The latest insane proposal to come out of the Westminster asylum, introducing a criminal offence of ‘emotional abuse’ or a ‘Cinderella Law’, is politically correct, feminist driven idiocy designed to further the ambitions – and the profits – of ambitious politicians and protection charities.
The UK already has more child protection laws, more child protection charities and lobby groups, more biased court procedures and more biased judges than any other country in Europe. Despite all this, according to UNESCO’s child welfare report, the UK also still has some of the unhappiest children anywhere in the world. According to David Cameron, if you can ever believe anything he says, the UK also has some of the most negligent parents.
This week has seen two announcements relating to parenting: the first, that the government’s attempts to ‘fix troubled families’ has failed miserably – only 4% of ‘troubled’ families wanted anything to do with the £400m scheme – and the second, Conservative MP, Robert Buckland (presumably looking for a ministerial post after the next election) reporting that his proposed ‘Cinderella Law’ is to be championed by ministers.
Buckland has been working with one of the many, feminist infested, money-leeching children’s charities, Action for Children, in order to try and convince the government that a new criminal offence of “emotional abuse” is necessary. Buckland says, “..a range of behaviours, from ignoring a child’s presence, failing to stimulate a child, right through to acts of in fact terrorising a child” would carry a jail sentence. The new law would also criminalise the impairment of “physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”; in other words, if you are not what the government regards as a ‘perfect’ parent, expect to go to jail.
According to Action for Children and the ambitious Buckland, the existing Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) tests would ensure that there are ‘safeguards’ to ensure that only the worst cases were prosecuted. TheOpinionSite.org must make clear that these are the same ‘safeguards’ that were to ensure that David Blunkett’s infamous Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) would only jail “…a few hundred” people. In reality, there were 6,500 prisoners sentenced to an IPP, 3,500 of whom are still in jail despite being long past their parole eligibility date.
The CPS Code for Prosecutors stipulates two tests: an evidential test (which more and more relies on hearsay evidence and one person’s word against another) and the likelihood that a jury would convict. As no real evidence is needed, it is the second test that would decide if a parent should be prosecuted for ‘emotional abuse’ and, as most juries now convict in cases involving any kind of child abuse, it’s a fair bet that the prosecution would go ahead.
Thus, the parent is convicted of ‘emotionally abuse’ – on the uncorroborated word of a child – and the parent goes to jail; the child is taken into care and probably ends up being sexually and physically abused as well. A truly brilliant plan from Mr Buckland and Action for Children.
Buckland and his supporters (which include most of the other children’s charities, who wish they had thought of it first) claim that the current law dating from Victorian times is insufficient. However, any lawyer will tell you that the law relating to Domestic Abuse and the laws covering Neglect already include ‘emotional abuse’ in their definitions. They do not however necessarily impose a jail sentence.
Buckland and Action for Children relied for their evidence on social workers – about 200 of them – who were keen to give their opinions regarding ‘emotional abuse’; the same social workers who are so afraid of losing their jobs or being sued that they always regard every suspect as being a ‘high risk’ to children; not a credible source of research material. Needless to say, the police threw their hat into the ring as well; hardly encouraging, given their recent track record of dishonesty and political manipulation.
So, we have a proposed new law which isn’t needed and which, because Cameron is terrified of the children’s charities, will likely be taken forward. It will be misused and will wreck families. Much worse, it will also force a unified, government sanctioned model of parenting on every British parent, destroy what is left of the parental right to discipline their own children and criminalise individuals who are trying to bring up their children in a way different to that approved of by this feminist-driven government.
If this absurd proposal becomes law, we can also expect to see hundreds of ‘historic’ allegations of so-called ‘emotional neglect’ being brought to court, presumably under the same system that exists for historic sex abuse cases where no real evidence is necessary.
Why then has this absurd proposal been taken seriously?
The answer, sadly, is that any proposal that labelled ‘child protection’ now has to be accepted by the particular British government of the day. If the administration does not follow through, it will face the full wrath of the fem-motivated child protection lobby – not to mention the Daily Mail and the Sun. The best any British government can do is to delay for as long as possible.
Like it or not, Britain is now American in everything but name. This new ‘Cinderella Law’ is just the latest step in forcing the American model of life management, workfare, and family values upon us. Everyone has to be play ‘happy families’, even though it is all a massive lie. The next stage will be to ‘licence’ those who wish to have children, granting the licence only to prospective parents who agree to follow the government’s parenting model. This may seem an absurd idea but it has already been discussed and is still being talked about in Whitehall.
In the Unesco child welfare report referred to above, out of 29 countries the UK came 16th and the United States came three from bottom at 26th. Why on earth then would Britain want to follow the US model of parenting when American kids are some of the most miserable in the world?
Of course, as TheOpinionSite.org has made clear for some time, in 10 or 20 years, when British, mollycoddled, weak and helpless children become adults (about 30 years old by current standards), they will still be mollycoddled, weak and helpless; then the whole cycle will start again. However, with any luck, these pathetic specimens of child-minded ‘adults’ who do not know how to deal with risk, cannot solve life’s problems and who always expect someone else to do everything for them, may in fact never have children of their own.
It appears that British would-be parents are having second thoughts. Many regard children nowadays as just being far too dangerous to be around. Buckland’s Cinderella law will not help the situation as parents may find themselves in court 30 years after their child has left home, their offspring having accused their parents of being nasty to them when they were young and of being responsible for all the horrid things that have happened to them in their life.
Believe it ; it could – and probably will – happen.
So, roll out the Stars & Stripes, sing “Hail to the Chief”, wave the feminist flags and let the mayhem begin. Alternatively, you could try writing to your MP and try to persuade them not to be so incredibly stupid as to support this crazy proposal – provided of course that they are brave enough to stand up and be counted, which is doubtful.
(Discuss this in our FORUM)