Not seen – and not heard
Let’s face it, England has never been a country that likes children. Only Victorian England could have spawned a phrase the children should be ‘seen, but not heard’. We don’t welcome children in our restaurants and at other social events. It’s now fashionable to ban children from weddings.
Now don’t get me wrong, as a parent, I appreciate a little child-free space occasionally. And I can understand why those who are not parents, or whose children have grown up might want a lot more of such space. But we were all once a child and most of us will go on to have children of our own. And those children are members of our society – yes, that body that Mrs Thatcher said did not exist.
So why are we so keen to abrogate responsibility for children – other people’s and, in some cases, our own? Why do we have the so-called ‘feral’ children roaming the streets? Why do people have children that they appear not to want? Is parenthood, as the Daily Express would have us think, simply a passport to a council house? I think not. Do we have a whole generation that do not understand how you get pregnant or the meaning of contraception? Unlikely. Do we need a campaign run around the slogan ‘A child is for life, not just the cute baby photos’?
Or is it that we have become scared to intervene even in the upbringing of our own offspring, let alone those of our neighbours? Now I’m not talking about giving the kid next door a cuff round the ear for kicking his ball over the fence, but it is clear that many adults feel that they cannot talk to another child, for fear of being labelled a paedophile, or for having action taken against them for harassment. Worse still, thanks to media coverage and a poor education in statistics, many people feel that challenging teenager will lead to a knife being pulled, or their home being targeted.
Later this week, the Home Affairs select committee will apparently say that a nationwide curfew on young people could curb anti-social and violent behaviour. Keith Vaz MP, the Labour chairman of the committee, is quoted as saying, “I have sympathy with the view that children should not be out after 9pm.”
To back that up, today’s Sunday Times carries the result of a YouGov survey. This states that nine out of ten parents would back a curfew to prevent their children going out after dark. Have these people thought this through?
Now I can’t read the full survey, as the link from the Sunday Times site is broken. So I don’t know exactly what questions were asked. I don’t know if the curfew will be in place across the board, or just at police discretion. Nor do I know if children accompanied by parents will be allowed.
But even if we just leave aside the civil liberties side of this for a moment, let’s look at the practical implications.
For the past decade, I have run a youth club in the village on Tuesday evenings. There are three groups, ranging between 11-17 years old. In the summer, many of the young people walk home on their own. The club doesn’t finish until 9.00pm. Should these young people be prevented from attending the club?
A fortnight ago, a number of pupils at my daughter’s school won tickets in a draw to visit Wimbledon. They didn’t get home until after 10pm. Should they have been breaking the law?
This hostel is not for criminals or drug takers – although they too need somewhere secure to live. It’s aimed at young people from the area who for whatever reason have not had the best start in life. In most cases, they have been let down by adults. Now, if the first two comments are to be believed, adults want rid of them again.
Yes, we must clamp down on those young people who break the law. We also need to intervene to help those young people on the edge of criminality. Most of all we need to give some respect to our younger citizens, especially those living hardworking and blameless lives. You never know, you may just get it returned.
Related posts:
Comments
Leave a Reply:
