Teachers Career In Ruin

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Teacher-faces-ruin-after-assault.4808063.jp

The world has gone absolutely crazy. A teacher who has faced months of provocation, physical violence and threats finally cracks and he's in the wrong? If I was in his shoes I would have kicked the crap out of these little ****bags. In what other profession are you expected to face this level of abuse with little/no protection?

[col02]

Given that teachers are expected to take abuse from little ****bags is it any coincidence that same said wee ****bags show any lack of respect for people and society in general once they grow up? Not pointing the finger here but in some area's you have minimal absence stats which shows kids willing and wanting to learn and thus showing a bit respect to society whereas in some area's absence stats are very worryingly high and these will be the area's where respect be it self respect or for society is not exactly being instilled into young minds!

Can anyone from my generation or older really say that being disciplined at school did them any real harm? You got shouted at by a teacher you bloody well listened and thought twice to make the same mistake again. Worst thing to have happened imho was power being taken away from schools and sadly now in many an area of the UK you are seeing the demise of discipline in schools in every walk of life.

[jonty]

Typical media headline.

He'll be investigated by the GTC. He's been found guilty of assult on minors
but the sheriff admonished him.

This is the same teacher who had previous allegations of assult at a school in fife - and only two of the five assult charges in this current case were brought to court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7790133.stm

As the sheriff says,
"Both of these assaults were minor and, had it not been for your position as a teacher, I do not consider that you would have been subject to criminal prosecution.


It doesn't excuse the behaviour on anyones part - pupils or teachers.
Pupils should behave, and teachers should act responsibly http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7791461.stm (easier said than done).

Bring back the belt. :agree:

[Jay]

Typical media headline.

He'll be investigated by the GTC. He's been found guilty of assult on minors
but the sheriff admonished him.

This is the same teacher who had previous allegations of assult at a school in fife - and only two of the five assult charges in this current case were brought to court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7790133.stm

As the sheriff says,

It doesn't excuse the behaviour on anyones part - pupils or teachers.
Pupils should behave, and teachers should act responsibly http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7791461.stm (easier said than done).

Bring back the belt. :agree:


:bitchy: Never!! It was over used and some teachers relished the thought of using it. If anybody took a belt to one of my kids I would go mental :agree: I do think there should be more severe punishments but not the belt under any circumstances.

[vein]

:bitchy: Never!! It was over used and some teachers relished the thought of using it. If anybody took a belt to one of my kids I would go mental :agree: I do think there should be more severe punishments but not the belt under any circumstances.

What would the more severe punishments be then? Dont mean to generalise but some kids are way out of control these days and as per that arcticle well aware of their rights.

How about if being given the belt was strictly proceduralised? ie sign off had to be given by two or more people in authority before it was handed out.

Something needs to change anyway.

[GlesgaeHibby]

:bitchy: Never!! It was over used and some teachers relished the thought of using it. If anybody took a belt to one of my kids I would go mental :agree: I do think there should be more severe punishments but not the belt under any circumstances.

Whilst I don't think It'll ever be possible to go back to the belt, it is a simple and effective way of disciplining. What lasting harm does it do? None, but it teaches a simple lesson.

[Jack]

I was watching one of those ‘cops on film’ programmes the other night. A comment from one of the police officers, arresting a drunk ned, said a lot – “When these guys get collared by the police its probably the first time anyone has said no to them and they just don’t understand.”

If these neds have no respect for themselves how can we expect them to respect anything?

Yeah bring back the belt. It never did me any harm. As for proper alternatives they should have had them in place before the 'web' was withdrawn.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I was watching one of those ‘cops on film’ programmes the other night. A comment from one of the police officers, arresting a drunk ned, said a lot – “When these guys get collared by the police its probably the first time anyone has said no to them and they just don’t understand.”

If these neds have no respect for themselves how can we expect them to respect anything?

Yeah bring back the belt. It never did me any harm. As for proper alternatives they should have had them in place before the 'web' was withdrawn.

Thats exactly the problem. They know that in school there are no real consequences for their actions. I went to a fairly rough school, and first and second year was a nightmare until we were set by ability. These morons disrupt education for the majority and will continue to do so until something is done about it. I always felt sorry for the people in the class who weren't the smartest but were nice kids who would spend their whole school career stuck in classes with these idiots

[lyonhibs]

Frankly, these kids want stringing up, as do they're parents. On what level is it EVER acceptable to abuse anyone like that in their place of work?? Especially when that work involves sacrificing their free time as well as working hours with the aim of giving these scrotes a education?? I accept that pish poor teachers exist as I was subjected to a couple throughout my school life, but for the most part they (particularly at Secondary School level) are hamstrung from carrying out their chosen profession by a raft of rules drawn up by hand-wringers that don't want ickle wee children subjected to even raised voices, lest it somehow tramautise them.

The best teachers I ever had were those that - when appropriate and justified - were not afraid to give you a proper bollocking and put you right in your place. Never did me any harm at all, indeed the exact opposite.

[Tomsk]

Whilst I don't think It'll ever be possible to go back to the belt, it is a simple and effective way of disciplining. What lasting harm does it do? None, but it teaches a simple lesson.

I have got a problem with corporal punishment in schools. I think it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of adults would be at least reluctant or unwilling to hit a child. I think it would be very unreasonable for society to expect those sort of people to take on the responsibility of inflicting corporal punishment on children. I know I couldn't hit a child.

On the other hand, those adults who are willing to hit children by their very nature should be disqualified from access to doing it.

In other words, if you don't want to do it why should you be made to do it? And if you do want to do it, you shouldn't be allowed near children in the first place.

Furthermore, if we expect teachers by a system of corporal punishment to resolve or control the current crisis of declining moral standards -- if there is such a thing -- then assuredly we can expect to fail.

[Barney McGrew]

I went to a fairly rough school, and first and second year was a nightmare until we were set by ability. These morons disrupt education for the majority and will continue to do so until something is done about it. I always felt sorry for the people in the class who weren't the smartest but were nice kids who would spend their whole school career stuck in classes with these idiots

That kind of mirrors my experience at secondary school. Troublemakers who only turned up at school to cause bother and disrupted everyone else's learning because of it.

They invariably had siblings who were just as bad.

The fault lies solely at the feet of their parents IMO, rather than the teachers who constantly had to put up with the 'I know my rights' line everytime one of them got pulled up for causing bother. Thing is, they probably have rights that stop anyone taking them to task, but unfortunately no-one ever thinks of the rights of the other kids to have an education with being interrupted by these morons.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't believe the belt should be used for the lowest levels of indiscipline, like forgetting to bring homework or for talking during class etc. But I do think that there are some children, the minority, who are so badly behaved, there is a case for corporal punishment to be carried out on them when they step out of line. Kids who carry out bullying (which I hate with a passion) deserve all they get.

I know when I was at school, there were some classes that were completely ruined by a couple of wee idiots who kept being told off every 2 minutes and they were basically laughing in the face of the teacher.

Discipline should start at home but unfortunately, for one reason or another, some parents don't discipline their children. In those cases, I think the school has to take a leading role and if that means the belt, then so be it. In the long term, it may prevent that child from being involved in more serious crime in the future if it's nipped in the bud from an early age.

The majority of youngsters are decent, law abiding people who know right from wrong. But there are a lot of children and teenagers these days who have no sense of morality and have absolutely no respect for those in authority, like the police, their teachers, their parents and most worryingly of all, they have no respect for themselves either.

[--------]

I was watching one of those ‘cops on film’ programmes the other night. A comment from one of the police officers, arresting a drunk ned, said a lot – “When these guys get collared by the police its probably the first time anyone has said no to them and they just don’t understand.”

If these neds have no respect for themselves how can we expect them to respect anything?

Yeah bring back the belt. It never did me any harm. As for proper alternatives they should have had them in place before the 'web' was withdrawn.



The only way the belt could ver be effective was where there was a basic acceptance of discipline on the part of the pupils anyway. I can't imagine any teenager standing and letting a teacher belt him as I did. (Even in my day belting teenage girls was out of order.)

Maybe this teacher had a short fuse - kids are very quick to suss these things. He certainly put himself well in the wrong. Whether or not, the school should have stepped on this particular gang long before it got to a physical confrontation - though in my experience many schools (and head teachers) would much rather sweep problems under the carpet than deal with them.

I used to be a teacher. I encounter more than enough unpleasantness in my present work to be going on with, but there's no way I'd ever consider going back to teaching now.

[HibsMax]

I have got a problem with corporal punishment in schools. I think it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of adults would be at least reluctant or unwilling to hit a child. I think it would be very unreasonable for society to expect those sort of people to take on the responsibility of inflicting corporal punishment on children. I know I couldn't hit a child.

On the other hand, those adults who are willing to hit children by their very nature should be disqualified from access to doing it.

In other words, if you don't want to do it why should you be made to do it? And if you do want to do it, you shouldn't be allowed near children in the first place.

Furthermore, if we expect teachers by a system of corporal punishment to resolve or control the current crisis of declining moral standards -- if there is such a thing -- then assuredly we can expect to fail.
I hear what you are saying but you are being a little too black and white. There are more options than those you present. As you state there are adults who don't want to hit kids and there are adult who do want to hit kids. What about adults who don't want to hit kids BUT will if the situation warrants it? I don't personally believe that EVERY teacher who has belted a kid did it because they are some evil, sick and twisted individual.

[GlesgaeHibby]

That kind of mirrors my experience at secondary school. Troublemakers who only turned up at school to cause bother and disrupted everyone else's learning because of it.

They invariably had siblings who were just as bad.

The fault lies solely at the feet of their parents IMO, rather than the teachers who constantly had to put up with the 'I know my rights' line everytime one of them got pulled up for causing bother. Thing is, they probably have rights that stop anyone taking them to task, but unfortunately no-one ever thinks of the rights of the other kids to have an education with being interrupted by these morons.

Too true. If these people are just going to disrupt and do harm whilst at school it should be easier to punt them for good. They do the teachers who are trying to help them no harm, and they also ruin it for the majority who do want to learn.

[HibsMax]

What is the problem with simply kicking problem kids out of school? It's obvious they don't want an education. It's obvious their parents can't control them. So why should the other kids (and teachers) suffer? Send the little ****ers to boot camp.

[ArabHibee]

The problem here is respect. I moved up to high school the year that they banned the belt. They replaced it with a punishment exercise thing. It started off with "yellow sheets" which were kept on file and if you got 3 yellow sheets within a certain time period, then you'd get a "white sheet" and off to the rector you would go. It scared the living daylights out of me, no way did I want to go in front of the rector (who was a nutter anyway).
But I had respect for my elders and would never think about being really cheeky or swearing at teachers, it just didn't happen in my day. The school I went to was middle of the road and had its fair share of bad pupils but they were definitely a minority
I'm so glad that I'm not a school nowadays, I wonder how kids get an education.

[GlesgaeHibby]

The problem here is respect. I moved up to high school the year that they banned the belt. They replaced it with a punishment exercise thing. It started off with "yellow sheets" which were kept on file and if you got 3 yellow sheets within a certain time period, then you'd get a "white sheet" and off to the rector you would go. It scared the living daylights out of me, no way did I want to go in front of the rector (who was a nutter anyway).
But I had respect for my elders and would never think about being really cheeky or swearing at teachers, it just didn't happen in my day. The school I went to was middle of the road and had its fair share of bad pupils but they were definitely a minority
I'm so glad that I'm not a school nowadays, I wonder how kids get an education.

It is all about respect, and fewer kids have that respect for their elders in general these days. I remember hearing a story about our headteacher when he first started. He walked into a classroom and the whole class stood up, he was shocked and said they didn't have to do that. It had been the case from the previous headteacher that when he entered a room you stood until you were told otherwise. Our headteacher lost a lot of respect straight away just from this case.

[Mibbes Aye]

There is absolutely no way that corporal punishment would be re-introduced in schools. If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO.

Without getting into that debate however I don't understand something with those who advocate its re-introduction.

What message are we sending out, what are we saying about ourselves, when we say that it's okay to use physical pain and violence, or the threat of physical pain and violence, to get our own way?

A society that says it is acceptable to inflict harm on children has a lot more problems to resolve within itself than just those caused by disruptive or badly-behaved pupils IMO.

[HibsMax]

There is absolutely no way that corporal punishment would be re-introduced in schools. If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO.

Without getting into that debate however I don't understand something with those who advocate its re-introduction.

What message are we sending out, what are we saying about ourselves, when we say that it's okay to use physical pain and violence, or the threat of physical pain and violence, to get our own way?

A society that says it is acceptable to inflict harm on children has a lot more problems to resolve within itself than just those caused by disruptive or badly-behaved pupils IMO.
It's tough to argue for corporal punishment without coming across as some sadist. I personally believe that if measures can be taken at an earlier age then perhaps we can save at least some kids from turning to a life of crime. I'm not saying that all trouble-makers automatically become criminals but I wouldn't be afraid to bet that many criminals had problems when they were younger. I'm sure that for some individuals corporal punishment has the exact opposite affect and makes them buck even more against the system. The key here is that there is not one answer to fix all the problems.

Again, tough argument with plenty of good points on both sides.

To answer your question though, or one of them, I think the message we're sending out here is that education is vitally important and if you're gonnta try and ****** it up for the other students, you're going to pay the consequences. The message is, "your actions DO have consequences". If kids don't learn that at school when life is relatively easy, they're going to learn it the hard way later on in life. Which is better.....getting a belt across the hands as a teenager or serving time when you're older, living life as if you could do as you please?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's tough to argue for corporal punishment without coming across as some sadist. I personally believe that if measures can be taken at an earlier age then perhaps we can save at least some kids from turning to a life of crime. I'm not saying that all trouble-makers automatically become criminals but I wouldn't be afraid to bet that many criminals had problems when they were younger. I'm sure that for some individuals corporal punishment has the exact opposite affect and makes them buck even more against the system. The key here is that there is not one answer to fix all the problems.

Again, tough argument with plenty of good points on both sides.

To answer your question though, or one of them, I think the message we're sending out here is that education is vitally important and if you're gonnta try and ****** it up for the other students, you're going to pay the consequences. The message is, "your actions DO have consequences". If kids don't learn that at school when life is relatively easy, they're going to learn it the hard way later on in life. Which is better.....getting a belt across the hands as a teenager or serving time when you're older, living life as if you could do as you please?

That's not the choice we're facing though is it?

I agree that realising the consequences of one's actions is crucial in addressing behaviours, as is taking responsibility for one's choices.

Are you really saying that the best way to show children that education is vitally important is by hitting them?

Surely all that would show is that violence is acceptable as a means of control, a means of getting what you want, if you have the power to inflict it.

[Jay]

There is absolutely no way that corporal punishment would be re-introduced in schools. If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO.

Without getting into that debate however I don't understand something with those who advocate its re-introduction.

