Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child, Stay Out of a UK Jail for 5 Years

Should a parent be allowed to swat a recalcitrant child? While society has a stake in placing clear limits on such discipline - i.e., there is a point where hitting a child goes beyond what could be considered reasonable discipline and into child abuse that could permanently injure a child - it is also true that swatting the rug rats who don't respond to verbal remonstrations is as old a tool of child raising among mammals as the family unit itself. Outside of child abuse, it would seem that the decision to swat or not to swat should be completely up to the parents. No two children are the same, and wholly nonswatting methods that may work on one child may well not work on another. So parents should be able to choose how to raise their children. Unless, of course, you live in a state fortunate enough to be run by wonderful omnipotent leftists who know better then the individual how they should run their lives, and who know better then the parents how they should raise their children. In which case, you are in the Nanny state, such as the giant social experiment that is the UK:

Ministers have revived the prospect of an outright ban on smacking children.

Under the current law – introduced only two years ago – parents can administer mild smacks as long as they do not cause bruises or grazes. They face assault charges and up to five years in jail if they strike their children hard enough to leave a mark.

Children’s Minister Beverley Hughes yesterday announced a wide-ranging review to see if the existing legislation is succeeding in protecting children. However, she insisted there were ‘no current plans to change the legislation’ which had allowed light smacking because Labour ‘didn’t want to see decent parents criminalised’.

Anti-smacking campaigners seized on the announcement last night to renew their calls for an outright ban. The UK’s four child commissioners last month demanded a total ban on any form of smacking, insisting there was was ‘no room for compromise’ on the issue. But polls of parents have shown that two-thirds support smacking as a punishment if necessary. And critics regard an outright ban as an unwarranted intrusion into family life.

The Tory spokesman on children-Tim Loughton, said: ‘Even though this issue was debated barely three ago, Labour ministers cannot resist meddling in how parents look after their children. ‘Bringing up children is a big enough challenge already without opening up this can of worms, which is all about the nanny state rather than trusting parents.’ But Rob Williams, chief executive of campaign body 11 MILLION, said: ‘Children and young people in England should have the same right to protection under the law on common assault as that afforded to adults – there is no good reason why children are the only people in the UK who can still be hit.’

Read the entire article here. That last line get's me. It shows just how out of touch the far left are with psychological realities and just how arrogant they are in their own superiority. Thomas Sowell did a good examination of this phenomenon not long ago. At any rate, here are a few of the comments to this article that reaffirm that the average Brit has his or her head screwed on much tighter then the average leftist pol across the pond:

Comments

. . . Oh for heavens' sake - it's time to lift the ban completely! We have to stop 'namby-pambying' children and get some order into their lives. If we get some discipline back into this country then maybe - just maybe - we'll be able to walk safely on our streets again.- Maggie G, West London

. . . Where will it all end? Of course we have to protect our children but a smack as opposed to a smacking certainly gains the child's attention. I despair that this PC, 'yuman rights', gutless government will move on to banning verbal chastisement as well. Discipline, respect and good manners have all but disappeared under Blair. Here is a revolutionary idea, use the review to seek out ways to persuade and educate errant parents to take responsibility for their children.- John, East Sussex, UK

What a load of rubbish, once again the nanny state goes mad. We are now breeding a generation of brats with no way to discipline them. I was smacked in my younger years, I didn't like it so I behaved. I treated my own children the same and they were well behaved and I could take them anywhere with no fear. Smacking is only one method of punishment and should be used only occasionally when other methods have failed.- Barry Faulkner, Paphos, Cyprus

Here we go again - more government interference in family life. You'd think that, given the appalling behaviour we now witness amongst the young, it would have learnt some common sense. Despite the fact that at least 80% of parents believe a smack in the right circumstances perfectly justified, the government's attitude is, once again, stuff you, you'll do what we want. When we were bringing up our son he got a damned good smack when he deserved it and, although that didn't occur very often, I know that it served its purpose and he was the better for it. Many of those who advocate banning smacking have monsters for children - I know as I had several friends in that category and I refused to have them in my house if they wanted to bring their brats with them. It's a pity that corporal punishment isn't also still available - pain when inflicted for the correct reasons like violence and wanton cruelty is an extremely effective antidote despite what the do-gooders spout.- James Danvers, London

