Did you get hit by your parents?

Galtee

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it should be noted that because it's not a crime doesn't mean that hitting kids is a moral or virtuous thing to do.

Assault .—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Given that above is the definition of assault straight out of the non fatal offences against the person act it seems bizarre that it's still somehow legal to smack children.

MagicSean

Galtee wrote: »

Assault .—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Given that above is the definition of assault straight out of the non fatal offences against the person act it seems bizarre that it's still somehow legal to smack children.

That definition also makes medical treatment illegal. How can an 8 year old consent to surgery?

Galtee

MagicSean wrote: »

That definition also makes medical treatment illegal. How can an 8 year old consent to surgery?

Huh? Sorry how/ where does it make medical treatment illegal?

MagicSean

Galtee wrote: »

Huh? Sorry how/ where does it make medical treatment illegal?

Medical treatment is by its nature invasive. Surgery would be classed as a serious assault if not for the fact that consent was given for it. And in the case of a minor the consent is given by the parent.

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

I know that, but if this is happening to a child because the parents feel they are protected and entitled by law to do it, then its happening to one child too many. I have an extreme viewpoint on this because there is no gray area. A child being assaulted in any way by a parent is simply a crime.

This isn't driving home from the pub with one too many, this altogether more common. I would say 99% of people who drink drive get home safely,however its the minority that creates a problem.

Same thing in this instance.

*Not condoning drink driving, just using it as an example!

I have lost two best friends and their child to a drunk driver, plus out of a seperate inicident i have a cousin who can never walk again because he was ran off the road by a drunk joy riding teen

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

Medical treatment is by its nature invasive. Surgery would be classed as a serious assault if not for the fact that consent was given for it. And in the case of a minor the consent is given by the parent.

This is a red herring.

Surgery is non elective and is only undertaken when there are no alternatives.

There are clear laws stating that one adult hitting another is assault but this does not extend to children.

As an aside as far as I'm aware there are no legal structures in place for consent to be given on behalf of another person - so giving consent for surgery is not strictly a legal matter.

BARRETT.50BMG

margio wrote: »

I have lost two best friends and their child to a drunk driver, plus out of a seperate inicident i have a cousin who can never walk again because he was ran off the road by a drunk joy riding teen

My parents were alcos, again you missed the point! I clearly stated I am not condoning drink driving, I myself don't drink, I was using it as an example.

You still have not answered the question I asked earlier:

So why can you not come up with or utilise methods of discipline that does NOT involve hitting the child? Have you tried or are you just not arsed?

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

My parents were alcos, again you missed the point! I clearly stated I am not condoning drink driving, I myself don't drink, I was using it as an example.

You still have not answered the question I asked earlier:

So why can you not come up with or utilise methods of discipline that does NOT involve hitting the child? Have you tried or are you just not arsed?

If you read my previous posts you wil see that I do

BARRETT.50BMG

margio wrote: »

If you read my previous posts you wil see that I do

Forgive me but most of your previous posts have been drivel, so please , talk me through what you have tried.

margio

no i have already stated, and if you have difficulty understanding tough.The law states smacking is legal, so therefore it is up to yee to prove the argument.

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

i would say 99% of people who drink drive get home safely,

You would say do you. how about the innocent motorists or pedestrians that just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, any you accuse us of having a cognitive impairment.???

BARRETT.50BMG

I would be willing to bet 99% get home safely, the 1% are the poor unfortunate sods who do get hurt. Free maths lesson there.

READ WHAT I WROTE. I am not condoning or endorsing drink driving as an activity. Now how many times will I have to write that? I specifically wrote that at the bottom of the post. It was an example. As stated. Now are you going to keep using that as a distraction or try to discuss the matter at hand?

Do not question my cognitive ability, doesn't look great coming from someone apparently incapable of basic grammar and spelling.

''no i have already stated, and if you have difficulty understanding tough.The law states smacking is legal, so therefore it is up to yee to prove the argument.''


COP OUT. Margio your arguing a cause you can't back up.

margio

you were the one that insulted our cognitive ability

BARRETT.50BMG

Okay I'm out of here love, its actually impossible to converse with you.

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

I would be willing to bet 99% get home safely, the 1% are the poor unfortunate sods who do get hurt. Free maths lesson there.

READ WHAT I WROTE. I am not condoning or endorsing drink driving as an activity. Now how many times will I have to write that? I specifically wrote that at the bottom of the post. It was an example. As stated. Now are you going to keep using that as a distraction or try to discuss the matter at hand?

