Fellonblackdays said:
Charliej said:
Fellonblackdays said:
Charliej said:
Fellonblackdays said:
I don't agree with hitting kids at all. Agree with Smoose. There were people that abused the right to strike kids and were getting a kick out of it, its well known teaching used to harbour child abusers.
[/quot
Now there's a whole other can of worms, but I bet your parents and grandparents thought their kids were safe with the priest or vicar, that's a job that would harbour child abusers they are there in any jobs, rock stars too, to sully the teaching profession with such an accusation is unbelievable.
I and many many others suffered no lasting harm from corporal punishment at school, and would have also never have complained if it ever happened about a clip round the ear from a copper as you knew there would most likely be worse waiting if you went home and moaned about it. It taught people where boundaries are and that a punishment is supposed to hurt in some way and to be expected when those boundaries were crossed, to this day I would never talk to a police officer the way I hear 13 year old kids doing. I'm sorry but there is a huge difference between corporal punishment and beating someone senseless. Smoose's comment of "I would gladly disobey anyone " is endemic of the "me 1st" generations and a good reason why this country is in the uncaring shitty state it is these days, but you're that puffed up with how much you as an individual matter rather than as a nation or community that you would and could never understand.
It isn't an accusation its fact and well known.
Just because "you" didn't suffer any lasting harm from what is essentially having your human rights being infringed by being struck doesn't mean others should be subjected to it. I bet you don't agree with animals being beaten in a cruel manner to do tricks. Its essentially what caning people is, there are many people who were subjected to said punishment just because they didn't write with their right hand. "Puffed with how much as I matter as an individual. No not really, just a guy that see's past the whole Daily Mail side of things.
I'm a very very long way from being a Daily Mail reader so don't make assumptions, I just believe it's simple if you break the rules you get punished, that punishment should fit the infraction and actually punish it. I made no mention of the generation that got punished for being left handed as that was blatantly wrong, if, however, you knowingly choose to break the rules of whatever community you are part of then you should expect to be punished, and that doesn't mean go and stand on the naughty step, a punishment should be punitive. As for having my human rights abused I sure as hell don't see it that way, that's the type of attitude that doesn't let any of society's disciplinary issues and lack of respect get sorted out. It's an absolute fact that young people behave in a far worse way than ever before, and believe that they are entitled to do whatever they want, which usually involves "infringing" someone else's human rights.
"Harbouring" child abusers implies that the teaching profession actively hid and protected the "abuser" from any inquiry or police investigation and to even make that accusation marks you out as either a daily mail or sun reader, "harbouring" child abusers is what the church has done in covering up any of these activities. My mother and her sister were involved in education one as a teacher and then schools inspector, the other as a university lecturer teaching teachers and from the things they used to say anyone suspected of abuse was reported and suspended subject to inquiries and police investigation. Perhaps you believe that criminals should just be given a good telling off and told not to do it again, after all sending them to jail would be infringing their human rights.
Your arguments are simplistic as they are archaic. No evidence what so ever that children are worse behaved nowadays, not to mention they're performing better in education than ever. Oh dear...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/3513533/Children-better-behaved-than-1970s.html
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6005697
If you don't see it as an infringement of human rights you obviously don't know a lot about the European Human Rights Convention to start with so we won't get on to whether you understand it or not. :blush:
As with the likes of the Saville scandal there would have been colleagues of some staff with ulterior motives who knew and turned a blind eye to these folks. B
I didn't say anything about criminals being sent to jail so I don't know where this has come from. Perhaps desperation? I've seen others make up arguments add some credibility to their argument when they begin to realise the ground falling from around them.
Ok the reason, and it has been acknowledge by the appropriate bodies, that children are getting higher marks in education is because the standards of exams has dropped since the days of the old "O" levels and "A" levels , the UK has slipped down international education standards league tables, which is why they are returning to the old format of being assessed by exams at the end of the course. As regards the behaviour of young people it should be noted that the references you provided are about primary schools only. One only needs to look at the rise in young people offending and general behaviour on the street or in town centres to know that there has been an increase in bad behaviour and an utter lack of respect for others and their property.
As for the European Convention on Human Rights I know plenty about and more than enough to know that a large part of it is utter tripe that gives rise to some utterly ridiculous cases in law such as prisoners and the right to vote, the whole purpose of sending a criminal to jail is to deprive them of their liberty and also to punish them in order to protect the rights of others, so why should they have the right to vote? If they want all their civic rights then they should have respected the rules of society.
When you mention the whole Saville thing , there has been no such large scale inquiry and indictment regarding the teaching profession, as in any profession there are some bad apples, if you looked in depth at electricians across the UK you would undoubtedly find a number of child abusers, this does not mean that they are harbouring them, harbour in this sense means to hide or give shelter to and I have seen no evidence of the teaching profession doing this, the Catholic Church , however has actively done this.
The bottom line is that if you break the rules of the society in which you take part you should expect that you will be punished, that punishment should be something that will act as a deterrent against offending again and a warning to others, otherwise why even bother to punish.
The way you were talking was as if to say that it should be reintroduced for everyone so why if Primary school students are better behaved should it be reintroduced for them? I don't see why you believe it would improve behavior I don't see any logical argument for this either. All of the studies done have pointed to the opposite. I have a number of friends who work as teachers or within the education sector, I don't see or haven't heard any of them suggesting it would be beneficial to be allowed to strike children nor any current surveys pointing to this which ask teachers.
When you mentioned about the police and crime, certain areas of the UK have youth crime at an all time low, others don't. Overall crime rates have fallen, this is a fact.
Despite overcrowded jails, thats due to increase in population and facilities never designed for their current capacities, thats a fact too.
Exactly, there are bad apples in every scenario, I never said it was everyone. Lets pitch that with children and youth in school. Fact is the vast majority are well behaved and achieving better than ever. Why based on a minority is it correct to therefore implement something from the past?
I haven't said there shouldn't be a punishment, there is.
daz said:
I quite happily admit I have smacked both my kids, not for a long while now though. And when I say smack I mean a wee tap on the backside to reinforce a telling off, or to give them a wee fright when they were about to do something that would cause them injury. There is a huge difference between a smack on the bum (which I don't think there is anything wrong with) and being beaten/abused (quite obviously wrong)
Both my folks would be jailed now for things they have done to my brother and myself, was it abuse? Well I'll give you an example so you can tell me what you think.
At around the age of 10 I found a garden cane in the shed and tied a pull cord for a light switch to it, I then mercilessly whipped my 8 year sister with it for around ten minutes. I never cut her but it would obviously have been pretty painful and it left welts on her body. I was just about to give her another lashing when my dad pulled into the drive, he picked my sister up and carried her into the house. He was gone for a few minutes so I thought I had got away with it, happy days. Not so, my dad came out, grabbed me by the collar and picked up the whip. I was escorted round to the back garden where the neighbours couldn't see, and the thrashing that I had dealt out to my sister was dealt to me. Did it hurt? Severely, did it leave scars? No. Did it teach me to think about my actions and their consequences? It sure did!!! I never hit my sister again because I now understood what it felt like when the shoe was on the other foot. In fact I can't remember ever starting a fight or hitting anyone again (unless in self defence)
My dad never laid a hand on me again, he had no need to. I wasn't scared of him, but I now knew what would happen if I crossed the line, and as far as he was concerned I always done what I was told. I very much doubt the naughty step would have worked in this instance.
Was he right or wrong to punish me in this way? Was it abuse?
We have all been smacked by our parents quite rightly so if you do things like that, done similar things myself. Different from being struck by teachers, as many have you have mentioned in front other people. Its a degrading act meant to humiliate the victim. Say I posted a video of someone in the middle east being led through the streets and whipped as they walked, people would be saying thats not right especially if it was an act against a woman or man. To me bringing it backs like saying lets reintroduce the rule of thumb for men with wives.
