The Truth About IPP Sentences

ChildLine and NSPCC using emotional blackmail to pay the bills

child_line.jpg

Children need protecting but who pays?

Children’s charities in the UK have learned from their American counterparts and are using scare tactics to try and elicit more money out of the government and the rest of us as their once full bank accounts begin to empty

People are giving less and less to charitable organizations as individuals and families find that they have to struggle to pay their own household bills.

The latest attempt at emotional blackmail comes in the form of ChildLine who have produced a report detailing figures from 2009 – yes we do mean 2009 –  which states that over 3000 children in local authority care contacted ChildLine and contained about physical, emotional or sexual abuse.

The report goes on to state that children were “not being listened to” and that not enough is being spent on enabling local authorities to appoint suitable adults in which children who felt vulnerable could confide.

It is not insignificant that no such statement was made in 2010 and that ChildLine have waited until now, when the cuts are beginning to bite, to make their bid for more money.

The over inflated child protection industry in the UK is beginning to feel the pinch like the rest of us and they don’t like it.

They’ve had it so good for so long that now they’re being dragged, kicking and screaming into the real world where people are not prepared to go on paying out of their own pockets on the basis of somebody else’s word.

ChildLine, the NSPCC and other children’s organisations are looking for new ways to generate income to pay the 2,000,000 people who work in what is essentially an emotion based industry.

TheOpinionSite.org would also like to draw attention to another side of this argument.

That is, the fact that over the last 15 years children have managed to acquire a considerable arsenal of weapons to use against any adult with whom they happen to be unhappy.

Children nowadays are not the same as children were 50 years ago and they are not shrinking violets. On the contrary, when they want to be, they can be as nasty and vindictive as any adult and they don’t always have the necessary reasoning powers to decide whether to use these new weapons or not. They are well informed and have been taught in school how to use their rights and the law against adults.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron has himself promised to change the rules for teachers where cases of alleged abuse are concerned. Legislation is to be introduced to shield those accused from the attendant publicity of the media in general and the tabloids in particular, whilst any investigations take place.

It seems that not only are our children a protected species in this country, but teachers soon will be as well.

Such protection as that proposed for the teaching profession does not however  extend to the average middle-aged man who happens to be helping a child in the street who has fallen over.

On the contrary; he is likely to be arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing the child. He may lose his job, his wife and family and his home by the time the appalling, unstoppable  machinery of this country’s “child protection” measures has finished its work, even when the man is later determined to have been acting in a perfectly innocent and responsible way.

By that time, the massive and irreversible damage will have already been done.

This brings us back to the problem of children in care being abused by their own carers.

Social Services, the police and associated law-enforcement agencies such as the Probation Service are simply not prepared to believe that any of their own could ever carry out the sort of appalling offenses from which they are supposed to protect others.

The mandarins in local authorities are even worse; if something amiss is discovered, they just want to keep it away from prying eyes and from any form of publicity.

Thus it is hardly surprising, indeed it is almost inevitable that some children housed in local authority care, prisons and secure accommodation of one sort or another are likely to be abused by those in authority at some time.

It also hardly comes as a surprise that when a child tries to report such abuse, they are largely ignored by those responsible for their care.

The authorities would much sooner attribute such a report of inappropriate behaviour by staff as an attempt by the child to use one of the weapons given them by successive governments over the years against the member of staff in question.

One must not forget either, that this could indeed be the case where for example a child has been disciplined and is simply seeking retribution for what they see as an unjust punishment.

Children are quite good at seeking revenge when they feel like it.

CRB checks don’t help to clarify the situation either as those who carry out institutional abuse of children often have no prior convictions or record.

The sad fact is, as TheOpinionSite.org has previously pointed out, the ever increasing number of measures introduced in order to protect children in the UK have given children the perfect blunt weapon to use against adults and at the same time have caused adults to disregard genuine reports of abuse made by children.