Do not question my cognitive ability, doesn't look great coming from someone apparently incapable of basic grammar and spelling.

''no i have already stated, and if you have difficulty understanding tough.The law states smacking is legal, so therefore it is up to yee to prove the argument.''


COP OUT. Margio your arguing a cause you can't back up.

.

you seem to be fierced worried about the 99% of drink drivers who do something WRONG. Not the people who do something right. I would imagine that more people have been killed by Drink Driving, effects of passive smoking etc that children been beaten to death. Regardless of whether the law states smacking is legal or illegal people like your sadisttic foster parents will always exist. Any clown knows that that knocking your children's teeth out is child abuse.

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

Okay I'm out of here love, its actually impossible to converse with you.

A word of advice, don't call me love or any woman, it is just so ignorant.

Chuck Stone

margio wrote: »

A word of advice, don't call me love or any woman, it is just so ignorant.

Okay pet.


.


. .


. . .


. . . . :pac:

BARRETT.50BMG

Calling a woman ''love'' is far less ignorant than smacking your kids because you don't have the patience and brainpower to teach your children to respect you instead of fearing you.

BARRETT.50BMG

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay pet.


.


. .


. . .


. . . . :pac:

Cheers darling! I need a laugh after banging my head off a brick wall!

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

Calling a woman ''love'' is far less ignorant than smacking your kids because you don't have the patience and brainpower to teach your children to respect you instead of fearing you.

Do you have kids?. My Parents didn't knock my teeth out or beat me black and blue. So I wont do it to my kids. Your environment to mine during childhood was the EXACT opposite., so stop seeing everything in black and white.

BARRETT.50BMG

margio wrote: »

Do you have kids?. My Parents didn't knock my teeth out or beat me black and blue. So I wont do it to my kids. Your environment to mine during childhood was the EXACT opposite., so stop seeing everything in black and white.

Me having children is irrelevant. If our childhoods were exact opposites were bound to see everything in black and white on this subject aren't we? Can we understand why I see things as I do?

margio

yes I can, why you do

BARRETT.50BMG

Okay, but why do you hit your childers? Is it the fastest way of dealing with them? Have you tried other things? Can you honestly say you feel that hitting them is the best way to start them off in life? Can you not think of something more intelligent? Its just so illogical . . . . . . . . . . . its like performing open heart surgery with a sledgehammer, turns out there is a better way to do it.

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

Okay, but why do you hit your childers? Is it the fastest way of dealing with them? Have you tried other things? Can you honestly say you feel that hitting them is the best way to start them off in life?

I've stated before in this thread that I also use other methods. Confiscating toys, placing them at the end of the stairs (naughty corner) etc, even ignoring the bad behaviour. No I dont smack because it's the fastest way. I feel that when I smack, rather occasionally I may add it is the best away, and usually after all other avenues have been ignored. I feel it is not hindering their headstart in life. I intended not to smack my kids before I had them, but my Husband and I didn't share the same views. My Husband is a great Father and any smack he gives is also very occasional. For Parenting to be effective, it is my belief that both spouses have to be in total agreement. When either of us give a smack, it is after all else fails, and warnings given. Since I had kids of my own , I understand my own Parents parenting methods

RussellTuring

margio wrote: »

.

In some cases it may be, but every child is different. Children, (only in my opinion) who have no siblings are that bit easier to deal with. however when more are added to the equation external influences can dictate a child behavior.
An example (A real one ) was when My first guy was throwing a tantrum, he totally had a meltdown. I then confiscated his favourite toy and he went even more ballistic. I kept his toy for two weeks or so, He seemed to totally forget the toy and continued his spa attack. His behaviour continued in to bed time and he refused to go to bed,. I told him on numerous occasions he would get a smack if his behaviour persisted, but he only made noises with his mouth, so I gave him a smack. Didn't bruise or mark him etc, nobody died and he went to bed. As for that other question I Fail to see your point. They disciplined me, I love them regardless. I have no issues with the way they disciplined me. It wasn't until I had kids myself that I considered smacking as a discipline tool. believe it or not I once an anti smacker. Probably because of the American TV influence etc., but now I'm in the real world. , however looking back I understand why they smacked me, i suppose that's what I meant

Your son misbehaved so you took his toy away and after carrying on with his "tantrum" for two weeks you slapped him? That doesn't sound like a proportional response to me. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you didn't actually love your parents for smacking you, as your earlier post implied. I'd still appreciate an answer as to whether or not you accept that children can be shown how to behave without being slapped.

"Spa attack" is a phrase I think an adult should be more careful about using, by the way.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you saw margio - or indeed her child - doing that, you have no right or authority to discipline her.

As a parent she has an obligation to do so - one most so-called "parents" (aka sperm & egg donors) don't abide by.

Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Now who's strawmanning ?

It's nothing even approaching a strawman. Half the replies in this thread are 'never did me any harm' which is just silly as an excuse for hurting children or threatening them with pain.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The ONLY thing I would condone is a light slap on [SIZE="3"]the bum[/SIZE], and then ONLY when reasoning and vocal instruction doesn't work and the situation is escalating.

Why the bum?

It's a part of the body that is sensitive and close to the sexual organs of both boys and girls.

Why is hitting the bum of a child by an adult normal? Isn't it totally weird that hitting the buttocks of a child is deemed normal or even desirable by some sections of society?

Consider this.

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children

Spanking, defined as slapping of the buttocks, is a form of hitting and thus of physical violence. That fact alone should make the spanking of children unacceptable by the same standards that protect adults, who are not as vulnerable. However, there is more to spanking than simply hitting: spanking also trespasses on one of the body’s most private and sexual areas— the buttocks.

Spanking as sexual abuse

As in ages past, there are people today who are sexually excited by spanking. This trait, which is often expressed in pornography and associated with sadomasochism, is known in scientific literature as flagellantism. While many flagellants seek to engage in consensual spanking between adults, some find the spanking of minors to be either more arousing or more opportune.

As long as society sees spanking as a legitimate act of discipline, and as long as the spanked youths are presumed to have “deserved” it, sexually abusive spankers have an effective moralistic disguise for their true motives.

Source

Yuck.

OK - given your pathetic and disgusting attempt to equate a smack on the bum with sexual abuse I am now refusing to engage with you any further on the topic.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you saw margio - or indeed her child - doing that, you have no right or authority to discipline her.

As a parent she has an obligation to do so - one most so-called "parents" (aka sperm & egg donors) don't abide by.

Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?

Read what I wrote again without trying to twist it. I said she has an obligation to discipline the child.

Jesus H is it not possible to post something in basic straightforward English in this thread without it being twisted out of all recognition ?

margio

RussellTuring wrote: »

Your son misbehaved so you took his toy away and after carrying on with his "tantrum" for two weeks you slapped him? That doesn't sound like a proportional response to me. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you didn't actually love your parents for smacking you, as your earlier post implied. I'd still appreciate an answer as to whether or not you accept that children can be shown how to behave without being slapped.

"Spa attack" is a phrase I think an adult should be more careful about using, by the way.



Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?

In some cases no. In this case and others smacking worked, and all other avenues failed. Have you Kids?. If not no offence, but it is different in reality than the tv

margio

margio wrote: »

I've stated before in this thread that I also use other methods. Confiscating toys, placing them at the end of the stairs (naughty corner) etc, even ignoring the bad behaviour. No I dont smack because it's the fastest way. I feel that when I smack, rather occasionally I may add it is the best away, and usually after all other avenues have been ignored. I feel it is not hindering their headstart in life. I intended not to smack my kids before I had them, but my Husband and I didn't share the same views. My Husband is a great Father and any smack he gives is also very occasional. For Parenting to be effective, it is my belief that both spouses have to be in total agreement. When either of us give a smack, it is after all else fails, and warnings given. Since I had kids of my own , I understand my own Parents parenting methods

sorry, that was meant to say explored, not ignored

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote:

sexually abusive spankers have an effective moralistic disguise for their true motives.

Sexually abusive huggers would have an equivalent disguise for their true motives too........so if Chuck's argument was in any way valid we should ban hugging kids too.

Absolutely farcical.

OhhhBernadette

I used to get a good few whallops off the oul lad with his big hob nailer boots back in the day, id have a red arse for a few days but sure it never did me any harm

Micky Dolenz

Ok, settle down.

Any more flaming and people will be smacked, sent to the naughty step or banned.

Thanks.

MadYaker

Ya can beat the wife, ya can beat the children, BUT YA CAN'T BEAT THE CRAIC.

azezil

My sisters brother and I were all slapped with a wooden spoon when we misbehaved until my mother went to parenting classes then she switched from physical beatings to psychological punishment :eek:

And thus an evil overlord is born -_-

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - given your pathetic and disgusting attempt to equate a smack on the bum with sexual abuse I am now refusing to engage with you any further on the topic.

