Tag Archives: Child Abuse

Dec 19 2013

Ian Watkins Gets 35 Years. Is that it????

Posted on by

Now I’m not the lynch mob type - I’ve written before about how the media should hold back on naming and shaming people prior to sentencing, and I stand by that wholeheartedly. But the guilt of Ian Watkins was never in doubt. This wasn’t one persons word against another, there was exhaustive video and written evidence, and the admissions of some of the people involved. He even admitted some of the charges in court under the (quite frankly) outrageous guise of wanting to spare his victim’s families from hearing evidence.

71358821 ianwatkins Ian Watkins Gets 35 Years. Is that it????

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this man is vile. I don’t care how many psychologists will argue that pedophilia is a mental compulsion, it isn’t, and this wouldn’t excuse Watkins’ behaviour even it it were. Watkins’ brand of child abuse plumped new depths of depravity. This man tried to have penetrative sex with an 11 month baby - several times.

He acted out his fantasies on the truly innocent and vulnerable. Babies who have no voice, no concept of the world around them, and no means of fighting back. Who knows what lasting physical and emotional damage these children will carry with them into adulthood. It’s perverse, morally reprehensible and heinous.

In my eyes, acts of violence or cruelty to children are often more tragic than the murder of an adult. There can be no justification and the story is entirely one-sided - that child hasn’t had enough time to create a back-story worthy of some act of retribution. Ian Watkins, and others like him, act purely out of selfish self-gratification with no care whatsoever for their victims.

When I first read about this case I was physically sick. I didn’t manage to get through the entire article as I felt too appalled. It was simply too much to take in and too graphic. This isn’t because I’m a mother, it’s because I’m a human being. As a true-crime reader, I’ve read some seriously sensational things in my time, but nothing came close to how I felt reading those articles. And these were in our national newspapers for anyone to see.

Today, this man has been sentenced to 29 years behind bars, with a further 6 out on license. But he will be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of the prison term - that’s just 19.5 years. At his time of release he’d be just 56, his victims barely out of their teens. He’ll have plenty more years ahead of him to continue destroying young lives. It certainly makes you wonder just how much worse a case would have to be in order to qualify for a more severe sentence.

Okay, it’s very unlikely he’ll ever walk our streets again - if he doesn’t kill himself when he dries out and the full realisation of his crimes hit home, he’ll be murdered in jail. But this is surely not the point.

The whole case is likely to draw comparisons to that of Baby P’s, whose mother is somehow now out of prison after serving just 4 years. Although his was a child abuse case on a different scale altogether, let us not forget that the Watkins case involves mothers too. Mothers who willingly handed their children over to Watkins to be abused. These women were sentenced to just 14 and 17 years - but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they’re released after serving far less in just a few years time. Justice Royce also delivered a damning indictment to one of the women during his summing up - that she did not regard her child as a human being. I don’t care how young and impressionable these women were at the time of the crime. They haven’t simply mislaid their moral compasses, they can’t have ever had them to begin with. One of the women even carried out sex acts on her own child over webcam! This doesn’t make her complicit, it makes her AS deplorable as Watkins himself..

Watkins chose to take illegal substances, and these “mothers” chose to favour their idol over their own children, They failed to show even the most simple and natural of instincts when it comes to defenseless children. This points to something seriously worrying and complicated festering in the underbelly of celebrity culture. All those found guilty in this case need intense psychiatric support but should also be behind bars forever more. It is simply incomprehensible to have these people pass us by in ASDA or sit next to us on a bus in several years time.

Sometimes, just sometimes, I think our justice system does not go far enough.

Sep 4 2013

Ignorance, Neglect & Excuse-led Parenting: A Growing Number of School Children Still in Nappies

Posted on by

We’ve all heard people say that “no one ever wrote a book on how to be a good parent” (an excuse usually batted out on Jeremy Kyle as to why little Johnny ended up in the care system) - it always makes me bristle a bit as plenty of people have done exactly that. For me, common sense and plain old research play a large role in my response to parenting Dexter. I’m never afraid to ask my peers if I get stuck, but Google has also helped us out on more than one occasion. This is particularly true when Craig and I are mulling over when to introduce new foods, new play, and new challenges (such as potty training) to Dexter.

This is why a recent study by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) as reported by BBC News yesterday, really got me thinking. It centred on the fact that some school children enter the system some two years behind where they should be developmentally, and without the rudimentary social skills needed to get the most from the education system. Worse still, there are a growing number of 4 and 5-year-old school children still in nappies and unaware of their own names.

This think tank haven’t held back any punches. They’ve cited an increase in entry-level children who have clearly had an “abysmal” start in life, and parents who “just can’t be bothered”. Although there was a distinct lack of hard evidence in the article, read instead as a social commentary on our primary school education system, it’s still very worrying, and very hard to ignore.

Is there ever an excuse for such woefully ineffective parenting? Or is this, in fact, symptomatic of child abuse? If so, what can be done about it?

Rather than focus on these questions the report turns instead to causation. In my opinion, it mistakenly cites nuclear family breakdown as a major cause - a social problem too often exaggerated in my opinion. The truth is that these children are being failed by more than one parent in order to fall so drastically behind the levels of development expected for their age. Rather, the next cause cited seems more realistic.

Emotional neglect from disengaged parents is also a damaging factor for children’s development, says the study. There are also 700,000 children living with parents who are “dependent drinkers” and 335,000 with “dependent drug users” BBC News

This, for me, is the only cause for this problem. That’s over 1 million high risk children being failed by their parents; as neglect is a form of child abuse in itself, that’s over 1 million potential Baby P’s and Daniel Pelka’s living in our society.

The Government response seems less than decisive. Despite increasing the pupil premium to £2.5bn a year and doubling the number of disadvantaged two-year-olds eligible for free nursery places to 260,000 - this is a reactionary measure, rather than an attempt to save these children from a potentially damaging home environment. What if there really is an altogether simpler solution that will allow us to distinguish between genuinely naive parents, and those who simply can’t be bothered?

SOURCE: NHS Choices

It seems to me that it is parents who need educating, rather than children. Give them the tools and knowledge to better nurture their children, and some of the preschool skills gap might be addressed. Don’t send known high risk babies home to their drug dependent families without giving them a clear set of expectations. Put crudely, what if parents were given a manual on the basics of childcare at the time of birth?

I think it’s taken for granted that new mum’s will have online parenting resources, and the confidence to seek advice from their peers. If instead, it is clearly spelt out that children should be hitting modest levels of attainment month by month, then parents can better prepare their preschoolers for life in the classroom, and potentially spot special needs children earlier. Perhaps more importantly, it might help weed out those children who are being let down by neglectful parents.

This isn’t even a new concept. The Birth to Five book used to be routinely given out to all new mothers - I know my own midwife mentioned the fact that it was available to buy from the NHS website shortly after I had Dexter (she was mistaken, by then print versions had been discontinued). Although the same information is now available on the NHS choices website, this might not be accessible to all.

This would obviously need to rolled out in tandem with a whole host of other initiatives to tackle the problem from source. Specifically, we’d need to come down much harder on those parents who aren’t showing due care and attention to the needs of their children. But just maybe a back-to-basic approach would help improve the early prognosis for some preschoolers - let’s face it, anything is worth a try to prevent children being failed by their parents: Ignorance of key milestones their children should be meeting in advance of starting school is simply not good enough in today’s society.

FURTHER READING:

“More pupils wetting themselves, say teachers” BBC News

“Education Underclass” of children in the UK is still in nappies when they start school The Independent

 

 

Apr 24 2013

Baby Piercing

Posted on by

I read a great post over on Mummy Vs Daddy this morning that really made me think. As far as I’m concerned Sarah (aka Mummy) is spot on with her write-up and decision not to get her two daughter’s (aged 4 & 5 years old) ears pierced. She cites the fact that their bodies are their own and she doesn’t feel comfortable making such a decision on their behalf - for me, the problem actually goes further than this.

I realise this might be viewed as controversial but it’s not stopped me before, and won’t stop me now. I’m all for an age limit on piercing of any kind, with no parental consent clause.

Why? I see piercing young children as cruel and unnecessary. Why put your child through something that will hurt them in order to make them ‘look pretty’, or worse still, for the sake of announcing to the world that your baby is a girl? When I see babies with earrings it honestly makes me want to cry - when Dexter is immunised his little screams break my heart. Why would you put them through a similar pain when it’s wholly unnecessary?

DEBUNKING THE EXCUSES

“It’s a girl!”

Where does it end?

When Dexter was tiny, occassionally a passerby would comment on “how pretty she was”. Did it bother me? Not really. It’s an easy mistake to make. I didn’t dress Dexter permanently in blue from that point on to avoid future confusion, nor would I feel the need to swamp my baby girl in pink. When it comes down to it, why does it matter that someone might mistake your baby for the opposite sex? The baby certainly won’t care, so why should mum or dad? What’s wrong with hairbands and tutus anyway!?

Further to this point - ear piercing is also such an outmoded form of stereotyping. Women no longer subscribe to same inflexible definition of ‘pretty’ anymore. There is also beauty in athleticism, intelligence and creativity - let your little girl work out how they want to project their own feminity, in their own time. They might end up being pretty hacked off that you’ve mutilated their body and not given them the choice.

“It’s inherent within my culture / religion”

It’s true, ear piercing is a deep-rooted tradition in Spain and Latin America. Often, new mums will be presented with gold ear studs for her newborn, and the baby will leave the hospital wearing them. Similarly, in Hinduism the ear-piercing ceremony (Karnavedha) is performed on both sexes and has deep mystical and symbolic significance. It’s believed that it cleanses sin and nurtures the spirit and in some places, it’s considered a sin not to have your lobes pierced. It could therefore be argued that raising the age of consent would violate their religious and cultural rights.

Now, I’m all for cultural tolerance but not when it upsurps the physical well-being of a innocent child. Violence and inflicting pain on others (in whatever form) is simply not tolerated in this society. We’ve stuck by our guns when many cultural practices have been banned in this county - and this should be no exception. By all means - practice your religions, and continue to embrace your heritage here in Britain - but our laws are our laws.

“It’ll spare her the pain of getting pierced later in life”

This excuse stems from the belief that if parents get their children’s ears pierced as babies, they can control the cleaning and sterilsation of the wound so it won’t become infected. In the same breath, these parents will state “she won’t remember the pain / It’s kinder to do it when shes tiny”- there’s so much wrong with this argument I don’t know where to begin.

At 30 years of age, I don’t have my ears pierced and have no intention of doing so. I won’t stop my daughter from doing it when she reaches a sensible age, but there’s absolutely no certainty that she’ll want to. Ear piercing is a matter of personal choice, not a given. Surely this argument also lends itself to the fact that there should be a age limit to having piercing in the first place! If piercings are illegal for under 16′s - they would surely be aware of the implications of not looking after the wound themselves and the pain associated with it when they opt in to the procedure!

In conclusion

I’m well aware that this debate has existed for some time and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. As Britain is a multicultural society, our government often turn a blind eye to such practices for fear of upsetting some sub-cultures. Opinion polls seem largely to support my view though - with some people going so far as to dub the practice as a form of child abuse.

Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to casually fling the word abuse into the debate, I do see it as cruel, unnecessary and ugly. It’s not for me to tell anyone how to parent but don’t expect me not to tear up when I see a baby sporting a stud. Babies are so precious - please think carefully before subjecting them to the pain.

 

 

pixel Baby Piercing