Ideally I want one you can use from a distance, to lessen the chances of getting my head kicked in.

It’ll save me having to sneak up on them when they’re sleeping…..

I was aggressively alienated,segregated and driven to the edge by 1 person for 3 years at school(6-7 years on and i could still LITERALLY KILL SOMEONE IF I FLIPPED)and what it took to hurt him was not lashing out but absolutely leathering him to the point that in his eyes he had the look of a frightened child..word spread ..his reputation as a tough guy was in tatters and now we flipped places..I was KING..and proved everyone was wrong ..am I proud..no ..was it neccisary yes..

Why did it work?..

Simple answer …HUMILIATION..I was the the little weakling ..he was the tough guy..I made him afraid of me ..thus no one was going to try me again..they knew I could be very DANGEROUS..to this day hes still afraid of me ..

The damage he did is immeasurable..but I am stronger now..I had to resort to that to prove sometimes people DONT learn by conventional means.. and sometimes as an individual you must prove you are harder ,tougher,faster,BETTER then they are..and make yourself the pack leader…

I have numerous social misregestry disorders(dont understand how to react properly) but I have supreme control now..I RESPECT MYSELF FIRST..that taught me that I am not going to just get walked over and it took ..PUTTING FEAR IN THE PERSON THAT PUSHED ME THAT HARD..to do so..

Violence has its place..some people dont care if you dont want to hurt people ..so you have to show them that you CAN and WILL..

I have dealt with children(not my own-dont have kids yet) and they tried there luck luck..words got words..they laid a finger on me and I did it back HARDER ..they didn’t do it again..and know when I say I’ll do it ..I WILL..so that’s enough of a threat ..

The answer I’s equal force..words=words,violance=equaled violence.. they must be a healthy amount afraid of you in order to know your threats mean something.. and wont question that you will..

My dads only a handful of times lost it but ..when he does..you run..as hes a FREIGHT TEAIN when hes like that..I have HEALTHY FEAR of him..and that kept us all in line ..we all knew he could hurt us ..but he rarely did..he didn’t need to..as we did have respect that he could ..

Theres no clear cut answer..but when I have kids if they need a smack or a punch to put them in there place ..so be it..atleast they know the threats not hollow..I’d rather be respected then trampled over..what happened to respecting your parents..as it seems too many kids are not now..I think they should..and any parent who wants to know the threats will work will need to do it..lids misbehave because of many things but if its things they cant help they need to be shown it’s not acceptable..and sometimes being knocked about is the ONLY WAY..

Member
I don’t think the law differentiates according to the part of the body.

I’m sure it doesn’t. Any contact anywhere is assault.

Existing law in Scotland says that reasonable chastisement is possible defence unless it involves hitting the head, shaking or using an implement. The change removes that defence, which means it would be treated the same was as an alleged assault on an adult.

In that case if Scotroutes saw me about to pick up a pan that had just been on a camp fire and smacked my hand out the way it would not be an assault (the mens rea doesn’t exist). Likewise if I saw Drac was paying too much attention to his ipad and was about to step in front of a bus and pushed him out the way, its not assault, even if he gets injured from the push.

Theres not actually a need for contact to constitute an assault.

Yes. As the law currently stands a gentle slap of tap is fine if it at worse it leaves temporary redness. Anything worse than that is illegal ie bruising.

I don’t think the law actually says that (certainly not in Scotland). its for the courts to decide what was reasonable in all the circumstances. Just as they would decide if, in the circumstances, throwing a punch or pushing someone in self defence, or in the defence of another was a legitimate defence (if walking away was viable it would not be).

Existing law in Scotland says that reasonable chastisement is possible defence unless it involves hitting the head, shaking or using an implement. The change removes that defence, which means it would be treated the same was as an alleged assault on an adult.

Thanks Poly.

I don’t think that is what you mean … but that is the result of taking your words literally.

So stop taking it so nth degree literally. Find someone else for a stupid argument.

I agree with Outofbreath about letting his daughter retaliate when bitten, provided it was just the one hit in response. I am assuming the biting phase didn’t go on for long enough for retaliatory violence to become the norm.

I also agree with the point that madmechanist is making about respect being key although don’t necessarily agree with the method of achieving it.

It is though, if you are faced with a child willfully running into the road or some other safety incident you risk breaking the law. I wouldn’t want to inhibit a mum from using force to save her child.

No you risk being investigated and explaining why you stopped your kid from getting squashed by a car.

I don’t think the law actually says that (certainly not in Scotland). its for the courts to decide what was reasonable in all the circumstances. Just as they would decide if, in the circumstances, throwing a punch or pushing someone in self defence, or in the defence of another was a legitimate defence (if walking away was viable it would not be).

Yes Poly of course it would possibly go to court for your defence if the CPS thought it was necessary.

madmechanist is making about respect being key

I’m not sure respect through intimidation is any sort of respect I’d be interested having.

Thanks to Poly a bit more detail on English Law here:

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6886/10/chastisement.html

The Charging Standard states that for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ is no longer available.

However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling, a charge of common assault may be laid against the defendant for whom the reasonable chastisement defence remains available to parents or adults acting in loco parentis.

I agree with Outofbreath about letting his daughter retaliate when bitten, provided it was just the one hit in response. I am assuming the biting phase didn’t go on for long enough for retaliatory violence to become the norm.

