IT can be distressing to stroll along the tree-lined boulevards of urban Glasgow only to have one’s reverie shattered by the screams of a distressed child having the bejeesus lathered out of them, likewise the thwack of an ear being clipped in the checkout queue to settle the argument over whether a strategically positioned tube of sweeties should be added to the purchases can be upsetting. However, must we have laws enacted to prosecute the lowest common denominator which automatically criminalise the 99.9 per cent of the rest of society who act out of necessity rather than malice (“Call for smacking ban to protect nation’s children”, The Herald, April 15)? No sensible person would condone child cruelty but surely legislation exists to cover this offence. What alternative does a parent have when the child says “take your naughty step and shove it”?
Being a Neanderthal and having been subjected to the “belt” at school and the “hairbrush to the back of the leg” treatment at home it is tempting to say “It never did me any harm” and some of us would even contend that the absence of this final sanction is in part responsible to declining standards of achievement in our schools.
I holiday in Spain and it is striking to find the number of families including toddlers in buggies dining out in bar-restaurants drinking wine but only arriving for the evening meal at 10 pm or later; similar behaviour in Scotland would see the social services banging on your door along with the police. The curious thing is that the drunks one sees staggering around are not Spanish but Brits. There may be a parallel to be drawn and perhaps legislation and prohibition is not always the answer.
David J Crawford,
Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here