|
News Desk
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has asked the Government to clarify what the limits are on parents smacking their children, saying that it is confusing. The statement comes after David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, blamed the 2004 decision to tighten the law on last summer’s riots. Boris Johnson considers that the law on smacking is not clear enough. The Mayor of London said that parents do not know the limits of their action and are afraid of losing their children’s custody after smacking them in response of a bad action, according to an article published by The Times.
“People do feel anxious about imposing discipline on their children, whether the law will support them. I think parents should be seen as the natural figures of authority in this respect”, he stated.
David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, pointed out in the same direction when he commented that the decision to tighten the smacking legislation in the Children’s Act 2004 contributed the summer’s riots, as it took sovereign away from the rioters’ parents.
The Children’s Act 2004, set up by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, says that parents are allowed to smack their children whether they do not cause any “reddening of the skin”, such as a bruise, cut or red mark; and only if it is a “reasonable chastisement”. According to Mr. Lammy, the definition of “reasonable chastisement” is confusing. For this reason, “parents are scared to smack their children and paranoid that social workers will get involved and take their children away”, he said.
Mr. Lammy, who has admitted to smacking his sons, of 3 and 5 years old, emphasized the need to clear up the law and to give authority back to parents, especially those who live in areas like Tottenham, “with knives, gangs and the dangers of violent crime just outside the window”. In this area, parents “no longer feel sovereign in their own homes”, Mr. Lammy said.
Boris Johnson supported Mr. Lammy’s statement, saying that the Government should end confusion over the law on smacking. “Obviously you don’t want to have a licence for physical abuse or for violence. But a lot of parents feel confused and I think there should be a clear statement from the Government that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to parents”, he commented.
However, Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of NSPCC – a children’s charity-, considers that every act of smacking should be forbidden. “Evidence shows that smacking is not an effective punishment and sets a bad example by suggesting that problems can be solved through hitting. Parents have to be able to set clear and consistent boundaries and maintain discipline with their children but this does not require smacking them and these comments are misleading and unhelpful”, he declared.
In addition, Mr. Flanagan said that the change of the law on smacking is not the cause of the summer’s riots. “The reasons for the riots run far deeper than minor changes to smacking legislation. These changes would not, in any event, have significantly impacted on many of those involved in the rioting, as they would have been teenagers when the law was altered”, he concluded.
photo credit: Natalie Mitrides (Boris Johnson)
|