What message are we sending out, what are we saying about ourselves, when we say that it's okay to use physical pain and violence, or the threat of physical pain and violence, to get our own way?

A society that says it is acceptable to inflict harm on children has a lot more problems to resolve within itself than just those caused by disruptive or badly-behaved pupils IMO.


This is the first chance I have had to get back on this thread.

I agree with the above post. How can we say to someone that it is wrong to be violent but if they are we will hit them with a leather strap?? Its just ridiculous.

Children should be taught from a very young age to respect teachers etc but it obviously isn't happening in many cases. At primary school (ours anyway) the punishment for bad behaviour is to lose some 'Golden Time' or if it is bullying they have to write a letter of apology to the bullied child. Lunchtime detention is about as severe as it gets. The kids who wont behave dont care about these punishments. Primary school is where the respect should start.

I think in both primary and high school the punishments should be something along the lines of community service within the school or area they live in. I know that would mean it financial costs with adults having to supervise though.

The belt is not the answer - I had a primary school teacher who loved the belt and it was used far too much, she relished the thought of hitting some kids. Sometimes the whole class got it because one person was 'bad'. I have to say I cannot remember one instance that merited anybody in my class being hit but it was an almost daily ritual. 3 times on each hand - how sick is that?? I remember one boy had a cut across the palm of his hand and asked if he could use the other hand for all 6 and she refused. If it was the whole class we all got it just once but she must have had muscles like Mike Tyson.

In high school we had a teacher who loved the thought he had power over us and used to make an entrance every day by smacking the belt on the table and thats where the belt lay for the whole lesson just to keep us in check!

Its wrong and I would fight it all the way if it was even under consideration.

How can we ban parents from smacking their children but allow teachers to hit them with a leather strap??

[Sir David Gray]

This is the first chance I have had to get back on this thread.

I agree with the above post. How can we say to someone that it is wrong to be violent but if they are we will hit them with a leather strap?? Its just ridiculous.

Children should be taught from a very young age to respect teachers etc but it obviously isn't happening in many cases. At primary school (ours anyway) the punishment for bad behaviour is to lose some 'Golden Time' or if it is bullying they have to write a letter of apology to the bullied child. Lunchtime detention is about as severe as it gets. The kids who wont behave dont care about these punishments. Primary school is where the respect should start.

I think in both primary and high school the punishments should be something along the lines of community service within the school or area they live in. I know that would mean it financial costs with adults having to supervise though.

The belt is not the answer - I had a primary school teacher who loved the belt and it was used far too much, she relished the thought of hitting some kids. Sometimes the whole class got it because one person was 'bad'. I have to say I cannot remember one instance that merited anybody in my class being hit but it was an almost daily ritual. 3 times on each hand - how sick is that?? I remember one boy had a cut across the palm of his hand and asked if he could use the other hand for all 6 and she refused. If it was the whole class we all got it just once but she must have had muscles like Mike Tyson.

In high school we had a teacher who loved the thought he had power over us and used to make an entrance every day by smacking the belt on the table and thats where the belt lay for the whole lesson just to keep us in check!

Its wrong and I would fight it all the way if it was even under consideration.

How can we ban parents from smacking their children but allow teachers to hit them with a leather strap??

The instances you speak about are awful and they go along with what I've heard from other people who were at school when corporal punishment was around. Obviously that kind of behaviour from teachers cannot be accepted and I certainly don't believe in the whole class being hit because of one unruly pupil. If it was brought back, there would have to be strict regulations on when and how it should be used.

I probably wouldn't reintroduce the belt for primary school children, certainly not the younger ones anyway. However I do think there is a small minority of high school children who are so badly behaved that there is a case for it to be used on them.

I like the sound of a community service initiative but it would need to be a mandatory punishment and not something where the parents could step in and say "My son/daughter has their rights, you cannae dae that so eff off wi' yer community service".

Also in response to the last part of your post where you ask "how can we ban parents from smacking their children but allow teachers to hit them with a leather strap"?

I believe that a parent should have the right to discipline their child any way they see fit, so long as the punishment is not excessive and won't cause the child any undue pain in the long term. I therefore do not see why a parent should be barred from giving their misbehaving child a skelp on the backside, if they're constantly acting up and won't take a telling.

[Jay]

The instances you speak about are awful and they go along with what I've heard from other people who were at school when corporal punishment was around. Obviously that kind of behaviour from teachers cannot be accepted and I certainly don't believe in the whole class being hit because of one unruly pupil. If it was brought back, there would have to be strict regulations on when and how it should be used.

I probably wouldn't reintroduce the belt for primary school children, certainly not the younger ones anyway. However I do think there is a small minority of high school children who are so badly behaved that there is a case for it to be used on them.

I like the sound of a community service initiative but it would need to be a mandatory punishment and not something where the parents could step in and say "My son/daughter has their rights, you cannae dae that so eff off wi' yer community service".

Also in response to the last part of your post where you ask "how can we ban parents from smacking their children but allow teachers to hit them with a leather strap"?

I believe that a parent should have the right to discipline their child any way they see fit, so long as the punishment is not excessive and won't cause the child any undue pain in the long term. I therefore do not see why a parent should be barred from giving their misbehaving child a skelp on the backside, if they're constantly acting up and won't take a telling.


The smacking issue I agree with you on. I think parents have the right to check a child, personally I didn't smack my kids as a rule although I wouldn't say I have never ever done it but have met a few others I would like to have smacked :greengrin However as a society it was decided that parents were not allowed to smack their kids so how can we even begin to discuss allowing teachers to use a belt?

I dont think anyone should be given the authority to hit someone, especially a youngster. If they take a dislike to a child that child could be abused by it.

I know there is a huge problem in schools with discipline and violence but belting them isn't the answer. I'm not sure what is but it cant be the belt IMO. I have total sympathy with teachers who have to deal with difficult kids and they should be given support and backing by parents, head teachers and education authorities alike.

[HibsMax]

That's not the choice we're facing though is it?

I agree that realising the consequences of one's actions is crucial in addressing behaviours, as is taking responsibility for one's choices.

Are you really saying that the best way to show children that education is vitally important is by hitting them?

Surely all that would show is that violence is acceptable as a means of control, a means of getting what you want, if you have the power to inflict it.
Sorry, no, that is not what I was meaning to say. I just happen to think it could be an effective method.

It's an emotive topic and one I don't want to spiral out of control. I just happen to believe that a slap on the wrists is not that barbaric a punishment. I'm not talking about beating the **** out of kids for being a little bit naughty.

Personally speaking I would much rather have the problem kids weeded out and educated "somewhere else" so that the kids who do want an education can do so without them, and the teachers, being abused.

[IndieHibby]

There is absolutely no way that corporal punishment would be re-introduced in schools. If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO.

Without getting into that debate however I don't understand something with those who advocate its re-introduction.

What message are we sending out, what are we saying about ourselves, when we say that it's okay to use physical pain and violence, or the threat of physical pain and violence, to get our own way?

A society that says it is acceptable to inflict harm on children has a lot more problems to resolve within itself than just those caused by disruptive or badly-behaved pupils IMO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what message is recieved, by children, when:

a) the kids who do wrong learn that there is no punishment for behaving badly?
b) the well-behaved kids (or 'victims' to be more precise) witness the lack of punishment?

a) results in some adults who have no sense of right/wrong, are selfish and expect the world to owe them a living
b) results in our future having a severe lack of trust in authority or their own ability to affect any change in their lives.

When you then talk about "a society that says" and so-on, you are on the wrong track. Kids do not listen to society. They listen to each other. Therefore the only continuous influence on the moral upbringing of children, apart from their peers, is the family.

The moment it all went wrong was when socialists started to offer up the primacy of the state over the family.

The state/society/whatever cannot and should not be responsible for children. PARENTS are.

The ONLY way out of this mess is when society recognises that parents are the prime source of responsibility for their children, and affects the change in law necessary to enforce this.

If we can embarass parents into taking more responsibility for the downright disgrace that some of their children are, then finally the change may occur.

Unfortunately, the change of direction will have the turning circle of an artic' and require real strenght of purpose and vision.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry, no, that is not what I was meaning to say. I just happen to think it could be an effective method.

It's an emotive topic and one I don't want to spiral out of control. I just happen to believe that a slap on the wrists is not that barbaric a punishment. I'm not talking about beating the **** out of kids for being a little bit naughty.

Personally speaking I would much rather have the problem kids weeded out and educated "somewhere else" so that the kids who do want an education can do so without them, and the teachers, being abused.

Fair do's and you're spot-on, there is a risk of this thread spiralling all over the place :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what message is recieved, by children, when:

a) the kids who do wrong learn that there is no punishment for behaving badly?
b) the well-behaved kids (or 'victims' to be more precise) witness the lack of punishment?

a) results in some adults who have no sense of right/wrong, are selfish and expect the world to owe them a living
b) results in our future having a severe lack of trust in authority or their own ability to affect any change in their lives.

When you then talk about "a society that says" and so-on, you are on the wrong track. Kids do not listen to society. They listen to each other. Therefore the only continuous influence on the moral upbringing of children, apart from their peers, is the family.

The moment it all went wrong was when socialists started to offer up the primacy of the state over the family.

The state/society/whatever cannot and should not be responsible for children. PARENTS are.

The ONLY way out of this mess is when society recognises that parents are the prime source of responsibility for their children, and affects the change in law necessary to enforce this.

If we can embarass parents into taking more responsibility for the downright disgrace that some of their children are, then finally the change may occur.

Unfortunately, the change of direction will have the turning circle of an artic' and require real strenght of purpose and vision.

I agree that parents/the family have a primary responsibility in the development of children.

At the same time, it would be silly not to acknowledge that through the education system and the welfare system overall, the state plays a huge role in how children grow up.

Do you really think children who 'do wrong' simply should be punished? There has to be a degree of sanction but there also has to be a degree of education or guidance around why what they have done is 'wrong' surely?

Regardless of whether you think the systems currently in place are effective, how does that justify violence against children?

[IndieHibby]

I'll try to answer each of your questions in turn:

"Regardless of whether you think the systems currently in place are effective, how does that justify violence against children?"

If you are arguing that all 'violence' (an emotive term, one which I wouldn't use in this debate surrounding the legitimate punishment of children) against children should be banned, then would you gaol a parent who smacked the bum of a toddler who persistenly attempted to interfere with a cooker/fire/electrical appliance? Toddlers cannot be reasoned with and some threats are too grave to leave unheeded. I feel that the justification here is that a mild smack on the bum is warranted if it deters scalds/burns/shocks. Don't you?
So your assertions that all 'violence' against children is wrong is, i'm afraid, exacltly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

"Do you really think children who 'do wrong' simply should be punished?

Yes. Just like i think adults who do wrong should be punished. Don't you? How do you expect children to learn? How do you expect the rest of the community to accept the rule of law if it is not enforced fairly and without favour?

There has to be a degree of sanction but there also has to be a degree of education or guidance around why what they have done is 'wrong' surely?"

Agreed. As an adult I can empathise with the victim of a crime. I can see how their loss or injury affects them. That's why I don't do it.
Adolescents have a limited ability to emphathise with the emotions of others. This is a scientific fact. Accordingly, while you can educate a child as to why something is wrong, they need to be able to empathise with the victim in order to accept their wrongdoing. If there is no victim, there is no crime. You can tell a child they have done wrong, but if they disagree with you, then there is no punishment. A smack on the bum, removal of priveledge are often the only ways to communicate wrongdoing with children. And if there are no priveledges to remove....

"At the same time, it would be silly not to acknowledge that through the education system and the welfare system overall, the state plays a huge role in how children grow up."

Education - the state provides education, yes, but not about right and wrong, nor could it even if we wanted it to. If children learned about right/wrong only in school, then they would think that it applied only in school. I know, I am a teacher.

Welfare - is the provision of financial assistance to those in need (allegedly). How does child benefit teach children right from wrong?

Just because YOU cannot imagine yourself in the position of smacking a child who needed a smack, don't profess to remove the right from those who may have no other option. This is why we have child-murderers. It is interesting to observe the responses of murderers when they face their sentence in court. One group are sorry about their impending loss of liberty and then begin to regret their actions. This group are largely adults. The other group are completely without remorse. This group are made up of psychopaths and, more recently, the child killers of urban Britian.

[IndieHibby]

Thats exactly the problem. They know that in school there are no real consequences for their actions. I went to a fairly rough school, and first and second year was a nightmare until we were set by ability. These morons disrupt education for the majority and will continue to do so until something is done about it. I always felt sorry for the people in the class who weren't the smartest but were nice kids who would spend their whole school career stuck in classes with these idiots

I feel extreme remorse for these children on a daily basis - I (try) to teach them!

If the parents of these children knew exactly what their children had to put up with, there would be uproar.

Unfortunately, the meek are having their education sacrificed on the altar of 'inclusion'.

It is a word used in education today to justify the presence of feral children in mainstream schools.

I saw a mirror image in the response of social workers involved in the 'baby-P' case. The cops were remonstrating with social services over the failure to remove the child from the home. Their response: "We don't split up families". A mantra which led to the torturous death of this child.

When the person responsible for the torture of this kid was on remand, he was asked why he was in. He said it was for torture that went 'a bit too far'. Evidently he thought that 'some' torture was acceptable....

[Mibbes Aye]

I'll try to answer each of your questions in turn:

"Regardless of whether you think the systems currently in place are effective, how does that justify violence against children?"

If you are arguing that all 'violence' (an emotive term, one which I wouldn't use in this debate surrounding the legitimate punishment of children) against children should be banned,

I don't think I ever said that. As it is though, if you hit a child you are committing a criminal act. Historically however, a defence of 'reasonable chastisement' or 'justifiable assault' has been available.


then would you gaol a parent who smacked the bum of a toddler who persistenly attempted to interfere with a cooker/fire/electrical appliance? Toddlers cannot be reasoned with and some threats are too grave to leave unheeded. I feel that the justification here is that a mild smack on the bum is warranted if it deters scalds/burns/shocks. Don't you?,

No.

If a toddler can't be reasoned with and I fully accept the problem with that, I can think of other ways of removing the risk that don't involve hitting a toddler. Let's just consider that phrase again - "hitting a toddler".




So your assertions that all 'violence' against children is wrong is, i'm afraid, exacltly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

That doesn't quite follow. What mess are we in? And how is that the fault of somebody who asks how violence against children can be justified?



"Do you really think children who 'do wrong' simply should be punished?

Yes. Just like i think adults who do wrong should be punished. Don't you? How do you expect children to learn? How do you expect the rest of the community to accept the rule of law if it is not enforced fairly and without favour?

There has to be a degree of sanction but there also has to be a degree of education or guidance around why what they have done is 'wrong' surely?"

