NSPCC calls for smacking ban
Ferganoid | 29.12.2001 11:37
The children's charity NSPCC last night claimed that the government's refusal to ban smacking will contribute to further suffering of children at the hands of abusive parents.
It released results of a survey of frontline child protection workers showing 88% had direct personal experience of cases of abuse or neglect involving unacceptable levels of physical punishment.
Two-thirds thought a law to protect children from being hit would strengthen the ability of social workers to intervene earlier to protect a child at risk of abuse. And 70% said the current law permitting "reasonable chastisement" sent the wrong message to potentially abusive parents.
Mary Marsh, the charity's director, appealed to ministers to think again about their negative response to a ruling by the European court of human rights that the law in England failed to give children adequate protection. "This survey of social work professionals shows there is a link between physical punishment and abusive behaviour. I am confident the majority of parents will unite with us to support changes to the law that are not an attack on them, but on the significant minority of abusers who use the current law to excuse severe beatings," she said.
The government reviewed the law on smacking after the European court ruled that the UK failed to protect a boy whose stepfather beat him with a cane.
The Scottish executive responded with plans to ban hitting children under three and outlaw hitting any child around the head with implements.
But the government decided last month against changing the law in England and Wales. After widespread consultation, Alan Milburn, the health secretary, rejected the advice of nearly all the organisations involved in child protection that smacking should be banned.
His decision to leave parents free to smack was supported by religious groups and the majority of individuals who responded to the consultation.
The NSPCC survey was designed to explore the views of 190 of its staff who were most closely involved in frontline child protection and family support. Their average experience in this type of work was 13 years.
It found 78% thought a law to protect children from being hit would help their work. And 91% wanted a ban on smacking babies and toddlers and on hitting any child with an implement.
More than half the frontline staff thought parents often tried to excuse abusive behaviour as "reasonable chastisement" and a further 29% said abusive parents did this occasionally.
When the child protection workers were asked about cases with which they had been involved, 46% said at least half of the abuse started with light smacks that became harder and harder hits. This escalation happened occasionally, according to a further quarter of respondents.
Two-thirds thought a law to protect children from being hit would strengthen the ability of social workers to intervene earlier to protect a child at risk of abuse. And 70% said the current law permitting "reasonable chastisement" sent the wrong message to potentially abusive parents.
Mary Marsh, the charity's director, appealed to ministers to think again about their negative response to a ruling by the European court of human rights that the law in England failed to give children adequate protection. "This survey of social work professionals shows there is a link between physical punishment and abusive behaviour. I am confident the majority of parents will unite with us to support changes to the law that are not an attack on them, but on the significant minority of abusers who use the current law to excuse severe beatings," she said.
The government reviewed the law on smacking after the European court ruled that the UK failed to protect a boy whose stepfather beat him with a cane.
The Scottish executive responded with plans to ban hitting children under three and outlaw hitting any child around the head with implements.
But the government decided last month against changing the law in England and Wales. After widespread consultation, Alan Milburn, the health secretary, rejected the advice of nearly all the organisations involved in child protection that smacking should be banned.
His decision to leave parents free to smack was supported by religious groups and the majority of individuals who responded to the consultation.
The NSPCC survey was designed to explore the views of 190 of its staff who were most closely involved in frontline child protection and family support. Their average experience in this type of work was 13 years.
It found 78% thought a law to protect children from being hit would help their work. And 91% wanted a ban on smacking babies and toddlers and on hitting any child with an implement.
More than half the frontline staff thought parents often tried to excuse abusive behaviour as "reasonable chastisement" and a further 29% said abusive parents did this occasionally.
When the child protection workers were asked about cases with which they had been involved, 46% said at least half of the abuse started with light smacks that became harder and harder hits. This escalation happened occasionally, according to a further quarter of respondents.
Ferganoid
Homepage:
www.stopabuse.org
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
Suffer Little Children
29.12.2001 12:53
Padre
WOT HAPPENED TO THE FRONTPAGE?
29.12.2001 20:52
JESSIE
what does 'unacceptable levels' mean ?
