There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes to support the data. The problem is when people use anecdotes as an argument against the data. I have no problem ridiculing people who try to argue against helmet effectiveness studies by saying 'I crashed my bike once and if I hadn't been wearing my helmet...'
Are you 100% sure I'm the one who is acting like a spoilt kid in this little exchange?
There’s a big difference between beating kids and given them a gentle slap to try and teach them not to touch something that could seriously injure them.
Nothing my parents did could be described as a beating. Whenever I frustrated them enough I got slapped on the leg. I couldn't tell you how often it happened but from what I remember it was several times per week.
Taking out your frustrations on your kids, even if they are the reason you are frustrated, is not OK and for parents who regularly smack their kids, that is exactly what they are doing.
I would be very surprised if anyone got prosecuted because they smacked their kid once because they tried to run into a road. If this legislation makes parents who smack their kid when they don't get dressed quickly enough think twice then it can only be a good thing.
There is a further implication that all parents have the same skills and all children behave in the same way and if a parent uses one way they are a bad parent.
It's not implied. We, and the law in Scotland, don't agree with hitting kids. This means you're a bad parent if you choose to hit your kids.
We don't disagree with using force where necessary, but this is different. Think police restraining a suspect or even firing at an armed suspect vs getting a sentence of 500 lashes or whatever.
If we were talking about corporal punishment of adults, the majority of people would rightly say it's the sort of thing wacko regimes employ that belongs in the middle ages. Why any different with children?
Other approaches are more effective and less damaging. This has been shown by research, and anecdote.
If you hit a child because you're angry and frustrated, you're in the wrong and need to find some better way of dealing with things. If you do it when you're not angry or frustrated, you're a ****ing psycho and need to take a long look at yourself in a mirror.*
I would be very surprised if anyone got prosecuted because they smacked their kid once because they tried to run into a road. If this legislation makes parents who smack their kid when they don’t get dressed quickly enough think twice then it can only be a good thing.
Which is what the current law allows and yes smacking your kids for not getting dressed quick enough is never a good thing.
'If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket'
If you slap your kid on the leg because they run out in traffic and a policeman sees you, then yes, you could get arrested. After the report has been sent to the Procurator Fiscal then yes, they could decide it's in the public interest to charge you. You could then plead your innocence and a jury could convict you. This is all possible but I would argue that it's doubtful the police would even bother arresting you. A warning would be the most likely outcome given that it's a heat of the moment thing.
On the other hand, the kid who goes to school with four red finger marks on his leg every day can now expect a visit from the plod and to me that is what this law is for.
On the other hand, the kid who goes to school with four red finger marks on his leg every day can now expect a visit from the plod and to me that is what this law is for.
The new law might make it easier but the current law doesn’t actually not allow that.
who are these new users? the cheek of them to post on a public forum!
It’s not implied. We, and the law in Scotland, don’t agree with hitting kids.
but careless and provocative language is fine?
We don’t disagree with using force where necessary, but this is different. Think police restraining a suspect or even firing at an armed suspect vs getting a sentence of 500 lashes or whatever.
If we were talking about corporal punishment of adults, the majority of people would rightly say it’s the sort of thing wacko regimes employ that belongs in the middle ages. Why any different with children?
Umm... because they are children?
What next allow 3yr olds to drive on the roads?
The criminal justice system recognises children as minors, hence why it is the parents job to bring them up and do the best they can.
Other approaches are more effective and less damaging. This has been shown by research, and anecdote.
That's strange because anecdotally the kid turning on the gas had a slight slap to the wrist and stopped... what is this "damage" that occurred? Has the child developed a life long phobia to gas cooking? Will this one off considered slap on the wrist result in something other than the kid not blowing the house up?
How exactly do you define effective and damage?
Is it more effective to explain to a 3yr old about the dangers of gas and naked flames and if they end up dead that's not "damage" ?
If you hit a child because you’re angry and frustrated, you’re in the wrong and need to find some better way of dealing with things. If you do it when you’re not angry or frustrated, you’re a **** psycho and need to take a long look at yourself in a mirror.*
Once again you have to resort to emotive language and your own amateur psychiatrist diagnostics?
From my perspective not taking a possible measure such as a slap on the wrist to prevent a toddler killing themselves because it's "unpleasant" doesn't seem that sane.
