NSPCC’s Latest Smacking Poll: More Spin Than Substance?

The National Society for the Protection of SPCC has released new polling in its push for a change in the law on smacking children – this time asking so-called “safeguarding professionals” for their views.

While it has only picked up limited press coverage so far (notably in the Daily Express), there’s every chance it could garner more attention. The NSPCC is hoping to have the ‘defence of reasonable chastisement’ (the part of law that prevents parents being criminalised for mild smacking) removed from the law on child abuse.

The Government says it won’t do anything yet. But campaigners hope an amendment will be made to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is beginning its passage through the House of Lords.

As with previous commentary from the NSPCC and other groups spearheading this campaign, a closer look at the details raises more questions than it answers.

A Different Poll, A Different Result

The headline takeaway from the NSPCC is that a majority of what they call “safeguarding professionals” surveyed think the law should change. But that appears quite different from what the wider public thinks. Just last month, a regular YouGov tracker found that 56% of the general public believe smacking should remain legal, while only 28% think it should be banned. In short: most people don’t want a law change.

So, who exactly are these “professionals”? The NSPCC polled 729 adults via YouGov, with results weighted to represent various safeguarding roles. But with such a small sample, it’s hard to know how meaningful the subgroup findings really are.

For example, the poll says 51% of police support a legal ban on smacking – a far cry from widespread support. Meanwhile, 68% of social workers and 52% of teachers supposedly think the current law makes safeguarding harder. But how was the question put? Did respondents receive any explanation or framing before answering? If so, that could have significantly skewed the results. The polling data hasn’t yet been published, but we may know in due course.

Far from the whole picture

Those pushing for legal change have a history of presenting data in a way that supports their agenda. In a previous YouGov survey, the NSPCC claimed 71% of people think smacking is “not acceptable”. But when you look at the fine print, that included people who said it was “usually unacceptable… with some exceptions”. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of a total ban—and certainly doesn’t reflect a public that wants parents prosecuted for a light smack.

It’s entirely possible that something similar is going on here. Without access to the actual questions or full data tables, we’re left guessing how much of the response was shaped by carefully chosen language.

The Real Grey Area

Professor Andrew Rowland, a paediatrician regularly quoted in smacking ban campaigns, once again says that “physical punishment of children harms their health” and so the law must change. But he is conflating all physical punishment—from clearly abusive behaviour to a mild, non-harmful smack.

There is no doubt that actual abuse harms children. By its very definition that is true. But no one is defending abuse, and the current law gives police and social services the power to intervene. The law as it stands makes a clear distinction: it protects children from violence while shielding loving families from unnecessary intrusion and interference.

Rowland also argues that the law is too vague, making it hard for professionals to advise families. But is it really so difficult to say that any physical discipline that leaves a mark is illegal? How does that compare to explaining that even very mild physical interaction would sometimes be considered battery?

How would it be easier to explain to parents that the police and courts have no ability to consider whether their actions were reasonable? That they are left with no recourse to fair justice? Banning smacking would not make life any easier. Replacing clarity with fear and criminal risk only creates more uncertainty, not less.

Is this really about protecting children?

The NSPCC is trying to build momentum for a law change that the public doesn’t support and professionals aren’t united on. Their new polling might make headlines, but it doesn’t tell the full story. The real question is this: are we being shown evidence, or just a narrative?

As usual, the campaigners are avoiding talking about the added burden a legal change would place on our overstretched social services. They overlook the risk that genuine cases of abuse could go unnoticed, lost in a flood of investigations into entirely innocent parents.

They ignore the distress and disruption caused to families by unnecessary scrutiny; the impact on children when parents lose jobs over unevidenced and trivial accusations; the stress caused by needlessly pitting children’s words against their parents’. Where a parent’s actions are deemed reasonable by the courts, the NSPCC should leave well alone.

If it wants a genuine national conversation about parenting, discipline, and safeguarding, it should start by being transparent about its data—and honest about the legal and social consequences of the changes it’s demanding.