4thought.tv

Articulate and considered opinion. Hopefully this logical view will be passed in to law.

It reinforced what I already believed.

why oh why dose the Goverment still think that this should be allowed to carry on, don't they know what year we are living in!

It reinforced what I already believed.

Reflective

Hitting children is wrong, as are people that use religion to justify any kind of violence.

This makes me feel angry. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

I was smacked as a child but my god i do not hit my partner, i am and have never been in trouble with the law so for her to say that the majority of children who get smacked basically turn to crime etc is aload of old rubbish!!!!!!!!!!

This makes me feel angry.

I was smacked as a kid and so were my friends and we're perfectly fine adults! I think that kids no are not disciplined well enough as it is, i can't believe how rude most children I come across are, especially to their elders and now your not supposed to even shout at kids! In my opinion smacking works and that's that.

I learned something from it.

thats why children do what they want as there no disipkine a gentle mash never hurts any one another do gooder thats why the great has gone from great britian

This makes me feel angry. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

It is the purest form of child abuse not to correct and educate your children. I would like the law changed so that anyone who refused to discipline their children, by smacking if necessary, has those children taken into care.

I am 16 and I think its fine to smack children, if I am out of order I need smacking, if you use verbal threats it just doesn't have the same impact and when I was little if my parents smack me I was more likely to do it again, but I remember thinking don't do that or I will get a smack, I haven't grown up to be violent and involved in crime, I am now expected to get very good GCSE results. I think your soft and are thinking too far into this matter. When you are older, smacking each other is a more serious matter. If you misbehave or do something naughty when you are older there is nobody's place to smack you so no one does.

religion has nothing to do with smacking your children, why does some nut case always have to bring religion in to it!!. it has to do with discipline. the kids of today have NO respect for their parents or teachers because the world has gone soft, when i was in school, we used to get the cane, the slipper slapped across the knuckles with a ruler so we knew not to misbehave...since the laws changed the kids now rule the school telling teachers where to go also threatening them etc. I have never hit my wife and i have total respect for my parents. There are of course boundaries, there is no need to beat a child but mild smacking is a must if they misbehave.

This makes me feel angry.

A child is also some one who is less knowledgeable and therefore is it not justified to teach were nessasary the dangers/conciquences of certain actions! While I believe there is a difference between a smack and a beating it is my decicion as to when and how I would dicipline my child not that of your or anyone elses God!

This makes me feel angry.

I am a senior citizen and have brought up 5 children they were smacked as children not hard I might add but to teach them right from wrong after three warnings and to say they grow up to hit their children or turn to crime makes me so angry my children 3 boys and 2 girls have all turned out ok have good jobs and loving children of their own it is do-gooders like this that has caused the anti social behaviour and no respect for their elders today I can even remember the bobby on the beat threatening to box your ears and take you home to your parents if you misbehaved to adults or were rude in the street and it never done me any harm to have a slap as a child there is a big difference in a slap and cruelty

It reinforced what I already believed.

that a lot of people cannot seem to differentiate between a short sharp smack to a child's arm, leg, backside to show them that what they've just done is not acceptable behaviour and persistent hitting for no good reason. There is an awful lot of difference. The first, if done immediately after the offence,is usually understood to be a direct consequence of what they've done and will help to deter them in future. The second will obviously have a very detrimental effect on the child and is rightly called 'abuse'. I have 5 children, three of them now grown up. I've smacked all of them as small children. The first (a girl) is a mechanical engineer, the second (a boy) is training in an accountancy office and the third (a girl) is applying to start nursing training in September. None of them are showing an sign of being mentally unstable or of physically abusing other people. They don't feel they were hard done by and regarded their home as a loving, caring environment. A change in the law will only cut off smacking as one of a variety of options for loving parents to use in bringing up their children, while I suspect it will do nothing to deter serial abusers.

This makes me feel angry and furios sd. . I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

People should leave bringing up their own children to themselves. This is a ridiculous view. I had the tap on the bottom when I was a child and yes I do smack the bottoms of my two boys when they deserve it. I am a professional and a good mum. There is however a difference between a smack and a beating. Children sometimes need a something to understand what is and isnt acceptable. stop preaching religion and look to your own children!

