Corporal punishment is not dead in uk

[jonfinola]

corporal punishment was made illigal in uk in the 80s.
This did not stop it but sent it underground were it is practist to
this day

[0:->]

jonfinola wrote:
> corporal punishment was made illigal in uk in the 80s.
> This did not stop it but sent it underground were it is practist to
> this day

I'm always interested in information on this subject.

Can you point me to that which shows this?

Thanks, Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

ROFL!

[jonfinola]

like on the train bus the village idiot as to speak

[[email protected]]

jonfinola wrote:
> corporal punishment was made illigal in uk in the 80s.


In the television series "That'll teach 'em," some children were sent
to a school which was, as near as the TV company could manage, an exact
copy of a 1950s grammar school.

Occasionally a child was so badly behaved that, in the '50s, he
would've been caned. Caning being illegal, even on a TV show, the child
was instead punished by being made to hold a medicine ball at arm's
length for three minutes. This is immensely painful and resembles a
similar punishment in Victorian prisons.

Nobody seems to have worked out that being forced to hold a medicine
ball at arm's length for three minutes is every bit as corporal a
punishment as being caned.

Ken Johnson

[0:->]

wrote:
> jonfinola wrote:
>> corporal punishment was made illigal in uk in the 80s.
>
>
> In the television series "That'll teach 'em," some children were sent
> to a school which was, as near as the TV company could manage, an exact
> copy of a 1950s grammar school.
>
> Occasionally a child was so badly behaved that, in the '50s, he
> would've been caned. Caning being illegal, even on a TV show, the child
> was instead punished by being made to hold a medicine ball at arm's
> length for three minutes. This is immensely painful and resembles a
> similar punishment in Victorian prisons.
>
> Nobody seems to have worked out that being forced to hold a medicine
> ball at arm's length for three minutes is every bit as corporal a
> punishment as being caned.

Well, the concept and purpose is to force, persuade, intimidate, or
otherwise control a child into conforming through pain and humiliation.
What is done in attempting that goal is hardly of any importance, unless
of course it is abusive.

Now establishing what is abusive is the real problem. We disagree on
what that is and where the line is that one passes over from discipline
(teaching) to abuse (either mental or physical injury).

And therein lies society's problem.
>
> Ken Johnson
>
Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Lots of blather, Kane, but IS it child abuse to make a school kid
hold a medicine ball out for three minutes?

Please answer the question.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Lots of blather, Kane, but IS it child abuse to make a school kid
> hold a medicine ball out for three minutes?
>
> Please answer the question.

Notice that I answer your questions, while you fail to answer mine?

Yes, it is abuse. Try it yourself.

A full three minutes.

And then consider forcing a child to do it.

Especially considering their bodies are not fully developed physically
and injuries can occur when young growing bodies are taxed beyond their
capacity.

Do you NOT consider it abusive, Greg?

Please answer this question, and include some support for your
claim...something you are prepared to back up as I am on the question of
injury to young growing bodies.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Especially considering their bodies are not fully developed physically
> and injuries can occur when young growing bodies are taxed beyond their
> capacity.

CANCEL ALL SCHOOL SPORTS!

School kids bodies can't take it??

What namby pamby tripe supports this garbage Kane?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Especially considering their bodies are not fully developed physically
>> and injuries can occur when young growing bodies are taxed beyond their
>> capacity.
>
> CANCEL ALL SCHOOL SPORTS!

Do you know anything about the death rate for teens in high school sports?

We don't need to cancel such sports, but we do need to define it with
safer boundaries.

>
> School kids bodies can't take it??
>
Yep.

Don't you think you should check up on such things before you make an
even bigger fool of yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=High+School+sports+fatalities+injuries&btnG=Google+Search

> What namby pamby tripe supports this garbage Kane?

Those that do no wish to see children unnecessarily injured or killed,
Greg.

That's why kids play softball and adults play hardball.

The same thinking needs to be taken to the high school level.

we KNOW that the body of adolescents is more easily injured.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)