Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 25 May 2012, 21:21:30 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: To UK parents a surprise or not?!  (Read 368 times)
E.R.N
Full Member
***
Posts: 212


View Profile
« on: 04 August 2005, 8:08:00 am »

From BBC News

"Children in the UK are safer than almost anywhere else in the world. So why do parents always fear the worst? And is security necessarily a good thing asks Jonathan Duffy?
The path to adulthood has always been a rocky one, but these days it seems to be rougher than ever.

Drugs, bullies, paedophiles, pollution, allergies and obesity can all prey heavily on the modern parent's mind.

In the US death rates are more than double those in the UK

So it might come as a surprise to hear that Britain's children are, in fact, very, very safe.

According to a new report by the United Nations Children's Fund, Unicef, the UK has one of the world's lowest rates of child death caused by accidents and abuse.

In a survey of the 26 most industrialised countries, only Sweden came out better.

The study of child mortality rates between 1991 and 1995 found 6.1 children per 100,000 in the UK died as a result of intentional or non-intentional injuries.

In the United States the figure was more than twice as high, at 14.1 per 100,000. In France it was 9.1 and Germany 8.3 per 100,000.

A question of belief?

At last Britain's put-upon parents have something to ease their worries. But how many will take heart from these statistics? How many of them actually believe this is a safe country to raise children?

Phone alone: Parents see mobiles as a safety aid

In the aftermath of any high-profile child murder, newspapers routinely scream that our children are in mortal danger.

Yet in Britain today, a child is no more likely to be abducted and killed than 30 years ago, when boys and girls tended to roam with more freedom.

Of course, parents tend to act on instinct rather than statistics.

Michelle Elliot of the children's charity Kidscape recognises the rise of a reality gap between what parents' fear and what is most likely to happen. The media, she says, is partly responsible.

"The difference between this country and others is that when a child goes missing and gets hurt, it's front page news," she says.

Blaming the media

She recalls a survey in 1992, that followed the murder of toddler James Bulger, in which 90% of parents said their greatest fear was that one of their children would be abducted.

This image of James Bulger forced parents to consider on safety

"The media has probably led to us feeling paranoid," admits Ms Elliot.

Clinical psychologist Oliver James controversially advanced the point last year when he accused the tabloid press of exploiting the death of schoolgirl Sarah Payne.

Mr James said newspapers pandered to public fascination with such atrocities, even though they were extremely rare.

Ms Elliot explains, from a personal perspective, that when a parent contemplates the shadowy threat of a child killer, all reason goes out the window.

"As a parent, even though statistically I know that none of my boys would be abducted, it's one thing I cannot control. When they are in my car or with friends' parents, you can take steps to ensure their safety.

Faceless terror

"But when they are on their own, without an adult, you have in mind a sinister stranger who could come out of the blue."

Tesco piloted tagging of children in its supermarkets

But if this paranoia is being unreasonably stoked, it's not only the media that is to blame. Mobile phone companies market handsets as a way of parents keeping tabs on their nearest and dearest and Tesco has even piloted a scheme for tagging children to stop them straying during shopping trips.

However, parental instinct is not totally without foundation. While the paedophile threat may be static, the risk of being killed on the road has, theoretically, shot up. This has been offset by the fact that children are rarely allowed to venture out on their own these days.

Ms Elliot also makes the point that as the birth rate has dropped, parents have relatively more time to concentrate on their offspring and contemplate the perils they may face.

Over protective

But there is growing concern that children are suffering from this mollycoddling.

Rospa - the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents - has called for a more level-headed approach to protecting children from harm.

Mind the red tape: Teachers

Professor John Adams, a University College London academic who has examined the role of risk in society, believes we have gone too far in shielding children. The result, he says, is that we are depriving them of learning and valuable life experience.

Mr Adams cites school field trips as an example. Legislation designed to protect children has been tightened so much that teachers now often shy away from taking pupils beyond the school gates.

Anyone in education is now 35 times more likely to die outside of school or college time than in, says Mr Adams. For some time, he says, we have been at the point where nothing more can be done to protect children on school trips, yet new safety measures are being drafted all the time.

"You can," says Mr Adams, "be risk averse to the point of depriving yourself of very substantial benefits."

OK, Singapore was not looked at, but it surprised me!

Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« on: 04 August 2005, 8:08:00 am »



 Logged
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4017


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 04 August 2005, 9:15:00 am »

The murdering scum who killed James Bulger are now out of prison. Their identities have been changed and they are protected at the taxpayer's expense.
In a society that favours the criminal over the victim, parents have every right to feel paranoid.
Logged
E.R.N
Full Member
***
Posts: 212


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 04 August 2005, 13:46:00 pm »

They are indeed.. and when I read that his mother was tipped off on the whereabouts of one of them and indeed found him, she chose not to approach him, rather just being able to track him, watch from a distance was enough for her. How long it will stay like that is another question and yes I agree with Old Mike's last point, but still surprised to read the article.
Logged
rubicond
Full Member
***
Posts: 216


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 04 August 2005, 19:06:00 pm »

Apparently there was an Italian newspaper that offered a lot of money for the photos of the two scums who killed James Bulger. What happened with that?

Still, they were 10 years old, and they spent 10 years in prison. Didn't they pay for their crimes, as horrific as they might have been? Shouldn't they be allowed to get a new life?

And apparently the parents of one of the boys had some horror movies where the same things the two boys did to James Bulger was being done to someone. Of course, this is no excuse.

[This message has been edited by rubicond (edited 04-08-2005).]

Logged
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4017


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 04 August 2005, 20:58:00 pm »

IMHO they should have been kept in prizon till they were old enough to be hanged.
Logged
kleverkljogs
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 05 August 2005, 10:55:00 am »

They should have only been released from jail once James Bulger had recovered from his injuries and was also able to live a full and productive life
Logged
confusedcious
Full Member
***
Posts: 162


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 05 August 2005, 16:11:00 pm »

Errr, James Bulger was murdered = DEAD.  Or, is this your way of saying that they should be imprisoned for all eternity?
Logged
kleverkljogs
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 05 August 2005, 16:36:00 pm »

Your deductive powers are an inspiration to us all.
Logged
Brit-in-Singapore
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 10 August 2005, 21:54:00 pm »

I think when they say that the Uk is the safest place for the young, they have obviously taken an average from the whole country.

I shouldn't think that places like London and other cities with their high crime rates and (certain areas) violent low acheiving schools are considered ideal safe places for children.

But I suspect smaller towns are quite safe.

What do they base their assumptions on anyway?!!!

Im sure some countries don't have the data to be able to compare

Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines