Bring back the Cane?

Was listening to Jeremy Vines show on Radio 2 this lunchtime and caught the piece on bringing back Corporal Punishment in schools. They had someone on arguing with the same phrase everyone uses when they argue for it, "Never Did Me Any Harm". You need to define harm as what it actually seems to have done is that it's made you into someone who can't see anything wrong with hitting a child because you can't make them listen to you.

Basically the argument seems to be, when I was young things were better and kids were better behaved in class, we had the cane in schools when I was young, therefore things were better because we had the cane. A kind of odd circular logic, that takes no account of any changes in society in the last 20 to 30 years, and places all worsening behaviour in the context of teachers not being able to thrash the children, rather than looking at any other reasons for it. Drives you mental.

We never had the cane when I was at school, or the belt or anything like it. Was banned in my primary school before I went, and I went to Secondary school (in Scotland) in 1988. I don't remember anything like the problems people speak about today then, although I do believe they're exaggerated in a lot of cases anyway, but it didn't cause any problems to my teachers not being able to hit us. Or didn't seem to anyway, as I remember. Some of them were better teachers than others, some of them couldn't manage a class too well, but it was never an issue that led to violence in the classroom, or any major problems. So why do you need corporal punishment, how will that help anything do you think? Without looking at whats causing the problems you're telling us about, it's just more unjustified violence in my view.

Spoilers (Doesn't Contain Spoilers)

Was listening to Jeremy Vine earlier today, or Friday lunchtime radio 2 depending on when you read this, and they were having a discussion about leaving a will when you die. Wasn't that interested but he then made a comment about a plot point in an Agatha Christie book called Why Didn't They Ask Evans, but stopped himself saying I can't say that, someone might be reading it. Basically he was concerned about giving plot spoilers about a book originally published in 1934. How far do you stretch the idea of spoilers?

The main gripes I see at the moment concern Torchwoods new series (this may be because of the people I follow on twitter), but it does show another issue. With broadcast times being different in different countries, and the crossover on Facebook, Twitter, and now probably google plus, what are you allowed to say to stop someone who hasn't seen something, or read something, getting pissed off with you and giving abuse. Are just major plot points not to be discussed, should everything have a spoiler warning, for how long do you need them?

There was the recent thing with Steven Moffat and the latest series of Dr Who as well, where someone at the premiere of the first couple of shows went online and sent out spoilers before it was even broadcast for the first time. He was pissed off with that, in this case rightly as it could have made some of the moments less vivid on a first viewing. But getting back to the original question how far should you take this?

I remember on Usenet, and I always feel like an old fart when I mention it for some reason, but I followed a few groups for fans of authors and when a new book came out it was discussed, but you generally had spoiler space which meant that

you

wound

up

with

people

doing

this

to

stop

the

comments

showing

up

in

the

newsreader.

A little annoying, but it worked, apart from the people who top posted replies, and there's still a circle reserved for them in hell, and everyone was happy. We'll ignore those who gloried in posting spoilers to annoy people, they're still out there, but easier to ignore.

But again trying to get back to the original question, how long after something is broadcast or published before you should not worry about posting spoilers. I think Jeremy Vine took it a little too far with nearly 77 years, but where is the line, and what is important. Do you think nothing should be openly discussed without warnings for any show ever, which is daft, do you think there should be a reasonable time limit on these things, within a week of broadcast for a TV show say, or is it all fair game once it's out, if you haven't seen it, tough? Should it just be for major plot points, or anything that may interest an individual in the show or book for a certain period of time?

I don't know the answer, I know what I personally prefer to read, and I tend to avoid most spoilers, but they don't bother me too much, as if the show or book is good enough it shouldn't matter, it should still get you even if you know some of what happens, but I know some people believe everything should be kept back. For how long, apparently some say at least 77 years. I think that's a bit too much.