I don’t advocate a return to coproral punishment, but seriously…

“Child Beating”?

You have managed to ban a (literal) slap on the wrists. You did it by a public campaign that portrayed teachers as sexually perverted sadists.

There are any number of serious issues to be discussed around discipline in schools. You don’t seem to be addressing any of them.

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/corporal-punishment/

I knew a middle-aged guy who had started every school day by failing a spelling test and then being beaten for it. (He was, of course, dyslexic.) Ah, the good old days before these bleeding-heart liberals ruined everything.

Yep – amazing what can be inflicted on children in the name of convenient, knee-jerk solutions for adults.

Now, when are politicians and capaigners going to have the courage to point out that if teachers are capable of this kind of abuse, then so are parents and other carers? Time to catch up with most of the other civilised nations and ban smacking in the home – it’s unnecessary, damaging and cowardly that parents are still legally permitted to assault their children.

Just a quick question about your stats. In saying that corporal punishment was rarely administered, you say that it was taking place in 80% of schools (which is irrelevant as this says nothing about how frequently it happened), and you also average it out to instances of corporal punishment per second averaged over the whole system (which, again, stripped of contextual information) tells us nothing about how common it actually was.

You say that there were something approaching 250,000 instances of corporal punishment in schools nationwide over the course of the year, without giving us a figure of how many children were at school age at the time. Whilst this statistic is actually relevant, without knowing the number of schoolkids, the figure doesn’t prove very much. If there were one million schoolchildren at the time (figure made up for comparison purposes), that would mean that – on average – fewer than one in four school kids would be given corporal punishment over a school year, and in most peoples’ eyes that would mean it was – in fact – rare.

Basically, whatever the rights and wrongs of corporal punishment, your use of statistics in this article is rather shoddy – as quoted, they don’t prove what you say they do, and the article would work a lot better if you provided more relevant statistics (assuming they prove your case) or left that assertion out (if they don’t).

I went to a school at St Ismaels in which the head teacher had a serious problem with me, at the time I did not know why.

I had the cane once or twice a month for anything and everything, but I refused to tell my parents , that was at five. Then he hit me so hard my hand became infected after he used the same hand each time. I was taken to hospital by my mother and the doctors stated how it was caused, my father went down to see the head master, the head master went missing for a while from school.

My father was a German soldier, the head teacher has lost his son in the war and I was the target of his loss. I found out many years later my father had taken the teacher out side and used the cane on him.

I was then given the cane when in secondary modern by another teacher for the same bloody reason, but in the end this teacher was removed, while showing us how to use the wall bars he slipped and broke his neck, he never returned.

The school brought around a large get well card and about nine of us refused to sign it, we were sent home for a week as punishment.

But my old school stopped caning people after a young girl who was given six of the best ran away from school and was found four days later, lucky she was found at a friends house.

All types of punishment but the cane should not be one of them, how the hell can an assualt be accepted these days.

Thanks for the article. I had forgotten we had been that close to keeping corporal punishment in schools. From my time at school, the examples quoted are valid but on the extreme end of the scale, although I have seen worse and recall having experienced something similar once. It varied from school to school and from teacher to teacher.
As a general rule: the poorer the teacher, the more teacher-inflicted violence occurred in class or just in passing. With a significant minority of teachers, you could expect someone to be physically hurt in every lesson. With others, it never occurred. They did it because they couldn’t cope and they were allowed to. Scapegoating was also a factor.

If I am typical, in those days the kids never told their parents. No – not because “I would have been whacked again”; it was just part of going to school, like sports on a Wednesday or morning assembly. And therefore on the few occasions it happened to me, I must have deserved it (sounds familiar to other forms of abuse?).

Am I pleased my kids were managed at school more by argument than physical coersion? – yes.

Do I hold any grudges against my teachers? – no.
It was just the accepted way children were treated then.

I dread to think what would have happened at my secondary school if some of the teachers had the ability to inflict beatings at a whim. I dread to think what happened in previous years when their predecessors did. We had some teachers who with hindsight were obviously grossly unsuitable to have such a responsibility (indeed, unsuitable to be teachers at all in some cases) and would have abused it with abandon for a range of reasons.

I recall a games teacher who regularly inflicted punishment exercise on pupils he deemed weak/lazy (or homosexual, in his eyes the same thing, and he told us so) until they collapsed from exhaustion. If he’d had access to a cane he could have killed someone.

Green Christian (clearly s/he aint) on ‘stats: If one single child; a small person (defined in law as a ‘minor’, someone to be ‘protected’) is assaulted by an adult, (defined by me as ‘someone whose purpose should be to protect children’)… then this is a perversion and something for decent people to shout loudly about. Stuff your stat-juggling; if you enjoy beating children or think it’s a good thing; go see a psychiatrist.

oldandrew (clearly s/he is); teachers who beat children often WERE ‘sexually perverted sadists’. I was a teacher in inner city secondary schools for eighteen years and met these disgustingly perverted cowards frequently. There are indeed, as you observe; ‘serious issues to be discussed around discipline in schools’ but ‘discipline’ does not equate with illegal assaults on small people expiated simply because you are bigger and stronger than them; that oldandrew is bullying cowardice.

Isn’t it amazing that twenty years after cp was abolished that some old pervs still lie in their beds of an evening, no doubt with their fist gripping them limp todger, dreaming of the ‘good old days’ when they could remove a small child’s trousers and beat their bare bottoms in the privacy of their office… now they have to purchase specialist magazines to exploit their perversions… ah hum; I guess that’s ‘progress’ folks…

I guess the impression from some of the comments that there is some disbelief about how common physical punishment was. I went to a comprehensive school in Yorkshire between 1975 and 1981, and the cane was part of the formal punishment regime, with the deputy head caning “bad” boys I guess a few times a term in his office. The PE staff had their own punishment , the slipper , administered in the “shower area”, which was more frequent. In addition other staff had less formal punishments involving slaps, and sometimes the hurling of blackboard dusters. Otherwise, it was a pretty good school, but I think this was one aspect we can all be pleased is gone.

I agree with oldandrew @ 1. Calling all forms of corporal punishment “child beating” just sounds ridiculous and hyperbolic, and makes it look like you don’t have any valid arguments and have to rely on bluster and emotion to make your case.

@ 8:

Wow. Way to ignore the arguments and make yourself look like a total pillock.

…anonymous perverts like XXX make me cringe. Come out of the woodwork please XXX and lets see the face of someone who delights in sadism… (Mind you, thinking about it, that fits the pattern; most perverts DO wish to remain anon don’t they?)

@8 If you’d read my comment thoroughly you might have noticed that I specifically didn’t state my position on the issue of corporal punishment in schools, so you can’t assume that I am in favour of it.

