Ship of Fools: Anticiganism and Madeleine McCann (again...)

Thread: Anticiganism and Madeleine McCann (again...) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026412

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

Link to article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o03s7Z4GGFY

So a couple are looking after someone who is not their biological child; there could be any number of reasons for this, of varying degrees of legality (benefit fraud, inability to have children).

Why must it automatically be assumed that they are stolen. Indeed, why must family have anything to do with biological relations?

See the subtext if we delete references to gypsies - "The police searched Mr and Mrs Smith's house on suspicion of trafficking drugs, found a girl who was not their biological child and arrested on suspicion of traffiking." It all seems a bit dog-whistle racist to me? Indeed if I were being uncharitable I would say that "baby stolen by gypsies" sounds like something out of a Victorian penny dreadful.

[ 21. October 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: scuffleball ]

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

The other thing that bothers me about all of this is istm that Madeleine McCann gets undue media attention due to her parents' white middle-class privilege. Why over the past decade has the disappearance of one child taken so much attention when there are unfortunately children who go missing all the time? Can there be no closure? Do we not have to move on when people die? After however many years is it not a sign of dysfunction? I guess I cannot really talk too much about the lived experiences of others that are not my own lived experiences, especially not having children of my own though.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I understand that Madeleine's parents have worked very hard to keep her case in the public eye. The level of interest would surely have waned otherwise.

In terms of 'closure', I really can't contemplate any parent truly wanting to give up on the possibility of finding their abducted child. In most cases parents probably don't have the means or the confidence to continue the search, but if I were Mr or Mrs McCanns, with their resources and degree of determination, I wouldn't listen to anyone who said it was time for us to give up on our daughter.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I agree that there may be an issue of racism at work here. OTOH to give some more context, Greece has a big child trafficking problem, there were, to say the least, some other oddities

quote:
The couple had registered different numbers of children with different regional family registries. The woman claimed to have given birth to six children within a 10-month period.

These match the pattern of the way child trafficking is conducted. Maybe they are guilty of no more than informal adoption, and creating false registration information for the girl. That is not the major crime of child abduction or trafficking. But nations which don't enforce adequate registration and adoption rules facilitate trafficking.

As for the McCanns, it wasn't only them who were in the news, it was also Ben Needham's parents from over 20 years ago. (The McCanns are v. much in the news now anyway because of the renewed investigation into Madeleine's disappearance and the Crimewatch reconstruction.)

My guess is that most children who go missing are usually of an age when it is quite reasonable that they are out and about on their own. I suspect that the number of missing and still unaccounted-for under 5s is really very small. So a suspected abducted child of this sort of age means that when the media look for parallels there are only a very few.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree that there may be an issue of racism at work here. OTOH to give some more context, Greece has a big child trafficking problem, there were, to say the least, some other oddities
quote:
The couple had registered different numbers of children with different regional family registries. The woman claimed to have given birth to six children within a 10-month period.
These match the pattern of the way child trafficking is conducted. Maybe they are guilty of no more than informal adoption, and creating false registration information for the girl. That is not the major crime of child abduction or trafficking. But nations which don't enforce adequate registration and adoption rules facilitate trafficking.

Based on that article and a couple of others I've read about the case in Greece, my guess is that the search for drugs and weapons was a standard false flag operation, and that it was actually an investigation into human trafficking all along.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

scuffleball asks: 'Can there be no closure? Do we not have to move on when people die?'

The answer to both questions is - at least sometimes - ‘No.’

On Australia Day (26 January) next year it will be forty-eight years since the Beaumont children, Jane (aged 9), Arnna (aged 7), and Grant (aged 4), disappeared. They set off to spend the holiday morning a five-minute bus ride away at a suburban beach in Adelaide, South Australia, and never came home.

I was acquainted with their father, Jim, through an interschool program that was hosted year and year about between Melbourne High School and Adelaide Boys High School (as it was then).

Nobody was ever charged; no trace has been found. After enduring the police investigation, the useless interventions of at least one ‘psychic’, and a hoaxer, and years of unrewarded hope, Jim and his wife Nancy divorced. I doubt that there are many Australians of my generation who would suggest that they can have closure, or – as scuffleball so bluntly puts it – move on.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:
Why over the past decade has the disappearance of one child taken so much attention when there are unfortunately children who go missing all the time?

This is a list of the UK's missing children. As you can see, most went missing at the age of 14 +. Of the nine children who went missing within the last month, three are 16, which is probably not what most people understand as a "missing child." A further three are 15, two are 14 and one is 13.

Of those who went missing at a significantly younger age, most come from split families where there is reason to believe the missing child is with a family member.

The statistic is that a child is reported missing every three minutes; but the vast majority of those are found within a few hours.

Madeleine McCann and Ben Needham are virtually unique amongst Britain's missing children in that they were both very young, there was no suggestion of family abduction and neither have been found.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Also both the Needham and McCann families have worked hard to keep themselves in the public eye; the Crimewatch edition last week being the latest 'bump' of the story by the McCanns.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

scuffleball:

quote:
Can there be no closure? Do we not have to move on when people die? After however many years is it not a sign of dysfunction? I guess I cannot really talk too much about the lived experiences of others that are not my own lived experiences, especially not having children of my own though.

Before I had a child of my own I'd have agreed with you. Now that I am a parent myself I can understand the McCanns' behaviour perfectly.

No, they and Ben Needham's parents can't have closure until they know what happened. At the moment they don't; their children just vanished. Probably dead, as most people would agree, but they don't know for sure.

I daresay you do have to 'move on' when people die, but those of us who have lost someone dear to them don't forget. I still miss my grandfather 15 years after he died, and he was an old man who died peacefully of natural causes after a long and mostly happy life. It's harder to 'move on' as you put it when the person who dies is younger than you; harder still when that person died unexpectedly or as the result of violence.

If they just vanish without a trace it must be worst of all; you know the odds are they are dead, but you can't help clinging to hope.

It may seem dysfunctional to you, but I should imagine that everyone who's lost a child feels like this.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
The other thing that bothers me about all of this is istm that Madeleine McCann gets undue media attention due to her parents' white middle-class privilege. Why over the past decade has the disappearance of one child taken so much attention when there are unfortunately children who go missing all the time? Can there be no closure? Do we not have to move on when people die? After however many years is it not a sign of dysfunction? I guess I cannot really talk too much about the lived experiences of others that are not my own lived experiences, especially not having children of my own though.

I suppose there is a lot of significance in this particular case - and similar cases;
- emotional significance; a missing child, very young indeed at the time so completely vulnerable and unable to survive alone or escape. The parent/child bond. The lack of closure, in fact, because there is no knowledge of whether the girl is dead or alive.
- criminal significance; a heinous criminal act left unresolved, an apparently effed-up investigation with lessons to learn from that. And - should there be a link with organized trafficking - a hugely sinister significance in this one single incident which may have much wider implications.

There are also plenty of news agencies freely accessible if one wishes to put this particular case into perspective. We don't have to rely on the Daily Mail alone - or even just the British press - to draw our own conclusions about where the McCann abduction fits in to the wider scheme of things. And if this case has become tedious to us, there are any number of other news channels we can switch over to.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

What Jane R said: you can't move on, particularly if you don't have a body to mourn - look at Keith Bennett's poor mother.

[ 22. October 2013, 10:01: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Another possible child trafficking case This time in Ireland.

quote:
Interpol has been called in to try to identify a teenage girl found dazed in Dublin city.
Detectives have launched a major investigation amid fears the girl, who could be as young as 14, was smuggled in to the country by sex traffickers.

quote:
“This week the European Parliament will hear that over 270,000 victims are trafficked for sexual exploitation in the EU each year with ’Mafia-type’ criminal networks pocketing €25bn.
“It is estimated that up to €250m of that is from Ireland.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

For all the occasional bubble that surfaces here on the ship for poor Madeleine her parents have lived and thought this for every hour since she was taken. They have thought through EVERY outcome a thousand times. Her very probable death, her very unlikely continuing abduction and everything in between, a million times.

But hope is a killer, they will not stop, they cannot stop. Lord have Mercy.

As a slight tangent (and as the father of a beautiful blond, daughter in this instance) and noting the boy mentioned above and the Maria/ Roma case in Greece. Also with a degree of rhetoric but why is it always blondes?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What Jane R said: you can't move on, particularly if you don't have a body to mourn - look at Keith Bennett's poor mother.

That was a particularly tragic example, though. There was no hope of his being alive. Even his mother knew that. She knew he was dead and buried - but not where. Her grief was focussed, I think, not merely on finding the location of his remains, but arguably more on also avenging his death, which of course she could never do. So she dedicated herself to hating his murderers. That poor woman lived the rest of her life spending her energy, time and spirit hating the two people who least cared what she did, least of all in respect to themselves.

There might be a few similarities with the McCann case, here, in the sense of imperfect closure. But the McCann's actions are a beacon of useful activity and hope compared to the dead-end misery of Keith Bennett's mother, who really and truly needed to move on in order to save her own life from the fruitless despair of simply living in order to hate her son's murderers - much as they may have deserved such hatred.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
scuffleball:
quote:
Can there be no closure? Do we not have to move on when people die? After however many years is it not a sign of dysfunction? I guess I cannot really talk too much about the lived experiences of others that are not my own lived experiences, especially not having children of my own though.
Before I had a child of my own I'd have agreed with you. Now that I am a parent myself I can understand the McCanns' behaviour perfectly.

No, they and Ben Needham's parents can't have closure until they know what happened. At the moment they don't; their children just vanished. Probably dead, as most people would agree, but they don't know for sure.

I daresay you do have to 'move on' when people die, but those of us who have lost someone dear to them don't forget. I still miss my grandfather 15 years after he died, and he was an old man who died peacefully of natural causes after a long and mostly happy life. It's harder to 'move on' as you put it when the person who dies is younger than you; harder still when that person died unexpectedly or as the result of violence.

If they just vanish without a trace it must be worst of all; you know the odds are they are dead, but you can't help clinging to hope.

It may seem dysfunctional to you, but I should imagine that everyone who's lost a child feels like this.

No. It’s not the same thing at all. When a loved one dies, you never stop missing them, but you know what happened and where the grave is etc.

When someone disappears, you have no idea what happened, whether they’re alive or anything! I don’t think you’d ever come to terms with not knowing. Or not having a grave to visit. So the push to keep the case in the public eye is completely understandable. Someone might remember something that gives the police the breakthrough they need.

The parents of Lee Boxell, who disappeared aged 15 in 1988 have kept his room exactly as he left it. Lee would be 40 now. The family of Keith Bennett know he’s dead, but they still hope that his remains will be found so they can bury him properly.

Tubbs

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

What Anselmina said re Keith Bennett's mother.

Tubbs, I agree with you really - the problem in the McCanns' case is that they don't know what happened and they don't have a body to bury.

I do know someone whose child died (of natural causes) when he was about 5. She still can't bear to talk about it, fifty years later. She has 'moved on' in the sense that if scuffleball met her he would not be bored by constant harping on the theme of the lost child - but she hasn't forgotten, either.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
I understand that Madeleine's parents have worked very hard to keep her case in the public eye. The level of interest would surely have waned otherwise.

It's a bit different, because it's the case of a boy who disappeared with his mother, but interest, at least locally, has not faded into the disappearance of Andrew MacRae.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I used to be occasionally babysat by Alison MacDonald who went missing in 1981 while on holiday in India. As a child growing up the idea that someone could just disappear terrified me. I also knew the family quite well and the enormous toll it has taken on them. The not knowing is just so incredibly unbearable for all of them.

I am sometimes professionally involved in human trafficking cases and I don't think it is unreasonable to think worst case scenario when dealing with them. When you have a child in this situation your actions or inactions will have a tremendous impact on their life, health and safe future. I know I have dealt with one case where we could prove that three children under five were being brought into the country to be taken to India so their kidneys could be harvested. And another case which keeps me awake at night of a girl about four who didn't know her surname or what country she was from but was carrying a My Little Pony back pack full of condoms and sex toys. Thankfully those involved were locked up for a considerable period of time but the nightmare is the errors you make - the ones you don't pick up, the errors you make that could lead to a horrific experience with a child. Therefore as far as I'm concerned going with the worst potential case is always the way forward.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Also, when someone dies when they’re a good age, there’s the comfort that they lived their life and done many of the things they wanted. When a child dies, there’s an additional sadness that they never got to live their life and get married, have a family, build a career, see the world etc. I’d imagine there’s a big pile of what ifs to work though as well, which makes things a whole heap worse.

Tubbs

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_MacRae

A namesake of the little boy Andrew MacRae.

I am convinced that Willie was murdered.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_MacRae

A namesake of the little boy Andrew MacRae.

I am convinced that Willie was murdered.

Tangent// Oddly enough, I was talking about him only yesterday; he was mentioned in a blog I read. But he has nothing to do with missing children, only missing briefcases. // end tangent.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs
When someone disappears, you have no idea what happened, whether they’re alive or anything!

Not only that, but you're not sure you should hope they're alive. What if they are suffering horribly somewhere?

Moo

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by scuffleball
So a couple are looking after someone who is not their biological child; there could be any number of reasons for this, of varying degrees of legality (benefit fraud, inability to have children).

Trouble is, if the couple are "looking after someone" as a temporary thing, where are the parents?

If the child has been properly adopted where are the papers? Who is the mother? When was the child handed over?

"Inability to have children" - fine, but no explanation at all.

quote:
Why must it automatically be assumed that they are stolen. Indeed, why must family have anything to do with biological relations?

Because with no formal adoption papers, not even a hand-written note from the mother, no coherent story, what other reason is there?

No one is saying that family must have biological links, but if they don't there should be a legal process for a non-related child to be living in that family - and if the child is with the adults with the permission of the natural mother, why don't they know her name, nationality, how to contact her: they can't (won't?) even say whereabouts in Greece (or perhaps elsewhere in the Balkans) they were when the child began living with them.

The fact that they're lying about the child's age is not insignificant either.

As for your assertion

quote:
See the subtext if we delete references to gypsies ... It all seems a bit dog-whistle racist to me?

Unfortunately there does come a point where you have to mention the fact that these people are living in a Roma camp and are part of the Roma community. And it is significant that they are, bearing in mind that there have been cases elsewhere in Europe (including in the UK) of Rome - or Travellers or Gypsies - being involved in people trafficking, false imprisonment etc. Hell, you only have to go to Gloucester to find a case where vulnerable adults were enticed, imprisoned, tortured, in at least one case died of neglect (at the very least - Post-mortem results yet to be released pending CPS decision on charges) having been in the Traveller "community" for years.

And I put the word "community" like that because when it comes to patent wrongdoing by their own, the Roma/gypsies/travellers are extremely hostile to any investigators and, in the case of the Connors family, still refuse to acknowledge that the enslavement of others is wrong.

The fact is that a far higher proportion of Roma/travellers/gypsies seem prepared to either break the law themselves or cover up for those who have than is the case of people in the general population.

And why on earth should the fact that Madeleine McCann's parents are middle-class be dragged into this? One abducted child has parents who are doctors, another abducted child may have parents who are not - the linking feature is that the children have been stolen from their parents.

Kate and Gerry McCann will NEVER "get over" the abduction of their daughter, there can be no "closure". Whether or not you are a parent, I'd have thought that any reasonably empathetic person might realise this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was just intrigued by that point about Roma being more criminal than the general population. I grew up in a tough working class area, where police were hated by some, nicking stuff was widespread, drug-taking likewise - anyway, we were not Roma. Well, my uncle was, but by marriage.

So are there are any stats on this?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

An unfortunate coincidence.

Another blonde little girl.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just intrigued by that point about Roma being more criminal than the general population. I grew up in a tough working class area, where police were hated by some, nicking stuff was widespread, drug-taking likewise - anyway, we were not Roma. Well, my uncle was, but by marriage.

So are there are any stats on this?

I haven't looked for any recent stats, but a few years ago I went to Eastern Europe to attend some workshops with some Roma women who were mostly in social work and associated professions. I discovered that there were some serious issues among the Roman communities in the region, and the economic downturn has probably made things worse since then.

There appear to be a number of interrelated problems that work together to exclude the East European (and probably South European) Roma from healthy and productive participation in the wider society, and which frequently lead them into dependency and, in some instances, organised crime. I'm hoping that governments around the region are encouraging the development of community workers to help communities work through their issues, but I suspect that most of the funding and motivation will come from NGOs.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.

April Jones and Shannon Matthews got pretty extensive media coverage, didn't they?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.

Any statistical evidence to support this?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.
April Jones and Shannon Matthews got pretty extensive media coverage, didn't they?

Actually the Shannon Matthews case is a prime example - that case got far, far less coverage than Madeline McCann (Shannon hardly got appeals in the latest Harry Potter book, did she?), as did the April Jones case. The McCanns are also sufficiently wealthy enough to pay for publicity, something that poorer families can't do. We live in a classist society, I'm not sure why it's such a massive shock that the media (run almost entirely by the middle classes for the middle classes) might be biased in favour of middle class families.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.
Any statistical evidence to support this?

Given that class isn't something you can understand from statistics, no (and I'm not sure why you would think that class could be understood from statistics). However, there have been a number of cases of missing children in the UK in recent years and the McCanns (nice middle class people) have been treated very differently to the other families involved.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

There's something of the other about the McCann case though, isn't there?

There's the foreignness of it for a start. This happened in a holiday resort, where people expect to unwind and relax. The juxtaposition of a child kidnap and palm trees is always going to get attention.

Madeleine's age presumably has something to do with it, too. This wasn't a child who could really interact with adults in the way an older child, like Shannon perhaps, could.

The Matthews family obviously has problems in the way that a family like the McCanns don't. Some of that is probably projected, rightly or wrongly, on to the child.

So I think there are lots of reasons why the Madeleine McCann case justifiably had a lot of publicity. I still can't stand the sight of their parents and wish they'd be done for neglect, but that's a separate matter.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I take it then that the answer to my question is "No", and that all we have are your assertions.

BTW, how can your last sentence stand in support of your assertion? Perhaps the McCanns are middle-class; what of the other families you refer to?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The Matthews family would be called 'troubled' by some and 'a bunch of scumbags' by others. They lived in a rather decrepit council house on a rather grim estate in Wakefield, if I recall correctly.

April Jones had, I think, a normal upbringing in a working class area of a small Welsh town. She was murdered by a neighbour after playing out in the street one evening. I think he was a van driver.

[ 22. October 2013, 22:05: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I have been intrigued by the lack of mention of the other children in the same home. On one news report I saw a video of the large number of ‘siblings’ and they couldn’t possibly be the biological children of the couple because of birthdates. The home video showed a lot of children who were of similar colouring to the ‘parents. But I can’t find any reference to what happened to those children.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

When it comes to comparing cases, Shannon Matthews was found alive and so far as most of us are aware, remains so.

Although all of April Jones's body that has ever been found were a few fragments, and Bridger has refused to say what he did with her, he has been convicted of her murder. It's not a case where there seem to be any question marks about the conviction. Since he was imprisoned, a fellow inmate has been convicted of slashing him across the face to try to get him to say what he did with her body.

Both cases were widely reported and aroused a large amount of concern, shock and outrage both in their own areas and nationally.

So neither of these cases are now relevant comparisons when it comes to Madeleine McCann.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

... a far higher proportion of Roma/travellers/gypsies ...

Why do you conflate those three very separate and different groups?

(Yes "Roma" in the sense used in southern and eastern Europe share a cultural ancestry with British and Irish people who'd call themselves "gypsies" but they have been distinct from each other for centuries. And Travellers are completely different.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
No. It’s not the same thing at all. When a loved one dies, you never stop missing them, but you know what happened and where the grave is etc.

When someone disappears, you have no idea what happened, whether they're alive or anything! I don’t think you’d ever come to terms with not knowing. Or not having a grave to visit. So the push to keep the case in the public eye is completely understandable.

I think it might be even worse than that if, especially if, you thought they had been kidnapped by someone who was not intending to kill them but might be wanting to look after them as a member of their own family. Or keep them alive in some kind of subjugation or slavery. So you really beleived they were alive, or might be.

Because maybe you could never stop thinking about them. Any more than a parent of a living child who has grown up or moved away can stop thinking about them. Maybe every time someone knocked on the door you would think it might be them. For the rest of your life. Every time you saw someone in the street whop looked like them, or who looked a little like you thought they might look now. Every time the phone rang. Every car that passed in the street and slowed down outside the house.

Maybe they are walking up the path home right now, this very second, about to knock on the door and explain what happened. Maybe they are in the street outside, or walking down the road a few miles away. Maybe they can't get home, maybe someone or something is stopping them, their fear, or their captor, or their embarrassment, or their shame, or something they have to do, something really important that you don't even know about, but it will be alright in the end, as soon as its done, if its ever done, they can come home. Maybe they are trapped somewhere, wishing they could come back, maybe they are hoping every moment that you will find them and erscue them and bring them home. Maybe they have forgotten about you entirely.

It happens, it really happens. Missing people turn up unexpectedly every day. Sometimes after years, decades even.

It must be bad enough if the missing person is a friend, a neighbour, a brother or sister, a spouse. But your own child? I don't see how you could ever really stop thinking about them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just intrigued by that point about Roma being more criminal than the general population. I grew up in a tough working class area, where police were hated by some, nicking stuff was widespread, drug-taking likewise - anyway, we were not Roma. Well, my uncle was, but by marriage.

So are there are any stats on this?
I haven't looked for any recent stats, but a few years ago I went to Eastern Europe to attend some workshops with some Roma women who were mostly in social work and associated professions. I discovered that there were some serious issues among the Roman communities in the region, and the economic downturn has probably made things worse since then.

There appear to be a number of interrelated problems that work together to exclude the East European (and probably South European) Roma from healthy and productive participation in the wider society, and which frequently lead them into dependency and, in some instances, organised crime. I'm hoping that governments around the region are encouraging the development of community workers to help communities work through their issues, but I suspect that most of the funding and motivation will come from NGOs.

I would think poverty is a factor - which is why I drew an analogy with where I grew up, which was also poor, with plenty of thieving, contempt for police, drug-taking, refusal to grass people up, blah blah blah. Very naughty people!

But I suspect Roma and gypsies also have racism to contend with, (my uncle did). This might connect with other groups - for example, there seem to be more black and Muslim men in English jails than would be proportionate to the general population.

I am still intrigued by L'organist's claim that Roma are far more criminal than the general population - where does this claim come from?

I actually live near a guy who shot and killed a young gypsy who was thieving - many locals thought he was a hero, which I find disturbing. There is certainly plenty of anti-Roma, anti-gypsy sentiment out there.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

There's certainly the factor of discrimination and racism, which feeds into poverty, poor attitudes to education, employment and life chances in general. And apparently the situation worsened for the Roma after the fall of communism.

Roma culture in Eastern Europe seems to be distinct from what we used to refer to as gypsies in the UK. Maybe its because the numbers are much greater there. Of the 7 - 9 million Roma in Europe, 6 million are in central and eastern Europe. (For example, Roma make up 10% of the population of Bulgaria.) While the long-standing gypsies of England may have faced similar problems, their smaller numbers, and perhaps the larger presence of other minority ethnic groups to absorb some of the unwelcome attention, have eventually made it easier for them to 'assimilate'. The continental Roma, by contrast, have maintained distinctive languages and are organised in clans, with the large majority living in communities together rather than being in mixed neighbourhoods.

Regarding crime, the problem isn't that the Roma are intrinsically more criminal than other people, but considering the conditions in which they live in Eastern Europe, it's unsurprising that certain criminal activities have become associated with them.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Actually the Shannon Matthews case is a prime example - that case got far, far less coverage than Madeline McCann (Shannon hardly got appeals in the latest Harry Potter book, did she?),

Shannon Matthews went missing on 19 Feb and was found on 14 March; that's not long enough to put out appeals in published books.

I'm not saying she would have, had she remained missing, but you can't compare the case of a girl who was missing for less than a month, with the case of a girl who's been missing for over six years.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - the media is more interested in nice middle-class children from nice middle-class backgrounds going missing than children from council estates going missing.

It's something that Owen Jones picks up in his book Chavs

I can't help feeling that there would be many more questions asked of the McCanns if they'd been from a council estate and had left their child alone while they boozed at Butlins.

Somehow being a Doctor and eating at a Tapas bar overcomes a child protection issue ......

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Actually the Shannon Matthews case is a prime example - that case got far, far less coverage than Madeline McCann (Shannon hardly got appeals in the latest Harry Potter book, did she?),
Shannon Matthews went missing on 19 Feb and was found on 14 March; that's not long enough to put out appeals in published books.

I'm not saying she would have, had she remained missing, but you can't compare the case of a girl who was missing for less than a month, with the case of a girl who's been missing for over six years.

There was a big difference in coverage while Shannon was still missing. Not just the amount of coverage but the tone - the Daily Wail was especially unpleasant about the one and kind about the other.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Exclamation Mark
There was a big difference in coverage while Shannon was still missing. Not just the amount of coverage but the tone - the Daily Wail was especially unpleasant about the one and kind about the other.

Whether or not the DM was "kind" or not I don't know - not a newspaper I read. But certainly some of the coverage was bound to be different because of varying factors, especially

the age of the children - 1 nearly a teen, the other not yet at school;
1 missing in the UK where she spoke the language, the other in Portugal where she might be able to ask for help and be understood;
one found within 4 weeks and the other still missing 6 years later.

For the media in the Shannon Matthews case it was difficult for them not to allude to the fact that Shannon and some of her siblings had been on the "At Risk" register since (a) this was fact, and (b) neighbours referred to it.

One could question whether or not newspapers should repeat local gossip, but the fact is that journalists were given a string of "gossip" about Karen Matthews that was fact - that her children had different fathers, that she'd been accused of neglect, that her children had appalling attendance at school.

None of these things were said about the parents of either Madeleine McCann or April Jones because they would not have been true.

The fact that coverage almost ceased after about a month in the case of April Jones was because a man had been charged and then much information was sub judice - and even our media wouldn't be so crass as to imperil a prosecution for murder just for the sake of headlines and speculation.

As for "class" being an issue: the disappearances of Daniel Nolan and Damien Nettles still attract widespread publicity - granted not as much as Madeleine McCann but they were 14 and 15 when they disappeared - as does the search for what happened to Ginette Tate: all of these missing teens came from working class homes.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Actually the Shannon Matthews case is a prime example - that case got far, far less coverage than Madeline McCann (Shannon hardly got appeals in the latest Harry Potter book, did she?),
Shannon Matthews went missing on 19 Feb and was found on 14 March; that's not long enough to put out appeals in published books.

I'm not saying she would have, had she remained missing, but you can't compare the case of a girl who was missing for less than a month, with the case of a girl who's been missing for over six years.
There was a big difference in coverage while Shannon was still missing. Not just the amount of coverage but the tone - the Daily Wail was especially unpleasant about the one and kind about the other.

The McCanns stayed in one of those massive family friendly gated communities where you don’t really have to go outside to do anything and there are lots of other holiday makers and staff around. It easy, in those circumstances,, to get a bit complacent about it being okay to “leave the kids to sleep while you pop out”. At the time, I remember a few people saying they’d been there and behaved in a similar way. (Including one friend who had been there the same week!)

Social services did speak to them after they got back IIRC. What the McCann’s did was stupid, but they’re going to have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives. I’m not sure that punishing them any further is going to help. It won’t bring their little girl back.

That said, I agree that there would have been a very big difference in the tone of the coverage if they hadn’t been a nice, middle class family. Tia Sharp is another example of this. In other circumstances, the papers would have been howling with rage that it took that long – 7 days! - To find a body hidden in a family member’s loft.

Tubbs

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...
As for "class" being an issue: the disappearances of Daniel Nolan and Damien Nettles still attract widespread publicity - granted not as much as Madeleine McCann but they were 14 and 15 when they disappeared - as does the search for what happened to Ginette Tate: all of these missing teens came from working class homes.

Race seems to be an issue though - all the examples of missing children and young people quoted on this thread are white. And, thinking about it, I can think of very few cases of black children disappearing that have made the jump from local papers to the national ones.

Tubbs

[ 23. October 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...
As for "class" being an issue: the disappearances of Daniel Nolan and Damien Nettles still attract widespread publicity - granted not as much as Madeleine McCann but they were 14 and 15 when they disappeared - as does the search for what happened to Ginette Tate: all of these missing teens came from working class homes.
Race seems to be an issue though - all the examples of missing children and young people quoted on this thread are white. And, thinking about it, I can think of very few cases of black children disappearing that have made the jump from local papers to the national ones.

Tubbs

But that's probably in part due to them being a minority in Britain. If they are normally small in number you can expect them to also be a small proportion of missing child cases. Keeping in mind that statistical science is all based on the false premise that dice have memories, you would have to go a much longer list than the four or five we've had on this page before you could confidently draw that conclusion.

Or maybe it's just that black kids in Britain disappear less often because their parents are better at the core parenting skills than white parents like the McCanns?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...
As for "class" being an issue: the disappearances of Daniel Nolan and Damien Nettles still attract widespread publicity - granted not as much as Madeleine McCann but they were 14 and 15 when they disappeared - as does the search for what happened to Ginette Tate: all of these missing teens came from working class homes.
Race seems to be an issue though - all the examples of missing children and young people quoted on this thread are white. And, thinking about it, I can think of very few cases of black children disappearing that have made the jump from local papers to the national ones.

Tubbs
But that's probably in part due to them being a minority in Britain.

African-American children also get MUCH less press when they disappear than blond-haired blue-eyed younguns.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]Social services did speak to them after they got back IIRC. What the McCann’s did was stupid, but they’re going to have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives. I’m not sure that punishing them any further is going to help. It won’t bring their little girl back.

That said, I agree that there would have been a very big difference in the tone of the coverage if they hadn’t been a nice, middle class family. Tia Sharp is another example of this. In other circumstances, the papers would have been howling with rage that it took that long – 7 days! - To find a body hidden in a family member’s loft.

Tubbs

No, I'm not into punishing nor pursuing them: they have suffered more than enough and they will live with their decision for the rest of their life.

I'm simply observing that with different family dynamics the response from statutory authorities would, in all likelihood, have been very different. Not to mention the seemingly generally accepted assumption that we all pop out for a few minutes and leave our children unattended: some may do, others don't. If ever I was tempted to do that I remember a funeral I took for a young girl who died in a house fire whilst left on her own.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I can't help thinking that the McCann / Needham cases always have a shred of hope because of the very occasional discovery of young adults, who were abducted as children, being found imprisoned in a basement somewhere (some who have even gone on to have children of their own at the hands of their abductors). Until a body is found, there is always hope, although usually the outcome is much less happy.

It must never be forgotten that, however neglectful the parents might have been, the wrongdoer is the person who took the child. Young children are excellent escapologists and most people have had a scary memory of one of their children going out of sight for a few moments when toddlers - it could so easily be a case of it happening at the wrong time when someone of ill intent was about.

The other thing to bear in mind was that a generation ago it was considered bad parenting to keep your children up with you until late in the evening when on holiday. Under this reasoning, all children should have a nursery tea and be put to bed by 7pm with the hotel childminding service listening in on them while their parents have a quiet meal. It doesn't take much imagination to realise that anyone of ill intent could find a way around this system, but it was very widespread and very much approved of as the 'right' way to do things.

Do you lock your door when you have a meal in the evening and the children are in bed? Could you swear that it would be impossible for someone to creep in through the front door (or through a window) and up the stairs without you knowing, while the TV was on, or while you are all chatting? Particularly on a hot day? Someone with ill intent will often find a way - parents can never be completely complacent that it will never happen to them.

It is so easy to accuse the wrong people and overlook the deviousness of a criminal mind.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by ExclamationMark
I'm simply observing that with different family dynamics the response from statutory authorities would, in all likelihood, have been very different.

But we don't know what the response from "statutory authorities" has been in the McCann case - or in the case of Tia Sharp either, come to that. The only "authority" we do know about - the Portuguese police - responded by naming both McCann parents as persons of interest in the disappearance of their daughter and keeping them in the frame for nearly a year. And the recent book by the detective in charge of the case states quite clearly that he still thinks they killed their daughter.

It was publicised that the McCanns had been visited by Social Services after their return from Portugal but what transpired from that visit we don't know - anymore than we know whether or not Social Services put Tia Sharp's her younger half-brother on the At Risk register.

We do know that Shannon Matthews' 6 half-siblings were taken into care but that was because their mother was incarcerated.

quote:
Not to mention the seemingly generally accepted assumption that we all pop out for a few minutes and leave our children unattended: some may do, others don't. If ever I was tempted to do that I remember a funeral I took for a young girl who died in a house fire whilst left on her own.

I too was shocked at the general assumption among some journalists that leaving one's children alone at night when on holiday was acceptable. Yes, I know there used to be a "baby-listening service" at Butlins and other holiday providers - and that always struck me as being unsafe too.

If you need to go out you must ensure that there is in the family home a person whom your children know and who is capable of responding appropriately if they become unwell or wake in need of emotional reassurance - a baby-sitter in other words: no baby-sitter should equal no night out for one or both parents. I know that sounds harsh but no one said parenthood was going to be easy or require no sacrifices.

As for the other point up-thread about security: most of us have proper locks on our front doors so if we are in the back garden the house should be as secure as if one were going out for the evening. If you secure your house against intruders who may steal your property, how much more important to protect your children?

[ 23. October 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Well, the world used to be based on trust. In the street where I lived, all the parents used to look out for each others' children. So now we must all go around being paranoid and not letting them out of our sight? Surely the people in the wrong are the ones going around snatching children, not those who are trying to allow their children to actually grow up and get a small taste of (appropriate) freedom as they grow?

I wonder if some of the media attention is because middle class parents who are supposed to be helicopter parents, hovering over their child's every move and closely organising their every activity (although they also get blamed for that!) have, in this case, acted like working class parents who traditionally have allowed their kids to be more free range.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
Not to mention the seemingly generally accepted assumption that we all pop out for a few minutes and leave our children unattended: some may do, others don't. If ever I was tempted to do that I remember a funeral I took for a young girl who died in a house fire whilst left on her own.
I too was shocked at the general assumption among some journalists that leaving one's children alone at night when on holiday was acceptable. Yes, I know there used to be a "baby-listening service" at Butlins and other holiday providers - and that always struck me as being unsafe too.

If you need to go out you must ensure that there is in the family home a person whom your children know and who is capable of responding appropriately if they become unwell or wake in need of emotional reassurance - a baby-sitter in other words: no baby-sitter should equal no night out for one or both parents. I know that sounds harsh but no one said parenthood was going to be easy or require no sacrifices.

As for the other point up-thread about security: most of us have proper locks on our front doors so if we are in the back garden the house should be as secure as if one were going out for the evening. If you secure your house against intruders who may steal your property, how much more important to protect your children?

I'm inclined to agree from my suburban Californian pov. But there are all sorts of cultures where this is very much the norm-- even in the US. In many parts of Hawaii, for example, even quite young children are still very much "free range"-- able to roam about the neighborhood unattended at the age of only 4 or 5, even with both highway and Pacific Ocean as nearby dangers. There's just a more laid-back expectation that people are to be trusted, and neighbors will watch out for one another.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Turns out the Roma have blonde children too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, hopefully this will stop any wave of blond Roma children being reported to the police. As if dark haired people don't have blond children! Possibly this was pure racism.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
Not to mention the seemingly generally accepted assumption that we all pop out for a few minutes and leave our children unattended: some may do, others don't. If ever I was tempted to do that I remember a funeral I took for a young girl who died in a house fire whilst left on her own.
I too was shocked at the general assumption among some journalists that leaving one's children alone at night when on holiday was acceptable. Yes, I know there used to be a "baby-listening service" at Butlins and other holiday providers - and that always struck me as being unsafe too.

If you need to go out you must ensure that there is in the family home a person whom your children know and who is capable of responding appropriately if they become unwell or wake in need of emotional reassurance - a baby-sitter in other words: no baby-sitter should equal no night out for one or both parents. I know that sounds harsh but no one said parenthood was going to be easy or require no sacrifices.

As for the other point up-thread about security: most of us have proper locks on our front doors so if we are in the back garden the house should be as secure as if one were going out for the evening. If you secure your house against intruders who may steal your property, how much more important to protect your children?
I'm inclined to agree from my suburban Californian pov. But there are all sorts of cultures where this is very much the norm-- even in the US. In many parts of Hawaii, for example, even quite young children are still very much "free range"-- able to roam about the neighborhood unattended at the age of only 4 or 5, even with both highway and Pacific Ocean as nearby dangers. There's just a more laid-back expectation that people are to be trusted, and neighbors will watch out for one another.

My best mate lives near Liverpool. When she first moved into her street, she’d regularly see children out in the streets playing apparently unattended and was a bit gobsmacked. After a few days, she noticed the adults who were doing stuff in the front room and looking out the window regularly etc. All were “watching” the children without making it obvious what they were doing. If they spotted someone they didn’t know or a child went out of sight, the watching became more obvious. Until they realised that she was the new woman at number 30 and therefore okay, all the curtains would twitch as she walked home from work! My friend now takes her turn quietly watching the children.

FWIW, I agree with Chorister. I used to walk home from infants school (!), play outside unattended for hours, pop to the local shops etc. As well as giving you independence, it also teaches you life skills. The people in the wrong are the ones who’ve made it impossible for this generation of children to do that. Many of the kids we know don’t start travelling independently etc until they start secondary school. They do a crash course in wandering about unattended during the summer before they start. Bonkers!

Tubbs

[ 24. October 2013, 11:37: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There appear to be a number of interrelated problems that work together to exclude the East European (and probably South European) Roma from healthy and productive participation in the wider society, and which frequently lead them into dependency and, in some instances, organised crime. I'm hoping that governments around the region are encouraging the development of community workers to help communities work through their issues, but I suspect that most of the funding and motivation will come from NGOs.

Roma in the Czech Republic are really severely and systematically discriminated against. A few years ago the Czech Republic was successfully prosecuted by the ECHR for segregating Roma children into special needs schools, but very little has changed since then.

Amnesty report.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes "Roma" in the sense used in southern and eastern Europe share a cultural ancestry with British and Irish people who'd call themselves "gypsies" but they have been distinct from each other for centuries.

Well this Czech Romani group seems to identify as Gipsy ...

[ 24. October 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs
I used to walk home from infants school (!), play outside unattended for hours, pop to the local shops etc.

I used to send my daughters, aged six and four, to a store two blocks away to buy bread. This was almost forty years ago.

Moo

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Thirty years ago, I was not allowed to walk home with other girls aged 14 from Girl Guides unless there was an adult with us.

Jengie

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

A little less than fifty years ago, when I was about 8 and my brother 7, we used to walk all over our council estate and out into the farms behind, up to a mile or so away.

Then we moved into the centre of town, which was Brighton, and we made our own way to and from school, and various parks and other places (for those who know Brighton our local swing park ws the Level).

By the time I was 11 I could go pretty much anywhere, down to the beach, out to the Downs, swimming pool, library, all through the centre of town. Probably just before I started secondary school.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs
I used to walk home from infants school (!), play outside unattended for hours, pop to the local shops etc.
I used to send my daughters, aged six and four, to a store two blocks away to buy bread. This was almost forty years ago.

Moo

Our Dad used to send us to buy his cigarettes. Maybe not at 6, but certainly by about 9. We were in our teens before he got us to buy beer or put on bets for him.

We were a nice respectable family. Honest. Dad was on the town council, and a school governor, and Mum was a teacher. It was all quite normal in the 1960s and early 70s. Something changed.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I take it then that the answer to my question is "No", and that all we have are your assertions.

It's a bit more than that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs
I used to walk home from infants school (!), play outside unattended for hours, pop to the local shops etc.
I used to send my daughters, aged six and four, to a store two blocks away to buy bread. This was almost forty years ago.

Moo
Our Dad used to send us to buy his cigarettes. Maybe not at 6, but certainly by about 9. We were in our teens before he got us to buy beer or put on bets for him.