Agreed. As an adult I can empathise with the victim of a crime. I can see how their loss or injury affects them. That's why I don't do it.
Adolescents have a limited ability to emphathise with the emotions of others. This is a scientific fact. Accordingly, while you can educate a child as to why something is wrong, they need to be able to empathise with the victim in order to accept their wrongdoing. If there is no victim, there is no crime. You can tell a child they have done wrong, but if they disagree with you, then there is no punishment. A smack on the bum, removal of priveledge are often the only ways to communicate wrongdoing with children. And if there are no priveledges to remove....

So you don't really want to hit a child, you were forced into it by a lack of alternatives. That must make it okay then?

....
"At the same time, it would be silly not to acknowledge that through the education system and the welfare system overall, the state plays a huge role in how children grow up."

Education - the state provides education, yes, but not about right and wrong, nor could it even if we wanted it to. If children learned about right/wrong only in school, then they would think that it applied only in school. I know, I am a teacher.

Is that how it works? Do the things you learn in school really have no application outside those walls? Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?


Welfare - is the provision of financial assistance to those in need (allegedly). How does child benefit teach children right from wrong?

The welfare system I was referring to was more around the 'welfare state' as was, or what it looks like now. For example, the work done by health visitors, health surveillance in schools, child benefit, the tax credit system, SureStart centres etc etc etc all contribute directly or indirectly to how children grow up, in widely differing ways admittedly.


Just because YOU cannot imagine yourself in the position of smacking a child who needed a smack, don't profess to remove the right from those who may have no other option. This is why we have child-murderers.

:faf:.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. How can you possibly attribute children who take life as being down to people who are against hitting children?


It is interesting to observe the responses of murderers when they face their sentence in court. One group are sorry about their impending loss of liberty and then begin to regret their actions. This group are largely adults. The other group are completely without remorse. This group are made up of psychopaths and, more recently, the child killers of urban Britian.

As sweeping generalisations go, that's some big broom you've got. No doubt you wrote that with reams of empirical evidence to back it up, surely?

[IndieHibby]

I don't think I ever said that.

You did, I copied and pasted your comment directly...

As it is though, if you hit a child you are committing a criminal act. Historically however, a defence of 'reasonable chastisement' or 'justifiable assault' has been available.

So do you agree that there can be 'reasonable chastisment' and if you do, is that a form of violence? If it is, then surely some 'violence' is justified? If you don't like the word violence in this context, then don't use it.

No.

If a toddler can't be reasoned with and I fully accept the problem with that, I can think of other ways of removing the risk that don't involve hitting a toddler.

Agreed, you can be culpable if you don't take reasonable steps to remove risk, but life is inherently risky. Where do you draw the line? And what happens if you are unable to remove the risk?

Let's just consider that phrase again - "hitting a toddler".

The media are good at taking things out of context. This is an example. If all you think about is hitting a todder, then there is something wrong with your thinking. However, if you consider slapping the hand of a child who repeatedly tries to to poke his finger into an electrical socket, then can you see how you can 'be cruel to be kind'?


That doesn't quite follow. What mess are we in?

The mess, as detailed in the point of this thread, is that there are teenagers who feel it is acceptable entertainment to abuse and goad a teacher into such mental torture that they respond in a way which result in the loss of their career, home, family, etc. My contention is, that in a disciplined home environment, where the parents feel that they are in control and are trusted to make choices for their children as they see fit, you wouldn't have these problems. There would be respect for the authority of the adults in the home, ergo, all adult authority figures.



And how is that the fault of somebody who asks how violence against children can be justified?

Apologies if I suggested you were to blame. That is not really what I am trying to say. I am suggesting that the notion that there are no circumstances, ever, in 'which a slap on the hand' can be justified has led parents into the situation where they feel they can not enforce any rules or boundaries within their home. I meet them every day. Their lives are a continual spiral of despair. As they are of secondary age when I deal with them, the rot has truly set in and no amount of remedial action repairs the damage done in infancy. All I can do is suggest ways to enforce boundaries. This is the mess we are in.


So you don't really want to hit a child, you were forced into it by a lack of alternatives. That must make it okay then?

I don't want to hit any children, I dearly hope you haven't concluded from my post that I do. I just don't want to remove the option for parents of unruly children.

Is that how it works? Do the things you learn in school really have no application outside those walls?

Afraid so. I teach Science. When asked to apply rudimentary mathematical principles in a scientific context, most students fail until it is pointed out to them. If a lesson in morality were to be introduced in school, two things would happen:

1. (Some) parents would use it as an excuse to blame schools for their childs wrongdoing.
2. Children would witness it's lack of observation by wider society as evidence that it was rubbish and should be ignored. Morals, unlike facts, are subject to personal interpretation and as such can only be defined within the context of the family and by proxy, associated with ones identity.

Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I hope not.


The welfare system I was referring to was more around the 'welfare state' as was, or what it looks like now. For example, the work done by health visitors, health surveillance in schools, child benefit, the tax credit system, SureStart centres etc etc etc all contribute directly or indirectly to how children grow up, in widely differing ways admittedly.

Again, how do any of these services impart 'moral fibre' (to coin a phrase) in children.


:faf:.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. How can you possibly attribute children who take life as being down to people who are against hitting children?

Having taken your arguments without feeling the need to mock you, I will ignore your use of the 'smilie'.

In answer to your question, I'll admit that it takes a long line of logical thought to understand the connection:

1. A parent cannot control their child as they feel that they are 'not allowed' to use 'reasonable chastisment' to control their most outrageous behaviours, as determined by lawmakers who listen to 'people who are against hitting children' (Witness 3-4 year olds suspended from nursery for violence).
2. Child grows up with the expectation of dictating the rules of the house and being violent to the parent who dares to say 'no'. Child feels that anything he decides can be justified because he wants it to be so.
3. Child enters adolescence with no boundaries or fear of any wrongdoing. Indeed, child feels he can do no wrong (having never been taught it).
4. Child enters gang of like minded people.
5. Child commits murder ( there are many cases in the news these days, in case you hadn't noticed)
6. Child laughs in the face of judge as he passes mandatory life sentence.


As sweeping generalisations go, that's some big broom you've got. No doubt you wrote that with reams of empirical evidence to back it up, surely?

Not empirical evidence, as I am a teacher and not a full time researcher. But I know what I witness on a daily basis. Also, I was brought up to think for myself. Maybe you can offer some counter-evidence or experience?

Meanwhile, I'll go back to spending time on the phone or in a meeting with a weeping single mother, who, in her heart-of-hearts, knows that in the end, her marauding offspring will kill or be killed or will spend a good amount of his life in gaol.

[BEEJ]

There is absolutely no way that corporal punishment would be re-introduced in schools. If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO.

Without getting into that debate however I don't understand something with those who advocate its re-introduction.

What message are we sending out, what are we saying about ourselves, when we say that it's okay to use physical pain and violence, or the threat of physical pain and violence, to get our own way?

A society that says it is acceptable to inflict harm on children has a lot more problems to resolve within itself than just those caused by disruptive or badly-behaved pupils IMO.
That's usually the well-meaning argument put forward by someone who has never had to face down two or three physically threatening teenagers in a classroom environment. :wink: Reasoning with them usually doesn't work.

This whole debate gets emotionally charged because we use the words 'physical punishment' alongside the word 'child' or 'children'. The images created by this terminology are remote from the truth.

In fact the worst of these problems today (in a society of our own making) involve trouble-makers in their mid to late teens; and we're asking our schools to deal with these issues, sending teachers out on the front line having first of all ensured that they have been suitably disarmed.

I wouldn't be a teacher today for all the tea in China. :cool2:

[Ed De Gramo]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Teacher-faces-ruin-after-assault.4808063.jp

The world has gone absolutely crazy. A teacher who has faced months of provocation, physical violence and threats finally cracks and he's in the wrong? If I was in his shoes I would have kicked the crap out of these little ****bags. In what other profession are you expected to face this level of abuse with little/no protection?

A big well done to the teacher :agree:

About time neds were put in their place :agree::agree:

Just a shame that the school will/have suspended him :grr:

[IndieHibby]

That's usually the well-meaning argument put forward by someone who has never had to face down two or three physically threatening teenagers in a classroom environment. :wink: Reasoning with them usually doesn't work.

This whole debate gets emotionally charged because we use the words 'physical punishment' alongside the word 'child' or 'children'. The images created by this terminology are remote from the truth.

In fact the worst of these problems today (in a society of our own making) involve trouble-makers in their mid to late teens; and we're asking our schools to deal with these issues, sending teachers out on the front line having first of all ensured that they have been suitably disarmed.

I wouldn't be a teacher today for all the tea in China. :cool2:

I sympathise with this assertion. Many times I wonder whether the fact that I get no thanks for what I do should lead me to quit altogether.

Then I remember the quiet, nice, well-brought up children, who by virtue of the below average ability and the socialist ideal of 'inclusion' are condemned to years of pointless time in lessons hijacked by children who do not know the meaning of the word 'no'. I try my best to mitigate the effect of the feral youth on their education. Their gratitude is the only job satisfaction I get.

[Mibbes Aye]

Stueyn I don't know where to start with your post in reply to me, I really don't.

I'm far from convinced you are a teacher, if I'm being honest. The melodrama of your account of sitting with wailing single mothers, despairing at their children's future sounds a bit too contrived, a bit too neat. I was put in mind of Elvis's "In The Ghetto" TBH.

If you are a teacher, fair enough, but to have such a jaundiced view of your work and your pupils makes me wonder whether it's really the right job for you. If you are 28 you've conceivably got another 30-35 years of this and I can't see how you would come through that without a lot of damage to yourself and consequently being the cause of a lot of damage to those whose education you are entrusted with.

Just to take your last point though, I had asked "...How can you possibly attribute children who take life as being down to people who are against hitting children?"

The answer you give isn't a 'long line of logical thought', as you put it. It's full of assumption, supposition and projection from your starting premise. As a teacher of science surely you would know that?

[Mibbes Aye]

That's usually the well-meaning argument put forward by someone who has never had to face down two or three physically threatening teenagers in a classroom environment. :wink: Reasoning with them usually doesn't work.



So what is it you're suggesting BEEJ - that a teacher should use corporal punishment against the two or three teenagers at that point?

[BEEJ]

So what is it you're suggesting BEEJ - that a teacher should use corporal punishment against the two or three teenagers at that point?
What I'm saying is that a few decades now of abandoning REASONABLE forms of corporal punishment, applied in appropriate circumstances have got us into the mess we now see played out in our schools on a daily basis.

In the scenario outlined above it's far too late to administer corporal punishment. But don't expect a logical, reasoned argument to be listened to either.

This scenario is a job for the Police, if the school chooses to report it. Hopefully the teacher involved escapes without excessive abuse and is not the subject of false accusations of his/her conduct in the classroom environment, ultimately putting their career on the line.

[Silky]

Aye, but did the teacher ACTUALLY assault the wee scroat!! He grabbed him by the lapels and "threatened" to throw him through the blackboard. He didn't actually, if I read the piece correctly, hit him or anything like that. If anything, the person who was assaulted here was the teacher himself. Verbally assaulted. Reading the article, the teacher was subject to constant abuse, yet when the tables are turned and he actually stands up to the wee baw-bags he ends up in court. I canny beleive that the prosecution lawyer was actually harping on in court about the rights of the assailants and crying "assault". Does the teacher no have rights like. Rights to work without being abused, goaded and belittled by some wee khants who have nae respect for anyone.

And why, if the teacher was previously assaulted in the school library by the same kid, did the school no take action. IMHO, if the wee dick is old enough to excercise his "rights" then he's old enough to be brought to task, in an ADULT court, for what he done. Works both ways.

[HibsMax]

If a toddler can't be reasoned with and I fully accept the problem with that, I can think of other ways of removing the risk that don't involve hitting a toddler. Let's just consider that phrase again - "hitting a toddler".

I'm far from convinced you are a teacher, if I'm being honest. The melodrama of your account of sitting with wailing single mothers, despairing at their children's future sounds a bit too contrived, a bit too neat.
Would you not agree that you have been guilty of being a little melodramatic yourself with your "hitting a toddler" remarks? When you put it that way it sounds sickening but when you consider the original remark it's not nearly so sinister.

I think that one of the problems with corporal punishment is that people perceive it in different ways. I can't put my hand on my heart and say that it's good or bad. It's effect on students varies, just as the students themselves vary. To some students it will act as a deterrent. To some students it will serve as a painful reminder of what happens when the rules are broken. To some students it will be an opportunity to show how hard they are and how the system can't get the better of them.

I have never received the belt but I was at school when it was still in effect. I only saw one kid get belted and it was because he was flicking pencils from one side of the classroom to the other. I was in primary 4 at the time so we would be about 8 or 9 years old. The teacher felt justified in her actions because a sharp pencil flying through the air is not safe. It could have hit someone in the eye. I guess that's the worst case scenario. When I look back at that situation, as an adult, I think the best course of action would have been to tell him to stop doing it, explain WHY and then belt him if he continued. I guess there could have been other choices of punishment. At the end of the day the kid survived and didn't flick pencils all over the place so it "seemed" to work in this instance.

Until I have kids of my own I CANNOT answer the question, "Would you be happy if your kid was belted?". I simply don't know. I would like to think that I could instill better values in him / her but kids are easily led astray. I would have to consider the crime as well. Depending on the crime I think I would prefer it if he / she was reported to the head of the school who then contacted me and then left the punishment up to me. He / she would be allowed to continue attending school as long as the behaviour does not continue. If it did, then I have bigger problems than my kid getting a belt over their hand. Another quick point before I duck out. It depends on the age of the child as well.

[IndieHibby]

[quote=Mibbes Aye...;1874185]Stueyn I don't know where to start with your post in reply to me, I really don't.

I'm far from convinced you are a teacher, if I'm being honest.

Well, I am. Given there is no way I can prove that, then this comment is entirely pointless.

The melodrama of your account of sitting with wailing single mothers, despairing at their children's future sounds a bit too contrived, a bit too neat.

"Too contrived" for what, exactly? Given that it has happened, on more than one occasion,to me, the burden of proof lies with you, I'm afraid. If you cannot believe that this could happen, then evidently your own perspective is not concordant with the reality that I witness.

If you feel that she was being melodramatic, well I doubt she would have much sympathy with your 'armchair commentary'. Either you have experience of modern education and the effect of the breakdown in parenting, in which case I would ask you to back up your initial assertion with personal anecdotes, or you don't and are yourself guilty of wild assertion.

I was put in mind of Elvis's "In The Ghetto" TBH.

Haven't seen it, so no idea what you are talking about.

If you are a teacher, fair enough, but to have such a jaundiced view of your work and your pupils makes me wonder whether it's really the right job for you.

It is your opinion that my view is jaundiced. However, my view is based on actual experience. I would like to know your own experience which brings you to this assertion.

I believe that my work is important, precisely because of the problems that people face. I suspect that if I had your attitude I would have given up the first time I was assaulted, sworn at, intimidated or had my car vandalised.

If you are 28 ( I am, it says so on my 'signature')you've conceivably got another 30-35 years of this and I can't see how you would come through that without a lot of damage to yourself

Your inability to 'see' is your problem, not mine.

and consequently being the cause of a lot of damage to those whose education you are entrusted with.

I refer you to your previous reply about 'sweeping assertions' and 'having a hell of a lot of broom'. Pot and kettle.....?

I am insulted that you would accuse me of damaging a childs education, on the evidence of my reflections on the causal factors behind the decling in the civic attitude of a (minor, but growing) section of society.


Just to take your last point though, I had asked "...How can you possibly attribute children who take life as being down to people who are against hitting children?"

The answer you give isn't a 'long line of logical thought', as you put it. It's full of assumption, supposition and projection from your starting premise.

Mibbeys-aye, mibbyes-no :wink: But here is my point. If the law says that under any circumstances a parent may not use any form of physical chastisement against their children, which as I understand, is the idea you support, then it is fair to conclude that this is a contributory factor in the decline in behaviour of children today (some of whom commit the most atrocious of criminal acts).

I can see the logic behind that, but I would defer to a more reasoned line of argument, should you care to put it together.

But instead of actually engaging with any of the comments I have made (in all honesty, I might add) you choose to bring into question said honesty.

Either engage in sensible debate, or just admit that you have no basis on which to make your points and are instead starting from the premise: "I feel it is wrong, therefore it must be wrong".

I am willing to be corrected on any of the comments I have made, as long as you don't call me a liar. That's just weak.

[Mibbes Aye]

You asked that I engage with your points, 'play the ball' rather than 'play the man' as it were, which is fair enough.


If the law says that under any circumstances a parent may not use any form of physical chastisement against their children, which as I understand, is the idea you support, then it is fair to conclude that this is a contributory factor in the decline in behaviour of children today (some of whom commit the most atrocious of criminal acts).


It's not 'fair to conclude' though. The law does allow for a degree of physical violence to be used against children. Yet that doesn't seem to stop the behaviours you are citing. So I'm guessing you are saying that to improve children's behaviour we should hit them more.

Can you evidence that corporal punishment cause improved behaviour in children? I mean properly evidence it?

[Mibbes Aye]

What I'm saying is that a few decades now of abandoning REASONABLE forms of corporal punishment, applied in appropriate circumstances have got us into the mess we now see played out in our schools on a daily basis.



So when we had corporal punishment why did we have to use it? Surely if it worked the deterrence value would mean it didn't need to be used?

Which leads me to this point. Nobody on here is saying they want to hit children, I'm assuming because there is an accepted belief that in itself it is an act that is inherently 'wrong'. Certainly in the eyes of the law, it is assault and while there may be defences, it nevertheless is a criminal act.

What you seem to be saying is that it is acceptable as a response to behaviours that you find unacceptable. But when did two wrongs make a right?

[Mibbes Aye]

Would you not agree that you have been guilty of being a little melodramatic yourself with your "hitting a toddler" remarks? When you put it that way it sounds sickening but when you consider the original remark it's not nearly so sinister.

I think that one of the problems with corporal punishment is that people perceive it in different ways. I can't put my hand on my heart and say that it's good or bad. It's effect on students varies, just as the students themselves vary. To some students it will act as a deterrent. To some students it will serve as a painful reminder of what happens when the rules are broken. To some students it will be an opportunity to show how hard they are and how the system can't get the better of them.

I have never received the belt but I was at school when it was still in effect. I only saw one kid get belted and it was because he was flicking pencils from one side of the classroom to the other. I was in primary 4 at the time so we would be about 8 or 9 years old. The teacher felt justified in her actions because a sharp pencil flying through the air is not safe. It could have hit someone in the eye. I guess that's the worst case scenario. When I look back at that situation, as an adult, I think the best course of action would have been to tell him to stop doing it, explain WHY and then belt him if he continued. I guess there could have been other choices of punishment. At the end of the day the kid survived and didn't flick pencils all over the place so it "seemed" to work in this instance.

Until I have kids of my own I CANNOT answer the question, "Would you be happy if your kid was belted?". I simply don't know. I would like to think that I could instill better values in him / her but kids are easily led astray. I would have to consider the crime as well. Depending on the crime I think I would prefer it if he / she was reported to the head of the school who then contacted me and then left the punishment up to me. He / she would be allowed to continue attending school as long as the behaviour does not continue. If it did, then I have bigger problems than my kid getting a belt over their hand. Another quick point before I duck out. It depends on the age of the child as well.

I think you're right, that it's a contested term and it has relative meaning. There are multiple issues within this. I suppose a core issue is that of whether it is ever right to hit a child, because that's what we are talking about (however much the birching brigade would label that 'emotive language' :greengrin).

I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'.

Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. Like it or not, that's what was being talked about. Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?

Some of the other comments seem to suggest that violence should be used as punishment or as a means of enforcing authority. We would shirk at that with adults, why would we consider it more appropriate for people who are more vulnerable than adults?

[sadtom]

Whilst I don't think It'll ever be possible to go back to the belt, it is a simple and effective way of disciplining. What lasting harm does it do? None, but it teaches a simple lesson.

It certainly does.
If you are not able to get your own way or get people to do what you want - hit them!

Teachers do need help in order to control their classes most of which should come from the parents insisting that the kids show the teacher respect. As far as punishment go i firmly believe that detention or break time detention was always more effective, failing that suspension or one to one supervision for a limited/appropriate period. (this will require additional funding in the schools though i would reckon its money very well spent)
Most of the really badly behaved kids get leathered at home by parents who are unable to control or discipline their kids without resorting to violence. As such they become innured to violence and the threat of violence and see it as 'quick and easy' punishment. All it does is continue the cycle of violence in society.

Never laid a finger on my kids and while they have their moments like most kids, they are measurably better behaved and more respectful than the vast majority of their peers in school or at their clubs.

Why is it in this country if we need our drains fixed, we call a plumber, our car fixed, a mechanic etc, yet we look down on the information given by child psychologists/behavioural therapist/care workers etc.
We have a real problem with academia in this country and believe that just cause most people are able to muddle by and their kids turn out ok(ish) that we dont need those lot 'interfering' as it "never did me any harm". blah blah blah.
Kids respond better to encouragement - not chastisement.

[--------]

I think you're right, that it's a contested term and it has relative meaning. There are multiple issues within this. I suppose a core issue is that of whether it is ever right to hit a child, because that's what we are talking about (however much the birching brigade would label that 'emotive language' :greengrin).

I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'.

Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. Like it or not, that's what was being talked about. Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?

Some of the other comments seem to suggest that violence should be used as punishment or as a means of enforcing authority. We would shirk at that with adults, why would we consider it more appropriate for people who are more vulnerable than adults?


You speak about "hitting" a child, and about "violence" against a child.

The way the law is right now, a teacher can't even touch a child. He/she can't comfort them when they're upset; if a wee one goes to the loo TWO adults have to be present (each to keep an eye on the other); and a teacher certainly can't lay hands on a child to restrain him or her in any way.

But this case isn't about children - it's about a gang of teenage louts who persecuted and harassed a teacher until his self-control broke and he laid hands on one of them. Was the lout hurt? No. Who was the victim here? The teacher. Do some of care? Apparently not.

Teachers should refuse to take classes alone. They should insist on having TWO qualified adults in the classroom always. That way, the louts they have to try to educate will know that there's a witness to what's going on in the room. It'll cost, but why not tax all parents with children of school age to pay for it?

And if a teacher's assaulted, he should be able to report that assault to the police without any fear of come-back from the head-teacher or the parents' group.

And if a lout IS expe;;ed from school, the parents should be put on notice that it's THEIR responsibility to find another school stupid enough to take their unpleasant offspring, and not the Education Department's. And if they don't - make them squeal.

[Jay]

You speak about "hitting" a child, and about "violence" against a child.

The way the law is right now, a teacher can't even touch a child. He/she can't comfort them when they're upset; if a wee one goes to the loo TWO adults have to be present (each to keep an eye on the other); and a teacher certainly can't lay hands on a child to restrain him or her in any way.

But this case isn't about children - it's about a gang of teenage louts who persecuted and harassed a teacher until his self-control broke and he laid hands on one of them. Was the lout hurt? No. Who was the victim here? The teacher. Do some of care? Apparently not.

Teachers should refuse to take classes alone. They should insist on having TWO qualified adults in the classroom always. That way, the louts they have to try to educate will know that there's a witness to what's going on in the room. It'll cost, but why not tax all parents with children of school age to pay for it?

And if a teacher's assaulted, he should be able to report that assault to the police without any fear of come-back from the head-teacher or the parents' group.

And if a lout IS expe;;ed from school, the parents should be put on notice that it's THEIR responsibility to find another school stupid enough to take their unpleasant offspring, and not the Education Department's. And if they don't - make them squeal.

I agree that a teacher should not be alone with the kids. Money needs to be poured into schools to deal with this issue. The days of CCTV in classrooms are not far off I am sure. However teachers also need to think before they act. I know of a case fairly recently where a teacher took an unruly 15 year old girl into a cupboard ( a large walk in one) to talk to her!! How stupid was that?? The girl could have accused him of anything - thankfully she didn't but he put himself in a very stupid position.

[IndieHibby]

You asked that I engage with your points, 'play the ball' rather than 'play the man' as it were, which is fair enough.




It's not 'fair to conclude' though. The law does allow for a degree of physical violence to be used against children. Yet that doesn't seem to stop the behaviours you are citing (really? How do you know?)So I'm guessing you are saying that to improve children's behaviour we should hit them more. NO :bitchy:

Can you evidence that corporal punishment cause improved behaviour in children? I mean properly evidence it?

To make clear exactly what I am saying, it is this:

If 'society' says that parents must never use any form of physical chastisement, then this reduces the options available to them.

Smacking ALONE will never prevent anyone doing bad things. But I would argue that it should be available if deemed necessary, as a last resort, as part of a wider range of options available to parents.

What right does anyone have to tell parents how they discipline their kids? We have the right to say that the negative behaviour shown by people should be punished, in one way or another (including physical chastisment that it deemed unreasonable - it has always been so after all)
For most children, in most cases, there is no need for this last resort. But for a few, some of the time, it can serve as the only deterrent to disobeying their parents. It is the disobeyment of parental instructions that leads children to grow up with the attitudes that lead them to live their lives in an antisocial manner (I am suggesting, not claiming proof of).

As for evidence, there is no way that I can prove that. Indeed, I doubt there is any evidence at all. I can't begin to imagine how you would prove that.

The only way would be to ask large numbers of people:

"Did your parents ever smack you?" If the answer is "yes" then ask: "Did this lead you to stop doing bad things?"

If the answer is no, then you could attempt to correlate that with the volume or extent to which they have commited antisocial acts, their attitudes to authority etc, etc, although this would be far from proof, in the pure scientific definition.

That is very different from saying that it is not true, however. Reading the large number of comments in response to the original story, the comments on this page, the many comments from parents with regard to other people's children (it is a brave parent that now talks openly of whether they use physical chastisment, which, IMO reflects the taboo it has become, which so happens to co-incide neatly with the change in society at large over a period of 40 years or so) then I reckon that the very recent change in attitudes to parenting has run concurrent with an increase in the negative attitudes shown in our youngsters.

In my experience, if you show weakness to children, they absolutely do not respect that. In actual fact, most children desire enforcement of boundaries, as it protects them from the excesses of the few kids who are just downright nasty pieces-of-work.

Yet I cannot make any of the children do as they are told. They will respond to instructions if they have been taught to do so by their parents. If their parents cannot control them, I most certainly can't either. Yet, the ideal of 'inclusion' means that violent children must be present in mainstream schools.

One 11 year old by ambushed a teacher in our school and threw a compass at her head, narrowly missing her eye. The schools response was weak and the justification was that he comes from a bad background. So this child has learned that he can get away with some seriously dangerous behaviour, while his classmates have learned that there can be justifications for this kind of act. If they are not being taught that boundaries must be enforced, at home, then surely schools must provide this essential education?

I categorically oppose the re-introduction of corporal punishment in schools. I also oppose the idea that my neighbour has the right to demand that I am limited in the way that I can deal with my child's misbehaviour.

The state has absolutely no right to determine how one raises their children. That is the way of totalitarianism.

The problems we see today are, partly, caused by the notion that seems prevelant, that in no circumstances is it acceptable to physically chastise your children.

Whether one disagrees with that is irrelevant. The main point is that the state shouldn't remove options in what is an extremely difficult job.

[IndieHibby]

You speak about "hitting" a child, and about "violence" against a child.

The way the law is right now, a teacher can't even touch a child ( )and a teacher certainly can't lay hands on a child to restrain him or her in any way.

They can, "use reasonable physical restraint if it prevents danger/harm to the child in question, or harm to others"


[/quote]Teachers should refuse to take classes alone. They should insist on having TWO qualified adults in the classroom always. That way, the louts they have to try to educate will know that there's a witness to what's going on in the room. It'll cost, but why not tax all parents with children of school age to pay for it?[/quote]

This will never happen. It would be insanely expensive.

[--------]

To make clear exaclty what I am saying, it is this:

If 'society' says that parents must never use any form of physical chastisement, then this reduces the options available to them.

Smacking ALONE will never prevent anyone doing bad things. But I would argue that it should be available if deemed necessary, as a last resort, as part of a wider range of options available to parents.

What right does anyone have to tell parents how they discipline their kids? We have the right to say that the negative behaviour shown by people should be punished, in one way or another (including physical chastisment that it deemed unreasonable - it has always been so after all)
For most children, in most cases, there is no need for this last resort. But for a few, some of the time, it can serve as the only deterrent to disobeying their parents. It is the disobeyment of parental instructions that leads children to grow up with the attitudes that lead them to live their lives in an antisocial manner (I am suggesting, not claiming proof of).

As for evidence, there is no way that I can prove that. Indeed, I doubt there is any evidence at all. I can't begin to imagine how you would prove that.

The only way would be to ask large numbers of people:

"Did your parents ever smack you?" If the answer is "yes" then ask: "Did this lead you to stop doing bad things?"

If the answer is no, then you could attempt to correlate that with the volume or extent to which they have commited antisocial acts, their attitudes to authority etc, etc, although this would be far from proof, in the pure scientific definition.

That is very different from saying that it is not true, however. Reading the large number of comments in response to the original story, the comments on this page, the many comments from parents with regard to other people's children (it is a brave parent that now talks openly of whether they use physical chastisment, which, IMO reflects the taboo it has become, which so happens to co-incide neatly with the change in society at large over a period of 40 years or so) then I reckon that the very recent change in attitudes to parenting has run concurrent with an increase in the negative attitudes shown in our youngsters.

