How safe are our children?

[grandadofsix]

I hear and read about Social Services failing abused children, about children being abused in Catholic institutions, about 1000's of children being sent overseas many to slave labour conditions and abuse. All of this happening in so-called civilised society!

As a grandfather you have more time to focus on things which could adversely affect the safety of children. The problem is that some subjects are "Inconvenient Truths".

Take speed limits - I have been banging away at our council and highways authority forever to lower speed limits to 20mph where chidren's (and pedestrian's) safety is at risk, and you wouldn't believe some of the exchanges. Cost is one big reason, there has to be a serious accident, another being "20mph might be considered overly constrictive and this would attract abuse by the vast majority of motorists who would consider the limit unreasonable". Cars before kids!

Dog danger - Can you believe that under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the 4 types of dogs banned can still be owned under direction by a court if owners can meet certain criteria! Also, we have the Dog Act of 1871. In 1871 children were being used by sweeps to climb inside chimneys. Shouldn't all dogs be made safe in public, one child attacked is one too many!

On a BBC Radio 4 programme the discussion was about banning adults smoking in a car with children passengers (which is against the law in some countries) and the person supporting this made the statement "our country is less progressive and less concerned about the health and safety of its children than many other countries"

More recently we have the subject of sex education on which we are way behind other EU countries. A new programme is being introduced into schools, but suddenly it's ok for religion to tamper with it. Surely this is tampering with our kids future wellbeing and safety!

I've been long winded I know, but this is my first time on the 'Mumsnet Talk' and had a lot on my chest!

Makes you think - "Inconvenient truths" - safety/abuse - Politicians - "Votes before Children"!!

Hello grandadof6
I didn't realise our Dangerous dog act was that old.
Those banned dogs that can still be owned aren't to be bred though are they? They're can't be many around.

Speed limits bother me too. We live on a country lane with no pavement and the limit is 60. You'd be mad to actually do 60 the way the road is - but obviously many do.

Just watched the David Willetts video on Conservative benefits for married couples. Well, single mums, unmarried partners, same sex couples, couples with children / without children - would you belive it, the Tories will help and support them all! What an absolute load of old waffle!

You were doing really well until that last part.... In our welfare state we've decided that we support people in need and that's regardless of their marital status, sexuality, parental (or non-parental) status, age, physical ability etc. BTW... if you happen to have a reasonable income you don't benefit - and that's also regardless of your personal circumstances. Being a single mum, pensioner or a same-sex couple doesn't not automatically result in cash being thrust at you from all directions - although if you read certain newspapers you'd be forgiven for thinking so.

The problem with any policies that actively ncourage a particular status e.g. being married, is that they by default mean that those outside the category lose out in some respect. I'm sure the Tories are as conscious as anyone else about this particular anomaly and are keen to be seen as even-handed.

As the lady suggests towards the end of part 1 of the DW video, "it's a fundamental principle, in a time of scarce resources, to focus resources on the basis of need not on the basis of relationship".
Of course DW must agree, because as you say the Tories "are keen to be seen as even - handed."
To maintain the status quo on these benefits plus extra rewards for married couples, the Tories would have to find additional revenue from somewhere to fund this, at the same time keeping the Tory promise to bring down the tax burden!
David Cameron admitted he had messed up making contradictory statements on negotiating marriage in the tax system. DW admits they have not identified their options on married couples allowances, they have no details planned, they will not introduce it in their first budget. To waffle or not to waffle.......??
Also, are you suggesting Chil1234 that those on reasonable incomes should receive benefits in line with those on low incomes?

Grandad, your take on Tory policy (or lack of it) isn't quite clear - do you support tax breaks for married couples or are you arguing the Tories are fibbing when they claim they will support families of all complexions?

(I was at the Willetts discussion and have to say I do not believe a Tory government will be fair to everyone including children of single parents/gay parents/other marginalised groups.)

edam, what I don't support, or fall for, is the "Caring Conservatives" smokescreen. What we should be worrying about is a hidden agenda behind it.
(You were at the DW discussion - you saw through the smokescreen!)

My kids are fairly safe I think. But then again I am not paranoid and terrified. I find that works best.

I would rather the 'caring conservatives' than another five years of Bullyboy Brown.

Although if there was another party that had a chance of winning against Labour I might just tick that box, but there isn't so I wont.

I find OP a bit hysterical, tbh.
In 1949 my mother wandered around the California countryside with a bridle and put it on random horses she came across, rode bareback and helmetless. Nobody thought it strange or ridiculous that a 9yo girl should be

Wondering around alone for hours
Riding strangers' animals
Riding strange animals (and she was thrown off a few times)
Riding helmetless

As a child Mom also fell in the La Brea Tar Pits as a child and nearly died (luckily her dog was around to pull her out).

