I see that the BBC has given considerable kudos this morning to the latest nonsense served up by the politically active leftist Barnardo’s organisation. It seems that we Brits fancy hunting down children and shooting them. Or at least so Barnardo’s..ahem… extensive and highly scientific research methodology of examining the comment threads of the web sites of some national newspapers would indicate! The Barnardo’s agenda is clear; British kids are unfairly condemned, British adults are intolerant towards kids, and even those kids who do behave atrociously need to be “understood” and “better supported.” Dripping wet tosh given free passage care of the State Broadcaster. Feral youth rejoice, you have nothing to lose but your asbos.
BRUTAL YOUTH.
Bookmark the permalink.
I’ve read all the way from the top to the bottom and back again and can’t see where it suggests specifically what ‘action’ should be taken to ‘support’ the pikey brats.
It was/is nonsense, but I sympathise with any broadcaster in this instance.
This idiot CEO of Barnados (on whatever pay and perks required to get such a ‘talent’ in) has effectively ensured that Barnados is now very low on my list of charities to support by championing such a ridiculous survey based on such worthless ‘survey’.
In a 24/7 news environment there is no way it could have been ignored, but as other issues seem capable of being treated with a fair degree of cynicism I think the BBC could have done more to put this rampant piece of PR in context.
The blonde did try a bit, and the ‘counter-guest’ was allowed to point out that surveys can say anything you want them to, but the net result will be a bit of controversy-fueled ratings (I bet the Jeremy Vine show will have an orgy over this) based on throughly irresponsible promotion designed not to serve the charity beneficiaries but the career chuggers at the top and their mates in ad agencies looking for a quick award.
I work in the ad world. It is a piece of p*ss to do a gritty tale of how awful it all is and bolt on a ‘gis £3 at the end and we’ll try and stop it’ and logo in the last 3 seconds. Especially when it comes to trumpeting ‘awareness’ in PR cuttings.
It is a lot harder to spin a tale that sets out the issues and weaves solutions through the narrative that inspire folk to reach in their pockets and donate to those who seem best qualified to help.
Sorry… ‘ridiculous ad campaign’…
This from the same hand-wringing NFP/charity/quango/media cabal who condemn video games for ‘putting ideas in impressionable folks’ heads…’
The respectable hard working poorer families suffer the main brunt of the feral skum as they live nearer larger concentrations of them (like I have), but now as they become even more numerous people like the wealthy BBC staff and their families are getting more of a share. Will this affect their approach to them in the programmes they make? At present they will not even disrespect them by calling them names like scum. Or do people who love criminals still love criminals even when they have suffered from them personally? Can nothing shake them from their strange loyalties? Some people even devote their whole career to helping them. Scum have so many fans and supporters it is amazing. Look at the semi-humans that tortured Baby P. Think of the money that will be lavished on them. And when they come out of prison: ‘yes you can have more children and we will pay you more money for each extra child you have’
(See Peter Hitchens in the Sunday Mail)
The NSPCC also wants to help feral youths:
The NSPCC firmly believes that young offenders should be seen as children first and foremost and so welcomes the draft Youth Justice Bill. The Bill has a welcome focus on prventing offending and on diverting children from custody and is consistent with NSPCC calls in or response to the Government consultation document ‘Youth Justice – The Next Steps’.
…Nevertheless, Gordon Brown thinks there might be something in this. He considers youth crime to be less a matter of law and order and more a question of education and intervention. Responsibility for youth justice no longer rests with the Home Office, but is shared between the Justice Ministry and the Children and Family Department, headed by Ed Balls. This change has been welcomed by campaigners who want young offenders treated principally as children, not as criminals. It might be a good thing – provided it represents more than a shiny new logo on a Whitehall wall. The danger, however, is that it encourages a belief that youth crime is not a law and order issue.
If you want to see happy, polite, well behaved children showing themselves to be absolutely brilliant, go hunting. Its refreshing to see how keen they are and how responsible they are with their ponies. Not much chance of the beeboids showing it , is there !
