On 3 Oct 2010 at 5:15pm Newmania wrote:
The apparition of these faces in the crowd
Petals on a wet black bough
The Sussex Express features ranks of reception class children. So many faces and destinies, how tragic that many will badly underachieve, and not for lack of resources
Frank Field leads the independent review for the coalition on poverty and life chances.He has discarded the myth that more income will increase opportunity.
In 2008 the IFS showed that the bottom 5%'s real income had increased by 13.5% since 97 ( Top 10% incomes grew by 17%). As poverty reduced , however, social mobility went into reverse. The 20% of pupils who gain no GCSE`s come from just 203 schools almost all serving a social housing estates. Educational failure begets societal collapse. 40 years ago 11% of households on these estates were workless . Now only a third of working age social housing tenants are in full time employment . 80% of them had been in the same sector ten years earlier.
Field identifies a subtler culprit than sheer money. He partly blames the end of "Tough love'" as the default parenting style, in the 60s ,as deeply harmful to disadvantaged children.
The time has come to unequivocally condemn the baby boomer errors of the past and support clear boundaries for children,backed by punishment. A smacked bottom , as a last resort , is not on the same spectrum as a punch in the face and suggestions otherwise quite absurd .
One piece of the scattered social jigsaw is to re-affirm support for parents trying to inculcate respect and discipline by methods that work.
On 3 Oct 2010 at 6:52pm pope wrote:
Spare the rod and spoil the child. How true.
On 3 Oct 2010 at 7:26pm supporter wrote:
On 3 Oct 2010 at 7:39pm Canoeman wrote:
How do you get from inequality to corporal punishment? Teaching and raising kids with physical violence and the threat of it does not seem to be an answer to me.
On 3 Oct 2010 at 7:53pm Peter Byron wrote:
I blame me. And as for a good whipping, that only made me worse, mind you I was 40 years old at the time. Best Peter
On 3 Oct 2010 at 9:12pm Newmania wrote:
Canoe man- I am broadly following the thoughts of Frank Field who has spent the last few months doing a study about it .
The threat of corporal punishment is only part of it the insistence on levels of behaviour and rules by whatever means is the point .
On 3 Oct 2010 at 9:21pm Down and Out wrote:
"One piece of the scattered social jigsaw is to re-affirm support for parents trying to inculcate respect and discipline by methods that work."
As it stands, on average, three children are murdered every fortnight in the UK by people who know them - family or friends. If there is any evidence out there to suggest that society would be improved by encouraging poor families to exercise corporal punishment more freely, I have yet to see it. Do you hit your children, Newmania?
On 3 Oct 2010 at 10:15pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Leave it, D and O - not worth commenting on. Either deliberately infalmatory or conflating 2 + 2 and making 84
On 3 Oct 2010 at 11:12pm MC wrote:
We could do with a few less kids and generally smaller families, Until our species controls its numbers all this fiddling-at-the-edges is fruitless.
On 3 Oct 2010 at 11:24pm Clifford wrote:
I blame Newmania's parents. They must have inflicted so much psychological damage on him to encourage his worrying obsession with punishment.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:56pm Whacko! wrote:
It's funny really, the pc view on this is that corporal punishment, or even the threat of it, is a terrible thing that will have a huge negative effect on todays poor little youngsters - even linking it above to child murder which some might think a bit extreme!. As will have been the case with many forum users over a certain age, I grew up in a time where corporal punishment was used widely , both in school and the home. I don't recall any negative effects of this, and we were certainly not in a constant state of fear or traumatised in any way by it. What I can say though, is that it was an effective deterrent to bad behaviour, and of course if you didn't behave badly you didn't need to worry anyway. Furthermore, I am sure that all of the forum users of this age will consider themselves to be reasonably well rounded individuals, and nor scarred for life or made into criminals because they were the victims of 'violence' as schoolkids.
As Newmania states, a smack on the backside is a completely different thing to a punch in the face. If you are the kind that is going to punch people in the face then nothing is going to stop you doing it, but I can't imagine that sort of person wanting to be a teacher, or lasting long as one if they did.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:46pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
There are other methods to discipline kids. is it acceptable to smack a baby ?
If we allow kids to be smacked, would anyone mind if I smack an adult who annoys me or shows ill-discipline ? At what age does smacking become assault ? Would there be an age range were smacking is allowed ?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:52pm Peter Byron wrote:
Only adults should be smacked, any offers? Ha ha sorry it is the public schoolboy coming out in me. Never smacked my crew and they are all wild, funny, kind and out of control (in a nice way )Best, Peter x
On 5 Oct 2010 at 9:44am Whacko! wrote:
When was the last time you heard of a baby doing anything deserving of a smack BB? Of course they should not be smacked. Bad behaviour is a deliberate act carried out by children old enough to understand and make decisions about, and therefore be responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Even when they are older a smack doesn't even need to be a painful experience for the child. I remember my grandmother smacking me when I was a kid, I hardly felt it, but I was so upset that I had done something to make her do it, that it immediately had the desired effect. Trouble is, people these days seem to associate a smack on the backside with violence and actual physical harm, when in fact it is far from it. You could try it on an adult, but they would probably just turn round and laugh at you (or ask for more, eh Peter!)
On 5 Oct 2010 at 12:54pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Of course babies don't deserve smacking, Wacko, but I've seen it done when parents are exasperated by crying etc. Frankly parents need to control themselves and find other ways of discipline. We find denying treats, taking away privileges, sending kids to room, stopping them watching tv/ going on computer etc all work fine in making them aware of their responsibilities and the consequences of their own actions, without resorting to smacking. Thats not say I've never been tempted, but the trick of walking away and counting to 10, 20, etc, or just not engaging in stupid battles with your kids works wonders. Oh and my kids are well behaved and not little tearaways before anyone throws that at me !
On 5 Oct 2010 at 1:23pm sore buttocks wrote:
excellent reply bb,
so often there is a false polarity in this debate as if those who don't hit are soft when in fact there is much more effort involved in intelligent discipline. As someone who was slippered and caned at school I can say it wasn't very effective as we were prepared and took pride in taking it "like a man". Often it was half-hearted anyway.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 4:39pm Whacko! wrote:
Yes, of course BB & SB, we all have our different personal circumstances and of course for some kids different kinds of discipline will or will not work. I am not saying thrash your kids at every opportunity after all, I am just suggesting that it is not such a heinous crime that people make it out to be if used when other methods fails. Taking away treats and priviliges is all very well if the kids have them in the first place - I know when I was a kid we didn't have much at all, so taking them away was hardly an option. We didn't have a tv either (or a computer of course), and believe it or not there are people who still don't. The thought that we might get a smack did the trick though, even though we rarely actually got it, and, SB, it is certainly not any reflection of my parents intelligence.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 11:19pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
When I was young we didn't have computer or treats either, so Mum took away pudding or we had early bed, or had to do extra chores etc. There are always methods to be used whatever your circumstances
On 6 Oct 2010 at 10:17am Whacko! wrote:
Yep, we did all that as well, but there was still the threat of a smack. Trouble is, you can never have a discussion about this subject, because the non smackers immediately think that parents who do smack are actually beating their children half to death on a regular basis as the first course of discipline, and adopt the holier than thou attitude that we see here. Of course other forms of punishment/persuasion/bribery/deprivation or whatever you want to call it should come first. I don't know how you can comment anyway BB. If it never happened to you, then how do you know what effect it has or does not have on a person, either on a childs behaviour or in later life? Furthermore, do you really think it is a good idea for hard up parents to buy food for their kids, and then not let them eat it ? Surely that is just as bad, if not worse, than a smack on the backside ?
On 6 Oct 2010 at 10:48am Grunge wrote:
As a child, I found just about the worst thing a parent could say was "Wait till you get home" - which deferred whatever punishment, often for the best part of a day. I think of it as mental torture.
On 6 Oct 2010 at 1:00pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
"Furthermore, do you really think it is a good idea for hard up parents to buy food for their kids, and then not let them eat it ? Surely that is just as bad, if not worse, than a smack on the backside ?"
- er, I think thats a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said. I did get the occasional smack as a kid too but it didn't work because I was quite rebellious and feisty. One of my near relatives was also hit - quite a lot- and guess what - he became quite a bully and had trouble with police. So in my experience it's counterproductive.
