ChatterBank2 mins ago
Not Reporting Child Abuse 'should Be Criminal Offence'
Does this feel like the beginning of a culture where we have to snoop on our neighbours for the state?
Source: http://
Take away the very emotive subject of child abuse and you're left with someone being punishable for being a witness, or having some knowledge of a crime. Is it fair to punish someone for that?
While this is only focused on teachers currently, and only child abuse, it could easily spread out into something a little more distasteful for the general population...
Thoughts?
Source: http://
Take away the very emotive subject of child abuse and you're left with someone being punishable for being a witness, or having some knowledge of a crime. Is it fair to punish someone for that?
While this is only focused on teachers currently, and only child abuse, it could easily spread out into something a little more distasteful for the general population...
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree that a teacher should be prosecuted if he or she is knowingly withholding information that could protect a child from abuse but it will be a very difficult case to prosecute I would imagine.
If a child is constantly coming to school covered in bruises or other tell tale signs, report it and cover yourself, ignore it and the abuse continues and you could be prosecuted, sounds fair to me.
I think it would be virtually impossible to impose that law outside of such institutions.
If a child is constantly coming to school covered in bruises or other tell tale signs, report it and cover yourself, ignore it and the abuse continues and you could be prosecuted, sounds fair to me.
I think it would be virtually impossible to impose that law outside of such institutions.
In answer to your first question, the answer is no. There is no mention of neighbours in the link with Keir Starmer. This is meant to include professionals, like nurses, teachers, etc.
Time and time again, when a serious case of child abuse appears in the press, we can see that lots of people stood by and did nothing. Little Daniel Pelka would still be with us now, if all the professional people that came into contact with him had acted properly. The image of that poor child being shut in a box as punishment will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Childrens lives are at risk here.....its high time that professional people stopped hiding behind the law, and actually did something positive. It seems to be working in other countries and I can see no reason whatsoever why it can't be effective here. Even the main Christian churches here in Britain now think that this is a good idea...a little late perhaps but welcome all the same.
If these professional people report their suspicions, then they have no fear of "being punished"
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Time and time again, when a serious case of child abuse appears in the press, we can see that lots of people stood by and did nothing. Little Daniel Pelka would still be with us now, if all the professional people that came into contact with him had acted properly. The image of that poor child being shut in a box as punishment will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Childrens lives are at risk here.....its high time that professional people stopped hiding behind the law, and actually did something positive. It seems to be working in other countries and I can see no reason whatsoever why it can't be effective here. Even the main Christian churches here in Britain now think that this is a good idea...a little late perhaps but welcome all the same.
If these professional people report their suspicions, then they have no fear of "being punished"
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Since the rate at which such cases are being reported is (apparently) increasing, it might be better to allow that to continue naturally rather than attempt to force the issue. Mandatory reporting for fear of being prosecuted could lead to a rise in false positives, wasting more police time, etc. It could also lead to a rise in the number of true positives, of course -- but that's happening already as the crime of child abuse is getting more prominence from old cases all coming to light now. I think that's a better motivation than fear.
"If you fail to report your suspicion how do they know you were suspicious?"
They'd come round and ask because:
* The child was in your class
* The child had been to your house with your own child
* The child was your neighbour
etc...
RATTER, in that case it seems reasonable - but what has that teacher done wrong if they don't step in?
Would it have stopped any recent cases? There were explanations for every bruise in one of them, while it seems odd, people can be fooled.
I think it's a strange trend to move general societal roles such as "looking after one another a bit", to mandatory jobs for public service workers.
They'd come round and ask because:
* The child was in your class
* The child had been to your house with your own child
* The child was your neighbour
etc...
RATTER, in that case it seems reasonable - but what has that teacher done wrong if they don't step in?
Would it have stopped any recent cases? There were explanations for every bruise in one of them, while it seems odd, people can be fooled.
I think it's a strange trend to move general societal roles such as "looking after one another a bit", to mandatory jobs for public service workers.
Yes leahbee but that's not the question here - the question is whether failing to do so should result in a prison sentence
I think the proposal is that it should only be so for certain classes of workers like social workers, possibly teachers and then it would be guarded by much more than a suspicion.
There was an example given on Radio 4's Today program where a boy at a school was abused by a monk. They dealt with it 'internally' and he abused another before he was relocated.
They consulted with their lawyers who told them correctly they were not obliged to report it.
The police stumbled across the case accidently investingating another one.
A change in the law *properly framed* would be very useful in such cases
I think the proposal is that it should only be so for certain classes of workers like social workers, possibly teachers and then it would be guarded by much more than a suspicion.
There was an example given on Radio 4's Today program where a boy at a school was abused by a monk. They dealt with it 'internally' and he abused another before he was relocated.
They consulted with their lawyers who told them correctly they were not obliged to report it.
The police stumbled across the case accidently investingating another one.
A change in the law *properly framed* would be very useful in such cases
Mr Starmer sees this as a gap in the law. When he started practice, if a child was killed or ill-treated, one parent would blame the other and vice versa and the result was neither was convicted. That gap was filled by legislation making both liable.
By extension of this principle, he sees that someone who is in the position of having a duty of care to the child should be liable for ignoring the obvious evidence of abuse to that child
By extension of this principle, he sees that someone who is in the position of having a duty of care to the child should be liable for ignoring the obvious evidence of abuse to that child
AB Editor
"RATTER, in that case it seems reasonable - but what has that teacher done wrong if they don't step in?"
That is very clear, they have allowed that child to be continuously abused by ignoring the tell tale signs.
In my work I could be sacked for not whistle blowing on a colleague if I had suspicions and did not report them or I did not report suspicions of abuse and we are all trained in the signs, symptoms and the consequences of abuse. All care homes/ hospitals etc. have a very clear "whistle Blowing Poilcy" I think someone who ignores these signs are almost as bad as the perpetrator.
"RATTER, in that case it seems reasonable - but what has that teacher done wrong if they don't step in?"
That is very clear, they have allowed that child to be continuously abused by ignoring the tell tale signs.
In my work I could be sacked for not whistle blowing on a colleague if I had suspicions and did not report them or I did not report suspicions of abuse and we are all trained in the signs, symptoms and the consequences of abuse. All care homes/ hospitals etc. have a very clear "whistle Blowing Poilcy" I think someone who ignores these signs are almost as bad as the perpetrator.
I too heard this story on the Today program. It showed just how easy abuse of children can be covered up. I go back to the Daniel Pelka case. His teachers noticed that over a period of months, he was getting progressively thinner, and that he was coming to school covered in bruises. They also noticed that he was stealing food from other children, and on one occasion, was seen to eat jelly that had dropped into the sandpit.
I hope those teachers can live with themselves, because their inaction helped this child to endure months of immense cruelty. Personally, I couldn't live with myself in the same circumstances.
I hope those teachers can live with themselves, because their inaction helped this child to endure months of immense cruelty. Personally, I couldn't live with myself in the same circumstances.
// Does this feel like the beginning of a culture where we have to snoop on our neighbours for the state? //
It does a bit. There's enough paranoia around this subject already. As most parents will be aware you're already viewed with suspicion when you have to take your kid to hospital because they've fallen over or whatever.
The main problem with child abuse cases is not that suspicions aren't reported. It seems to be that once the authorities get hold of information that clearly indicates abuse they don't do anything about it.
I'd rather they sorted that aspect out (as they keep promising to do after each high profile failure) so we don't get any repeats of baby Peter for example.
We don't need any new crimes being invented. We need the ones that we already have to be tackled properly.
It does a bit. There's enough paranoia around this subject already. As most parents will be aware you're already viewed with suspicion when you have to take your kid to hospital because they've fallen over or whatever.
The main problem with child abuse cases is not that suspicions aren't reported. It seems to be that once the authorities get hold of information that clearly indicates abuse they don't do anything about it.
I'd rather they sorted that aspect out (as they keep promising to do after each high profile failure) so we don't get any repeats of baby Peter for example.
We don't need any new crimes being invented. We need the ones that we already have to be tackled properly.
Ed - having experienced this directly I would like to suggest that this is yet another case of, the system has failed so let's get the operatives.
Millions of taxpayers ££s were spent between 2003 and 2010 implementing 'Every Child Matters'. Local gov organisations and all organisations dealing with children and vulnerable young people.
In the throes of this process, as a local gov employee visiting a local primary school, I was introduced by the headteacher to an 8-yr-old girl who had been on holiday to Pakistan but hadn't spoken since her return. She had brought in some photos of her holiday for 'show and tell'. It was apparent from these photos that the girl had been bethrothed during the 'holiday'.
I discussed this privately with the headteacher, explained what my duty of care was, and reported my concerns to my line manager.
Who phoned the head and slagged me off as a troublemaker.
I often wonder where that child is now.
This is the same local authority where a teenage girl was murdered by her parents for not being a submissive Pakistani girl.
So, here we are, millions of £££s lighter, incompetent systems creaking along, and so naturally the proposal is to blame the easiest targets.
Millions of taxpayers ££s were spent between 2003 and 2010 implementing 'Every Child Matters'. Local gov organisations and all organisations dealing with children and vulnerable young people.
In the throes of this process, as a local gov employee visiting a local primary school, I was introduced by the headteacher to an 8-yr-old girl who had been on holiday to Pakistan but hadn't spoken since her return. She had brought in some photos of her holiday for 'show and tell'. It was apparent from these photos that the girl had been bethrothed during the 'holiday'.
I discussed this privately with the headteacher, explained what my duty of care was, and reported my concerns to my line manager.
Who phoned the head and slagged me off as a troublemaker.
I often wonder where that child is now.
This is the same local authority where a teenage girl was murdered by her parents for not being a submissive Pakistani girl.
So, here we are, millions of £££s lighter, incompetent systems creaking along, and so naturally the proposal is to blame the easiest targets.
If a person has a duty of care, then yes, it may be appropriate.
However need to be very careful how the law was worded as we all know an overzealous plod(and councils etc) can often use these sort of laws not in the spirit they were meant.
Also it could be quite difficult to prove I would have thought?
However need to be very careful how the law was worded as we all know an overzealous plod(and councils etc) can often use these sort of laws not in the spirit they were meant.
Also it could be quite difficult to prove I would have thought?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.