E Jane Dickson: The smack of firm government

It is unpleasant to be seen abroad as the cradle of perversion, but what else can we expect?


So Tony Blair smacked his children. He's not proud of it and he doesn't intend to do it again. Which puts him, for once, on a par with the majority of the electorate. Every parent will be familiar with the PM's squirming response when put on the spot by the Newsnight interviewer Kirsty Wark about family discipline. The fact that he smacked his older children, but not five-year-old Leo, reflects society's growing disillusionment with the idea of corporal punishment for children.

Old-school martinets who insist that a clip round the ear breeds character are thin on the ground. Most parents now see smacking as a gesture of defeat. And most have done it - not as part of some controlled punishment programme (a notion I find almost as creepy as "controlled crying") - but in the heat of a bad moment. In this, parents are fallible, arguably culpable, but not, as yet, criminal.

The fiercely contested Children's Act of 2004 upholds the "reasonable chastisement" of children, but bans any physical punishment that leaves a mark or bruise. The ruling has been criticised for being too imprecise - one man's reasonable chastisement is, after all, another man's abuse.

The idea of parents fearfully checking their children for bruises after beating them is hideous - it seems to me a no-brainer that if you're even concerned you've left a lasting mark you've already gone way too far. But while there is scant evidence to support the Prime Minister's claim that "everybody knows the difference between smacking a child and abusing a kid", I am inclined to give most parents the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, what Tony Blair means when he says "everybody" is "everybody like me". "The problem," he flustered on, "is when you get these really, really difficult families." It's the classic "can they mean us?" reaction of the British middle class, for all the world as if "difficult" families were a discrete socio-economic group operating in a moral no-go zone. The idea of society as a continuum is all but discredited by a nominally socialist government which prefers "fire-fighting" media-friendly causes to tackling the issues that seriously threaten our standing as a civilised country.

I am delighted Tony has put his smacking days behind him and wish him luck in his improved parenting plan with young Leo (though, in my experience, the years up to five are a breeze). Though I have to say I'm considerably less concerned about the possibility of Blair's "reoffending" on the smacking front than I am about his government's cavalier approach to recidivism farther down the child abuse line.

While Blair milks his "he's only human" moment, headlines are diverted from the Department for Education's decision to allow a teacher who has been placed on the sex offenders register to continue to work in schools. Despite accepting a police caution for accessing paedophile websites, a circumstance usually regarded by the Secretary of State as "conclusive proof of guilt", Paul Reeve was classified as "not unsuitable for working with children" and cleared for employment at the Hewett School in Norwich.

The details of Mr Reeve's case are as yet unclear, but the decision hardly inspires confidence in government commitment to child protection. Teachers, as we know, are in short supply, but if a documented interest in paedophilia doesn't make you unsuitable for the profession, I'm damned if I know what does.

Presumably, Mr Reeve was deemed "unlikely to reoffend", but this hardly seems sufficient assurance. The figures on criminal recidivism show sex offenders statistically less likely to re-offend than other categories of criminal (a calculation that does not take into account the traditionally low reporting and prosecution rate for sex crimes). But which, you have to consider, is the greater risk to society? Ten burglars doing another house-job or one sex-offender potentially damaging a child?

It seems to me if the Government is genuinely interested in cutting to the "causes of crime", then toughening up on the use of paedophile pornography is a good place to start. It may not be the root cause of a child sex offender's pathology, but there is surely enough evidence to suggest it is, at the least, contributory.

Just this week, Alan Webster and Tanya French were convicted of raping a 12-week old girl in Hertfordshire. The court case brought to light a "souvenir album" with photographs of the pair in the act of abusing the baby. Webster told the police he had become addicted to pornography and that images that may once have shocked him no longer did so. And yet the libertarian fringe continues to insist that pornography, even child pornography, is a victimless crime.

How many warnings do we need? When Gary Glitter was convicted of child pornography offences in 1999 after paedophile images were discovered on his computer, he served just two months of a four-month sentence before skipping off to Vietnam where, in November of last year, he was arrested on suspicion of having sex with two girls, aged 11 and 12. Initial reports that Glitter, if found guilty of child rape might, under Vietnamese law, face a firing squad stirred complicated feelings in the breasts of life-long opponents of capital punishment.

Now, having bought off the girls' families - in a country where the average wage is less than £400 a year, he bargained them down to £1,250 each - he is expected to face the much diminished charge of "lewd acts with children" which carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison. It is hardly too cynical, in the circumstances, to presume that the actual sentence will be considerably less for a man of Glitter's means.

It is possible, however, that under the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, framed to curb the "sex tourism" that is our national shame, Glitter will be extradited to face prosecution in this country. It is to be hoped that embarrassment will not stop the British authorities hauling Glitter's ass back here at the earliest opportunity. If they do, he will doubtless claim his celebrity denies him a fair trial (as if his celebrity cash might not have furthered his alleged crimes in the first place - or did he think the girls wanted him for his signed photos?).

Certainly it is unpleasant for Britain to be seen abroad as the cradle of perversion, but how else, unless we smarten up our act back home, can we reasonably expect to be viewed? If we all know the difference between a smack and child abuse, we should know the difference between a legal slap on the wrist and a fitting punishment for a sickening crime. It is time we started exercising the distinction.


React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Teaching Assistants

£50 - £85 per day: Randstad Education Preston: Rapidly developing and growing ...

Supply Teachers needed in Stowmarket

£1034496 - £1516224 per annum: Randstad Education Cambridge: The Job:Randstad ...

Primary Teacher EYFS, KS1 and KS2

£85 - £140 per day: Randstad Education Preston: Randstad Education are urgentl...

SEN Teaching Assistant Runcorn

£50 per day: Randstad Education Cheshire: SEN Teaching Assistant EBD , Septemb...

Day In a Page

Read Next

Daily catch-up: odd pub names, final polls in Scotland and war historians

John Rentoul

i Editor's Letter: We are winning the fight against extreme poverty and hunger. It's time to up the ante

Oliver Duff Oliver Duff
Mystery of the Ground Zero wedding photo

A shot in the dark

Mystery of the wedding photo from Ground Zero
His life, the universe and everything

His life, the universe and everything

New biography sheds light on comic genius of Douglas Adams
Save us from small screen superheroes

Save us from small screen superheroes

Shows like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D are little more than marketing tools
Reach for the skies

Reach for the skies

From pools to football pitches, rooftop living is looking up
These are the 12 best hotel spas in the UK

12 best hotel spas in the UK

Some hotels go all out on facilities; others stand out for the sheer quality of treatments
These Iranian-controlled Shia militias used to specialise in killing American soldiers. Now they are fighting Isis, backed up by US airstrikes

Widespread fear of Isis is producing strange bedfellows

Iranian-controlled Shia militias that used to kill American soldiers are now fighting Isis, helped by US airstrikes
Topshop goes part Athena poster, part last spring Prada

Topshop goes part Athena poster, part last spring Prada

Shoppers don't come to Topshop for the unique
How to make a Lego masterpiece

How to make a Lego masterpiece

Toy breaks out of the nursery and heads for the gallery
Meet the ‘Endies’ – city dwellers who are too poor to have fun

Meet the ‘Endies’ – city dwellers who are too poor to have fun

Urbanites are cursed with an acronym pointing to Employed but No Disposable Income or Savings
Paisley’s decision to make peace with IRA enemies might remind the Arabs of Sadat

Ian Paisley’s decision to make peace with his IRA enemies

His Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign would surely have been supported by many a Sunni imam
'She was a singer, a superstar, an addict, but to me, her mother, she is simply Amy'

'She was a singer, a superstar, an addict, but to me, her mother, she is simply Amy'

Exclusive extract from Janis Winehouse's poignant new memoir
Is this the role to win Cumberbatch an Oscar?

Is this the role to win Cumberbatch an Oscar?

The Imitation Game, film review
England and Roy Hodgson take a joint step towards redemption in Basel

England and Hodgson take a joint step towards redemption

Welbeck double puts England on the road to Euro 2016
Relatives fight over Vivian Maier’s rare photos

Relatives fight over Vivian Maier’s rare photos

Pictures removed from public view as courts decide ownership
‘Fashion has to be fun. It’s a big business, not a cure for cancer’

‘Fashion has to be fun. It’s a big business, not a cure for cancer’

Donatella Versace at New York Fashion Week