"Well Mr. Clapton, what measures did you take to stop your toddler opening the window"
"Well he got sat on the naughty step..."
"Any other measures Mr Clapton?"
"Oh he got sat on the naughty step lots... "
"Was that specific to trying to climb out of the window"
"Well no, lots of things... but he was sat on the naughty step specifically about trying to climb out of the window on numerous occaisions"
"Did it ever occur to you this wasn't an effective method"
"Well yes, but what else can you do... I increased the time on the naughty step but he just kept doing it"
"Have you ever taken drugs Mr Clapton?"
The new law might make it easier but the current law doesn’t actually not allow that.
My understanding is that you can't leave bruises, grazes or swelling. Red marks that fade quickly are fine.
Even if I'm wrong about this, can you show me any examples of parents being prosecuted on the basis of red marks?
Even if I’m wrong about this, can you show me any examples of parents being prosecuted on the basis of red marks?
Of course not I’m not talking about just the red marks, I’m referring to the repeated red marks you mentioned. That is very different to a one off slap.
That’s strange because anecdotally the kid turning on the gas had a slight slap to the wrist and stopped… what is this “damage” that occurred? Has the child developed a life long phobia to gas cooking? Will this one off considered slap on the wrist result in something other than the kid not blowing the house up?
Since we're cracking down on anecdotes today, can you find me a single study that shows that smacking is an effective way of stopping your children doing dangerous things?
Steve - In your example - knocking their hand away would still be fine as would restraining them by force. Hitting them to teach them a lesson afterwards would not.
The nordic countries as ever are leaders on this - no hitting children has been in place since the 70s. I do not know of any social problems that occur as a result - indeed nordic countries have a reputation for polite children
Of course not I’m not talking about just the red marks, I’m referring to the repeated red marks you mentioned. That is very different to a one off slap.
I hate to break it to you but there are very nice people who are otherwise fine parents who smack their kids far far too often and it's completely impossible to prove.
This law stops that. It's a good thing.
Edit: This law obviously won't stop that. Hopefully it will at least make some of these parents think twice and gives an avenue to prosecution for those who won't.
Which happens to be backed up by proper research, according to the news coverage on this story.
not saying it isnt true but the only statement on the subject in the report that says "He also said there was "irrefutable" evidence that physical punishment damages children, is not an effective form of discipline and can escalate into physical abuse" is hardly irrefutable evidence backed up by proper research.
what exactly was the evidence and how did he determine his conclusion? guess we will never know.
it seems to me that peoples bars on evidence are pretty low and there seems to be little logic applied to a lot of arguments.
yes beating kids is bad, not sure a slapped leg on the other hand is necessarily bad parenting though. a lot of comments here are quite extreme examples "i was smacked every thursday etc", for most folk they probably got a clip a handful of times and it probably kept them in line.
I hate to break it to you but there are very nice people who are otherwise fine parents who smack their kids far far too often and it’s completely impossible to prove.
Of course there is but a school reporting that child comes in everyday with marks on their legs will help a prosecution.
I am not convinced the law is going to stop the parents that hit their kids regularly.
In other, unrelated news, there’s been strong sales growth in the rubber hose, phonebook and bag of oranges sectors
Of course there is but a school reporting that child comes in everyday with marks on their legs will help a prosecution.
But there haven't been any prosecutions for red marks. Smacking your kids is legal so long as you have a good reason but how do you define 'good reason'?
I am not convinced the law is going to stop the parents that hit their kids regularly.
Neither am I. But just because something isn't guaranteed to work is not a good enough reason not to try.
If the law leads to a reduction in smacking would you agree it is a good thing?
But there haven’t been any prosecutions for red marks. Smacking your kids is legal so long as you have a good reason but how do you define ‘good reason’?
I think we’re going around in circles.
Neither am I. But just because something isn’t guaranteed to work is not a good enough reason not to try.
True. I’m very indifferent about the change I can’t see it having much affect either way.
People are jumping on both extremes from “OMG! I can’t discipline my kids this is why Britain is broken” to “Anyone who disciplines kids is beating them”
Then there the “it did me no harm” and “well everyone one I know who were hit as kid have issues”
If the law leads to a reduction in smacking would you agree it is a good thing?
i would agree but first someone has to demonstrate that there are no examples where smacking was actually effective and caused no long term harm before we start limiting parents options.