I have just read what people are saying about this woman's thoughts ...and it shocks me that people still feel the need to physically touch/smack children to control them...I have two grown up children and two grandchildren...I use to smack my children as my father smacked me: I learned it was a way to control as the child becomes frightened of the punishment...But there is healthier and more kinder ways to achieve the same results...and my grandchildren are now taught the principle of

cause and consequences...The consequences don't have to be physically harmful...There are those who are not affected by being smacked but lots of children are..and many have been scarred by the abuse of physical punishment by teachers and parents...We all hope that children have parents who have boundaries and balance..but a bad mood and a bad day can give power to any parent to abuse a child..Its a form of bullying in the right/wrong hands..
Why protest against it...children would have rights..just as we do...and parents would have to find better ways to discipline and teach children...xx..Well done to the speaker..x

This makes me feel angry. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

Of course parents should be given the option to smack their children, it's something that should be encouraged, not frowned upon, and certainly not outlawed. In my opinion it is the mark of a good parent.

If you were to make a law against smacking children, how long would it be before undisciplined children run riot? Children are known to push their limits, it's part of their learning process, to know what they can and cannot get away with. If smacking was outlawed then there would be no clearly definable limitations from the child's perspective and they could literally get away with pretty much anything.

Don't underestimate a child's ability to learn and adapt. If a child learned that there was a LAW against smacking, then how long would it be before they start refusing basic instructions from their parents and doing whatever they want? They could even use the law as a form of intimidation or leverage towards their parents to get what they want OR get their parents into trouble, and there would be no reason for them not to do this as they would be undisciplined and idiotic.

This makes me feel angry. It reinforced what I already believed.

I don't know about Pat Gordon-Smith's understanding of the English language, but I'm thankfull for my fifties' and sixties' education. After an initial use of the word "smacking", Pat Gordon-Smith then substituted it by the word "hit", which she then repeatedly used about seven times during the remainder of her critisism of smacking, a misnomer similarly perpetrated by others of the anti-smacking brigade. For their benefit, "hitting" is the deliverance of a "blow", i.e. a hard stroke (usually/often with the fist); whereas, a "smack" constitutes a quick strike with the palm of the hand. Don't believe me? Then look it up! There is a world of difference: can these people really be so oblivious to the difference? Or is it, as I believe, that they are hoping to rely greatly on their making the issue sound so very much more emotive by this word substitution?

To adduce the effectiveness of the "smack", I recently witnesses a young boy, with his mum, having a tantrum. After repeatedly telling him to stop, faced with his continued non-complience she gave him a single smack behind the leg. The boy became instantly tearfull. Mum then asked him if wanted another smack. Replying in the affirmative that he didn't, the boy stopped crying and went off as good-as-gold with his mum. Job done - no hitting, no beating - just one smack!

Children have to learn that in life there is often a smack that follows misbehaviour - albeit somewhat figurative. Bad-mouth someone in the pub and it's liable to be a punch in the teeth - commit a crime and it'll be a fine or prison. So children, learn to behave and you won't get smacked.

This makes me feel angry. It reinforced what I already believed.

It angers me because this thoroughly misguided view is informing an attempt to prevent good, decent, loving parents from smacking, when actually smacking is but one part of a framework of discipline which is itself essential for the wellbeing of any and all children in a loving, positive, safe home environment.

The misleading suggestions that smacking leads to mental problems or abusive violence are simply absurd. Abuse might lead to such things, but not smacking in itself.

This equating of smacking per se with abuse is the usual pretentious logical fallacy employed to demonise what is actually perfectly reasonable as part of good, proper and crucial discipline for healthy, happy, well-behaved children who need to learn about things like right and wrong, consequences and justice.

Should this ridiculous view actually become enshrined in law then society will reap the consequences.

This makes me feel angry and disappointed.

Just as law permits state to punish people found guilty of misconduct, parents have an even greater responsibility to correct their children when they go wrong. Every child until a certain age, needs guidance and direction from parents who play a pivotol role in shaping the child. At times use of force is necessary to bring them around. The west is a glaring example of how family and parenthood as an insititution has failed miserably even though over 90% of the population claim to be educated. In developed countries such as UK, ridiculous laws coupled with a society that has advanced to a point where the state dictates how parents should behave. The impact of not letting parents do thier job is becoming so very visible in everyday life with youngsters falling prey to drugs & alcohol abuse, sex, crime, fraud. It is extremely disappointing to see that government is throwing precious 'tax payers money' away to provide free services to rescue youngster who get drunk and are unable to get back home on thier own. Millions of pounds are spent on rescuing & treating younsgters who land up in hospitals due to irresponsible & reckless drinking habits, crime, drug abuse etc. Just the other day, I was shocked to see a young boy throwing away food waste in the bus stop after partially eating. Where is the civic sense ??? Who corrects them ?? When will they learn ?

A very clear example of failed parenting in UK and other western countries.

Absolutely right Pat ! I feel really uncomfortable with the law as it stands where it seems as if we are all supposed to stand around and do nothing or feel embarrassed to intervene if we witness an assault on a child uder the cloak of 'reasonable chastisement' . The law should give equal protection against assault to the young as well as everyone else .Let's face it the government would not tolerate the 'moderate' hitting of anyone who could vote them out of office!

This makes me feel sad.

I feel sad that some people codone smacking children, it teachs that BIG hits LITTLE, not good at all.

A child must be smacked if naughty, every animal on te planet chastises Offspring in one form or another. As when you put your hand in a flame, it is store in a part of the brain that never forgets. this teaches the child and does not usualy need repeting again for the same insidents. Also after a short period, just the threat of a slap is enough. and the child learns what the word No realy means.

This makes me feel happy. It reinforced what I already believed.

If your 2 year old was about to stick his finger in an electrical socket, would you try to reason with him or would you give him a quick smack? It's not "control", it's training for life, and we are NOT talking about hitting or child abuse. The way it works is first, the warning - if you do that again you will be smacked - and, second (IF he/she does it again), the smack. Our 28 year old son has grown up to be successful, well-mannered & well-liked, & enjoys seeing his parents. Why people in England think that how you bring up your children is anyone else's business, much less that of the judicial system, is beyond me. If you need outside opinions to tell you what to do, or need to make videos to tell other people what to do, you really shouldn't be having children.

It reinforced what I already believed.

Totally agree " evidence support what she says and I agree that we need a change in the law to give children and young people the same protection against hitting as adults have.

I smacked as a child and I hated it. I have smacked my own children and have come to realise I hit when I am tired, worn out, etc. It is my failing, not my boys. I have now banned myself from smacking and my children's behaviour has improved. And I have a better relationship. We have total control over our children, when they eat, sleep, etc. do we really need to use force as well?

This makes me feel happy.

Many thanks for your contribution Pat, I totally agree that it is time for change, according to the Child Convention drafted by the United Nations it is already forbidden to harm any child in any way either physically or psychologically. There are presently 24 countries in the world that recognise this as a law whereof 16 are members of the European Union. Sweden was the first in 1979, Britain seem to be dragging their feet on this one, perhaps because it is so widespread and accepted by the majority.

This seemed to present a rather sentimental view of both children and childcare. Certainly these views do not reflect the experiences of the Swedish who were among the first to make smacking children illegal. After the first 20 years of the Swedish experiment (I don't know the latest figures) child abuse (by adults) had risen by around 400% and reported violence among children by something around 800%. Sadly, in much of the published work on these findings, the data are fudged (or misrepresented) to make this result look less bad than it actually is.

While it is undoubtedly possible to discipline children without using smacking (and some children are more compliant than others in any case,) it may require more skill. Removing this tool from the parenting toolbox apparently left some Swedish parents unable to cope and, as a result, situations that would normally have been quickly dealt with ran out of control, eventually leading to frustration and violence. The net result was harm rather than positive discpline.

The law already protects children from harm and it is disspointing to find that people are unable to distinguish between hitting and smacking; this was very evident the last time I looked on a well-known child protection website. In their poll on smacking, the word smacking never appeared, being always replaced by the word hitting. For those who don't know the difference, it is intention.

