The reality regarding children being abducted by a stranger is that it is highly unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. The risk, therefore is low. It is as low now as it was when I was walking to school forty years ago. And, forty years ago, I set off with my parents’ warning ringing in my ears; “don’t talk to strangers”. It was sensible advice, but there wasn’t the expectation that it would be necessary, it was just a precaution – as, indeed, it did happen occasionally. Moors Murderers weren’t exactly on every street corner waiting to pounce and we knew this.
Today, that sensible precaution has become a paranoia. Apparently 48% of children in London are in fear of the bogeyman. Despite the warnings we received, we didn’t live in fear, we just bore the warnings in mind – much like the “look both ways” before crossing the road and got on with walking to school, scuffing our shoes and playing conkers. Someone has been planting the seeds of this over exaggerated fear. The vast majority of strangers do not wish these children harm. And, indeed, such is the paranoia that has been ramped up, would hesitate before lending a hand if they saw a child in trouble.
What have we come to?
It’s pathetic isn’t it?
But out in Devon countryside my cousins sub-teenage children have been riding their bikes the 4 miles to school and back alone for several years. Much to the chagrin of some of the other parents apparently as their children want to do the same but THE PARENTS WON”T LET THEM! Scenes of angst and demands to make her children ride accompanied apparently.
But my cousin recalls (correctly) that we used to ride from Long Ashton to Clevedon for days out (along with similarly aged friends) and we worked out that had to be before I moved away when I was 12/13….
We don’t recall any parental problem with this at all either, I’m sure this was not considered particularly odd in the early 70’s.
We used to cycle from the outskirts of Maidstone to Greatstone on Sea. I rode back that way a couple of years back – it surprised me just how far we rode on gear-less cycles. The busy-ness of the roads hadn’t changed much though – being quiet back roads.
-With respect, 40 years ago the majority of strangers you would have encountered on your way to school would have been natives of this country with our culture and values. The difference now, especially in London or any of our cities, is that a large percentage of the strangers you will encounter are of foreign extraction and many of them do NOT hold our values. It is absolutely normal for people to distrust others from a different race or culture, it is in our genetic makeup. Obviously acting unfairly upon this completely normal feeling by harmful discrimination is unacceptable. Failed multiculturalism has many pitfalls and stranger fear is one of them.
“We don’t recall any parental problem with this at all either, I’m sure this was not considered particularly odd in the early 70?s.”
No indeed. I can vouch for that.
Some ‘progress’, eh?
I looked into such scaremongery in January when I wrote this article.
The number of children abducted by those they aren’t related to, or don’t know, has remained consistent since the 1970s. It’s something like 11 per year. There are approximately 12 million kids in the UK at the moment.
It really is a million to one chance.
But if it saves just one kid blah-di-blah.
I distrust moronic xenophobes who spout complete bollocks to support their spurious arguments far more.
“The risk, therefore is low. It is as low now as it was when I was walking to school forty years ago.”
So what you’re saying is that:
– with children being much more fearful/cautious;
– with mobile phones to call for help or take pictures;
– with better police communications;
etc
the risk is still no lower than 40 years ago?
So what – the perverts use better vehicles, better communications, better team work to keep the offending rate about the same through the years?
This reminds me of the proposition that jail doesn’t work because jailing burglars didn’t reduce the number of burglaries. In that particular example the free burglars were obviously upping their work rate to meet quota, or possibly figures were fiddled to not exceed the ‘acceptable level’ – which seems more likely?
The risk is probably as low as it will ever be – given that you will never reach zero, so one in a million is probably about right.
The level of fear is therefore unjustified. The reality is that there are not very many predatory paedophiles out there, despite the media hype.
“…given that you will never reach zero, so one in a million is probably about right.”
Fantastic – I can absolutely hear Sir Humphrey considering his ‘acceptable level’, and of course he was adept at redefining to meet target.
Btw, we were originally discussing stranger abductions, not “predatory paedophiles” – different techniques, different risks, strangely enough.
“And, indeed, such is the paranoia that has been ramped up, would hesitate before lending a hand if they saw a child in trouble”
This is sadly too true. I know that as a younger, but still not young enough, male that I would be under suspicion if I tried to help a child. I feel scrutiny on me if I even have to interact with children at all, and it makes me uneasy.
I’m convinced that Nancy Grace viewers have to be single because if they enjoy her show to start with, then they must be convinced after a few shows that all men are evil and/or want to twiddle child-parts.
Derek, Risk is a fact of life – it has nothing to do with “Yes Minister”. The risk to children from abduction and murder – whether by predatory paedophiles or just plain old murderers is a little over a million to one. This is a very low risk.
The risk of death on the roads and in the home is higher than that. When I was a child, three children known to me died. One was killed when his father’s car rolled back down the drive and the door handle caught him on the head. Another fell off her bicycle while doing a paper round and went under the wheels of a bus. The third, my best friend, David, drowned on a day trip to the beach.
We could, of course, ban cars, ban bicycles and paper rounds and naturally no one can go to the beach. That would have stopped all three of those accidents.
The reality is that we accept that risks exist in life and that all three tragedies were a part of living. If children are never exposed to risk and taught how to manage them, they will never learn how to survive in the world.
The question is; do we invoke draconian control over sixty million people to reduce risks to zero (impossible to achieve), or do we accept that some children will die and accept this in order to maintain a quality of life for everyone including those children while they are alive? The answer has to be the latter – unless you want to turn the UK into an open prison.
“I distrust moronic xenophobes who spout complete bollocks to support their spurious arguments far more.”
Abuse eh Voyager! but you missed out ‘odious’ from the script, are you allowed to improvise like that?
Irrespective of any insulting language, it is true to say that immigration has not affected the actual risk.
It is sadly true that most harm to children is perpretated by people known to them. Ours were smart enough to realise that this meant saying ‘yes’ to stangers, but being cautious if those they knew seemed to be getting too friendly with them.
“Irrespective of any insulting language, it is true to say that immigration has not affected the actual risk.”
You are quite probably correct. The risk of women being raped has massively increased though, and this is directly attributable to non-white immigration, with the victims being white. I’d also like to mention gun crime and abuse of elderly people in care homes and hospitals. Again the perpetrators are overwhelmingly non-white immigrants, and in the case of elderly abuse the victims are white.
The establishment knows this and, of course, the CPS do not classify these as hate crimes.
There will be a reckoning.
Longrider,
A couple of points to lead up to addressing your question.
You do not know what the level of intentional risk is.
There is a distinction between risk of accident during everyday events (life which has to be lived) and the different risk of intentional attack (life as a victim) – you are combining the two in your arguments. While many parents might accept that in order to live life their children have to be exposed to everyday accidental risk most parents will be resistant to the idea of exposure to intentional risk of attack.
So the point of the ‘burglary quota’ and then the ‘Yes Minister’ references is that we have been presented with official measures of intentional risk that are just at an ‘acceptable level’, rather than being given real objective figures.
We are presented with other manipulated figures that support governments’ policies, for example, for immigration, smoking, drinking, etc. If you have any issues with any government figures being manipulative you cannot claim that intentional risk to children is at an ‘acceptable level’ as zero is unachievable, because if we do not have consistently objective information we cannot know what the real degree of risk is.
For example, the Roman Catholic church in Ireland and the USA for years sheltered paedophile priests persistently abusing a lot of children, yet if you believed that church everything was fine – keep sending the kids – regret about one or two ‘minor incidents blown up by hysterics/newspapers’ (acceptable level) but business as usual.The abuse was able to continue for years largely due to access, authority and lack of transparency – all of which gave them physical power over their victims, who were deprived of protection and a voice.
If those causing intentional risk are not stupid then intentional risk is likely to rise so long as it can be kept quiet by appearing to not exceed the ‘acceptable level’.
As was the case in the Roman Catholic church intelligent perverts who want that level of power over children go to where that power exists, and then they try to prevent discovery. Intelligent perverts who want to abduct children can do the same. Incidents in ‘care’ might have been recorded as child offences but almost certainly not abductions as any abduction was performed as part of a legal process. Have such legal abductions been increasing, in confusing circumstances with lack of transparency? Here’s what can happen but is rarely revealed:
*“…young people in Islington care homes had “descended into a life of degradation and exploitation”. It said suspected pimps were having sex with children and that youngsters in care were being seduced into drugs, homosexuality and prostitution.”
That is certainly beyond what we understand a priest or teacher paedophile attempts. If perverts feel able to exploit children in ‘care’ for prostitution then how many deaths in care might really be abduction and murder – we are unlikely to know as those victims have been permanently silenced?
My answer to your rather loaded question (‘draconian control over sixty million people’ being an emotive phrase and hardly the only alternative) is to address both the points above:
– have objective figures so we can assess risk and the outcomes of actions;
– impose accountability and transparency on those wielding the power.
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/04/uk.schools
Also – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3270149.stm
If you don’t want to be considered an execrable racist you’ll be able to find some evidence for that piece of valuable information wont you?
(Although you won’t, as it is yet more vile bigotry from the hard of thinking.)
Yeah. I reckon you are a bit retarded. Is that what you meant?
This is in danger of becoming tedious. We do know what the actual risk is. We can measure it. It has remained static for the past four decades. There is no evidence whatsoever that it might rise.
My comparison with other risks was merely to illustrate the illogical exaggeration of this risk while accepting much higher ones.
I am not nor ever have invoked the idea of “acceptable” risk, merely acknowledged that reducing risk to zero is not possible – although such a thing as acceptable risk does exist and we all use it.
Hence, my final question was not loaded at all. To try to reduce a negligible risk to zero will mean a massive curtailment of liberty.
This is in danger of becoming tedious.
Then I’ll make this my final post on the matter, unless you specifically ask me to respond on some issue.
We do know what the actual risk is.
No, you know official figures presented to you, for the effect wanted. Do you only recognise official figures to be manipulated for particular subjects?
We can measure it.
It could be measured objectively but that means consistency with no exclusions.
It has remained static for the past four decades.
Yes, that is the odd thing.
My comparison with other risks was merely to illustrate the illogical exaggeration of this risk while accepting much higher ones.
Well isn’t that one of the aspects of learning about risk in everyday life – accepting accidents will happen but being outraged by intentional harm? So it’s not simply as you suggest an exaggeration of quantity of risk but a recognition of quality?
I am not nor ever have invoked the idea of “acceptable” risk, merely acknowledged that reducing risk to zero is not possible – although such a thing as acceptable risk does exist and we all use it.
There is greater communication between people nowadays, so I think the old top-down narrative/figures about ‘acceptable risk’ is losing its hold. Now if an official figure for intentional risk is reassuring but does not match what people are aware of in their lives sooner or later someone is going to raise a ruckus. It’s there in the examples in my previous post, and has been seen in other issues.
Hence, my final question was not loaded at all
Oh, please. Let them die or “invoke draconian control over sixty million people”? Don’t be so dramatic.
Even the NSPCC – an organisation I utterly despise and mistrust for ramping up child abuse paranoia – acknowledges that the figures for child abduction and murder by a stranger is “tiny”. They noted that the year following Sarah Payne’s murder it was none. You can try to spin this one whichever way you like – this is a negligible risk. Even if the figures have been manipulated, it is still a negligible risk.
Not remotely odd. Very few people abduct children. Just as very few people abducted children forty years ago. It is a negligible risk.
That does not justify the level of fear and paranoia being peddled to the point where children are afraid to walk to school, which was my original point. Outrage is not the right tool to measure and manage risk as it is subjective.
Sigh… It is not dramatic at all. It is pragmatism. People die. Risk is a part of life. You cannot eradicate it completely. Attempts to do so outweigh the benefits.
Voyager,
You have defeated me with your superior intellect, and indeed excellent manners.
I wish you and your family all the benefits of multiculturalism. 😉
“We could, of course, ban cars”
And some would, or at least reduce speed limits back to days of a man with a flag walking infront, rather than teach their little darlings road safety.
Bloody hell; all I used to get when I walked to school was;
“William? You got clean underwear on?”
“Yes, Mummy.”
“Good. Then you can go and get run over then.” 😈