Yeah, I have to also say this wasn’t a planned strategy that I regard as best practice parenting. It just seemed the right thing to do at the time on a couple of occasions. I just introduced it in this thread as an interesting moral consideration.

but when I have kids if they need a smack or a punch to put them in there place ..so be it..

Whoah there big boy! I don’t think you should consider a career in parenting if you think punching a child could ever help solve an issue.

Ssshhh, don’t rile him!

I find it really funny that some folk on here are so keen to condemn the SNP for anything they do that they are making fatuous arguments conflating self defense, defense of others, restraint to stop someone injuring themselves and beating children

After this law is passed you will still be able to protect yourself even if attacked by a child. Thats a different bit of law

You will still be able to intervene if one child is beating another even if that involves hurting the bullies – thats a different bit of law

After this law you will still be able to restrain a child to prevent it from doing something you do not want the child to do be that something dangerous or something you don’t want them to do – thats a different bit of law

After this bit of law you will still be able to use reasonable force to remove a disruptive child from a situation – thats a different bit of law

What you will no longer have is an exception to the laws on assault to allow you to assault a child. that seems reasonable to me. There can never be a moral justification for beating a child

I don’t recall being smacked by my mum for being a brat, but I do recall one occasion when I was being taken to bed against my will, and I kicked off, literally, going up the stairs, and kicked my mum on her leg. She kicked me back, quite hard. It didn’t happen again…
I was about three or four.

Named person scheme (Now quietly defunct, tho’ it lived on for a while after being declared illegal).

Many local authorities operated versions of the named person scheme for years prior to the botched national roll out and continue to do so now. I know a few very vocal critics of it who were surprised to learn it had been running in their area for ages and the world had not come crashing down.

Where does this new law stand on withholding pudding?

What you will no longer have is an exception to the laws on assault to allow you to assault a child. that seems reasonable to me. There can never be a moral justification for beating a child

The existing law never allowed for beating a child. We need to choose our words very carefully in this debate.

Mmm…my dad was quite happy to give me or my brothers a clip round the ear or kick up the backside but…it was always for being cheeky or showing a lack of respect to other people or for lying etc…. I never felt abused or anything like that ; I just learnt about respect.
I think about that quite often when I ask the school kids if they might like to put their litter in a bin instead of throwing it on the ground. The response I normally get is the offer to go and perform a sexual act on myself.

spin – I did chose my words carefully. Hitting a child = beating them in IMO

Beating? Lay off the hyperbole.

spin – I did chose my words carefully. Hitting a child = beating them in IMO

So you chose that word based on your own definition of it rather than the generally accepted / dictionary definition. Beating implies repeated and quite forceful hitting which was already against the law.

Use of such emotive words isn’t really helpful.

OK – checked the dictionary and you are right. So maybe it sounded much more hyperbolic than intended

You can get into a whole philosophical debate over this and if one hit is OK Is two? how about 3? when does a smacking become a beating? How many smackers just stop at one blow?

Its much easier to have a clear line – no hitting a child.

Apparently, frustrated and angry parents are putting their kids into cars and driving to England to administer punishment.. Berwick upon Tweed is being inundated by what are being called smack cruises.

With both fracking and smacking being banned today at Holyrood, fans of both snacking and bush whacking were heard to issue a huge sigh of relief.

the liberal left snowflakes are at it again, small wonder discipline is on its arse.

58 countries have “no hitting children” laws. these include many of the countries we see as the nicest most civilised places to live

In my group of friends some of us were regularly smacked growing up. Not beaten, not abused, but got fairly regular smacks when we tried our parents patience.

Out of the two groups, guess which one has more problems with anger control and is still getting into fights even as we edge towards our 40s.

But yeah, smacking never did us any harm!

Nice anecdote there Bruce

This is bad news for the world of professional wrestling…

the WWE WithdrawalofwifiDown won’t be quite as exciting.

nice inductive fallacy there Bruce

Yes, of course. My anecdote contradicts all statistics and should therefore be disregarded.

But naturally, anyone who says ‘I was smacked growing up and it never did me any harm’ is making a perfectly valid contribution.

is making a perfectly valid contribution.

No, that would also be anecdote.

mental abuse is just as bad a physical, my parents actually used to shout at me too! this has obviously left me with anger issues and mental scarring, perhaps i can sue them?
where were my human rights to do as i please without the threat of real consequence when i was growing up? my childhood was robbed, i never even got to back chat adults!

Just to be clear, does the no anecdote rule apply to all discussions on STW? Because I haven’t checked but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen other people using personal anecdotes to make their point on other threads.

No.

Only on this thread then? I think if you look back you might find an anecdote or two on this very thread.

Is there something about my anecdote in particular that breaks the rule?

Did someone not get coco pops for breakfast?

Have you given up?

im trying so hard to resist, and i havent checked, but im pretty sure ive never seen any other people using personal anecdotes to make their point ever on STW threads.

no there is no rule, unfortunately your comment has been responded to and called out, im sorry you feel picked on. perhaps if i wasnt smacked as a child i would have more empathy and wouldnt criticise and devalue another persons comment regardless of whether its true or not

You sound weird. If we were in the pub this would be the point I abruptly stopped talking to you and started ignoring you. Try not to jump up and down desperately trying to attract my attention. It’s embarrassing for both of us.