Ps. The friday farming toady slot, examining hunting, was either classic hitler in the bunker with his fantasy battalions stuff, or a dangerous example of the beeboids trying to re-present reality as they see it ! Take one labour nonentity, allow him to say all it needs is one small change in the wording of the hunting act and all those defiant rural yokels will magically disapear.
Of course, a majority of British children are socially OK; but it seems that a growing number of British adults are concerned with what they consider to be rising anti-social and criminal behaviour amongst a growing number of British children.
The political left (including the BBC) is inclined to play down such trends, and to advocate even more state welfare spending on the consequences of family breakdown, rather than to pursue a pro-family social policy, in the first place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086466/Half-British-adults-scared-children-behave-like-feral-animals.html?ITO=1490
Vested interest liberal tosh. Blame evryone else = deflect criticism for what a crap job we’re doing.
I wonder what the breakdown of Barnardo’s charges is in the crime figures ?
Liberalism – logic’s retarded cousin.
I have a work colleague who was brought up in a Barnardo’s home. He has nothing but praise for them and says kids are a lot better looked after by Barnardo’s than by local authority ‘care’.
I;m not sure why DV says they are leftist or politically motivated either. I’ve never noticed anything like that. Looking at their website, they seem happily free of the usual leftists. The chief exec is ex-Prison Service and the president is the Duchess of Cornwall. Now, her husband might be a flaky enviro-loon, but I don’t think Camilla has much time for leftists.
Tom | 17.11.08 – 10:33 am | #
I have a work colleague who was brought up in a Barnardo’s home. He has nothing but praise for them and says kids are a lot better looked after by Barnardo’s than by local authority ‘care’.
That is good to hear and worth knowing.
But, sadly, not what this MoP (Member of Public) garnered from the slot presented, the CEO (who was in a ‘I am more in tune wiv’ yoof because I ran prisons’ p*ssing contest with the counter-view bloke – I was not aware Barnados was only concerned with ‘troubled’ kids. Are they?) and the ads presented.
I do not care for ‘ist/’inger/’zi appellations, from any quarter, so I’ll leave that to those who do to argue over.
All I know is that a narrow agenda focus, often favoured by certain groups and their boosters in media, seems to have often have the result of distancing the likes of me from the majority good works of some charities.
Was that the result intended? If so, it’s hard to see how the interests of many kids (the majority?) who are not advantaged, but also not yet ready to feature in Lord of the Flies 2, are being served by those who… ‘care’.
And on the other side of the coin, portraying all who have/are/will suffer from the juvenile results of societal breakdown as psychotic vigilantes hardly seems set to broker understanding between any protagonists in the mix. IMHO.
That is nothing to do with the BBC… unless we end up with an obsession on but one minor aspect, featuring favoured pundits with agendas to push beyond child welfare. What are the odds?
Tom
I believe it has been mentioned on here before, and somebody will doubtlessly correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Barnadoes no longer run children’s homes, but are rather more of an “outreach/campaigning” organisation now. If they still ran homes they would have a lot more support from me rather than perpetually jumping on the childrens’ rights game which is in large part why we are getting to the state we are in – Scout leaders, pre school workers etc being told to avoid being in one on one situation, do not put a consoling arm around a crying child’s shoulder, teachers immediately being suspended on any accusation by a pupil.
Is it any wonder that the best way to avoid problems is to have nothing to do with children. The same applies with the extra rights of (euphemistically) minorities. But even if you avoid the “minorities” you can be considered racist!
Tom, I agree that Barnardos are a brilliant organisation and to suggest that to call a charity trying to help kids (no matter how unpleasant) better themslves is in some way a bad thing would be utterly moronic – nobody is forced to donate.
The ad is a bad idea though. To effectively accuse the adult population of being in the wrong to be scared of some of the abysmal behaviour of kids is only going to alienate your funding base. The feral kids concern isn’t a Daily Mail myth – you see it every time you get on a bus.
