One in four people in the UK, aged between 18 and 24, claims to have experienced severe violence, sexual abuse or neglect as a child, says the children's charity the NSPCC.Which startling fact needs looking into. I mean, just what’s their definition?
The study defined "severe maltreatment" across a wide range of measures. It included young people who had been subject to rape, attempted rape, forced sexual contact, sexual abuse, physical harm such as a black eye and being hit with a weapon.Yup, reasonable people would conclude that this is indeed ‘severe maltreatment’, as the BBC article carrying water for the charity survey screams.
But most reasonable people wouldn’t agree that this falls into that definition:
But it also included "serious emotional neglect or lack of physical care or supervision", which it defined as including "parents never or hardly ever asking their child who they were going out with or where or what they were doing".No indeed. Not by a long chalk…
NSPCC chief executive Andrew Flanagan said it meant there were likely to be "severely maltreated children in every secondary school".Only going by the second category. Not the first. So why not ‘fess up on the breakdown of your figures?
Is it because there’s money in it?
Children's Minister Tim Loughton says the NSPCC will receive a grant of £11.2m for ChildLine and the NSPCC Helpline until 2015.Like I figured…
The study reveals an overall decline in children reporting that they have experienced violence and abuse.And when things are declining, they somehow need more taxpayer money, not less?
So much for that ‘change’ of government we thought we had, eh?
As Raedwald points out:
“One thing we can be sure of is that we're going to have to protect our children from these poor deluded creatures whilst this latest bout of madness lasts.”