If a child thinks that a smack is the ultimate punishment you don't have to be forceful. My dad use to put his hand over my hand and smack his instead of mine and I still wept as though he'd really hurt me! Threatening a child with a smack is more psychological than anything.- Jo, Newark-on-Trent

You are never going to stop it. Passing laws is not productive. Is education not the way forward? Educating an adult not to loose their temper but ensuring the punishment fits the ‘crime’ the child has committed.- Roger, London

Every species of sentient creature physically chastises its young to teach them what is and is not acceptable or safe behaviour, but not to do them harm. This is clearly observable in nature from your domestic cat with her kittens to the great apes and dolphins and whales in the wild. Why should human offspring be regarded a different? I understand that the lawless among us will abuse their children regardless of what the law says, so why don't the anti-smacking campaigners? No wonder crime is ever-rising, as kids with no fear of punishment are feral. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind if we let these misguided do-gooders overturn millennia of kind and loving child-rearing practice.- Denise, Caerphilly, UK

Will ALL parents be consulted or only those that concur with the government and so called "professionals"?- Dab, Cambs England

Oh dear, something else that this joke of a government simply MUST ruin.Is there nothing they won't break in their non-stop arrogance?- Dino Fancellu, Epsom, Surrey

As a result of this softly softly approach to childrearing, children are now becoming badly behaved little brats who can do no wrong. End this big brother government now!- Isabel, Buckinghamshire

Children already believe they are untouchable and that is why we have feral gangs of them running around creating havoc. By removing the only sanction a parent has to chastise a child it can only get worse.- Lickyalips, Richmond, Surrey

The Nanny State has already told us that we can't teach children right from wrong - the complete takeover of our offspring isn't very far away now. God help the country.- Olderbird, Northants

. . . Spare the rod and spoil the child was never more true than now. Just wander through any shopping centre to see the results of undiciplined child rearing. No-one advocates the beating of children, but a certain amount of physical discipline can do nothing but good. Just look at the state of discipline in our schools since the little darlings were exempt from caning.- Kenneth, London

Just ignore anything Nu Labour and the EU comes out with. Both organisations are discredited and will soon be replaced.- Andrew Murray, London, UK

Looks like many more good parents are to become law-breakers. The PC Brigade must be outed and banned.- Exessayer, Marbella Spain

. . . So a majority of people are against the ban. That means it will become law.- Donald Merritt, Hertfordshire England

Read More...

Summary only...

Statistics & Crime Under the Labour Government

Every time I read the Guardian, I learn how statistically improved law enforcement has become across the pond, apparently compliments of the incredibly efficient central planners of the Labour Government. There is no local police force in the UK. It is all centralized. Indeed, even mention of devolving power to the uneducated masses to vote for their local police leadership is anathema to the socialists in Labour.

Thus I have often found it curious that policing should have so statistically improved under ten years of Labour rule when, from my friends in the U.K., I hear regularly that the lack of proper policing is one of their major complaints. As always in such cases, pulling up the government's skirt and thoroughly examining its dirty knickers leads inexorably to an answer.

Police spent months gathering statements from 542 people who donated money to a youngster who collected £700 for Comic Relief but then kept it.

The case was then recorded as 542 crimes of obtaining money by deception, boosting detection rates even though the youngster only received a warning, the Police Federation conference in Blackpool heard yesterday. It also emerged that an unidentified child in North Wales received a "penalty notice for disorder" (PND) for chalking on the pavement.

The cases were highlighted as absurd examples of the "target culture" reviled by many rank and file officers in England and Wales, which is "criminalising middle England".

The critics say pressure to boost the apparent success rate against crime forces police to make ridiculous decisions and use arrests, cautions or fines for trivial incidents which would not previously have been treated as crimes.

Investigation of more serious offences is then neglected. . .

