What's The Proper Name For A Coffee...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Last time I donate to the NSPCC
I was listening to Radio 5 in the car on the way to work today and they were promoting the latest NSPCC advertisments about not smacking children. Now, I've always admired the work and effort this charity has put in with regards to helping children in need, but I feel that these latest publicity efforts are a complete waste of the charity's donated cash. I don't think the charity is right in saying that hitting a child is categorically wrong, especially when each incident could potentially be completely different from the next. Yes I agree that 'beating' your child for no reason is completely unacceptable. But I believe that smacking your child in certain circumstances is the only to let the child know that their behaviour is bad, and acts as a detterent so they do not do it again.
Anyway, isn't there now a law that states how you can/can't smack a child?
I think the NSPCC Should stop wasting money on pointless adverts and go back to helping children who need their support.
Is there some sort of body that regulates how they spend their money?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ahmed. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I've only seen one of the tv ads but I think you're wrong. It (not sure about the whole campaign) was putting across the point that hitting a child in anger is wrong, and I have to agree. To smack a child as a firm lesson in not doing something potentially dangerous (ie if they run out onto the road and you want to ensure they never do that again), I can go with the logic behind that. But to hit a child because you are angry and can't control yourself is awful. I think this is what the ad is tryignt i highlight....that even good parents who do not abuse their children can have moments where they act badly, and this is just to make them aware of this. I can't believe it teaches a child many positive lessons at all. A smack can definitely be used as effective discipline but if done in anger I think it shows the kind of lack of control that we are trying to curb in the child we are smacking. Oh and by the way, I'm a parent, tho my little guy's only 17mnths old, so we're not very far down the disciplinary pathway yet.
As for not giving to the NSPCC as you think it's now a waste of cash....up to you of course. You should recognise tho that any cash you donated to them is as likely to help a needy child as it is to go on such an ad campaign, but to withdraw support will only have a negative effect, as the ad money has been paid, but the number of needy children is still growing. Maybe you could find an alternative childrens charity to donate to instead. I'm sure there are thousands out there who are not running ads that are anti smacking.
Kick3m0n,
A very good and fair answer. And I think I was being a bit rash with some of comments regarding no more future donations and I must have misunderstood what the advert was trying to put across.
Although I think it's easy to look back on past events (I'm not just refering to smacking children) and regret an action you've taken due to your state of mind. It's very easy to look back and say "I shouldn't have done that" or "I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't angry" but it's very difficult to recognise when you are in that state of mind and stop yourself before you do something you'll regret.
Fair enough, if the adverts stop a child from being unfairly hit, I support it.
This was done quite recently........
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Parenting/Question84835.html
I still stand by what I said then......smacking is not wrong - hitting is.
And the NSPCC want to ban smacking - not hitting! I withdrew my pledge to them over 2 years ago.
As a charity, the NSPCC is accountable to the Charity Commissioner. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
cheers for your response too Ahmed. It is a tricky one. I went to the post noted by oneyedvic and read through some of the replies. Oh my god.....what on earth could an 18month old child do that would require a smack? Mine must be an angel, I can't contemplate having to hit him...he's 17mnths old for goodness sake. He can always be diverted or, if worst comes to worst, picked up from where he is and moved away from the problem/issue. If he doesn't always know the difference between Yes and No when I ask him if he wants a drink, how in gods name is he supposed to realise that a smack is not me hurting him unneccesarily, but infact a reasonable form of discipline? Good grief. I never thought I'd be so anti-smacking, but really I am - especially after reading some of those posts. How he would differentiate between a 'smack' across the bum/hand and a 'hit' anywhere else is beyond me. The line between the two seems fuzzy and I'm an adult!!! Is it based on intent? On whether I'm in control or not? On whether I'm shouting or not? I can only envisage having to smack him if, for example, he ran out onto the road, or endangered himself or others.
And that is exactly the point - most reasonable people can tell the difference between a smack and a hit - a smack to an 18 month old is usualyy a tap on the arm etc. A smack to a 8 year old will undoubtably be harder.
The NSPCC want this ALL to stop. No physical discipline at all. No grey area. No touching your child. If you think you can reason with a 2 year old as to why they should / shouldn't be dong something then good luck.
