A statistic that shames Britain

Searcher

That's a broken society.

Obnoxio The Clown

Ah, well, it all depends on how you define neglect and abuse.

But let's face it, if you've spent the last two generations telling people they don't need to be good parents and the state will take care of everything, what do you think is going to happen?

Hereford

But is the definition of neglect and/or abuse any more well thought out than the definition of poverty, which seems to be wholly relative.

David Bouvier

Fascinating article, especially on the don't try, don't complain, don't stand out, don't get involved, don't make your colleagues look bad, don't succeed culture - that I fear is so typical of many in public services.

That said I am deeply sceptical about the 1 in 5 statistic, because such stats are almost always based on an special-interest defined definitions that may be much broader than normally assumed.

I am not saying it doesn't - simply that usually when you research them that is the way it turns out.

Hey, its Camila Batmanghelidjh - heroine that she is - so maybe it is how many children have had certain horrible things done to them recently, or maybe it asks however many children have ever been shouted at, smacked on the bottom or left alone for 10 minutes ever. Without the definition it means nothing.

Peter

Depends entirely on the criteria set. It is the same with poverty. Such reports often exist simply to promote certain agencies. There is abuse and need but it does not need inflating. Last night on the main news a reporter said that hundreds of children were being murdered each year by their parents. Another vague statistic that failed to provide any substantiation.

Chris Gilmour

The other four out of five don't survive it?

Verity

We all seem to be of the same opinion so far on this thread. Like "poverty" (i.e., no plasma TV in the household, no computer in the bedroom snf no mobile phone), even with the horror of little Baby P still at the front of our minds, I don't believe a word this lying government or any special interest group says.

Getting a sharp slap on the back of the legs for being a little smartypants, being sent to one's bedroom to reflect on one's behaviour, being shouted at when a parent finally loses their her/his temper with the child are not "abuse". And so defining such normal parental behaviour is an outrage. Anyone who has ever seen a cat with kittens or a dog with puppies know that such sharp reprimands - i.e., a nip with sharp teeth, of infants is universal in the animal world and is part of the training of the young.

To my mind, abuse is when children don't sit down to a family meal and don't know how to use a knife and fork; don't know their father, just a series of "uncles", or maybe today, they don't even call them "uncles" but just address their mother's boyfriend du jour by his first name. Abuse is when a mother doesn't put a hot meal on the table and ask that irritating question, "What did you learn in school today?" Abuse is a parent who cannot help a child with homework and who doesn't read bedtime stories. Abuse is when the state does not teach a child its history and heritage in school, doesn't teach it to read and write properly and elevates an alien, primitive religion about the religion of the country and the entire advanced Western world. That is abuse of the young.

Not "abuse" as defined by the state and other interested parties such as, as Peter writes, "certain agencies".

Verity

Chris Gilmour - Ha ha ha ha!

Plus, what the hell is Kid's Company and why is it busy compiling self-serving reports?

C Powell

Verity: very well said. I have commented on other blogs that what the Baby P case shows is the moral vacuum in too much of our society, where people have no judgment, no morals, no standards, no conscience and those who should know better are equally deficient in these characteristics and are unwilling or unable to exercise judgment.

The biggest problem we have is that we too often say that we must not be "judgmental". Au contraire, we ought to be more judgmental, to say this behaviour is right and this is wrong and this is why. We should talk about "good" and "evil". We should say that the very definition of a responsible human being is that they make choices and that they accept responsibility for them and the consequences of the actions they take and don't blame others or "society" for what they choose to do. Until we start relearning and acting on this basis - which, frankly, is the basis on which many millions of us try to behave every day and on which all decent civilised societies have operated, we have very little hope of dealing with the problems which our society faces. There are lots of people who are poor (whether absolutely or relatively) who behave decently. It is moral poverty which is the problem.

Only IDS has even begun to think about and address these issues, which is why I think he would be wasted as Speaker. He needs to continue with the work he is doing; I have been hugely impressed when I hear him speak and the fact that he is reaching out to others in other parties is also much to be praised.

Hereford

Oh Verity! You were doing so well, until you fell into the trap of using your own relative definition.

Child abuse is surely the systematic physical, sexual or mental torture/punishment of a child for the purpose of the gratification of the abuser.

You might want to define your terms as neglect. And I agree neglect can be criminal.

But I believe that abuse needs a clear definition. As does poverty. As does torture.

Not being a good parent is not equivalent to being an abuser. It may make you criminally negligent

Verity

C Powell - This was all intentional. They have deliberately unpicked the fabric of our formerly very civil society and our constitution and have robbed us of our natural rights by creating - I read the other day - approximately one new law a day. For the past 11 years. Read those figures again and the full horror seeps through.

David Cameron would never have the guts (or the indignation or the foresight) to do it, but the next Tory leader should pledge to wipe out every single law that was jammed through by the Gramscis/Trots/Marxists at one stroke of the pen.

They have legislated nothing of value. They have legislated only destruction of a formerly enviable, well-balanced and familial society.

mac

Verity,

Sadly, a stroke of the pen can't erase the pervasive influence of the Gramscian academics whose pupils represent so many of today's and tomorrow's socialist ministers, PPCs, SpADs and swathes of public sector management.

A depressing prospect.

The Dandiprat

Another set of figures compiled by those who would seek to demoralise the nation.

Wooliness abounds with this kind of survey. Who gets to decide what neglect is? What abuse is? What constitutes survival?

At every stage of these decisions, there are opportunities to end up with the tune of one's own desire.