In November 1912, the use of flogging with the cat was extended to those procuring prostitutes and for crimes against women and children. An anti-flogging amendment was rejected by 297 votes to 44.
Some were opposed. George Greenwood (Liberal, Peterborough) called flogging “the methods of barbarism”.
Arthur Lynch (Nationalist, West Clare – this was before Irish independence), described the horrors of a flogging he had witnessed.
“[The flogger] was an artist in it. He laid on the lash with such vigour that at every stroke the victim’s whole frame quivered, his eyes rolled in, his muscles stood out as though they would burst through his skin, and his face turned livid. Even the hardened warders present, whose hearts had been inured, turned almost sick at the sight and were unable to face it.”
Others were more positive. The police were convinced the wider use of flogging would cut crime (it didn’t, as it turned out).
The Archbishop of Canterbury said “I am willing to risk one innocent man being flogged in a generation.”
Lord Willoughby de Broke said “I certainly favour flogging for the first offence, and I am willing to run the risk of being flogged in mistake.”
Lord Lansdowne said “A punishment which may not unfairly be described as brutalising is a proper punishment when we are dealing with men who are brutes”.
Will Crooks (Socialist, Woolwich) said “There’s a lot of maudlin sentiment about all this. I’m glad these scoundrels have a skin that can be tanned.”
And the Hon Edward Wood (Unionist, Ripon) said “When I was at school I was whipped three times before breakfast on one occasion, and I’m none the worse for it. It had an extremely deterrent effect on me.”
Ah yes, the old ones are the best. It never did me any harm.
Flogging as a criminal punishment continued to be used until the end of the Second World War, and there’s no shortage of people who’d support its reintroduction today.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We are in the fight of our lives: Ed Davey
Councillor defies council to install hedgehog sign
My view on a bland Lib Dem conference
Fascism?
Jack Nicholls
Steve Trevethan
David Le Grice
Geoff Reid
4 Comments
It would be good if the BBC et al could stop calling waterboarding ‘simulated drowning’, and call it what it is, i.e. ‘drowning with resuscitation’.
Or torture, of course.
ColinW, whether a method is ‘torture’ becomes doubted when the method is described in mild terms. On this basis the BBC would call ‘stretching on the rack until dislocation occurs’ a ‘stress position’, and then people would begin to scoff as to whether ‘torture’ was really an appropriate term. If the drowning was only simulated (pretend), and the rack only stressful (as any interrogation is), then use of ‘torture’ is seen as a term of dramatic exaggeration.
Other potential descriptors:
‘comfy chair’ = Electric shock chair with padding to avoid self-bruising during convulsion
‘corporal chastisement’ = Cat-o-nine-tails
It’s easy to pretend torture and violent assault by the state against the individual is a thing of history if you use mild and contemporary terms to disguise it, and at the same time insinuate that ‘torture’ is a much abused term for rather ‘mild and harmless’ interrogation techniques (on suspects or those who have already been ‘persuaded’ to incriminate themselves – let alone the ‘truly’ guilty, who don’t deserve it either).
Corporal punishment used wisely against villains saves the tax payer money, and educates those who are dumb enough to break the law.
One strike for 1st offence, two for the second then squared for subsequent offences, one soon learns to respect others.
Prison should only be used to keep those who are a danger to society locked away.