# How do you think increased childrens rights have affected your country?



## Sallyb36

Here in the UK we have a problem in some areas with young louts who have no regard at all for any form of authority.  I believe it's largely because they know that there is nothing anyone can do about thier behaviour, and largely because they don't know any better because their parents are only very young themselves.
The days when the local bobby used to clip us round the ear are long gone I'm afraid. (ahhh, nostalgic sigh).


----------



## emma42

Yes, Sally, and so are the days when parents would routinely beat their children with impunity, tell them they should be "seen and not heard", disbelieve them in cases of sexual abuse, support sadistic teaching methods, and damage little boys' pysches by telling them never to show their feelings.  Ah, nostalgia!


----------



## Sallyb36

Yes true Emma, I do think that children should be listened to, and that they should have rights, but I also think that they should be taught to be responsible for their actions, and I don't think that happens so much these days.
I was never routinely beat with impunity, i was told i should be seen and not heard from time to time( and now i know that sometimes they were doing me a favour by saying that!).  I also knew that if I did anything wrong I would get a smack from my Mum, and that didn't meant that she didn't love me, it meant that she cared about how I behaved.


----------



## Vanda

The worst thing, IMHO, ever that happened to us is The Children and Teenager's Statute from 1990. That would be a great thing if laws weren't used in this country to punish the right ones, those who obey them. With the increasing of misery, violence takes its route and many children/teenagers follow what was left for them : the criminal path. (Well it's a long story about how things have led to that, I won't go on that now). Anyway, these children/teenagers laid aside society commit the worst crimes one can imagine knowing they won't be charged for them. In the streets, when they attack old people, for example, the police officers don't take any action. They say they can't do anything to the children and that in the end the law will free them and send them again to the streets. So they attack, kill, do whatever they want and if someone try to react, these children just say: I'll tell the police you have hit on me. And in this case, you can be sure this person will have to face the law. One man close to my home tried to help an old lady being attacked by one of these teenagers and ended being arrested for "hitting a children". Because of things like that people won't do anything when seeing someone being hurt in the streets by these "protected" children. This is pretty much the situation in big cities nowadays. 
The good part of the law, that of protecting, shelterring and educating the children, well, that is not important. Not for those who can change this story!  Only when they are campaigning for the next election.


----------



## Sallyb36

Vanda, that is pretty much the case here.  Children get away with lots of crime and bad behaviour nowadays because there is nothing anyone can legally do to stop them.  One national magazine even has a campaign to stop this kind of thing.


----------



## emma42

Vanda and sally, I hear what you say, I really do. I know how frightening children and teenagers can be when they are undisciplined and wild, and I agree that the situation is unacceptable. I think we are in a transitional period in society (I am just talking about British society at the moment, although I am sure there will be parallels) in many ways. 

Society is not a static thing - it changes all the time, informed by history and expectations of what is to come. Crime, the status of children and women, expectations of old age etc etc are all issues in great flux at the moment. It is shortsighted and ultimately pointless to look for simple and quick solutions to any of these problems. I am not copping out here - I do have ideas, but too many to put down on screen all at once. As the discussion progresses I will, hopefully, be able to be more specific.

Sally, it is simply not true that children in this country can get away with anything and that there is nothing legally we can do to stop them. The age of criminal responsibility in England is ten. Children are frequently taken to court and dealt with in a variety of ways. Not all of them reoffend. Many children who do reoffend are living in care.  One thing I am absolutely sure of is that diminishing children's rights, whether natural (if there be such a thing) or statutory, is not the way to deal with anything.

As I have said, this is not a complete reply, but I will happily discuss further.


----------



## french4beth

If parents don't raise children properly, it is much harder for kids to know what behavior is appropriate, and what isn't appropriate; however, I think that everyone is responsible for the choices that they make. I know people that were horribly abused & mistreated as children by parents, guardians, Nazi soldiers, authority figures (doctors, priests, etc.) but they have chosen to be fine human beings despite this. I know other people who have chosen to be horrible and abusive. It's all about the choices we all make as human beings.

Being a good parent doesn't mean physically abusing your child - it means setting boundaries, having appropriate expectations, and nourishing your child physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

I think that there have always been people who were disrespectful - in the past, people lived in more close-knit communities, and knew their neighbors, and often lived with lots of members of extended families nearby, so children were 'raised by a village'. Today, people in many communities don't know their neighbors, and don't want to know them... so there is less accountability. And we can't blame the educational system - if you had any idea of what teachers & administrators have to put up with on a daily basis...


----------



## Vanda

Quoting Emma:


> The age of criminal responsibility in England is ten.


I wish that applied in here. 


> São penalmente inimputáveis os menores de dezoito anos, sujeitos às medidas previstas nesta Lei.


 
Those under eighteen are not ascribed penally.


----------



## Sallyb36

emma42 said:
			
		

> Yes, Sally, and so are the days when parents would routinely beat their children with impunity, tell them they should be "seen and not heard", disbelieve them in cases of sexual abuse, support sadistic teaching methods, and damage little boys' pysches by telling them never to show their feelings.  Ah, nostalgia!



Emma, i don't think those days are over really, although i wish they were.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think the lack of discipline of youths (assuming the problem is real) is caused by their increased rights. I think it has to do with bad school systems and absent parents.


----------



## Sallyb36

I think it has to do with increased rights and young or absent parents.  Years ago a 16 year old girl would NEVER have had a baby, or if she'd given birth it would have been taken away for adoption.
Increased rights because this changes childs attitude to authority.


----------



## Outsider

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> I think it has to do with increased rights and young or absent parents.  Years ago a 16 year old girl would NEVER have had a baby, or if she'd given birth it would have been taken away for adoption.


Are you sure? My impression is that people generally got married _younger_ in the olden days...


----------



## Sallyb36

Not that I know of Outsider, I really don't think people used to rear children at such a young age as they do now.  Please correct me if I'm wrong anybody.


----------



## maxiogee

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Years ago a 16 year old girl would NEVER have had a baby, or if she'd given birth it would have been taken away for adoption.


… or stuck into an orphanage until it was 16 and likely grew up into a disturbed and distressed adult? That was a better solution?

The problem is that boys won't keep their trousers zipped and girls won't keep their knickers on! And their parents don't tell them why they should, because they don't know why they should!


----------



## Outsider

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Not that I know of Outsider, I really don't think people used to rear children at such a young age as they do now.  Please correct me if I'm wrong anybody.


Mind you, when I say "olden days", I mean the early 20th century, or the 19th century, for instance...


----------



## emma42

Brioche, please do not be naive.  There have, indeed, been various laws in place to protect children to a greater or lesser extent for decades.  Surely you are not therefore saying that since 1889 there has been no abuse of children?

The instances I quoted are facts and it is well documented that, for example, many many children did not speak up about sexual abuse until they became adults.  Only in recent years has this taboo become less so.


----------



## french4beth

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> I think it has to do with increased rights and young or absent parents. Years ago a 16 year old girl would NEVER have had a baby, or if she'd given birth it would have been taken away for adoption.
> Increased rights because this changes childs attitude to authority.


I don't agree - there were actually many more out-of-wedlock births back in the 50's (in the US) than today, there just weren't as many options back then - plus it was easier to send a young woman to live with a relative (or to a home for unwed mothers), let the woman have the baby, give it up for adoption, then return home a few months later.

I think that the average age of new mom's has risen dramatically - if parents are idiots, it doesn't matter how old (or young) they are. I think a trend began in the 60's where parents felt that they had to be their children's pals or friends, thus discipline was virtually non-existent. Today, many US parents let their children run their household, rather than the other way around. And by discipline, I don't mean beating them or screaming at them (physical or emotional abuse), I mean showing unconditional love, setting limits and sticking to them, and explaining appropriate behavior (as well as appropriate rewards and consequences). Some authors that I have found to be very knowledgeable include Dr. Ross Campbell, Drs. William and Martha Sears, Adele Faber & Elaine Mazlish, Vicky Iovine, etc.

Plus, there's a proliferation of parenting "reality" shows - I feel sorry for the kids, because it's not their fault that their parents are idiots.


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:
			
		

> I think that the average age of new mom's has risen dramatically - if parents are idiots, it doesn't matter how old (or young) they are. I think a trend began in the 60's where parents felt that they had to be their children's pals or friends, thus discipline was virtually non-existent.



Is this the point  in the script where I ask …
"Didn't Dr Spock recant in later years and admit he had been terribly wrong in the advice books he wrote?"
… ?


----------



## french4beth

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Is this the point  in the script where I ask …
> "Didn't Dr Spock recant in later years and admit he had been terribly wrong in the advice books he wrote?"
> … ?


Correct as usual, maxi!

Right - you're spoiling a baby by picking it up when it cries?  

How about - if you pick up a crying infant (or better yet, attend to its needs before it starts screaming), you're showing that you care about the baby - if you let a newborn cry & then go pick it up, you're teaching it that if it cries, it will get what it wants. That doesn't sound like unconditional love to me.

Just ask Dr. John Rosemond - after raising his own children, he realized he had been terribly wrong about his own childr-rearing theories & completely reworked his thoughts on parenting.  He now advocates assigning age-appropriate chores to children, that children should get what they need & not what they want, etc.


----------



## kertek

It frustrates me when people talk about ways of tackling problematic kids with clips round the ear and taking their rights away. This kind of tactic only addresses the surface of the problem (and is therefore inevitably popular with politicians who won't be in power long enough to set up a long-term solution). It ignores the roots of the issue, which for me is in education.

Recent generations have not had the opportunities to educate themselves that they should have in order to become good parents, or indeed good children. The career of teacher is considered among many of my friends in the UK as an absolute last resort, due to the poor pay and oppressive working environment. As a result, it's easy to become a teacher, and anyone short of money with a degree can do it, no matter how good at the job they are. If schools got the funding they should, people would be aspiring to be teachers like they aspire to be lawyers or entrepreneurs, and teachers would be inspiring their students.


----------



## maxiogee

kertek said:
			
		

> It ignores the roots of the issue, which for me is in education.
> 
> Recent generations have not had the opportunities to educate themselves that they should have in order to become good parents, or indeed good children.



And yet people today stay in school longer than any previous generation.
They cover a wider range of subjects. They have had more detailed instruction in those subjects than previous generations.

The "education" needs to come from parents, and they have been totally irresponsible in abdicating this aspect of parenting to schools. There are aspects of our development which need to be inculcated in the home. Morality is one glaring deficiency in this regard. So many people seem to have such a loose (if any) grasp of this that they cannot pass on a coherent approach to it to their children. 
This is not about stay-at-home parents or other irrelevancies, it is about people not having babies until they are mature enough to raise them, and then it is about facing the responsibilities involved in having children.

Blaming "education" is a cop-out.


----------



## kertek

> And yet people today stay in school longer than any previous generation.
> They cover a wider range of subjects. They have had more detailed instruction in those subjects than previous generations.


And who is teaching this generation - brilliant people who inspire them, or people who are paid just enough to help them pass exams in as many subjects as possible?


> The "education" needs to come from parents, and they have been totally irresponsible in abdicating this aspect of parenting to schools.


 I'm not saying children should be made to think about right and wrong exclusively in school (and I find it hard to believe that any parents give up on it, thinking that schools deal with it - isn't it the contradictions between parents' behaviour and their moralising that leads to children having confused ideas, rather than the parents giving up on a moral education altogether?) But the school is educating future parents as well as current children, and so it holds a lot of sway.


> it is about people not having babies until they are mature enough to raise them, and then it is about facing the responsibilities involved in having children.


And how is this best addressed? By raising the age of consent? By coming down harder on the parents of young offenders? Or by ensuring that people grow up in an atmosphere which encourages them to respect others, understand differences and open their minds to great possibilities?


----------



## emma42

Kertek, an excellent range of points.  Schools and parents need to come together much, much more.  It is often found that schools in more middle class areas have more parental involvement for a variety of reasons, including:

Parents' good memories of being in education themselves;
Parents' sometimes greater articulacy and lack of feelings of intimidation when dealing with "professionals", perhaps because they are so themselves;
More time;
More money;
Better access to transport.


----------



## maxiogee

kertek said:
			
		

> And who is teaching this generation - brilliant people who inspire them, or people who are paid just enough to help them pass exams in as many subjects as possible?


a) Parents are the primary educators.
b) In most public sector jobs the people are paid "just enough" —> because electorates across the world vote for politicians who promise not to raise taxes - read their lips! 



> I'm not saying children should be made to think about right and wrong exclusively in school (and I find it hard to believe that any parents give up on it, thinking that schools deal with it - isn't it the contradictions between parents' behaviour and their moralising that leads to children having confused ideas, rather than the parents giving up on a moral education altogether?)


Religion and Morality per se have no place in a nation's educational curriculum. Civics can be taught, but other personal values are thing which are best handled in a classroom.
Parental contradiction is a problem for all generations - but being taught by one's parents that they are fallible and human is a powerful lesson which needs to be delivered carefully. The child who only discovers this message in the wrong way can be somewhat traumatised by it.



> But the school is educating future parents as well as current children, and so it holds a lot of sway.
> And how is this best addressed? By raising the age of consent? By coming down harder on the parents of young offenders? Or by ensuring that people grow up in an atmosphere which encourages them to respect others, understand differences and open their minds to great possibilities?


[/quote]
Respect and understanding for others shouldn't have to be taught. It should be a part of their lives from day 1 - something they pick up from their parents - like wearing a coat on a rainy day, staying away from fire and other things which are second nature to most people.

I'm sorry to disagree on the arena, when we agree so much on the content, but I was educated in a boys only environment from 7 onwards, and prior to that the classroom had been segregated, boys to one side, girls to the other - all this in a Roman Catholic ethos. We got no indication of the beliefs and practices of other religions (except where it wa necessary to mention that they were "in error" and we got no morality which wasn't Roman Catholic. Civics was unheard of in those days (it is covered nowadays) and would have been unnecessary anyway - most people got that, and proper morality and respect for difference, at home. Admittedly many didn't. Vandalism happened then as now, but on a smaller scale. Adults painted political slogans (grafitti by another name) on blank wallspace as politics was a hot issue 30-something years after a civil war.
I could go on.


----------



## kertek

> Religion and Morality per se have no place in a nation's educational curriculum.


I agree entirely (assuming when you say "religion" you mean religious dogma, rather than information about the world's religions). And I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about this before, but when I talk about the importance of teachers, I mean the way that children perceive them as people, as opposed to the content of their lessons. I think children learn as much from the way a teacher treats them and encourages them to treat each other as they do from the curriculum - in primary school, probably a lot more.

There is very little a government can do to ensure children have good role models and an environment of mutual respect at home. At school, they have every opportunity.


> b) In most public sector jobs the people are paid "just enough" —> because electorates across the world vote for politicians who promise not to raise taxes - read their lips!


Again, I agree entirely. Amazing how often it's these same voters who then complain about "kids these days."


----------



## emma42

Tony, unfortunately, "respect and understanding for others" often does have to be taught and is part of the teaching (not necessarily the curriculum) in the four schools in which I've worked. I think that these qualities are learned behaviours and need to be at the heart of any school's ethos. In my last school, such matters as "Listening to others", "taking turns", "being kind", were absolutely drummed into the kids (in the most lovely way, obviously) and staff strove to lead by example every minute. These things are seen as central to a child's education by many primary schools in England. If such philosophies are not mirrored at home, then all the more reason to try and try to get parents involved in the life of the school. All the schools in which I've worked have been multicultural and multi-faith, so respect for and acceptance of difference has been essential. And guess what? It has worked beautifully within school. I do not know what the kids get up to outside of school, but I do know that seeds have been planted in almost all of them. It is an educator's responsibility to educate the whole child. I have not spoken about parental responsibility, as I think this is axiomatic.

How can 6-7 hours a day in a place where a child feels cared for and is encouraged to care for others not leave something of a seed to grow? if other influences are spoiling that seed, the answer is not to throw the seed away in despair or stamp on it hard, but to continue to try to cultivate it.

I feel I have rambled. Sorry about that.  Kertek, I think you have a really good handle on these issues and hope that you are a teacher.


----------



## french4beth

kertek said:
			
		

> I'm not saying children should be made to think about right and wrong exclusively in school (and I find it hard to believe that any parents give up on it, thinking that schools deal with it - isn't it the contradictions between parents' behaviour and their moralising that leads to children having confused ideas, rather than the parents giving up on a moral education altogether?)


kertek, you'd be surprised by how many parents do just enough to get by, and expect schools to do everything - and this is across socio-economic boundaries, rich & poor & middle class 



			
				kertek said:
			
		

> Or by ensuring that people grow up in an atmosphere which encourages them to respect others, understand differences and open their minds to great possibilities?