For the record, I was in Primary School at the time and I don’t remember a single case of corporal punishment in my school. Because I was too young to be aware of the debate, it’s an issue which I haven’t formed an opinion on. And I’d rather not until I’ve seen both sides of the argument. Yes, the examples cited at the end of the article are shocking, but I’ve not seen enough evidence to know whether these were typical of corporal punishment in schools or the exception.

My objection was solely to the poor use of statistics in the article.- the figures cited to support the claim that corporal punishment in schools was routine tell us nothing without some other figures to contextualise them. And I’d be saying the same thing if I noticed equally shoddy use of statistics in an article which is arguing for a point of view I strongly support.

Incidentally, I’d be interested to know why you think that I’m neither a Green nor a Christian.

Also, if oldandrew is who I think he is, then he ain’t anywhere near as old as you’re assuming.

12,

Okay, I will say this once and if it has no effect I will try to ignore you.

Calling people who disagree with you (or even people who dislike incoherent arguments) “perverts” and filling the details in with prurient fantasies is not an argument. It just makes you look unwell.

“A 14-year-old boy came home from school after a caning with his blood-stained underpants sticking to his bottom”

Are we sure that was not a recent event, and not a caning but a modern sex education lesson?

It’s rather depressing to see that some people are still in favour of hitting children.
Thanks to all involved in the campaign to stop corporal punishment in schools, you did the country a great service.

oldandrew; Okay, I will say this once and if it has no effect I will try to ignore you. (Does that sound patronising? Ha ha ha) There IS no argument for BIG people hitting LITTLE people simply because they are bigger and stronger. If you think cp changes people’s attitudes then come and try to change mine; I’m 6′ 5″ and eighteen stone; you wont find me so easy as a helpless child; but then maybe you prefer just hitting children? If so; say so; there are gaudy Mags on the top shelves of most seedy bookshops that will accomodate you . If on the other hand you have a coherent argument which shows that children are cowards and change their attitudes because BIG people inflict pain on them then out with it; I’m all ears…

Corporal punishment was relatively common (though not perhaps an everyday occurrence) in my days at primary school in Scotland in the 70′s, and to a lesser extent at high school until it was banned.

The weapon of choice (and trust me, it WAS a weapon) was a thick leather tawse with a split end.

Anyone supporting the use of corporal punishment isn’t fit to be a teacher.

If oldandrew doesn’t think corporal punishment is child beating, I’d like to invite him to explain how it is different a teacher caning, belting or slapping a child in class fro some disciplinary transgression, than some random person in the street lamping someone for an equally trivial transgression?

XXX and oldandrew are CP proponents.
*chortles*

As Galen10 says this was the weapon of torture in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawse

Looking back some of the trivial things that one could be belted for really was astonishing. I would say some of the teachers definitely enjoyed inflicting pain. Moreover, it did not work because classes where the teacher belted would be rowdier as the wilder boys in acts of bravado sought to provoke the teacher to show how tough they were in being unperturbed by the belt. The more sensitive souls would be crying before they were belted and bullied afterwards for being soft. Classes where the teacher did not use the belt did not have the same rowdiness because there was no point in provocation. I was at the same school for a few weeks as Niall Ferguson and witnessed him being belted for being cheeky. He did not cry.

“If oldandrew doesn’t think corporal punishment is child beating, I’d like to invite him to explain how it is different a teacher caning, belting or slapping a child in class fro some disciplinary transgression, than some random person in the street lamping someone for an equally trivial transgression?”

I think I already explained that I think it ludicrous to call a slap on the wrists a beating. Don’t you? There’s a world oif difference between physical punishment in general, and the kind of physical abuse that would be illegal even for a parent to inflict on their own child.

As for the difference between disciplining a child one is responsible for and disciplining a stranger in the street, I’m surprised that needs explaining to anybody. Would you say that a detention is “false impriosonment”? Or that making a child do school work is “slavery”? Or confiscating a phone is “theft”? These are pretty easy distinctions to make and I don’t see the point of refusing to make them in the case of corporal punishment.

“XXX and oldandrew are CP proponents.”

Except I’m not. I’m just not comfortable with the efforts to demonise most British teachers who taught in schools prior to the 80s and the overwhelming majority of teachers in cultures outside of the liberal West as some kind of cross between Fred West and Jonathan King. I mean how far do you want to go with this? Is every culture on earth that allows physical punishment in schools one that is vastly morally inferior to our own?

@21

You don’t see the point, because as usual in your “I’m not going to answer the point you made, but the one I want to answer” mode (easy to see you’re a teacher… well done!) you’ve managed to try and sound superior and miss the point in the space of one sentence.

As you well know, we aren’t talking about slaps on the wrist (altho I’d imagine if you slapped someone anywhere it could as well be called assault if it were on the wrist, face, back of the legs..?), we’re talking about the popular methods routinely used in the good old days, namely the cane in most of England, and the leather taws in most of Scotland. Hardly a slap on the wrist then. as anyone unfortunate enough to have been subjected to it will no doubt attest.

The difference between disciplining a child for which you are “in loco parentis”, and some random kid you saw doing something objectionable in the street and saw fit to slap him for isn’t logically that clear to me. Neither are acceptable to most right thinking people… but I’ve long since given up any hope that you fall within that category given your previous record of obfuscation.

@22

“Is every culture on earth that allows physical punishment in schools one that is vastly morally inferior to our own?”

Vastly? No. Somewhat? Yes.

Plenty of school systems manage perfectly adequately without recourse to beating children. Not every British teacher prior to the ban used CP – some because they didn’t have to, and some because they disagreed with it in principle. Others were probably not sad to see it go. It is certainly undeniable that some… even if only a small number… enjoyed it too much.

Violence inflicted on children by adults is never justifiable, whether they are teachers or not.

Disagreeing with how the argument is set out isn’t the same as disagreeing with the conclusion. It is an article which appeals to emotion rather than reason. Corporal punishment is wrong and indefensible IMHO, but:

The use of statistics is bad – it is a misleading daily mail type use of numbers. It actually seems to show that it was not common – saying how often they occurred in seconds is irrelevant, an attempt to cover this up.

A few bad cases which are clearly wrong doesn’t mean corporal punishment is itself wrong if the majority of beating weren’t like this. It could be argued that better controls or regulation are necessary.

But if you think, as I do, that beating children is wrong (and I think that phrase is fair) then its still wrong even if rare, and its still wrong even if not as awful as the examples in the article.

@23

Thanks for telling me what I am talking about, but what was banned in the 1980s was not simply the tawse or the cane, it was all physical punishment and to suggest that this largely consisted of “beatings” is ludicrous and insulting.

