1,500,000 children a year suffer from abuse every year, and two a week are killed by abuse and neglect. Social services are woefully under-resourced to cope with the problem.Of the 1.5 million suffering abuse, only 550,000 are reported, and social services are only equipped to allocate a social worker to 35,100.
The voluntary sector is doing its bit to help. One charity, Kids Company, runs centres for vulnerable children across London, but the problem is huge. Research by the University of London shows that of the 14,000 children and young people Kids Company reaches, 84% are homeless, 83% suffer sustained trauma, and 87% have mental health difficulties. Most of these children are not referred by social services, 95% refer themselves, as the help they need is simply not available elsewhere.
The Lib Dems must be a voice for these children in Parliament. They were largely ignored in the election campaign, overshadowed by bigger vote-winners, but now Mr Clegg must make their protection his main priority – and the first thing he must protect them from is cuts.
Yes, we’ve heard that all departments must feel the axe, but make no mistake: if one child protection worker is laid off, children will be made vulnerable to neglect, abuse, or even death – this is a service which must be sustained and built upon, not cut.
The second is the VAT rise. Children, who are forced out of school, have no option but to sell drugs or their bodies in order to keep themselves and their families afloat, and who are often homeless cannot afford to pay for deficit reduction.
They are one of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society, and they will be hit hardest by a 20% VAT rate; this is not about middle, or even low income families tightening their belts, it is about the lives of children like this unnamed girl.
The third is anti-social behaviour law. There is a huge amount of research, (much of it by the Kids Company) to show that neglect and abuse does physical and irrevocable damage to children’s brains, which can lead to mental health problems, violence, substance and alcohol abuse, and in short, anti-social behaviour. The Lib Dems must not follow Tory rhetoric about tougher sentences for young offenders, but seek to address the root causes of the problem – neglect, abuse, and poverty.
As party members, it is now your duty to ensure that our Lib Dem MPs do not ignore the plight of these children as they were ignored during the election campaign. Labour failed to eradicate child poverty in Britain and Clegg must not make the same mistake, for the sake of his party as well as the children.
Kids Company are running a campaign raising money and awareness to protect these children in their front line centres, and to fund further research into the damage inflicted on children’s brains by neglect and abuse. Please join up by buying a neuron in the giant virtual brain at www.kidspeaceofmind.org.uk, and more importantly, write to your MP and ask them to show support for the campaign by doing the same, and promoting the campaign.
If we apply the right pressure on MPs, we can ensure that they are not the ones who pay the price for the recession, and perhaps in a second term, even do what Labour failed to and eradicate the disgrace that is child poverty in Britain.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
The Joy of Six 1275
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Pamela Manning
Simon R
Nonconformistradical
Peter Hirst
23 Comments
Wait, what VATable goods are they purchasing, exactly?
What a pity an article on such an important topic should be so silly.
1.5m children suffering abuse – really? One child in 10?what evidence do you have for this and what is the definition of abuse.
What an insult to the millions of poorer families to suggest that because they are more likely to abuse their children.
And how on earth is the vat rise in any way relevant?
One charity, Kids Company, runs centres for vulnerable children across London
I think your link should have pointed here:
http://www.kidsco.org.uk/
Go away and take your made up numbers and your pretend charities with you. The government is stopping gravy trains like this and it’s great.
Starting with that sort of factoid won’t win you many fans here. How do you know about the unreported 950,000? How sure are that the other 550,000 “reported” are unique, genuine cases (rather than, say, multiple reporting of the same children on different occasions and/or by different sources)? What is the definition of “abuse” behind these figures? (It’s unlikely refer to children whose lives are anything like as extreme as the testimony of the young girl you link to.)
I’m also baffled by the reference to the VAT increase, especially in the context you give it, of children surviving by drug-dealing and prostitution. These activities aren’t subject to VAT, as far as I’m aware…
This is a serious subject. Please give it serious treatment rather than this series of tabloid-standard factual claims and associations.
I must say I was surprised by the numbers too, but after a couple of minutes Googling I found that according to the NSPCC, studies have found that 16% of children suffered “serious maltreatment by parents” and 7% experienced “serious physical abuse” by parents or carers:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/prevalence_and_incidence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html
But I daresay we’re about to be told that the NSPCC is a “pretend charity”
Smcg:
Actually, I don’t think the author says that, does he?
In any case, this is an insidious Tory tactic and a dishonest representation of the sort of claim that is made about connections between poverty and behaviour (crime, abuse, etc.). The process works like this:
* People are more likely to commit abusive/criminal acts if they are under stress
* Poverty is for most people a source of significant stress
* Therefore, poverty makes it more likely that people will commit abusive/criminal acts.
This isn’t a claim that “all poor people are child abusers”, or even that people with a predisposition to be abusive are more likely to be poor, either of which might be considered insulting. It’s a recognition that if people who do have a predisposition to be abusive* are subject to the sort of stress engendered by chronic poverty, they are more likely to act on that predisposition than if there circumstances are more comfortable. I hope you can see the difference.
None of this should be taken as withdrawing or tempering my previous criticisms of this article, which as I’ve said, doesn’t appear to make any direct claim about connections between family means and likelihood of abuse anyway.
*” people who have a predisposition to be abusive” is a hell of a simplification, of course, but it’ll do for a Monday.
The NSPCC’s figures were the object of quite a lot of derision when they came out. Most adults know how to ’emotionally abuse’ a teenager. Suggesting they might like to help with the washing up is a good start.
The so-called childrens’ charities have done enormous damage. They’re about empire building, not ‘protecting’ children.
“Most adults know how to ‘emotionally abuse’ a teenager. Suggesting they might like to help with the washing up is a good start.”
My, how this party has changed.
A months ago the government cut the Area Based Grant by 24%, and scrapped the Performance Reward Grant entirely. Both these funds have been/are being used to facilitate engagement with “Families with Multiple Needs” (FWMN) and to provide Drug and Alcohol Treatment (DAAT). I think it is uncontroversial that there is a very close correlation between families having “multiple needs”, and family members being substance misusers, and child abuse/neglect. Ergo, cutting the funding for initiatives that combat these aforesaid social ills is unlikely to do anything to reduce child abuse/neglect. In parellel with these “easy” cuts is the suffocating blanket of increased bureaucracy that OFSTED has thrown around Serious Case Reviews, which has had the effect of taking resources away from child protection.
Now, someone answer me this. If Lansley gets away with handing control of the Health Service from PCTs to the BMA (sorry, GPs), who is going to be repsonsible for health promotion, currently carried out by PCTs?
I’ve never really been convinced by this argument… it suggests that rich people are less inclined to be abusive, which doesn’t seem to match reality. Perhaps it’s something more along the lines of “they’re more likely to abuse their children if they don’t have any employees to abuse”.
“it suggests that rich people are less inclined to be abusive, which doesn’t seem to match reality”
Did my truncation to “to be abusive” cause a problem with the argument here? If so, I should clarify that I was talking about people committing what would generally be considered child abuse, rather than being offensive or bullying in other situations.
On that basis, what I’m suggesting absolutely is not that “rich” (or more precisely, non-poor) people are less inclined to be abusive, but that those rich people who are so inclined may be less likely to act on that inclination, due to the absence of a specific stress factor. I don’t know whether it’s true, mind. It seems plausible, however, and my point is that it takes a fundamental misreading of the argument to understand it as some sort of insult to poor people.
Are those really different things?
@Anthony A-S – i just find it difficult to believe this figure. Do you think 1 in 10 of children you know is subject to serious abuse?
I’m not sure who is suggesting that the NSPCC is a pretend charity.There have been comments that its publicity campaign have been ineffective at stopping abuse, although effective at fund raising and other broader criticisms for example this one by Prof Ferudi:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/lowgraphicsarticle/4333/
@malcolm – is there any actual evidence for this stuff about stress? isnt a more likely causation:
people who are of low intelligence or unable to articulate their thoughts are more likely to be poor
they are also more likely to not be able to deal with their children by discussion, rather resorting to physical or emotional abuse?
SMcG
“i just find it difficult to believe this figure. Do you think 1 in 10 of children you know is subject to serious abuse?”
To be precise, the NSPCC figures are 16% for “serious maltreatment by parents” and 7% for “serious physical abuse” by parents or carers.
I’m sorry, but I think “Do you think 1 in 10 of children you know is subject to serious abuse?” is a pretty pointless question to ask. By its nature, child abuse is not going to be apparent to the world at large. The only way to estimate such statistics is through scientific study, and their validity can only be assessed by looking at the methodology.
The “pretend charity” comment was made about Kids Company, by “Chris”. (It obviously isn’t that, incidentally.) He didn’t, as I had feared he might, go on to suggest that the NSPCC was a pretend charity, though he did make the outstandingly crass suggestion that “suggesting they might like to help with the washing up” could be considered child abuse.
Good on Arthur and the True Labour Policy Group for raising an important issue here!
@ Anthony Aloysius St
My, how this party has changed.
Yes, it has changed: in the way that drink changes a man’s character –it doesn’t change it, it merely reveals it more clearly! Depriving 600,000 children of free school meal eligibility; axing hundreds of new schools and school refurbishments; abolishing free swimming; freezing child benefit; and now reviewing whether the Children’s Commissioner gives value for money! Why is your government so antagonistic towards the country’s children?
@Chris
“Go away and take your made up numbers and your pretend charities with you. The government is stopping gravy trains like this and it’s great.”
If this view represents the position of the Liberal Democrats the founders of the Liberal Party must be turning in their graves!
@macK – why dont you just post a link to the labour party website and save us all the trouble of hearing you repeating all their lies.
Are you serruiously suggesting the it is wrong to even review the role of the Children Cortisone? Or should we just say that everything the last Govt spend money on is fine and should stay just the same?
For ‘Cortisone’ read Commissioner
Lies? What lies? I’ve simply listed your government’s policies. Have you spent the last two months trapped inside a lift without a mobile phone?
@Mack – no children with free schools meals are having them taken away – an unfunded programme is not being continued. no doubt the programme was put in place for this very purpose.
which bit of ‘there is no money’ don’t you get?
@SMcG
I didn’t suggest that children with existing free school meals eligibility were having it removed. I simply stated your government’s policy which is to deprive 600,000 children of the free school meals eligibility they were promised by Labour. Similarly, with the axing of new schools and school refurbishments which were promised. I think the construction company which built Monkseaton High School would have been particularly surprised to learn that it was unfunded. That was the school Gove announced would not go ahead and be built even though Cameron visited it last year and launched the Conservative Local Elections from there. And you haven’t cut free swimming? Or frozen child benefit?