It would, in my opinion, be a grave mistake to base national policy on statistics found at one extreme end of life. The vast majority of parents in this country are responsible people who love and care for their children. Shouldn't we let them decide what works best for their family?

The statistics referring to the situation in Sweden included in the comment below are of course absolute nonsense, I would challenge him to produce the source of these ludicrous figures but he's obviously just pulled them out of the air. It proves that there is no end to the extremities people will go to in the attempt to justify their views which ultimately reflect their actions. It was in 1979 that Sweden became the first country in the world to make smacking children illegal and Swedes are, to this day, immensely proud of this revolutionary achievement. Why would no fewer than 16 other E.U. countries embrace and conform to the same law if it wasn't working in Sweden?
Interesting to observe how the disillusioned smackers insist, in almost all of their comments, on clarifying the distinction between beating and smacking as if the rest of us are ignorant, uneducated and totally unaware of the difference. In the comment below the writer states we should distinguish between hitting and smacking which I think you'll find in any school dictionary those two words to be synonyms, meaning they are exactly the same thing. The point is that there are numerous alternative methods of showing children that their behaviour is unacceptable other than raising a hand to them. It would seem that some parents lack the time and energy required to practice positive reinforcement and reasoning in their fostering. The problem is that once a parent or guardian has initially resorted to spanking to instil discipline then they have put themselves in an almost irreversible situation regarding the fostering of their children. It would then be hypocritical of those same parents to expect a school teacher, or anyone else in society for that matter, to succeed in effectively reprimanding the same children when they misbehave without resorting to similar methods.
What some people refer to as ˜a handy tool in the parenting toolbox' is in effect a proverbial spanner in the works for the whole of modern society. By quickly and conveniently smacking their children when they misbehave, those parents are actually contributing to a failed, frustrated and violent society. They will continue to defend themselves by trying to soften the expression of spanking by comparing it to beating but it still amounts to physical violence and it has no place in any home.

I think that it is no coincidence that Sweden, the first country to introduce a ban on hitting children, probably the best behaved country in Europe, is also the most athiest. The Swedes have not been hidebound by the sort of religious views put forward here.

I was smacked by my mum when I was naughty up to the age of about 7. When we were old enough to be reasoned with she just used to do looooong lectures instead. I'm mid 20s now and we've always had - and still have - a really good relationship.

Those of you who have expressed disagreement with this thoughtful video seem to equate not hitting with not disciplining or correcting behaviour. A ridiculous and incorrect conclusion to draw. Hitting is the basest form of discipline, often used by parents who either don't have the patience or skills to us other approaches (of which there are many, btw). Become a better parent--practice other forms of discipline. It's hard and will take time to develop, but it'll pay off in the long run. Really.

It would have been good to hear more from people that have 'changed sides' (either way), and their reasons, when bringing-up children.
I suppose that the public nature of this forum also means that those unable to keep children disciplined or those unable to control their own anger will not say so here.

It will cause kids to go into crime? Never caused me to go into crime. Weird thoughts to be honest. Smacking your kids is not shameful, it is discipline, something missing these days thanks to political correctness. It is more shameful not to hit your kids.

This makes me feel angry and disappointed. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

I was smacked as a child, not hard but enough to teach me not to do something. I am now 20 years old and have never wavered into a life of crime. I don't actually see a problem with it at all, there is a fine line between a smack to teach a lesson and hitting someone hard but that is a different discussion.

I would never dream of commiting a crime or hitting a partner as I find the idea absolutely disgusting. Being smacked didn't have any long term problems for myself or my older brother who is 22. It taught us to be honest, good people

This is a slightly hysterical response to the issue of smacking children. I was smacked as a child, it hasn't made me violent or turn to crime or given me psychological problems. I remember as a child that the threat of being smacked was enough to make me stop whatever it was I was doing that was naughty. There is never an excuse for violence against children, but this perspective takes the argument to its most extreme conclusion, which is slightly erroneous.

I dont agree. I think it should be based on abuse. Not minor smack to the buttocks. People should be given the right to discipline their children their own way, but i would definitely agree that abuse causes big problems for the child. It would be good to see a good service on child abuse and help for the child who is abused.