I am at a loss as to why you can’t see the difference between disciplining children you personally are responsible for, and strangers in the street. I wouldn’t even know where to begin explaining something so obvious.

24

So cultures where almost everybody happily accepts what are apparently “child beatings”, “a vile evil”, “abuse”, “assault” “perversions” and “torture” are just “somewhat” morally inferior?

Do you not see a bit of a gap between the rhetoric and the conclusion?

Overwhelmingly the countries which ban physical punishment are white and western. The overwhelming majority of countries where physical punishment is normal and completley accepted are non-white and in the developing world. Do we really want to go down the road of viewing this as such a fundamental moral issue rather than something where people agree to disagree? You do realise that if we took your position that anyone who supports the use of corporal punishment is unfit to be a teacher (last poll I saw said this included 20% of teachers) then we’d probably end up chucking out an absolutely huge proportion of those teachers who have come here from Africa, Asia or the Carribean. Is that actually what you want? I strongly suspect that the demographics of opinions on corporal punishment are such that you would be making the teaching profession younger, whiter and more middle class than it already is. Is that a price worth paying to make it more liberal?

@26

You’re being disingenuous; hardly a surprise given your track record and the tenor of your blog, but for the benefit of those hard of reason like yourself…..

Yes, all physical punishment was banned in the 1980′s, which was both right and long overdue.

The majority of beating in schools (for that IS what it was, despite all your cavilling about it being a ridiculous linkage to make) in England and Scotland had long been in the formalised usage of the cane or tawse in the (misguided) view that this gave it some form of legitimacy rather than actually using your hands.

Beating children you are responsible for isn’t a defence, any more than a police officer beating a prisoner they were responsible for, or a care assistant beating a patient they were responsible for.

Adults beating children for talking in class, or calling them a name isn’t justifiable.

If you can’t see that, how was it you put it…? ah yes… I wouldn’t even know where to begin explaining something so obvious. I am glad however you weren’t anywhere near when my child was in school.

@27

Again, try to respond to what I actually said, rather than what you made up in your head that I said… it will make thinks easier and lower your blood pressure.

You asked a simple question, and I provided a simple answer. I didn’t say that all the other epithets you saw fit to add were things I believed. It is actually pretty unexceptional to believe that a society which bans the beating of children in school is morally superior in that sense to a society where such beatings are allowed, still less one where they are looked upon with favour.

I’m happy that people can agree to disagree. No doubt “some” teachers do hanker for the right to beat children. Whether that view is more common amongst the groups of teachers you cite is arguable; but even if true doesn’t make it right, nor indeed would it change my opinion that people who thought beating children in class was acceptable might not be the kind of people I’d like educating my children.

If people want to come and teach here, and are qualified and have the right to be here, they need to work within the system. In private, they may well hanker for the right to beat their charges; if they keep that to themselves, there isn’t really a problem…. it just doesn’t make them someone I’d see as a fit or proper person to be in loco parentis.

@28

I’m sorry but where did this straw man come from that I said being responsible for a child would be a defence for doing something illegal? I just pointed out that “could I do this to a stranger in the street?” is a very bizarre test for deciding whether something can be done to punish a child you are responsible for.

As for your other argument, I am sure that if you are going to describe something as “a beating” you are more likely to end up looking at the use of the cane or the tawse than any other physical punishment. My point remains, the legal change did not simply apply to “beatings” – it banned all physical punishment, even a slap on the wrist.

29

I love the fantasy that your squirming is making my blood pressure rise. It’s hardly going to register after all the abuse.

As for your “fit person” criteria, I’m still curious. If somebody came here from a country that had corporal punishment would you expect them to actually believe that their culture was morally wrong and ours morally right before they were fit to teach in our schools?

@30

*sighs* you are trying to cloak the previous right to beat (or even just slap) children for some transgression on the basis that since the teacher was responsible for his charge, this was OK. That argument was lost, not least because people came to see that allowing the beating children in that context, and not in others, was illogical.

I’ve already dealt with your other point. MOST CP that people were concerned about wasn’t a light slap on the wrist, was it? Trying to maintain otherwise is simply fatuous. Why on earth would it be OK to ban the use of the cane, tawse, ruler, eraser thrown across the class…. but maintain it was OK for a teacher to slap a child?

A teacher who feels the need to slap children needs all sorts of help…. and not all of it relates to their ability to control minors.

@31

The only sense you make me squirm is in revulsion at your views oldandrew.

I have no interest in making windows into people’s souls…assuming they have one if they approve of beating children. People will “believe” what they like, whether in their own brand of made up religion, the fact that their children are talented, or their wife beautiful. We aren’t obliged to humour them in their beliefs, however sincerely held.

They can “believe” CP is right, as long as they don’t act on their flawed outlook. I think their moral compasses need recalibrating, but in the end I wouldn’t particularly ban them unless they started enacting their agenda… or perhaps if they started campaigning for the right to flog their students. Not really rocket science is it?

“you are trying to cloak the previous right to beat (or even just slap) children for some transgression on the basis that since the teacher was responsible for his charge, this was OK”

Nope. This bit is complete invention on your part.

“Why on earth would it be OK to ban the use of the cane, tawse, ruler, eraser thrown across the class…. but maintain it was OK for a teacher to slap a child?”

If one was specifically concerned about “child beatings” then one would only ban child beatings. Is that not fairly obvious? The point is just how misleading it is to defend a ban on all physical punishment by talk of “child beatings”.

33,

Well that’s a lot more reasonable than what you said in 18. I am glad to have helped you change your mind.

@34

OK then.. explain the difference to me.. I’m genuinely interested….

Even if we accept that the generally accepted usage of “a beating” is to rough someone up, perhaps draw blood… does that mean that giving a child several stroked with a cane or a leather taws DOESN”T count as a beating? And if that does count as a beating… does one or two strokes count as beating?

If we accept that a few strokes aren’t beating (I’m not sure what we call them now….. reasonable chastisement?.. what the little blighter had coming perhaps?… then it’s still pretty nasty in the view of most people.

So..if a few strokes of the cane aren’t beating… then I assume slapping them isn’t beating either in your eyes?

Good grief….

‘As for your “fit person” criteria, I’m still curious. If somebody came here from a country that had corporal punishment would you expect them to actually believe that their culture was morally wrong and ours morally right before they were fit to teach in our schools?’

Child beating would be ONE of the criteria for judging whether a society was moral or not, but not the sole criteria.

If a society outlawed child beatings but accepted capital punishment, or gross inequalities of wealth, or barred access to medication, or denied rights to people according to their race, or sex, or orientation, then no, simply banning corporal punishment would not make them morally superior.

