you usually give it a smack on the bum [it hurts but does no damage] or to a lesser extent a clip around the ear.
I assure you that a grown man is perfectly able to inflict damage with a "clip around the ear".
As someone who actually works with children, I can tell you that there is absolutely no basis for teaching children that violence is the answer - to anything!
If hitting your child gets them to be proper decent respectful adults and they do the same with their children, no problem.
No problem? No, no problem at all - they'll know that in future, if someone doesn't behave correctly, giving them a good smack is the answer. Violence breeds violence, after all.
As for me needing a smack, let me tell you I am the respectful person I am today, why is that? I was physically punished as a child, with a belt to the backside and it certainly taught me not to do the wrongs I did ever again.
Respectful? Ever considered that your unemployment woes might be actually linked to those beatings you received?
You have to get it right, the aim is not to damage the child physically but to do enough so that it does not want to be hit again and often stops with the mere mentioning of a smack,
Would you tolerate your boss at work bending you over and giving you such a smack? No? So why is it acceptable to beat a defenceless child?
The punishment method is simple to understand
Yes, it teaches all the basic requirements of a bully - only hit when you're much bigger, use your strength as a bully and so on.
There is only *one* justifiable circumstance to lay a hand on a child - and that's when the child is a danger to themselves or others and the situation must be resolved immediately. For instance, grabbing a child by the hair just as she's about to run onto a busy road.
But answer me this - why is it acceptable to beat a child but not an adult? Is it because, in reality, the adult would kick your ass?