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.