When Saturday Comes

One of the things I notice about the children's poll on smacking in the link is the fact that overwhelmingly they are against it.  The problem with this day and age is child 'rights' have gradually been given far more gravitas than they are entitled to.  The anti-smacking brigade would argue that adults would not be struck for bad behaviour (unless they went around vandalising my car).  You could also argue that adults would not do anything at the behest of another adult except in the workplace, yet we expect children to do so.  By eliminating the possibility of smacking a child (and at least half the kids today really want a good beating) you create a domino effect of spurious analogies with the treatment of adults to the point where children will escape even being told what to do.

I am quite prepared to stand by my observation that a large percentage of modern parents are useless at their role.  Brought up in an era when the essentials of discipline (physical) were already starting to disappear from the radar screen, they are also imbibed with the notion that children today have certain rights.  Rubbish!  Children earn certain rights as they progress through life; they are not automatically awarded by a hierarchy of bleeding-heart liberals.  If a kid badly behaves, they get a hiding.  No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'd'ya mind if I don'ts?'.

Now that my house has been re-wired, I have decided to add a few bits of new furniture.  Not two hours ago I was purchasing an oak blanket box for my bedroom.  Although heavy (about 150lbs) and cumbersome, I decline the extra expense of home delivery; opting instead to carry the box to my car immediately outside.  After adapting the car to accommodate the size, I returned to the shop and managed to perch one side of the box on my shoulder and balance it on one arm whilst holding it steady with the other.  As I walked down the aisle a very young girl was stood directly in front of me.  I gasped:

'Excuse me, sweetheart, can you stand aside for a sec while I come through with this?'

She flashed my a sullen look and moved to the side.  When I returned from the car the girl was crying her eyes out.  Still, the parents were nowhere to be seen.  Kneeling down I said:

'Goodness me.  Are you OK darling?'

Suddenly her father (a guy of about 24), who had been out of sight, came rushing up exclaiming:

'What's up?  What's going on here!?'

'I don't know.  I asked your daughter? to move to the side to allow me to carry a heavy piece of furniture to my car.  When I came back she was crying.'

'Huh, it's no wonder she was crying.  She doesn't like being told what to do.'

'Pardon?  Come again?'

'I said "she doesn't like being told what to do".'

'Are you taking the mickey?  How old is she?'

'Two and a half.'

'And she doesn't like being told what to do, eh?  Well my heart bleeds for her!! In that case it's about bloody time she started to like it!!!!  Because otherwise, matey, in another ten years she'll be telling you what to do.  You parents today, you're pathetic!!

With that I turned on my heel and walked away, leaving the blonde idiot and his brat (who was still crying).  I could hear terms such as 'don't get upset, pumpkin, the nasty man didn't mean it'  Yuk!!

Do you know what?  In another ten years this child will be like 50% of adolescents these days: a complete, unadulterated, out-of-control scumbag.  And why?  Because idiotic parents like him refuse to even verbally, let alone physically, chastise their offspring.  Forty years of incrementally 'progressive' theories on child-raising have created the sorry state we find ourselves in today.  When will they learn?

Comments

[daytripper]

By eliminating the possibility of smacking a child (and at least half the kids today really want a good beating)

reminds me of the old portadownnews.net article about a portadown child abuse scandal.

"87% of children in portadown are not receiving the beating they so richly deserve"

[Andrew McCann]

And 13% are well-behaved.

[daytripper]

yep. i do agree with you on this one. kids are out of control. and it is selfish parents.

a few of my friends have nippers and they are all crazy, but they are polite and obedient, and respective of their elders (even me). and my friends can in no way be classed as strict. its not hard to teach a kid basic manners. youve just got to have them yourself to begin with.

maybe we need to reinstate the juvenile chimney sweep or something.

[aileen]

There are more options than his the child and not indulge it in its wrongdoing.

[aileen]

ooops "hit"

I would be more tempted to whack the father.

[Tom Tyler]

Obviously noone is talking about beating the living daylights out of children, but I see nothing wrong with disciplining children with a smack when necessary.
And I absolutely agree 110% with what Andrew says about children's "rights", and as I've said before, my views on that extend to adults too. We earn rights - all of them. They're not just "there". The whole notion of human rights as a basis for our laws is fundamentally, conceptually flawed, IMO, and its implementation is to blame for the virtual abolition of our age-old common-sense notion of discipline.

[David Vance]

..I'm in agreement here too!

[Colm]

methinks Andrew is being economical with the truth.

I bet he really said "GET OUT THE WAY YOU LITTLE BRAT OR YOU'LL GET MY BOOT UP YOUR DYSFUNCTIONAL PAMPERED LITTLE ARSE...

[aileen]

Colm LOL!

[parcifal]

yes colm Andrew you scared the child, simple.