Also, what’s with all these new folk I’ve never seen suddenly appearing on threads to stir shit? Don’t tell me the mods haven’t noticed.
I'll always check out anyone who seems exceptionally gobby or opinionated with a username I don't recall seeing before. Most of the time recently they've been primarily Bike Forum users who've been foolish enough to raise their heads in this bear pit.
But please use the 'report post' link (or email moderator@) if you see anything you think is untoward, we can't read every single thread.
brucewee
Since we’re cracking down on anecdotes today, can you find me a single study that shows that smacking is an effective way of stopping your children doing dangerous things?
Not without searching.
I'm sure Singapore will have some but honestly that's not the point.
Before actually banning something like how parents bring up their kids it's a good idea (IMHO) to actually justify it by proper studies and show some actual real benefit.
In this my belief is parents should be free to choose within reason.
There are numerous studies showing the damage to children who are beaten but where are the studies proving that a single slap on the wrist aged 3 has ANY damaging effect at all.
I slapped my son once, when he was 2 or 3 when he had a habit of removing safety devices from plugs and then trying to stick objects in.
This was after a LOT of trying everything else. We had asked friends/relatives ... and trhis was a LAST RESORT. The alternative was probably to let him get an electric shock ... so anecdotally it worked like the gas cooker worked for someone else. I didn't WANT to do it and his mother and I practically drew lots as to who would have to do it.
It probably worked so effectively because it was an absolute one off.... other than his mother once slapping his wrist a couple of years later after repeatedly running through a car park pushing a trolley that is the total number of times he ever got slapped.
I find it VERY hard to believe that this has deeply affected him and he will grow up to be an axe murderer...
tjagain
Steve – In your example – knocking their hand away would still be fine as would restraining them by force. Hitting them to teach them a lesson afterwards would not.
hence my problem.... one of these in combination with naughty step and long explanations didn't work, the other worked, immediately and with a single application.
The nordic countries as ever are leaders on this – no hitting children has been in place since the 70s. I do not know of any social problems that occur as a result – indeed nordic countries have a reputation for polite children
Ah, you mean the countries that perform IQ tests on parents and take the kids away if they fail?
Or do you mean the ones practicing eugenics up to 1976?
There is a LOT of baggage in that area.
sailor74
not saying it isnt true but the only statement on the subject in the report that says “He also said there was “irrefutable” evidence that physical punishment damages children, is not an effective form of discipline and can escalate into physical abuse” is hardly irrefutable evidence backed up by proper research.
what exactly was the evidence and how did he determine his conclusion? guess we will never know.
it seems to me that peoples bars on evidence are pretty low and there seems to be little logic applied to a lot of arguments.
yes beating kids is bad, not sure a slapped leg on the other hand is necessarily bad parenting though. a lot of comments here are quite extreme examples “i was smacked every thursday etc”, for most folk they probably got a clip a handful of times and it probably kept them in line.
Exactly... not to mention the BIG one, being what does this even mean by "physical punishment".
Clearly there is plenty of evidence that beating children until they lose consciousness damages children. Classing that with a slap on the wrist is just grasping at staws.
Then there the “it did me no harm” and “well everyone one I know who were hit as kid have issues”
Only one of those statements has data to back it up. I could post studies showing that to be the case but there's so much I wouldn't know where to start. Here's a meta analysis but I would recommend people do their own research:
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ffam0000191 (disclaimer, I haven't read it, just the conclusions)
And like I said, I'd like to see any study that shows smacking is beneficial. The closest I've seen is one saying it does no harm provided the smacking is offset with lots of love.
steve - the evidence on hitting children is clear - and the only way to have a workable line is to make it a clear one ie no hitting children.
Your argument about the nordic countries is nonsense - at least two generations have grown up since the 70s!
Yes its harsh that it penalises people in your position - but greater good of the greater number and all that?
Only one of those statements has data to back it up
No, only one has evidence that it can happen it does not mean everyone will have issues. Which ironically is what those who saying “I’m fine” supports too as it’s not everyone.
No, only one has evidence that it can happen it does not mean everyone will have issues. Which ironically is what those who saying “I’m fine” supports too as it’s not everyone.
