They're in the news again. Some woman from the NSPCC was in the news this morning, arguing for anti-smacking legislation by saying,

"The defence of Reasonable Chastisement dates back to 1860, and is no longer appropriate because society is much different now."

Oh look - see that? That's what's known as utterly retarded logic, that is. It sounds reasonable at first inspection, but if you just apply a bit of thought, you find it conceals the exact opposite argument.

Society certainly is much different now. Kids readily mouth off to teachers and all sorts of people, get each other pregnant, smoke and vandalise stuff. Now, the argument might be that this is because parents are smacking them. Or it might be, and I offer this as a mere suggestion, that society's approach to children these days is to let them do as they please. Certainly teachers' hands are tied in terms of the admonishment which they can deliver - and children know it.

One has to wonder whether the same woman from the NSPCC would argue that "thou shalt not steal" is no longer an appropriate moral stance, because - let's face it - that's quite old now as well. Surely we've moved on? Let's not punish people for nicking things, eh?

According to this report,

"Approximately 80 children in England die from abuse each year - a figure that has not changed for 30 years."

Taking these extreme cases as a barometer for child abuse as a whole, this is a pretty strong suggestion that the rate of child abuse has been unaffected any social changes which may have occurred in the last 30 years (and I think there have been some, don't you?). One might therefore conclude that there simply exists a certain proportion of the community who are given to child abuse.

Well, fuck me backwards with a broomstick. I'm amazed. You're telling me that with all this social "progress" we've made in the last 30 years, child abuse still hasn't become fashionable? That there just happens to be a few people around who do this sort of thing? Blimey.

It's not only the NSPCC that use piss-on-your-own-shoes logic, the Children are Unbeatable organisation also does, campaigning as it does "for children to have the same legal protection against being hit as adults."

Righto then. If I were to call my girlfriend an ugly fat slapper, she'd slap me one round the chops (and quite rightly so, being none of the above). My legal protection? Fuck all (again, rightly so). What's your point?