You nailed it! The question is, how can we ensure this???

To get back on topic: Since children have more rights, for example any professional such as a teacher, doctor, etc. must report suspected abuse or risk criminal charges, and since children are taken more seriously (for example, if children are abused or molested, they are not ignored or even punished), I think that children are given more respect as human beings, so that is definitely a good thing!


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Not that I know of Outsider, I really don't think people used to rear children at such a young age as they do now.  Please correct me if I'm wrong anybody.



(People did indeed start families at sixteen - and in many cultures continue to do this.  For many girls in a bad situation at home, getting married was the only escape .... provided that they chose the right boy.

In Ireland, I believe, the age wasn't the issue particularly - it was more whether you had been properly churched beforehand.)

Most of us have heard the saying "It takes a whole village to raise a child".  If the community takes collective responsibility for its children, they will in turn take responsibility for their community.  If there is no community (ie, some inner-city areas with a high population turnover) or the community is dysfunctional (ie, isolated areas with high alcohol/drug abuse), what is there for the children to respect or contribute to?


----------



## emma42

Absolutely, Chaska Nawa, and this is why things like the decimation of working class communities (with the closure of nearly all of the coal mines, and the forced redundancy of heavy industry) will inevitably result in higher crime rates, higher drug use and higher levels of anti-social and criminal behaviour by children.  I am not saying that all people and all children in these areas turn to crime etc, but it is a fact that crime has risen, and precisely for the reasons you pointed out.  No hope, no self-respect = no empathy, no respect for others, in too many cases.

People who insist on individual responsibility _alone_, with no regard whatsoever to surrounding material circumstances and society, are living in a dream world and their "solutions" never ever work, be it a clip round the ear or incarceration.


----------



## .   1

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Here in the UK we have a problem in some areas with young louts who have no regard at all for any form of authority. I believe it's largely because they know that there is nothing anyone can do about thier behaviour, and largely because they don't know any better because their parents are only very young themselves.
> The days when the local bobby used to clip us round the ear are long gone I'm afraid. (ahhh, nostalgic sigh).


I do not long for any kind of revisionist past of _the olde days_.

I am interested when I hear people make comments that require a depth of investigation beyond average.

The very concept of a State appointed Police Officer being given the Summary Power to issue instant physical punishment to minors is abhorent.

Children are both vulnerable and impressionable.

Has any person in this forum ever been kicked up the arse or clipped around the ears (punched in the head) by a Police Officer and considered that their life had been improved?

This is an age old argument and is pulled out to explain the lack of parental involvement in the lives of their children. If behavioural problems have reached the point where Police are required to physically intervene it is my opinion that the kicks and clips should be aimed at the 'parents' not the kids.

If we teach kids that might is right and the strong can bully the weak then we must accept that any bellicose country can do what it wants to the world.

.,,


----------



## emma42

That is right, strangely-named forer@.  And it is not liberal claptrap (before the "good smack" brigade start).  Violence does not work.  Discipline, coupled with love, might.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:
			
		

> That is right, strangely-named forer@. And it is not liberal claptrap (before the "good smack" brigade start). Violence does not work. Discipline, coupled with love, might.


 
You are utterly correct in that violence does in deed be getting violence.

Until I am given evidence of even one example of a Benign Dictator I will stand by the conviction that the only way to learn love is to be loved and sadly the reverse is true.

The original question title indicated that children's rights were to be discussed and I have missed the responses to that point so I will add a further question.

Are there any communities in which 'increased children's rights' are not a direct result of increased adult's rights?

.,,
My friends know how to pronounce my name and please do not disuade the good smack brigade as they argh fine to give me my best lines.


----------



## emma42

Of course, the increase (or, rather, statutory confirmation) in children's rights (I can only talk about my own country) has gone hand in hand with other "changes" (some, yet to be  seen in actuality). The Children Act 1989, which provided, inter alia, for the rights of the child to be paramount in questions of custody/access (now "residence"/"contact") in divorce cases, was one of the most important pieces of legislation for children in recent years.  I have seen first hand what acrimonious divorce does to a child, and I have also seen first hand how much a child of divorce benefits from parents who are forced to confront their responsibilities and the rights of their children, rather than _their _rights.

