pap

I replied to your original point as I saw it, Tim. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not going to retroactively trawl previous posts just on the off chance that someone has made an edit to make themselves look less of an arse. Not sure many people do. Besides, if you'd actually taken the time to do the complete post instead of trying to get your snipe in quick smart, wouldn't be an issue, would it? You're not interested in making a point. If you were, your response might actually have been tailored to the information I've been good enough to share. You seem more interested in making someone else feel bad. I wonder why that is sometimes.

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I tend to read the ends of threads for updated information. It never occurred to me that someone would do a super-edit to make their point look slightly more reasonable than it did at the time. Think you're rather being rather disingenuous with your timeline. At the time, you weren't really asking what I wanted to know at all. Your entire response is in my immediate response. So let's not pretend that you had that idea at the time, shall we? Besides, still haven't seen any firm indication of what a punishment constitutes in Chez Tim. It's not really that hard a question to answer, is it? Just looking at the steps you use to punish your kids where reason has failed. You may not agree with my stance, but at least I have the balls to be honest about it. Seems like you're having difficulty being honest with basic chronology, trying to retcon some semblance of "not being a complete helmet" into your original b!tchy response. My advice? If you're going to lie about the way things went down, at least have the decency to be imaginative.

Tim can speak for himself, norwaysaint. So far, he has declined, as he often does whenever asked a difficult question. Credit to him, it's not the only trick in his arsenal, but it's telling that Tim only really weighs in when there's a mob forming.

I see the "taking things away" approach used quite a bit and have used it myself on a few occasions. It is loaded with its own problems, IMO. Stopping your kid from going to a party is fair enough, but when you punish them by removing material possessions, could be argued that you are unwittingly teaching a different lesson. Doesn't work too well on a practical level either. Most of the time, your kids will moan you into submission and the punishment won't actually be applied. Even parents who stick to their guns would still have difficulty if their child decides to do it anyway.

So essentially, you're unwilling to enumerate any punishment you've meted out for bad behaviour? Doesn't seem like you are too confident in your methods if you are too ashamed to list them. Easy to snipe, isn't it?

Sanctions? Such as? Specifics please. Reason is not normally a punishment, btw.

How do you punish your kids, hypo?

How do you punish your kids, Tim?

Wellard terrible ketamine fiend, apparently. K-Holing in the kennels, most like.

??

I think that regardless of the law, there are always going to be cases of abuse that go unchecked for too long. Even with the law that we have in place, parents can collude with each other to hide abuse of children. So why the distinction of the mark? In cases where a disturbance is reported, particularly if it suspected that children are being beaten or abused, a child with that has marks or bruises on it immediately empowers law enforcement officials to arrest the parents on suspicion of assault if there is a mark. It also provides parents with clear guidance on what is and what is not acceptable, meaning that those that choose to use corporal punishment within the law. For the record, I never said that most Norwegian parents secretly smack their kids, just pointing out that they become criminals by doing so. The same applies in the United Kingdom. We just have a different judicial standard as to what constitutes abuse.

It's not a thin line at all, Dig Dug. It doesn't matter what "one man's mild corporal punishment" is. The law clearly defines what is abuse and what isn't. Leave a mark - you've assaulted your kid. How clear does the law need to be?

I have done it three times in sixteen years of parenting. Clearly, I don't generally see it as necessary, I don't like it when I see parents doing it all the time, but I don't regret using it the times I have - and frankly - I haven't seen any long-term harm in those who have received it. Opportunist moralising. Do you have children, I wonder?

Don't know. The shock has always worked. Most people seriously discussing the "for" case have explained their positions pretty clearly. It all falls well outside the destructive little scenario you've dreamt up. The chances of me feeling guilty about disciplining my kids when they were misbehaving is about as likely as you feeling guilty for trying to get a rise out of people on a lonely Sunday night.

This is an idiotic question which does a disservice to any parent that has used mild corporal punishment to discipline their child at their discretion. It's the shock, rather than the pain, which is effective. If someone is laying into their kids on a constant basis (as you suggest here), hardly likely to be a shock, is it? It's also likely to be assault and abuse, which is something else no-one here is defending. So what's your point?

What is this? Happy hour at the "Push Pap's Buttons Bar"? Nice try. Won't work. I don't want to get into an argument with you anyway, hypo. I'm scared of your bird.

Superb Olympics so far. There's an image doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment asking for more role models like Jessica Ennis, rather than Jordan. Perhaps that's too much too hope for, but it has been humbling and inspiring to see the dedication and commitment of the world's best. The performance of Team GB has been excellent. For a nation with just under 70 million, very good return so far.

stevegrant did this one a couple of months ago. I enjoyed it then and enjoy it now. Bravo, TDD.

Are you being serious, hypo? Stage-managed or not, that article contains enough verifiable information to cast serious doubt on Johnson's credentials as PM, such as going through three police commissioners or the scandals that have surrounded his administration. And no, the article can't prove that Boris is billy-no-mates, but he has left a trail of former friends in his wake. That does strike me as a bit odd. Did he bumble his way out of their affections? I think Boris realised early on that the buffoon act was a winner and is planning to rinse and repeat to get to Downing Street.

It would be a smart move. It'd kill UKIP pretty much instantly, plus Labour would have to promise the same or face electoral oblivion.

"It was the least I could do" No, the least you could do was nothing.

Many Tories believe that Boris + binding EU referendum after election = landslide.

Cameron chose to be in coalition. The man didn't have the balls to go back to the public to secure a proper mandate, so the deal with the Lib Dems was done. Cameron believed that he could be an effective Prime Minister under such an arrangement. He was wrong, and will have to face the electoral consequences of that decision. The coalition was always just one of several possible outcomes of that election. Cameron not only chose that outcome, but seems to have developed the idea that the Coalition is just a Conservative government with some convenient Lib Dems to hang crap policy on. Governing in the national interest? Don't make me laugh. Governing for self-interest and private interest, more like. The coalition hinders Cameron, sure - but it was his choice, and as such, it shouldn't be used as any sort of excuse for the otherwise pitiful performance of our PM.

I'm sure that you would, but then you say a lot of silly things, TDD. Keep trying mate, maybe one time you'll get a proper rise out of me instead of a nonchalant dressing down.

Totally agree on quality of the post. Think that norwaysaint and I may be irreconcilable on the place of corporal punishment in the disciplining of children, but a very eloquent post which provides some food for thought.