The sexual exploitation of children and young people was the subject of a QSD, or ‘question for short debate’ yesterday afternoon in the Moses Room, prompted no doubt by the recent prosecutions in Derby. I was unable to contribute because I was committed to another All Party Parliamentary Group meeting that was starting just as the Minister would have been replying. It’s bad manners to speak without waiting for a reply from the Minister. But I listened to most of the debate with interest. That there is a problem, and always has been, is not at issue; it is the increasing sophistication of organised abuse which is worrying. The legal framework is in place and so is a nationwide system for addressing the needs of vulnerable young people; but there was widespread acknowledgement that ‘safeguarding’ services had become overly bureaucractic; social workers are focusing on regulations, inspections and procedures rather than on front line work and co-operation with schools and police. This isn’t the fault of social workers but of the gravely inadequate support structures within which they work. Professor Eileen Munro’s interim report for the Government on child protection, which also came out yesterday, see http://www.education.gov.uk/munroreview took a similar line.
There was not much talk in the debate of the fundamental problem of poor parenting in many families and a failure of substitute parenting for young people in care, although Earl Listowel did touch on the need to improve radically the quality of care for children in local authority care, who are the most vulnerable to all kinds of exploitation. We have to provide children with their own built-in safeguards to reject inappropriate sexual advances. We can’t impose attitudes from outside when they are already past puberty. Too often an approach is seen by them initially as a sign that they are attractive. It’s a way to get rewards and also away of rebelling against their unhappy situation. Government policy is understandably largely concentrated on dealing with the problem after it has happened or on prevention in vulnerable groups. But probably we need to concentrate on Lord Northbourne’s fundamental question of how we give children the best start in life, what measures, if any, we can take to improve parenting where it is unsatisfactory. I am not sure at present that there is good evidence on which to base policy.
I was libelled some years ago on a TC chat show with regard to an excessive interest in children. I was tutoring Maths at the time,
and dismayed at the entirely false allegation, gave up the work I was doing.
I did not take proceedings for libel.
You might say the Writ is still outstanding.
However I have since taken an interest in those charged with sexual abuse of children, without condoning their alleged activities in any way.
widespread acknowledgement that ‘safeguarding’ services had become overly bureaucractic; social workers are focusing on regulations, inspections and procedures ………… but of the gravely inadequate support structures within which they work
So you justify the inspection and procedure inadequacy by refering to the inadequate support structure.
I see.
My comment on the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne’s(welcome!)thread regards the obsession with the stats of the developed world, applies but the complaint may go a good deal further than that.
The cries of sexual abuse frequently come from the Incestuous. Sexual abuse from outside the family is shouted from the roof tops. Sexual abuse from within, is totally unmarketable by the press; whilst public child abuse sells, and sells…. and sells.
I hope the moderator will allow me to shout, and (we) are in a noble place where democracy votes, and accountability, are not so important
INCEST. I repeat: INCEST!!
Does the noble baroness, Baroness Murphy, want to talk about the incidence of incest in these islands? She is a Learnéd psychiatrist and knows the subject!
Gareth, incest certainly used to be the leading problem but talking to people of this age who are victims step-parents/partners are more often the alleged perpetrators.
I realise this could still be construed as being in the same family, so to speak, but it is a different problem. They are both forms of innappropriate love but vastly different in their approach.
Unsatisfactory parenting ?
How do we define unsatisfactory parenting? Recent talk seems to suggest it has something to do with poverty but I would rebuff such a claim, indeed the generation in the Lords should also. Poverty is not necessarily to blame for “bad” children. Spoilt children of rich parentage can be as bad if not a worse a problem, indeed it is often the designer label kids that are worse in schools.
As a child in the Eastend we roamed the streets, I daresay Lord Sugar can confirm the poverty and the apparent lack of parental control from then. However respect for property and adults was a different kettle of fish back then. Society has lost it’s respect, for institutions, for Doctors, for Police and for Government, it has proved fallible. Respect for other adults has gone now too if you tell a child off in the street expect an angry parent on your doorstep.
The Baroness talks of sexual exploitation but this is now a wide subject ranging from sexual abuse to pictures in the media depicting younger children in sexual poses and outfits, Facebook and it’s ilk are full of them.
The subject matter is too vast, the individuals too complex to even begin to comprehend. Two children bought up by the same parents can turn out very different and it is difficult to pinpoint when the change occured. Being an unsatisfactory(?) parent may have little to do with it.
Our schooling system needs over hauling it doesn’t do as it should. The necessary discipline and teaching of respect isn’t there nor is the system fair at present in the way it metes out punishment.
Poor Parenting ?
Exactly what does that mean? And to whom in what circumstances ?
Starving babies, battered abused children I understand but beyond that what is poor parenting and is it, whatever it is, to blame for the ills of society ?
From 4 to 16 years old children spend most of their waking life in school, should we not be looking at poor teaching ? Every school I have dealt with as a child or as a parent have had teachers that are respected and others that have no idea how to gain respect. The latter is becoming more prevelant.
“We have to provide children with their own built-in safeguards to reject inappropriate sexual advances.”
What is inappropriate to a young teenager trying desperately to be adult, to get respect from their peers and to become the centre of the world ? Again the problem is education.
The organised abuse to which you infer is that by religious young men whose own girls are off limits and they are that way because of the fear instilled in these young men. There are non religious types who also instill this fear in young men, the fact is the Law and authority doesn’t and even if it did it would not completely eradicate the problem.