In my experience, if you show weakness to children, they absolutely do not respect that. In actual fact, most children desire enforcement of boundaries, as it protects them from the excesses of the few kids who are just downright nasty pieces-of-work.

Yet I cannot make any of the children do as they are told. They will respond to instructions if they have been taught to do so by their parents. If their parents cannot control them, I most certainly can't either. Yet, the ideal of 'inclusion' means that violent children must be present in mainstream schools.

One 11 year old by ambushed a teacher in our school and threw a compass at her head, narrowly missing her eye. The schools response was weak and the justification was that he comes from a bad background. So this child has learned that he can get away with some seriously dangerous behaviour, while his classmates have learned that there can be justifications for this kind of act. If they are not being taught that boundaries must must be enforced, at home, then surely schools must provide this essential education?

I categorically oppose the re-introduction of corporal punishment in schools. I also oppose the idea that my neighbour has the right to demand that I am limited in the way that I can deal with their misbehaviour.

The state has absolutely no right to determine how one raises their children. That is the way of totalitarianism.

The problems we see today are, partly, caused by the notion that seems prevelant, that in no circumstances is it acceptable to physically chastise your children.

Whether one disagrees with that is irrelevant. The main point is that the state shouldn't remove options in what is an extremely difficult job.


Cracking post, mate. Totally agree. :top marks

[IndieHibby]

I think you're right, that it's a contested term and it has relative meaning. There are multiple issues within this. I suppose a core issue is that of whether it is ever right to hit a child, because that's what we are talking about (however much the birching brigade would label that 'emotive language' :greengrin). It was me who termed 'violence' an emotive term (not 'hitting') and I am certainly not part of any birching brigade. As an aside, the only person I know of who was birched actually attributes this event in turning their life away from one of crime.

I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'.

Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. Again that was me. Like it or not, that's what was being talked about. Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate? I would rather give my toddler a light slap on the wrist than see them dead or scarred for life. But hey, that's just my choice...

Some of the other comments seem to suggest that violence should be used as punishment or as a means of enforcing authority. We would shirk at that with adults, why would we consider it more appropriate for people who are more vulnerable than adults?

For the plain and simple truth that adults are quite capable for making decisions for themsleves, know the consequences of crime and are free to take that risk. Children on the other hand do insanely stupid things because they do not have the life experience or the mental capability to make rational judgements of this nature.

[Betty Boop]

It certainly does.
If you are not able to get your own way or get people to do what you want - hit them!

Teachers do need help in order to control their classes most of which should come from the parents insisting that the kids show the teacher respect. As far as punishment go i firmly believe that detention or break time detention was always more effective, failing that suspension or one to one supervision for a limited/appropriate period. (this will require additional funding in the schools though i would reckon its money very well spent)
Most of the really badly behaved kids get leathered at home by parents who are unable to control or discipline their kids without resorting to violence. As such they become innured to violence and the threat of violence and see it as 'quick and easy' punishment. All it does is continue the cycle of violence in society.

Never laid a finger on my kids and while they have their moments like most kids, they are measurably better behaved and more respectful than the vast majority of their peers in school or at their clubs.

Why is it in this country if we need our drains fixed, we call a plumber, our car fixed, a mechanic etc, yet we look down on the information given by child psychologists/behavioural therapist/care workers etc.
We have a real problem with academia in this country and believe that just cause most people are able to muddle by and their kids turn out ok(ish) that we dont need those lot 'interfering' as it "never did me any harm". blah blah blah.
Kids respond better to encouragement - not chastisement.:top marks

[--------]

For the plain and simple truth that adults are quite capable for making decisions for themsleves, know the consequences of crime and are free to take that risk. Children on the other hand do insanely stupid things because they do not have the life experience or the mental capability to make rational judgements of this nature.


When I was two and a half my father gave me two absolute stingers across my backside. They HURT. I was in tears. He then put me back in my cot and tied up the sides so I couldn't get out. My father was not a child abuser.

I had managed to find my way out of my cot, onto my bedroom window-ledge, between 30 and 40 feet above the street. I was standing on the ledge, looking down at what was going on. The window (a wide dormer sash) was wide open. A neighbour had spotted me, and had tip-toed into the house to tell my dad, who then tip-toed upstairs, crept into my bedromm, grabbed me by the back of my pyjamas, put me over his knee....

I'm probably still in this world because he did all this.

He couldn't afford to reason with me - what I was doing was MUCH too dangerous. I wouldn't have understood, anyway.

He didn't do it because he was a violent man - he wasn't.

He did it to make sure that I remembered that my going up on the window-ledge would have serious consequences. That climbing up on the window-ledge led to painful consequences.

OK, that's extreme pleading, but it's a true story.

I learned my lesson, and I'm still here.

In retrospect, I'd rather have had the spanking than find out which was harder, my head or the pavement.

[BEEJ]

Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. Like it or not, that's what was being talked about. Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?

Well if the toddler was about to do something that would endanger their life or the lives of others and could not be persuaded otherwise, yes! :confused:

[IndieHibby]

When I was two and a half my father gave me two absolute stingers across my backside. They HURT. I was in tears. He then put me back in my cot and tied up the sides so I couldn't get out. My father was not a child abuser.

I had managed to find my way out of my cot, onto my bedroom window-ledge, between 30 and 40 feet above the street. I was standing on the ledge, looking down at what was going on. The window (a wide dormer sash) was wide open. A neighbour had spotted me, and had tip-toed into the house to tell my dad, who then tip-toed upstairs, crept into my bedromm, grabbed me by the back of my pyjamas, put me over his knee....

I'm probably still in this world because he did all this.

He couldn't afford to reason with me - what I was doing was MUCH too dangerous. I wouldn't have understood, anyway.

He didn't do it because he was a violent man - he wasn't.

He did it to make sure that I remembered that my going up on the window-ledge would have serious consequences. That climbing up on the window-ledge led to painful consequences.

OK, that's extreme pleading, but it's a true story.

I learned my lesson, and I'm still here.

In retrospect, I'd rather have had the spanking than find out which was harder, my head or the pavement.

You know it, I know it and so do most people I know.

Yet some people would have had your dad 'encouraging' you, taking away your toys or putting you in the naughty chair. I fully expect posts in reply stating "well obviously in that case it would be silly not to", in which case are there circumstances in which it would be ok to "use violence" as a deterrent/means of enforcing authority"?

[--------]

It certainly does.
If you are not able to get your own way or get people to do what you want - hit them!

This, IMO, is a gross over-simplification. Reasonable discipline and reasonable force isn't the same thing as unrestrained violence.

Teachers do need help in order to control their classes most of which should come from the parents insisting that the kids show the teacher respect. As far as punishment go i firmly believe that detention or break time detention was always more effective, failing that suspension or one to one supervision for a limited/appropriate period. (this will require additional funding in the schools though i would reckon its money very well spent)
Most of the really badly behaved kids get leathered at home by parents who are unable to control or discipline their kids without resorting to violence. As such they become innured to violence and the threat of violence and see it as 'quick and easy' punishment. All it does is continue the cycle of violence in society.

Never laid a finger on my kids and while they have their moments like most kids, they are measurably better behaved and more respectful than the vast majority of their peers in school or at their clubs.

Why is it in this country if we need our drains fixed, we call a plumber, our car fixed, a mechanic etc, yet we look down on the information given by child psychologists/behavioural therapist/care workers etc.

We have a real problem with academia in this country and believe that just cause most people are able to muddle by and their kids turn out ok(ish) that we dont need those lot 'interfering' as it "never did me any harm". blah blah blah.
Kids respond better to encouragement - not chastisement.


Perhaps because of reports like THIS:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iultN_JJJE_etEfHIPd2HjPUsD9w

EIGHT YEARS and goodness how many thousands of pounds to work out that kids from poor backgrounds are disadvantaged educationally?

They should just have asked my wife - she could have told them. She's only taught in primaries for nearly 40 years.

(And then they could given her the money....)

But then, what does she know? She's only a teacher. :cool2:

BTW, your analogy isn't sound. If you have a problem with your water pipes, you get a plumber, not someone who's read 250 books on the theory of plumbing but never mended a burst pipe.

If you want your car fixed, you take it to a garage; you don't let a theoretical physicist loose on it.

If my house has been broken into, I want the POLICE, not a lecturer in theoretical criminology from some University.

So, if we have problems in education, it seems to me we need to be listening to the teachers, not to theorists who rarely if ever step inside a classroom.

Child psychologists, behavioural therapists and care workers aren't experts in education. TEACHERS are. They work with the children full-time, day by day.

And most of the ones I know are totally pissed-off with being told how to do their jobs by every Tom, Dick or Harry that takes it into his or her head to claim to be an expert in the field.

[IndieHibby]

Perhaps because of reports like THIS:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iultN_JJJE_etEfHIPd2HjPUsD9w

EIGHT YEARS and goodness how many thousands of pounds to work out that kids from poor backgrounds are disadvantaged educationally?

They should just have asked my wife - she could have told them. She's only taught in primaries for nearly 40 years.

(And then they could given her the money....)

But then, what does she know? She's only a teacher. :cool2:

BTW, your analogy isn't sound. If you have a problem with your water pipes, you get a plumber, not someone who's read 250 books on the theory of plumbing but never mended a burst pipe.

If you want your car fixed, you take it to a garage; you don't let a theoretical physicist loose on it.

So, if we have problems in education, it seems to me we need to be listening to the teachers, not to theorists who rarely if ever step inside a classroom.

Child psychologists, behavioural therapists and care workers aren't experts in education. TEACHERS are. They work with the children full-time, day by day.

And most of the ones I know are totally pissed-off with being told how to do their jobs by every Tom, Dick or Harry that takes it into his or her head to claim to be an expert in the field.

:top marksYou have actually managed to say in a few sentences what I have been trying to tell anyone who will listen in the last 5 years of teaching.

[--------]

:top marksYou have actually managed to say in a few sentences what I have been trying to tell anyone who will listen in the last 5 years of teaching.


No credit due to me, stu.

She Who Must Be Obeyed was behind me with her baseball bat while I was typing it.

She never touched me, though. :wink:

It's exactly the same in my own work - the church's lousy with "experts" on "Church growth", "Pastoral outreach", "the Business Model of Ministry", and so on - not one of whom is (or ever has been) actually working in a congregation, and all of whom are paid considerably more than I am.

And I guess a goodly number of my fellow-posters are harbouring the sneaky feeling that they could do my job just fine - maybe even better than me - just as nobody really values YOUR professional training and expertise.

Highlights of my times? The guy who ate his shotgun, both barrels. Guess who got to tell his partner?

The young couple whose wee girl hade been born apparently perfect - she died two days old. Guess who did the funeral - and the follow-up? Not your sanctified care workers.

Or the lad who died of a drug overdose a month after coming out of Saughton? Who got to tell his elderly father and mother? Me, and the policeman in the island where we were working at the time.

Not the rotten social workers who had put him into the halfway-house against police and prison service advice.

The world's a mess (or it'll do till a real mess comes along) and I get more than ticked off at the folks who keep telling me that all we need is "lurve" without a bit of discipline and order.

[Mibbes Aye]

You speak about "hitting" a child, and about "violence" against a child.



I do Doddie, because when I came into this debate it had moved onto corporal punishment.

I think it's important that people take ownership, take responsibility for their actions and choices and when we talk about corporal punishment we are talking, at a very fundamental level, about an act of violence, the inflicting of pain by an adult on a child. That's not being emotive, far from it, that's being prosaic. And when people talk about 'restoring discipline' in the classroom by bringing back the belt we should be clear about what they are actually meaning.

Credit to Stueyn on that front, he has owned his viewpoint with regard to adults hitting children. His view obviously sits a fair distance from mine but I respect his honesty about it.

It does amuse me how the debate shifts when we start talking bluntly about what's happening when an adult chooses to hurt a child though. Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them. The language changes to that of 'discipline' or being 'for their own good' or 'it's the only language they understand'.

By doing that, the responsibilty for hitting the child is transferred onto the child and the adult surrenders ownership of doing it. Yet at the end of the day, they're the one making an active choice to inflict hurt on a minor.

The ultimate extension of that, obviously, is in the likes of your anecdote, where the act of violence was to save your life or something close to that. Although I don't know your circumstances growing up I can't help but wonder if that situation could be replicated today without alternatives - ensuring the window was shut, had child catches or whatever. It's a very personal subject for you and I've got enough respect for you that I wouldn't wish you to feel insulted in any way by this, but it's not a situation I could ever imagine finding myself in - I would see alternatives to smacking or whatever.

In many ways as a society we progress. Domestic violence is considered completely unacceptable now but it's not long ago it was more contested or even tolerated. Times change, unfortunately not everyone changes with the times.

[IndieHibby]

No credit due to me, stu.

She Who Must Be Obeyed was behind me with her baseball bat while I was typing it.

She never touched me, though. :wink:

It's exactly the same in my own work - the church's lousy with "experts" on "Church growth", "Pastoral outreach", "the Business Model of Ministry", and so on - not one of whom is (or ever has been) actually working in a congregation, and all of whom are paid considerably more than I am.

And I guess a goodly number of my fellow-posters are harbouring the sneaky feeling that they could do my job just fine - maybe even better than me - just as nobody really values YOUR professional training and expertise.

Highlights of my times? The guy who ate his shotgun, both barrels. Guess who got to tell his partner?

The young couple whose wee girl hade been born apparently perfect - she died two days old. Guess who did the funeral - and the follow-up? Not your sanctified care workers.

Or the lad who died of a drug overdose a month after coming out of Saughton? Who got to tell his elderly father and mother? Me, and the policeman in the island where we were working at the time.

Not the rotten social workers who had put him into the halfway-house against police and prison service advice.

The world's a mess (or it'll do till a real mess comes along) and I get more than ticked off at the folks who keep telling me that all we need is "lurve" without a bit of discipline and order.

As do I. They just will not accept that human nature hides some uncomfortable truths - like the one in question on this thread. Which is fine; I envy those who have been able to raise children without once having to lay a finger on them. But it riles me when they come over all sanctamonious and stating that because they have never had to do it they would remove the right from others to determine the outcomes in our own families, as we see fit. I was led to believe we live in a country where the state does not interfere in certain activities, parenting being one of them.

Most of these so called 'experts' (with whom I have to suffer the presence of in my daily work, as do you, it would appear) just don't know how to divorce idealism from pragmatism. In fact, that word is just meaningless to far too many people.

In reference to your point about the social workers who put the young man you refer to in a half-way house, it draws striking similarities to the 'baby-p' case. It was reported that the police had a stand up argument with the head of social services about removing the child. Their response, befitting those who follow 'idealism', was 'we don't split up families'. It just beggars belief that the people in charge made a decision based on an 'ideal' or mantra, rather than deferred to the experience of the police.

Needless to say, the police, as ever in cases like this, were over-ruled. The rest, as they say is history.

[--------]

The ultimate extension of that, obviously, is in the likes of your anecdote, where the act of violence was to save your life or something close to that. Although I don't know your circumstances growing up I can't help but wonder if that situation could be replicated today without alternatives - ensuring the window was shut, had child catches or whatever. It's a very personal subject for you and I've got enough respect for you that I wouldn't wish you to feel insulted in any way by this, but it's not a situation I could ever imagine finding myself in - I would see alternatives to smacking or whatever.



Perhaps I should have said that the window-ledge in question is 4'6" above floor level. I don't suppose my father ever expected a toddler to get all the way up there - but then, most parents are occasionally surprised or even appalled at what a small child can suddenly achieve in terms of physical mobility.

The following day he came home from work with timber and chicken-wire and made screens for the windows in my bedroom. So the danger was more or less permanently averted.

(PLEASE don't say that all he had had to do was put me back in my cot. My dad knew me very well, and he knew I was the sort of child who simply would not obey on the first telling and there was no way he was taking the slightest chance that I would try the adventure again that night.)

However, there were plenty other places and ways I could have done myself damage in that old house - this was the early 1950's, remember, and B&Q and all their wonderful devices didn't exist.

I wouldn't say that my upbringing did me no harm, but I suspect that whatever problems I still struggle with aren't down to that incident with the window, but to other, entirely non-violent episodes in my later childhood.

What I WOULD say, and what I think you're missing in the current situation in schools, is that right now no adult can touch a child in any way without the risk of a career-ending court action. (As in this case.)

The "students", such as they are, know that they can demean their teachers, assault their teachers, harass and stalk their teachers, even indecently assault their teachers, and the instinctive reaction of many (most?) head teachers is to sweep the matter under the carpet, hush it up, pretend it didn't happen, "for the sake of the good name of the school".

I said it in aprevious post - all teachers, through their unions, should refuse to teach classes alone. There should be 2 adults in the room AT ALL TIMES, for the protection of both the teachers and the pupils.

And louts like this bunch of creeps should be STOPPED long before their persecution reaches the level it did here. The only way to do that is to cause them and their parents a degree of unpleasantness, IMO - either financial, or social, or personal.

Corporal punishment isn't a goer, I agree, but for goodness' sake forget this rubbish that all kids are just angels waiting for the opportunity to shine. I wasn't like that, and I've never yet met one that was....

[Sir David Gray]

You speak about "hitting" a child, and about "violence" against a child.

The way the law is right now, a teacher can't even touch a child. He/she can't comfort them when they're upset; if a wee one goes to the loo TWO adults have to be present (each to keep an eye on the other); and a teacher certainly can't lay hands on a child to restrain him or her in any way.

But this case isn't about children - it's about a gang of teenage louts who persecuted and harassed a teacher until his self-control broke and he laid hands on one of them. Was the lout hurt? No. Who was the victim here? The teacher. Do some of care? Apparently not.

Teachers should refuse to take classes alone. They should insist on having TWO qualified adults in the classroom always. That way, the louts they have to try to educate will know that there's a witness to what's going on in the room. It'll cost, but why not tax all parents with children of school age to pay for it?

And if a teacher's assaulted, he should be able to report that assault to the police without any fear of come-back from the head-teacher or the parents' group.

And if a lout IS expe;;ed from school, the parents should be put on notice that it's THEIR responsibility to find another school stupid enough to take their unpleasant offspring, and not the Education Department's. And if they don't - make them squeal.

I know this is diverting away from the thread subject but I felt I had to comment on the bit in bold as it is something I feel very strongly about.

It has now got to the stage where there can be practically no physical contact between the adult and the child. As you say, teachers and other people who are in charge of small children can't even comfort a wee 5 year old who has fallen and hurt themselves and are crying their eyes out. They desperately want mummy or daddy who, of course, aren't there at that time. But instead of taking over the role temporarily as mummy or daddy, the adult has to keep their distance, if they don't, they could get accused of all sorts. Meanwhile the child is left to howl and think that no-one cares.

How do you explain to a child of that age that you really are concerned for them but can't show that concern in case a complaint is made and you are accused of inappropriate behaviour and are subsequently suspended from your job, pending a full police investigation? Somehow, I don't think that explanation would go down too well with a 5 year old, and certainly not a 5 year old with a sore knee that thinks their leg is about to fall off.

Now I am aware that this particular rule has as much to do with protecting the adult from false accusations as it has to do with protecting the child from a rogue teacher who may have sinister intentions behind their "loving hug" but I just feel it is a bit much. Teachers, and other adults who have a responsibility in looking after children, have to (rightly) go through stringent disclosure checks before they are able to be in a position of trust where children are concerned.

Obviously, there's nothing to stop you from offending for the first time after your clean disclosure has come through, but in the vast majority of cases, people who are deemed appropriate to work with children are not future child molesters or paedophiles. They are simply people with a genuine love and affection for children. On top of wanting the children in their care to excel at school or in a particular sport that they are teaching them, those adults also want to help when they see a child in tears, it's simply in their nature.

No-one's talking about the children being given a kiss "to make it all better", no-one's talking about this being applied to teenagers, as that would be inappropriate. I'm simply talking about adults who are in charge of young primary school children being able to put a comforting arm round an upset child and making sure they are OK. I have nothing to back this up with but i'm pretty certain that the majority of parents of young children would have no problem with a trusted adult, such as a teacher or a coach that takes their child for a sport, comforting their child when they are hurt or upset.

I am not a school teacher but I am involved in swimming classes that involves children aged from about 5-9. Sometimes I get children coming to me and asking to put their goggles on for them, which would obviously involve physical contact. At first, I didn't want to go near them, based on what I had heard in the past. Fortunately the person in charge took over and they sorted the goggles, so i'm now happy that it's OK to do this but it's terrible that I even felt that way in the first place.

It is now at the point where we don't trust anyone anymore. In certain places in England & Wales, it is now possible to go and ask the police whether someone with access to your children has convictions for sex offences. We no longer rely on trust or instinct, we simply just pick up the phone, ask the police and get the answer. I know that this initiative was set up with good intentions but checking whether someone's a pervert or a paedophile is not exactly the best way to strike up a trusting relationship with someone.

Hearing people talk about the possibilities of shortly having two adults present in every classroom or having CCTV installed in classrooms, in case an accusation is made against the teacher or to check that nothing untoward is happening, is incredibly sad from my point of view. It's also an unfortunate sign of where we are as a society that now, not only are children being told not to talk to strangers, it'll soon be the case that they'll not even be allowed to speak to a teacher about issues that are not related to their school work. It's also sad that some children have been brought up to think it's in any way acceptable to make serious false accusations against a teacher, or anyone for that matter.

Not only could those accusations destroy the teacher's career, it could also destroy their marriage, their relationship with family and their life in general, in the local community, where some people believe that there's no smoke without fire. And for what? Just so a spiteful little sod can get one over on the teacher that gave them after school detention and 100 lines.

I'm totally behind the protection of children, it's also vital that we ensure that inappropriate individuals are not allowed anywhere near jobs that involve children. But things, in my opinion, are getting a little bit out of hand. Being given a job where you are working with someone else's child is a massive position of trust. I think it's about time we gave those people full trust, until such a time arises where it's deemed that they have breached their position of trust. Then and only then, should that trust be removed.

Apologies for the long post, I just had so much to say on this particular issue!

[IndieHibby]

I do Doddie, because when I came into this debate it had moved onto corporal punishment.

I think it's important that people take ownership, take responsibility for their actions and choices and when we talk about corporal punishment we are talking, at a very fundamental level, about an act of violence, the inflicting of pain by an adult on a child. That's not being emotive, far from it, that's being prosaic. And when people talk about 'restoring discipline' in the classroom by bringing back the belt we should be clear about what they are actually meaning.

Credit to Stueyn on that front, he has owned his viewpoint with regard to adults hitting children. His view obviously sits a fair distance from mine but I respect his honesty about it.

It does amuse me how the debate shifts when we start talking bluntly about what's happening when an adult chooses to hurt a child though. Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them. The language changes to that of 'discipline' or being 'for their own good' or 'it's the only language they understand'.

By doing that, the responsibilty for hitting the child is transferred onto the child and the adult surrenders ownership of doing it. Yet at the end of the day, they're the one making an active choice to inflict hurt on a minor.

The ultimate extension of that, obviously, is in the likes of your anecdote, where the act of violence was to save your life or something close to that. Although I don't know your circumstances growing up I can't help but wonder if that situation could be replicated today without alternatives - ensuring the window was shut, had child catches or whatever. It's a very personal subject for you and I've got enough respect for you that I wouldn't wish you to feel insulted in any way by this, but it's not a situation I could ever imagine finding myself in - I would see alternatives to smacking or whatever.

In many ways as a society we progress. Domestic violence is considered completely unacceptable now but it's not long ago it was more contested or even tolerated. Times change, unfortunately not everyone changes with the times.

Thanks for your acknowledgement that I am entitled to hold a viewpoint different from yours. I just wish you would refer directly to any of the arguments I have made, rather than just ignoring them and continuing to repeat your mantra that it can NEVER be acceptable for me to use physical chastisment on my children. I get the impression, should it ever come to a vote on the issue (not that it will), that you would take away my freedom to do so. And I would ask, what on earth gives you the right to do that?

Reading your post above, it is clear that you cannot see the wider picture beyond 'violence on children'. So I'll ask, one final time, a very simple question:

"If my child (who is of an age where he/she cannot be reasoned with) persists in putting themsleves (or others) in danger, is it not better to give them a smack, which, like it or not, has a habit of working, or run the risk of far greater pain and damage, or even death, in the interest of never having them feel pain?"

Btw, I would like to make clear, you are saying now that you are talking about 'corporal punishment' (i.e. by the state) when in actual fact you were saying that it is 'never ok to hit a child'.

I don't support corporal punishment, but I do support the rights of parents to discipline their children in the manner that they see fit. The law allows, whether you like it or not, for reasonable chastisment, for a very good reason.

Also, you invoke domestic violence as a corollary here, when it is entirely inappropriate. How you can compare a man beating his wife with a caring and concerned parent preventing their child from a greater harm is beyond me and beneath contempt.

Finally, you state that there can be alternatives to smacking. They centre around removing risk. While this intention is noble, it is a little short sighted. People must learn to manage risk. It is part of life, unfortunately. If you spend your formative years devoid of all forms of risk (and not doing as you are told lest you get a smack is one of the earliest) then you will develop into an adult who will, inevitably, have to learn the hard way what 'risk' is. If you are lucky, you will live to be able to use that lesson to your advantage.

To suggest that Dobbie's father resorted to 'violence' because:
a) he 'wanted' (your words, not mine) to hit and used the pretext of danger to do it
b) didn't have alternatives
is insulting (I would suggest that the fact that Dobbie stated his dad was not a child abuser was proof that he had no desire to hit) and downright ignorant (he did have alternatives, read dobbie's post again)

"Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them. The language changes to that of 'discipline' or being 'for their own good' or 'it's the only language they understand'." The shyness you talk about does not exist. You think people should be ashamed for hitting their children, but they are not. The reason they talk of 'discipline'/'being for their own good'/'it's the only language they understand' is because that is precisely the reason they do it.

By doing that, the responsibilty for hitting the child is transferred onto the child and the adult surrenders ownership of doing it. Yet at the end of the day, they're the one making an active choice to inflict hurt on a minor."

This is sheer lunacy. How does giving a reason for an act deflect responsibity? Surely the opposite is true? I did "x" because of "y" - WHO did "x"? WHO?

I am genuinely remorseful that I have moved from polite debate to having to point out the sheer logical bankrupcy that is your position, but the things that you are implying about 'people like me' and doddie's father are downright outrageous.

We don't wan't to hit (our own) kids, but sometimes it is for their own good. This is obviously too big a pill for you to swallow, but please don't sit there and tell us that we have some twisted desire to do it, or that we are akin to wife beaters or that we are stuck in the past. That will offend people.

[Chez]

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder how many of the children/teens that carry out the kind of behaviour/acts this thread is talking about are "Looked After" ones?

I have seen it with my own eyes - children who were content, well-behaved and loved school to being a disruptive, violent one in the classroom since being removed from their own parents and taken into care.

[Mibbes Aye]

Thanks for your acknowledgement that I am entitled to hold a viewpoint different from yours. I just wish you would refer directly to any of the arguments I have made, rather than just ignoring them and continuing to repeat your mantra that it can NEVER be acceptable for me to use physical chastisment on my children. I get the impression, should it ever come to a vote on the issue (not that it will), that you would take away my freedom to do so. And I would ask, what on earth gives you the right to do that?

Reading your post above, it is clear that you cannot see the wider picture beyond 'violence on children'. So I'll ask, one final time, a very simple question:

"If my child (who is of an age where he/she cannot be reasoned with) persists in putting themsleves (or others) in danger, is it not better to give them a smack, which, like it or not, has a habit of working, or run the risk of far greater pain and damage, or even death, in the interest of never having them feel pain?"

Btw, I would like to make clear, you are saying now that you are talking about 'corporal punishment' (i.e. by the state) when in actual fact you were saying that it is 'never ok to hit a child'.

I don't support corporal punishment, but I do support the rights of parents to discipline their children in the manner that they see fit. The law allows, whether you like it or not, for reasonable chastisment, for a very good reason.

Also, you invoke domestic violence as a corollary here, when it is entirely inappropriate. How you can compare a man beating his wife with a caring and concerned parent preventing their child from a greater harm is beyond me and beneath contempt.

Finally, you state that there can be alternatives to smacking. They centre around removing risk. While this intention is noble, it is a little short sighted. People must learn to manage risk. It is part of life, unfortunately. If you spend your formative years devoid of all forms of risk (and not doing as you are told lest you get a smack is one of the earliest) then you will develop into an adult who will, inevitably, have to learn the hard way what 'risk' is. If you are lucky, you will live to be able to use that lesson to your advantage.

To suggest that Dobbie's father resorted to 'violence' because:
a) he 'wanted' (your words, not mine) to hit and used the pretext of danger to do it
b) didn't have alternatives
is insulting (I would suggest that the fact that Dobbie stated his dad was not a child abuser was proof that he had no desire to hit) and downright ignorant (he did have alternatives, read dobbie's post again)

"Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them. The language changes to that of 'discipline' or being 'for their own good' or 'it's the only language they understand'." The shyness you talk about does not exist. You think people should be ashamed for hitting their children, but they are not. The reason they talk of 'discipline'/'being for their own good'/'it's the only language they understand' is because that is precisely the reason they do it.

By doing that, the responsibilty for hitting the child is transferred onto the child and the adult surrenders ownership of doing it. Yet at the end of the day, they're the one making an active choice to inflict hurt on a minor."

This is sheer lunacy. How does giving a reason for an act deflect responsibity? Surely the opposite is true? I did "x" because of "y" - WHO did "x"? WHO?

I am genuinely remorseful that I have moved from polite debate to having to point out the sheer logical bankrupcy that is your position, but the things that you are implying about 'people like me' and doddie's father are downright outrageous.

We don't wan't to hit (our own) kids, but sometimes it is for their own good. This is obviously too big a pill for you to swallow, but please don't sit there and tell us that we have some twisted desire to do it, or that we are akin to wife beaters or that we are stuck in the past. That will offend people.

I really, really wish you wouldn't pretend I've said things that I haven't Stueyn - it diminishes your argument hugely but you've done it half a dozen times there at least. If you can't answer my arguments then don't make out I've said something I've not, in order to make your own point.

To respond to your question though, why would you allow your child to persist in putting themselves in danger and only then decide your best recourse was to hit them?

[IndieHibby]

I really, really wish you wouldn't accuse me of saying things I haven't Stueyn - it diminishes your argument hugely but you've done it half a dozen times there at least. If you can't answer my arguments then don't pretend I've said something I've not, in order to make your own point.

To respond to your question though, why would you allow your child to persist in putting themselves in danger and only then decide your best recourse was to hit them?

You said this:

"Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them."

and this:

"I suppose a core issue is that of whether it is ever right to hit a child, because that's what we are talking about (however much the birching brigade would label that 'emotive language' :greengrin)."

and this:

"I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'."

and this:

"Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. () Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?"

and this:

"I'm assuming because there is an accepted belief that in itself it is an act that is inherently 'wrong'" (when you say "in itself", again, you are removing the context.)

and this:

"If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO."

Since when was a question a response to a question?

You initially doubted my honesty, you started mocking my comments (remember this::faf:?), you continually state that you don't say things when they are there, written, by you. You state that I haven't answered your argument (as you have only one) when I have, on several occasions. It is you who hasn't answered mine (as typified by answering a question with a question)

I respect your desire to be a nice person, I really do, not wanting to hit kids etc, which is all well and good. But what you are suggesting is that you would interfere in the way in which others would bring up their own.

In addition, you insinuate that I and others like me, have some "desire" to be "violent" to children. Would you not take offence if I said the same thing about you? Do you take responsibility for your comments?

[IndieHibby]

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder how many of the children/teens that carry out the kind of behaviour/acts this thread is talking about are "Looked After" ones?

I have seen it with my own eyes - children who were content, well-behaved and loved school to being a disruptive, violent one in the classroom since being removed from their own parents and taken into care.

Most of the violent, disruptive kids I have worked with are just spoiled. Not all, but most.

[Mibbes Aye]

You said this:

"Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them."

and this:

"I suppose a core issue is that of whether it is ever right to hit a child, because that's what we are talking about (however much the birching brigade would label that 'emotive language' :greengrin)."

and this:

"I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'."

and this:

"Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. () Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?"

and this:

"I'm assuming because there is an accepted belief that in itself it is an act that is inherently 'wrong'" (when you say "in itself", again, you are removing the context.)

and this:

"If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO."

Since when was a question a response to a question?

You initially doubted my honesty, you started mocking my comments (remember this::faf:?), you continually state that you don't say things when they are there, written, by you. You state that I haven't answered your argument (as you have only one) when I have, on several occasions. It is you who hasn't answered mine (as typified by answering a question with a question)

I respect your desire to be a nice person, I really do, not wanting to hit kids etc, which is all well and good. But what you are suggesting is that you would interfere in the way in which others would bring up their own.

In addition, you insinuate that I and others like me, have some "desire" to be "violent" to children. Would you not take offence if I said the same thing about you? Do you take responsibility for your comments?

Stueyn, you've obviously been busy with the cut'n'paste but that's got nothing to do with you pretending I've said things I haven't. Gonnae no?

As far as I can tell, you say you don't agree with teachers or other non-parental authority figures hitting children.

But you do feel you have the right to hit your own children as you deem appropriate.

Your question, I feel, is a false construction. You are making out that if you don't administer a smack for persistent behaviour, then something worse will happen, and you ask me if that does not justify it.

But by that you imply that you've made no attempt to deal with the situation by other means prior to this, even though there is the risk of danger. In fact you say children should learn the risk of being smacked if they behave in a certain way. But this is after you saying that children should be smacked even though they can't rationalise the process. Which is it?

Basically I don't agree with your propostion - that someone needs to get to such a stage. I think you created it in the hope that, as you wrote earlier, people would respond with the "Obviously, in those circumstances it would be silly not to".

And re the smilie, it would appear it rankles with you. But to be fair, saying that child murderers are created by people who disagree with smacking children???? It is a beauty :agree:

[IndieHibby]

Stueyn, you've obviously been busy with the cut'n'paste but that's got nothing to do with you pretending I've said things I haven't.
Oh dear. Every single one of the comments I referenced was a comment you made. So please enlighten me, which things did I accuse you of saying that you didn't say? Gonnae no?

As far as I can tell, you say you don't agree with teachers or other non-parental authority figures hitting children. I have not stated otherwise, at any time.

But you do feel you have the right to hit your own children as you deem appropriate. I don't 'feel', it is the law. 'Smacking' has not been outlawed, yet.

Your question, I feel, is a false construction. You are making out that if you don't administer a smack for persistent behaviour, then something worse will happen, and you ask me if that does not justify it. Well, doesn't it? How many times must I ask the same question of you?

But by that you imply that you've made no attempt to deal with the situation by other means prior to this, even though there is the risk of danger. Please quote where I have implied this.

In fact you say children should learn the risk of being smacked if they behave in a certain way. Incorrect - I didn't say that they would learn that they would be smacked. Nice try. They will learn that some acts cause a painful outcome. But instead of boiling water, fire, electricity, a car running over them, a 40 ft fall determining the level of pain they must feel in order to learn the lesson, I get to control the the level of pain they feel. Eventually I won't need to use this last recourse, as they will have learned to follow instructions.

But this is after you saying that children should be smacked even though they can't rationalise the process. Which is it? Children can rationalise pain, as can most creatures with a nervous system. If something is painful, they don't do again, mostly. I may not be able to use a smack to show them the outcome of falling out of a window or running in front of a car, but it does not matter. They learn that it is a 'bad thing to do'.

Basically I don't agree with your propostion - that someone needs to get to such a stage. OK. Then I will give you £1000 pounds of my hard earned money, if you can prove that you can remove all risk for a child from the age of 0 to say 5-6 (I have no idea whether a child of that age will be able to make rational decisions about risk, but for argumemts sake, let it be)

If you can't remove ALL risk, then you must teach them about things that are risky. How do you tell a toddler not to eat out of a bin? Granted you could seal your bin, but what about the houses of people you visit, or when they are outdoors playing?

I think you created it in the hope that, as you wrote earlier, people would respond with the "Obviously, in those circumstances it would be silly not to". ???? So that's what you think? Based on what?

And re the smilie, it would appear it rankles with you. Do you like being mocked?

But to be fair, saying that child murderers are created by people who disagree with smacking children???? It is a beauty :agree:

That's not what I said. I said that if parents feel they cannot control their children (as a direct consequence of people who have removed that right from them, as you wish) then these children can become uncontrollable and commit antisocial acts (like murder).

[Mibbes Aye]

Thanks for your acknowledgement that I am entitled to hold a viewpoint different from yours. I just wish you would refer directly to any of the arguments I have made, rather than just ignoring them and continuing to repeat your mantra that it can NEVER be acceptable for me to use physical chastisment on my children. I get the impression, should it ever come to a vote on the issue (not that it will), that you would take away my freedom to do so. And I would ask, what on earth gives you the right to do that?

Reading your post above, it is clear that you cannot see the wider picture beyond 'violence on children'. So I'll ask, one final time, a very simple question:

"If my child (who is of an age where he/she cannot be reasoned with) persists in putting themsleves (or others) in danger, is it not better to give them a smack, which, like it or not, has a habit of working, or run the risk of far greater pain and damage, or even death, in the interest of never having them feel pain?"

Btw, I would like to make clear, you are saying now that you are talking about 'corporal punishment' (i.e. by the state) when in actual fact you were saying that it is 'never ok to hit a child'.

I don't support corporal punishment, but I do support the rights of parents to discipline their children in the manner that they see fit. The law allows, whether you like it or not, for reasonable chastisment, for a very good reason.

Also, you invoke domestic violence as a corollary here, when it is entirely inappropriate. How you can compare a man beating his wife with a caring and concerned parent preventing their child from a greater harm is beyond me and beneath contempt.

Finally, you state that there can be alternatives to smacking. They centre around removing risk. While this intention is noble, it is a little short sighted. People must learn to manage risk. It is part of life, unfortunately. If you spend your formative years devoid of all forms of risk (and not doing as you are told lest you get a smack is one of the earliest) then you will develop into an adult who will, inevitably, have to learn the hard way what 'risk' is. If you are lucky, you will live to be able to use that lesson to your advantage.

To suggest that Dobbie's father resorted to 'violence' because:
a) he 'wanted' (your words, not mine) to hit and used the pretext of danger to do it
b) didn't have alternatives
is insulting (I would suggest that the fact that Dobbie stated his dad was not a child abuser was proof that he had no desire to hit) and downright ignorant (he did have alternatives, read dobbie's post again)

"Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them. The language changes to that of 'discipline' or being 'for their own good' or 'it's the only language they understand'." The shyness you talk about does not exist. You think people should be ashamed for hitting their children, but they are not. The reason they talk of 'discipline'/'being for their own good'/'it's the only language they understand' is because that is precisely the reason they do it.

By doing that, the responsibilty for hitting the child is transferred onto the child and the adult surrenders ownership of doing it. Yet at the end of the day, they're the one making an active choice to inflict hurt on a minor."

This is sheer lunacy. How does giving a reason for an act deflect responsibity? Surely the opposite is true? I did "x" because of "y" - WHO did "x"? WHO?

I am genuinely remorseful that I have moved from polite debate to having to point out the sheer logical bankrupcy that is your position, but the things that you are implying about 'people like me' and doddie's father are downright outrageous.

We don't wan't to hit (our own) kids, but sometimes it is for their own good. This is obviously too big a pill for you to swallow, but please don't sit there and tell us that we have some twisted desire to do it, or that we are akin to wife beaters or that we are stuck in the past. That will offend people.

Stueyn - this is what I was referring to. The comments I've highlighted in bold are what you are attributing to me, yet I've never said any of that. You might have decided that's what you think I was saying but I don't think you'll be able to find any quotes from me where I've actually said those things.

Whether it's you putting words in my mouth to manipulate the debate or just mistaken inference on your part I don't know.

I suppose fundamentally you are wanting me to condemn you for your view that hitting children is acceptable, to say that it never can be justified. I've never actually said that (although I think that's what you've inferred)and I don't particularly want to condemn you. For me personally, it's not a case of me not wanting to hit children - I simply wouldn't even begin to think of it as an option. And that's why I've responded to you and others with so many questions - I'm genuinely at a loss as to how it could be justified.

My initial points on this thread were proably broader - does the use of violence to impose one's will on another discredit the person inflicting it? Rather than getting into far-fetched scenarios of "If you had to choose between slapping a toddler or them falling off a 500 foot cliff what would you do?" perhaps we would be better to consider why we don't follow this approach with people who we perceive as having equal or more power than us, like other adults.

If it's because we claim children can't rationalise what we are telling them then doesn't that mean we are inflicting pain on them because of a lack of mental capacity on their part? And if that is true can that be justified?

[HibsMax]

Some of the other comments seem to suggest that violence should be used as punishment or as a means of enforcing authority. We would shirk at that with adults, why would we consider it more appropriate for people who are more vulnerable than adults?

I personally believe that the purpose of spanking (or violence :wink:) is not to punish the child but more to serve as an easily understood reason to not do something. I'm sure some people will use spanking purely as punishment but I don't believe that is the correct usage. To me the thought process goes something like this:
1. child does something bad ("bad" is subjective but we won't get into the debate of what "crimes" deserve corporal punishment, I think that's either another debate or an extension of this one).
2. parent spanks child
3. child does not like spanking and associates the bad behaviour with something he / she doesn't like i.e., a sore bum.
4. child does not repeat bad behaviour.

That is purposefully simplistic, there are many more possible scenarios but my point is that the above steps are what I believe the purpose of spanking is. It shouldn't be used as a way for a parent to vent their anger. It should be used to teach a child that certain things are bad. When kids are very young they are not always capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong but they do know how unpleasant it is to have their arse reddened. It would be great if little Johnny did something stupid and you could sit him down and explain to him why it's wrong, and I am sure there are some parents who do have success with that, but I think there's nothing wrong with a spank here and there to drive a point home. I'm not even talking about whaling on the kid, I'm talking about a spank which doesn't even have to be painful, just unpleasant.

Spanking does not replace discussion though. Parents should, and I assume they mostly do, tell their children WHY they are being spanked.

But what do I know, I don't have any kids, just ideas. ;)

[IndieHibby]

Stueyn - this is what I was referring to. The comments I've highlighted in bold are what you are attributing to me, yet I've never said any of that. You might have decided that's what you think I was saying but I don't think you'll be able to find any quotes from me where I've actually said those things.

OK, when you said: "Someone did mention hitting a toddler because they would be unable to rationalise why they were not allowed to do something. () Can you really say, hand on heart, that's appropriate?" and "I'm assuming because there is an accepted belief that in itself it is an act that is inherently 'wrong'" and "I don't see any justifications in the arguments on here as to why it might be 'right'."

I, rightly I feel, concluded that your position was that it is not acceptable, ever, for anyone, including me, to hit my kids, ever. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

When you said: "Challenge people as to why they wish to hit children and people shy away from admitting it's through some desire for vengeance, control or to punish them." I understood that you meant that any person who hits their kid does so not for the reasons they actually give, but the ones you assume, as underlined above, i.e. - they "want" to do it. Again, maybe that's not what you meant, but it is what you said. To 'shy away from admitting something' is display shame, no?

When you said: "Domestic violence is considered completely unacceptable now but it's not long ago it was more contested or even tolerated" I understood that you were comparing current attitudes to wife beating with current attitudes to hitting children. Fair to conclude?

When you said: "If anything we are more likely to move towards legislating against it in the home IMO." Please don't make out that this does not mean, given the vote, you would proscribe 'smacking'.

Whether it's you putting words in my mouth to manipulate the debate or just mistaken inference on your part I don't know. I think my above post deals with this question.

I suppose fundamentally you are wanting me to condemn you for your view that hitting children is acceptable, to say that it never can be justified. I've never actually said that you have, see above (although I think that's what you've inferred)and I don't particularly want to condemn you. But given the choice, if you believe something is 'inherently wrong', (and you feel strongly enough to post about it at great length -as do I), then you would remove my freedom to do so? You may not want to condemn me, which is noble but irrelevant. Take away my freedom; well that's a different matter.

