Mother warned for telling off son.

[papa smurf]

Mother trailed by policeman and warned by council for telling off son at checkout

A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers who reported her to social services.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0WFpSl1VW



there's little wonder kids are out of control with interfering busy bodies going to such lengths to inflict their views on parents .

[broadbandking]

I can't believe it, kids need a light smack to know when they do wrong, stupid police no wondered I hate them waste of space, go solve real crimes.

[Wayfair]

Most kids don't need smacking to let them know they had done wrong broadbandking summat wrong with their hearing is there?

Sorry, that's a pet hate of mine, hmmmm kid, must need smacking, that will sort it...

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Wayfair

Sorry, that's a pet hate of mine, hmmmm kid, must need smacking, that will sort it...

If a child is brought up and never been smacked for anything they've done wrong. then a 'naughty step' isn't going to teach them much.

[punky]

Given the numerous times i've seriously considered intervening when 'parents' are 'chastising' their children, I don't doubt this. I've seen hair-dryer treatments that make Alex Ferguson look like a pussycat.

Yet because we're hearing just the woman's view and its in the Daily Mail we're lead to believe a bored copper with delusions of being an MI-5 agent tailed the poor woman and grassed her up. Nothing like the police normally having to deal with really scum-of-the-earth parents and spotting an abusive household when he see's it.

[Raistlin]

Physical violence against children is only justified if you honestly believe that your own safety is at risk.

All that hitting children as punishment teaches them is that a) it's apparently ok to hit children, and b) violence is an acceptable solution to a problem.

Neither of which is true.....obviously.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Rob M

Physical violence against children is only justified if you honestly believe that your own safety is at risk.

All that hitting children as punishment teaches them is that a) it's apparently ok to hit children, and b) violence is an acceptable solution to a problem.

Neither of which is true.....obviously.

Look at it another way Rob. I know someone who's boy is only 4 years old. he has no problem hitting other children. he thinks nothing of it, he doesn't understand that it's wrong. so there's a)

his mother has programmed a monster from birth. his only punishment is the naughty step. and she is forever telling people 'oh he's tired' as an excuse for his behaviour.which he now uses as an excuse for when he knows he's done wrong. he'll stand there crying saying 'I'm tired'

hitting doesn't have to be violence, and can be administered for other reasons other than your own safety being at risk.

[papa smurf]

one thing i remember from my childhood is
a smack on the leg is worth a thousand words and re-offending was never an option.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

one thing i remember from my childhood is
a smack on the leg is worth a thousand words and re-offending was never an option.

It's true. if I wasn't hit by my father as a child then I wouldn't be as nice a person as I am now

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by broadbandking

I can't believe it, kids need a light smack to know when they do wrong, stupid police no wondered I hate them waste of space, go solve real crimes.

Children do not need smacking, they need to know boundaries from day one. I have never smacked my daughter and she is 8 now. I have never even had to shout at her. It's all in the tone along with explaining why she shouldn't do something, rather than just saying 'no'.

[Hom3r]

A smack never hurt me or my sister, neither of us been in trouble.

[Maggy J]

With all due respect to all views here children are all as different as are adults and what works for some may not work for others.

In other words the best sort of punishment is the sort that both parent and child agrees is the best and is applied CONSISTENTLY.

Children need to know what the boundaries are and what punishment will be forthcoming for each transgression.Once they know, they can accept it although it won't stop them pushing against the boundaries as they get older therefore rules have to be renegotiated from time to time.

Consistency is what we all expect when rules are set up and applied even as adults.That and the fact that everyone gets treated equally unless a very good reason is given for any exceptions.

[squealy]

It's difficult to have much time for a newspaper who spend half their time bemoaning interfering official busybodies, and the other half wailing about authorities failing to intervene successfully in cases like Victoria Climbie and Baby P.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Do they want children protected or not?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

In other words the best sort of punishment is the sort that both parent and child agrees is the best and is applied CONSISTENTLY.

Children need to know what the boundaries are and what punishment will be forthcoming for each transgression.

Naughty step.
No park.
No sweets.
No grandma's
Ben10 goes in cupboard till I give in with your crying and demands for him back.

When they're teenagers, you can give up and let society have the problem

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by squealy

It's difficult to have much time for a newspaper who spend half their time bemoaning interfering official busybodies, and the other half wailing about authorities failing to intervene successfully in cases like Victoria Climbie and Baby P.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Do they want children protected or not?

They do seem a little schizoid at times