The most interesting quote I found in the article I linked above:
“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,” she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.”
That article is behind paywall so I can’t read it in detail.
Are they really suggesting that one off slap has the exact same effect as abuse?
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/
I didn't read the whole thing either, like I said, just the summary.
I don't think they are saying that slapping your child's wrist once is going to have lasting effects. See the quote in my last post.
I would suggest that a one off slap probably doesn't have any long lasting negative effects. However, people seem to be saying that slapping their kids once caused a permanent change in their behaviour so I could be wrong. Maybe it does cause a long term issues. If you are sure that risking long term issues is worth it to change their behaviour then crack on.
You are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for slapping your child's wrist once in your life.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research
Just read the title ....
1) If you spank children habitually it can lead to "defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties"
This isn't news.... I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested children should be spanked on principle ... every sunday night?
2) This is a meta-data analysis...
I didn’t read the whole thing either, like I said, just the summary.
Errr! Ok.
Is the linked article not clear in it's conclusions?
FFS, find some evidence to back up your point of view or stop trolling.
I haven't bothered to find peer reviewed articles that aren't behind a paywall because, tbh it's a pain in the arse and there is no reference to the opposing POV to make it worthwhile.
Find reference to a study that shows there is any benefit or go try arguing in favour of Brexit with the same level of 'but I feel like it's true' whining and see how you get on.
I’ve no idea as it’s a summary so can’t see how they gathered their evidence to reach a conclusion. Surely you can see the issue with just using a selected quote without know how they reached that theory.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
Post some evidence to support your POV, anything, and I'll try present a study on a plate for you to dissect.
If you can't even find a reference to a study that shows smacking is beneficial then just accept you're wrong and move on.
steve – the evidence on hitting children is clear – and the only way to have a workable line is to make it a clear one ie no hitting children.
Your argument about the nordic countries is nonsense – at least two generations have grown up since the 70s!
Yes its harsh that it penalises people in your position – but greater good of the greater number and all that?
I've lived and worked in Norway and Denmark and although there is a LOT to admire there is also a lot brushed under the carpet.
I could probably write an essay of the good, bad and ugly... but it's really not a simple good/bad and living there (especially Norway) is probably not what most people would expect.
What is mainly swept under the table seems to be a complete denial of any negatives...
I'll just give one example ... a Church set up a needle exchange in Oslo which got closed down by the council. The official reason given wasn't what you'd expect... perhaps medical concerns or whatever it was very clearly stated that no Norwegian takes drugs ... just a statement.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE QUOTE SAID! If you're not even reading what I'm posting here what chance have you got of absorbing an entire study.
It’s what I asked and what people have been asking on here.
“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,” she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.”
It's not as bad. It's still bad.
Still waiting for your evidence.
I'm done.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
More the the point the sub-title say's entirely the opposite.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties
What is doesn't do is show a threshold or even mention one.
Is twice in 18 years proven to be worse than once? How much does that extra once mean they will defy parents, have increased anti-social behaviour or become axe murderers or how this data is recorded?
Umm… because they are children?
What next allow 3yr olds to drive on the roads?
What a surprise, another straw man.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties
What is doesn’t do is show a threshold or even mention one.
Is one more than zero?
It’s not as bad. It’s still bad.
Still waiting for your evidence.
unfortunately as you are advocating for a change in the law the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate an occasional smack is harmful enough to have it banned.
Can just ask, this law only effects children, yes? And it is still allowed between 2 consenting adults???
I am just checking for a friend whos a bit tied up just now and not able ask themselves.
he had a habit of removing safety devices from plugs and then trying to stick objects in.
Tangent, but those "safety devices" are the opposite. At best they give no extra protection from one of the most over-engineered designs on the planet, at worst they provide a handy mechanism for bypassing one BS1363's inherent safety features (turn it upside-down, wedge the conveniently earth-pin-shaped prong back in the socket, hey presto unfettered access to the live socket). If you have these things in your house you'd be well advised to throw them in the bin immediately.
Can just ask, this law only effects children, yes? And it is still allowed between 2 consenting adults???
It's a different law but no, it's not allowed. In English law one cannot legally consent to bodily harm.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM_and_the_law#United_Kingdom
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 apparently, though it has its roots in 1980s homophobia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner