Firms put kids at risk by sending them to cheaper areas!

Posted by: Blueknowz on 03 July 2012

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...ing-children-1120870

Posted on: 03 July 2012 by Donuk

Typical Mirror simplification and sensationalism.  Quotes like "She said yesterday that children in care homes were suffering “violent and sadistic” sexual abuse," are meaningless. Children suffer this often enough in their own family homes. Has always happened.  Children are vulnerable wherever they are.

 

There may well be a grain of truth behind this story, but the matter is more complicated than is suggested.

Firstly, good spacious care homes, possibly in a rural setting, may be a long way away.  These homes may offer a wide range of facilities that are more or less impossible to find in an inner city.

 

A lot of children who stay in these homes have histories of living rough, being pimped, caught up in the drug world, members of gangs involved in crime, in the process of being groomed by sex offenders - the list is long.  To place these children well away from these old networks can be a life saver.

 

Sadly, don't assume either that their parents - in every case - would regularly visit them if they were only a 10p bus ride away.

 

don, overcast downtown York

Posted on: 03 July 2012 by Blueknowz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18675986

Posted on: 03 July 2012 by BigH47

You accuse Mirror of "simplification" and then do a generalised summary, who is worse?

Posted on: 03 July 2012 by Donuk
Originally Posted by BigH47:

You accuse Mirror of "simplification" and then do a generalised summary, who is worse?

 

Me probably.  An argument against an issue like this, on a forum such as this, has to be a summary.  I was hoping to put the point that there the discussion is more complicated than it may at first appear.  I am sorry that you were unable to understand this.

 

don, overcast downtown York

Posted on: 03 July 2012 by George Fredrik

Dear Don,

 

The trouble with this sort of discussion is that it can generate more heat than light.

 

It is perfectly clear that some of the boulevard [read gutter] press in the UK simply love to make a style of never letting the facts or context get in the way of a good story.

 

I still find it amazing that the most popular papers in the UK are also the ones that are worst in this repsect. I do believe that says quite a lot about those who choose to read them as much as the stories they print, and how these organisations seem wilfully incapable of balanced and detailed reporting.

 

On the story itself, I would not dream of commenting on a public internet forum!

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 04 July 2012 by Adam Meredith
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:
The trouble with this sort of discussion

I am not a big fan of wordless threads with just links to (sensational) news reports or videos. They aren't a discussion without the OP's, less lazy, input.

 

I am also uncomfortable about the 'worthy pornography' of the images posed to illustrate abuse in the real world.

 

I find many of the TV advertisements leave me with questions over the casting and direction of, presumably, unabused child actors to most compellingly stand for the abused.

Posted on: 04 July 2012 by George Fredrik

Dear Adam,

 

I never look at links! My comment was on the posts since!

 

But I have long since given up actually commenting on a topic like this!

 

I am doing my best to keep away from the attention of the flamers these days!

 

ATB from George