger, and I was remorseful for having driven them to it.

As Cyclone has reiterated, it's simple conditioning in the end. Positive reinforcement is just more effective.

Lack of positive reinforcement (parental support, praise) leads a child to seek your attention (that is the childs overriding goal early on) in other, more effective ways. "good behaviour" elicits little or no response but "bad" behaviour does. The problem is that its a mixed message - you give the child the attention it wants, but its all about hurting, and often shouting and anger. This can easily become a self perpetuating cycle of behaviour.

And a total lack of parental interest, praise or support for "good behaviour" means that the infant is not getting any positive conditioning at all. They get either disinterest or pain as parental involvement. Now that is not going deliver a well formed little "hommelette" at the end of it.

If you are going to deliver negative reinforcement for bad behaviour then it must me done with as little interaction with the child as possible - impersonal, implacable - no attention reward. This applies to smacking as well.

I won't for a moment suggest this is a one size fits all type of solution. It's not. Nor will I condemn any parent who smacks their child, moderately, in a moment of fear or anger. It is very hard to control- but to assert that it is a form of discipline is erroneous IMO.