I think most people can differentiate between the majority(?) of reasonably polite and responsible kids and the scum and I think most people can identify a lot of the underlying reasons why a minority(?) are scum… you can blame everything from crap teaching, through liberal non punishment through thatcherite economic policy to the general degradation of socienty but that’s not what the question was – they’re still scum.
the way this is pitched on the Beeb’s website and the breakfast shows this morning seems to be taking a very specific interpretration of the issue which is that adults should accept kids’ behaviour as being some sort of a reflection of their environment and shouldn’t complain. This is what’s wrong.
“Tom, I agree that Barnardos are a brilliant organisation and to suggest that to call a charity trying to help kids (no matter how unpleasant) better themslves is in some way a bad thing would be utterly moronic – nobody is forced to donate.”
I’m sure that’s exactly the attitude of the over paid CEOs at Barnardos – hence why they are riding the gravy train of charity. You are applying the same mentality toward charity that leftys apply toward multiculturalism, cockney. ‘Anyone who thinks differently to what we say is a moron.’
So we have no right to suggest that Barnardos are just another pen pushing organisation primarily out for themselves and doing nothing more for children but to create another tick box on some official’s chart?
It all sounds like carte blanche to ensure that gangs of feral scum have yet another layer of untouchability added to their already untouchability.
I would guess you’ve never lived in an area plagued by feral scumbag kids cockney. And I’m certain nobody who works at Barnardos does too. I once lived in a nice street that was utterly trashed by housing association trash. The kids would roam the streets day and night in packs of 30 at a time. Some of them thought it was funny to hurl bricks through random windows of various homes in the street. Others thought it was funny to use parked cars as street benches. They were all offensive, violent and totally indifferent to the law.
Anyone who does anything to sympathize with this scum is the true moron.
Barnardo’s used to run children’s homes. I remember that during that time my family supported them. Later they gave up on running children’s homes and instead became an advisory group. Away with the hard work, in with the “advisory” lark. I don’t think they have a lot in common with the original charity, but like so many British institutions they trade on their name.
I understand why some will feel an instinctive loyalty- and believe me the BBC know those instinctive loyalties too and exploit them for all they’re worth.
Cockney, I see you are “Kill the Beeb’s” strawman for today.
ID I!
Sorry that this is OT, but I’ll repost when the next general comment thread appears.
It’s an interesting item from today’s Register about the BBC’s scrupulously balanced coverage of the government’s plans for ID cards, which I thought readers might like to share:
Auntie Beeb’s amazing, evolving, ID card stories
Rewriting history as it happens…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/bbc_stories_cant_wait/
Thanks.
“So we have no right to suggest that Barnardos are just another pen pushing organisation primarily out for themselves and doing nothing more for children but to create another tick box on some official’s chart?”
you’d can say it but you’d be very very wrong in my opinion. as i said this advert and some of the comments seems ill judged to say the least but it doesn’t invalidate 150 years of helping kids.
i’ve lived in moss side and thamesmead btw so don’t play the ‘poorer than thou’ card FFS and with that experience i’d much rather a charity try and get to the kids before they turn into scum. the alternatives seem to be that i pay a hopelessly inefficient council to do fuck all except give their parents more fags money or i pay for the cost of policing and imprisoning them, or we go to free market lala land and they all disappear in a darwinian puff of smoke or instantly become chemical engineers the second the child support stops.
so year, i don’t blame myself for their plight and i have no sympathy for them but slagging off barnardos for one error is pretty pathetic.
but it doesn’t invalidate 150 years of helping kids.
No, it doesn’t and I don’t see anyone saying that it does. I also agree that pretty much any intervention is better than what is likely to be provided by local authority care.
However, what is being said is that Barnados’s like many other respectable charities is no longer doing what it was originally established for, but has been taken over by a lot of people who wish to pursue their own political ends. The same has happened with Oxfam, NCH and several others, usually to the detriment of the work that they were originally so good at.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Dent. Few of the major charities I have dealt with have amounted to much more than job opportunities for a floating population of professional Leftists.