Sometimes, (unfortunately) physical discipline is required - abuse is a different subject completely and is off subject. The NSPCC would like to put the two together. I for one do not agree.
And as I said in my previous post - look at the wording the 'antismacking' brigade use as exampled above ..... "I can't contemplate having to HIT him".......
sorry oneyedvic, that's pure pedantry. You yourself used the words smack and hit interchangably in your one of your previous posts. Let's use the word 'strike' instead then, covers everything. Have to be honest, I never expected to agree so wholeheartedly with the anti smackers, but on reading that post you directed me to, I felt the anti-smackers put forward the most lucid, sensible and persuasive arguments. Soem pro-smackers resorted to silly analogies and irrelevant questions eg asking Bernardo if he knew right from wrong as an adult - of course he does, but how on earth does that relate that to him being struck as a child???? Wow, that's an obscure link to make.
Use strike if you want - saying there is no difference between hitting and smacking is the same as saying there is no difference between having sex with a 15 3/4 year old and a 16 1/4 year old - it may be pedantry but it makes a point. There is a clear distinction. I use smack as a term of light punishment - hitting implies abuse.
Bernardo made the point that: "My comments and views are not the product of ignorance, they are the product of having suffered many many years as a child having been regularly assaulted. I was smacked as a child, and it never did me any good at all. The only thing which it taught me was that I was being assaulted by someone bigger and stronger than me; in no way did I ever get the feeling that what I had done was "therefore" naughty or bad, because hitting someone is not an efficient and logical way of explaining such thing"
My point is that he is a reasonable and well adjusted adult - as are the majority of people who were smacked a child - in fact pretty much every one over the age of 40!
To say that smacking a child will scar them for life etc is just completely ludicrous.
I was abused as a child - my father hit me with a willow tree branch - and I will never forgive him for that . That does not mean we should ban smacking completely. - its like saying that someone is killed on the roads every day - lets ban all cars
Point is that I don't agree with an all out ban - that is why I will not support the NSPCC - I am not going to bother going over all my reasons - its in the above link if you want to read them.
I also do not use 'smacking' and 'hitting' interchangeably - I think it is rather obvious how I use them.
Bernardo made the point that: "My comments and views are not the product of ignorance, they are the product of having suffered many many years as a child having been regularly assaulted. I was smacked as a child, and it never did me any good at all. The only thing which it taught me was that I was being assaulted by someone bigger and stronger than me; in no way did I ever get the feeling that what I had done was "therefore" naughty or bad, because hitting someone is not an efficient and logical way of explaining such thing"
My point is that he is a reasonable and well adjusted adult - as are the majority of people who were smacked a child - in fact pretty much every one over the age of 40!
To say that smacking a child will scar them for life etc is just completely ludicrous.
I was abused as a child - my father hit me with a willow tree branch - and I will never forgive him for that . That does not mean we should ban smacking completely. - its like saying that someone is killed on the roads every day - lets ban all cars
Point is that I don't agree with an all out ban - that is why I will not support the NSPCC - I am not going to bother going over all my reasons - its in the above link if you want to read them.
I also do not use 'smacking' and 'hitting' interchangeably - I think it is rather obvious how I use them.
I live on a rather rough estate. There are children here who have had a regular smack for most of there lives and it hasn't made a jot of difference to the way they behave.
One in particular I know gets in to trouble all the time and he dosn't give a hoot about any inpending punishment his father or mother might give him. Smacking does not work as a punishment.
Don't ask me what does. I have four of my own and have never smacked them on ths scale I know some parents do. Child abuse is horrid and must be stopped. Please don't stop giving to the NSPCC. They do help. I have had to call them in the past and they do respond.
Well a friend of my brothers had a slight disagreement with a man in a shop, the end result was my brothers friend poked the other bloke in the eye (causing no damage, just slight redness for a short while) and he had him arrested and charged with common assult.
Why should an adult have more rights over a child. I have seen some dreadful sights with parents dragging and belting children just because they can't think of any other way. Can you imagine just ignoring or looking the other way if we saw a man belting into a woman (or vic versa) We would all be horrified and rightly so but when its children most people look the other way. Parents should set an example to children and not resort to smacking them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.