More than half the population believe UK children are "feral"

That's what happens when you survey Daily Mail readers I suppose... ;-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7732290.stm

UK society 'condemning' children

More than half the population believe UK children are "feral" and behave like animals, a survey has suggested.

Half of the 2,021 adults interviewed by YouGov for the poll also felt children should be regarded as "dangerous".

Children's charity Barnardo's, which commissioned the study, said society "casually condemned" children.

It is behind a controversial awareness campaign, with TV and internet adverts showing adults hunting "vermin", which turn out to be children.

The adverts, intended to show how society demonises young people, will be launched on 24 November.

Some 54% of the adults questioned thought that British children behaved like "animals".

More than a third of those surveyed also agreed that the streets were "infested" with children, while 43% said something had to be done to protect adults.

Around 49% said they disagreed with the statement that children who "get into trouble" were "misunderstood" and needed professional help.

This sort of talk and attitude does nothing to help those young people who are difficult, unruly or badly behaved to change their ways
Martin Narey
Barnardo's chief executive

Views on the youth of today

The charity also examined comments left on stories published on the website of several national newspapers.

Staff found messages where children were described as "feral" and some suggestions teenagers should be "shot".

The charity's chief executive Martin Narey said the British population was guilty of labelling all children in the same way.

He said: "It is appalling that words like animal, feral and vermin are used daily in reference to children.

"Despite the fact that most children are not troublesome there is still a perception that today's young people are a more unruly, criminal lot than ever before.

"The British public overestimates, by a factor of four, the amount of crime committed by young people.

"The real crime is that this sort of talk and attitude does nothing to help those young people who are difficult, unruly or badly behaved to change their ways."

'Unfair treatment'

The charity claimed that the attitudes revealed by its study reflected the results of the latest British Crime Survey.

These showed that people blame children for "up to half of all crime" when in fact they are only responsible for 12% of criminal activity.

Last month, the United Nations said there was a "general climate of intolerance" towards British children and this could result in them being treated unfairly.

Barnardo's has also published a report called Breaking the Cycle.

The report stated that children who carry out illegal and antisocial behaviour were those most in need of support.

It also claimed that young people who become involved in criminal activity come from the most deprived families, have the poorest educational experiences and are more likely to suffer from poor health.

Mr Narey said the charity was not "naive" and accepted a "minority of children" were anti-social and committed crimes.

He said action had to be taken to prevent those at risk of criminal behaviour from following that path.

Poll of children said "adults are wankers"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7730219.stm

^watch that advert "every line of this was taken from website comments sections of UK Newspapers"

Major news breaking - press fabricates news story with loaded questions.

Next.

Staff found posted messages where children were described as "feral" and some suggestions teenagers should be "shot".

There, fixed.

(ALLEGEDLY)

Major news breaking - press fabricates news story with loaded questions

Minor news breaking: cynical poster misses point of story. Regardless of whether the questions were loaded, it's Barnardo's who commissioned the study, not "the press" (as an aside: I love the notion that every single hack is part of some kind of cackling cabal, finding new ways to distort the truth. Most of the time it's down to nothing more sinister than ineptness, panic and looming deadlines).

Now, if the results and the advertising campaign do lead a few people to think, hang on a minute, why have I become the kind of appalling arsehole who's scared to walk past a couple of kids, that can only be a good thing. Yes, it's all kinda predictable -- but at least it's being chucked back in people's faces, rather than being used by one of our two vile "middle-market" tabloids to justify a siege mentality.

I don't think you'd need to make this up at all. And it's a yougov poll so I suspect it was as legitimate as these polls can be. Frankly, talking to parents I'm surprised it isn't higher, the level of paranoia, fear, whatever never ceases to amaze me.

oops xp. Basically what grimly says.

Let's see now - faltering charity whose income is reducing dramatically as a result of the credit crunch trying to drum up shock publicity and therefore more money for itself on the back of others' misery...

And it's not unknown for insiders to plant deliberately controversial posts on national newspaper websites in order to stir otherwise seemingly pointless campaigns up.

Cynical?

Or just honest?

Frankly, talking to parents I'm surprised it isn't higher, the level of paranoia, fear, whatever never ceases to amaze me.

Assuming you can resist the urge to grab them by the throat and shake them: have you ever established why they're so scared -- or rather what they think they're scared of? I'm not for one second saying you should waste your time doing this (life's too short to talk to dicks), but you strike me as the kind of chap who might challenge such opinions (as opposed to thinking "for fuck's sake" and walking away quickly), and I'm interested as to what kind of responses you've had.

Fair play, though, if you have just gone "for fuck's sake" and walked away quickly.

M: OK, if you see the point of every charity ad campaign as "trying to drum up shock publicity and therefore more money for itself on the back of others' misery", that's a valid point. On one level that's exactly what charities do.

Of course, it's what they then do with that money that matters. Personally, I'd rather someone took a stand and said LOOK, FUCKERS, NOT ALL KIDS ARE EVIL than just sat there tut-tutting at the Daily Mail and wondering what the fuck is wrong with everyone (hello me; hello ILX) but hey.

And it's not unknown for insiders to plant deliberately controversial posts on national newspaper websites in order to stir otherwise seemingly pointless campaigns up.

As Ned says: I don't think that would have been necessary in this instance.

To answer grimly, yes I do challenge them but it's getting very tiresome. Bear in mind that I live in a fairly affluent suburb on the edge of a city which hardly makes it to the national news crimewise and to hear tell the tales of my peers we are living on the front line. Interestingly I hear much more about this kind of thing here than when I used to when I lived in the inner city (where there was some actual crime) or indeed hear now when I'm at work (in the city centre). I can't really understand it but I suppose it's a mixture of justifying to themselves why they've moved to the 'burbs/why they're moving to Australia/why they keep their own children locked inside their houses. In my own area the statistics on road accidents ARE quite frightening, but no one ever talks about that. They prefer to scare each other with tales of scary "kids on bikes".

We have, on occasion, a bunch that hang around our street.

When it gets a bit much, one or other of us go out and say "oy, quieten down a bit!"

and they go "Oh, sorry, OK"

I know that's not the same everywhere, but still...

xp
As for responses, I rarely get one to my face. Maybe a muttered "well that's what I heard anyway", or just nothing. But as some think I'm mad for letting my son out on his own they probably just dismiss my crazy talk. You can come up with stats, try and get them to think about their own childhoods (I am the ONLY one who went ot a school in the 70s where bullying/racism/fighting was common? Surely not) but really a sizeable minority (I would say) want to believe they are not safe outside their front door.

Most, not all, anti social children are from council estates. Most, not all, anti social council tenants are on benefits.

So, what does this tell us? This Government has allowed our council estate anti social problems to develop by allowing a benefit culture, encouraging teen pregnancies as a lifestyle choice and making parents living apart financially advantageous.

NuLabour is the problem.

Business as usual on HYS.

really a sizeable minority (I would say) want to believe they are not safe outside their front door

Yes. It's a more nebulous justification than the "moved to the suburbs" one, I think: it's almost as if being SCARED OF THE FERAL TERROR justifies smug middle-classness/voting for the fucking Tories/having two cars and a mock-Tudor gazebo.

Hmm. I need to think a bit more about that. Thanks, though, Ned.

There's a difference between raising awareness of a problem and deliberately provoking or creating an otherwise non-existent problem.

No one had heard of happy slapping until BBC London decided to make an issue out of it. Then it became a craze.

If the child crime figures are disproportionate to what is suggested by tabloid newspapers (for their own ends, since less people out and about on the streets at night means more people staying at home and watching Sky TV) then concern should be expressed formally via the Press Complaints Commission instead of absurd campaigns which can only exacerbate the problem - make the children feel more outsiders, and therefore help them become more troublesome.

Because, of course, whether you're Barnardo's or the Daily Mail, it all comes down to the same thing...

It's A Good Story.

Incidentally, good reading for a bit of historical perspective...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W10X47DML._SL500_AA240_.jpg

And Hooligan by Geoffrey Pearson.

Apologies for reading suggestions, but sometimes my past as a criminology lecturer takes over.

^^^ivory tower inhabiting - another reason why no-one listens to me probably.

We've all seen HYS and the Daily Mail/Sun websites and you know that no-one needed to plant these comments.

It's probably the same bloke doing all of them, a sort of Florida spam mail deal; they get generated automatically.

Hang on - doesn't Richard Littlejohn live in a gated mansion in Florida these days?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5667&edition=1&ttl=20081117201559

"Recommended by 35 people" always the most depressing line on any HYS post.

Children should be seen and not heard! I'm only 28 and think that the lot of them need reigning in and teaching a thing or to. Curfews wouldn't be a bad thing either, enable the decents of society to have their streets back without having to put up with these muppets!

Kitchen Rat, Barrow-in-Furness, United Kingdom

Operation Ore alert (they'd teach him "a thing or to")

Is that Roland's brother?

Who knows (didn't the guy behind Roland Rat also run the Skin II fetish club in Soho back in those early eighties days)?

Just checked: Yes.

Nearly everyone who complained in that poll about dangerous children ascribed their reasons to seeing kids kicking a ball in the street.

Nearly everyone who complained in that poll should have their balls kicked in the street.

I'm imagining it won't be middle class children who are being characterised as "feral", just a shot in the dark

gorsh, the middle classes, aren't they awful!!

Ghastly. They play croquet in the street.

gorsh, the middle classes, aren't they awful!!

But at least they're not fearl, amirite?

Dunno about "fearl" but they're definitely feart.

Aye, bunch o' jessies

SCOTLAND'S EPIDEMIC OF PROBLEM TEENAGERS BLAMED ON POOR EXAMPLE SET BY DEEK IN RIVER CITY

(as an aside: I love the notion that every single hack is part of some kind of cackling cabal, finding new ways to distort the truth. Most of the time it's down to nothing more sinister than ineptness, panic and looming deadlines)

Oh that's fine then.

No, it's not.

But really, I'd love to be part of this sinister setup I'm constantly accused of being part of. That would fucking rock.

surely not

What, spending the mornings sitting in a secret bunker plotting to brainwash the GBP with a diet of reality-TV shite, and the afternoons filling their minds with LIES? It'd beat sitting slurping tea and rewriting people's reviews, aye.

Also: the career prospects would be substantially better (ie higher than 0).

But really, I'd love to be part of this sinister setup I'm constantly accused of being part of. That would fucking rock.

Now now, let's leave Belle & Sebastian out of this

Leave Belle and Sebastian out of this? Since when?

I always suspected grimly was a twee hugger

TOP-SECRET TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION

To: Codename Fotherington-Thomas

Stuart! STOP Abandon plans STOP ILX is on to your world-domination scheme STOP At least you can get a proper haircut now and stop hanging around the west end of Glasgow like a tit STOP No, really, just STOP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7733998.stm

Yeh, I saw that this morning. It's not pleasant reading.

It said that one in four children in Scotland was officially recognised as poor ... The report also said about 10% of children and adolescents in deprived areas would have a mental health problem of sufficient severity to affect them on a daily basis.

But yeh, as long as they aren't kicking a ball outside the UPVC windows, who gives a fucking shit, eh?

how is 'poor' defined in these surveys? as a % of a national average income?

60% under national average wage isn't it?

poor = feral (and vice versa)