Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
You Cant Touch Me I Know My Rights

You Cant Touch Me I Know My Rights

Ratings: (0)|Views: 80|Likes:
Published by factuk
It would now appear that the younger generation impose the rules which are carried out by the Police, acting under the constraints of the so-called 'child protection industry'. What is even more concerning is that the men are now making false historic accusations have “jumped on this bandwagon”. They are no longer children but portray themselves as such, and are accepted as such by the judicial system. They use society’s current overprotective attitude towards children, whilst themselves adopting the current “untouchable” attitude of today’s children toward authority.
It would now appear that the younger generation impose the rules which are carried out by the Police, acting under the constraints of the so-called 'child protection industry'. What is even more concerning is that the men are now making false historic accusations have “jumped on this bandwagon”. They are no longer children but portray themselves as such, and are accepted as such by the judicial system. They use society’s current overprotective attitude towards children, whilst themselves adopting the current “untouchable” attitude of today’s children toward authority.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: factuk on Jan 06, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2012

 
 You Can’t Touch Me – I know my rights !
An article byAn article byIris JensenIris Jensen
How often these do we hear the above phrase, (or something similar) from today’schildren and young people, both girls and boys, in a wide variety of circumstances? Itmight be from youngsters vandalising the environment, attempting to shop lift, beingphysically or verbally aggressive, or committing any of the numerous acts that areoffensive to those around. On being reprimanded, that is the standard response and if anadult attempts physical restraint, it is the adult who will be at fault, not only in the eyesof the youngster concerned, but almost certainly in the eyes of the Police or SocialServices.What of a child or young person who is misbehaving at home and is becoming totallybeyond the control of its parents. If the parent threatens any form of sanction, such asstopping pocket money, removal of privileges or even reasonable physical punishment,the response is much the same. However, in such instances, the child will probablythreaten to phone Social Services or a Child Help Line and parents are all too aware thatthese days, this is no idle threat and the result can be the break up of the entire family. This is a far cry from the attitude of youngsters some twenty or thirty years ago.Vandalism, theft, disruptive behaviour in the home and in schools occurred; youngsterscould be rude and aggressive but they accepted that if reasonable discipline wasimposed, it would be upheld. Parents and teachers may have sometimes despaired orfelt frustrated trying to cope with unruly youngsters in their care but they did not expectto be reprimanded or suspended, or to face disciplinary charges which could lead to aCourt Appearance, simply for imposing fair discipline or the reasonable sanctions whichwere acceptable at the time. This is, of course, a simplistic view of the period, but it isbasically accurate. There have always been some bullying parents, teachers and carers, just as there have always been some violent and aggressive children who could not becontrolled by normal methods of restraint and who were in need of special care.What is certain however, is that the attitudes, if not the behaviour of youngsters haschanged, as has that of society in general. It would now appear that the youngergeneration impose the rules which are carried out by the Police, acting under theconstraints of the so-called “Child Protection Industry”. What is even more concerning isthat the men making false historic accusations have “jumped on this bandwagon”. Theyare no longer children but portray themselves as such, and are accepted as such by the judicial system. They use society’s current overprotective attitude towards children,
Page 1
F.A.C.T.
Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers
Fighting injustice – lobbying for change
 
whilst themselves adopting the current “untouchable” attitude of today’s children towardAuthority.If the foregoing is only partially accepted, it raises some very serious questions regardingthe allegations of historic sexual abuse in children’s establishments . It was claimed thatthose abusing children in their care were paedophiles and yet research into paedophiliashows that a paedophile continues to abuse, wherever he is and whenever he has theopportunity. He is unable to stop and does not selectively choose the time and place.Many of the men accused of historic sexual abuse were still working with children, (somestill in the Establishment where the assaults were alleged to have taken place manyyears previously), when the accusations against them were made. Why is it then, whentoday’s youngsters are very aware of their rights and are not in the least intimidated inexercising them, there have not been a plethora of complaints over more recent years ?If, as it was alleged, the accused men were paedophiles, they would have continued tooffend; in whatever capacity they were employed.Another interesting question concerns the actual establishments where abuse was saidto have taken place. Why, when staff turnover was usually gradual, did the allegationsconcern only a certain time in an establishment’s history? Surely, if paedophile ringsexisted, many of those involved would have been employed together over quite anumber of years and yet the allegations cover relatively short periods of time. Whenstaff did leave to take up new posts, it was usually to continue to work with children sowhy were no historic claims made about the vast majority of them in their newappointments?A further anomaly is that only professional staff members appear to have been accusedof assaults even though, in most establishments, the youngsters spent significantperiods with ancillary staff. Would a ‘paedophile ring’ have been so selective in itsmembership? It must, however be pointed out that the Waterhouse Inquiry Reportstated that it had found no evidence of a paedophile ring anywhere in North Wales.Few of those falsely accused of sexual abuse have ever committed even the most minormisdemeanour, yet many of the men making false allegations have long criminalhistories, some known to have committed perjury. Does this not pose yet anotherquestion? Why do the words of known criminals carry more weight than those of honestand upright citizens?It is a matter of record that the men who have been falsely accused of historic sexualabuse had been not accused of such crimes prior to the false allegations, nor have theybeen accused of them since, despite the majority of them spending a working life timein Child Care or Teaching. The usual response from the Police when this fact is pointedout is that these men have continued to offend but have not been caught!Surely the overbearing attitude of today’s young people in the ‘compensation culture’which predominates in our over protective, child orientated society, means that fewgenuine paedophiles would be able to commit offences without allegations being verypromptly made about them. It interesting that under such circumstances, accusations onthe scale of the historic false accusations, have not been made concerning more recent
Page 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->