You big meanies!!! says kiddie charity

Barnardos is a UK charity founded in the victorian era that used to keep orphans and unwanteds in huge institutional houses and give them some sort of normalish life before it was fashionable to farm them out to regular families. Now they've diversified into all sorts of 'troubled brat' areas.

They did a poll recently, and it blew up in their faces. I'm so proud of the British public's response that it just HAS to be shared here with an appreciative audience.

- - -

Britain in danger of demonising its children, claims Barnardo's

Half the adult population in Britain is fundamentally prejudiced against the current generation of children and critical of their "animal" behaviour, a poll for the charity Barnardo's reveals today.

It found 49% of adults think children pose an increasing danger to society and 54% say young people are "beginning to behave like animals".

The charity commissioned a YouGov poll of 2,000 adults after the UN committee of the rights of the child said Britain should take urgent action to stop the demonisation of children.

Martin Narey, the charity's chief executive, said: "It is appalling that words like 'animal', 'feral' and 'vermin' are used daily in reference to children. These are not references to a small minority of children, but represent the public view of all children. Despite the fact that most children are not troublesome, there is still a perception that today's young people are a more unruly, criminal lot than ever before."

The poll found:

• 43% of adults believed "something must be done to protect us from children";

• 35% agreed with the proposition that "nowadays it feels like the streets are infested with children";

• 45% said people "refer to children as feral because they behave that way"; and

• 49% disagreed with the statement that "children who get into trouble are often misunderstood and in need of professional help".

The charity said the latest official crime survey found that adults think young people commit up to half of all crimes, when in fact they were responsible for only 12%.

"This sort of attitude does nothing to help young people who are badly behaved to change their ways," said Narey.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

"This sort of attitude does nothing to help young people who are badly behaved to change their ways," said Narey."


So, what attitude does she wish society to take? She probably wants everyone to blame anything and everything but these poor kyds/hoodlums, and stand idly by while they terrorize villages and communities. If the figure is that youth commit 12 % of all the crime, then that is an awful high percentage in it's own rite, although I would guess it's even higher. Also, by that statement alone she is admitting that they ARE "badly behaved". I have dealt with these kyds in the past through my employer (who hired them for the tax breaks) who were living in group homes and believe you me, MANY of them are devious little bastards and bitches who will lie, steal, cheat, etc.......Many of them could have used this outside employment as a stepping stone out of the home and into a college grant program and OUT of whatever hell they had lived their whole lives. Yet, instead they saw it as an opportunity to steal, sneak off and have sex, do drugs, get drunk, etc.........and most of them were high school juniors and seniors.

If I was abused like many of those kyds, if I had lived in ghettos and shitholes, if I had seen moomie shack up with any man who had a fresh vile of crack, and THEN I was placed in a clean, safe environment and clothed and fed, was given a paying job, and a college grant was sitting there just waiting for me to take it, then I am POSITIVE I could walk the straight and narrow and make a life for myself and MOVE away after college. They can do the same damned thing and SOME of them did. Instead, they act JUST like the trash from whence they came. This further supports my belief that in many cases genetics plays a strong role.

I just looked up that children under 16 make up approximately 21% of the population of England. Given the low numbers of kids I would say that the survey is correct in saying that children are dangerous. This would mean that kids are committing crimes in a higher number than their population would warrant. All things considered I would assume it's about half of all kids, I would think that the under 7's would not be out behaving in a criminal manner which leaves out about half of all kids. So that would mean that 11% of the country is committing 12% of all crimes. Not good numbers at all.

faints.....

Kim, that's assuming they have no mental defects like fetal alcohol, etc.

Oh yeah! Hooray! The British are finally showing some sense here. Personally, I would like attitude return to the Victorian eara when children were disciplined strictly and kept in their place. I agree with every single one of the statements in the OP. I am in my mid-50s and because of health and mobility problems, yes, I am afraid of children and teenagers today.

Rose Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> faints.....
>
> Kim, that's assuming they have no mental defects
> like fetal alcohol, etc.


I agree and I worked with those kyds too, through Easter Seals. We had one group from the group home who had no visible "defects" and were for the most part not in foster care because of prior behavioral problems. Most of their welfare moos were deemed unfit so they wound up in foster care, so it's no small wonder that they are plagued with behavioral problems later. The ones who came in from Easter Seals had a variety of mental problems from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, mental retardation caused by abuse or drugs, or Down's Syndrome were among their mental disabilities. MOST of the Easter Seal's kyds were still living with moomie and didn't have behavioral issues beyond what would be expected of a brain damaged or deficient person. Those group home kyds though were a bad bunch, for the most part, although there were a few of them who did VERY well and later went on to go to college and made a decent life for themselves, despite their horrible and negligent early childhood years.

Literally HUNDREDS of kyds aged 12-18 passed through that group home every year, further illustrating how many moocows do NOT take TMIJITW very seriously.

kidless, saying that you would behave if taken out of an abusive situation in your case nmight or not have been true.
Sadly, if you look at the stats of kids who have been severely damaged by their so called loving moos and duhs and are placed in better circumstances rarely can rise above the shadows of their pasts. It seems to take a HELL of a lot of patience, resources, and extreme tough love to get past the walls of defensiveness and behaviours the particular child developed as a means of self defense.
Some kids are capable of taking the proverbial step back and are grateful for the improvements in surroundings. I can think of a couple of cases right off the bat where the kids in question did so.

This does not lesson the perception that adults have of kids, and to blame natural and reasonable reactions to out of control and uncontrollable little bastards by trying to place the blame back on the horror stricken folk who have to suffer because of these hellions.

Britain is NOT in a position to boast of their society: they are one of the most back assward notions in treatment of criminals and potential criminals. One is literally incapable of defending oneself against any attack. God help you if you fight a murderer to the death, who is trying to kill you just to rob whatever they can, in jolly old England. You will be executed for depriving the poor criminal of his life.

AS a result, I think (I would have to check it out) London is far more dangerous a place than New York City. All a result of coddling from the cradle to the grave.

Alas, it's true England has fallen so far in the past few years - the rights of the criminals outweight the rights of the victims.

Why just the other day a rapist was set free because he was 'sleepwalking' when he committed the dirty deed.

Is it any wonder that I rarely leave the house unless I have to?

Someone did a study, don't know where it is, but essentially proved that the more gun control a nation engages in, the more violent it becomes.

Oh, I agree with what you are saying 2 cents, but I was thinking of it as an after effect of the kyds ever even having been born to welfare whores and drug addicts, abusive moomies/duddy's etc.......I realize that some kyds just can not rise above it for whatever reason. THAT is why that I am first and foremost for prevention whether it be reliable birth control or my personal favorite; MANDATORY STERILIZATION. Society would no doubt be better off if most of these kyds had never been born. It is CLEARLY the moo's fault for allowing it to happen. Once the felonious brats exist though, what to do? Like mentioned, some rise above it but most do not. Many people believe in the school of thought that ALL kyds can be "rehabilitated", but I do not agree. If they are already torturing pets at age 6, you can just about forget it. If they have already committed their first armed robbery or other violent crime by age 13, lock em' up and bury the key.

I don't know the answer, other than prevention and never allowing them to have been born, but short of that I think that they should be locked away where society can rest a little easier and not be anything more than these thugs' future prey. Then again, we will just have to deal with them as adults, once they have been sprung from kiddie prison. If the kyd in a group or foster home does not have a mental defect, then it his true chartacter which will likely decide which route he takes, providing he is currently in a decent environment, like the kyds who I worked with were. I still vote for mandatory sterilization and I truly believe that inside of a decade, we would see kiddie crime take a huge plunge in the other direction.

That won't ever happen though, because it's their RIGHT to continue to breed.

Oh trust me, these are exactly the results Barnardo wanted to help promote their new campaign. If they wanted to show that people luv children they would have not said 35% say the streets are infested with children but 65% disagree (I work in PR and know exactly how easy it is to manipulate stats to prove a point).

Take a look at their new ad campaign. BLEH.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2422732.htm

So according to this agency, is not the parents who either refuse to raise, or abuse, their children, and it's not the kids who are acting like animals for whatever reason that are the problem. The problem is that people are calling them on their shit? Fuck that.

You act like an animal, you should expect to be called an animal. If you act like a criminal, you should expect to be treated as such. I'm pretty sure this is simply "treat others as you'd like to be treated" being put to use. If you are a kid, who is treating other people like shit, you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up getting treated like shit. It's The Golden Rule, get used to it.

There are reasons why shop keepers only allow 2 kids at a time in their stores, it's because experience has taught them that more than 2 kids means they'll be robbed blind. There are reasons why people refuse to interact with children, experience has taught them that where there is one child, there are probably 8 others waiting around the corner with rocks. There are reasons why people don't want children in bars, because when they're there the breeders expect to have their dumpers tongue washed. They're children, they don't get a "fair deal" because they haven't EARNED it like the rest of us.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

Matush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh trust me, these are exactly the results
> Barnardo wanted to help promote their new
> campaign. If they wanted to show that people luv
> children they would have not said 35% say the
> streets are infested with children but 65%
> disagree (I work in PR and know exactly how easy
> it is to manipulate stats to prove a point).
>


This is an absolute fact and why I am leary about "studies show", and "surveys show", and "doctors recommend", etc..........I want to know WHAT studies/surveys, WHEN were they taken, WHICH doctors, WHAT kind of doctors they asked, WHY the particpants chose to answer or HOW they were selected and from WHERE, WHO did they ask and WHO decided on the questions asked and WHAT were those questions, exactly? Since I live in a big tobacco farming area, I could probably spend one afternoon and "survey" 100 of my neighbors in this county about his/her opinion of smoking related issues. I could also report back an honest result that says, "Over 90% of residents of Pipe county hold the following opinions:

1)Smoking should be allowed in public places
2)There should be NO TAXES on tobacco products
3)Smoking is relaxing and is therefore good for hypertension
4)There should more government farm subsidies for Tobacco farmers
5)Second hand smoke never hurt anyone

I could ALSO go into town and do the exact same survey in a religious oriented breederville subdivision and come out with COMPLETELY different results. A lot has to do with who you ask, when you ask, what you ask, where you ask, and why you are doing the asking. I am also VERY suspicious when a "doctor" endorses a particular product. What does he have a "doctorate" or PHD in, Philosophy or perhaps English Lit? NOTHING pisses me off more than when a company uses people with PHD's in basket weaving and dress them in white coats and refer to them as "Dr", or it's an actor and in small print it says, "This is an advertisment, these are actors....."etc....

It is fairly easy to manipulate statistics to say what you want. From the randomness of samples to whether the word "mean" or "median" is used in a description of data changes everything. You also have to be careful when authors write about correlation, especially when they can "show" that two seemingly unrelated things are connected.

Why would it happen in the UK and not here? something doesn't seem right.