4 ms·
They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, as my school experience attests - I was caned frequently, and a caning was, hon
by madaxe_again 4y ago
They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, as my school experience attests - I was caned frequently, and a caning was, honestly, preferable to the alternatives which usually involved gravel.
It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. Public (i.e. private) schools, 1999. I suppose at least it gave parents the choice as to whether or not they’d like their kids to be beaten, and at least at school they didn’t use the buckle end of a belt, just a meter rule.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, [...] > It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. The article refers to “public schools” in the American sense (i.e., state funded schools)—and would be wrong otherwise, since sone of the states that ban it in public school do not in private schools. So, when it talks aboit banning it in England, it refers to the same thing: corporal punishment in state-funded schools. So the article is correct.
- madaxe_again 4y agoAh, fair enough. I suppose it’s ok to beat those kids, as they’re privileged.