02.01.2002 15:40
Do as you're told
What kind of values are contained in the typical British parental admontion to 'do as you're told ?'.
What sort of principle is that ? Obedience is not the greatest virtue, but that is the only one most cretinious parents know about.
The ghost of Pavlov stalks the footsteps of child- punishment
lets be straight about this; child- beating is a relic of earlier, unenlightened societies ( Eg, like the maniac christians) but, like other tolerated institiutional violence, is used to instill notions of obedience to capitalism, social stratification and all done under the crass method of pavlov's 'classical conditioning'. in short, any level, and any kind of child punishment reduces children to the level of vivisection-lab dogs. there are NO 'acceptable levels'. the future socialist society will defend the rights of children to determine their own lives, not beat them into 'obedience'.
auguste
Oh, its that "Ferganoid " character again
03.01.2002 16:55
Mostyn Portent
Oh, its that "Ferganoid " character again
03.01.2002 16:55
Mostyn Portent
Interlectual masterbation
03.01.2002 17:55
Firstly ferganoid is a he and secoundly you are a pethetic middle class tosser.
Ferganoid
smack on the face
03.01.2002 23:38
Smacking is banned. But killing little kids in Afganistan is legal.
Doctor Who
NSPCC on the frontpage of Indy Media
05.01.2002 12:00
Peter S
Middle column?
05.01.2002 23:39
Where's the section on Argentina?
ginger
oi ferganoid
08.01.2002 07:53
clementine
pethetic middle class tosser ?
09.01.2002 18:05
anti- populist
THIS KIND OF STUFF IS POPULIST
09.01.2002 18:25
ANTI POPULIST
Dear Anti- populist, Clementine, and Portent
14.01.2002 12:10
I have nothing against people in Roils Royce’s except for the ones that pray on homeless young boys. This is probably because after leaving "care" at the age of 18, I was prayed on by such scumbags.
I have nothing against middle class people except the ones who lay there own guilt trip about being middle class on to me. When such people do so they behave like tossers.
I am not nor have ever been a populist, my history both in the "care" of Social Services and with the mental Health Service is well documented and the issues I am raising concern me my self.
Rather than running me down you should help me by promoting my site and its ideas. Also you might learn something if you read what is on it.
If you post any more silly comments, about my submissions, you are truly pathetic and I will I will simply ignore you.
Ferganoid
Homepage: http://stopabuse.org/AIMS.html
I don't think of myself as an arsehole but...
15.01.2002 13:14
But I believe that too much power is being given to children in this whole debate. The more the law favours the child in these situations, there will be a minority who grow up with no respect for anyone because they know that nothing can be done to them no matter what they do. In schools, detentions and conventional punishments scarcely put off potential troublemakers, and the numbers of children being expelled from school is rising at a huge rate.
This is where I will be hated by most of you, as the way I see it, 'a clip round the ear' in my book would be worth it, if that child was able to learn by that lesson and stay in school long enough to gain an education and make a life for him/herself. I'm not well versed in the statistics, as I say this is just opinion, but if corporal punishment in schools was able to keep children there rather than dumping them out on their own at the age of ten, then why not?
The biggest argument against this in my opinion is the potential for the abuse of power this would give parents and teachers. Whilst I state my opinion, it has probably angered you Ferganoid after seeing what you must have done whilst in care, and I sincerely apologise for that. But I feel that these points of view need to be stated. I'm sure you realise that there are estates in this country where gangs of youths roam around destroying anything they can get their hands on, including themselves. This, to me is just as bad, it is still abuse and neglect, but because they are out of the system, there is nothing that can be done for them.
Maybe I'm just trying to say that a small amount of 'abuse' i.e. a few smacks on the behind that will do no lasting damage is preferential to expulsion that will damage a child for life, and that this argument, I feel, needs to be stated.
OddJob
Dear Oddjob
15.01.2002 18:36
I understand that it is important to give children boundaries. The problem is that abusive people exploit the present situation in the disguise of discipline.
Ferganpoid