Nowadays our children are cossetted up, chaperoned everywhere, and we buy the media line that the govt. should somehow be able to make up for the failings of individual highly devious and deranged abusive parents. It's control freakery gone mad.

Plus the expected standard of acceptable childcare has gone up so much that most of us decent but mere mortal parents end up with double servings of piled-high-guilt.

alantis, is that your only reason? How about policies!

I think that there's too much pushing of fear in our society. yes all those things above are risks but I would rather teach my kids awarness through freedom than scare the shit out of them (or myselves) about things which may never happen.

Cantsupinate, I completely agree I think we so over protect our children it has a detrimental effect in their mental health. Dont we have the most unhappy children in Europe? We need to all stop panicking about them.

As for social workers/services, I think most of them do a fantastic job and I really take my hat off to them, I couldn't do it. But they dont have cctv in people's houses nor are they Mystic Meg. They walk a very fine line and for the most part do it well. Some children will be harmed and even killed while on their books. This is the fault of the parents or carers and we shouldn't forget that.

I do agree with the OPs point about the traffic though which is a real danger to children.

Hi paisley, dangerous dogs that can't breed can still bite! Would you want to take a child of yours onto a property where there was a non-breeding pit bull!
Does anybody else have opinions on how children can be better protected against dog attacks (bearing in mind that only the horrific ones get reported).

Maybe one of the things midwifes/ health visiters should talk about/ note is if the family have a pet dog and have some information available about dogs and children.

I think you should also remember that most dogs are not dangerous but are loving pets. We have a dog and I think my children definitely benefit by having a dog to care for (although I do that).

Sorry midwives/ health visitors.

The dangerous dogs act is never going to protect anyone. It's not the dogs that are a danger, it's the owners. The DDA was a pathetic waste of time and has caused nothing but problems.

If you want to try and reduce the amounts of attacks you need to look at ownership, not breed. Maybe compulsary training courses for people who want to own dogs? And banning people with violent, criminal convictions from owning dogs.

I'll agree with you on the cars bit.

Sex education is a much the responsibility of the parent (if not more so) than the school. Seriously, we expect far too much from schools now. It's time people started aking responsibilty for their own children and let schools get back to what they are for i.e. teaching reading/writing/maths.

I think the benefits system is a good one. People who are unable to work for whatever reason should be supported.

I think social workers do the best they can, in most cases. Part of it surely has to come down to the fault of the community (or rather lack of)? How is no one else noticing what is going on/where is the rest of the family?

"alantis, is that your only reason? How about policies! "

Ohh policies, okay well here's a few;

Labour have;

Promised us a referendum on Europe (they lied) and we didn't get it.

Handed over most of our powers to the eu to be run by an unelected fat cat organisation that robs the british people dry at every turn.

Taken us into an illegal war in Iraq.

Brown nosed Bush into Afghanistan.

Forced multiculturalism on us without asking the people.

Allowed immigration to run riot to the detriment of ;
British jobs.
The British way of life.
Infrastructure;
Schools overwhelmed ( some areas english is actually the second language spoken by most children)
Hospitals overwhelmed.
Housing overwhelmed.
Local councils overwhelmed (having to cut services as no new funds were forthcoming in most areas and ringfenced budgets in others).
Forced the population towards 70 mil (on an extremely small island where space and essentials, water, gas, oil, food is not infinite).
Paying benefit to immigrants who can not even prove they have children back home.
Allowed foreign ciminals to come into the country unchecked (including organised crime gangs who traffic women and children).

Sold off half of our gold reserve at the lowest prices when we were economically stable (alledgedly).

Created a culture of credit both in government and in the general populus.

Spent everything in the coffers and then some on pet projects that have proved a disaster (ID cards, nhs computerised system etc) and then had to shelve their bad ideas (id cards etc).

Allowed health and safety laws to become rediculously out of hand ( one adult per one child to go swimming etc)

Allowed p.c laws to become rediculously out of hand ( you can't say immigration is wrong because your a racists if you do etc).

Screwed up the benefit system ( people who actually need dla etc forced to wait a year and go through appeal when people who don't need it get it)

Introduced the tax credits system (a good idea!) but made it so complicated families end up being given too much money and having to pay it back at extortionate rates the next year.

Screwed up the family court system so parents of abused children face a lengthy court trial because all (fathers) children have a right to two parents.

Screwed up the school level achievements bringing them down so low big business says it makes the school levers unemployable.

Bringing in lessons in school such as how to google and twitter when children are struggling with the three r's.

Raising the tax burden on people when they promised no tax rises (and stealth taxes).

Bringing in green taxes when the science on man made global warming is far from convincing ( according the foremost experts in climatology, geology, astro physics, physical and statisticians 400 of them)

Not building new power stations when it was clear that we needed them and relying on fuel from russia who use it as leverage.

Building wind farms that erode the beauty of the countryside and generate next to nothing in power (cost per output).

Building on flood plans and then shaking their heads when disbelief when whole communities are beseiged by floods.

Green taxing everything with an engine except aeroplanes, and having the audacity to give the go ahead for a third runway.

Allowing teachers in our schools to be undereducated in the subjects they teach.

Wasting money in the nhs on art and deco and administration (managers and paper pushers) when they need to increase front line staff and supply drugs that are too expensive.

I could go on all day, but I think that's enough for now.

"I think social workers do the best they can, in most cases. Part of it surely has to come down to the fault of the community (or rather lack of)? How is no one else noticing what is going on/where is the rest of the family?"

Yes one real shame about the way we all raise our children these days is that we do it on our own, without the input of the community. People don't dare tell off other peoples children any more and are scared to help if we feel something is wrong with them.

hi darcymum, my daughter was bitten on the face in an unprovoked attack by a loving pet, and I was bitten on the leg by a loving pet being walked by its owner with her two other dogs, again completely unprovoked. A dog doesn't know it's a loving pet and it doesn't know that it shouldn't bite! Very few dog attacks are reported, a doctor friend told me that if victims attend A&E for treatment only the damage is recorded not the cause.

atlantis, you have quoted your take on new labour's actions, your reason of course for not voting for them. What 'caring conservative' policies are attracting you to them?
I always voted labour but following the Iraq war (supported by the tories) I could never vote new labour. Plus the fact they have let our country down by perpetuating the tories free market economy scam inc a totally unregulated financial system which has brought the country to its knees, and devastation for so many people - nothing short of disgusting!
The Guardian published a 'citizens ethics' feature and the 3 party leaders responded.
You might like to check it out on
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/citizen-ethics-editorial
follow the NEXT link to each leader. Having read them it strenghthens even more why I am not voting new labour or tory.

"why I am not voting new labour or tory"

Unfortunately by not voing tory you are voting labour and thats the biggest problem with politics today.

To vote labour or tory? To vote for the lesser of two evils! The tories had they been in power would have done even more damage to our society than labour (history proves this with their destructive 18 years 1979 - 1997).
Lordy ashcroft says if the tories get in he will return to england - his statement confirms who and what the tories really represent, and what sort of people control them!

"history proves this with their destructive 18 years 1979 - 1997"

It would be illogical to assess how well the Conservatives would do now on their previous record, it's like saying my eldest child is a genius so my youngest will be too, like Labour the party has changed so much since those days, some die hards remain but they are pretty much toothless.

"Lordy ashcroft says if the tories get in he will return to england.."

Yes, Phill Collins and Michael Caine too, shocking ! And what of all those British people who are in self styled exile around the world, ordinary people who managed to emigrate to get away from the government and their state rule? Would they come back? We might actually have some British people living in Britain.

A lot more people will emigrate if labour get in again and my family shall be one of them, my grandchildren need a chance in life and they wont get that here with labour.

I can't be bothered getting into the Tiry/ Labour debate, but as far as the DDA goes, the amendments in 1995(?) mean that the police MUST investigate and take aprropriate action on ANY dog reported to be perceived as a threat. ie the dog doesn't actually have to bite you, just be "threatening", which is obviously way open to interpretation. Did you reports yours and your daughter's bites to the police? You can insist on action being taken on the offending dogs. Unfortunately members of the public seem to think that the DDA was all about banning certain breeds (which wasn't the main thrust of it at all, as far as I'm concerned- to me it was to make owners accountable for their dogs) and I'm not convinced the police really realise it either

Joolyjoolyjoo, when reported the police give you an incident number, action was not offered. They said if the dog attacks again they could do something about it. I don't think the police have the time!
I read a report saying there are 6 million households with dogs. You see more and more people with two dogs, sometimes even three. I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least 10 million pet dogs.
Dogs are are huge business for pet shops and vets, worth �£billions.
Perhaps it's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a sensible amount per year, which could bring in �£millions to help some important public services which are underfunded.
Also, for the safety of all children I think dogs should be muzzled in public (any vet will tell you it's not being cruel!) and always kept on a lead.