For me personally, it's not a case of me not wanting to hit children - I simply wouldn't even begin to think of it as an option. And that's why I've responded to you and others with so many questions - I'm genuinely at a loss as to how it could be justified. I think I have given several justifications so far, none of which you have actually challenged.

My initial points on this thread were proably broader - does the use of violence to impose one's will on another discredit the person inflicting it?

What relevance does my 'discredit' (which is a pejorative term) have when I am preventing harm coming to my children?

Rather than getting into far-fetched scenarios of "If you had to choose between slapping a toddler or them falling off a 500 foot cliff what would you do?" For someone who complains about "alleged" misquoting, this is a perfect example. Noone on this thread, not even I, have stated that as a plausible scenario. However, there have been many other, more plausible scenario's which you have failed to acknowledge, never mind rebutt.


perhaps we would be better to consider why we don't follow this approach with people who we perceive as having equal or more power than us, like other adults. This statement is beyond comprehension. Given that I have already stated why this not a reasonable argument, I ask you to re-read my posts. Particularly the part where I stated, factually, that toddlers cannot weigh present or future risk in the same way adults can. Children are not equivalent to adults. I would have thought that was obvious.

If it's because we claim children can't rationalise what we are telling them then doesn't that mean we are inflicting pain on them because of a lack of mental capacity on their part? And if that is true can that be justified?

You seem to think that the 'smack' is the punishment. It is not. It is the deterrent. You ARE suggesting that parents would hit their kids BECAUSE they (kids) cannot understand the risks. Who on earth would hit anyone because they have limted mental function? This is not WHY. The reason is because the potential detriment of the RISK far outwieghs the actual detriment of the smack.

So your conclusion that parents smack kids because they don't understand is wrong, therefore your question about it being justified is based on a false premise.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

When I was two and a half my father gave me two absolute stingers across my backside. They HURT. I was in tears. He then put me back in my cot and tied up the sides so I couldn't get out. My father was not a child abuser.

I had managed to find my way out of my cot, onto my bedroom window-ledge, between 30 and 40 feet above the street. I was standing on the ledge, looking down at what was going on. The window (a wide dormer sash) was wide open. A neighbour had spotted me, and had tip-toed into the house to tell my dad, who then tip-toed upstairs, crept into my bedromm, grabbed me by the back of my pyjamas, put me over his knee....

I'm probably still in this world because he did all this.

He couldn't afford to reason with me - what I was doing was MUCH too dangerous. I wouldn't have understood, anyway.

He didn't do it because he was a violent man - he wasn't.

He did it to make sure that I remembered that my going up on the window-ledge would have serious consequences. That climbing up on the window-ledge led to painful consequences.

OK, that's extreme pleading, but it's a true story.

I learned my lesson, and I'm still here.

In retrospect, I'd rather have had the spanking than find out which was harder, my head or the pavement.

Have to say that if I found my 2 yr old son in similar situation, inflicting violence on him would be the last thing on my mind.

[IndieHibby]

Have to say that if I found my 2 yr old son in similar situation, inflicting violence on him would be the last thing on my mind.

My honest, and sincere, question to you is, how would you ensure that he learned that standing on the edge of large drops was a dangerous thing to do? After, of course, ensuring that particular window posed no further threat...

I know most children would learn by telling them "no" in a firm way. I would hope that was all that was needed, in those cases. But would you remove the right of a parent that had a child, that 'just would not take a telling' to use whatever options worked (within reasonable and legal limits)?

[Mibbes Aye]

You seem to think that the 'smack' is the punishment. It is not. It is the deterrent. You ARE suggesting that parents would hit their kids BECAUSE they (kids) cannot understand the risks. Who on earth would hit anyone because they have limted mental function? This is not WHY. The reason is because the potential detriment of the RISK far outwieghs the actual detriment of the smack.

So your conclusion that parents smack kids because they don't understand is wrong, therefore your question about it being justified is based on a false premise.

Okay - so you can't find quotes from me to to back up your inferences but you're convinced of what I did mean. Bit of a dead end there then because we'll bat it back and forth ad infinitum.

Part of the problem is the shifting in your phrasing. You say this:

How you can compare a man beating his wife with a caring and concerned parent preventing their child from a greater harm

and then say what you were actually saying was this:

I understood that you were comparing current attitudes to wife beating with current attitudes to hitting children

and the difference in meaning and connotation is palpable.

Perhaps you feel I do the same, who knows.

The fundamental difference between us is perhaps in how we perceive the whole thing - you see it in terms of a restriction on your freedom, I see it as a harmful action on those powerless to stop it, without necessity.

Guessing we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Mibbes Aye]

I personally believe that the purpose of spanking (or violence :wink:) is not to punish the child but more to serve as an easily understood reason to not do something. I'm sure some people will use spanking purely as punishment but I don't believe that is the correct usage. To me the thought process goes something like this:
1. child does something bad ("bad" is subjective but we won't get into the debate of what "crimes" deserve corporal punishment, I think that's either another debate or an extension of this one).
2. parent spanks child
3. child does not like spanking and associates the bad behaviour with something he / she doesn't like i.e., a sore bum.
4. child does not repeat bad behaviour.

That is purposefully simplistic, there are many more possible scenarios but my point is that the above steps are what I believe the purpose of spanking is. It shouldn't be used as a way for a parent to vent their anger. It should be used to teach a child that certain things are bad. When kids are very young they are not always capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong but they do know how unpleasant it is to have their arse reddened. It would be great if little Johnny did something stupid and you could sit him down and explain to him why it's wrong, and I am sure there are some parents who do have success with that, but I think there's nothing wrong with a spank here and there to drive a point home. I'm not even talking about whaling on the kid, I'm talking about a spank which doesn't even have to be painful, just unpleasant.

Spanking does not replace discussion though. Parents should, and I assume they mostly do, tell their children WHY they are being spanked.

But what do I know, I don't have any kids, just ideas. ;)

I don't think that negates your view in any way.

I suppose my point would be that if we view visiting violence on one another as a 'bad' thing, and I'm assuming there is a consensus on this, why do we suspend that (and suspend it for some of the most vulnerable and powerless people in our society, because that describes children) for a shaky premise of "it's the only way to tell them" or the like?

There isn't any evidence to support the idea that smacking is the only viable option for the situations that people have posited, as far as I'm aware. So if it's not a necessity then why do we (or some of us) do it?

[--------]

Have to say that if I found my 2 yr old son in similar situation, inflicting violence on him would be the last thing on my mind.


"Inflicting violence" isn't an appropriate description of what my father did, IMO.

Nor did I have any doubts then or now that my father acted out of love and concern for me. (I had already been caught out of the cot twice, and told. Like most 2-year-olds, I wasn't one for taking a telling.)

The problem I see with some of the arguments here is that while the child/teenager's right not to have his/her person and physical space violated is being upheld religiously, the teacher's right not to be bullied, harrassed, and belittled doesn't figure at all.

Kids have unlimited rights and no responsibilities; the adults who work with them and for their benefit have unlimited responsibilities and no rights. That's the way it works, right?

I don't advocate the return of the tawse - it wouldn't work in today's climate, for a start - but I DO say that the fact that this case ever reached court, and that the teacher concerned has effectively been victimised out of his job by a bunch of louts, is disgraceful.

And if I were a teacher at that school, I'd be looking for a new job NOW.

[HibsMax]

I don't think that negates your view in any way.

I suppose my point would be that if we view visiting violence on one another as a 'bad' thing, and I'm assuming there is a consensus on this, why do we suspend that (and suspend it for some of the most vulnerable and powerless people in our society, because that describes children) for a shaky premise of "it's the only way to tell them" or the like?

There isn't any evidence to support the idea that smacking is the only viable option for the situations that people have posited, as far as I'm aware. So if it's not a necessity then why do we (or some of us) do it?
My issue with part of this discussion is using the term violence when talking about spanking a child (which I appreciate is different than belting, etc.). If we're going to define violence as "one person hitting another", are we to say when Friend A slaps Friend B upside the head that he's acting in a violent manner? Of course not. It's contextual. It depends on other factors such reason, firmness, etc. I believe that parents can spank a child in a violent-like manner but that is not to say that all spankings are violent. But now I'm / we're just nit-picking over details.

With regard to your last point....I believe there is plenty of evidence, it's just that it's not conveniently packaged in some book or report. It's anecdotal. Is there evidence to suggest that spanking a child doesn't work? I know that I was spanked when I was younger for being bad and it changed my ways (I was a bit of a clepto when I was younger). I wasn't beaten and I don't recall having any feelings of having been mistreated. I certainly wasn't brought up in a violent household nor do I consider my "lessons" to have been violent. I was more concerned with (a) being caught, and (b) feeling ashamed of myself.

I am not about to read back through this whole thread but I don't believe anyone has posted suggesting that spanking is the ONLY course of action. It's just ONE course of action. Some people agree with it, some people don't. I don't take issue with people from either camp. If someone came on here and said that they regularly whip their child for reasons such as "won't shut up", "pisses pants", etc. then I would find that upsetting.

Going back to my first point in this post, when I think of "violence" and "children" I think of terrible things. I don't think of a child being put over a parent's knee and getting spanked. Why stop at violence? Isn't it technically abuse as well? Are we going to start labeling all parents who spank their children as child abusers?

I really believe there is a line in the sand. I think parents should be allowed to discipline their kids in whatever manner they see fit as long as they don't cross that line. But where is the line? That's a difficult question to answer. But just because you would never lift your hand and spank a child doesn't mean that (a) it's wrong, (b) ineffective, and (c) nobody else is allowed to.

[--------]

My issue with part of this discussion is using the term violence when talking about spanking a child (which I appreciate is different than belting, etc.). If we're going to define violence as "one person hitting another", are we to say when Friend A slaps Friend B upside the head that he's acting in a violent manner? Of course not. It's contextual. It depends on other factors such reason, firmness, etc. I believe that parents can spank a child in a violent-like manner but that is not to say that all spankings are violent. But now I'm / we're just nit-picking over details.

With regard to your last point....I believe there is plenty of evidence, it's just that it's not conveniently packaged in some book or report. It's anecdotal. Is there evidence to suggest that spanking a child doesn't work? I know that I was spanked when I was younger for being bad and it changed my ways (I was a bit of a clepto when I was younger). I wasn't beaten and I don't recall having any feelings of having been mistreated. I certainly wasn't brought up in a violent household nor do I consider my "lessons" to have been violent. I was more concerned with (a) being caught, and (b) feeling ashamed of myself.

I am not about to read back through this whole thread but I don't believe anyone has posted suggesting that spanking is the ONLY course of action. It's just ONE course of action. Some people agree with it, some people don't. I don't take issue with people from either camp. If someone came on here and said that they regularly whip their child for reasons such as "won't shut up", "pisses pants", etc. then I would find that upsetting.

Going back to my first point in this post, when I think of "violence" and "children" I think of terrible things. I don't think of a child being put over a parent's knee and getting spanked. Why stop at violence? Isn't it technically abuse as well? Are we going to start labeling all parents who spank their children as child abusers?

I really believe there is a line in the sand. I think parents should be allowed to discipline their kids in whatever manner they see fit as long as they don't cross that line. But where is the line? That's a difficult question to answer. But just because you would never lift your hand and spank a child doesn't mean that (a) it's wrong, (b) ineffective, and (c) nobody else is allowed to.


SOUND, MAX. :top marks

[IndieHibby]

Okay - so you can't find quotes from me to to back up your inferences but you're convinced of what I did mean. Bit of a dead end there then because we'll bat it back and forth ad infinitum.

Part of the problem is the shifting in your phrasing. You say this:

How you can compare a man beating his wife with a caring and concerned parent preventing their child from a greater harm

and then say what you were actually saying was this:

I understood that you were comparing current attitudes to wife beating with current attitudes to hitting children

and the difference in meaning and connotation is palpable.

Perhaps you feel I do the same, who knows.

The fundamental difference between us is perhaps in how we perceive the whole thing - you see it in terms of a restriction on your freedom, I see it as a harmful action on those powerless to stop it, without necessity.

Guessing we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sounds good to me. Good debate though :wink:

[GlesgaeHibby]

It certainly does.
If you are not able to get your own way or get people to do what you want - hit them!

Teachers do need help in order to control their classes most of which should come from the parents insisting that the kids show the teacher respect. As far as punishment go i firmly believe that detention or break time detention was always more effective, failing that suspension or one to one supervision for a limited/appropriate period. (this will require additional funding in the schools though i would reckon its money very well spent)
Most of the really badly behaved kids get leathered at home by parents who are unable to control or discipline their kids without resorting to violence. As such they become innured to violence and the threat of violence and see it as 'quick and easy' punishment. All it does is continue the cycle of violence in society.

Never laid a finger on my kids and while they have their moments like most kids, they are measurably better behaved and more respectful than the vast majority of their peers in school or at their clubs.

Why is it in this country if we need our drains fixed, we call a plumber, our car fixed, a mechanic etc, yet we look down on the information given by child psychologists/behavioural therapist/care workers etc.
We have a real problem with academia in this country and believe that just cause most people are able to muddle by and their kids turn out ok(ish) that we dont need those lot 'interfering' as it "never did me any harm". blah blah blah.
Kids respond better to encouragement - not chastisement.

Thats all very well, but unruly kids aren't being told this message by their parents.

One to one supervision? What a complete waste of money. These idiots aren't interested in being in education.

Where is the evidence that unruly kids are subjected to high levels of violence at home? They are certainly the victims of neglect, and some will be subjected to violence but it certainly doesn't go hand in hand.

I think we have to be careful how we look at violence here. I am opposed to violence, I have never been in a fight in my life and I have no desire to inflict pain on others. However, as has been illustrated above there is a difference between smacking your child and violence. If a 2 year old tries to tip a pot of boiling water onto himself, how do you teach him its wrong? A simple smack, and the association of that action with pain is the most simple and effective way of teaching that lesson. As regards to schools, I don't think we can or ever will go back to the belt or similar punishments, but we need to stop listening to Child Psychologists and all these other 'experts' on how to teach/manage kids in schools and start listening to the people on the front line who know exactly what is happening. Nobody should have to be subjected to assaults/intimidating behaviour at work, and that includes our teachers. They need more protection and support so they can do what they are paid to do, teach our youngsters.

I agree kids respond to encouragement, and we should be nurturing and encouraging our youngsters, but the problem arises when the trouble makers start getting rewarded for putting in one good days work, or behaving for a week when the good kids who work hard consistently and behave themselves do not get rewards.

[Hibrandenburg]

Teaching kids how to be social is the task of the parents alone. Teachers have the responsibility of giving the kids the tools to equip them to fit into society and cannot be expected to do both and kids who've not been given the former have little chance of obtaining the latter.