How mature of you.

That is not my analysis.

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - given your pathetic and disgusting attempt to equate a smack on the bum with sexual abuse

I didn't.

I was merely highlighting that there a sick people out there who get a kick out of that type of thing and how unusual it is.

I got slapped on the arse by my folks FWIW and I managed to escape being sexually abused.

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Read what I wrote again without trying to twist it. I said she has an obligation to discipline the child.

Jesus H is it not possible to post something in basic straightforward English in this thread without it being twisted out of all recognition ?

I did read what you posted. I then asked if you thought she was obligated to smack the child. It was a straightforward question, not meant to imply anything. Should I take this to mean "no" then?

margio wrote: »

In some cases no. In this case and others smacking worked, and all other avenues failed. Have you Kids?. If not no offence, but it is different in reality than the tv

I answered this already and told you about raising my brother. Is it possible or not to raise kids well without smacking them?

margio

RussellTuring wrote: »

I did read what you posted. I then asked if you thought she was obligated to smack the child. It was a straightforward question, not meant to imply anything. Should I take this to mean "no" then?



I answered this already and told you about raising my brother. Is it possible or not to raise kids well without smacking them?

.

What was the age difference between you and your brother. What age were both of yee, when you raised him. Were you the legal gurdian. And to answer your questiion .It depends, in SOME cases yes, but some children require smacking, just their temperment I suppose.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Read what I wrote again without trying to twist it. I said she has an obligation to discipline the child.

Jesus H is it not possible to post something in basic straightforward English in this thread without it being twisted out of all recognition ?

I did read what you posted. I then asked if you thought she was obligated to smack the child.

False. You explicitly asked "Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?"

So implying that you were "then" asking a separate question re what I thought is deliberate misrepresentation.

RussellTuring

margio wrote: »

.

What was the age difference between you and your brother. What age were both of yee, when you raised him. Were you the legal gurdian. And to answer your questiion .It depends, in SOME cases yes, but some children require smacking, just their temperment I suppose.

I don't think any of that is relevant and don't want to say here anyway. Thanks for finally answering my question though. So it's just that some children need a slap and others don't, is that right?

Regardless, I think your threshold for deciding when a child should be slapped is far too low and if you applied the same standards to an adult, i.e. someone who can actually fight back, you'd be arrested. This seems to be the problem I and many others hesitant to slap would have and can't understand how hitting a child seems to be easier for you than hitting someone of a similar size and intelligence than yourself.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

False. You explicitly asked "Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?"

So implying that you were "then" asking a separate question re what I thought is deliberate misrepresentation.

What are you talking about? It was a related question and I didn't try imply otherwise. You told me to read what you posted and I replied by saying that I had already and then asked if you thought that disciplining the child meant slapping her, since you mentioned disciplining when the other poster had explicitly said slapping.

All I want to know is whether or not an obligation to discipline means an obligation to slap in your mind.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

False. You explicitly asked "Do you mean you think she has an obligation to smack her child?"

So implying that you were "then" asking a separate question re what I thought is deliberate misrepresentation.

What are you talking about? It was a related question and I didn't try imply otherwise. You told me to read what you posted and I replied by saying that I had already and then asked if you thought that disciplining the child meant slapping her, since you mentioned disciplining when the other poster had explicitly said slapping.

All I want to know is whether or not an obligation to discipline means an obligation to slap in your mind.

"Do you mean...." is asking whether my previous response meant that (which it quite clearly didn't).

A new, related question would be "So do you also think...."

But let's leave that aside and deal with your ridiculous question. If a child is reasonably well behaved or responsive then of course they can be disciplined without smacking - I've repeatedly said so in terms of smacking being a last resort when a child decides to completely act up and pull the American spoilt brat / Irish ignorant skanger impression.

The aim would be to have them learn that in life you get punished more reasonably if you step over a line, and if the behaviour is more severe/prolonged then that's their choice but every choice has consequences.

Ideally there would be no smacking, because the child wouldn't push it that far.

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"Do you mean...." is asking whether my previous response meant that (which it quite clearly didn't).

A new, related question would be "So do you also think...."

Well, no it wasn't that clear: that's why I asked. As for your idea that I'm trying to deny the relation, I'm not. The question I asked was in direct response to what you said since I was asking you to clarify what you meant by the statement. I don't know why you think I'm trying to hide this.