The fact that child beating tends to be more ‘acceptable’ in countries which tollerate other abuses of power is, however, significant.

36

Distinguishing between a “child beating” and a slap on the wrist is definitely in the “too obvious to explain” category.

@35 oldandrew

Don’t flatter yourself.

I haven’t changed my mind.. I still think anyone who advocates or approves of the beating of children isn’t fit to be a teacher. They need help.

There is little one can do if they keep their barbaric views to themselves of course; the same could be said if they were a neo-nazi, a Rangers fan, or thought Nick Clegg was an estimable person.

37

You appear to have gone from my question about beliefs that reflect “culture” to a much wider notion of “society” and then to all encompassing questions of “rights and distribution of wealth”.

By changing countries you obviously change what society you are in, what rights you have and where you stand in the distirbution of wealth. The question is about the extent to which people have to change their beliefs as well, particularly when those beliefs are shaped by experience. What I was getting at was whether we were really expecting people raised in countries where corporal punishment is generally considered morally acceptable to change their minds on the moral issue (i.e. not just the practice) before coming here and teaching in our schools? And if so, are we prepared for the way that such an expectation would affect people from some cultures far more than others. Can you imagine a school sacking a whole bunch of teachers who have arrived here recently from Africa, Asia and the Carribean on the grounds that their beliefs weren’t enlightened enough?

39

The phrase “isn’t fit to be a teacher” usually implies “should be stopped, where possible, from being a teacher” and not simply “happens to disagree with me over a political issue”.

Can you see how you may have created confusion here?

@41 Well, yes. For example I’d say anyone who agrees with Nambla’s position on children isn’t fit to be a teacher either.

“Overwhelmingly the countries which ban physical punishment are white and western. The overwhelming majority of countries where physical punishment is normal and completley accepted are non-white and in the developing world. Do we really want to go down the road of viewing this as such a fundamental moral issue rather than something where people agree to disagree? ”

oh great, the bleeding heart moral relativist politically correct brigade are having a go at us for banning assaults on children by adults.

i don’t want to make oldandrew choke on his muesli but i don’t think grown men should beat up little children, and i don’t care if it’s against health and safety to say so.

1. oldandrew

Problems with classroom discipline are down to the threat of litigation and bolshy parents who believe their child never did any wrong. Effective discipline has nothing to with violence, however “mild”: this is a blunt, ineffective and damaging approach to classroom discipline, and one that hides bulies and abusers.

I recall at Icknield Junior School, Mr Harrington smashing a desk whilst assaulting a child. Another time he thrashed the whole class one after another, because he imagined we were making a noise on the way back from assembly.

The banning of acts of violence in the classroom, meant nutters like him could not remain hidden any longer. For the remainder of the teaching profession “mild violence” is a lazy way to influence a class: one that does little to inspire or motivate.

By the way Andrew, when exactly did you stop (mildly) beating your wife?

‘Can you imagine a school sacking a whole bunch of teachers who have arrived here recently from Africa, Asia and the Carribean on the grounds that their beliefs weren’t enlightened enough?’

If they act on those beliefs, i.e. beat children, I should certainly hope they *were* sacked.

Are you honestly arguing that we should tolerate corporal punishment because banning it discriminates against immigrants you see as incapable of moral choice because of their ethnicity?

@oldandrew

The onus is on you to explain why you want to have the right to hit children, not the other way around I’m afraid. Extraordinary opinions require extraordinary explanations, so to speak, and the desire to hit small people is certainly an extraordinary opinion.

“Are you honestly arguing that we should tolerate corporal punishment because banning it discriminates against immigrants you see as incapable of moral choice because of their ethnicity?”

Wow, that’s the most ludicrous straw man yet.

I’m really just interested in how far people will take their rhetoric. I mean, if corporal punishment, even a slap on the wrist, really is “child beating”, “torture” and “perversion” it really would be a severe judgement on those cultures which think it is perfectly normal and acceptable. It’s very easy to hysterically condemn other people’s views, but it does then raise questions about how people are then meant to live and work together. I mean I frequently meet supporters of corporal punishment. They are very often a) African b) working class or c) over 65. If I decided they were all as far beyond the pale as some of the comments here suggest then I really would be cutting myself off from a lot of people with backgrounds that are significantly different to my own and if it was applied in the workplace, and we considered all supporters of corporal punishment to be unfit to teach, then it really what make schools considerably less diverse.

46

Ignoring the views that you incorrectly attribute to me, the point is that support for corporal punishment is not an *extraordinary* view except among the liberal middle classes of the developed world.

What I’m noticing about this debate is that the anti-corporal punishment side appear to be demonising anybody who thinks corporal punishment is ever acceptable, and come across as believing that it could ever be justified is inconceivable.

Based on the rhetoric of this thread, my parents – who smacked me with a mild slap on the bottom – must have been child abusers. Which is utterly laughable, they were most definitely good parents.

Also, I’d be interested to hear that side’s views on kids like one of my cousins who had been diagnosed with behavioural problems. The only thing that he would respond to was a smack. And I was once there when his dad smacked him (again, light slap on the bottom) to prevent him from running out into the road.

That’s part of the reason why I earlier said that I didn’t have a position on corporal punishment in schools. My childhood experience tells me that it isn’t necessarily abusive, and that incident makes me believe that there are times when milder forms of corporal punishment may be necessary. I have no idea about the facts on the ground when it comes to the question of discipline in schools, and unless it becomes a live issue I’ve no real reason to seek out the arguments on either side.

Finally, the oversimplification of the issue to “hitting children means you’re evil” I’m seeing here actually makes me more sympathetic to the pro-smacking case. Yes, most of the commenters feel very strongly about it, but the arguments being made simply aren’t going to sway anybody who thinks that in some circumstances milder forms of corporal punishment are acceptable. If anything, they’re going to reinforce those views.

oldandrew: “Distinguishing between a “child beating” and a slap on the wrist is definitely in the “too obvious to explain” category.”

I can guarantee a lawyer for a teacher accused of illegally beating a child would find that distinction between a “beating” and a “slap” marvellously complex and difficult to define, if it mattered in law as you suggest it should.

Besides, I’d suggest a “slap on the wrist”, legal or not, would be highly unlikely to have any effect on discipline (hence why we use the phrase to mean “ineffective punishment”).

@48

You’ve still yet to explain why you think the right to hit children is so important to you.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, we live in a liberal, developed, nation. So try again.

Oldandrew isn’t in favour of CP. He’s in favour po-facedly ticking people off for their rhetoric and naughty hyperbole.

Quite a boring hobby, really, but not one which renders him unfit to be a teacher. Quite the opposite in fact.