Our education system is not good enough and our punishment system laughable – 3 square meals, tv, drugs and maybe even a vote all for free, does that scare you ? It’s not pleasant but it hasn’t proved a detterent either.
So let’s cut the talk of poor parenting when a teacher cannot control a class. You cannot write a manual on how to bring up or deal with individual children, each is different as a parent I can assure you of that.
So not poor parenting but poor education, poor authority, poor punishment and poor system.
Fundamentally, the entire matter stems from a loss of responsibility for ones actions. Both collectively and individually. Hence the young follow suit.
They are sexualized by corporations from toddlers. It is a money spinner, and not a soul in high places cries out to stop it or even wants to expose it.
The simple change in teaching practice is ‘child abuse.’ It is the grooming of children to ‘expect’ sexual molestation. And, really, doesn’t it encourages it?
Silly parents who have no understanding of the psyche’s need in their children for protection from overt sexual exposure. In fact they often find it humorous to know their child has been able to see some porn on the internet or questions the presence of the one night stand they found in the bed that morning.
The habits and daily norms toward sexual awareness of so many enmeshed cultures, that have little or no connections to what was once considered a no go area for European children, has changed what is acceptable and what isn’t. We have lost our way because of fear.
And, yes, step families, live in lovers changing by the hour, let alone week. And more than that, the sanction of it by the state. The idea that government no longer leads morally but follows fad and fashion for fear of appearing out of touch. No leadership, denial of responsibility, pretending it isn’t there.
Imagine the leader of one of our main parties is unmarried to the woman who gave birth to his children, and he didn’t even feel delight at the prospect of registering himself as their blood father. It was as if he wanted to deny his parentage. Not caring what this lack of responsibility would do to the sense of self esteem his children will feel when they are old enough to be aware of the unnatural emotion behind it.
Add to that, the very fact this man expects the nation to elect him as leader for the future. How the disrespect of the nation has dared to show its face in high office.
Children are precious and yet the fashion is to abandon them so that ‘mother’ can have it all. And the ‘all’ turns out to be, in the main, a nowhere job posed as a career. What a sham. What a disgrace.
And then the discussion now as to why, what, where and when this abuse toward children began to happen? Neglected children were always open to sexual abuse and more, it was and is condoned by inaction to change that which is known to be adding to its prevalence.
Start with the basics and take it from there. Look at what you ‘know’ is creating this irresponsibility and have the courage to do what needs to be done to stop it.
Then we can return to civilised expectation toward the most vulnerable and precious in our society.
TV and News scandal has a lot to answer for, and the low morals that go with it.
News designed for several million people can only be the lowest common denominator, and that means the promotion of low and lax morals, even the promotion of mass murderers, to fill the bytes, whether on screen or on hard copy.
Then you’ve got your child abuse.
The “Whatif” brigade rules ok. I read of a man the other day who was not allowed to take his grandson to school with other children because he was no “approved” or reliable whatever.
Again the baroness knows…. the mood of hysteria rules ok!
Munro…‘The aim is to make it harder for people to do something wrong and easier for them
to do it right.’
Unfortunately if that is done they will do wrong BECAUSE it is harder believing that something that is easy cannot possibly be right!
Sorry Munro. It is all talk around the desk.
Take the figures for intervention … somewhere near 600,000 children in 2009?
I should like to see a closer analysis of them; those are geared towards the Tv viewers “oohing and ahhhing Isn’t it awful” brigade.
The NSPCC does good work but they are always alongside and possibly second to policewomen, whose principal job as women, is on family/child abuse matters.
Apologies I got my italics and negatives in a twist there, and it is a point.
Munro…‘The aim is to make it harder for people to do something wrong and easier for them
to do it right.’
Unfortunately if that is done, they will do wrong BECAUSE it is hard to believe that something easy, can possibly be right!
Allowing physical searches by teachers who possibly will not have the guidelines and safety measures that our Police implement is not a way forward.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12365292
Allowing teachers not only to physically search pupils but to go through and perhaps delete private data held on phones is abhorrent and will have parents up in arms. It would happen to my child just once.
If a crime is thought to have been committed and we are talking of offences, then we have measures already in law to deal with these. Setting up teachers as police judge and jury is wrong as there are many teachers who are not upto the job including head teachers.
This type of thing will lead to more allegations against the profession and does not help the situation.
Teachers were at one time, 80-100 years ago, known as “beaks”,the same as magistrates, on account of being a figure of authority and respect in the community. With mass education until 21 it can scarcely be so now, but is any
profession respected?
The figures in the report for referral at about 600,000 children can surely not be accurate. What is the current population of children in the UK today (under 16)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=716
14.8m, and 600,000 of those refered as abused? say 1 in 30?
The women’s police force is clearly looking for business in desperation to prove, that ALL children are abused.
Fanciful?!
Some very interesting points made here. The question about what is good parenting was explored at length in Lord Northbourne’s debate yesterday, see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110203-0001.htm#11020329000352 at
column 1469. Quite a lot is known but my overwhelming feeling listening to the contributions was that no Government will be able to afford or be sufficiently politically courageous to implement the major changes which would be required. Tinkering round the edges is about as much as we can do.
The question of sexual abuse and incest inside the family is probably more important in its long term devastating effect on the development of children than later external exploitation; neither of these topics is new or likely to be more common than in earlier times (Lord Shaftesbury wrote about how common both these were in Victorian London).
If a government is not sufficiently ‘courageous’ to implement the changes needed to do what is right for the country, why did they put themselves up as a body who can offer the answer to our dilemmas?
If they don’t have the bottle, then move over and let someone else take it on.
A rethink is clearly very necessary here.