But let's leave that aside and deal with your ridiculous question. If a child is reasonably well behaved or responsive then of course they can be disciplined without smacking - I've repeatedly said so in terms of smacking being a last resort when a child decides to completely act up and pull the American spoilt brat / Irish ignorant skanger impression.

My ridiculous question was about whether or not margio, in being obligated to discipline her child, was also obligated to smack her. This was because in responding to BARRETT.50BMG you said that she had an obligation to discipline her child when BARRETT had specifically mentioned smacking. Can't you understand how people might get confused when you use the words "smack" and "discipline" interchangeably"?

The aim would be to have them learn that in life you get punished more reasonably if you step over a line, and if the behaviour is more severe/prolonged then that's their choice but every choice has consequences.

In using smacking as part of your repertoire for punishing a child's wrongdoing you are in fact perpetuating the outcome you are trying to teach them to avoid. If smacking really is a last resort and the method you use only when all others have failed, then it's obviously something that has a lasting effect. Children, and later adults, might not remember what they did to warrant violence, but they remember how well it worked.

Ideally there would be no smacking, because the child wouldn't push it that far.

Ideally there would be no theft because people would share more. Do you think that when a child is smacked, the one ultimately responsible is the child and not the adult?

margio

what ruffles my feathers in this thread are people emphasing that children should not fear their parents. I'll make no apologies for saying this, but the future of society has no hope if parents feel that kids shouldn't fear them in any way. Now obviously when I say this I mean that under no circumstances should a child be afraid of a beating, that is just not on. However regardless of whether parents smacks or uses other discipline tools, the child needs to fear the punishment, an the consequences, what ever they may be. Parents can be their childen's best friends after their job is done., but you must have fear as a deterrent. I wonder every time I see a pack of brats around the place acting the little sh**t, how does their parents relate to them?. Now I'm only just gone 28. If I gave cheek to mrs O up the road and did damage to her property, lets put it this way, I wouldn't be doing it again, or sorry let me rephrase that, I wouldn't have done it in the first place because (A) it wouldn't have even entered my mind) and (B) I would fear the reprecussions. Now as a member of society I would prefer kids to fear their elders than have a poor innocent member of society have their property vandalised.

Another point I would like to make is my friend has never smacked her kids, and prides herself in that fact. However her 8 year old son has been apprehended by the gardai for toturing and killing kittens. Now people in my generation grew up with been slapped around the place and in the case of poor Barrett alot more, but to equate an occasional light smack on the bottom etc with violence in kids is pathetic. One thing we never did was kill innocent helpless kittens for kicks. Even if we knew no one would find out, we still wouldn't do it, because we had respect for Life, even if cats give me the creeps:mad:

Chuck Stone

I now hate this thread.

flanders1979

Got d odd slap, needed it to be put in there place from time to time. No parent is perfect. Usually got sent to my room, which wasn't like a student bedsit like children's rooms these days. No mod cons. Usually just books you had read 10 times over. That usually done the trick. If I had been told to sit on "the step" I would have laughed my ass off.
We were also taught manners in school which made my parents life easier.

ToyotaMad94

I remember many a time I got several wooden spoons broke across me but all I could do was laugh at them because it didn't hurt! ..................but then that led to another spoon being broken in two

margio

ToyotaMad94 wrote: »

I remember many a time I got several wooden spoons broke across me but all I could do was laugh at them because it didn't hurt! ..................but then that led to another spoon being broken in two

God you must have a wooden arse. Thankfully I never got the wooded spoon, unlike many of my friends, because it was always my Father that did the physical punishment, and I suppose the wooden spoon was a mothers act. But one day years ago my old boyfriend hit me a belt of it only messing, God it hurt:D

BARRETT.50BMG

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I now hate this thread.

Chuck buddy, you have to remember we have no idea of the following:

A) The character of the posters.
The intelligence of the posters, although I think we can make some educated guesses on that one.

I can't deal with some of the opinions on here, they are quite infuriating.

Liam Byrne

I can't deal with some of the opinions on here, they are quite infuriating.

+1

margio

BARRETT.50BMG wrote: »

Chuck buddy, you have to remember we have no idea of the following:

A) The character of the posters.
The intelligence of the posters, although I think we can make some educated guesses on that one.

I can't deal with some of the opinions on here, they are quite infuriating.

And likewise