We were a nice respectable family. Honest. Dad was on the town council, and a school governor, and Mum was a teacher. It was all quite normal in the 1960s and early 70s. Something changed.

Population density? Ease of travel? Transient populations?* All these are greater now than 50 years ago, or so ISTM.

*People moving about, not homeless or travelers, etc.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A little less than fifty years ago, when I was about 8 and my brother 7, we used to walk all over our council estate and out into the farms behind, up to a mile or so away.

Then we moved into the centre of town, which was Brighton, and we made our own way to and from school, and various parks and other places (for those who know Brighton our local swing park ws the Level).

By the time I was 11 I could go pretty much anywhere, down to the beach, out to the Downs, swimming pool, library, all through the centre of town. Probably just before I started secondary school.

Ditto.

When I was still in infant school(!), I used to walk to school with my older brothers (who were in the junior school next door). When I go back there now, I am astonished at how far it was. And if the weather was good, we used to take a diversion off of the road and through nearby heathland. And my brothers never bothered to make sure that I kept up with them. But that's how it was, back in the 60's. We ALL did it. By the time I started secondary school, I was regularly taking myself off to London by myself, to go to the zoo for the day.

Of course, I never gave my own children the same freedom, although there was a lot of sadness in that. I had enjoyed the ability to roam freely and had many happy memories. I thought we had been very responsible parents, so it is strange now to hear them saying (in their twenties) that they will never give THEIR children the same kind of freedoms that WE gave to THEM!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A little less than fifty years ago, when I was about 8 and my brother 7, we used to walk all over our council estate and out into the farms behind, up to a mile or so away.

Then we moved into the centre of town, which was Brighton, and we made our own way to and from school, and various parks and other places (for those who know Brighton our local swing park ws the Level).

By the time I was 11 I could go pretty much anywhere, down to the beach, out to the Downs, swimming pool, library, all through the centre of town. Probably just before I started secondary school.

And now we wonder how it is that so many children in the 60's and 70's were abused. Isn't the figure one in 3 for the age group 45+?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ken:

quote:
Something changed.

Three things, actually.

1. Transient populations, as someone else said. People move about a lot more, following the work (as recommended by Norman Tebbit). Living in or near the same village you grew up in is very very rare. Knowing who your neighbours are and feeling you can trust them to look out for your kids is a factor (though as Exclamation Mark pointed out, it may create a false sense of security). And adults used to talk to children more; nowadays they're so terrified of being accused of child abuse that they hardly dare speak to children they don't know, and if they do they will probably be ignored because all the children have been told not to talk to strangers.

2. More traffic. When I was a child I was allowed to ride my bike all over the village we lived in (though not to go further afield without a grown-up until I was in my teens). I went to the village shop to buy something for my mother for the first time at the age of about 8. The traffic's not so bad in our village, but in a lot of places you have to cross several busy roads to get to the shops. If there are any shops within walking distance, which is by no means certain.

3. Media coverage of child abuse, murder and kidnapping cases. It creates the impression that nobody else can be trusted to look after your child - not even those nice people at the nursery who have all been CRB checked and are supposed to be constantly monitored. Telling yourself that this kind of thing is actually very rare doesn't help much - it would only need to happen to your child once.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And now we wonder how it is that so many children in the 60's and 70's were abused. Isn't the figure one in 3 for the age group 45+?

Speaking from memory of the fifties and sixties, I don't think that many actually were. I never was, but I was rather an unprepossessing child. I can only remember hearing of two instances.

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

I'm with all those who grew up in the fifties and sixties (I turned thirteen in March 1970).

Growing up in an outer London Suburb, verging on Essex (Norman Tebbit's constituency, actually) Epping Forest was virtually our back garden and Central London was a bus ride away - the 38 bus to Bloomsbury Square passed the end of our road in those days.

As small children, we bussed down to Walthamstow, unattended by parents, every Saturday morning, for swimming lessons.

A lot of time was spent in large groups of small children in Epping Forest, when we were weren't wandering around Central London on a Twin Rover going to museums and art galleries... on our own, or in pairs of siblings, or small groups. My mother would give us all a packed lunch and tell us to be back by teatime.

It was all quite, quite wonderful, dahling... but when I had children in the 1980's (who now have children of their own), I would never have dreamed of letting them do what we did. They never went anywhere unaccompanied until they were in their teens, and I'm sure they will be just as cautious with their own children.

I don't know why it changed, but it did. Maybe it was because unlike us, my parents never owned a car, and so couldn't ferry us around everywhere? Maybe it was because my father worked all the hours God sent in London Docks, whereas with me in ministry and my wife in teaching we could offer our children more time? Maybe it was because my mother spent most of my childhood quite ill?

I don't know... but I do know that my children, along with most of their generation, seem to have turned out to be well-rounded confident individuals with just as many life and social skills as we had, if not more in some cases (you'd never get me into a Night Club!) and neither their generation nor mine seem to have, in the end, suffered too much at the hands of the previous one. It's just that the world has changed.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs
I used to walk home from infants school (!), play outside unattended for hours, pop to the local shops etc.
I used to send my daughters, aged six and four, to a store two blocks away to buy bread. This was almost forty years ago.

Moo

I was brought up in the 70s on the roughest council estate in Luton (poor town in England which had race riots in the 80s) and walked to infants school across the estate by myself and was regularly sent to the shops for bread. Aged 9 I would disappear with my friend all day to fish for tiddlers in the local marsh.
My children are 9 and 12 and we live on a nice council estate just outside Cambridge but I've never sent them to buy anything from the local shop! The eldest travels on the bus by himself to school in a nearby village and the youngest has occasionally walked by himself to school since aged 8 but I know several parents who won't let their children walk by themselves at all or play in the park. Yet I know it is far safer here than where I was brought up.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The thing is that in some communities thirty plus years ago things were if anything more restrictive. There are three things I think that determine this:

How well you know your physical neighbours. That is not how much you like them. If they are the people you grew up with then you are more likely to let your children play.
Your level of fear, the more scared you are the less you likely you are to let children out. The situation above was in an area where the Yorkshire Ripper was operating. Female students were met by male students off the bus when returning from lectures to walk them from the bus stop.
The growth of culture around the car. This is complex. It is not just the ease of getting in the car and going to the shops. It is also the opportunity a car opens up. You can take your kids to the football training that happens on the other side of town. Add to that the hazards it produces. Roads are busier. As a young children, my sister and I were not sent to the nearby shop because it was the other side of a fast busy road with no good crossing place.

If you realise that 1 & 3 also come with relative higher social status. The major driver for the first is I suspect a University Education. The owning cars and being able to get your kids into "good" clubs is I suspect another.

Jengie

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Yes, I think that's right. It's cars that messed it up for kids.

The "transient population" thing is a red herring I think. We're not talking about pretty little villages but big cities and their suburbs. Full of strangers.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And now we wonder how it is that so many children in the 60's and 70's were abused. Isn't the figure one in 3 for the age group 45+?
Speaking from memory of the fifties and sixties, I don't think that many actually were. I never was, but I was rather an unprepossessing child. I can only remember hearing of two instances.

That's exactly the point - you didn't hear of it because no one talked about it. Some horrendous behaviour towards children, generally from people in "authority" (police, teachers, priests) that we now consider abusive, was seen as normal or something to put up with. Something to be endured not reported.

That doesn't mean that it never went on and it's only with today's openness that much of this abuse is now being brought into the open.

I take the point raised by Jengie and others about close communities - but has already been stated there are problems even with that. Imagine if you aren't accepted by that community - being black, disabled, of the "wrong" family or social class - and you'll see the difference. In fact, closed communities can exacerbate abuse esp where it's accepted as part of the culture.

Heavenly Anarchist, I lived on one of the toughest council estates in Cambridgeshire in the 1960's and believe me it was a horrendous experience. You grew up fighting physically and (in my case) educationally or you were defeated, classified as fit for nothing for life as I was a the age of 10. Thanks, Mr H.

I also lived in one of the toughest council estates in Cambridge City itself in the early 80's. In either case, there's no way I'd allow any child to go out on their own.

