I launched Childline to protect the most vulnerable - but unleashed a polically correct monster

I launched Childline to protect the most vulnerable - but unleashed a
polically correct monster

By Esther Rantzen
Last updated at 8:22 AM on 09th July 2008

Last week, the nation was on its feet applauding a 14-year-old girl.
We were thrilled by Laura Robson's glorious triumph at Wimbledon, and
delighted by her charm and her intelligence. It was a rare moment, and
a shock, not just to see a British tennis player making it to the very
top, but a British child being encouraged to compete - and win.

Winning is against the rules for many children these days; even
competing has become a sin. I have a godson, one of three brothers who
until recently attended their local state primary school in
Berkshire.

They were not permitted to play football there. In fact, they were
forbidden to play any competitive sports. The head teacher takes the
view that it is morally wrong for children to experience losing.

So they played 'silly games' (the boys' description) - which nobody
could lose - involving bean bags.

The school didn't just over-protect the children, they protected the
staff as well, to a lunatic extent. One day my friend was rung up and
asked to come to the school urgently with a pair of tweezers.

Luckily he was working locally. When he arrived, he found one of his
sons had a splinter in his finger. None of the school staff was
allowed to remove it because that would be an 'invasive operation'.

My friend had brought the tweezers, as asked, and took the splinter
out in a few seconds. After that, exasperated, he moved his sons to a
different (private) school.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of watching the boys enjoying the
drama and suspense of sports day at their new school. The whole event
was deeply politically incorrect. There were plenty of races, and
loads of winners.

Since some of the races were in relays, every child ended up with a
victory badge of some kind, but there was no doubt that the children
who had the focus, determination and coordination to hurl themselves
fearlessly to the winning line won more badges, and walked tall.

'Worse' was to come. I noticed one small girl crumpled in tears when
she was told that she'd been disqualified for holding her potato on to
her spoon with her thumb while she ran.

Her teacher cuddled her, and a smile broke through the sobs. Cuddling
a pupil! What would the thought police have said?

My friend told me with amusement that on his sons' first day at the
new school, one of them got another splinter, and the matron removed
it without a second thought.

Why should this kind of common sense be a privilege only available to
children whose parents can afford private education?

It is pervasive, this over-protective nonsense. I have been a victim
of the thought police myself.

Not long ago, at an event run by a children's charity, a boy told me
he had rung ChildLine because he was being bullied. 'Did you get
through?' I asked with trepidation, since we can only counsel half the
number of children who call for help.

'Yes,' he said with a wide grin. 'They were brilliant. I did what they
said, and now the bullies are my best friends.'

I was filled with delight, and told him so. 'I'm so happy,' I said.
'I'm going to give you a kiss.' And I did, on the top of his head.

The most senior executive of the charity took me aside some time later
and rebuked me. One of the workers had complained about that kiss. I
could hardly believe it.

The child himself didn't complain - he thought, rightly, that I cared
about him, and that I was overjoyed that ChildLine had been so
helpful.

Later that week, the boy rang me to ask if I was coming to any more of
the charity's event. I had to be noncommittal, so as not to disappoint
him, but the truth is I don't expect the charity will dare invite me
back. I might hug a child.

The irony is that, to an extent, I blame myself for this rubbish. By
revealing the extent of child abuse in the BBC TV programme Childwatch
in the Eighties, I was part of the revolution in child protection
which created these insidious jobsworths.

All we intended to do was alert viewers to the truth - that most child
abuse happens within the family home. And that there are ruthless,
clever paedophiles who are sexually attracted to children and will
worm their way into any profession that brings them into contact with
them.

But I had no idea the result would be senseless over-protection which
pretends to see danger where there is none. What is the real risk in
taking out a child's splinter, or kissing the top of a little boy's
head? Why deprive a child of the exhilaration of winning? Even if you
are hopelessly uncoordinated, as I was as a child, and never win a
race, losing isn't a tragedy. There are plenty of other ways to excel.

Isn't it sad to 'protect' children from sporting competition? For the
non-academic child, isn't a winner's badge a wonderful boost to
selfesteem? What has happened to common sense? We are throwing the
baby out with the bath water.

Why did I want to change the way we protected children (even if I
never for a moment imagined we would ever reach this insane state of
affairs)?

Because for generations children had suffered in silence. Twenty years
ago, in those distant, innocent days, nobody suspected the terrible
abuse that could occur in care homes, churches and boarding schools.

I investigated one such school, owned by a millionaire paedophile, who
appointed two other teachers who sexually abused boys in the school
secure in the knowledge that the children would be too fearful and
ashamed to ask for help.

In my 20s, I used to visit children in a care home in Camden, North
London. I never suspected a bad-tempered man who worked there as a
'house parent' was physically and sexually abusing ten of the
children.

I didn't like him, but it simply wasn't on my mental radar to think
such crimes were possible. My ignorance meant those children I took
out every week were far too ashamed and afraid to tell me about the
abuse. 'I didn't want to spoil the only happy times we had,' one told
me recently. In the past 20 years, we have discovered to our horror
that some of the very people children should have been able to trust -
in the Church, in sport, youth leaders, music tutors - had used their
positions to assault and intimidate children.

The think-tank Civitas last week produced a report blaming our checks
for criminal records for poisoning relationships between adults and
children.

I disagree. Checks for a record of a violent crime or a sexual offence
are necessary if we are to ensure abusers cannot continue to work with
children after they are released from prison.

Denis Cochrane, a music teacher at a school in West London which my
own children attended, was very recently convicted of indecently
assaulting a six-year-old girl.

He told her it was a punishment, and intimidated her throughout her
time in the school. As a result, she had constant nightmares and
suffered from serious depression. He destroyed her childhood. She was
not the only child he abused, and he is now in jail.

Without Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, he could be released in
a few years and become a piano teacher, or the local church choir
master, or produce the local children's pantomime. As a trustee of the
NSPCC, I have been CRB checked, and was proud and happy to go through
the process. But these checks must be properly and sensibly conducted.
My son Joshua, a medical student, recently applied for work experience
as a volunteer in a hospice.

Although he had been CRB checked very recently by his university, he
was told he would have to be checked again to work in a different
health authority, and there was no time for the process to be
completed.

The hospice lost a talented volunteer. He lost crucial experience. He
has not applied for any other work during the summer vacation because
he will need to be checked yet again. I am told this complicated
nonsense applies throughout the medical profession when health
professionals take up new posts.

How much does all this duplication cost? How much time does it take?
Reports suggest the process is breaking down under the huge work load
the Home Office are undertaking.

Unsurprisingly, it is said they have made mistakes. Personally, I
cannot see why we who have been checked are not given the equivalent
of a driving licence, to be endorsed if we commit a relevant crime.
But maybe that is too simple.

Unless we revise this hysterical attitude that every child should be
treated like a china doll who must not be touched by adults, the
bitter irony is that our most vulnerable children will pay a tragic
price.

There has been research which looked at children from the most
deprived backgrounds who somehow survived, and grew up to be
successful, happy and prosperous. The researchers found the difference
was that someone outside their immediate family - a neighbour perhaps,
or a teacher - cared about them, noticed when they were unhappy and
praised them when they succeeded.

Unless we use our common sense and recognise that most people are not
a threat to children, I am deeply worried that this kind of caring
relationship will be obliterated. Which means some children will be
deprived of their only emotional lifeline.

Last week, I met one of Europe's most successful architects. He told
me his parents were extremely poor, and that because his mother had a
serious mental illness, his father left the family home.

But they had a neighbour - a man with no children of his own - who
noticed his talent when he was young and gave him art classes.

Another friend of mine, who has become extremely successful, grew up
in Yorkshire, the son of an alcoholic mother and an inarticulate
father. Across the road from their terrace house lived a man who loved
books, and taught my friend - who was a clever, ambitious little boy -
how to study.

They spent hours together talking together. Can you imagine what the
thought police would make of these relationships? These days, would
those kindly neighbours themselves be too afraid to become unofficial
mentors, in case they were accused of sinister motives? Debating these
issues on Radio 4's Today programme, John Humphrys asked me: 'Can you
not see that one side effect of the setting up of ChildLine has been
this over-reaction?'

Yes, John, now I can. The day after sports day last week, my friend
took my godson and his brothers to the Marwell Activity Centre in
Hampshire for a birthday party. The boys had a fantastic time on the
slides, and my friend recorded their delight on a camcorder. Until,
that is, a member of staff came and stopped him, because: 'The law
says we will need written permission from all the other parents.'

There is, of course, no such law. I asked the Centre why they had
stopped him, and they said it was company policy due to 'the response
we have had from our clients'.

Not only stupid and narrowminded, but just the kind of language to
make your blood boil. I think we all need to rethink our attitudes.

As my friend told me that day: 'All I wanted to do was to preserve
some lovely memories, moments that will never come back again.'
Childhood should be filled with lovely moments, shared by adults and
children together.

What a tragedy if, even from the best of motives, we deprive ourselves
and our children of the affection and fun that make childhood so
precious.[/quote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1033483/I-launched-Childline-protect-vulnerable--unleashed-polically-correct-monster.html

*****
WM
www.critest.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ping: melinda
    ... We hired an attorney for my friend on Wednesday ... I have protected every child who has ever come through my door and ... grownups will protect you..." ... Is there a court or state investigation? ...
    (alt.support.arthritis)
  • Re: OT: daughters friend!
    ... girl, who is new at school, so we don't know her that well. ... daughter's dolls house (Madeline - the Paris house, ... my daughter is heartbroken to think that a friend could do this. ... After the child took a shower and had ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.quilting)
  • Re: ping: melinda
    ... We hired an attorney for my friend on Wednesday ... I have protected every child who has ever come through my door and ... grownups will protect you..." ... That as well as hugs for the three of you. ...
    (alt.support.arthritis)
  • Re: Best friends (a long vent)
    ... school, so they're not together as much as they could be. ... longer readily available to the best friend, ... The school puts them in the classes, by putting all the girls in age order ... I've seen her meet another child ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: GH: Baby John
    ... of them is related to this child. ... You couldn't call yourself a friend and keep such ... their own children to "protect", ... doesn't outweigh Nik's parental rights and Courtney's death bed wish. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)