I knew lots of kids when I was young who were regularly hit by their parents. It didn't stop much of the behaviour, so the smacks got harder and harder. I've known parents who hit their kids for any mild misdemeanour, most of which is attention seeking. if the only form of punishment or discipline is smacking then that parent needs some form of reeducating.
We wouldn't tolerate regular smacking of animals, or allow adults to regularly hit each other if they break the rules, so why children, who are amongst the most vulnerable section of society ??
On 6 Oct 2010 at 3:27pm Whacko! wrote:
So the odd smack you got as a child didn't work because you were rebellious and feisty? hmmm... that can only mean that the other 'right on' methods failed as well, after all going to bed early and missing your pudding is hardly going to bother someone like that is it? Also, as I said before, you can offer anecdotal evidence to prove anything. So your relative got smacked and turned out to be a bully - conclusive proof that smacking children turns them bad? Do me a favour, like I said before, if that was the case then everyone that grew up in my era and got smacked as a child (including you it now transpires) would have grown up to be a wrong 'un. On the contrary, in fact I know kids that I was at school with whose parents never smacked them, and they turned into right nasty pieces of work, and indeed got into trouble with the police themselves.
You are, however, painting your own much darker picture here, as despite what I have said before, you continue to use language such as 'the ONLY form of punishment or discipline is smacking', 'REGULAR SMACKING of animals' and 'allow adults to REGULARLY HIT each other'. This suggests I am advocating the systematic beating of children for any misdemeanour, however minor, which is taking things to an extreme and certianly not what I am talking about.
I presume meanwhile that the smacks you received in your childhood have not scarred you in any way, either physically or emotionally?, after all, you come over as quite a level headed person, and to be honest I agree with your points of view in the main.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 1:39pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Yes you're right -anecdotal evidence proves nothing, I agree. I just believe smacking kids is wrong, even just the once. I also think that if adults smack children , kids, who learn by example, will often translate that into it being acceptable to hit others. We can't tell our children not to hit other kids at playgroup, school etc (for whatever 'reason') and then smack them ourselves. It's just a bad example to them and shows them adults can't be trusted.
If i did receive any scarring from being occasionally smacked as child, it's a determination to not smack my own kids and inflict that sort of pain and misery and fear on them and to have a relationship with them that does not include the threat of violence, however occasional.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 3:09pm Whacko wrote:
There you go again, banging on about 'inflicting that sort of pain, misery and fear' and 'threat of violence'. What planet are you living on? All I am talking about is the odd smack on the backside (like you had), not a daily thrashing to within an inch of your life with a cat of nine tails!
Would be interesting to know meanwhile, just how many kids you beat up in playgroup as a result of your tortured childhood, and did/do you still trust your parents after they reduced you to a life of fear and misery with their continual threat of violence and pain ?
On 7 Oct 2010 at 5:28pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
You're deliberately misinterpreting what I have said, Wacko.
Do you think hitting children sets a good example ?
Should adults be allowed to smack each other if they misbehave andshould know better ?
Why should children be less protected from violence (and hitting someone even once is violent) than animals or adults ?
This is my last word on the subject, so you can wack off all you like about it now , Wacko.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 6:39pm Peter Byron wrote:
Smacking children is like kicking a dog, unfair and cannot be justified, end off. Only adults should be smacked, and I can think of many that need it. Best, Peter
On 8 Oct 2010 at 1:22pm Whacko! wrote:
I am sorry BB, but I understand exactly what you are saying, it is you that is misinterpreting what is being said. As I have tried over and over agian to say to you is that we are talking about two very different things. The concept of a smack on the bum and what you are talking about is as different as walking up School Hill and climbing Mount Everest. Of course, if we were talking about what your version, then of course it should never happen, to a child, an animal, or an adult come to that. Thing is we are not, it's just that you retreat behind that exaggerated idea of mindless violence in order to back up your argument. If meanwhile, you are saying that the odd smack can cause you to storm off like a spoilt child, throwing your toys out of the pram on the way, then perhaps your childhood at the hands of your violent parents might be to blame, but I really think your way is more likely to result in that. Bye.