It smacks of sense.

Hands up who was smacked as a child. Hands up who thinks smacking children is mere slaptrap. Society’s attitude to “good parenting” has spiralled out of control. As revealed in The Sunday Times Magazine on Sunday, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts which administers electric shocks every time a rebellious youngster steps out of line is totally unacceptable. But laws which prevent mum or dad from administering a firm hand and a stern face once in a blue moon are utterly ludicrous and essentially counterproductive.

When justified, parents should not be afraid of giving their little ones a quick smack, a “reasonable chastisement” according to the law. I’m not talking about a wallop on the tushie, or a bash around the head. Just a short, firm tap. My dad used to tuck us in at night with eye-watering anecdotes of his scallywag schooldays. A South Walian minefield of fierce leather belts, unforgiving leather-soled slippers and merciless wooden rulers. Ok, so this may have gone against the Human Rights Act, but nevertheless, these muscle-bound matrons and ex-military, wizened old professors were onto something.

No one marches you to a tribunal when you give your pooch a little hoof as it desperately tries to slobber all over your latest pair of cute winter booties. Occasionally, children also need to be reminded of what is right and wrong. What is so wrong with giving a child a little warning smack when he tries to use the freshly painted magnolia walls as his blank canvas, even if he is a Monet in the making?

As a young’un, I remember my dad once chasing me relentlessly around the back garden, palm ready for action. The provocation? Making a “magic potion” and pouring it all over his beloved (soon to be bedraggled) lawn. So my parents weren’t afraid to smack. So what? It’s hardly worth a binding over order, let alone a stint in a secure unit.

Nowadays, your typical modern mummy wouldn’t even dream of landing a smarting palm onto the bottom of a petulant, screeching, horrid little sproglet. Nevertheless, she will happily dish up deep fried pizza before plonking the naïve little monster in front of the telly for hours, until she drags him, kicking and screaming to his unmade bed.

When I think smacking, I think Mrs Trunchbull and the chocolate cake. She was a woman possessed by the power of corporal punishment, armed to the teeth with a prize-winning collection of whips and sticks, tools and instruments, ready to strike at any opportune moment. And her pupils did not so much as twitter.

On Saturday it was revealed in The Times that Channel 4’s answer to Roald Dahl’s firm-handed female figure, Claire Verity, is in fact a fake. But aside from her false qualifications, or rather her startling lack of them, it is her particular style of parenting which has sparked a national debate. Almost 2,000 people have signed an online petition warning the Prime Minister about the threat posed by her parenting theories which are more military than most, even draconian at times. She suggests you leave babies out to air and indulge in only ten minutes of cuddles a day. Please.

It is no surprise then that her severely antiquated set of Bringing up Baby rules has notched up an impressive 737 Ofcom complaints. Mollycoddling is one thing, outright indifference to suffering is quite another. Refusing to lay a finger on a child is one extreme, smacking him silly every five minutes is the other.

Just because you remind a kid of who is boss it doesn’t mean he will turn into a devil child and thump anything that gets in his way. Very occasionally showing a firm but gentle hand will not only prevent those publicly humiliating, fist-clenching, foot-stamping tantrums, but will also save pints of blood, sweat and tears when it gets to adolescence. Within reason, parents should buck up and smack away.