I have become so convinced of this that I will now only give material support (ie not money) and then only to small, preferably local, charities that actually do hands-on work.
The entire charity sector needs thorough investigation and exposure.
Had we a public broadcaster that was any good, we might expect it to do that job, given its immense resources.
Sadly, it’s tarred with exactly the same, mucky, brush.
Here’s one we can all support.
I first came across this mob when they were run by Mad Mitch, late Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, of entry into Crater fame.
http://www.halotrust.org/
Mr Vance,
You write:
“Or at least so Barnardo’s..ahem… extensive and highly scientific research methodology of examining the comment threads of the web sites of some national newspapers would indicate!”
You are almost right in your daily hate. Unfortunately, your listening and reading comprehension skills have you let you down again.
Here is the start of the BBC report:
“More than half the population believe UK children behave like animals, a survey has suggested.
Half of the 2,021 adults interviewed by YouGov also felt children were increasingly a danger to others.”
Bernados has commisioned a quantitative study with YouGov, the “leftist” pollster.
According to the interview on R4 this morning, Barnados have looked at Newspaper blogs and found hateful comments. They run the study to quantify the extent of hate towards children.
Some of your fellow bloggers here, have proved Barnado’s.
So David, what about re-writing your entry or do are you sure that your description of the methodology is correct?
Here again (since your memory appears to be short):
“Or at least so Barnardo’s..ahem… extensive and highly scientific research methodology of examining the comment threads of the web sites of some national newspapers would indicate!”
That video was hysterical, in all senses of the term.
“Children”. And not a hoodie or giant can of lager among the ones being “hunted”. It’s funny how the BBC just plays right along.
Cockney: You’re obviously supposed to support “children” by not criticizing them. You have the wrong thoughts, and must make amends, lest “children” be unfairly treated by your harmful thoughts.
gunnar; I’m not quite sure what your point is –are you trying to say that we are all child hating bigots rather than the reality that we are merely ordinary citizens of Britain who have seen the level of child inspired violence increase in the last few years? We could all deny the obvious ie that discipline and respect for authority have more or less disappeared in parts of the subsociety that exists in the UK.
Ask the police and fireservice about being pelted with rocks and bottles after being called out to false fires and other incidents.You need to get out there and see the level of criminality which exists on some british streets and then criticise those of us who are sick of living with it!!
Only today elsewhere on this blog, I have expressed the personal view that a certain level of typo/grammatical inexactitude should not matter, but I fear this sentence has me stumped:
Some of your fellow bloggers here, have proved Barnado’s.
As to the rest, I’ll leave that to David to defend or not as he chooses.
However, I think it has been established that most ‘surveys’ are worth about as much as the agenda that pays for the questions that get phrased, and hence the rest of what you articulate would suggest a shoe-in for the role should any box-ticking supremos be needed in say, Haringey or PMQs, trying to justify everything with numbers yet never looking out of the window.
Hi frankos,
Many thanks for addressing me. The point I made is that Mr Vance is again misrepresenting the facts.
Just read his point again.
Taiko-san:
Fuck off, troll.
gunnar –David Vance is expressing his own opinion –it’s up to the rest of us to agree + disagree as we feel free. I happen to agree with the spirit of his comments –I’m sure you don’t
Well I (Pounce) was taken into care in the early 70s because I had a physically abusive father.
The funny thing is after they found evidence of the abuse my sister and I were getting at home, they took my sister away but left me at home.
After Father dearest was found out as a hard man only in the company of children. Instead of physical abuse he turned to mental torture in that he was going to kill me and bury me so nobody could find me, he was going to put me in a home etc…
In the end It was me myself who asked the social worker to place me in care. I was gone that afternoon. Christ I was a child and I had to demand to be taken away in which to save my skin. The ladies in the children’s home cried when they saw the condition I arrived in. Because of the many beatings I used to receive I still have a very high tolerance to pain. But it gets better.
Kirklees council in their infinite wisdom decided that little pounce couldn’t have a white social worker. So they got rid of her and replaced her with a coloured Islamic one. (She was Iranian) All she did during our meetings was tell me my father loved me and wanted me back.
The house parents at the home used to go spare with me because as soon as I worked out she wasn’t concerned about me, but rather my father’s social status amongst the faithful. I stopped communicating with her. They tried everything in which to get me to talk to her. But in the end they failed. Must be why she stopped coming round.
In my eyes the social services were only concerned about themselves not the child. Oh the house parents were fantastic but the social workers.
Wankers the lot of them.
And now we have the case of Child Peter.
Pounce – a truly horrific story. I’m humbled. It remains a horrid shock to the system that children are ever treated with such hatred, sheltered as I’ve been.
Jesus Christ.
This is another item from the Stalinist truth-reversal dept.
Put it in the ‘Christians Beheading Muslims’ file.
Pounce – very sad mate – but what really comes across is the need to give you a social worker “of the same colour” – in South Africa it was known as apartheid.
I too was in a chidrens home, but my story is nothing compared to pounce.
On the main point the BBC as usual don’t get it – do they even try to understand or “research” why adults see chidren as they do – could it be that adults are now scared to even raise their voices to children because of the repercussions.
“- Garry Newlove, 47, right, died of head injuries last August after confronting a group of youths who were vandalising the family’s car outside their Warrington home
– David Martin, 40, a window cleaner, was stabbed to death last week in South London after asking a neighbour to return his son’s football
– Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, was accused of assault when he helped to make a citizen’s arrest at Oval Underground station. The boy was handed over to police
– Stevens Nyembo-Ya-Muteba, 40, was killed after asking 12 youths to be quiet in the stairwell of his block of flats in Hackney, East London, in October 2006
– Tim Eggar, a Tory minister under Margaret Thatcher, allegedly got into a fight in South London after he reprimanded two girls for picking flowers from his garden. One of their fathers visited his flat and said they fought together in the gutter
– Kevin Johnson, 22, was stabbed to death last May after he asked youths outside his Sunderland home to be quiet
– Alan Toogood, 50, died after being attacked by youths who lit a fire in the stairwell of a block of flats near his home in Yeovil, Somerset, in September 2006
– Peter Woodhams, 22, was shot dead at his home in East London in 2006 after confronting youths who had been terrorising his family”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3308629.ece
I take it that Jon and Pounce would be delighted to appear on tomorrow’s Today programme for a smidgen of impartiality? Presumptious of me of course but I can imagine the myriad cogs in J Naughtie’s head needing plenty of lubrication following that interview…cannot compute…the guardian never warned me about this…mummy…
Ross: exactly. This is why more and more of us are using this site as a premier discussion board and not even bothering to listen to the BBC at all
BOB,
Thank you for that – it’s great to see more and more real debate here, real opinion, fresh views….makes it worth it.
So the BBC discussed feral children without blaming Thatcher?
Whatever next, honest investigative journalism?
Not a chance, the BBC does not do real journalism or honest anything important. But then again neither does any other organ of The Main Stream Media.
If you chaps can not feel the ever tightening grip of authoritarian socialism, backed up by wall to wall propaganda and rampant disinformation, rapidly squeezing your common sense out of you. Then please see a doctor ASAP. Your other senses may be about to fail you as well.
Please try your best to face up to the fact that your entire media is a cleverly controlled, long running, establishment owned joke, now, or waste a lot of time working it out later, after the eternal jackboot finally starts landing on your face.
have a read of this posted on old holborn’s blog, suitably titled “in response to Dr Barnados”
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-response-to-dr-barnados.html
“I believe Barnadoes no longer run children’s homes, but are rather more of an “outreach/campaigning” organisation now”
I worked once for Barbara Stocking (ex Department of Health) now head of Oxfam. They are all the same in the “Charity Industry” They decided long ago that “raising money and doing good” was not as effective as employing lots of lobbyists and communications consultants to “raise awareness”, write press releases, and persuade Government to open up the public purse to do more good.
There are probably no more real charities left except the Sally Army. World Wildlife Fund, National Trust, Shelter, they are all job opportunities for new media graduates looking for a start to their CV – cheap, left, and tireless.
barnardos salaries – paid for by the taxpayer
http://johntrenchard.blogspot.com/2007/10/barnardos-salaries-paid-for-by-taxpayer.html
“Taxpayer funded grants: £114 million Barnado’s salaries & wages: £106 million”
david – more self-reinforcing groupthink than debate matey. Anyone who begs to differ on here gets called a trolling, bbc-employed, friend of dolly, marxist manque, mike lloyd, frotage-addicted, drug snorting, rent-boy-troubling, common purpose worshipping twat. I am only two of the above, but have been accused of every one
that barnados video is actually quite a good idea for a video game.
“chav scum hunt”
i think it would sell very well..
pounce – sorry to hear your story but happy that you had good house parents.
Jon – and to add to your list, the school teacher near Manchester who fired an air rifle at the ground near youths after police refused to act to help the lady after weeks of provocation – she got punished not the youths. A bit different from the TV ad but a bit more true to life.
Most of the feral scum are not poor or deprived, they just enjoy doing what they do. And one of their tactics is to target anyone who objects or challenges them and embark on a sustained campaign which is very entertaining to them. I once ran after one of them, I did not touch him, asked where his Mum was, we went to his house, and she had a nice clean house. She her boy would not throw stones at windows, and she added that the last person that touched him was arrested for assault. Then my window was broken. What can you do when the police are on their side?
And Oxfam even mentions in its literature about changing systems. Definitely a political charity. And Christian Aid gave money to terrorist groups which helped to get Mugabe in. There’s a sytem changed for you.
I agree with GCooper and Arthur Dent.
Ross | 17.11.08 – 7:40 pm
Impartiality is airing two sides of a story not just one – look it up in a dictionary (or maybe get someone to look it up for you).
mikewineliberal
You are dangerously narrowing the field by admitting to two of the descriptions of you. In my dictionary frottage has two t’s, but its a new word for me so thank you for that, but I’ll cross that one off and the three after it. Friend of dolly is beyond me, so I’ll cross that one off as well. That leaves just four and trolling and beeboid are taken as near enough the same thing on here and we do know you have access at work to a wide range of newspapers so that does all rather tend to shorten the odds on a beeboid being one of the correct ones.
When Barnardo’s and the like talk about children they are hoping, in this context, that we will think of someone a bit naughty in the vein of Just William. Muddy knees, school uniform, scrumping apples, getting into scrapes with their pals, jumpers for goalposts…..But basically not really bad kids. These naughty boys then being terrorised by intolerant, violent grown ups who just don’t understand.
What they are hoping we wont think about is 16/17 year old black youths wearing shell suits, black gloves, bling and a 9mm or a knife – but hey, they’re still children you know!
makewineliberal,
Sorry but there is no group think here beyond the simple fact that we consider the BBC a very biased organisation. How that is expressed varies and when those like yourself who think otherwise come on, your views are treated with as much respect as they deserve. Grouptink, like doubletalk, is the preserve of the liberal media.
AndrewSouthLondon wrote:
There are probably no more real charities left except the Sally Army. World Wildlife Fund …
AFAIK the World Wildlife Fund now calls itself the World Wide Fund, probably because it has been corrupted by government money just like all the others.
Jon:
“Impartiality is airing two sides of a story not just one – look it up in a dictionary (or maybe get someone to look it up for you).”
Love the dictionary thing – very funny!! But seriously for a second, why do you assume I meant just two people on the same side? Pretty daft of you. I know what impartiality is, and even the difference between that and “balance”. It is both that I wish to see on the BBC. It’s pretty difficult to misconstrue what I said but I think you’ve done a magnificent job all the same.
The left-wing illuminati give the youth too many passes, and pats on the back. They need to get them under control.