[aileen]

Tom

I disagree about rights, we have them all just by virtue of turning up. We don't earn any of them. We can lose some of them.

When a child is born it has a right not to be sold into slavery. It has a right not to be abused/murdered. It doesn't need to "earn" any of them.

[Gregor]

On a packed bus with my 87yr. old Aunt t'other day standing in aisle and not one person offered her a seat and there were plenty of kids sitting.
Would have spoken out but knew that would have embarrassed my Aunt....it sickened me.

[parcifal]

well said aileen, don't forget the right to put up a tri-colour in 145 Divis Street.
That was denied in 1969. Not any more.
Civil rights.. the right to support a different party other than the ruling one.
Just keeping you on your toes.
Dance partner ;-)

[aileen]

Parcifal

How are you keeing me on my toes, my comments are not in conflict with any stance that I have taken.

I don't tned to get into the issue of raising a foriegn flag in the UK, but that doesn't negate the proper status of the Union flag.

I have never argued that anyone has to support the ruling party. I no longer support Labour.

[parcifal]

ok aileen we'll call it a nice spin/twirl then.
I rather liked the way you made your points.

My dad from Sligo, won the u16 all-ireland irish dancing championship (straight up), so its in the blood.
I love to dance.

[parcifal]

aileen
I apologise on behalf of Andrew for his gross stupidity and insensitivity, he should not have told me your personal details without your permission, to score a political point.

~However its out now, and I hope others will agree with what I've just written.

[Alan McDonald]

Tom Tyler,

The whole notion of human rights as a basis for our laws is fundamentally, conceptually flawed, IMO,

reminds me of why I am so glad that we Americans severed relations with you lot back in 1776.

[aileen]

Ah come on Alan. You love is really ;o)

Common nheritage an' all that!

[Alan McDonald]

Aileen, I agree with you; it's Tom Tyler who rejects the very basis of American law.

[aileen]

oops that should have been a "us" and a "heritage"

[Armaghlite]

Call me a cynic, but in my experience Children do not simply start crying after being politely asked to stand aside. I imagine that a more real version of events has Mr. Mc Cann ordering the child to move or speaking in a tone that she was not used to hearing. A full grown man would be quite intimidating to a very small girl i'd imagine.
So it's not just Muslims, Gays, Catholic Irish people etc that he upsets, it's also Little Girls!

I suppose you could call it consistent !

[Tom Tyler]

I'd better try and explain what I mean, just in case anyone thinks that I believe that torture/murder/etc are OK. I don't mean that at all. (And don't worry, Alan, this is only my personal opinion, I'm not claiming it represents our laws, there's no rift between our countries in that sense).

Instead of saying for example, "I have the right not to be tortured", I would put it like this: "No-one has the right to torture me". Now I know that that might look like a mere play on words and that the two things amount to pretty much the same thing, but I think that philosophically they are poles apart.

Firstly, legally, the law is about prohibiting certain things, not about allowing them. There's no need for the law to say "this is what you ARE allowed to do/be in life", it need only state what you are NOT allowed to do or be, all else is legal by default. In fact, I'd guess that when many people say "I have the right not to be tortured", all they really mean is that torture is wrong and that noone has (or should have) the right to torture them under the legal system of their country.

But I think the most important difference is the "spiritual" aspect. When you say "I have (or own) these rights", you're effectively saying "I am my own authority and I claim that the full authority of the law is, in fact, vested in my own self". Such thinking subtly undermines the very notion of authority and discipline, for why should you accept discipline or correction, either as an adult or a child, if you see yourself as the supreme authority over yourself? (If that makes sense).

[parcifal]

so aileen you don't mind Andrew saying what he said then? That was an ok thing to do?

[Alan McDonald]

Tom,

Like you, I'd better try and explain what I mean.

The power of the government (including its police power) derives from the rights of the people, not the other way around. It seems that is has taken the EU 200 years to recognize what America envisioned on day one, and it sounds like some Europeans still reject it.

[SBK]

Andrew

I'm completely agree with everything you said, no ifs or ands or buts! I find children to be generally hateful. I go to great lengths to avoid any contact with them.

A good friend has a little girl who is going on two years old. I've not seen her since she was 6 months old. But I'm told she is now destructive and talks back, my mate just shrugs his shoulders and says "what can I do about it?".

I asked him what his mum and dad did if he wrecked the house and was rude to them. He told me he was told to stop, if he didn't he got a slap around the legs. He would do it to discipline his little girl. But guess what? His wife is vehemently against any form of physical discipline. Therefore the wee girl continues wrecking things safe in the knowledge that daddy won't do anything about it because mummy won't let him.

But she is only a toddler and it may just be a phase. If this behaviour is still commonplace when she's 4 my friend has failed his child.