Green Christian: “light slap on the bottom”

Oh, just a light mild harmless slap. Why, the child can barely have noticed.

Come off it, the whole idea of corporal punishment is that it *hurts* and pain is a deterrent… that’s why corporal punishment in schools typically involved being whacked with a great big cane.

Well. I didn’t really have any strong views on corporal punishment before today, but if the arguments on this thread are the best that the anti-CP side can come up with, then that’s probably going to change soon. Anyway…

@ 17:

“There IS no argument for BIG people hitting LITTLE people simply because they are bigger and stronger.”

The argument isn’t that people should hit other people just because the person doing the hitting is big enough to get away with it, the argument is that teachers should be allowed to physically discipline children because it helps them keep order. Which it clearly does: teachers aren’t stupid, and CP wouldn’t have been so prevalent if it hadn’t helped them keep order. Indeed, if it really were useless, there would be no need to ban it, since nobody would use it anyway.

@ 23:

“The difference between disciplining a child for which you are “in loco parentis”, and some random kid you saw doing something objectionable in the street and saw fit to slap him for isn’t logically that clear to me.”

The difference is that in the one case teachers have been given the right by society and the law to use corporal punishment, and in the other you haven’t. Try thinking of the difference between arresting somebody and kidnapping them if you’re still confused.

@ 51:

“You’ve still yet to explain why you think the right to hit children is so important to you.”

Erm, he said (at the very beginning of the very first post, no less!) that he doesn’t support corporal punishment. Seriously, if you’re going to force people to justify their opinions, at least make sure that you know what their opinions are in the first place.

@ 50:

“I can guarantee a lawyer for a teacher accused of illegally beating a child would find that distinction between a “beating” and a “slap” marvellously complex and difficult to define, if it mattered in law as you suggest it should.”

We manage to distinguish between what is and isn’t reasonable chastisement when it comes to parents disciplining their children, so I don’t see why it should be “marvellously complex and difficult” when it comes to teachers.

57. XXX
“We manage to distinguish between what is and isn’t reasonable chastisement when it comes to parents disciplining their children”

– do we? and who is we exactly?

@ 58:

“– do we? and who is we exactly?”

The country, though its representatives in Parliament, who make the law concerning what is and isn’t reasonable chastisement for parents to use on their children.

52,

My interest here is really in the demonisation of teachers. Some of the stuff here reminded me of the Telegraph comment pages, with comments that are basically along the lines of “Lots of teachers disagree with me, that just shows they are evil and must be stopped. Here’s a horrific anecdote to prove it”.

@59 – Any parent taking a belt to their kid on a regular basis, as happened in schools, would be up on charges. We’ve moved on from that being acceptable.

(This of, of course, an entirely different argument to teachers not being able to use reasonable force to remove troublemakers from class – the actual *punishment* won’t be physical…)

We used to get hit and caned at school and for the most part accepted it as being just part of what happened. To be caned properly you’d have to have done something pretty bad, mostly it was whacks around the head or a training shoe on the backside from the PE teacher. And lots of thrown blackboard dusters. They were seen as lighthearted fun which got a laugh from the rest of the class.
Even though I’d be mostly against it today, it would totally freak out modern teenagers, who would find it outrageous that adults dared chastise them so directly.
They’d be screaming about heir human rights and parents would be coming to the school to confront the teachers. Many schools are clearly failing to instill enough discipline today and the kids are coming out anti-social and unemployable.

Hmmm, ‘child-beating’ vs ‘slap on the wrist’? Corporal punishment was still being used when I was at school and I’m afraid I don’t recognise my experience of it in either of these descriptions. The standard use of the belt (the belt – nobody called it a ‘tawse’ in Glasgow) involved the pupil being strapped across the palm of the hand once. Not a beating but no slap on the wrist either – it was fucking sore. It was also used, as someone has pointed out above, not as a last resort but for relatively trivial offences.

So I’m glad it’s gone – but frankly that is all I’m willing to concede to the author of this self-congratulatory post and most of the people who have been leaving comments on this thread. I most certainly did not appreciate being belted and unlike many people, I wouldn’t say that, “It didn’t do me any harm”, and ask instead for any evidence that it did me any good. But do you people not have any sense of history or context? Teachers, for the most part, didn’t use the belt because they were sadists but because it was, as someone has already said above, just what was done in a different age. They operated in a social context that was generally more accepting of violence than it is now. It wasn’t just teachers. The sort of fights between pupils, fights in pubs and fights on the streets that today would bring police attention were then treated as if they weren’t serious. Times have changed – for the better, in my view. But these comments pontificating about who is and isn’t fit to be a teacher are frankly pathetic. I often used to hear older colleagues being nostalgic about the days of corporal punishment. Haven’t heard it for a few years now but if I did, I wouldn’t assume the person holding this view was some kind of pervert or sadist. They’re just old, that’s all.

P.S. I had already left school in 1986 but corporal punishment had already been banned in my school when I was still a pupil. Whether it was a Glasgow thing or a more general Scottish anticipation of legislation, I can’t recall but this notion that the whole thing was on a knife-edge and nearly didn’t happen is bullshit.

Abolishing corporal punishment in school was a very good step forward – smacking first and foremost is a form of bullying, it legitimises violence (especially the idea that the strong can pick on the weak) while ultimately having virtually no effect on the sort of behaviour it was intended to modify.

As I say a very good start, but still a long way from having any effect on either psychological intimidation, something which tends to inflict far worse trauma than the odd smack, or even worse peer group bullying.

To my mind bullying by other children is probably the single most important experience that makes life hell for far too many of our children – the smacking victory almost pales into significance compared to the extent of this problem in some schools.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Care/Children-s-rights/Children-on-bullying

@38

As others have pointed out, the distinction is by no means obvious, least of all to lawyers who would be responsible for arguing the case. Your inability to grasp this fairly simple point only shows that you are either being willfully obtuse, or that you are none too bright.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt on the latter, we can only assume the former….. and hey presto, that gels perfectly with the tenor of your previous contributions on here on other topics. Go figure.

In our school we had a pupil hero that single handedly got the cane banned in 1979.

(Legend has it) He was given the cane by a pipsqueek of a headmaster – who never missed an oppotunity to remind us he was a “Justice of the Peace”. The boy was a rather mature 15 year old – think Wayne Rooney.
After taking six of the best, without flinching, the boy enquired if that was it as it didn’t f******g hurt at all. Red faced the Headmaster tried again, and again until he lost it. The secretary and deputy head rushed in to pull him off. The boy walked out, choice words to headmaster etc.
Rumour in the school was that the Head was banned from caning and until I left in 1983 no one was ever caned again.

Then again maybe it was a story made up by the children! – although the caning did stop.

