It seems to me that the world had never been able to make up its mind as to the appropriate target for CP - hands, bum, or all of the above?
The Americans are the more single-minded, with the focus of the disciplinary eye being squarely fixed on the nether regions. Not once in living memory have they deviated from this view of life, their policy being almost as inflexible as their bat-like paddles.
The UK and its former colonies everywhere, on the other hand, long suffered a crisis of target, being quite unable to decide whether the hands or the bum form the most suitable receptor. Their policies, in contrast with those of their American cousins, were almost as flexible as their canes and straps.
Enter now the Africans of Dutch-British descent who decided there was no need to make any such choice. Why do only one, when you can just as easily do both? And so came the technique called "topping and tailing" that punishes both of the primary receptors in the same session....."six on the hands and six on the bum and thankyou sir!" Problem solved.
With that light hearted look at targets we have known, I'd be interested in contributions on the relative merits of CP on the hands versus the bum. Does one hurt more than the other, is one more convenient than the other and is one less sexual than the other? Is caning on the hands too plebian for some elite private schools OR is caning on the hands cruelly painful and more prone to causing damage?