Brits: Keep Slappng Your Kids Around?

[Liar]

Of course, the 1/10 and 9/10 are rough estimates, as conducting research on those issues is pretty murky waters.

The attitude change to this in the late 70's is sometimes among sociologists referred to as one of the most massive behavior modifications ever in a democtatic sciety.

#L

 

[Liar]

Damn you Lou, you're keeping me from going home from work.

 

[Guest]

Damn you Lou, you're keeping me from going home from work.

Sorry, hon.

I think I should let this drop now, but I must admit to being rather offended. Once I get a bee in my bonnet about something I find it hard to let go.

I think we should just both admit that we do actually agree and leave it at that.

Lou

 

[oggbashan]

Define the terms

As always the problem with trying to draft a law is that what is intended and what the law actually does can be different.

What in the UK is now defined as 'Child Abuse' or a 'Child at Risk' would be unthinkable in the 1940s.

Children who would have been classified as 'delinquent' are now well aware of their rights under the law and can harrass and injure adults knowing that the adults have no effective remedy in the law or the system. If a child under 10 persistently takes items from a shop the shopkeeper has no redress. Sometimes it is the parents who train their children to shoplift. That is child abuse yet is rarely prosecuted.

There have been several local cases of groups of children deciding that they don't like a particular person or family. Their house has stones thrown through the windows, their car is vandalised or set on fire, individual adults or children of the targeted family are assaulted and verbally abused yet if the 'victims' dare to retaliate it is the 'victim' who will be prosecuted. That is wrong and ASBOs (Anti-social Behaviour Orders) are rarely effective.

As with all laws affecting human behaviour there has to be a system of deciding between what is and is not reasonable. The current White Paper is a draft for discussion. We hope that the debate will result in a usable law that can protect children without harming normal family relationships.

If you, as a parent, are suspected of child abuse even if there is no truth in the suspicion and you are wholly innocent - your children may be taken into foster care and you may find it very difficult and expensive to prove your innocence and get your children back. When you do, your children will have been damaged by the system. That is wrong and changes the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfounded child abuse allegations are frequently made by one party or another in a contested divorce case. The children suffer.

As I said before, the current law is not good. This attempt is to try to make things better in a very difficult and emotive area.

Og

 

[Guest]

Very, very well said, Og. I completely agree with everything you said there.

Lou

 

[cloudy]

I've heard of a rash of cases here recently where one friend gets mad at the other for whatever reason, and calls Child Protective Services on her former friend...not because she's actually concerned about the kids, but because she's mad at their mother. It happens all the time.

Recently, in Decatur, Alabama, there was a case of a young Guatemalan immigrant (17, I think), who had her one-year-old son taken from her. When the press investigated, there really seemed to be nothing wrong with the environment, or the way the child was treated. Turns out that a friend of a friend of the Director of Child Protective Services wanted to adopt a baby boy. Coincidence?

The worst thing about this case was the mother spoke very little english, and under law she is to be provided a translater. They provided her a spanish translator, but she didn't speak spanish, she spoke a Mayan dialect. She was effectively silenced when she tried to protest against everything that was going on. Fortunately, the press found out about it, and once the facts were public, the girl found herself so many supporters that she almost immediately got her child back, and the three people involved at Child Protective Services resigned. But, it makes me wonder how many times things like that have gone on and no one knew about it...

 

[Liar]

There you go again. "Beaten by parents at home."

How do they know this? Where did thsoe figures come from? Was almost every child in the nation battered and bruised? I doubt it very much.

From that article:

"Recent investigations (SOU 2001:18 'Children and abuse') show that of a population of 2000 university students 300 admitted to having been physically punished as children. Evidence on Swedish trends indicates sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of 7. This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase."

And:

"The Swedish government boasts about the success of the law. Yet we keep reading headlines like the following: "Child abuse is increasing. Many beaten children call the BRIS (Children's rights in the society) help line". (Gothenburg Post, 26 March, 1999); "Alarming increase of deadly child abuse" (The Swedish Daily 26 October, 1996; "Increased violence against children in Sweden - Twenty years after the law against smacking many children are still being ill-treated" (Gothenburg Post 25 April, 1999)). "

Lou

I'm sorry I don't have any more statistics to back up what I'm saying. The numbers 9 of 10 and 1 of 10 is not something I made up, but figures tld to me by my granfdmother, who worked actively through that period and the debate that blossomed.

It is my firm belief that it's the open debate on child abuse that have lead to the increased numbers you quote there. The attitude first of all on what constitutes abuse have changed, and the attitude towards abused children has become better and better the last 30 years.

Yes, of couyse more children call the BRIS helpline in 1999 then ten or fifteen years before. Simply because there IS someone to call. When I was 8 yo I didn't know of no helpline. Had I veen hit my mom or dad, I wouldn't know shit about where to turn. Today, every kid knows this, and they know that it is not shameful to admit to being victims either. (Of course, many a dissgruntled kid might call BRIS when being pulled away from the candy store too, but those are naturally filtered out quite quickly.)

Since the dramatic decrease in the 70's (I don't have the proof for this where I sit right now, bit I can dig them up if you want to), the numbers of actual abuse might have risen again yes. Is that a reason to dismiss the whole idea?

#L

 

[Liar]

Sorry, hon.

I think I should let this drop now, but I must admit to being rather offended. Once I get a bee in my bonnet about something I find it hard to let go.

I think we should just both admit that we do actually agree and leave it at that.

Lou

Offending rational and responsible loving parents (which I'm convinced that you are) was never my intention. Apologies all around for anyone who felt attacked.

Now, let's kiss and make out.

#L

 

[Guest]

Ok, I have just one more thing to get off my chest, then I'm outta here...

Yes, Liar, your thread title and your confrontational words in your original post made me upset and angry. The thread title still makes me feel that way every time I see it. The British parliament is actually trying to find a way to protect the welfare of children, without actually undermining the institution of the family. We are not a nation of child beaters, but that is the way you came across to me. That's probably why I am finding it hard to let this drop.

Right, I'm gone now.

Lou

 

[Honey123]

WOW!!!

Hmmm...can I stay around and see you guys make out??

 

[Teenage Venus]

Just an observation:

Maybe the Brits got it right when it comes to discipline, be it no taps - or a good slap on the backside. The result is a fraction of the violence by youth in the UK compared with the USA for instance.

Take LA alone - More deaths by gun-bearing youths in the last ten years in that city than the total fatal casualties of civilians and military personnel combined, during the first and second 'Gulf Wars'. (Figures supplied by LA Chief of Police). Makes ya think!

Unfortunately the British Press exists on running it's own population down.

The USA press is adept at hiding the truth from its people.

PS: Nobody guessed my other identity yet?

 

[Honey123]

PS: Nobody guessed my other identity yet?

No...but now I am terribly curious!