Immigrants should be allowed to “slap and hit” their children says Judge. Is it right to say "Immigrants should be allowed to “slap and hit” their children because of a “different cultural context” when they are new arrivals in Britain, a High Court judge suggested yesterday. Making this a law for some and not for others
Does that mean that we as the indigenous population should be encouraged to slap and hit immigrant children because it's culturally appropriate for them ?
Considering the disgraceful recent cases of child grooming in Rotheram that were ignored for this very reason it indicates that Mrs Justice Pauffley should hand her wig in and consider another line of employment.
Every parent should be allowed to smack their children. This has been the way for years, the intention is not to hurt the child, which it rarely does with responsible parents but to shock it as mummy dosent do that unless I have been bad, hence that it is teaching children right from wrong. Of course I don't want children abused or beaten, it is back to human nature which has been here since our existence. Legalissation should not even enter the equation, just another example of the world is going mad.
bumpkin"This has been the way for years, the intention is not to hurt the child, which it rarely does with responsible parents but to shock it as mummy dosent do that unless I have been bad, hence that it is teaching children right from wrong."
Actually it is teaching children that it's OK to use violence to get your own way, and of course it's ludicrous to suggest that every parent only uses sufficient force to teach a child right from wrong. Just because something has been practised for a long time it doesn't mean it's right.
Children can be taught right from wrong quite easily without the use of violence.
My objection is that the law is supposed to be impartial, justice is blindfolded, one law for all (in theory if not practice). The idiotic Mrs Pauffley is suggesting that this isn't the case that all sorts of extraneous factors that should be irrelevant will now define whether an act is criminal or not. A judge with no judgement has stated that a crime of violence is OK for cultural reasons, but where does this stop operating does she intend to accept the spurious honour killing as an acceptable cultural excuse ? Almost certainly not she's not that mad, but where does her dividing line come in, is it entirely arbitrary or can it be entered in statute ? She really needs to go.