Maggie Atkinson said it was her personal view that the current law gives pets and adults more rights to be protected from violence than children. 
 
 Under current legislation parents can hit a child if it constitutes “reasonable chastisement” and does not leave a serious mark. 
 
 While the four Children’s Commissioners in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not have a published position on the issue, Dr Atkinson used an interview with The Independent to reveal that she is in favour of a total ban – which would see parents face criminal action for corporal punishment. 
 
 “Personally, having been a teacher, and never having had an issue where I’d need to use physical punishment, I believe we should move to ban it”, she said. “Because in law you are forbidden from striking another adult, and from physically chastising your pets, but somehow there is a loophole around the fact that you can physically chastise your child. It’s counter-evidential.” 
 
 She added: “It’s a moral issue. The morals are that, taken to its extreme, physical chastisement is actually physical abuse and I have never understood where you can draw the line between one and the other. Better that it were not permitted.” 
 
 Dr Atkinson, who has two adult step-children, said that despite her strong feelings about the issue, her office was not planning to fight for a ban in 2014 because in the current climate such a move would be “running up a blind alley”. 
 
 “I don’t know if we’d speak out on smacking because there’s a lot of other things in the queue,” she said. “It’s a poor use of resources. The behind-the-scenes conversations don’t stop.” 
 
 The debate on smacking “becomes very emotive really quickly”, she said, adding that she wanted to be a “measured” voice on the issue. 
 
 Education as well as a change in the law would, she argued, make life safer for vulnerable children. “No public body can be behind the front door of every family in the land, as we know from tragic cases in our headlines,” she said. “Better by far that you are taught not to need to use physical strength against a weaker human being.” 
 
 Her comments are likely to reignite the debate about what constitutes “reasonable” punishment of children. Last year the MP David Lammy provoked outrage when he said that parents’ fear of being prosecuted if they smacked their offspring had been partly behind the bad behaviour that led to the London riots. 
 
 The United Nations has been pushing for a change in the law for more than a decade, saying in 2002 that it “deeply regretted” Britain’s stance, which contravenes principles on the rights of the child. 
 
 Phillip Noyes, head of strategy and development at the NSPCC, welcomed the commissioner’s comments. He said: “It’s right that we continue the push to get children equal protection in law. It would not be intended to criminalise good parents but to put into law what more and more parents are already moving towards – finding better ways than smacking to discipline their children.” 
 
 A government spokeswoman said: “Our policy on smacking is clear. We do not condone violence towards children. However, we do not wish to criminalise parents for issuing a mild smack.” 

 Pets have more legal protection than children, whose parents should be banned from smacking them, according to the Children's Commissioner for England. 
 
 Maggie Atkinson said it was her personal view that the law gives pets and adults more rights to be protected from violence than children, and she would like to see a total ban, with parents facing criminal action for corporal punishment. 
 
 Current rules make it illegal for a parent to smack a child if it leaves a bruise, but permit a lighter smack or "reasonable chastisement". 
 
 Atkinson said: "Personally, having been a teacher, and never having had an issue where I'd need to use physical punishment, I believe we should move to ban it. Because in law you are forbidden from striking another adult, and from physically chastising your pets, but somehow there is a loophole around the fact that you can physically chastise your child." 
 
 Tottenham MP David Lammy said early last year that legislation surrounding the smacking of children needed to be relaxed so working-class parents could instil discipline in their homes without fearing prosecution. He claimed Labour's 2004 decision to tighten up the smacking law was partly to blame for last summer's riots, which erupted in his north London constituency. 
 
 Atkinson, who has two adult stepchildren, said that despite her strong feelings about the issue, her office was not planning to fight for a ban next year because in the current climate such a move would be "running up a blind alley". 
 
 Her comments were likely to reopen the debate about what constituted reasonable punishment of children, the newspaper said. 
 
 She added: "It's a moral issue. The morals are that, taken to its extreme, physical chastisement is actually physical abuse and I have never understood where you can draw the line between one and the other. Better that it were not permitted." 

 The children’s tsar has called for smacking to be made illegal claiming current laws give pets more protection from violence than youngsters. 
 
 Maggie Atkinson wants to see changes to rules which give parents the right to hit children if it is deemed a “reasonable chastisement” and does not leave a mark. 
 
 In an interview with The Independent, the Children’s Commissioner for England revealed she is in favour of a total ban under which parents caught smacking their children would risk criminal proceedings. 
 
 She said: “Personally, having been a teacher, and never having had an issue where I’d need to use physical punishment, I believe we should move to ban it. 
 
 “Because in law you are forbidden from striking another adult, and from physically chastising your pets, but somehow there is a loophole around the fact that you can physically chastise your child. It’s counter-evidential.” 
 
 Describing it as a moral issue, Dr Atkinson added: “The morals are that, taken to its extreme, physical chastisement is actually physical abuse and I have never understood where you can draw the line between one and the other. Better that it were not permitted.” 
 
 Despite her opinions Dr Atkinson said she would not be pushing for a ban next year as she believed such a campaign would be “running up a blind alley”. 
 
 She said: “I don’t know if we’d speak out on smacking because there’s a lot of other things in the queue. 
 
 “It’s a poor use of resources. The behind-the-scenes conversations don’t stop.” 
 
 Dr Atkinson pointed out that better education on the issue, not just a change in the law, was needed help protect vulnerable youngsters. 
 
 “No public body can be behind the front door of every family in the land, as we know from tragic cases in our headlines,” she said. 
 
 “Better by far that you are taught not to need to use physical strength against a weaker human being.” 
 
 The step mother-of-two pointed out the debate around smacking “becomes emotive very quickly”. 
 
 She said she wanted to remain a “measured” voice on the issue. 
 
 The four Children’s Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not take an official stance on the issue of corporal punishment but Dr Atkinson’s comments are likely trigger new discussions about what can be defined as “reasonable chastisement”. 
 
 MP David Lammy was heavily criticised after blaming the London riots on anti-smacking laws, claiming working class parents should be able to discipline their children without fear of prosecution. 
 
 The United Nations has been urging Britain to make smacking illegal for more than a decade, claiming the current law does not adhere to the principles on the rights of the child. 
 
 Phillip Noyes, head of strategy and development at the NSPCC, said: “It’s right that we continue the push to get children equal protection in law. 
 
 “It would not be intended to criminalise good parents but to put into law what more and more parents are already moving towards – finding better ways than smacking to discipline their children.” 
 
 A government spokeswoman said: “Our policy on smacking is clear. We do not condone violence towards children. However, we do not wish to criminalise parents for issuing a mild smack.”
– Britain's official in charge of children's welfare may have just launched a national debate on the nanny state. Maggie Atkinson tells the Independent that she thinks parents should face criminal punishment for even mild smacks of their kids. The quote roiling up the British press: “Personally, having been a teacher, and never having had an issue where I’d need to use physical punishment, I believe we should move to ban it. Because in law you are forbidden from striking another adult, and from physically chastising your pets, but somehow there is a loophole around the fact that you can physically chastise your child. It’s counter-evidential.” Current UK law forbids parents from striking their children hard enough to leave a bruise, notes the Guardian, but "reasonable chastisement" and lighter smacks are allowed. Atkinson wants to tighten that up, but she emphasized that she was expressing a personal preference and wasn't pursuing legislation as Children's Commissioner for England. It would be a tough sell anyway. The Telegraph recalls that a Labour MP made headlines for blaming the 2011 London riots on the current anti-smacking laws, arguing that they had led to an undisciplined younger generation.