@ 61:

“Any parent taking a belt to their kid on a regular basis, as happened in schools, would be up on charges.”

Yes, but parents are still allowed to physically chastise their children. Clearly, then, it’s possible to distinguish between reasonable punishment and unacceptable beating, and legislate to prevent the latter whilst still permitting the former, making the “Anyone advocating a return to corporal punishment wants to see a return to child-beating by vicious, sadistic teachers” argument a bit weak.

@ 64:

“while ultimately having virtually no effect on the sort of behaviour it was intended to modify.”

Out of interest, how do you explain its prevalence before 1986? Were all the teachers back then stupid and/or sadistic?

Also @ 61–

“We’ve moved on from that being acceptable.”

What’s your point? That CP isn’t viewed as acceptable by society, therefore it’s wrong?

65

This is going to be one those times when you are saying something that is really obviously wrong, and then act absolutely shocked and appalled that anybody could disagree, isn’t it?

Can you just stop and reflect for a few seconds first before descending into outrage and insults? The law already distinguishes between parents beating their children and reasonable chastisement. Are you really expecting people to believe that there is a huge legal issue every time a parent slaps their child?

@68

What kind of an argument is that? People used to think burning witches and heretics was perfectly acceptable too. The fact that something “used” to be prevelant doen not in itself tell us anything particularly useful about classes of people, although it does allow us to make some judgements about the society they operated in.

CP was widely regarded as inappropriate before 1986, because society has moved on. Hitting children as a form of control (whether you cavil at the description of it as beating or not) went the same way as lots of other practices which might at some point in the past have been seen as acceptable.

@70

No, of course not. the fact that the law allows parents to reasonably chastise children does not however act as some “get out of jail free” card supporting your argument that the distinction between such chastisement and beating is therefore easily discerned, and somehow not open to question because you have decided it’s too obvious to need explanation.

There is a debate to be had about the merits of allowing parents to physically chastise children; plenty of countries don’t allow it, altho whether it’s more in the breach than in the observance is open to question.

Making the leap that because it’s OK for parent to smack children, then it is illogical not to allow teachers to do the same is more of a stretch. Leaving aside issues of defending oneself from physical attack by a pupil, the use of physical chastisement by teachers can’t be justified not only because it is wrong in and of itself, but even if you didn’t agree with that as a position, because it would (whether you like it or not) be difficult in pratice to “police”.

Slaps on the wrist are something that some parent might find fairly unexeptional, although I for one wouldn’t have been happy at the prospect of any teacher slapping my child in school. However, as discussed above, the issue in the 70′s was banning things like the cane and the belt; it’s difficult to see how you could ban those, and yet insist that hitting a child with your hand was somehow OK.

How hard would you be allowed to hit them? How often? Where on the body? Are you allowed to leave marks?

I can already hear the sound of lawyers palms rubbing together…..

71

Witchhunting is actually an excellent example. Nobody is going to defend witchhunting. However, when people massively inflate the numbers or claim it was an attempt by Christianity to suppress pagan religions or suggest it was a haulocaust against women committed by men then historians are quite happy to make corrections. You can disapprove of witchhunting without accepting the demonisation of the church or men, or accepting myths about it.

It’s a similar thing with corporal punishment. You don’t have to support it to object to the myths about it or the demonisation of teachers who used it and people who support it.

@73

“You don’t have to support it to object to the myths about it or the demonisation of teachers who used it and people who support it..”

I find it interesting (although given your track record not unsurprising) that your default response on the CP issue, as with it now seems witchhunting and the culpability of the Roman Catholic church in relation to dealing with child abusers, is to say that whilst you oppose the practice in question, you oppose with equal… one might almost say more.. vigour the purported demonisation of particular groups held responsible.

The issue is not that people are demonising “all” teachers, anymore than in other circumstances they would demonise “all” Catholics for the sins of their church, or all “christians” for the killing of witches or heretics, much as it might suit your purposes to try and deflect attention from the unacceptability of the practice by engaging in “whaddaboutery” about the imagined demonisation of whole groups. People are quite capable of making a reasoned distinction, and not painting ALL teachers with one brush.

72

“the fact that the law allows parents to reasonably chastise children does not however act as some “get out of jail free” card supporting your argument that the distinction between such chastisement and beating is therefore easily discerned, and somehow not open to question because you have decided it’s too obvious to need explanation.”

I’m not asking for a “get out of jail free” card. However, you should be able to acknowledge that the supposedly problematic point you raised is actually dealt with routinely.

@75

I already recognised that it is dealt with routinely; that does not however distract from the fact that not all cases will be so easily dealt with. There might be hundreds of instances of “routine” slapping, the issue is those instances which are not regarded as routine, and what they say about the system which allows them to occur in the first place.

Something can be at once routinely dealt with, and yet problematic in principle… you do see that don’t you?

74

The point at issue is truth. if people tell lies, mislead or are indifferent to the facts, then it is no defence to say “I’m sure people will interpret my lies/half-truths/myths in such a way as to only demonise the exact people I want demonised”.

I am quite happy to defend people, even people who might be otherwise beyond the pale, if the attack on them is a lie. I am particularly keen if there is reason to think that once the lie is widely believed the blame will be spread even more widely or the consequences of acting on the lie might cause unjust harm.

78

“Something can be at once routinely dealt with, and yet problematic in principle… you do see that don’t you?”

Your argument seemed to suggest that was an actual, rather than theoretical, problem here. Certainly the rhetoric on this thread seems particularly absurd if all you are doing is picking up on a philosophical loose end rather than a genuine evil.

@ 71:

“What kind of an argument is that?”

Alright, I’ll lay it out for you.

-Corporal punishment has been widely used throughout history to keep discipline.

-Teachers aren’t stupid, and are therefore unlikely to widely use a practice which does not, in fact, work.

-Therefore, it seems likely that corporal punishment is effective in keeping discipline.

Does that make it any clearer for you? “Corporal punishment helps with discipline, but it’s still wrong” is a valid argument. “Corporal punishment doesn’t work as a method of discipline” is prima facie unlikely, and anybody making that argument would have to explain why such an ineffective punishment was so widely used (as still is, outside Western Europe).

@ 72:

“Making the leap that because it’s OK for parent to smack children, then it is illogical not to allow teachers to do the same is more of a stretch.”

Nobody’s saying that. Rather, the argument is that, since the law can distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable chastisement in the case of parents without too much difficulty, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be able to do so with teachers.

77

The truth is however you haven’t benn able to “do” any of those things, because you haven’t demonstrated that your premise is correct.

