Criminalising smacking may send a message that physical punishment of a child is unacceptable, but I suspect it will do more to criminalise parents who are not guilty of any serious offence, while doing nothing to prevent the horrendous harm that is suffered by Sara and her like (“A society that abhors child cruelty should not tolerate any physical punishment of children”).
When services that support vulnerable families are cut to the bone, and families with young children are experiencing unprecedented levels of physical, emotional and material stress due to austerity measures and the prolonged period of governmental consideration of only the wealthy in society, we should not be surprised at the consequent abhorrent results of social breakdown.
Melanie Savage
Nottingham
It breaks my heart that physical punishment of children is still enshrined in law for English parents. Thirty years working on the frontline of child protection convinced me that “reasonable chastisement” by smacking is dangerous, ineffective and counterproductive for many reasons. The effect of any smacking is just demoralisation for the child, and the lesson learned is that it’s OK for a bigger person to hurt a littler one. It’s not a good form of teaching. Explanation, holding, or sending a child to a quiet place briefly are all better approaches.
Bullying, early delinquency and self harm may result from physical or other forms of abuse in childhood. Please just ban “reasonable chastisement” of the physical kind. It’s poor parenting and for some the thin end of the wedge.
Sue Herbert
Crawley, West Sussex
The perils of assisted dying
As teachers and practitioners of law, we welcome Sonia Sodha’s thoughtful column and express our serious misgivings about the proposal to legalise physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill (“The assisted dying debate is about so much more than kindness v conservatism”). The law reports are littered with cases of undue influence and duress, and legalisation would inevitably expose the most vulnerable to that risk.
Other jurisdictions show both the difficulty of drafting effective legal safeguards and the tendency of such laws to expand. Canada has dropped its legal requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” and is set to allow euthanasia for mental illness in 2027. The Netherlands already allows euthanasia for mentally ill people and has proposed extending the law to elderly people with “completed lives”. Oregon has repealed its residency requirement and it is only a matter of time until its limitations to assisting suicide and to terminal illness – now being criticised as “barriers to access” – are dropped.
Such limitations in a UK law would be challenged in court as unjustly discriminatory. However well-intentioned the movers of the bill, we believe the UK would, sooner or later, follow other jurisdictions down the slippery slope. Nor should the involvement of high court judges be seen as a panacea, not least because our justice system is already under immense pressure. The risk of error is one reason why the European convention on human rights proscribes the death penalty; it is also a reason the law should not be relaxed. We urge MPs to resist this change.
Prof Mark Elliott, professor of public law, University of Cambridge; Dr Mary Neal, reader in healthcare law and ethics, school of law, University of Strathclyde; Thomas Teague KC, former chief coroner of England and Wales; Marianne Alton, Barrister, Lincoln House Chambers; Michael Ashe KC, barrister, England & Wales and Ireland; Prof John Bell KC (Hon), professor emeritus of law, University of Cambridge; Sir Robert Buckland KC, former lord chancellor; barrister, Foundry Chambers; Annoné Butler, solicitor and former government lawyer; Lord Carlile of Berriew KC, crossbencher, House of Lords; barrister; Dr Conor Casey, senior lecturer, University of Surrey School of Law; Thomas Chacko, barrister, Pump Court Tax Chambers; Naomi Cunningham, barrister, Outer Temple Chambers; Michael d’Arcy, barrister, One Essex Court; Benjamin Douglas, lecturer, UCL Faculty of Laws; Prof Richard Ekins KC, professor of law and constitutional government, University of Oxford; Prof Mark Elliott, professor of public law, University of Cambridge; Prof Timothy Endicott, Vinerian professor of English law, University of Oxford; Prof John Finnis KC (Hon), professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy, University of Oxford; Dr Michael Foran, lecturer in public law, University of Glasgow; Prof Charles Foster, fellow, Exeter College, Oxford; the Revd Justin Gau, barrister, Pump Court Chambers and assistant priest, St John’s, West Hackney; Harry Gillow, barrister, Monckton Chambers; Joseph Hart, barrister, Deans Court Chambers; James Hatt, barrister, 4 Pump Court; Prof John Keown, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown (former senior lecturer in law, Cambridge); Sir Stephen Laws KC (Hon), first parliamentary counsel, 2006–12; senior research fellow, Policy Exchange; Audrey Ludwig, solicitor; Anna Lukina, fellow, LSE Law School; Max Marenbon, barrister, Serle Court Chambers; Nick McBride, college lecturer in law, Pembroke College, Cambridge; Prof Jonathan Morgan, professor of English law, University of Cambridge; Lord Murray of Blidworth, House of Lords, and barrister, 39 Essex Chambers; Dr Philip Murray, college assistant professor in law, Robinson College, Cambridge; Dr Mary Neal, reader in healthcare law and ethics, School of Law, University of Strathclyde; Timothy Pitt-Payne KC, barrister, 11KBW; Dr Jonathan Price, fellow of St Cross College, University of Oxford, and Matraszek fellow, Pusey House; Akua Reindorf KC, barrister, Cloisters Chambers, and visiting fellow, LSE Law School; Barbara Rich, barrister, 5 Stone Buildings; Prof Julian Rivers, professor of jurisprudence, University of Bristol; Prof Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, professor of moral and political philosophy (jurisprudence), University of Surrey; Lord Sandhurst KC, House of Lords; barrister and former chairman of the Bar Council; Dr Rajiv Shah, former special adviser to the prime minister; Prof Nigel Simmonds, professor emeritus of jurisprudence, University of Cambridge; Dr Brian Sloan, assistant professor in law, University of Cambridge; Anthony Speaight KC, visiting professor, School of Law, University of Surrey; barrister; Tim Storrie KC, barrister, Lincoln House Chambers; The Revd Dr Simon Taylor KC, retired barrister; Thomas Teague KC, former chief coroner of England and Wales; Scott Wortley, lecturer in private law, University of Edinburgh; Dr Asanga Welikala, lecturer in public law, University of Edinburgh; Dr Paul Yowell, associate professor in law, University of Oxford; Dr Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor of international relations and international law, Leiden University
The trouble with poverty
As a psychologist, I think Kenan Malik hits the nail on the head (“Pumping the unemployed with weight-loss drugs echoes Victorian attitudes to the poor”). In principle, helping obese people lose weight is surely unexceptionable. However, as Malik points out, there is good evidence that unemployment often causes obesity, not the other way round. This echoes the oft-repeated statements by those interviewed for the media that they would eat better if they could, but they can’t afford it. What next? If politicians share Duncan-Smith’s views on the cost of children, perhaps it’ll be state-sponsored sterilisation for the unemployed.
The principal solution to a host of social and health problems is reducing economic inequality, and Labour should have no problem in adopting that aim. Why is it so hard for politicians to understand that the big difference between the poor and other people is that the poor don’t have much money?
Dr Robert Forde
Sheffield
Schools are doing their best
You write that governing bodies tend to “rubber stamp” headteachers’ permanent exclusion decisions (“Battle launched to save children from being kicked out of school”, News, last week“‘He lashed out. He was scared’: the fight to save vulnerable UK children from being kicked out of school”). I’ve sat on many exclusion panels this year for schools around my community. These are complex, legal processes in which all involved act seriously and compassionately, especially headteachers who need to make impossible decisions about the safety and rights of all their pupils.
The National Governance Association has rightly argued that they should be heard by specialist panels. Until then, volunteer governors are ensuring exclusions are fair and legal.
Name and address provided
Human rights barrister Ollie Persey mentioned “behaviour that arises from unmet additional needs”. These needs could, in part, be met by support assistants who build trust and rapport with the pupil, and can better understand additional needs such as autism, ADHD or anxiety. Often, the pupil being aware that they have support in the classroom helps them to stay calm and focused.
With 20 years’ experience, I saw the benefit that having that support can make. Cutbacks have meant less support in the classroom, which may be responsible for increasing disruptive behaviour. Not providing this is a false economy, leading to vulnerable pupils feeling overwhelmed and frustrated and then being permanently excluded and potentially at risk of criminal exploitation. If those responsible for funding took into account the huge difference that support assistants can make, Persey’s caseload might be dramatically reduced.
Paula Winter
Fareham, Hampshire
Please, sir, I want some more
While it is hard to disagree with Martha Gill’s suggestion of a law to protect under-18s from the potential excesses of global fame as pop idols, I think the answer as to whether it would matter much if there were no substantial parts for children in future films and TV shows is – yes, it would (“Of course teenagers want to be pop idols like Liam Payne. Given the perils, should we let them?”). No Oliver!, The Railway Children, Harry Potter, Young Sheldon? Most young actors seem to cope very well and many go on to have long and successful careers.
Neil Angrave
London E17