ChildLine though is basically saying, “Whatever the cutbacks, whatever the budget requirements, we must spend whatever it takes to protect children” and the NSPCC, which oversees ChildLine is understandably keen to back up that claim.

One must never forget that the NSPCC receive a considerable grant from government and that grant is beginning to dry up.

Most of the other child protection charities are in the same boat and it would not be a total surprise to TheOpinionSite.org if they too started bleating loudly about how their money is running out and how we should all pay for the shortfall.

As for the central point that children in care may be being abused by those who are responsible for their protection, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was unavailable for comment when contacted.

Child protection is always a sensitive and sometimes a controversial subject to cover.

There are those who have experienced abuse themselves as children who are affected every time the subject of child protection is raised in the media. Equally, there are those who as children made false accusations of abuse against adults and now as adults themselves feel guilty about their actions.

Every politician sitting in the House of Commons jumps on the child protection bandwagon at every opportunity in an effort to secure the cheap votes that are inevitably attached to child protection  measures introduced to Parliament.

TheOpinionSite.org however believes that if the child protection charities are truly strapped for cash in the way in which they claim, then they should save money just as the rest of us are having to save money.

In our view, some of the most proactive and useful measures they can take are to sack half their staff, move out of their expensive offices, halve the wages of their overpaid chief executives, stop behaving like emotional leeches and realize that they are not exempted from the struggles, the economics, or the realities of the real world in which the rest of us have to live.

4 Responses to ChildLine and NSPCC using emotional blackmail to pay the bills

  1. williamgarland
    October 14, 2011 at 12:59 am

    It was the same in the 17th Century, vis-a-vis Whitchcraft, if you questioned in any way the persecutory methods used against them, torturing, burning and hanging, you were accused of being a witch yourself. What I find so puzzling is why this flap over sex offenders (and I’m sure future historians will find it so), is why it is confined to what we loosely define as the anglo saxon countries, Britain and America, it is not to be found in Europe, and I cannot believe they have any more or less sex offenders than Britain or America. I would very much welcome, some statistical breakdown of reoffending rates of convicted sex offenders between Britain and America and Europe, which has a more liberal (no, I think a better word is sensible approach to this sort of crime). Is a french housewife living in paranoid fear of hundreds of child molesterers walking the streets?, is the German politician, always looking for cheap populism, by advocating, yet tougher measures, against this type of offender?, is the Spainish press, always whipping up hatred against these people?. The answer, I suspect is no!

    I am not advocating, that anybody, convicted of a sex offence be treated with kid gloves, but of course as we know convicted, does’nt necessarily mean guilt. I am quite sure, because of the flap, both in Britain and America, there have been many wrongful convictions, particularly in so called, “historic abuse cases”, where conviction relies purely on word of mouth, and of course the accuser, being handsomely rewarded financially, in so called compensation, if conviction ensures, which in most cases, I have read about, always does!

    To finsh with, I have recently seen in America, which even beats us, in draconian measures against convicted sex offenders, that some of these said offenders, in Florida, are being forced to live in make shift camps and living under bridges, after being forced out of their homes (a sort of ethnic cleansing). Yet at the same time, in the same state, I heard of a dreadful case, where two tennage girls forcibly stripped naked a mentally retarded boy of eleven and posted for all to see, on You Tube and so I understand, no charges were bought and the police dimissing it, as a prank. I always thought it was a rather sick society.

  2. patricia
    March 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    In the U.S. the sex offender laws are nightmares. It’s like the scarlett letter all over.

    If it Saves One Child: The Trading of Freedom for Security
    By Derek W. Logue
    When Patty Wetterling first lobbied for a sex offender registry in 1990, she was met with resistance because people knew these laws violated the civil rights of those who served their sentences. Twenty years later, the pendulum has swung completely; the public feels we cannot pass enough laws against people convicted of sex crimes . And despite a decline in sex crime cases since 1993 (before the passage of modern sex offender laws) , our culture fears the sex offender more than any other criminal in our culture.
    Over the past two decades, a definitive pattern has repeated itself in our culture and media which has led to our current state of “Predator Panic.” Mass media offers round-the-clock coverage of a tragic rape-murder, almost always of a white female child . Through the victim’s family or through legislators, a new bill is introduced or an existing law is expanded. Most, if not all, sex offender laws pass without dissenting votes or even debating the laws in question ; facts and studies about the true nature of sexual abuse are ignored in favor of harsher post-conviction sex offender laws. These laws are justified by such myths as “sex offenders are highly likely to re-offend” and “all sex offenders are ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles’” coupled with the generalization all sex crimes are similar to the high-profile sensationalized cases used to justify the passage of these laws .
    Law professor and author Eric S. Janus warns us sex offender laws are a “harbinger of a preventive state” and re-introduce the concept of a “degraded status” that was largely abolished during the civil rights era . One recent case in Ohio illustrates Janus’s point perfectly. In the decision to retroactively apply registration duties under the Adam Walsh Act, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals stated:

    “By their voluntary acts, sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens. Their conviction of felony offenses puts them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them .”

    One of the primary features of this trend has been the exclusiveness of sanctions specifically targeting those on the sex offender registries. The shift towards this degraded status began with the creating of the first registry under the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, followed by community notification, residency restrictions, GPS monitoring, and other laws . In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the public registry, stating the laws were “regulatory” and not “punitive,” meaning Constitutional safeguards do not apply to the public registry . Since that decision, the US Supreme Court has only made one single ruling against any sex offender laws; the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision ruled 5-4 against the use of the death penalty in child sex crime cases where the victim did not die .
    Having “no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments” against sex offenders has resulted in the erosion of civil rights that could potentially expand to other crimes and eventually a “risk-alone society.” In 2004, the same arguments to justify sex offender registries were used to attempt to pass a Maryland bill that would have made a public AIDS registry. It was argued AIDS patients were “bad people,” many of them “brought it upon themselves,” they are “high-risk people,” and it is a “public safety” issue. While that law was struck down (for now), other registries began popping up in different locations, from violent offenses to DUI registries. A few places even have “dangerous/ vicious dog” registries with Fido’s picture, street address, and a map showing where they live. The United Kingdom already allows people deemed “dangerous” but have never been charged with a sex crime to be listed on their sex offender registries. The United States has not passed a similar law yet, though the state of Ohio passed a “civil registry,” which forces people not convicted in criminal courts to register and abide by all other sex offender laws through a civil court (and a lesser burden of proof) .
    A recent poll revealed 51% of American citizens would gladly give up personal freedoms for laws that make them feel more secure . Slowly we allowed personal rights and freedoms to erode in exchange for a false sense of security. Columnist Naomi Wolf described 10 steps of fascism in writing about the Bush administration; current sex offender legislation follows her pattern as easily as the war on terror:

    1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: It is obvious sex offenders are the most vilified members of our culture. In a recent billboard campaign asking “what’s forgivable” in our society, the general consensus was sex offenders are unforgivable .
    2. Create a gulag: Janus has pointed out the sex offender is America’s degraded class complete with a separate set of legal rules registrants must follow . Laws regularly dictate where a person and live, work, or even worship. Few legislators are willing to speak out against these laws because it is political suicide , and mass media largely fails to acknowledge the negative consequences of these laws.
    3. Develop a thug caste: “The feds” were given increased jurisdiction under the Adam Walsh Act, which led to massive round-ups of registrants suspected of failure to meet strict reporting requirements . We’ve justified our laws and actions by claiming registrants are an imminent present threat, despite evidence that proves much of what we know about sex offenders is untrue .
    4. Set up an internal surveillance system: Megan’s Law has been in place for over a decade, and was “intended to increase awareness of dangerous sex offenders in the area .” “Big Registry” is big business, as companies are offering iPhone tracking applications , GPS devices and readers , and even microchip implants .
    5. Harass Citizen’s Groups: Those who speak out against these laws become targets of individual vigilantes, with the legal system rarely offering sanctions against those who assault registrants. In 2009, a Seattle woman received a mere 90 days for assault with a deadly weapon of a registrant ; outraged citizens had organized and raised money for her $15,000 bail for a woman with a lengthy criminal record . Organizations that sometimes work with police (such as the controversial group “Perverted Justice”) have targeted individuals and groups that speak out against sex offender registries with no repercussions for wholesale harassment of civil rights activists .
    6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: Civil commitment laws have rebounded in recent years. In 1997, the US Supreme Court ruled a person can be civilly confined under a relatively low standard of “personality disorder .” It has become nothing more than a means of detainment; since 1993, no one has ever graduated from Minnesota’s civil commitment centers .
    7. Target Key Individuals: Our fine legislators believe it to be “political suicide” to oppose tough sex crime measures. During a campaign to pass the Adam Walsh Act, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh shamed would-be opponents to his bill by asking them if they were child molesters or had child porn on their computers . No one opposed the bill.
    8. Control the press: Mass media rarely offers opposing viewpoints to the sex offender laws. Even in our skeptical society, few question celebrity advocates like John Walsh no matter how often scandal and controversy plague him. John Walsh testified before Congress that our country is “littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children” while claiming hundreds of thousands of kidnapped children every year . Yet the studies conducted in part by Walsh’s own lobbying contradicts him by proving “stereotypical kidnappings” are extremely rare; only 45 were killed or went permanently missing across the country per year . Mass media needs little goading because child abduction stories equal ratings; the media even called the summer months of 2002 the “summer of abduction” because of the amount of media attention based on the issue . For the most part, fueling the fear rather than objective reporting is the key.
    9. Dissent equals treason: If you oppose tough-on-crime measures, you are a “hug-a-thug” liberal, or worse, a closet pedophile. Politicians running for office in Omaha Nebraska were the targets of a flier campaign from the local police union claiming they allowed sex offenders to roam the streets; the campaign was retaliation for opposing viewpoints on police pensions . Another site targeted a Wylie, Texas Councilman and the Mayor for “supporting” a registrant .
    10. Suspend the rule of law: For years, sex offender laws have been circumvented the Constitution because they were considered “regulatory” rather than “punitive .” The Adam Walsh Act was passed under “Suspension of the Rules” without even enough members of the Senate to hold a quorum. Most of the provisions of the bill were added just minutes before the suspension of the rules vote . Not only did the vast majority of the US Senate failed to vote on the Adam Walsh Act, most of them had not even read the bill! Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applied the rule retroactively using “Interim Rule,” which bypassed APA procedure due to “pressing emergency .”

    This issue is not a matter of sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes. In an ideal society, they would be punished and receive treatment for their crimes, but also given a chance to be productive members of society after serving their sentences. Thanks to a perfect storm of moral panic, a society willing to surrender Constitutional safeguards for security, a Big Brother bureaucracy, and a “Big Registry” industry willing to further erode our civil rights, we are no closer to sex crime prevention but closer to an Orwellian “risk-alone” society.
    In vetoing a bill that would exclude teens from registering for consensual sex with other teens within four years of each other, Texas Governor Rick Perry stated it was to “protect young victims .” Texas has over 4000 sex offenders listed on the public registry who were convicted as juveniles, many for consensual sex with other teens . How much are we willing to sacrifice to “save one child?”

  3. paul
    March 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    This is the only place I’ve seen that tells the truth on this.I know people who agree with The Opinion Site but I bet they are too afraid to leave a comment even though nobody will know who they are.Come on people, stand up for the truth for once!

  4. March 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    It is emortional blackmail..pay up or children will be abused. Question the child ‘protection’ industry and you are likely to be accused of supporting the abusers.

    The sad fact is these organisations do little to prevent the tens of thousands of emotional, physical and neglect abuse cases that happen ever year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.