´óÏó´«Ã½

The Glass Box for Thursday

Comments

1. At 05:19 PM on 25 Oct 2007, wrote:

   Well, I'm with Sir Al.

   There was a time when it was acceptable for a man to hit his wife, his servant, his dog or his child.
   Then there was a time when it was acceptable for a man to hit his servant, his dog or his child.
   Then there was a time when it was acceptable for a man to hit his dog or his child.
   Then there was a time when it was acceptable for a man to hit his child.
   Soon it won't be acceptable anymore for a man to hit his child, and we'll shake our heads in amazement at the behaviour of our uncivilised forebears.

   
   Sid
   

2. At 05:38 PM on 25 Oct 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

   That's nice of the government to give the people permission to parent their own children.

   Next they'll be letting us live our lives... damn democracy!!!

3. At 05:42 PM on 25 Oct 2007, James Callejero wrote:

   Censorship.

4. At 05:50 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Joan Hall wrote:

   It is just the type of woolly, muddle-headed liberal thinking such as that displayed by Prof. Whateverhisnamewas speaking about smacking children, that epitomises Britain today. Everybody seems to have 'rights'. Well in my book children don't have rights until they are old enough to take responsibility for their actions. If the odd smack is required, then that is what they get. My children (now 34 and 36) grew up to be loving, caring, hard working, sympathetic and good people. They had smacks (they were not 'beaten' or 'abused') when they were little and by the time they were 3 or 4 they knew the rules of the house and obeyed them and were liked by everyone because of it. In a democratic society, if 70% of parents want the right to smack their children, who is this Professor to say otherwise? Perhaps a little more discipline in the past would have avoided the kind of town centre drunkenness and violence we are now experiencing.

5. At 05:59 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Steve Edwards wrote:

   As we can see quite clearly, the abolition of corporal punishment in schools paved the way to a revolution in discipline, an environment in which children knew their place, teachers maintained control... er...

   Spare the rod, spoil the child. And a spoiled child is just that, spoiled; a child that will suffer throughout their life, will always be disappointed, will always be an infant, will never know the limits. A child is simple, corporal punishment works. It is a harmless and effective way of establishing boundaries. It is good for them.

   It furthermore seems paradoxical, possibly morally inverse, that many of the people opposed to disciplining children support killing them in abortions.

6. At 06:04 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   I on the other hand can't help noticing that the chap opposed to children being spanked (not 'subjected to corporal punishment': spanked) said that he'd been told by a majority of children that they didn't want to be punished in this way. I expect if you asked people who do 35 in a 30mph speed-limit the majority of *them* would say they didn't want to be punished for it, too.

   I do wish people wouldn't use crotty arguments to back good cases; it reduces the impact of the good cases. See also Michael Moore using the NHS as an example of good health-care; it may be better than the set-up in the USA, but if you only look at the best bits, you lose all your viewers who know about the bad side of the system.

   Carolyn has just said that this blog is working; I wonder if that's right.

7. At 06:05 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Carol Ridgway wrote:

   regarding your item on child smacking. It seems to me that the problems caused by yobos etc, is due to the fact that there is absolutely no disipline whatsoever. Nobody dare say or do anything for fear of reprisals. The victorians had a saying spare the rod, and spoil the child. It definitely seems to be so.

8. At 06:29 PM on 25 Oct 2007, wrote:

   Can we have a report into the Levi-Prodi law?

9. At 06:46 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Joe Walker wrote:

   The US Government gives its friends the nod and the curtain goes up on yet another act in the 'Dance of Death' pantomime whose well-rehearsed and familiar steps are, this time around, likely to end in the destruction of the state of Iran and ruination of the lives of millions of its people.

   What partisan editorial process is it that means PM can play its part in this macabre dumb-show by running a general 'reminder' piece on Iranian and Muslim fundamentalist excesses on the same day the US announces new sanctions against Iran?

   And no, I was not placated by the Valerie Plame interview. Most people are now very familiar with the shabby gangster antics of the the most powerful government in the World.