As for today? Well, council policy over the last 30 years in Cambs has uprooted many of the "old" families. There's nothing of the same grinding poverty amongst the poor families - why, some of them even have cars and TV's!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ken:

quote:
The "transient population" thing is a red herring I think. We're not talking about pretty little villages but big cities and their suburbs. Full of strangers.

You could be right, but I still think there's been a shift in perception - from 'most strangers do not wish my child any harm' to 'anyone could be a threat'. This is probably because nobody talked about child abuse in the 50s and 60s, as Exclamation Mark says (or if they did, very often they blamed the victims).

The village I lived in as a child was not pretty at all - basically a big council estate. But my grandma lived a couple of streets away from us and my aunt and cousins were just down the road as well.

As you say, cars are definitely a big part of the problem. Public transport is very patchy outside the big cities and the sheer volume of traffic on the road makes cycling or walking very dangerous. Children who live in cities or towns are better off here - at least they have pavements to walk on, and other children to play with.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I grew up in Gorton, Manchester, at a time when Brady and Hindley were active. My parents - I am sure - must have worried themselves sick, but the only restriction I had on movement was an expectation that I would be home by a certain time.

As a group of primary school kids we would quite often walk to Marple - which must be seven or eight miles - and come back by train. We also used to go as a group to Crewe to watch steam engines. Not an adult in sight. We also used to crawl (unofficially) round all the local engine sheds, where we could easily have been cut in half by a loco, or have broken our legs falling into a maintenance pit. Funnily enough, we all had common sense and survived without a scratch. We'd be out playing cricket and football till all hours, and were constantly in and out of each other's houses.

I feel sorry for today's youngsters. What tightly circumscribed lives they lead!

[ 25. October 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Sighthound ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

See the Portuguese police have re-opened their enquiries into the McCann disappearance.

Apparently the same name has been given by several people for the person in the E-fit picture.

And they've had a good response from people in the Netherlands and Germany too.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Heavenly Anarchist, I lived on one of the toughest council estates in Cambridgeshire in the 1960's and believe me it was a horrendous experience. You grew up fighting physically and (in my case) educationally or you were defeated, classified as fit for nothing for life as I was a the age of 10. Thanks, Mr H.

I also lived in one of the toughest council estates in Cambridge City itself in the early 80's. In either case, there's no way I'd allow any child to go out on their own.

As for today? Well, council policy over the last 30 years in Cambs has uprooted many of the "old" families. There's nothing of the same grinding poverty amongst the poor families - why, some of them even have cars and TV's!

I live in Trumpington on a very small estate which is about a third privately owned now. The village school is a good mix of backgrounds and classes and I really like it. It is nothing like the experience of Marsh Farm in Luton where there were regular fights with the high school on the next estate involving chains and knives and several of my classmates were illiterate. The racial tension was awful, my best friend was Muslim and we were both verbally abused because of this. One of my childhood friends became a prostitute when her mother threw her out aged 15.
Everyone on the estate knew each other and each other's business though and my grandparents lived streets away; I was free to roam. Being one of 8 children helped, I think, as we were quite left to our own devices. 3 of my older brothers still live there and I fear for my twin who is partially sighted and another brother with mild learning difficulties as they get older in such an environment. It is rife with drugs, gangs and guns now.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A little less than fifty years ago, when I was about 8 and my brother 7, we used to walk all over our council estate and out into the farms behind, up to a mile or so away.

Then we moved into the centre of town, which was Brighton, and we made our own way to and from school, and various parks and other places (for those who know Brighton our local swing park ws the Level).

By the time I was 11 I could go pretty much anywhere, down to the beach, out to the Downs, swimming pool, library, all through the centre of town. Probably just before I started secondary school.
And now we wonder how it is that so many children in the 60's and 70's were abused. Isn't the figure one in 3 for the age group 45+?

trouble is the main perpetrators of child abuse are family, we are so concerned to protect our children form 'stranger danger' that we don't protect them enough from the danger inside;

Current figures formt eh NSPCC

One in seven young adults (14.5%) had been severely maltreated by a parent or guardian during childhood.

More than one in eight children aged 11-17 (13.4%) have experienced severe maltreatment by a parent or guardian.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, I think that's right. It's cars that messed it up for kids.

The "transient population" thing is a red herring I think. We're not talking about pretty little villages but big cities and their suburbs. Full of strangers.

Right Manchester (Well actually Trafford, no not Old Trafford, we are talking back to back houses) That was where my church was when I was a teenager. There were several older people who were locally raised. One was raised by an Aunt who lived several houses from her parents, another still had brothers and sisters living in the same street!

Another case is my father's family. Birmingham or rather Smethwick, again family living in a few roads of each other and really close by. This happened even though a couple of generations earlier the family was all immigrants (from Barrow in Furness, Scotland or somewhere North of Birmingham we are not quite sure where). People tended when possible to stay together as an extended family.

Sheffield inner suburban Methodist Church ten years ago, there were women in their eighties who were born in the houses they still lived it.

The middle classes do not anymore behave like that and many of these people's descendants are now middle class.

Jengie

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm not sure where people are getting some of these figures for abuse.

The statistics produced jointly by the Home Office and NSPCC are as follows:

quote:
25% of children experience one or more forms of physical violence during childhood. For the majority the abuse happens at home and breaches "acceptable standards", i.e. smacking. In all 21% of children experience physical abuse to some degree at the hands of their parents or carers. 7% of children experience serious physical abuse at the hands of parents or carers. in 49% of cases the person responsible for physical violence was most often the mother (49%), in 40% the father. 6% of children experience serious neglect; 5% experience serious absence of parental supervision.

For sexual abuse the figures are

quote:
1% of children under 16 experience sexual abuse by a parent or carer, 3% by another relative. 11% of children under 16 experience sexual abuse by non-relatives known to the family. 5% of children under 16 experience sexual abuse by an adult stranger or someone they had just met. In total, 16% of children under 16 experience sexual abuse during childhood. Overall, 11% of boys and 21% of girls under 16 experience sexual abuse during childhood. The majority of children who are abused have more than one sexually abusive experience. 36% of all rapes recorded by the police in England and Wales are committed against children under 16.

Of children sexually abused in the family, the most common perpetrator is a brother or step-brother 38%; by a father 23%, an uncle 14%, a step-father 13%, a cousin 8%, a grandfather 6%, a mother 4%. Outside the family for 70% its a boyfriend or girlfriend, for 10% a fellow pupil, parental friend 6%, friend of sibling 6%. Less than 1% experience abuse by a professional in a position of trust.

You cannot get a figure for children who have been severely maltreated simply by adding together the percentages for neglect and lack of parental supervision since many children will appear in both categories.

Although the figures for sexual abuse quote separate percentages for fathers and step-fathers these may not be accurate because of the occurrence of adoption of step-children, and the frequent changing of surnames to "match" a new partner.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Ky figures camestright off the NSPCC website..

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Depending on which part of the NSPCC website you look at you may not have particularly accurate figures - the NSPCC own deputy director has admitted that some of the broad-brush figures used in previous advertising campaigns have been very inaccurate.

There is still a problem with differentiating between abuse -whether sexual or not - done by blood fathers and step-fathers.

Anyway: in a nutshell children are no more likely to be killed today that 40 years ago. It only feels like its a rising tide because of rolling news...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, I now gather that it's been confirmed the Greek Roma were also telling the truth about the origin of the child living with them - she is also Roma.

And blonde.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

The point I was making was that children are at danger inside their home and with people they know.

And so people assertions about children being abused because they were allowed to roam free are unhelpful..

You don't need rafts of individual figures or to distinguish between father and stepfather, to know that homes can be dangerous places too.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I now gather that it's been confirmed the Greek Roma were also telling the truth about the origin of the child living with them - she is also Roma.

And blonde.

So, what should happen now? Obviously she can't be "restored to her birth family" because they handed her over in the first place, and they're struggling to feed and clothe the children they've got, let alone get another one.

Should she be returned to the family who were raising her? And if not, why not?

[ 26. October 2013, 07:22: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

Should she be returned to the family who were raising her? And if not, why not?

