Re: Sex-haters ban school staff from touching children
Baal
Hash: SHA512
XXX wrote in alt.activism.children on August 31, 2008 18:41 in
Message-ID: <20080831184115.856$W...@newsreader.com>:
XXX, the subject line of your article is somewhat misleading. It's not that
'sex haters' are banning school staff from touching children, it's just that
schools and institutions that serve kids (and the staff that work there)
are paranoid about being accused. The staff are interested in protecting
their jobs and reputations, and the institutions are interested in
protecting their reputations from damage. Both of these goals are entirely
reasonable.
As you're well aware, once an accusation has been levelled, it can *never*
be retracted.
> Fearful schools banning staff from touching children
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/feb/27/schools.uk
>
> Rising numbers of schools and nurseries are banning staff from
> touching children because they fear accusations of assault or abuse,
> according to research in a new book out next month.
This is what I've been saying for some while. These trends tend to be
cyclical, with the cycle-length varying. When I was growing up, any kid who
accused a carer, teacher, minister or other authority figure of abuse was
ignored; often those who made such accusations were punished for making
them. Today, the pendulum has swung the other way--it is the teachers,
carers, ministers who are /immediately/ assumed to be guilty as soon as an
accusation is levelled. /Neither/ situation is healthy; the pendulum needs
to swing back more to the centre, where it belongs.
> The study by Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) researchers
> found that some schools instructed children how to put plasters [bandaids]
> on themselves to avoid touching them.
I've read this elsewhere as well.
> Professionals working with children accept that touch is essential to
> very young children but many admitted feeling fearful of being
> regarded as physically or sexually abusive, the researchers found.
>
> Many neither trusted others to judge their actions as appropriate, nor
> children (and sometimes adults) to refrain from malicious allegations.
Both of these with damn good reason. Careers have been destroyed on the
strength of unsubstantiated allegations.
> This had led to some carers changing nappies in open areas where lots
> of people could see what they were doing and taking children to the
> toilet in pairs, to avoid accusations of abuse.
Sad that this is required....
> MMU's Dr Heather Piper and Prof Ian Stronach surveyed 1,000 councils,
> nurseries and schools. They also interviewed staff and parents in six
> schools and nurseries mostly in the north-west. The research features
> in a new book - Don't Touch! The Educational Story of a Panic - due to
> be published on March 7.
>
> Researchers found current practice regarding touching to be confused,
> contradictory, based on staff rather than child protection, contrary
> to known best practice regarding child development, increasingly
> contested and not required by legislation.
This paragraph appears to imply that child protection should be given
greater emphasis than staff protection. I think that /both/ are important.
> Piper said: "Touchy-feely seems to have given way to touchy-feary.
> Everyone expressed concerns about practice."
>
> "Even places that thought they were 'touchy feely' actually weren't
> when we looked at them in more detail. They were following the same
> kind of cautious behaviour, but were so 'normalised' to it they
> weren't even aware it was there," she said.
This shouldn't come as any surprise--when a single allegation is enough to
end a career, people are going to act in ways to protect themselves.
> Many claimed their defensive touching practices resulted from UK
> legislation, Piper said, despite there being no explicit ban on
> physical contact between children and non-family carers.
>
> "Yet once translated into regulatory 'standards', prohibitions arise
> and are exacerbated by interpretation during inspection processes by
> Ofsted inspectors, quality auditors and child protection advisors,"
> she said.
>
> The report found that guidelines were negative rather than positive,
> and products of fear rather than a characteristic of a confident
> profession or workforce.
Given that the climate in Britain is such that, a man taking pictures of
his /own/ kids at a public park is accused by the mob of being a paedophile,
the existence of such 'negative' guidelines should come as NO surprise.
> "If our professionals are to work to their best, then we need a
> climate founded on trust, responsibility, and only hedged with
> precaution where necessary rather than where conceivable," the report
> concludes.
I don't disagree, but the problem is that Britons are now conditioned to
see abuse everywhere, and abusers under every rock and behind every tree.
Even simple things like taking photos of one's own children are now liable
to incite a violent reaction from the fear-filled, baying mobs.
> The National Union of Teachers' head of education, John Bangs, said:
> "It's very important that schools know where kids are coming from and
> a clear policy is agreed with parents and staff, but if you have a kid
> that's really stressed out, the natural thing to do is to comfort that
> child.
Agreed, but many teachers (such my relative Jack) made it a rule NOT to
touch a child, no matter /what/ the reason. This rule was born in self-
preservation.
> "There are circumstances where teachers need to restrain or comfort
> children but it has to be part of a policy."
Policy has never halted a mob baying for an alleged abuser's blood.
Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the
people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit
of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of
liberty and almost any deprivation. -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIu204AAoJEAjjY4weksDoPYYH/1EfihzI9mDOEg6VhY1QG0zS
A0FWQ16R8WJKBv6Snp3KJMWFRyR01/yB7+MUIg8iKvNkDu6LISNXAmiEey3t6hpu
W5tNem9ZtDL0iquSTDbWPMZqe7q2toI7RB7+MiaolI96OLvd/coyJ13fC8wr2E+j
jf05kkIiMstV7XkWPW30vLeBxEfT+zXycaB1nh60xAKrSKs4GP4ehf9bM9iFjBIf
eYGiWGI7y8RAjNsWEP6PthgkkLDE0HXn3U+MXDtGR1fLDPaQh7J14e68wEd0Qtmh
zu2i++dOrTgZIWDwQ3lM3nCssiQNVMq/MsV0fXQsU+kIKUsdR/xkWA6wLW35o2k=
=0gcY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----