You took issue with the description of CP as beating children, when in fact that was often what was involved, then went off on a tangent about people being able to distinguish between a slapped wrist and a beating, and the over arching necessity not to tar all teachers with the same brush.

I find your self appointed role as gate keeper of “the truth” no more convincing in this case than I have in previous discussions.

[68] “Out of interest, how do you explain its prevalence before 1986? Were all the teachers back then stupid and/or sadistic?” – not necessarily stupid or sadistic (although a minority might have been) but still susceptible to learnt patterns of behaviour as well as cultural myths about the rationale for physical punishment of children.

A few studies are mentioned here
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~nblock/spanking.html

For example it is claimed, “Spanking does not change behavior in the long term because it only teaches children to avoid the misbehavior when the person who spanks is near. When adults spank, it means that he/she does not deal with the behavior in a way that would lead to a more permanent change. Spanking seems to lose effectiveness over time and adults have to hit harder and harder, raising the danger of physical injury: of the almost three million child abuse reports made annually in the early 1990′s, about 30% involved physical punishment. Spanking and the use of other forms of physical punishment are often used as a punishment for fighting or hitting by children. “You hit someone, so I’ll hit you!” seems to be the message. The hypocrisy of this is not lost on children”.

@79

If you substituted use of the death penalty being an effective deterrent for murder, the argument would be the same. The evidence that it acts as a deterrent is by no means as convincing as you claim. The threat of violence “may” help in maintianing discipline in some situation, but it also comes with other “costs”.

My views on this are largely immaterial, having spent my school years entirely post ban. I understand and agree with much of what people are saying on both sides of this argument. I think that it is a good thing that corporal punishment was ended in schools, however, I also agree that characterising every single teacher who used it as some kind of pervert is also wrong.

The debate also brings to mind the R4 book of the week from a few weeks ago, concerning the history of lying. One of the pieces of research referred to in the book did a comparison between students at two schools in West Africa. In the school in which caning was practiced, the students were better and more practiced liars than at the one without cp.

That said, I agree with A&E charge nurse that rather than sitting on our collective laurels about abolishing CP in schools 25 years ago, we should be more concerned with pupil on pupil violence, which is largely endemic.

I am also somewhat ambivalent about the absolute rights and wrongs of CP in the abstract. Clearly it was being used far too often and for trivial matters in the past (failing tests, turning up late etc etc.) However, I do wonder whether it could be considered an appropriate ‘next step’ prior to expulsion etc. (I’m sure people will point out that ‘violence begets violence’ – and they may be right).

There are times when I believe it can be justified – case in point – a child, having been given a spring loaded toy gun as a gift, is warned repeatedly not to fire it ‘at’ anyone or wave it around, instead the child loads it with a lump of plastic and shoots his mother in the face – In this case I think that a firm smack to the bottom, as an escalation from earlier repeated warnings can be justified.

In another related point.

I’ve seen many people make the argument that smacking children is assault, and would not be permitted if it were carried out against an adult. However, this should perhaps be considered in the context of what you might call ‘de-judicialised’ violence among children.

It is a fact that children in schools carry out acts of violence against each other all the time which outside the school would be considered assault.

It is extremely rare that these result in police intervention, mainly (and rightly) because a) we acknowledge that children are not as capable of controling their actions and b) we acknowledge that children are capable of changing c) they ‘don’t know any better’. In general we also don’t want children to enter the criminal justice system at an early age.

However, stories of the police being called to deal with unruly children are on the rise, primarily because the police are those members of society to whom we have delegated the authority to use violence when necessary.

Arguably this is appropriate – teachers lose their ‘criminal-justice’ role, and the responsibility is delegated to the formal criminal justice system. But in these days of permanent electronic records, what might have been an informal unrecorded punishment in the past, is now a stepping stone towards being trapped in the system.

More than anything else I have heard or read this landmark scene (2:46 onward) captures the sheer lunacy of ritualised adult on child violence in a school setting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUTYPzynpZg&feature=related

“And I was once there when his dad smacked him (again, light slap on the bottom) to prevent him from running out into the road.”

This is often used as a ‘what-about’ comment in support of CP for children. People suggest the suitable ‘punishment’ for running out in the road should be a slap on the bottom (or leg, or face or wherever). Whereas I would suggest keeping hold of the child so they cannot run out into the road would be more appropriate. After all, if they’ve run out and been hit by a car the slap is definitely too late. Years ago I saw an Oprah-type programme on ‘spanking’ as they call it in the US, with one mother saying how she had to spank her child who kept going to her heated hair tongs. The notion that the hair tongs might be put out of reach clearly hadn’t occurred. It seems some people taunt their children in order to inflict punishment! I’ve seen a mother with a small baby (about 9 months maybe) slap the baby when she reached out to the cigarette in the mother’s hand. No attempt to keep it away from the child. Just ‘there it is but don’t touch it.’

At school, it seemed to me that it was always the same children getting caned. So much for it being a deterrent! We’ve all heard the old codger who said he was caned every day at school and ‘never did me any harm’ – you’ve got to wonder what good it did him if he got caned every day!

At school, it seemed to me that it was always the same children getting caned. So much for it being a deterrent! We’ve all heard the old codger who said he was caned every day at school and ‘never did me any harm’ – you’ve got to wonder what good it did him if he got caned every day!

It is still the same children getting punished – that just seems to be the way of life. But you are correct that there is no evidence that corporal punishment is actually of any use relative to any other system (which is clearly less open to abuse and less potentially dangerous).

I always wondered how corporal punishment worked for those who find they get turned on by being punished. Always seemed a slight flaw that there are people who find pain a turnon being threatened with pain as a punishment…

Even 25 years after the Commons voted for abolition, it is clear from the response to my article that the subject of child-beating in schools gets people very worked up. Perhaps I can reply to a few points.

Some people object to my describing the deliberate infliction of pain on children as child-beating. They prefer the anodyne euphemism ‘corporal punishment’. Nor do they like to speak of lashes of the cane or belt, but refer to ‘strokes’ being ‘administered’. All this is doubtless intended to make a barbaric malpractice sound like some gentle form of therapy. I prefer to tell it as it was.

Some of you maybe feel that beating is a reasonable description of caning or belting, but argue that a ‘smack’ is different. But the fact is that for a small child an adult’s hand can be a fearsome weapon. It can leave marks that last for days. Moreover it can cause emotional problems such as bed-wetting. STOPP was told of cases where even children who were not ‘smacked’ were frightened of going to school in case they were punished in this way.

As far as the statistics are concerned, I am flabbergasted by the fact that someone thinks 250,000 beatings in a year indicates that it was a “rare” event! The beating statistics came from schools’ punishment books, but many beatings went unrecorded so the actual number inflicted would have been far higher. Nor did the official statistics include the casual ‘smacks’, ‘clips’ across the ear, assaults with board rubbers and other illicit forms of violence which were regularly meted out in Britain’s beating schools.

