Labour MP partly blames anti-smacking law for UK riots

[alp227]

Legislation governing the smacking of children needs to be relaxed so working-class parents can instill discipline in their homes without fear of prosecution, a senior Labour politician has said.

The Tottenham MP David Lammy claimed that Labour's 2004 decision to tighten up the smacking law was partly to blame for last summer's riots, which erupted in his north London constituency.

In an interview with LBC Radio, the former education minister said: "Many of my constituents came up to me after the riots and blamed the Labour government, saying: 'You guys stopped us being able to smack our children.'

"I have to say when this was first raised with me I was pretty disparaging. But I started to listen. These parents are scared to smack their children and paranoid that social workers will get involved and take their children away."

Lammy, who admitted to smacking his three- and five-year-old sons, said working-class parents should be able to physically discipline their children to prevent them from joining gangs and getting involved in knife crime.

full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/29/labour-mp-blames-smacking-law-riots

Channel 4 also had a debate about Lammy's statement with Conservative MP Harriett Baldwin and New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny. See also Penny's alternet.org article "British Riots: Elites "Shocked" The Poor Are Rising Up Against Brutal Austerity Measures"

[MichaelMcGuire]

1. Wow not to out do the Tories

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Every time I figure the US has a monopoly on stupid politicians,

some Brit comes along and proves me wrong.

[alp227]

3. he's merely speaking for his constituents, blame them not him!

do you know what studies say about the efficacy of spanking? 5 years ago when California proposed something similar to anti spanking laws in the EU/UK there was such an uproar it got shelved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's a complete load of bollocks that he's repeating

How old were the children that the parents want to hit? The act was passed at the end of 2004 - less than 7 years before the riots. What age group are Lammy and his constituents blaming the riots on?

Also, note that the relevant section of the Childrens Act is 58:

58 Reasonable punishment
(1)In relation to any offence specified in subsection (2), battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);
(b)an offence under section 47 of that Act (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);
(c)an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under 16).
(3)Battery of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) “actual bodily harm” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
(5)In section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, omit subsection (7).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/section/58

So we are talking about 'punishment' at the level of 'actual bodily harm':

The Charging Standard states that for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' is no longer available.

However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling, a charge of common assault may be laid against the defendant for whom the reasonable chastisement defence remains available to parents or adults acting in loco parentis.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/chastisement.html

So (a) the injuries prohibited by the Childrens Act 2004 are more than just those from 'smacking'; (b) for that act to have had any effect on any of the rioters, you're talking about children aged 8 or more - not ones too young to understand a parent telling them how and why they should behave. Frankly, anyone hitting their child, over the age of 8, hard enough to leaves marks like that is not going to be preventing them from rioting in the future - unless the point is they want to injure them even worse when they think they took part in the riots, and they want them living in fear of Actual Bodily Harm.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yes. I do know what the research says.

[provis99]

4. Labour went to shit when Tony Blair took over.

But who can leftist English voters vote for these days? Move to Scotland and vote Scottish National Party?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. In what way are you saying they 'went to shit'?

In passing laws against injuring children? Or in electing MPs like David Lammy?

[MichaelMcGuire]

8. A few old Labour Voters would tell you it started with Neil Kinnock (nt)