More confusing claims from ‘child safety’ campaigners

The NSPCC, a charity widely known for its child protection helpline, claims it has received an unprecedented number of reports of physical discipline against children.

That is not how it has been reported in the media, though. Take a look at Sky News. Its headline reads:

“Concerns over children being smacked and hit triple in a year, says NSPCC as campaigners call for a total ban in England”

LBC News is claiming: “Calls to the NSPCC’s helpline over children being smacked and hit have tripled in a year”.

There is a vital disconnect between these press reports and what NSPCC’s figures actually show. But it’s one those campaigning for a smacking ban are very keen to ignore.

You see, there is a world of difference between statistics on the broad category of ‘physical punishment’ and those on the specific issue of ‘smacking’.

It is thankfully illegal to physically harm a child. Child abuse is strongly dealt with under existing criminal law, in this case the law on assault. ‘Physical punishment’, which the NSPCC statistics refer to, is often illegal already.

The one important exception is ‘reasonable chastisement’, which usually refers to smacking. This exception to assault law ensures parents who choose to “chastise” their child in any way that doesn’t leave more than passing reddening of the skin cannot be unfairly hauled before the courts.

That is a vital exception. It ensures genuine assault is dealt with rigorously, while giving parents the freedom to exercise reasonable discipline without fear. It prevents silly cases clogging up the social care system. It stops perfectly loving parents having to explain their actions to the police.

the exception only applies where a court would deem the parents’ behaviour to have been ‘reasonable’

It stops children being separated from their parents and asked intrusive questions about how they’ve been treated. But the exception only applies where a court would deem the parents’ behaviour to have been ‘reasonable’. By definition, unreasonable behaviour falls outside it. It’s hard to argue with that.

And yet some do. In recent months the efforts to persuade the new Labour Government to remove the crucial ‘defence of reasonable chastisement’ have ramped up. Time and again, data that is evidently about physical punishment – which includes battery against a child or other cruel abuse – is used synonymously with ‘smacking’. It is anything but.

Study after study is published wrongly attributing serious harm to mild and very occasional smacking. But the datasets they use include parents who would be jailed for assault or child abuse.

Others misunderstand the flexibility that the defence of reasonable chastisement gives to the police and social services. True, the police won’t progress a ‘smacking’ case if they know the courts would judge the behaviour to have been ‘reasonable’. But if something more sinister is going on their hands are not tied. No one has ever pointed to a case of genuine child abuse that has gone to court and been dismissed as ‘mere smacking’.

The NSPCC helpline has received an increase in reports about adults ‘physically punishing’ children, a category which includes real child abuse. It is not, as reported in those news outlets, a tripling of reports of ‘smacking’.

In nearly half of the cases, the calls “were serious enough to require a referral to social services or the police”. Excellent. That’s exactly what should happen with reports of child abuse.

Over half of the contacts were from other parents. Some contacts were from “professionals who work with children directly”.

Again, that’s good, so long as we’re talking about genuine physical punishment that exceeds what anyone would consider ‘reasonable chastisement’. If people are wrongly phoning NSPCC – no law has been broken and the courts would deem the parent’s actions to be reasonable – it’s difficult to think why NSPCC would be feel the need to tell us about it.

Misleadingly, NSPCC concludes: “The new government must scrap the defence of ‘reasonable punishment’ and give equal protection against assault for both adults and children.”

But that isn’t what their data refers to. Are they arguing that the bar for intervention in serious cases of abuse should be lowered? That is surely disingenuous and ill-advised.

It would do nothing but clog social services with too many cases to handle, driving down its ability to tackle the most serious cases that undoubtedly need its attention.

It’s no wonder the press is confused about the issue when the NSPCC is speaking in this way. It’s time to tidy up its messaging, or it risks criminal perpetrators walking free while loving families are torn apart.

That surely isn’t what anyone wants.