what an idiot

[MANTIS01]

Two words. Nanny State.

[bolt pp]

allotments for kids and morris dancing for hoodies

[tikay]

Two words. Nanny State.

It was the ruination of our society, & a whole generation.

Suddenly, the Government, & Parents, thought it'd be a good idea to protect Children from defeat, from disappointment, from pain, from hurt, from wind in their face, & a little rain in their lives. Even Athletics & Sport was deemed bad - "because there has to be a loser, & that child will be hurting". Oh dear - hurt does not exist in the adult world?

Children were overfed to the point of obesity - which is sheer child cruelty - but not a soul dares criticise that, it's "non-pc". The RSPCA fines you, & takes your dog away from you, if you overfeed it to the point of obesity, you know. Think that one through.....

[MANTIS01]

I watched a programme about schools in Africa the other day. Those African kids would walk miles to school every day and they felt really privileged that they had the opportunity and means to PAY for an education. They seized the chance to better themselves. I suppose the opportunity to get a decent lifestyle for themselves and their families was their motivation. Life is tougher if you don’t succeed in Africa. But in this country you get a pretty cushy lifestyle if you don’t succeed. You automatically get the things these African kids are striving so hard for. You can aspire to fail in this country. It doesn’t matter if you are lazy. You can flop in subjects you don’t like and there are an army of people with beards and cardigans who say you have Attention Deficit Disorder or something. It is a very easy option to life fail in this country, and the problem is you can cause maximum disruption to kids who want to learn. That is more serious than the teach punching the kid imo.

[Steve Swift]

Out of battery and on the motor way, so will read properly at home.

The "Hates kids comments", if that was aimed at me you have never been further from the truth, i love and adore kids.  They live in a open world, and i wish we could go back to simpler times.

If it wasn't aimed at me oops :0(


Steve

[Claw75]

Wow this thread has taken off on some tangent since I last read it.

"kids need a good slap now and again"

No they don't. Kids need discipline and to know boundaries.  There are much better ways to teach them right from wrong than by physically hurting them or scaring them. A good parent to me is one that can bring their child up to be a well adjusted adult, who understands the impact of their actions on others.  That's not acheived through a slap.

I don't know the stats, but it wouldn't surprise me at all that if the kids who are behaving like yobs in the classroom in thier teens are the ones whose parents think a slap is the only way to discipline their kids.

I've never smacked my daughter and never will.  If that makes me a piss-poor parent in some people's eyes, then so be it.

 

[G1BTW]

Wow this thread has taken off on some tangent since I last read it.

"kids need a good slap now and again"

No they don't. Kids need discipline and to know boundaries.  There are much better ways to teach them right from wrong than by physically hurting them or scaring them. A good parent to me is one that can bring their child up to be a well adjusted adult, who understands the impact of their actions on others.  That's not acheived through a slap.

I don't know the stats, but it wouldn't surprise me at all that if the kids who are behaving like yobs in the classroom in thier teens are the ones whose parents think a slap is the only way to discipline their kids.

I've never smacked my daughter and never will.  If that makes me a piss-poor parent in some people's eyes, then so be it.

  

Well, because you're a parent and I'm not I suspect that you've said what I wanted to say but much more eloquently. Thank **** there's a parent out there that thinks like this, I was beginning to give up hope!

I do agree that a general lack of instilled discipline contributes to unruly kids, like tikay said. However under that heading of 'very bad parenting' I'd put any kind of violence towards kids. Ok hypothetically and in an ideal world there would be a place for a responsible and in-control parent to give a light skelp to a grossly unruly kid in an attempt to shape behaviour. But we don't live in that world, we live in a world where many infuriated parents attempt to mollify their own rage by striking out at their defenceless child. The child (much more insightful than assumed) could have recognised a controlled, disciplining skelp on the bum, but knows this is not what they're getting; they're getting the end result of their parent's out of control anger. Mummy/daddy who is essentially my world, feeds me, rears me, nurtures me, educates me, defends me against harmful outsiders, teaches me how the world works and the best way to go about things; this figure has now assumed a reddened face and clenched fist and is thumping me in the face, and I'm not even quite sure what I did wrong. My world has just crumbled and I'm not sure quite who I can trust/listen to/turn to.
We need more of this to stop unruly kids?  
I am rather proud that at least on paper our generation is looking back in anger on the last one's legacy of legitimized violence towards kids, shaped as ours is by experience and social sciences which demonstrate an insight into just what lasting damage hitting a kid can do.

[Steve Swift]

Simple,

Discipline not violence.
Simple family values.
Schools not forced to achieve "C grades" then they won't have to pass every student and cook the books. 
Good parenting.
The correct student on the correct course.

[bolt pp]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

[Claw75]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

Up to a certain age (and a lot younger than 5 imo), you get yourself some of those wotsits that you stick into plug sockets that kids can't remove.  At 5 years old a child is perfectly capable of understanding danger when you explain it to them.  If my daughter started sticking things in plug sockets (she's 6) I'd tell her not to do it or she could get electrocuted.  That should do the trick.  I presume you'd accompany the smack with an explanation, otherwise it would be pointless.  To me, the accompanying smack is the pointless part.

[bolt pp]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

Up to a certain age (and a lot younger than 5 imo), you get yourself some of those wotsits that you stick into plug sockets that kids can't remove.  At 5 years old a child is perfectly capable of understanding danger when you explain it to them.  If my daughter started sticking things in plug sockets (she's 6) I'd tell her not to do it or she could get electrocuted.  That should do the trick. 

alright that probably wasnt a good example, i mean 2 or 3.

and not just plug sockets obv, other dangerous things that no matter how much you explain to a 2 year old could kill them theyre still gonna do it.

[Claw75]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

Up to a certain age (and a lot younger than 5 imo), you get yourself some of those wotsits that you stick into plug sockets that kids can't remove.  At 5 years old a child is perfectly capable of understanding danger when you explain it to them.  If my daughter started sticking things in plug sockets (she's 6) I'd tell her not to do it or she could get electrocuted.  That should do the trick. 

alright that probably wasnt a good example, i mean 2 or 3.

and not just plug sockets obv, other dangerous things that no matter how much you explain to a 2 year old could kill them theyre still gonna do it.

Well, at 2 or 3 years old you should be keeping a close eye on your child anyhow and ensuring that they are not put into dangerous situations.  Keep things that are potentially dangerous out of their reach. It's not difficult.

[bolt pp]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

Up to a certain age (and a lot younger than 5 imo), you get yourself some of those wotsits that you stick into plug sockets that kids can't remove.  At 5 years old a child is perfectly capable of understanding danger when you explain it to them.  If my daughter started sticking things in plug sockets (she's 6) I'd tell her not to do it or she could get electrocuted.  That should do the trick. 

alright that probably wasnt a good example, i mean 2 or 3.

and not just plug sockets obv, other dangerous things that no matter how much you explain to a 2 year old could kill them theyre still gonna do it.

Well, at 2 or 3 years old you should be keeping a close eye on your child anyhow and ensuring that they are not put into dangerous situations.  Keep things that are potentially dangerous out of their reach. It's not difficult.

of course it's difficult, you cant keep your eye on a 2/3 year old 24/7, one of my oldest memories was standing on the chair looking out of the window which i wasnt allowed to do as it was quite high up, it was in my parents room which i wasnt allowed to go in any way and the window could open all the way, it was on a latch but i suppose if i fiddled with it i could get it open, anyway i got a chair and was standing on it and looking out the window and i got almighty smack from my dad, not because he wanted to punish me for being in their room, or that i'd disobeyed him in climbing up to look out of the window but because it was very dangerous and i'd been told several times not to do it, i remembered that smack and NEVER climbed up at the window again, job done IMO, children that age need protecting from themselves, you cant always properly articulate to a child about danger when theyre that age.

I also remember that my dad had a huge old oak cabinet and the top was like a door that swung down, he told me loads of times not to touch it but i didnt listen cos i'm 3/4 or whatever and dont care and it swung down on my finger and nearly cut it off, i'll never forget that pain but i do know that if i had got a smack for the times i played with it before i wouldve never have gone near it again.

[barhell]

there's a difference between "hitting" a kid and giving them a smack on the hand.

a 5 year old develops a fascination with sticking things in plug sockets, this is where smacking as a preventative and not punishment is essential imo, the child then correlates putting things in the plug socket with mummy and daddy getting super mad and getting a sharp smack on the hand and therefore ceases to do it.

how else do you accentuate the idea of grave danger to a child to stop them doing something like that in a way that a 5 year old can properly comprehend and appreciate?

Up to a certain age (and a lot younger than 5 imo), you get yourself some of those wotsits that you stick into plug sockets that kids can't remove.  At 5 years old a child is perfectly capable of understanding danger when you explain it to them.  If my daughter started sticking things in plug sockets (she's 6) I'd tell her not to do it or she could get electrocuted.  That should do the trick.  I presume you'd accompany the smack with an explanation, otherwise it would be pointless.  To me, the accompanying smack is the pointless part.

I wish my daughter would listen to reason she still has inquisitive fingers at 10 years old and has to touch everything and anything, about 4 years ago we went to a wedding as evening arrived and dusk came they put glass and metal lanterns with little candles in around a set of steps and path that led from the marquee just to light the way.

We automatically said that these lanterns will be very hot and you will get burnt if you touch one to which our daughter nods her head and runs of to carry on playing, it was less than 5 minutes before you could hear the screams.

Even with that shock and pain she still hasn't learnt the lesson and will continue to touch things almost involuntarily just because they are there.

Luckily she's never gone for the electrical sockets

[Claw75]

I wish my daughter would listen to reason she still has inquisitive fingers at 10 years old and has to touch everything and anything,

Would giving her a smack stop that though?  When I was around the same age I remember sitting in my bedroom sucking on a live electrical lead because I liked the buzzy feeling on my tongue. Once it took hold and I got an electric shock, I didn't do it again. 

Bolt, in your examples you've highlighted where potentialy dangerous situations existed.  Surely the best way to deal with those situations would have been to make the window secure and remove the dangerous cabinet, or otherwise make it safe?

Of course we can't wrap our kids in cotton wool and accidents will happen, but if we see a potential danger where a child could get hurt, surely removing it is the way forward, not smacking them as some kind of punisment for their natural inquisitiveness.

This has gone off tangent a bit again because I believe Tikay's earlier comments about children needing a good slap were not really aimed at toddlers needing to keep out of danger anyway.