Should Tickling Children Be Made Illegal? | This Morning

This week, Russell Brand sparked outrage when he called for a ban on tickling children after saying it’s an invasion of their personal space. But should tickling children really be outlawed? Vanessa Feltz and mum-of-three, Lottie Daley join us to discuss.

I like Russell Brand, he can be funny AND sometimes speaks sense on politics. Some of hus discussions with political figures have been great!

But on this he is talking absolute bollocks.

Like he does most of the time ?

I cant stand Russel Brand, ridiculous man child.
I agree with you both /\ he is talking bollox as he does so most of the time.

I just got to watching the video and OMFG.

There is a really sick danger of every innocent action being made into something vile and sordid. All that'll be achieved is making people hyper distant and less trusting. Not what we need when technology is already making kids increasingly antisocial.

Idiots need to lighten up.

Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy. I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

Lord Foul wrote:Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy.  I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

My lord, such...um, impatience. How do you know his political leaning, and why does that matter? That seems to preoccupy you even over the topic.

Tickling can be a pain. Think of it as an involuntary pain...certainly abuse. But, it is associated with laughter and happiness. Children are taught to be obedient, and they recognize that it is done more with love than with malice. Because they are denied a voice, or perhaps given half-a-voice, they must endure it.

It can go too far, I'V seen nippers go hysterical, and It's not funny. No when to stop !

nicko wrote:It can go too far,  I'V seen nippers go hysterical, and It's not funny.  No when to stop !

I agree. That's when it becomes abuse.

Obviously as with anything there is a sensible way to do things and a creepy way.
You wouldn't tickle a child if you knew they didn't like to be touched in that way, some kids hate it...you certainly wouldn't tickle a child you were not close to, that would be overstepping bounderies.
But I remember being tickled as a child, and tickling my son and grandson, and they loved it.
If they had not I wouldn't have done it.

BUT...NEVER.....EVER...tickle a babies feet, that CAN induce fits

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy.  I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

My lord, such...um, impatience.  How do you know his political leaning, and why does that matter?  That seems to preoccupy you even over the topic.

Tickling can be a pain.  Think of it as an involuntary pain...certainly abuse.  But, it is associated with laughter and happiness.  Children are taught to be obedient, and they recognize that it is done more with love than with malice.   Because they are denied a voice, or perhaps given half-a-voice, they must endure it.

Abuse? Bloody hell, mate. Were you not tickled as a child? Kids love it. I know I did, I remember it being a love/hate thing at the time lol but looking back it was fun and harmless. It isn't 'involuntary pain'.

Lord Foul wrote:Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy.  I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

Another repetitive 'lefty moron' blast

I see you have limits on freedom of speech though, most anti-leftists wear freedom of speech as a badge of honour. Seriously, the far left can be accused of idiocy, but better that than the hate and discrimination of the far right.

There is a simple quantifying answer to this argument

Is the intent to make a baby laugh or suffer pain with tickling

I would imagine its the same as any personal contact people come into

You cannot die from being tiggled to death

That is a myth

You can only die from fatigue

Hence the later is the clue. It would only be a bases for torture to make someone suffer.

Hence tiggling a child is never abuse, when its reason is to make them laugh and be happy

A child can be upset in many forms and to say that people cannot chose a known method that makes them laugh. To cheer them up. Is basically child abuse itself. Its denying them being happy

Kids require many forms of methods to help them be happy. They all majorly require invading personal space. As many of them require hugging, bobbing up and down, rubbing their backs or tommies, when they have eaten etc.

So why is he not advocating all these being banned?

Because he is a complete dick

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy.  I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

Another repetitive 'lefty moron' blast

I see you have limits on freedom of speech though, most anti-leftists wear freedom of speech as a badge of honour. Seriously, the far left can be accused of idiocy, but better that than the hate and discrimination of the far right.

Come again

This is an idiot leftist Far leftist

He thinks its wrong to invade a babies personal space

Do you expect the baby to change its own nappy?

How about you call him out as a dick on this?

The far left do not wear free speech as a badge mate

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Brand, another lefty moron that needs extermination...my god the bloke is a c**t. these useless oxygen thieves need their "right" to freedom of opinion and speech revoking, since they only use it for idiocy.  I dont know about the R/W being stupid.....the left seem to be intent on out doing them at every turn.

Another repetitive 'lefty moron' blast

I see you have limits on freedom of speech though, most anti-leftists wear freedom of speech as a badge of honour. Seriously, the far left can be accused of idiocy, but better that than the hate and discrimination of the far right.

Come again

This is an idiot leftist Far leftist

He thinks its wrong to invade a babies personal space

Do you expect the baby to change its own nappy?

How about you call him out as a dick on this?

The far left do not wear free speech as a badge mate

I already said he was talking BS in my first post.

I never said the far-left wear free speech as a badge of honour, I said anti-leftist do. LF is an anti-leftist who apparently opposes free speech now.

My comment to LF was based on his many posts lately blanket attacking 'leftists'.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Come again

This is an idiot leftist Far leftist

He thinks its wrong to invade a babies personal space

Do you expect the baby to change its own nappy?

How about you call him out as a dick on this?

The far left do not wear free speech as a badge mate

I already said he was talking BS in my first post.

I never said the far-left wear free speech as a badge of honour, I said anti-leftist do. LF is an anti-leftist who apparently opposes free speech now.

My comment to LF was based on his many posts lately blanket attacking 'leftists'.

Where is he opposing free speech?

You do realise that he is using piss take language in regards to such idiots

Have you not garned yet his dark humour?

Seriously?

Are you seriously suggesting that Lord Foul opposes free speech?

Well I am sorry, but where is he making a blanket cast of all lefties?

Seems to me his words are based on these vocal idiotit far lefties

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Come again

This is an idiot leftist Far leftist

He thinks its wrong to invade a babies personal space

Do you expect the baby to change its own nappy?

How about you call him out as a dick on this?

The far left do not wear free speech as a badge mate

I already said he was talking BS in my first post.

I never said the far-left wear free speech as a badge of honour, I said anti-leftist do. LF is an anti-leftist who apparently opposes free speech now.

My comment to LF was based on his many posts lately blanket attacking 'leftists'.

Where is he opposing free speech?

You do realise that he is using piss take language in regards to such idiots

Have you not garned yet his dark humour?

Seriously?

Are you seriously suggesting that Lord Foul opposes free speech?

Well I am sorry, but where is he making a blanket cast of all lefties?

Seems to me his words are based on these vocal idiotit far lefties

This seems to be jumping off topic, but my comment to LF is based on continuous grumblings about leftists across many threads, not just this one.

Despite my own issue with anti-leftists, I'm in full agreement with everyone here on Brand. Although I do find him funny at times, he is deeply misguided on this.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Where is he opposing free speech?

You do realise that he is using piss take language in regards to such idiots

Have you not garned yet his dark humour?

Seriously?

Are you seriously suggesting that Lord Foul opposes free speech?

Well I am sorry, but where is he making a blanket cast of all lefties?

Seems to me his words are based on these vocal idiotit far lefties

This seems to be jumping off topic, but my comment to LF is based on continuous grumblings about leftists across many threads, not just this one.

Despite my own issue with anti-leftists, I'm in full agreement with everyone here on Brand. Although I do find him funny at times, he is deeply misguided on this.

Maybe, just maybe mate. You are taking this too personallly, as he is taking the piss

I am sorry, but many on the hard left are causing many problems today and this is just one example of this

How cn anyone argue that its wrong to make a baby laugh, based on personal space?

Its based on poor leftist teachings mate

That is a fact and hence why we need more people like yourself eilzel to speak out against this

Night mate

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Where is he opposing free speech?

You do realise that he is using piss take language in regards to such idiots

Have you not garned yet his dark humour?

Seriously?

Are you seriously suggesting that Lord Foul opposes free speech?

Well I am sorry, but where is he making a blanket cast of all lefties?

Seems to me his words are based on these vocal idiotit far lefties

This seems to be jumping off topic, but my comment to LF is based on continuous grumblings about leftists across many threads, not just this one.

Despite my own issue with anti-leftists, I'm in full agreement with everyone here on Brand. Although I do find him funny at times, he is deeply misguided on this.

Maybe, just maybe mate. You are taking this too personallly, as he is taking the piss

I am sorry, but many on the hard left are causing many problems today and this is just one example of this

How cn anyone argue that its wrong to make a baby laugh, based on personal space?

Its based on poor leftist teachings mate

That is a fact and hence why we need more people like yourself eilzel to speak out against this

Night mate

It isn't based on leftist teachings, it's based on stupidity and totally not understanding children

Night.

Why do so many discussions on here resort to blaming extreme lefties or righties?
Could it not be that sometimes a persons politics have sod all to do with the topic and the person (in this case Brand) is just simply talking tripe because he is an idiot?

Syl wrote:Why do so many discussions on here resort to blaming extreme lefties or righties?
Could it not be that sometimes a persons politics have sod all to do with the topic and the person (in this case Brand) is just simply talking tripe because he is an idiot?

Exactly.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Maybe, just maybe mate. You are taking this too personallly, as he is taking the piss

I am sorry, but many on the hard left are causing many problems today and this is just one example of this

How cn anyone argue that its wrong to make a baby laugh, based on personal space?

Its based on poor leftist teachings mate

That is a fact and hence why we need more people like yourself eilzel to speak out against this

Night mate

It isn't based on leftist teachings, it's based on stupidity and totally not understanding children

Night.

Yes its most definately from dumb leftist teaching

Russel brand being one of the biggest leftist tits out there

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Maybe, just maybe mate. You are taking this too personallly, as he is taking the piss

I am sorry, but many on the hard left are causing many problems today and this is just one example of this

How cn anyone argue that its wrong to make a baby laugh, based on personal space?