10. At 07:23 PM on 25 Oct 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:

    The only thing I would disagree with Joan about is the use of the word 'liberal'. I think I am pretty liberal, and have a huge interest in human rights, civil liberties and the like. But I have NEVER confused that with thinking that children should be allowed to grow up into ill-disciplined little brats.

    What annoys me is when someone uses 'loaded language' [a capital offence at the ´óÏó´«Ã½] to describe smacking as an 'assault'. It is this ridiculous semantic manipulation of terminology which now means that teachers dare not lay a finger on a child, even to separate two individuals who are fighting.

    Thank goodness this ill-thought out legislation has been put back in its box - unless you live in Wales where someone trying to justify their existence is seeking to resurrect it as legislation for the Welsh Assembly Government !!!

11. At 07:44 PM on 25 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Just a few hundred billion here and there,...
    and, !
    A nice, new logo.

    xx
    ed

    BOFH Excuse #204:

    Just pick up the phone and give modem connect sounds. "Well you said we should get more lines so we don't have voice lines."

    Thu Oct 25 19:04:04 BST 2007
    502
    Thu Oct 25 19:33:09 BST 2007

12. At 09:36 PM on 25 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Strange how many people think that discipline = hitting. I've been a teacher all my life, and no child in my class has ever been unclear about where the boundaries lie.

    The yobbos you find brawling in the streets - they're the ones who have learnt that you can control others by hitting them.

    Sid
    

13. At 10:02 PM on 25 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Hi Joseph (9),

    You may well ask!

    Just which country has Iran attacked?
    In the last half century or more, she has been attacked on several occasions, had an elected government overthrown with CIA assistance, been messed about by Great Britain (the "Colonial Power"), and God knows what other persecution.

    She is actually one of the least aggressive nation-states on the planet.

    Dorood ('Peace', a common Persian greeting)
    ed

    QOTD:
    "I'll listen to reason when it comes out on CD."
    Thu Oct 25 21:57:25 BST 2007
    

14. At 09:16 AM on 26 Oct 2007, Jack Jackson wrote:

    If Nick Clegg (Lib Dems) is so committed to reduce global warming. Why has he a track record of setting fire to cacti?

15. At 09:42 AM on 26 Oct 2007, Peter Chapman wrote:

    Once again your report on MP's spending fails to show any real understanding of the appalling abuse that many MP's in marginal seats take of expenses

    You report that Mr Malik the MP for Dewsbury spent £21,000 on postage.(approx 80,000 + letters!!!!!!!)What you dont question is that in reality he is conducting a year round election campaign at the tax payers expense claiming it is consultation.If he is anything like my own Labour MP the only thing missing off blatant political campaigning aimed at 'target'voters is is Vote Labour .

    I am not a Tory but no wonder they are trying to catch up with Mr Ashcrofts help!

    In reality the whole thing stinks...and people wonder why there is contempt for politics and politicians.

16. At 10:14 AM on 26 Oct 2007, Member of the public wrote:

    SO after what seems years of argument and debate the Government favours allowing parents to administer mild smacks to children while prohibiting excessive punishment. Well, no surprise there then Sherlock! Isn't that what millions of parents have been doing over decades in a bid to educate their youngsters on what is wrong and what is right?

    Isn't that how most children learn the initial disciplines needed to play a positive and honest role in future life? I think Ministers are correct in their assumption that the majority of normal, responsible and sensible parents will support this 'middle road' taken by the Children's Bill.

    Once again the anti-smacking lobby, backed by groups such as the NSPCC, bleating liberals, and other 'Nanny State' supporters, still want a total ban on smacking believing the legislation to be 'archaic in the 21st Century'. Why? Are children no longer naughty? And what is the alternative?

    A mild rebuke or chastisement can teach a child to be well behaved and actually safe from harm's way. I think the majority of parents in this country can probably count on the back of one hand the number of times a smack is used.
    
    They can also tell of how guilty they feel. To say a smack is some form of 'child abuse' is ridiculous, nauseating and I think should be actionable. It is typical of the thinking of these wet liberal groups – it is the easy way out. In recent years horrific stories of child victims of dysfunctional families have been numerous.

    Will a ban on smacking help them? No! Will the deep-voiced, patronising twaddle spoken by so-called experts protect them? No!

    These groups, who consistently fail these children, prefer an easier target. Let's criminalise good parents. Let's deflect attention from the real problem. Let's face it - bad parents will ignore any ban on smacking. They will continue with their reign of terror on children and adults alike. They will slip through a system because the system finds it too hard to deal with them. It is these parents who should be targeted and educated.

    Lack of discipline is the root of this growing menace. Lack of respect for other human beings is the result. Does anyone else see the link between the aims of the 'human rights' brigade and this breakdown in our society?

17. At 10:17 AM on 26 Oct 2007, Tom Harrop wrote:

    I think a few do-gooders could do with a smack.

18. At 11:14 AM on 26 Oct 2007, tom wrote:

    One of the perks enjoyed by MP's is to have their London residencies for provincial MP's paid by us the taxpayer. From the above Halifax survey an MP elected in 1997 buying a house in Westminster would have seen his property increase by about £370,000. All of the mortgage paid by us. If Gordon Brown had called an election and they where defeated they, NOT US would be seeing this profit.

    Can you ask an MP to justify this? Or Who gets the benefit of any increase in property prices when you leave office, you the MP or us the taxpayer who paid for it?

    Can you get one of your researchers to look into how much some MP's have made from this.

19. At 11:36 AM on 26 Oct 2007, wrote:

    TH (17)

    You may find that an electric cattle prod more effective......it leaves no mark.

20. At 12:05 PM on 26 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    On the smacking thing.

    We collectively probably have here the same problem about this as that which we have noted elsewhere: a complete inability on the part of many people to have what used to be called 'a sense of proportion', or to recognise moderation in anything. Too much alcohol is bad for some people, therefore all alcohol however little is bad for everyone and should be banned, would be an example.

    As someone has remarked further up the thread, there is a difference between smacking a child, once, swiftly, to make an immediate point (don't touch that hotplate! don't put your fingers in the three-point socket! don't try to pull the cat's ear off!) and hitting a child repeatedly with a hard object because one is in a bad temper with the boss. The one is moderate, the other is wicked. What's more, the first will call the child's attention to what is actually wrong; the second will merely brutalise it, eventually.

    I have three children, all now adult; I think that between them they were probably smacked about fifteen times, for such things as running in the road, hurting a smaller child deliberately, removing a seatbelt after the umpteenth prohibition, hysterical fury at being refused a treat that hadn't been earned, playing with the contents of their nappies when they'd been repeatedly told not to, and the like. If I were to ask *them*, they probably remember each occasion and what it was for, and none of the things was repeated. What's more, the eldest occasionally told the youngest not to do something forbidden 'because I was smacked for that', and the youngest then didn't. It was the Last Resort, the Ultimate Horror, and because it was extremely rare it had the desired effect: it made all parties to it stop and think about what had happened, and how to do better in future. If it had been done all the time, it wouldn't have had any meaning; if it had never been done at all, obviously it would have had no meaning.

    The point of punishment of any sort is surely that it is rare and memorable, not that it's the norm and pointless?

21. At 12:59 PM on 26 Oct 2007, wrote:

    On the mark, as usual, Chris!

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
    Namaste -ed

    There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist.
    Fri Oct 26 13:02:39 BST 2007
    

22. At 01:09 PM on 26 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Here's another thought, brought on by the cattle-prod notion: smacking doesn't actually leave a mark, nor as far as anyone can tell does it cause any sort of long-term physical damage; one alternative resorted to by exasperated parents who know that smacking is *wrong* and they would be double-plus ungood for using it is shaking, and a child may suffer permanent damage if it is taken by the shoulders and shaken: that can damage the spine.
    

23. At 12:12 AM on 31 Oct 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    I thought it was just one "L" short of perfection, but I see you've made up for that here Sequin :-)