There has been a growing culture towards liberal/human rights generally, particularly in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, which most people have heard of now (at last).  It is becoming common to read of cases brought from here to there.  Of course, the right wing moan about  Europeanisation and loss of sovereignty, insisting that people do not need any more "rights", that this will only lead to anarchyand unrest among the working classes and where will it all end and let's write to the Telegraph...

Whilst groups such as Liberty have welcomed the perceived increase in the implementation of human rights, and especially children's rights, the fact remains that in a capitalist society, rights will always come second to profit.  A child's "right" to an education, for example (I am not looking for an argument about whether or not this is a "right") will be interpreted and implemented differently depending on a variety of factors, including, importantly, class/socio-economic status.

And before anyone starts saying that children's rights are no better in non-capitalist societies, my answer is that 1) I am talking about my society in my country and probably several others, and 2) there aren't any non-capitalist societies, except for perhaps one or two very isolated communities.  No society can succeed in today's world without either being capitalist or pandering to it, no matter what it might call itself.


----------



## Seana

Since Polish society and law have started treating children as "sacred cows" to resemblance rest europe. I must admit that I predicted that it could get out of control. I am working in Education Department for last eight years and I can see widely huge difference in children and young people behaviour. The level of loutishness and aggression increased at schools in steady way. 
The deterioration of it I associate with the lack of proper models in the family, lack of the parents support for all acting of teachers in school. Their unrestricted requirements and claim directed towards the school.They think that bringing up their child belong mainly for the school not to them. Of course  it isn't concerned all parents. There are nice and well-behaved children as well but it often happens in families where just parents are well-behaved having the good models of theirs own family and they are devoting much time to their children.
Recently I tried to hand over on a few threads show my unfashionable and outdating approach with the respect for the traditionand role of a stable loving family. According to me there is sticking of secret of proper bringing up children.


----------



## emma42

Seana, as far as I acknowledge the word "sacred", children _are_ sacred.  They deserve respect, love and nurturing.

I hear what you are saying about the deterioration in young people's behaviour, but this has nothing to do with increased children's rights.  I do not have to live in Poland to say this.  If adults wish to say that children should have the right not to be abused, then it is up to those adults to implement these rights properly, not create a situation where children are out of control and have no discipline.  This situation is bound to result in sadness for all.  It is up to adults to create the proper environment for children.  If they fail, do not blame the children first.

There is nothing "old-fashioned" about a desire for a "stable, loving family".  I do not know any intelligent and compassionate person of any political persuasion who would not want that.  The problem arises with the _definition_ of family.  I would define "family" in a myriad of ways; here are just a few:

All living together

Mum, dad, children
Mum, children
Dad, children
Dad, dad, children
Mum, mum, children
Man, man
Woman, woman
Woman, woman, man
Man, man, woman, man, woman, woman, man
Step dad, children
Step mum, dad, children
Step mum, mum, children
Step mum, grandma, children, aunt

Not all living together

Dad, mum, step mum, children
Dad, mum, step mum, step mum's new husband, their children, children.
Mum, close friends, grandma, grandma's lesbian lover, children.

I venture to think that your "traditional" will not include most of the above, but any one of those combinations is just as capable of providing a stable and loving family.


----------



## Seana

It is impossible Emma that you didn't understand my metaphor.
Admittedly my English is horrible but 'sacred cow' in the whole world means the same. Their holiness isn't doing them good. 
How could you explain to me such obvious things as children rights, so in the implied meaning you thought that I was them against. Oh Emma it is not fair.  
I just wanted to say that all exaggeration could be a reason of various pathology.
One of them is drastic example that young criminals cannot be condemned of murder, theft or the different terrible act, like adults . Apparently it is happened that criminal gangs commissioned children for money to making different crimes. Last statistic about icreasing crimes with the participation of children or against them could tell us that these problems are having a life of its own and all changs in the law have really little influence to them.
But it is a sphere of pathology I do not say about it because I am not good at it. 
I am saying about average children and their parents. 
And I see the big role in raising a child in the family - all members which you have mentioned Emma - grandma and grandpa as well.