The notion that this form of punishment was a deterrent is far from the truth. In fact, all the research evidence showed that in general it was at best ineffective, at worst counter-productive. Violence breeds violence.

Nor is it true that I claimed all teachers who beat children were sadists. I said that “some were”. Some were bullies. Some just went along it because it was the prevailing norm. And some were just misguided. STOPP included teachers who used to beat children, but had changed their minds. But the fact is that, as long as beating was tolerated in schools, it attracted sadists into the profession.

@ 82:

Hmm, interesting. I’ll check that link out.

@ 88:

“I always wondered how corporal punishment worked for those who find they get turned on by being punished. Always seemed a slight flaw that there are people who find pain a turnon being threatened with pain as a punishment…”

I once knew somebody who had a crush on one of teachers, so tried to provoke her into giving him detention. Clearly, then, detentions are a useless form of punishment and ought to be abolished.

81

Well I suppose I haven’t “demonstrated my premise” that not all physical punishment is “child-beating” in as much as I haven’t demonstrated to your satisfaction that there is a difference between a slap on the wrist and a beating. But as I’m sure I’ve said before, it’s difficult to demonstrate something that is already obvious.

82

In schools the biggest problem is public defiance. A measure that stopped public misbehaviour would be fine. Nor do I accept that it is hypocrisy for authorities to act in ways that non-authorities can’t. In fact I think that it is in the nature of authorities.

87

Strangely enough, it is not actually practical to wrap children in cotton wool in order to save parents from the bother of disciplining them over dangerous behaviour. Alos please don’t assume that punishment is about rehabilitation.

88

I love the idea that having written an extraordinary intemperate OP you seem to think that it is the issue itself, rather than your language, that has got people worked up. Perhaps you are so far entrenched in your position that “child beating” (which to me suggests leaving a child bloodied and battered) is a calm neutral term and “corporal punishment” (literally the punishment of the body) is somehow loaded, but I think that tells us more about you than the words.

As for your other claims. Do you expect anyone, particularly those of us who were smacked as a child, to believe that it causes emotional scarring and bed wetting? Are you really expecting us to believe that no behaviour could ever be deterred by a caning? You actually undermine your own points by going from describing corporal punishment as a “beating” to suggesting it was completely ineffective deterrent. Unless you are claiming that children are utterly indifferent to being beaten, both can’t be true.

Haha ‘child beatings’! What about all the violence directed at teachers every day in comprehensive schools by today’s child-monsters (invariably dragged up by single mums)? How long will you leftists remain enclosed in your little world of lies and depravity?

Oh sorry; I clearly am missing the point here; hadn’t realised that children were ‘monsters’. In that case I’m all for beating them up; I mean what with me being a huge hulking male and most kids being small, defenseless, undeveloped people it should be a doddle; bring them on then! Me and XXX, KevinB and oldandrew (all cowardly anonymous wimps) will pound the living daylights out of any small people that misbehave! My God; it’ll be a wee bit like fox-hunting! In fact maybe we could give small children a head start and set dogs on them! Tallyho; yoiks oinks; whatto old chaps! Any of you been blooded yet?

@88

“Perhaps you are so far entrenched in your position that “child beating” (which to me suggests leaving a child bloodied and battered) is a calm neutral term and “corporal punishment” (literally the punishment of the body) is somehow loaded, but I think that tells us more about you than the words.”

This is just nuts, sorry. Just because in “your” definition, a beating presupposes leaving a child bloodied and battered doesn’t mean that anything short of that is therefore NOT a beating. Perhaps it is an emotive term, and perhaps you are correct that most people wouldn’t accept that a smack on the wrist amounted to “beating”…. but does several strokes with a cane or a leather tawse qualify as beating?

To a child (particularly a youger child) being struck several times by an adult, whether with a hand, or some implement, is likely to be regarded as a beating.

You appear to take comfort from some strange view that the only alternatives are beating someone to a bloody pulp, or giving them a slpa on the wrist.

Hmmnn…never mind the OP, I think that tells us more about you than the words oldandrew!

@82 – Quite.

There is, and remains, physical action taken when a child is doing something active dangerous (repeatedly trying to run out into the road, and a quick spank stops them from doing it), but that later needs to be followed up with other measures…and it’s an unusual event, taken for safety’s sake, rather than something routine.

I can remember *three* times, as a kid, when me father spanked me. And certainly each time given what I was doing it was quite justified.

94

Well I’m trying, but I really can’t identify anything in that comment which isn’t an obvious straw man.

After 23 repetitive posts from ‘OldAndrew’, I’ve got the message that you won’t let the facts get in the way of your prejudices. But less blinkered people will know that even ‘smacking’ can damage children not just physically but emotionally.

Just a few examples of the many ‘smacking’ cases that came to STOPP’s attention:

* A 10-year-old girl had a lacerated thigh after being ‘smacked’ by a male teacher. Her mother told us: “The back of her leg was black and blue, and blood had come to the surface.The next day Sarah was limping and she was off school for two days”.

* A 9-year-old boy suffered asthmatic attacks after being ‘smacked’.

* A 5-year-old girl developed school phobia because her headmaster threatened to ‘smack’ her. She would throw herself on the ground and induce vomiting rather than go to school. She was moved to a non-beating school where she settled happily.

* The mother of a 5-year-old told us: “Because my son swore, his teacher ‘smacked’ him across the face and eye…He was so upset by what happened he started wetting the bed”.

* A consultant paediatrician told us of several cases where his patients had been damaged by the fear of a ‘smacking’. These included: “A quiet, timid little girl of six years. The child comes home continuously wet, but is dry and clean at weekends. The child goes in terror of the teacher who the child says sometimes smacks children for talking and mistakes”.

Of course some children can be cowed into submission by a beating or the threat of one. And there is no doubt that an atmosphere of fear prevailed in child-beating schools. But the genuine troublemakers were not deterred by a beating. Schools’ punishment books showed the same names again and again, often for the same misdemeanour. As the Plowden Report put it: “It is ineffective in precisely those cases in which its use is most hotly defended”.

Beating passes on the message that violence is acceptable. As the Association of educational Psychologists wrote: “Children who are beaten tend, in their turn, to beat and to bully”.

97

I really am beginning to wonder if you have no conception whatsoever of the difference between facts and propaganda. Certainly you are going to have a hard time convincing anybody who isn’t already as far gone as you are that smacking causes mental illness.

@96 oldandrew

..or more likely you’re throwing the straw man defence about to avoid answering the question. Par for the course.