[WillowTheWhisp]

I think I now understand this apparent discrepancy in the reports which I read and the one Gobsmacked commented on.

ALL smacking is not banned, only something which results in a "mark" of any kind which on the surface of it is the distinction we were trying to make previously between a smack and a hit, where the former is a non-violent quickly administered admonishment and the latter is violent and harmful.

Some had wanted ALL to be banned, including the lightest tap, which would have been ludicrous because that could have got completely out of hand if a child took a parent to court for even placing a hand on their shoulder. Don't laugh because that has happened to teachers who have tried to hold a child back from pushing past others in a corridor for example and been accused of physical abuse. That part was defeated. What we are left with is a distinction between something which doesn't leave a mark and something which does.

The problem seems to be how to define "mark". As somebody said in my paper, some children's skin reacts more than others so that briefly a redness may appear even though the cause was not as severe as something suffered by another child whose skin shows no reaction. Also how do you later prove whether a mark was or wasn't there? Surely only something like bruising should be recorded as a mark?

I'd like to hope that common sense will prevail here and that it will mean that only those who physically harm their children to the point of bruising will be the ones who are punished. I can't help but think that it opens a way for children who are peeved at their parents to report something to the police as a gross exaggeration, and by the time they regret their actions the ball will already have started rolling and there'll be nothing they can do about it.

What about the neglected child who has suffered from a lack of discipline to the point of not knowing right from wrong. Isn't that also child abuse? You can't see it the same but you can certainly see the effects.