Friday, 10 February 2012

Do we care too much for children?

When dearly missed Sandy Fawkes, then a young reporter on an 'Express' with a circulation in the millions, came across the story of a horrifically abused child her editor spiked the copy. "We don't publish that sort of stuff; people don't want to read about it" she recalled he told her. Sandy persisted (she could be very persistent) and in 1973 the story of Maria Colwell broke to a shocked nation. If sex began in 1963, child abuse followed a decade later. 

Communal or shared responsibility for the welfare of our young is the keymark of a civilised community; in a Sicilian village, even in 2012, in the absence of the State, it is a duty happily assumed by all. You can let your eight year-old out alone at 9pm to find his friend on the other side of the village without worry. A score pair of watchful eyes along the way will guard his every step (and provide intelligence of the latest movements of the Inglese for the morning coffee). Try it in Bolton and the State will remove him to a child-pen and prosecute you for neglect.

The Mail reports this morning that the number of children taken into care is set to hit 10,000 this year. If the record number of kids imprisoned in the State child pens is anything to go by, we're a very loving and caring society indeed. That dog Rousseau, who would remove children at birth from their families into the care of the State, would be delighted. Now take a look at your local Council website and find the proportion of the budget going on 'Childrens' Services'; since all single-tier councils amalgamated schools and child social work (to disguise the costs of the latter) it's not unusual to find it taking half the budget. And it's growing.

The question in the title should perhaps rather read "do we care enough?".  Councils, fearful of another Baby P, will throw resources at a zero-risk strategy that removes every child at the slightest hint of harm. No doubt many wrong decisions will be made, great pain and injustice caused, in securing councillors and fat-cat bosses from dismissal and media opprobrium. For that, after all, is what it's about.


JuliaM said...

"Communal or shared responsibility for the welfare of our young is the keymark of a civilised community..."

And once, when we were (dare I say it?) mostly homogeneous, we had that. Well, in smaller towns and villages, at least.

But now? How many people in London even speak the same language as their neighbours?

Anonymous said...

The infantilisation and feminisation of the proletariat goes on apace and as planned [EU] male influence is facing total obliteration. "How can we be expected to look after our own?"
Luckily, nanny state will take over, an army of women, Hattie's [vision] Stasi, creating jobs for another army of 'heart on your sleeve 'be seen to do the right thing'..... never in your breast' female enforcers.
Society? It's gone, the faceless social engineering nutters in Met' councils have see off civilised society in Britain absolutely and forever.

Greg Tingey said...

NO It is vested interests.
In the US they have the "prison-industrial complex", keeping lots of happy little petty fasciosts employed at great unnecessary expense, locking too many people up for too long.
Here we have the same thing developing, except it is to make sure childern are state-abused in this way.
Can't trust ANY parents, after all, and there's lots of safe bottom-licking jobas available for nanny-fascists, minding other people's business in "Childcare".
Nasty, very nasty

FrankS said...

"Communal or shared responsibility for the welfare of our young is the keymark of a civilised community;"
And this excellent and time tested principal was done away with at a stroke in about the mid 1980s with the lunatic (and state sanctioned) hysteria over "stranger danger".
Before that, the sensible instruction from any responsible parent to a child aged, say, eight going out without a supervising adult, was: "If you need help ask a grown up".
Then children were told to regard all unknown adults as predators; and straight away, the biggest safety net for children was destroyed.

We've had a generation and more of children brought up to regard adults as a danger; some of them now are adults - I wonder how they regard themselves?

Anonymous said...

Isn't this also a consequence of incentivising fuckwhits to have children for the monetary reward?

That without a loving home with parents that actually wanted the children, you'll end up with a shedload of kids treated like the unwanted puppies that end up at Battersea Dogs Home?

Anonymous said...

The problem with "childrens services" as provided by the state is that they don't get stuck into the real cases as they should, but do get stuck into the soft targets where they shouldn't meddle. We've all seen it so many times. Mr & Mrs Innocent having their front door bashed in at 2 in the morning and their children stolen by the state and locked up for some trumped-up, or not even stated, charge against the parents. Meanwhile on the opposite side of town, Mrs Scumbag (there isn't a Mr that is traceable) is watching her daughter being abused by some crack-head but somehow the state is powerless to intervene??

See? It's all about soft and easy targets to make up the numbers and tick boxes. Oh, and it's about cowardice as well.

Coney Island

Jeff Wood said...

"We've had a generation and more of children brought up to regard adults as a danger; some of them now are adults - I wonder how they regard themselves?"

Excellent point, Frank. Just maybe, examining themselves, it will come to them that the scares were mostly bollocks, and they may push back against the trend.

That said, when I still lived in the UK I had plenty of friendly acquaintance with relaxed youngsters. What astonished me was to be flirted with by teenage girls who had evidently decided I was interesting but harmless, so worth practising on. Life is odd sometimes.

lilith said...

The children brought up to fear adults are, as adults, frightened of children. Frightened of touching them (assault) frightened of speaking to them (perverted), frightened of chastising them (abuse).

I marveled at the scene in Damascus a year ago. We got in from a night out and our hostess made a phone call (it was midnight). After a little while there was a knock at the door, a conversation, but no one came in. I asked her what the knock had been and she explained that she was out of Maté tea and had rung the neighbour to ask her to send her 11 year old out to buy some for us. The 11 year old duly went shopping and brought it round. Imagine trying that in this country!

Barking Spider said...

The Soviets used to snatch kids away from their parents at a very young age and pack them all off to be "educated" and moulded into good little communists - this is just the Lefty UK/EUSSR version.