Its based on poor leftist teachings mate

That is a fact and hence why we need more people like yourself eilzel to speak out against this

Night mate

It isn't based on leftist teachings, it's based on stupidity and totally not understanding children

Night.

Yes its most definately from  dumb leftist teaching

Russel brand being one of the biggest leftist tits out there

Whatever. Because we all know exploiting issues just to point fingers at the other side is the best way or getting to the heart of matters, right

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Yes its most definately from  dumb leftist teaching

Russel brand being one of the biggest leftist tits out there

Whatever. Because we all know exploiting issues just to point fingers at the other side is the best way or getting to the heart of matters, right

No, you are simple not thinking this out mate

I will give you two words, to understand the mind set behind this here and why it is definately coming from the left.

"safe space"

PICTURED: Russell Brand keeps children entertained by TICKLING them on 2009 film set... a decade before vowing to punch anyone who does it to his daughters because it 'violates their space'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6671129/PICTURED-Russell-Brand-keeps-children-entertained-TICKLING-2009-film-set.html

Again I say. If the intent is to make someone happy or laugh, what is the harm?

If a person, whether adult or child objects. Then you simple stop

Its not rocket science. Nor does it need to be banned

I mean what next, should we also ban hugs?

Sometimes people do not feel they need a hug, well that is what they tell themselves.

Yet in reality many people do. Its based on a perception and a view to help someone. Where again a person can shy away from a hug, if they do not want this.

You cannot make such idiotic views as this tit Russel does, without understanding the poor idiotology he believes in

You learn simple by someone saying, they do not feel like a hug or a tickle at the moment. You then respect that.

How simple is that not to follow?

Like I said, this is more about Russel and his warped political ideology, where he wants to impose his views onto society.

I mean is he going to punch another child, playfully tickling his daughter? As he has vowed to punch anyone who tickles his daughter. Shows he is not even understanding what his own daughter may or may not like. He is deciding for them what they can and cannot like.

I mean is it getting to the point,  that we now have to ask permission for anything? Whether that be placing a hand on someones shoulder, in a form of expression a shared connection and concern of wanting to understand what that person is going through. Its over protection to the extreme. What is calledmollycoddling.

The problem here is based around the ideologies that Russel follows. One that wishes to smother children with an imaginary invisible shield. Not allowing them to decide or experince life itself for themselves. Based on the ideiotology they view on something they like or dislike.

Its the poor mollycoddling effect, being over protective. Not allowing them to actually grow and understand the world. As they are being shielded by percieved harms. Hence when into adulthood, these kids now demand safe spaces at Universities. As they cannot even cope with views that differ from theirs. They claim such speech is violence against them. That is how fragile these students have become

So please do not tell me Eizel, this mindset is not from the left. Its what is damaging the mindset of many children growing up,  because they are being treated as if like Mr Glass. Completely fragile.

Again, this needs to be shown.

Thor wrote:PICTURED: Russell Brand keeps children entertained by TICKLING them on 2009 film set... a decade before vowing to punch anyone who does it to his daughters because it 'violates their space'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6671129/PICTURED-Russell-Brand-keeps-children-entertained-TICKLING-2009-film-set.html

Again I say. If the intent is to make someone happy or laugh, what is the harm?

If a person, whether adult or child objects. Then you simple stop

Its not rocket science. Nor does it need to be banned

I mean what next, should we also ban hugs?

Sometimes people do not feel they need a hug, well that is what they tell themselves.

Yet in reality many people do. Its based on a perception and a view to help someone. Where again a person can shy away from a hug, if they do not want this.

You cannot make such idiotic views as this tit Russel does, without understanding the poor idiotology he believes in

You learn simple by someone saying, they do not feel like a hug or a tickle at the moment. You then respect that.

How simple is that not to follow?

Like I said, this is more about Russel and his warped political ideology, where he wants to impose his views onto society.

I mean is he going to punch another child, playfully tickling his daughter? As he has vowed to punch anyone who tickles his daughter. Shows he is not even understanding what his own daughter may or may not like. He is deciding for them what they can and cannot like.

I mean is it getting to the point,  that we now have to ask permission for anything? Whether that be placing a hand on someones shoulder, in a form of expression a shared connection and concern of wanting to understand what that person is going through. Its over protection to the extreme. What is calledmollycoddling.

The problem here is based around the ideologies that Russel follows. One that wishes to smother children with an imaginary invisible shield. Not allowing them to decide or experince life itself for themselves. Based on the ideiotology they view on something they like or dislike.

Its the poor mollycoddling effect, being over protective. Not allowing them to actually grow and understand the world. As they are being shielded by percieved harms. Hence when into adulthood, these kids now demand safe spaces at Universities. As they cannot even cope with views that differ from theirs. They claim such speech is violence against them. That is how fragile these students have become

So please do not tell me Eizel, this mindset is not from the left. Its what is damaging the mindset of many children growing up,  because they are being treated as if like Mr Glass. Completely fragile.

Again, this needs to be shown.

See my point in the "sparrows are prostitutes" thread.......