Ps
Emma I don't believe that you give all those exaples particularly the combination of this part of your list as really good for children and for their normal psychological development. I suppose these are only arithmetical combinations on the sets. 
Do you want that you or your children would been brought up by families in such a model. 
Dad, dad, children
Mum, mum, children
Man, man
Woman, woman
Woman, woman, man
Man, man, woman, man, woman, woman, man
If you will let me I do not agree with it.


----------



## maxiogee

Seana said:
			
		

> One of them is drastic example that young criminals cannot be condemned of murder, theft or the different terrible act, like adults.



Children, in both Ireland and England, have been found guilty of some truly dreadful crimes - however, the children have usually been of such a young age as to have not had the same understanding of their crimes as an adult would have and therefore they have been treated differently by the authorities. 

I wouldn't wish it to be any different.
Youthful actions are not always as informed as adult ones.




			
				Seana said:
			
		

> Apparently it is happened that criminal gangs commissioned children for money to making different crimes.



Well then, let the authorities prosecute the proper parties - the children for their lesser guilt and the gang members for their crimes - including child abuse (what else can one call involving children in criminal undertakings?) and conspiracy.


----------



## emma42

Seana, I apologise for turning your phrase "sacred cow" to make my point.  I did not mean to be devious when I did it, I just thought that my "sacred" would be a good word to illustrate my point, which I did, indeed, think was against your point.  I don't think you do not think children should have rights, but I think your ideas on what those rights should be/are might be very different from me.  I do not say that you do not love and care for children and I am sorry you thought I might be saying that.  

As to the "families" I listed.  Yes.  Absolutely, I would be happy for my children to be brought up in any of those combinations, as long as the children were loved, nurtured and disciplined with care.  Are those things not the same whether administered by mum and dad or anyone else?

As to the information that children cannot be "touched" by the law for various crimes - that should not be.  It is a ridiculous and dangerous way to carry on for all society.  It illustrates the point I made in an earlier post, that if adults decide on the wrong sort of "rights" (!) for children, then that is their fault and not the fault of the children.  And it should not therefore be an excuse for certain people to say that children have too many rights (I'm not referring to you, Seana).


----------



## Seana

Emma, I know that you are one of extremely affectionate person here but if you (all of you) let participate in your disscusions - such awful English illiterate as me I am asking to consider I have too poor skills in English to use long and refined wording so I am often forced to take short cuts.

I think it could be also on topic here. 
I would like to ask you what do you think about child molestation?
Isn't it to became something like hysterical behaviour - too exaggeration in many situation - which could make coldness and 'stiff' relation between adults and children.

Recently I was talking with a headmaster of primary school (up to age 13 ). This elderly unusal kind lady have very good results for years in teaching, her graduates have often got the best university.
Being very warm female woman (like a nicest mummy) she admits that just stops allow little child sitting on her lap or nestle to her (as she has done for the years) because it could be seen as a sort of molestation.
Isn't it nonsence?


----------



## maxiogee

Seana said:
			
		

> Recently I was talking with a headmaster of primary school (up to age 13 ). This elderly unusal kind lady have very good results for years in teaching, her graduates have often got the best university.
> Being very warm female woman (like a nicest mummy) she admits that just stops allow little child sitting on her lap or nestle to her (as she has done for the years) because it could be seen as a sort of molestation.
> Isn't it nonsence?



No Seana it is not nonsense, it is for her protection, as well as the child's, that she should not do these things.
People react differently to certain things. A child which is not used to open displays of affection from adults might feel very uncomfortable being cuddled by someone like this, other children seeing it might mistake the cuddle for something else and report it to their parents as an unwanted attention, and lastly another adult might see it and get the wrong idea also.

I acknowledge that there are times in a child's schooling when they might be very distressed and a cuddle might be a good idea, but there would be very few occasions where the headmistress could not arrange to have the encounter witnessed by another adult.


----------



## MarcB

This is a difficult question. Sure there are children who can get away with anything and go unpunished. I do not know if it is true that children are more dangerous than before since it is not new for adults to use children for crimes and to hope that their status as children would get them off. Adults have always abused children for crimes and sexual abuse but now some people not abuser are afraid to work with or be kind to children since there is a big chance of misunderstanding and accusations of abuse. So it is quite difficult to know what to do. I have seen some people who flee children like they have the plague and others who want to work with them but are afraid, at the same time there are abusers who may not hurt children because of new awareness.


----------

