The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The newsnight debate on the legislation on smacking childern..
The Tory representative's 2 arguments against the legislation:
i) It's a 'nanny' government intruding on peoples' lives by regulating what goes on in the family home.
- So the Tories are opposed to protecting children from abuse by their parents, because 'what goes on behind closed doors' is nobody else's business.
Small children obviously have no way of protecting themselves from abuse by adults, and according to Tory policy, nobody else should protect them either.
It's pre-war acceptance of wife abuse all over again.
ii) Legislating against child abuse is tantamount to the government accusing average Joe of abusing his kids.
- So the Tories feel that any legislation brought into force is an accusation that everyone in the country commits the offence.
So we're a nation full of would-be murderers, rapists, paedophiles.. and all this is the average man in the street. Because otherwise we wouldn't have legislation against said acts?
And we can't legislate to make something illegal unless it's common practice amongst everyone?
Again, this Tory 'policy' goes beyond retarded.
I know politics is rife with idiots coming up with false arguments just to find a way to disagree with 'the other side', and hopefully pursuade anyone who wasn't actually listening to the words,
but to me the Tories are terrible for it lately - everything coming out of Howard's mouth seems to be a knee-jerk reaction disagreeing with Blair or assimilating a popular headline into policy.
I can't remember him ever justifying one of his political positions. He just goes for cheap soundbites without any sort of basis in reason or sense.
Half the time he doesn't even offer an opinion on the actual issue, just says something derogatory about Blair or his government.
The Tories simply don't have genuine legitimate policies.
So yes, Lib Dems still aren't a realistic prospect for power, and Labour constantly screw everyone over, but at least they have policies. At least they stand for some kind of principles.
The Tory representative's 2 arguments against the legislation:
i) It's a 'nanny' government intruding on peoples' lives by regulating what goes on in the family home.
- So the Tories are opposed to protecting children from abuse by their parents, because 'what goes on behind closed doors' is nobody else's business.
Small children obviously have no way of protecting themselves from abuse by adults, and according to Tory policy, nobody else should protect them either.
It's pre-war acceptance of wife abuse all over again.
ii) Legislating against child abuse is tantamount to the government accusing average Joe of abusing his kids.
- So the Tories feel that any legislation brought into force is an accusation that everyone in the country commits the offence.
So we're a nation full of would-be murderers, rapists, paedophiles.. and all this is the average man in the street. Because otherwise we wouldn't have legislation against said acts?
And we can't legislate to make something illegal unless it's common practice amongst everyone?
Again, this Tory 'policy' goes beyond retarded.
I know politics is rife with idiots coming up with false arguments just to find a way to disagree with 'the other side', and hopefully pursuade anyone who wasn't actually listening to the words,
but to me the Tories are terrible for it lately - everything coming out of Howard's mouth seems to be a knee-jerk reaction disagreeing with Blair or assimilating a popular headline into policy.
I can't remember him ever justifying one of his political positions. He just goes for cheap soundbites without any sort of basis in reason or sense.
Half the time he doesn't even offer an opinion on the actual issue, just says something derogatory about Blair or his government.
The Tories simply don't have genuine legitimate policies.
So yes, Lib Dems still aren't a realistic prospect for power, and Labour constantly screw everyone over, but at least they have policies. At least they stand for some kind of principles.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Kind of an odd thing to say in an argument about the legal
> ramifications of adding some new semantic definitions to an existing
> law.
I meant his semantics distinguishing a 'smack' and a 'beating'. Which isn't of any legal significance.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Every sane person will agree
> that beating a child is wrong.
Yet people still do it.
You could say 'every sane person will agree rape is wrong', but do you seriously think that means we shouldn't have a law making it illegal?
Of course not, that would be utterly stupid.
It's because beating a child (to the point of abuse) is so obviously wrong that the Tory argument is retarded.
They say that parents should be allowed to do whatever they want in disciplining their kid.
I didn't even want to discuss the legislation generally, though everyone else is of course free to.
My point was simply that the Tories claimed a parent should be allowed to do whatever they want to their kid, which in your post, even you disagree with.
> What I'm saying is that I should at
> least be allowed to discipline them. And the most effective way of
> disciplining a child is a smack.
As for the legislation itself, it strikes a balance between protecting kids from excessive physical abuse, and allowing a limited use of physical punishment.
Whether you agree or disagree with where the government want to draw the boundary between what is and isn't acceptable is another matter.
> Kind of an odd thing to say in an argument about the legal
> ramifications of adding some new semantic definitions to an existing
> law.
I meant his semantics distinguishing a 'smack' and a 'beating'. Which isn't of any legal significance.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Every sane person will agree
> that beating a child is wrong.
Yet people still do it.
You could say 'every sane person will agree rape is wrong', but do you seriously think that means we shouldn't have a law making it illegal?
Of course not, that would be utterly stupid.
It's because beating a child (to the point of abuse) is so obviously wrong that the Tory argument is retarded.
They say that parents should be allowed to do whatever they want in disciplining their kid.
I didn't even want to discuss the legislation generally, though everyone else is of course free to.
My point was simply that the Tories claimed a parent should be allowed to do whatever they want to their kid, which in your post, even you disagree with.
> What I'm saying is that I should at
> least be allowed to discipline them. And the most effective way of
> disciplining a child is a smack.
As for the legislation itself, it strikes a balance between protecting kids from excessive physical abuse, and allowing a limited use of physical punishment.
Whether you agree or disagree with where the government want to draw the boundary between what is and isn't acceptable is another matter.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> your semantics don't hold
> water in court,
Kind of an odd thing to say in an argument about the legal ramifications of adding some new semantic definitions to an existing law.
> your semantics don't hold
> water in court,
Kind of an odd thing to say in an argument about the legal ramifications of adding some new semantic definitions to an existing law.
It's not in the slightest bit retarded. Every sane person will agree that beating a child is wrong. What I'm saying is that I should at least be allowed to discipline them. And the most effective way of disciplining a child is a smack.
Losing my train set only every had a limited effect, I'd just play with cars instead. Getting a smack on the other hand was something I always wanted to avoid, and would comply with most demands to avoid it.
Losing my train set only every had a limited effect, I'd just play with cars instead. Getting a smack on the other hand was something I always wanted to avoid, and would comply with most demands to avoid it.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> It is stupid legislation though. And I don't think it is Tony Blairs
> place to tell me what I can and can't do as regards disciplining my
> children. It is a far cry from smacking to beating, and a beating was
> already illegal as assualt.
Smacking can potentially be a beating, your semantics don't hold water in court, the old law had a loop-hole to allow some serious assaults by parents 'disciplining' their kids. The new law is to remove it.
Thus in the past parents were allowed to go into the realms of child abuse, because the law took an 'if it's in your own home, you can do what you want with your kids' attitude.
Obviously the kids have a right to be protected from abusive and extreme smacking.
And the government has a responsibility to protect them.
The line that you and the tories take, that the government have no right to influence what you do to your child is absurd.
Whether you argee with the new legislation or not, to argue that a parent should be able to do whatever they like to their kid is retarded.
Yet that's what the Tory bint was saying, which was my point.
I didn't particularly want to go into the legislation itself, just to point out the retarded depths the Tories had sunk to in trying to find a way to disagree with Blair.
> It is stupid legislation though. And I don't think it is Tony Blairs
> place to tell me what I can and can't do as regards disciplining my
> children. It is a far cry from smacking to beating, and a beating was
> already illegal as assualt.
Smacking can potentially be a beating, your semantics don't hold water in court, the old law had a loop-hole to allow some serious assaults by parents 'disciplining' their kids. The new law is to remove it.
Thus in the past parents were allowed to go into the realms of child abuse, because the law took an 'if it's in your own home, you can do what you want with your kids' attitude.
Obviously the kids have a right to be protected from abusive and extreme smacking.
And the government has a responsibility to protect them.
The line that you and the tories take, that the government have no right to influence what you do to your child is absurd.
Whether you argee with the new legislation or not, to argue that a parent should be able to do whatever they like to their kid is retarded.
Yet that's what the Tory bint was saying, which was my point.
I didn't particularly want to go into the legislation itself, just to point out the retarded depths the Tories had sunk to in trying to find a way to disagree with Blair.
I saw someone reprimand her kid by grabbing the kid's arm, then smacking her own arm on the wrist. Then she saw that I had seen her, and she looked up and did this really pathetic giggle, like it was funny she just hit herself. B*tch.
The best was the other night though, when I saw a parent's evening coming out a school. This kid, must have been about 12/13, nearly ran in the road in front of all these cars, so the Mum grabbed his arm really hard and he was visibly in pain from this. I thought "good", that'll teach him. But when they got to the car and she thought no-one could see, she kicked him really hard in the leg and actually launched him into the car! Just for measure she did it again. Then she sped off, hopefully into a lamppost. Some people shouldn't have kids. They are from Harlow.
The best was the other night though, when I saw a parent's evening coming out a school. This kid, must have been about 12/13, nearly ran in the road in front of all these cars, so the Mum grabbed his arm really hard and he was visibly in pain from this. I thought "good", that'll teach him. But when they got to the car and she thought no-one could see, she kicked him really hard in the leg and actually launched him into the car! Just for measure she did it again. Then she sped off, hopefully into a lamppost. Some people shouldn't have kids. They are from Harlow.
First you tell the child not to do it again
Then you tell them again
Then you tell them in a sterner voice and tell them if they do it again, they get a smack
Then you smack them
You don't...
Smack them when they pick up a Power Ranger in Tescos.
Parenting is easy.
Then you tell them again
Then you tell them in a sterner voice and tell them if they do it again, they get a smack
Then you smack them
You don't...
Smack them when they pick up a Power Ranger in Tescos.
Parenting is easy.
It is stupid legislation though. And I don't think it is Tony Blairs place to tell me what I can and can't do as regards disciplining my children. It is a far cry from smacking to beating, and a beating was already illegal as assualt.
Let's face it, the complete and utter lack of discipline of most children is a contributing factor to why Britain can at times be a really crap country to live in. There would be a whole lot less neds and juvenile criminals if they got given into trouble when they were younger.
But no. Whatever happened to government for the people by the people? Or is Britain not a democracy anymore? Because other than a few nutcases, most people do NOT support this. Just like they don't support the Euro. But Tony Blair wants it, so he'll get it.
Let's face it, the complete and utter lack of discipline of most children is a contributing factor to why Britain can at times be a really crap country to live in. There would be a whole lot less neds and juvenile criminals if they got given into trouble when they were younger.
But no. Whatever happened to government for the people by the people? Or is Britain not a democracy anymore? Because other than a few nutcases, most people do NOT support this. Just like they don't support the Euro. But Tony Blair wants it, so he'll get it.
If a kid keeps running to near the edge of a cliff/into the road, I say give it a smack if it keeps on doing it after you've told it several times not to.
In those circumstances a smack is a lot better than being dead.
In those circumstances a smack is a lot better than being dead.
To be honest, I don't see the point in this.
I could give my view, but the majority of it would be repeating Snuggly.
I could give my view, but the majority of it would be repeating Snuggly.
I think the Government should give me a gun and turn a blind eye. I'd set this country straight.
*spits out tobacco*
*spits out tobacco*
Page: