In the wake of the Ruth Kelly brouhaha, liberals are reminding us that :
As the NSPCC points out, most abuse happens at home. One child is killed each week by a parent or carer; six die each year at the hands of unknown predators.
Actually it's worse than that. About 3,500 babies are killed each week by strangers with the mother's collusion. These strangers are usually doctors. But let it pass.
"Most abuse at home" was repeated in today's Guardian, and on the Today programme by professor (of Sexualised Violence - I'm not making this up) Liz Kelly, who runs the taxpayer-funded Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit at London Metropolitan University (formerly Camden Women's Institute), a male-free zone which boasts femiluni Julie Bindel among its alumni.
Strangely, what you'll never hear in the Guardian, on the BBC, or from Liz Kelly, is the kind of home where abuse takes place.
I quote :
According to data from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), young people are five times more likely to have experienced physical abuse and emotional maltreatment if they grew up in a lone-parent family, compared with children in two-birth-parent families.
All studies of child-abuse victims which look at family type identify the step-family as representing the highest risk to children – with the risk of fatal abuse being 100 times higher than in twobiological- parent families according to international (figures) from 1976.
However, the use of the term step-father has become problematic, as, whilst it used to refer to men who were married to women with children by other men, it is now used to describe any man in the household, whether married to the mother or not. An NSPCC study of 1988 which separated married step-fathers from unmarried cohabiting men found that married step-fathers were less likely to abuse: ‘for nonnatal fathers marriage appears to be associated with a greater commitment to the father role’.
Analysis of 35 cases of fatal abuse which were the subject of public inquiries between 1968 and 1987 showed a risk for children living with their mother and an unrelated man which was over 70 times higher than it would have been for a child with two married biological parents.
Of course, the family isn't disintegrating - just changing.
This is a public information post.
A new scrappage scheme for policies?
1 hour ago