It’s been on the news today that the lefty pc mob are trying to make smacking your kids illegal.
When I say smacking, I don’t mean beating up your kids,… that is child abuse and is quite rightly and unarguably illegal, end of.
I have 4 kids between 28 and 17, they have all had a swift slap on the leg or arse in the past, but only as a last resort when they deserved it, it has not done them any harm and they have all grown up knowing right from wrong, and with respect as we are all the best of friends together, so I must have been doing something right.
I am also old enough to remember getting the cane at school, it was an effective deterrent that worked, just compare the level of discipline in schools today compared to then, ok you got the odd sadist teacher but as I say it was an effective deterrent.
A lot of kids today are already out of control with no manners or respect, this is due to ■■■■ poor parenting skills by some deadlegs that should not be in charge of a hamster, let alone a child. so I reckon if this goes ahead it will only get worse.
What are your thoughts?
Couldn’t have put it better
Kids of today, jeez how I sound like my parents, are out of control because of ■■■■ poor parenting and I don’t think it’s altogether to do with smacking or not.
I’ve never smacked my kids because I’ve never needed to but no means no. If my kids ask for some sweets and I say no, they ask another 50 times in a whiny voice I’m not going to change my mind. The lesson that teaches is that no means no so they don’t ask again if the first answer they get isn’t the one they wanted. They know any more questions are a waste of time.
So many times I see parents asked a dozen times and after they get pestered they give in and the lesson that the kid has learned that in order to get their own way is to keep pestering. It’s the easy option for weak parents.
Respect is taught from an early age, poor behaviour is always challenged and good behaviour is always rewarded. We were at my in laws on Boxing day and I was bored to death so my kids must have double bored but they behaved themselves without a cross word all day. I felt so sorry for them I rewarded their good behaviour with a fiver each and told them what it was for.
Tricky one, don’t hold with all this beardy nonsense, be consistent and stick to your guns.
Discuss.
As I have no kids myself yet I can only talk of how I was bought up and I’m 27 so it wasn’t that long a go I was getting a smack across my arse. I have many friends now who have children and I sit there sometimes when there playing up and watching my mates mrs try for the 10th time In a row to enforce the “naughty step” and I think ffs just give the little ■■■■■ a slap hell stop then. We all got a slap if it was deserved 9/10 times my mum and dad only had to tell us the once even to this day the only person I’m scared of is my mum what she says goes end off. I remember one day I was sent home from junior school the office rang mum to collect me because I kicked a lad and called him a ■■■■■■■. Mum never drove then so she walked to the school walked in grabbed me and of she went slapping my arse infront of the receptionist she didn’t give a ■■■■ and she took my shoes off me and made me walk home bare footed. I was put to bed then round 2 started when dad walked through the door after work. I was about 4/5 and ill never forget that but to this day I’ve never taken the ■■■■ out of someone less fortunate then myself and if I hear any one else passing judgment I would let them know what I thought of them.
I’m not saying slapping your kids for every little thing they do is acceptable and I certainly won’t be doing it to mine but I like to think I will bring them up to earn enough respect of them as I had for my parents that I won’t need to unless I really have to and if I really have to I will it done me no harm. I’ve never been in trouble with the police I haven’t been a saint I was always bought up if any one hits you make sure they never want to do it again and I’ve had my fare share of scraps but I’ve never stolen, I’ve never caused damage to anyone else’s property and I’ve never hit anyone without a bloody good reason so I’d say I was bought up pretty well. I knew right from wrong at an early age and I knew how much it would hurt if I got it wrong I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
It’s a fine line but in general it’s a case of using physical violence to make a point regardless of the point in question which can never be a good thing.
In terms of corporal punishment being used in schools my experience was that the idea of the odd sadist teacher is total naive bs.The reality was that it was a corrupt regime of systematic violence,which was supposed to be the ‘cane’ as and when required in extreme cases which is what the parents were told.‘But’ in the confines of school walls it was more often involved being caned numerous times to the point where your hands had open blisters,let alone kicked or punched amongst other so called ‘disciplinary’ ‘actions’ by numerous different ‘teachers’ for numerous different trivial or manufactured ‘reasons’.Many of those ‘reasons’ being all about being seen to uphold a strict regime of so called ‘discipline’ in which the type who’d hit back were allowed to run riot while the ones who were seen as less likely to hit back were made the scapegoats to make it look like discipline was being upheld.When in fact it was the opposite.Which is how eventually the headmaster ended up with a severely broken jaw obviously because the zb wasn’t as bright as his lower ranks in having made the mistake of picking on the wrong one for once.
I’m assuming that your idea of such discipline being a good thing with just ‘the odd sadist teacher’ is just based on the experience of somewhere with a much softer regime than a rough early 1970’s Greater London secondary school.Or if not maybe you were just one of the lucky ones who the zb’s masquerading as so called ‘teachers’ at the time left alone. 
Owing to having more children than god I encounter other people’s children on a regular basis and tbh I think it’s the parents that need slapping.
Together my partner and I have raised 8 children to teenagers and have 2 younger ones. I have smacked one of my children once (she was playing with an electric socket and I panicked and slapped her hand away)
I would take my children any where and have faith they would know how to behave and act in a manner than would make me proud of them.
I was smacked as a child and it did me no harm at all however I truly believe smacking is the absolute last resort and we’ve always found other ways to correct bad behaviour.
Carryfast:
In terms of capital punishment being used in schools my experience was that the idea of the odd sadist teacher is total naive bs.
CAPITAL punishment?? Jeez mate your school WAS STRICT! 
robroy:
Carryfast:
In terms of capital punishment being used in schools my experience was that the idea of the odd sadist teacher is total naive bs.
I meant Corporal. 
Edited.
Carryfast:
It’s a fine line but in general it’s a case of using physical violence to make a point regardless of the point in question which can never be a good thing.In terms of capital punishment being used in schools my experience was that the idea of the odd sadist teacher is total naive bs.The reality was that it was a corrupt regime of systematic violence,which was supposed to be the ‘cane’ as and when required in extreme cases which is what the parents were told.‘But’ in the confines of school walls it was more often involved being caned numerous times to the point where your hands had open blisters,let alone kicked or punched amongst other so called ‘disciplinary’ ‘actions’ by numerous different ‘teachers’ for numerous different trivial or manufactured ‘reasons’.Many of those ‘reasons’ being all about being seen to uphold a strict regime of so called ‘discipline’ in which the type who’d hit back were allowed to run riot while the ones who were seen as less likely to hit back were made the scapegoats to make it look like discipline was being upheld.When in fact it was the opposite.Which is how eventually the headmaster ended up with a severely broken jaw obviously because the zb wasn’t as bright as his lower ranks in having made the mistake of picking on the wrong one for once.
I’m assuming that your idea of such discipline being a good thing with just ‘the odd sadist teacher’ is just based on the experience of somewhere with a much softer regime than a rough early 1970’s Greater London secondary school.Or if not maybe you were just one of the lucky ones who the zb’s masquerading as so called ‘teachers’ at the time left alone.
You describe your school as “A corrupt regime of systematic violence” I too went to school in the early 70s, it was not a model of educational excellence by any means, but could not be described as the way you describe yours, which sounds more like Ray Winstone’s experiences in the film “Scum”
I’m assuming that your account is not exaggerated but I would bet that your school could not be described as typical… London or not. Maybe there are some 70s ex. London school boys on here that can verify or refute that point.
We had kids that hit back at teachers, but it was nipped in the bud from day 1, we had a lot of council estate kids (being one myself) forces kids and a couple of posh kids, and the odd gypsy kid, a cross section mixture, some were dog rough but were kept in check, maybe the teachers were more dedicated and professional than the ones that you encountered, but we certainly had no abusive thugs like the ones that you describe.
25 years of not having corporal punishment should be evidence enough as to why it should return. It has been proven that the tree hugging soft soaping approach has not worked when it comes down to young offenders and criminals so why not return to a system that at least taught some bloody manners and made you think twice before telling a teacher to eff off or thinking about assaulting them.!
robroy:
Carryfast:
It’s a fine line but in general it’s a case of using physical violence to make a point regardless of the point in question which can never be a good thing.In terms of capital punishment being used in schools my experience was that the idea of the odd sadist teacher is total naive bs.The reality was that it was a corrupt regime of systematic violence,which was supposed to be the ‘cane’ as and when required in extreme cases which is what the parents were told.‘But’ in the confines of school walls it was more often involved being caned numerous times to the point where your hands had open blisters,let alone kicked or punched amongst other so called ‘disciplinary’ ‘actions’ by numerous different ‘teachers’ for numerous different trivial or manufactured ‘reasons’.Many of those ‘reasons’ being all about being seen to uphold a strict regime of so called ‘discipline’ in which the type who’d hit back were allowed to run riot while the ones who were seen as less likely to hit back were made the scapegoats to make it look like discipline was being upheld.When in fact it was the opposite.Which is how eventually the headmaster ended up with a severely broken jaw obviously because the zb wasn’t as bright as his lower ranks in having made the mistake of picking on the wrong one for once.
I’m assuming that your idea of such discipline being a good thing with just ‘the odd sadist teacher’ is just based on the experience of somewhere with a much softer regime than a rough early 1970’s Greater London secondary school.Or if not maybe you were just one of the lucky ones who the zb’s masquerading as so called ‘teachers’ at the time left alone.
You describe your school as “A corrupt regime of systematic violence” I too went to school in the early 70s, it was not a model of educational excellence by any means, but could not be described as the way you describe yours, which sounds more like Ray Winstone’s experiences in the film “Scum”
I’m assuming that your account is not exaggerated but I would bet that your school could not be described as typical… London or not. Maybe there are some 70s ex. London school boys on here that can verify or refute that point.
We had kids that hit back at teachers, but it was nipped in the bud from day 1, we had a lot of council estate kids (being one myself) forces kids and a couple of posh kids, and the odd gypsy kid, a cross section mixture, some were dog rough but were kept in check, maybe the teachers were more dedicated and professional than the ones that you encountered, but we certainly had no abusive thugs like the ones that you describe.
I’d guess that in most cases the regime and levels of violence would have been less in the case of mixed schools as opposed to all boys schools of the worst type as in my case.However you seem to have some naive notions concerning the standard of teachers at the time and certainly in the case of the regime which applied at my school.Which really was the logical conclusion of what happens when teachers are given more credit than they are due in being able,or even wanting,to sort the good from the bad and given the freedom to impose physical violence as part of the ‘disciplinary’ regime.Especially when it’s just easier and less of a personal risk to themselves to use that regime against those who aren’t causing the trouble in order to save themselves from the inevitable aggravation in return involved in taking any action against the really nasty zb’s.Therefore I’ll stand by my view that the bad,in terms of both teachers and pupils,can actually thrive under such a regime,while it’s generally the innocent who end up at the wrong end of a boot,fist,or stick etc wether by those bad pupils or those equally,if not moreso,bad so called ‘teachers’.Bearing in mind that most bad pupils will happily put the blame for their wrong doing on the innocent and those teachers will be more than happy to be involved in such a fit up to avoid the results of getting involved with violent pupils.
IE in general someone who’s happy to use violence against a teacher or another pupil isn’t going to give a zb about getting hit by a teacher.In which case it’s a matter for the law and/or education authorities not teachers to sort out.Whereas it all gets a bit painful and about as far removed from learning anything as it gets for the ordinary innocent pupils who inevitably end up paying the price for the wrong doing of others.
However in general,where corporal punishment was/is allowed,it’s more often the case that those ‘teachers’ just use trivial or non existent discipline issues as an excuse to impose a bullying violent regime just for their own amusement.The idea that anyone who speaks out against such a situation is in some way a loony lefty is just stereotypical bs by those who are trying to support the re introduction of a school disciplinary regime based on physical violence,which just creates a circle of ever increasing violence.Which has been proved to be wrong and not to work since the 1970’s/80’s.However it’s only those with the experience of being on the wrong end of such a regime who’d understand that in which case it’s obvious that,for whatever reason,you certainly haven’t had that experience.
I haven’t got any kids, but I’ve always said if I have them I would smack them, not beat them up but like others slap across the legs/bum, I got batterd when I was a kid and I’ve turned out okay ( although my 2 younger brothers are ■■■■■ 1is worse than the other)
slapping is the last resort I got hammered by my old man and my midd brother like you wouldn’t believe and I vowed never would I hit my kids their 33 and 34 and we were stricked and fair and they always tried their luck had afew probs nothing much but no slapping and they have grown up best mates and respect everybody and they are still jack the lads im so proud of them but I think teachers should be giving more control iliv by a school you you wouldn’t believe some of them that’s my bit said regards rowly
kids need to learn to respect others and their property , and if some needed caning to reinforce this ( I was one of those ) well deal with it ! when I was a lad (I know 
) there were certain people who commanded respect wether you thought they deserved it or not . the local bobby (we no longer have those )the school teacher, the vicar or w.h.y. and your parents , sadly a lot of todays kids appear not to have a full set of those these days . then iirc some time in the 70,s it became unacceptable to cane kids in school, and in my opinion standards of behaviour in kids in general has deteriorated . I know we all knocked about in a gang ,smoked on the quiet and thought it was BIG to swear at each other, but we didn’t carry knives (not for fighting or hurting people with any way) or mug people and try to “control” the area we lived in . but this is what we have today with certain areas (usually urban) that are basically no go areas where “respect” means something totally different to what I grew up with . in fact I would go further than caning and bring back the birch for young criminals . I have no figures to back this up but I don’t think anyone (certainly not many ) went back for a second dose unlike community service , asbo`s or fines paid for with benefits .
Carryfast:
robroy:
You describe your school as “A corrupt regime of systematic violence” I too went to school in the early 70s, it was not a model of educational excellence by any means, but could not be described as the way you describe yours, which sounds more like Ray Winstone’s experiences in the film “Scum”
I’m assuming that your account is not exaggerated but I would bet that your school could not be described as typical… London or not. Maybe there are some 70s ex. London school boys on here that can verify or refute that point.
We had kids that hit back at teachers, but it was nipped in the bud from day 1, we had a lot of council estate kids (being one myself) forces kids and a couple of posh kids, and the odd gypsy kid, a cross section mixture, some were dog rough but were kept in check, maybe the teachers were more dedicated and professional than the ones that you encountered, but we certainly had no abusive thugs like the ones that you describe."Carryfast wrote
I’d guess that in most cases the regime and levels of violence would have been less in the case of mixed schools as opposed to all boys schools of the worst type as in my case.However you seem to have some naive notions concerning the standard of teachers at the time and certainly in the case of the regime which applied at my school.Which really was the logical conclusion of what happens when teachers are given more credit than they are due in being able,or even wanting,to sort the good from the bad and given the freedom to impose physical violence as part of the ‘disciplinary’ regime.Especially when it’s just easier and less of a personal risk to themselves to use that regime against those who aren’t causing the trouble in order to save themselves from the inevitable aggravation in return involved in taking any action against the really nasty zb’s.Therefore I’ll stand by my view that the bad,in terms of both teachers and pupils,can actually thrive under such a regime,while it’s generally the innocent who end up at the wrong end of a boot,fist,or stick etc wether by those bad pupils or those equally,if not moreso,bad so called ‘teachers’.Bearing in mind that most bad pupils will happily put the blame for their wrong doing on the innocent and those teachers will be more than happy to be involved in such a fit up to avoid the results of getting involved with violent pupils.IE in general someone who’s happy to use violence against a teacher or another pupil isn’t going to give a zb about getting hit by a teacher.In which case it’s a matter for the law and/or education authorities not teachers to sort out.Whereas it all gets a bit painful and about as far removed from learning anything as it gets for the ordinary innocent pupils who inevitably end up paying the price for the wrong doing of others.
However in general,where corporal punishment was/is allowed,it’s more often the case that those ‘teachers’ just use trivial or non existent discipline issues as an excuse to impose a bullying violent regime just for their own amusement.The idea that anyone who speaks out against such a situation is in some way a loony lefty is just stereotypical bs by those who are trying to support the re introduction of a school disciplinary regime based on physical violence,which just creates a circle of ever increasing violence.Which has been proved to be wrong and not to work since the 1970’s/80’s.However it’s only those with the experience of being on the wrong end of such a regime who’d understand that in which case it’s obvious that,for whatever reason,you certainly haven’t had that experience.
You keep accusing me of naivety. Surely you can see that I can only base my opinions on my own experiences at the time. If my teachers kept an acceptable level of discipline, and at the same time done their required basic duty, ie. teach, it is surely a more professional and higher standard of teaching than the thuggery and abusive methods practiced by the teachers that you speak of in your experience. I am sure that is a fair synopsis, and most probably the general concencus, if you choose to interpret that as naivety, then that is up to you.
I know I mentioned caning in schools in my o/p, but it wasn’t my intention to get into a game of handbag tennis about the Education system in the 70s, and I did stress, again in my o/p, that I was not including excess violence and child abuse, merely a short sharp light slap to deter your own kids from doing wrong, which is being considered to be wrong and ultimately banned by the pc brigade.
Note to Carryfast;…My use of that “stereotypical b/s” label does not mean that I am out to reintroduce any form of violent regimes practiced in the 70s
robroy:
Carryfast:
robroy:
You describe your school as “A corrupt regime of systematic violence” I too went to school in the early 70s, it was not a model of educational excellence by any means, but could not be described as the way you describe yours, which sounds more like Ray Winstone’s experiences in the film “Scum”
I’m assuming that your account is not exaggerated but I would bet that your school could not be described as typical… London or not. Maybe there are some 70s ex. London school boys on here that can verify or refute that point.
We had kids that hit back at teachers, but it was nipped in the bud from day 1, we had a lot of council estate kids (being one myself) forces kids and a couple of posh kids, and the odd gypsy kid, a cross section mixture, some were dog rough but were kept in check, maybe the teachers were more dedicated and professional than the ones that you encountered, but we certainly had no abusive thugs like the ones that you describe."Carryfast wrote
I’d guess that in most cases the regime and levels of violence would have been less in the case of mixed schools as opposed to all boys schools of the worst type as in my case.However you seem to have some naive notions concerning the standard of teachers at the time and certainly in the case of the regime which applied at my school.Which really was the logical conclusion of what happens when teachers are given more credit than they are due in being able,or even wanting,to sort the good from the bad and given the freedom to impose physical violence as part of the ‘disciplinary’ regime.Especially when it’s just easier and less of a personal risk to themselves to use that regime against those who aren’t causing the trouble in order to save themselves from the inevitable aggravation in return involved in taking any action against the really nasty zb’s.Therefore I’ll stand by my view that the bad,in terms of both teachers and pupils,can actually thrive under such a regime,while it’s generally the innocent who end up at the wrong end of a boot,fist,or stick etc wether by those bad pupils or those equally,if not moreso,bad so called ‘teachers’.Bearing in mind that most bad pupils will happily put the blame for their wrong doing on the innocent and those teachers will be more than happy to be involved in such a fit up to avoid the results of getting involved with violent pupils.IE in general someone who’s happy to use violence against a teacher or another pupil isn’t going to give a zb about getting hit by a teacher.In which case it’s a matter for the law and/or education authorities not teachers to sort out.Whereas it all gets a bit painful and about as far removed from learning anything as it gets for the ordinary innocent pupils who inevitably end up paying the price for the wrong doing of others.
However in general,where corporal punishment was/is allowed,it’s more often the case that those ‘teachers’ just use trivial or non existent discipline issues as an excuse to impose a bullying violent regime just for their own amusement.The idea that anyone who speaks out against such a situation is in some way a loony lefty is just stereotypical bs by those who are trying to support the re introduction of a school disciplinary regime based on physical violence,which just creates a circle of ever increasing violence.Which has been proved to be wrong and not to work since the 1970’s/80’s.However it’s only those with the experience of being on the wrong end of such a regime who’d understand that in which case it’s obvious that,for whatever reason,you certainly haven’t had that experience.
You keep accusing me of naivety. Surely you can see that I can only base my opinions on my own experiences at the time. If my teachers kept an acceptable level of discipline, and at the same time done their required basic duty, ie. teach, it is surely a more professional and higher standard of teaching than the thuggery and abusive methods practiced by the teachers that you speak of in your experience. I am sure that is a fair synopsis, and most probably the general concencus, if you choose to interpret that as naivety, then that is up to you.
I know I mentioned caning in schools in my o/p, but it wasn’t my intention to get into a game of handbag tennis about the Education system in the 70s, and I did stress, again in my o/p, that I was not including excess violence and child abuse, merely a short sharp light slap to deter your own kids from doing wrong, which is being considered to be wrong and ultimately banned by the pc brigade.
Note to Carryfast;…My use of that “stereotypical b/s” label does not mean that I am out to reintroduce any form of violent regimes practiced in the 70s
The reason that I’m accusing you of naivety,is because you’re basing your idea,to go back to a type of school disciplinary regime,which was ( rightly ) banned because of the type of ‘issues’,which in the worst case scenarios it often descends into as in my experience,on just your experiences of a best case scenario.The fact is your ideas,concerning wanting to bring back such regimes,actually contradicts your final sentence because in many cases they inevitably end up in those worst case scenarios of the 1970’s which I,amongst others,was subjected to and which is why the idea of allowing teachers to be judge jury and administrators of physical violence was ( rightly ) banned.When just as in adult life they’ve got the correct method of dealing with such ‘issues’ in the law and the education authorities assuming that we’re talking about such punishment being there to just control the most serious discipline issues.
However it’s my guess that under your regime you’d probably also be happy to see kids being hit by things being thrown at them and having their hands hit with a stick until the skin is removed just for falling asleep during a boring lesson for example.Let alone being kicked and punched having been fitted up for a ‘disciplinary’ offence because the teacher is scared of what would happen in the case of hitting the real culprit who’ll hit them back to the point of GBH.Just so long as it’s not your own of course.
syramax:
kids need to learn to respect others and their property , and if some needed caning to reinforce this ( I was one of those ) well deal with it ! when I was a lad (I know
Which part of the average violent criminal doesn’t give a zb about being hit by a teacher and will probably hit the teacher back a lot worse don’t you understand.While in general history shows that your ideas inevitably just descend into a sadistic regime of harsh physical punishment being dished out for by so called ‘administrators’ who are at least as bad,if not worse,than the criminals in question.I’d bet you’re also one of those who’d be on the side of Captain Bligh not Fletcher Christian in the case of the Mutiny on The Bounty.
Carryfast:
robroy:
Carryfast:
robroy:
You describe your school as “A corrupt regime of systematic violence” I too went to school in the early 70s, it was not a model of educational excellence by any means, but could not be described as the way you describe yours, which sounds more like Ray Winstone’s experiences in the film “Scum”
I’m assuming that your account is not exaggerated but I would bet that your school could not be described as typical… London or not. Maybe there are some 70s ex. London school boys on here that can verify or refute that point.
We had kids that hit back at teachers, but it was nipped in the bud from day 1, we had a lot of council estate kids (being one myself) forces kids and a couple of posh kids, and the odd gypsy kid, a cross section mixture, some were dog rough but were kept in check, maybe the teachers were more dedicated and professional than the ones that you encountered, but we certainly had no abusive thugs like the ones that you describe."Carryfast wrote
I’d guess that in most cases the regime and levels of violence would have been less in the case of mixed schools as opposed to all boys schools of the worst type as in my case.However you seem to have some naive notions concerning the standard of teachers at the time and certainly in the case of the regime which applied at my school.Which really was the logical conclusion of what happens when teachers are given more credit than they are due in being able,or even wanting,to sort the good from the bad and given the freedom to impose physical violence as part of the ‘disciplinary’ regime.Especially when it’s just easier and less of a personal risk to themselves to use that regime against those who aren’t causing the trouble in order to save themselves from the inevitable aggravation in return involved in taking any action against the really nasty zb’s.Therefore I’ll stand by my view that the bad,in terms of both teachers and pupils,can actually thrive under such a regime,while it’s generally the innocent who end up at the wrong end of a boot,fist,or stick etc wether by those bad pupils or those equally,if not moreso,bad so called ‘teachers’.Bearing in mind that most bad pupils will happily put the blame for their wrong doing on the innocent and those teachers will be more than happy to be involved in such a fit up to avoid the results of getting involved with violent pupils.IE in general someone who’s happy to use violence against a teacher or another pupil isn’t going to give a zb about getting hit by a teacher.In which case it’s a matter for the law and/or education authorities not teachers to sort out.Whereas it all gets a bit painful and about as far removed from learning anything as it gets for the ordinary innocent pupils who inevitably end up paying the price for the wrong doing of others.
However in general,where corporal punishment was/is allowed,it’s more often the case that those ‘teachers’ just use trivial or non existent discipline issues as an excuse to impose a bullying violent regime just for their own amusement.The idea that anyone who speaks out against such a situation is in some way a loony lefty is just stereotypical bs by those who are trying to support the re introduction of a school disciplinary regime based on physical violence,which just creates a circle of ever increasing violence.Which has been proved to be wrong and not to work since the 1970’s/80’s.However it’s only those with the experience of being on the wrong end of such a regime who’d understand that in which case it’s obvious that,for whatever reason,you certainly haven’t had that experience.
You keep accusing me of naivety. Surely you can see that I can only base my opinions on my own experiences at the time. If my teachers kept an acceptable level of discipline, and at the same time done their required basic duty, ie. teach, it is surely a more professional and higher standard of teaching than the thuggery and abusive methods practiced by the teachers that you speak of in your experience. I am sure that is a fair synopsis, and most probably the general concencus, if you choose to interpret that as naivety, then that is up to you.
I know I mentioned caning in schools in my o/p, but it wasn’t my intention to get into a game of handbag tennis about the Education system in the 70s, and I did stress, again in my o/p, that I was not including excess violence and child abuse, merely a short sharp light slap to deter your own kids from doing wrong, which is being considered to be wrong and ultimately banned by the pc brigade.
Note to Carryfast;…My use of that “stereotypical b/s” label does not mean that I am out to reintroduce any form of violent regimes practiced in the 70sThe reason that I’m accusing you of naivety,is because you’re basing your idea,to go back to a type of school disciplinary regime,which was ( rightly ) banned because of the type of ‘issues’,which in the worst case scenarios it often descends into as in my experience,on just your experiences of a best case scenario.The fact is your ideas,concerning wanting to bring back such regimes,actually contradicts your final sentence because in many cases they inevitably end up in those worst case scenarios of the 1970’s which I,amongst others,was subjected to and which is why the idea of allowing teachers to be judge jury and administrators of physical violence was ( rightly ) banned.When just as in adult life they’ve got the correct method of dealing with such ‘issues’ in the law and the education authorities assuming that we’re talking about such punishment being there to just control the most serious discipline issues.
However it’s my guess that under your regime you’d probably also be happy to see kids being hit by things being thrown at them and having their hands hit with a stick until the skin is removed just for falling asleep during a boring lesson for example.Let alone being kicked and punched having been fitted up for a ‘disciplinary’ offence because the teacher is scared of what would happen in the case of hitting the real culprit who’ll hit them back to the point of GBH.Just so long as it’s not your own of course.
Starting to get bored now , but here goes.
I am fairly confident that the original system of corporal punishment in schools was never intended to be a system of mindless routine and sadistic violence towards kids, or maybe you think that there was a hidden agenda to actually encourage ■■■■■■ in schools.
I would think that (maybe naively in your eyes) the regime in your school was the exception rather than the rule, and more of a chosen interpretation of said system to satisfy the needs of the sadistic teaching staff that you speak of in your school.
The fact that it descended into a “worse case scenario” in your case was undoubtedly more down to the lack of supervision by the school’s governing bodies and inspectors, as I am sure that even in the rough environment that you were brought up in, this sort of practice would be illegal and would brought to a halt if discovered if the governing bodies had been doing their jobs properly.
As for your guess about me , If you think that I would be happy to see kids violently abused as you describe, as if I was some kind of perverted child hating animal, you are way off mate! and it is quite an offensive accusation, especially when based solely on a view expressed by me on a forum, that did not give you any basis as the o/p was explained to the contrary at the start.
As for my own kids, I would not have any objection to them being schooled under the same regime as I was, as it seems that things are/were a bit more civilised up here, or am I in your opinion being naïve…again.
robroy:
Starting to get bored now
I am fairly confident that the original system of corporal punishment in schools was never intended to be a system of mindless routine and sadistic violence towards kids, or maybe you think that there was a hidden agenda to actually encourage ■■■■■■ in schools.
I would think that (maybe naively in your eyes) the regime in your school was the exception rather than the rule, and more of a chosen interpretation of said system to satisfy the needs of the sadistic teaching staff that you speak of in your school.
The fact that it descended into a “worse case scenario” in your case was undoubtedly more down to the lack of supervision by the school’s governing bodies and inspectors, as I am sure that even in the rough environment that you were brought up in, this sort of practice would be illegal and would brought to a halt if discovered if the governing bodies had been doing their jobs properly.As for your guess about me
As for my own kids, I would not have any objection to them being schooled under the same regime as I was, as it seems that things are/were a bit more civilised up here, or am I in your opinion being naïve…again.
Sorry but like all the other supporters of the return of such a regime in schools I’d say that at best you were being naive in the extreme in thinking that such regimes don’t inevitably descend into such worse case scenarios as I’ve described in too many cases to justify allowing it’s return.IE how can the governing bodies ‘do their job properly’,in an environment where no one with any sense is going to bother to report such issues,because of the likely reprisals which would follow.That’s in addition to the fact that in many cases the ‘governing bodies’ would have been more interested in covering up such problems than sorting them out.IE you can bet that such regimes can only take place in the case of a blind eye being turned by those who are ‘supposed to be’ in charge of the actions of the teachers.
Having said that assuming that you agree that the correct course of action for any teacher who’s being subjected to violent behaviour by a pupil is to report it to the police and the relevant authorities to have that pupil dealt with under the law,rather than take violent retaliation of whatever type,and assuming that you don’t think that it’s acceptable for pupils to be subjected to what is in reality violent attack by the establishment for trivial ‘offences’,such as falling asleep in class or disagreeing with a teacher for whatever reason in a good natured way etc etc.Then exactly what types of ‘offences’ do you think justify such establishment inflicted violence on school kids ■■?.
Carryfast:
syramax:
kids need to learn to respect others and their property , and if some needed caning to reinforce this ( I was one of those ) well deal with it ! when I was a lad (I knowWhich part of the average violent criminal doesn’t give a zb about being hit by a teacher and will probably hit the teacher back a lot worse don’t you understand.While in general history shows that your ideas inevitably just descend into a sadistic regime of harsh physical punishment being dished out for by so called ‘administrators’ who are at least as bad,if not worse,than the criminals in question.I’d bet you’re also one of those who’d be on the side of Captain Bligh not Fletcher Christian in the case of the Mutiny on The Bounty.
can anyone tell me how many offenders went back for a second go with the birch ■■ the point Im trying to make carryfast is , that "soft options " dont appear to be working . if you look at your local paper you will see the same names in front of the local magistrate on a regular basis .