Yes, if it's found to be best for the child - papers should be processed and she should be adopted by the family who were raising her imo.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

The middle classes do not anymore behave like that
Jengie

Bit of tangent - this is why the current government do not understand what they are asking when they direct people to move away from their home ground. As if they (the upper middle class government) share more with the nomadic peoples than with the poorer folk in housen.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
As if they (the upper middle class government) share more with the nomadic peoples than with the poorer folk in houses. [/QB]

Actually that's a really interesting thought, it may be literally true (in some respects). A fair proportion went to the boarding public schools (or at least a commute), university, used to holidays, for the old money may even have a summer home and winter home.
Of course the difference is that the locals have to give way to them.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

That is what I had in mind. Though they would not have had the close family connections of the nomads because of the boarding school episodes, or in the further past, only seeing their parents for a few minutes when at home.

I wouldn't add into it anything about having a similar attitude to the possessions of the settled folk...

BTW, did anyone see the picture of the Bulgarian family's caravan with its ichthus symbol?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I now gather that it's been confirmed the Greek Roma were also telling the truth about the origin of the child living with them - she is also Roma.

And blonde.
So, what should happen now? Obviously she can't be "restored to her birth family" because they handed her over in the first place, and they're struggling to feed and clothe the children they've got, let alone get another one.

Should she be returned to the family who were raising her? And if not, why not?

I see no reason why she shouldn't be back with the family who were raising her.

Beyond that, I'm more interested in why she was taken from them in the first place. I can't help noticing this happened in Greece, a country where fascism is on the rise. That may just be a coincidence. I worry about the implications if it isn't a coincidence.

In some way the incidents in Ireland are even worse, because in those cases the children were with their biological parents. But someone somewhere managed to decide there was no family resemblance and reported them to authorities. Apparently if a child doesn't fit the stereotypical image of a Roma they can't possibly be Roma and must be stolen.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

While I share your concerns about The Irish incident, my understanding is that the Greek authorities have had very real problems with child stealing in the last 10 years. This may partially explain the incident, but I really hope someone independent is monitoring the situation.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yes, she can go back to the family that were raising her, provided the proper adoption papers or equivalent are completed by them (and if necessary by her birth family too) rather than merely handed over from one family to another like a chattel.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

But I gather the Greek authorities are still trying to untangle the web around the "foster" family, particularly the business of them having 4 children born to them in 10 months (all single births), etc.

She's staying with the charity for the moment.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, indeed: usual adoption procedures include assessing whether the proposed adopting family are suitable carers.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Hang on a minute. Adoption means formally, legally making a change in a child's parents.

Are you suggesting that parents have no power on their own to entrust the care of their child to someone else, while legally remaining the parents?

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

That depends on the laws of the country where the situation occurs.

In England and Wales, the legal situation is:

* a person who is not a child's birth parent can gain parental responsibility and the right to look after a child through a variety of legal orders - Adoption Order, Residence Order, Special Guardianship Order;

* a birth parent can arrange for a child to live with a close relative without there being any legal orders in place and (so long as there are no child protection concerns) the authorities won't care and won't want to be involved;

* if a family arranges for a child to live with somebody who is not a close relative for more than 28 days, then that is classified as "private fostering" and there is a legal duty for those involved to inform the Local Authority's children's social-work department, who have a legal duty to do an assessment of the child's welfare.

What counts as a close relative is legally defined. Local Authorities are very unlikely to say that a private fostering arrangement must end unless there are significant child-protection issues. However, the potential vulnerability of children in private fostering arrangements (due to the existence of child-trafficking, amongst many other issues) means that legally the Local Authority social-work department should have oversight of any private fostering arrangements.

I don't know what the laws in Greece say, but the above is, as I say, the legal situation in England and Wales (possibly the whole UK, I get confused) - parents can entrust the care of a child to someone else whilst remaining the child's parent, but if the someone else is not a family member, then legally a social-work assessment should be done to check that the arrangement is okay for the child.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

(If it's discovered that a parent and/or private foster carer hasn't told the Local Authority about a private fostering arrangement when they should have done, then part of the social-work assessment is whether they just didn't know of the legal requirement to inform the Local Authority or whether there is something more sinister (e.g. child trafficking + concealment of the children from the authorities) going on.)

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

How does that work for boarding schools ? (Or if you prefer, handing your child over to the care of an institution for most of the year in the hope of a long term social advantage.)

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

Dunno. Presumably some distinction is made between giving the care of your child over to an organisation and giving the care of your child over to an individual or family (which is private fostering if the individual or family is not closely related to your own). I know about the rules on private fostering 'cos I have to deal with it at work. I've never yet had contact with a child at boarding school through my work and don't know what the laws and policies governing boarding schools are.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I suspect that boarding schools are an extended version of day schools. They are authorised institutions which act in loco parentis.
It is the under the radar situations that are not allowed.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Like most institutions caring for children over the last 50 years there was a fair bit of under the radar stuff going on - they were not subject to the same scrutiny as care homes.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Like most institutions caring for children over the last 50 years there was a fair bit of under the radar stuff going on - they were not subject to the same scrutiny as care homes.

No, but there is a fair amount of under the radar stuff, going on in care homes too..

The point is schools are authorised, random unrelated people are not.

[ 28. October 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Zacchaeus ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's something of the other about the McCann case though, isn't there?

There's the foreignness of it for a start. This happened in a holiday resort, where people expect to unwind and relax. The juxtaposition of a child kidnap and palm trees is always going to get attention.

Madeleine's age presumably has something to do with it, too. This wasn't a child who could really interact with adults in the way an older child, like Shannon perhaps, could.

The Matthews family obviously has problems in the way that a family like the McCanns don't. Some of that is probably projected, rightly or wrongly, on to the child.

So I think there are lots of reasons why the Madeleine McCann case justifiably had a lot of publicity. I still can't stand the sight of their parents and wish they'd be done for neglect, but that's a separate matter.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here as a reason for the continuing interest in the McCann story is the behaviour of the Portuguese police; it's a running sub plot to the whole affair - have the Portuguese police investigated properly? Has the police chief lied about the McCann family, etc, etc. The implied mishandling of the case and the frustration of the British police and the distress of the McCanns is what has kept this story going.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hang on a minute. Adoption means formally, legally making a change in a child's parents.

Are you suggesting that parents have no power on their own to entrust the care of their child to someone else, while legally remaining the parents?

Up to a point: it would depend in the UK at least on factors such as the length of stay with the carers, their relationship to the child, whether there were child protection issues including the state of the accommodation provided by the carers, and certainly whether the child would be taken to another country. From what we have been told so far, on at least some of the above, the 'carer parents' fall down quite markedly.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Schools get some sort of inspection or licensing which is supposed to show they are fit to care for children.

(Just as an aside I don't think that schools in England are in any general sense legally in loco parentis)

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Schools get some sort of inspection or licensing which is supposed to show they are fit to care for children.

(Just as an aside I don't think that schools in England are in any general sense legally in loco parentis)

just quoting from this article in the TES

'Under the Children Act 1989, teachers have a duty of care towards their pupils, traditionally referred to as 'in loco parentis'. Legally, while not bound by parental responsibility, teachers must behave as any reasonable parent would do in promoting the welfare and safety of children in their care. The idea dates back to the 19th century when courts were first coming to terms with teachers' responsibilities. It was during this period that case law established that a teacher should act "as a prudent father". '

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I have heard that on the great increase of numbers of social workers in the 1960s, abuse of children dropped precipitously. I admit this was only from a comment made on the Guardian website, made by someone identifying as a social worker, so I have no idea of its accuracy.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I have to ask: before that point, did we have a concept of child abuse that would enable any meaningful comparison to be made?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Have you read Nicholas Nickleby ?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

I've been itching to ask and this thread has been running for over a week without my question being answered either directly or in passing. What does 'anticiganism' mean? Does everyone else know this word apart from me? Is it a real word or is it a misprint? If the latter, what for?

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

I think it's a typo for antiziganism, which means racism against gypsies/Roma.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Racism against gypsies, spelled with a "z" across the pond, but with a "c" here.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I googled it but all i got was a link to this thread!!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It's a neologism, devised by a sociology tutor. 2 more such words and there's a prospect of a tenured lectureship.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0