pap

How are you sure exactly? Did your imagination tell you? Not got a great track record, mucker.

Mousewheels have been used for scrolling for some time! As I'm feeling generous though, I shall take you at your word. What about the numpties who announce they're ignoring people? ( that goes for "got it in one" Weston Saint too )

You've painted a vivid picture, Turkish. Due to the absence of any justification from our "I'm ignoring you" announcers, I nominate your submission as the provisional working theory. Do we have a second?

You seem very certain, Saint_clark! What is your predicted outcome of this thread? We could start a book. I'll even cut you in on some of the profits so you can add a new bluff to Fiver Mountain.

Can the ignorers tell me what the process of ignoring someone? I'm not talking about the button you press on the site to do it, more the moments leading up to it. What sort of state of mind are you in? Is it the case that you've just decided you can't take any more from a certain poster? Is life just too short to entertain their horrid (relative to you) views? Isn't it the forum equivalent of running away, not facing up to your issues, or sweeping something under the carpet? I say your issues because they really are. You've got no choice over what people post, but you can control how that information affects you. Are all you ignorers honestly getting so worked up by words attached to a username that your solution is to pretend that the other person doesn't exist? What the f**k do you do in real life? Avoid eye contact and pass messages via a third party? Playground stuff, boys and girls.

Precisely. I think a lot of the "never" arguments basically involve pretending that controlled discipline is full on abuse. It's crap, and I note with some interest that when asked a specific question ( "are you afraid of your mum and dad because of corporal punishment", the scenario involving my eldest ), Frank's Cousin excepted, they've all been silent. Of course, the cost of being holier than thou on this subject is that if these parents ever do find themselves hitting their kids, it's probably going to be after they've lost it, and it probably isn't going to be in any way controlled.

I've given you a clear example of one of the two times where my eldest got a slap, including the context and the severity of the punishment. I am open to other ideas, so I'd like to know what you'd have done differently to immediately take authority and defuse a potentially violent situation.

I've given you a clear example of one of the two times where my eldest got a slap, including the context and the severity of the punishment. I am open to other ideas, so I'd like to know what you'd have done differently to immediately take authority and defuse a potentially violent situation.

Yup, she knew she was in the wrong. She has a younger sister, and has been disciplined over the years for laying her hands on her. The missus actually runs a fairly tight ship as far at the kids are concerned. She is lucky enough to have the time to do so. As for the causes of teenage behaviour, they're probably myriad. As someone who experienced the tail-end of corporal punishment in schools, I can certainly communicate that fear of getting caned or slippered kept almost all kids in line. What do you say to unruly kids now? We'll exclude you? Is that even a punishment for a lot of them? What about us? What part do we have to play in unruly teenagers? Are we English helping ourselves in the long run by retreating to our castles when it takes "a village to raise a child"? People love to blame the parents, but at the same time our general responsibility as adults has eroded to just look after our own. Even in the early 1980s it was fairly apparent to me that if another adult caught me misbehaving, it'd get back to my mum and I'd be in hot water. These days people worship their kids. Some parents genuinely believe that their kids are incapable of misbehaving, so in love with this reflected image of themselves that objective analysis of a situation involving their offspring becomes impossible. I suppose that's to be expected; genetic imperative kicking in, perhaps. Yet it can cause all kinds of problems for teachers and kids who fall foul to their outbursts. In direct answer to your question about my daughter - she's never tried it again; and it wasn't as if the slap on the arse was the only "direction" she received. Once everything had calmed down I spent some one-on-one time with her telling her that I wouldn't have such behaviour in my house. Now whether she learned her lesson from the slap or the talk, I don't know. However, she knows that when she pushes people too far, there are consequences, and as such - makes all of her protestations through argument instead of violence.

Yup, she knew she was in the wrong. She has a younger sister, and has been disciplined over the years for laying her hands on her. The missus actually runs a fairly tight ship as far at the kids are concerned. She is lucky enough to have the time to do so. As for the causes of teenage behaviour, they're probably myriad. As someone who experienced the tail-end of corporal punishment in schools, I can certainly communicate that fear of getting caned or slippered kept almost all kids in line. What do you say to unruly kids now? We'll exclude you? Is that even a punishment for a lot of them? What about us? What part do we have to play in unruly teenagers? Are we English helping ourselves in the long run by retreating to our castles when it takes "a village to raise a child"? People love to blame the parents, but at the same time our general responsibility as adults has eroded to just look after our own. Even in the early 1980s it was fairly apparent to me that if another adult caught me misbehaving, it'd get back to my mum and I'd be in hot water. These days people worship their kids. Some parents genuinely believe that their kids are incapable of misbehaving, so in love with this reflected image of themselves that objective analysis of a situation involving their offspring becomes impossible. I suppose that's to be expected; genetic imperative kicking in, perhaps. Yet it can cause all kinds of problems for teachers and kids who fall foul to their outbursts. In direct answer to your question about my daughter - she's never tried it again; and it wasn't as if the slap on the arse was the only "direction" she received. Once everything had calmed down I spent some one-on-one time with her telling her that I wouldn't have such behaviour in my house. Now whether she learned her lesson from the slap or the talk, I don't know. However, she knows that when she pushes people too far, there are consequences, and as such - makes all of her protestations through argument instead of violence.

As I've said before, I know people who will slap their kid as a default disciplinary device. When that's the case, of course the reverse argument can be used. Slapping and/or screaming at your kids all this just isn't productive. For one thing, what's your escalation strategy if it doesn't work? What the hell do you do when they can fight back? It's a tool for a specific job, shouldn't be overused and shouldn't constitute abuse when it does.

As I've said before, I know people who will slap their kid as a default disciplinary device. When that's the case, of course the reverse argument can be used. Slapping and/or screaming at your kids all this just isn't productive. For one thing, what's your escalation strategy if it doesn't work? What the hell do you do when they can fight back? It's a tool for a specific job, shouldn't be overused and shouldn't constitute abuse when it does.

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs. Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already. I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs. Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already. I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong. If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric. My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong. If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric. My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others. Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems. I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure. Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction. I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others. So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others. Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems. I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure. Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction. I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others. So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

Depends really. She's not brilliant for urban driving, but is quite happy at the speed limit on motorways. I get 31MPG on the trip from Liverpool to Southampton, and usually handle that at some pace.

That only really works if you think the warehouse style stores in the middle of town were a good idea to start with. I think they're a profligate use of space - completely unsuitable for a city centre.

Oh dear, oh dear. Where do we start? I was responding to your disbelief that there are clubs in this country which stay open 'til 7am, aren't lined with snarlers and play decent music. Not actually a tall order in this day and age. Large numbers of people go to clubs all over the country, want to stay up all night and either don't drink alcohol, or don't mind not drinking after 2am. There is a market for this crowd and it has existed for around 20 years, and guess what - loads of clubs that stay open until crazy hours. Doesn't matter that they can't serve beer. Decent profit margin on Red Bull and bottled water too, mate. I feel odd enough pushing forty and explaining recent club history to you, Alps. How the hell do you justify being in your mid-forties and trying to define what it is?

Who said anything about serving booze, mate? (Have you any idea what clubbing has actually entailed for the last 20 years, Alps?)

Clubbing has always been pretty good in Liverpool, in terms of all of the above, plus the sheer amount of diversity ( rock clubs, indie clubs, funky house clubs, trance clubs ). Despite being a little under-sung compared to its provincial contemporaries, London is actually my favourite clubbing city in the UK.