Read the rest of the story here. Would a local police chief answerable to the locals by way of election for his position put up with this insanity. Hardly. But, when the central planners at Labour want their statistics to convince the confused U.K. voters just how effective the police in the U.K. really are . . . .

This would be a major scandal in the U.S. It seems to have caused only a should shrugging ripple across the pond at this point. I do hope it picks up steam. God forbid our police should ever become as good statistically as the U.K.'s. Then we will know it's time to vote the bums out.

Read More...

Summary only...

France & The BBC's Lament

In America, our news outlets will not report on the unofficial results of voting prior to the close of the voting stations. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which are that it has often proven incorrect, and two, it holds at least some potential to influence the ongoing vote. This makes what the BBC is doing all that much more comically pathetic.

France is undergoing a revolution of sorts. Nicholas Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant, a conservative politician who believes in capitalism, law and order, and who has an appreciation fo the United States. He is all things that the leftist elitists at the BBC - the same people who have kept a picture of Bush with a Hitlerian mustache on the wall of their newsroom - would naturally despise (see here). And to make matters worse, he has a commanding lead over the doctrinaire leftist darling, Segolene Royal.

Just days ago, local elections saw the Brits swing wildly towards the conservative party. And now France, that bastion of anti-americanism, is about to follow suit on a national level. I would not be surprised if, in the BBC newsroom, they are pumping in funeral music at the moment. This is all just too much for the Beeb. Thus, even while French polling stations remain open, it is no surprise to find this article on the BBC's web. Nominally a news piece, it seems much more a barely disguised forlorn cry for France to come to its senses and vote Royal for all the most important reasons. But you decide:

French voters bucking trends

By Henri Astier
BBC News, Montmartre, Paris

But early on election day, people were flocking to the area's polling stations to choose the country's new president.

"Turnout has been exceptional," says polling officer Nathalie, 46, who would not give her full name.

"We had 87% during the first round and we're doing equally well, if not better, today."

John Berrebi, a 45-year-old stage actor, is among those who woke up early to cast his vote - which is going to socialist candidate Segolene Royal.

"I don't want [centre-right leader Nicolas] Sarkozy, his social ideal is America. That doesn't suit me. France is not a violent society like the US."

Mr Berrebi is not alone in voting out of hostility towards the tough former interior minister.

Patricia Sterling, 54, says she is voting Ms Royal "by default".

"Sarkozy speaks well - but his unspoken message is frightening. His ideas are racist."

Credibility issue

According to Collin Thierry, 35, a cinema projectionist, "Segolene's policies are much more tolerant and humane than Sarkozy's."

Mr Thierry objected to Mr Sarkozy's "brutal" decisions, such as the expulsion of illegal immigrants and the closure of the Sangatte camp for immigrants in northern France.

Mr Sarkozy, he says, is "a sleek version" of far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

But the centre-right candidate does have his supporters in Montmartre - both among older residents and the young professionals contributing to the rapid gentrification on the area.

"He has credibility and you can trust him," two women pensioners say. "He does not change his opinion all the time the way Segolene Royal does."

Florence, a 30-year-old mother and human resources worker, says: "Sarkozy's programme is coherent and his policies are properly costed. He wants to make people are responsible for their own lives."

"I agree with most of his proposals," says Stephane, 31, an engineer. "He is strong on the economy and on law and order."

Radical change?

One of the reasons for the high turnout is the sharp contrast in the basic values embodied by the two candidates - continuity v change.

. . . Now these positions are largely reversed. Many voters are choosing Segolene because she has pledged not to force root-and-branch reforms.

"I want things to change, but not too fast," says Kathy Sylla, 20. "And that is why I am voting for Segolene. Sarkozy is too radical."

Conversely, this willingness to shake things up is precisely what attracts many to Sarkozy.

"He stands for reform against conservatism," says James Lellouche, 37, a manager.

"He will take on public sector workers whose jobs are secure whether or not they work, and who paralyse the country when their privileges are questioned."

Centre ground

Some voters - especially among those attracted to centrist ideas - find it difficult to choose between the two frontrunners.

Felicien Boncenne, 27, who works for a sports website, was turned off by the campaigns they both ran.

"The way they used advertising techniques and drafted in entertainment stars bothered me," he says.

In the end, however, Mr Boncenne cast his vote for Ms Royal - reflecting the choice of a plurality of voters in Montmartre.

"Sarkozy is too close to big money," he explains. "And it's about time we had a woman president."

Do read the entire article here - and savor the plaintive wails one can almost hear coming from the BBC's newsroom. To paraphrase Bram Stoker as his main charachter was feted to similar sounds: "ahhh, the reporters of the BBC, what sweet music they make."

To my British friends I ask, just when will you finally march on Downing St. and demand that the BBC news division be taken off the public tit?

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Mid Terms Across the Pond & Hanging Chads in Edinburgh

Drum roll please. The midterm elections were held in the UK yesterday. And the winners are? Well, that's a good question.

We don't know in Scotland yet because about 100,000 of the ballots got invalidated.

Confusing ballot papers were being blamed for as many as 100,000 invalid votes in elections to the Scottish Parliament and councils north of the border, potentially affecting crucial contests in a neck-and-neck fight between Labour and the Scottish National Party for dominance at the devolved Holyrood parliament.

Sound familiar? After our own Florida debacle in 2000, I can say that this is not something I would wish upon any friendly nation. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Brits. You're in for a long and muddy slog on that one.

As to the other results from the British mid-terms, they are a bit clearer. Tories won a fair amount, apparently . . . though I am still not quite sure how much. Labour lost a fair bit, though they are claiming that they didn't lose so bad that its a clear threat to knock them from power at the next general election:

Tony Blair insisted today Labour had "a perfectly good springboard to go on and win the next General Election," despite taking a battering by voters from the South-East to Scotland.

In a night of drama, Labour lost hundreds of English council seats, saw power slip away in the Welsh Assembly and woke to see the totemic fight against the SNP for the Scottish Parliament on a knife-edge.

As to how much of that is spin from TB, I have not a clue. And I think Red Ken is still going to be Mayor of London. That is a real travesty. If anyone from the UK would care to weigh in on all of this, it would be much appreciated. We have not had a good handle on British politics over here since about 1776.

You can find some articles on the election and the Scottish debacle at The Telegraph, The Times, Daily Mail, and the Guardian.

Update: Some questions answered by EU Referendum:

With the Lib-Dems also losing 242 seats and Labour losing 485, the big winners were the Tories with 875 gains, far in excess of expectations.

However, despite desperate attempts to "spin" otherwise, the Tories have not made the breakthrough in the North. In fact, they lost control of Kirkless, they lost councillors in Bradford and Leeds and halved the number of Tories in Sheffield from two down to one.

Although early days, what this seems to be is the resurgence of traditional two-party politics, with a strong element of the North-South divide. The Tories are strong in the South while Labour is still maintaining its grip over the metropolitan Northern councils.

What might be happening is that the Tory deserters, scenting power, are returning to the fold, bolstered by others who detest Blair – and have no love for Gordon Brown. On the other hand, Labour maintains its core vote but is been strengthened by those who hate Cameron, and would not vote for him at any price.

If this is the case, we can expect to see a greater polarisation of politics, as Gordon Brown takes over and the gap to the next general election shrinks. But each side will be recruiting not supporters, but temporary allies who have in common only their detestation of the other side.

Update: And the BBC, Britain's own publicly funded version of the New York Times -its left wing bias is legendary - is caught trying to spin the Labour debacle.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK - A Leftist Mind At Work . . .

One of the biggest complaints I have heard from my UK friends and acquintances has been about the police - or rather the lack of local policing. Police in the UK are centralized and run by the government. Many local communities suffer from a lack of responsive and efficient police services.

It would seem patently obvious that if you want to make the police responsive to local concerns, you would give the locals the hiring and firing authority through elections. No more appointments from above. The people elect their constables and sherrifs, and the constables and sherrifs are then given full hiring and firing authority over their personnel. Budgeting for them is set at the local level with grants from the central government. The central government can set the minimum standards and ground rules, but all beyond that is between the locals and their elected police officials.

Ah, but that would violate the very first tenet of the multicultural left - that they are superior and the decisions should be left to them. Therefore, when John Reid, Labour's current Home Secretary, looks at how to better increase the accountability of local police to the local populace, the mere mention of local elections does not even pass his lips. Instead, he suggests that the Brits be brave when tackling this issue, and that they start giving out phone numbers directly to the police station:

. . . [L]et's explore how to increase local accountability while decreasing central direction. Ensuring that the police are accountable to the public they serve is essential in retaining confidence in the work they do. We should not be frightened of exploring new ways of doing this. We need to look at what works. Ideas like providing dedicated local phone numbers for the public to contact their neighbourhood policing teams directly, where they know who is responding to their concerns. The best are already doing this and building trust and better relationships with the communities they serve. We need to go further.

This is so ridiculous. Do read the piece John Reid authors in The Telegraph - it is so full of platitudes it absolutely reeks. It is a leftist manifesto of promises that can best be met not by devolving power and responsibility to the unwashed masses, but by following the ideas of those with superior intelligence - i.e., the leftists. God save the Queen. Its going to take divine intervention to turn this ship of state.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK TO DECLARE VICTORY in Basara, Iraq, and go home. This will add to the clarion call of the anti-war movement for us to likewise declare . . . . hmmmm, no, just go home. This does not bode well and I am unsure of the impetus -- probably because Labour looks to be trounced by the Tories in the next election with the party split as they are.

Update: No surprises here -- Democrats Seize Upon British Plan to Withdrawal

Read More...

Summary only...

THE MUSLIM COUNCIL OF BRITAIN asks, in a document some 72 pages in length, for the state to institute extensive guidelines for special treatment of Islamic children in the state school system. Some of the guidelines include:

• Allowance for girls beginning at the primary school level to wear the hijab
• seperation of the sexes in any sort of physical activity that would allow touching or that involves swimming.
• special changing areas for muslim children to change clothes in private
• if you have a school field trip to a farm, muslims must not be allowed to touch a pig
• Parents can withdrawal their children from music classes
• Muslim children should not be asked to draw pictures of humans

And that is but a very few examples from this ponderous document. Read the whole thing. It is amazing. Rather then integrate into society, the Muslim Council of Britain is seeking to enlist state schools in furthering seperation between Muslims and the anglo-saxon population, and in essence, enlisting the state in the promotion of the salafi / wahabbi brand of Islam.

If you do not know it, the Muslim Council of Britain is, like our own CAIR, a salafi /wahabbi organization that is suspect for ties to terrorist organizations, their constant drumbeat that anything critical of Islam or any security measures aimed at islamic terrorism are "Islamaphobic" (can occidentals have an 'irrational' fear of Islam at this point -- and, yes, "Islamaphobia" is addressed at page 15 of the guidelines), and claims for special treatment of their faith (for example, UK Hate Speech laws that criminlize criticism of Islam).

Compare what the Muslim Council of Britain is demanding with this from a Muslim MP, Lord Ahmed:

The veil is now a mark of separation, segregation and defiance against mainstream British culture. . . [T]here's nothing in the Koran to say that the wearing of a niqab is desirable, let alone compulsory. It's purely cultural. . . . They are a physical barrier to integration. Just as Westerners cannot walk around the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh without a headcovering and long clothes and expect to engage with local people, so Muslims in Britain must become more sensitive to their surroundings.

Also, if you missed it, you might want to watch Undercover Mosque, an expose of the type of salafi / wahabbi thought being taught behind closed doors in Britain's "moderate" mosques. Britain has a major problem. From all I have read and from the people I have spoken with in the UK, it seems apparent that the Labour government's dogma of "multiculturalism" is out of sync with the rapidly dwindling tolerance of the British public for this march to dhimmitude.

Lastly, there are in fact Muslims in this world are moderate, but I have yet to see any evidence of a moderate who is in a leadership or clerical position in the Salafi / Wahabbi sects of Islam originating out of Saudi Arabia. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Read More...

Summary only...