To smack or not to smack? The big debate

The House of Lords voted against a reform, which would outlaw smacking and it has led to a healthy debate in the national media.

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Children policy adviser Sharon Copsey argues the practice should be outlawed, while Evening News journalist, and father to a baby daughter, Michael Nolan, gives his opinion that smacking is still a necessary form of discipline.

I find it infuriating that the state should have any involvement if parents wish to smack their children.

I mean, there really are thousands of other issues that need addressing without any further interference from the deluded who want us to believe we will all be scarred irreparably and need counselling if our parents dare hit us.

Why can't we stop behaving like the neurotic Americans we ridiculed not so long ago?

As a mischievous child I often found my mother would give me a smack if I stepped out of line and when I got too big for her discipline my burly 14 stone father made sure I knew where to draw the line, which he had to on rare occasions.

Now, some 25 years later, I find that I still have a great relationship with my parents, appreciating the fact that when they did hit me it was for my own good, like the time I ran out in front of a car that screeched to a halt yards away from my frame. The slap I got afterwards made sure I never did it again. A valuable lesson learnt.

When I was growing up in the 1970s, the threat of a slipper or a smack didn't seem to mentally scar me or anyone else I know. In those days children were also, strangely, better behaved at school as well, with the threat of a short sharp shock looming for any petulance.

However, I do not advocate smacking unless totally necessary. It should be the last straw.

I now have a baby daughter and I hope I will never have to raise my hand in anger to her. However, I am balanced enough to know a light slap is not on the road to smashing children's heads against the wall and hitting them with belts and sticks - the way some have argued in the national media this week.

These touchy-feely busybodies are the same people who would have you believe everyone who has a pint of beer as a teenager should be on three bottles of gin a day by now and anyone who, in their student days, dared dabble with cannabis should now be heroin addicts.

Their silly standpoints just don't wash. Most decent, middle-of-the-road folk know that there is this thing called common sense, which should be the rule for all law. Sadly, in the lunacy of the modern, politically correct era, this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Probably some will say I am some right wing fascist with outdated views advocating violence. Maybe they are right and I just need to see my therapist and a good lawyer to take court proceedings against my parents!

n If smacking works why do you keep on having to do it?, asks Sharon Copsey, NSPCC policy adviser.

Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs any of us is likely to do.

Any parent who has had to deal with a child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket will know how hard it can be.

So how do you get children to behave without resorting to smacking?

In such a stressful situation hitting might seem like a quick solution but it doesn't work.

Instead, it teaches children that their tantrum got your attention and the likelihood is that they'll repeat that behaviour again. It also teaches them that bigger people can hit little people and that hitting is an acceptable way of getting what you want.

Hitting creates a no-win situation. Children don't learn to change their behaviour and can end up feeling hurt and angry. Research has found that parents who've physically punished their children feel guilty and upset afterwards (79 per cent). So where does that leave parents?

The NSPCC is an advocate of "positive discipline", encouraging children to behave without the need to resort to punishment that hurts or humiliates.

It works by placing the emphasis on the child's good behaviour, praising the behaviour that you want and ignoring the minor naughty behaviour that you don't.

Giving children praise when they behave well builds on their wish to please you and they soon learn that good behaviour gets them the attention they want.

The legal defence of 'reasonable chastisement' which dates back to 1860 sanctions the physical punishment of children.

On Monday, the House of Lords voted against legal reform which would have given children the same protection from assault as adults already enjoy. Instead, Peers voted in favour of a second proposal that removes the defence in relation to certain offences, but fails to give children equal protection from assault under the law.

NSPCC director and chief executive Mary Marsh said: "The fact is that this amendment will not fully protect children. It still sends out a dangerous and misleading message that violence towards children is safe and acceptable."

Abolition

She continued: "Complete abolition of the 'reasonable chastisement' defence law is the only credible way forward. Half-hearted law reform, which defines an acceptable threshold of violence towards children, won't work. Nor will it be acceptable."

Eleven countries, including Sweden, already give children equal protection from assault in the home. In these countries the ban on physical punishment has not led to widespread prosecutions of parents for 'trivial' incidents of assault.

If you do smack, then the next time you are close to the edge, please try taking a step back and think rationally about whether you really want to hit your child. If they are putting themselves in danger try to control yourself and calmly remove them from the situation.

You will feel much better for it, and so will your child.