The NSPCC have now chimed in with their opinion that The number of children dying from abuse could be much higher than previously thought. Just a coincidence that this happens after yesterday’s Social Worker news ? Hmmmm….. I don’t doubt the NSPCC at all, though being a single-minded charity it can hardly be called objective (though saying that, why should ANYONE look at a situation where a child is harmed as ‘objective’ ? There IS NO objective view for events which cause pain and damage to a vulnerable person. it’s WRONG.), and it is a charity I have money to through payroll-giving when I was a nurse, but again the issue will keep arising of just who is to do what when abuse is either suspected or known.
We all know that if you ask a group of people to do something, it won’t get done either as soon or as efficiently compared to tasking one person with the job. That’s why we have a boss and heirarchical structures in organisations. The simple fact is that professionals (for it is they who call themselves that, this is not a title we have forced upon them) shouldn’t sit round discussing what SHOULD be done and who should do it, they should JUST DO IT. Go get the kid. Take it away from the harmful and long-term damaging environment and place it somewhere safe. The short term pain of separation is far out-weighed by the benefits. But they won’t. Why ? Are they afraid of legislation ? Of being sued ? Of being seen as ‘the bad guys’ ? All the hand-wringing they do isn’t stopping the abuse as quickly though is it, if at all. Surely it becomes less of ‘How can we help this child ?’ than ‘How will this affect us ?’ Great. Sorry kid, get ready for the hurt because we can’t be arsed to actually make a decision.
Pro-lifers. Not just your average person with a view, but the radicals who bomb clinics, shoot staff, have massive demonstrations in major cities. They will proclaim that they are there doing what they do because the unborn child cannot speak or act for itself. Okaaay….so at the point of birth it suddenly acquires these abilities does it ? Why are not these activists and protesters equally vocal about the rights of children ? Or is their argument as simple as “You will live your life, no matter how shitty that is” ?
Would it make a difference if the NSPCC actually had Royal in the title ? We have Royal Societies for animals, birds, the blind, but not kids. Not little people. Not children who will live in our future. No, no Royal patronage for them. And would it ? Probably not, but it does give a clue as to priorities does it not ?
Roll on the day that a child sues EVERYONE who could have done something. That might, just might, kick some people into action, and not a moment too soon.