1) Reflections on the Law: Laws, like most sets of rules, are established in order to give structure to cultural and social organisation. In the absence of Rules & Laws, individuals and society in general, would be open to greater uncertainty and constant, unresolved conflict. Persistent struggles between those with dominant physical presence, more controlling emotional attitudes &/or aggressive intellectual manipulation, would leave people injured, vulnerable and within social chaos. Even with the gradual improvements in justice, earned over the centuries, there are still many who are physically, emotionally and mentally injured and those who were already most vulnerable, become severely disabled and neglected. Modern societies have therefore agreed to establish treaties on Human Rights. These are the latest, internationally agreed Rules and Laws, which have been fully adopted, by most civilised nations, including the UK. These Conventions place obligations and entitlements on all nations and individual citizens, irrespective of their physical, financial, intellectual, of social status. The enforcement of these very specific Human Rights and responsibilities are for all citizens to police and respect. It is only when these obligations have clearly failed, that formal, legal proceedings are required. Until then any individual is entitled and is under an obligation, to ensure peoples Rights are maintained. Professionals now have a special responsibility to ensure and enable this. 2) From this Empowered Base:
To help you prepare and put forward a case for individual justice, or seek appropriate help to do so, I have outlined below some fundamental entitlements. Some of these are contested by the legal profession and other professionals. They are, even as experts, often wrong in their 'assessments' of the viability of a complaint, or challenge of another person's actions. Human Rights have to be asserted confidently, uncompromisingly and politely. As with issues of health & safety; We have direct, personal responsibilities and entitlements. Professional challenges to the assertion of our Rights are due to inadequate knowledge of those Rights and the Law. Some are due to inadequate experience in interpreting and implementing legal process. Still others are 'prejudiced' in the interpretations of legal rights and thereby infringe these Rights, in their attempt to justify their negative position. Experts are not perfect. You are expert in your experiences of injustice and must remain resolved. We have the Right to assert our Rights and have them respected immediately. The exceptions to this are rare and very clearly limited to specific circumstances. 3) Disclose & Record Incidents.
In order to ensure you are adequately represented, by yourself, or by an advocate, it is essential that you record, or get someone to record, all the events you are complaining of and to get direct, or indirect witnesses to the events. Talking with someone you trust and sharing your experience and emotions at the earliest stage, is always helpful. It takes the sharp edges off your emotions and helps you focus on the correction of the injustice. At the end of the day, this has to be your focus. Confidently trust in this entitlement, 'assert' and continue to assert, as those who have historically done so and won the day. This confidant should be someone not directly and emotionally involved, but who is sympathetic to your complaint. If they have a sound and confident understanding of Human Rights, that is all for the better. Reducing your anger to a manageable level in this way, is always advisable. This does not mean anger is not appropriate, but emotionality can get in the way, when trying to explain events. So, 'sharing' the experience with another can help this process and also helps you begin the process of 'framing' your grievance, or proposed individual stand, or a legal action. This done, you should then 'summarise' the evidence into a clear, unambiguous, formalised complaint, ensuring the links between evidence and complaint are clear. Unless you present as a 'natural victim', fitting the 'expectations' of other's perception of someone abused in some way, you are unlikely to be immediately accepted as 'injured' by another's actions. You are entitled not to be victimised by the experience and will need to assert this entitlement. You, or your advocate, will have to convince others of an injustice, by clear evidence and rational argument. The appropriate institution, or agency is then obliged facilitate this process and impartially consider the issue you have presented. They will find this difficult to do and may actually appear to be partial. 4) Institutional Prejudice:
This process is unjust in many ways, but it is reality. All institutions, including professional groups and even Police and Courts, are prejudiced in some measure. The attitude that we should be 'tough enough to sort out our own problems', or 'just get on with it', demonstrates the lack of insight and understanding of psychological and emotional 'injury'. Even those who are demonstrably 'victims', sometimes become identified and dismissed as 'hysterical', and judged poor witnesses to their own abusive experiences9. Our UK culture has been particularly resistant to accepting the validity of Human Rights legislation. It has for centuries resisted the kinds of 'Bill of Rights' that other Western Cultures and Nations have developed. Even our revolution failed. The USA and France, with all their other failing, have had their Bill of Rights for Centuries. It took International and European cooperating and Union, (others) to establish the 'explicit' rights that we now have. Even now, there are many intelligent people who believe these are irrelevant and further more, seek to make them irrelevant, by the overuse and inappropriate use of 'exceptions'. Our culture has, and still tends, to see 'Human Rights' as an interference in the normal, traditional and institutional way of doing things. It is inclined to ignore the entitlement to treat all its citizens equally justly. Treating identifiable groups of people equally shabbily, is often as close as most institutions get to equality. It is more convenient to assert that some people bring problems upon themselves, just by being different; by belief, culture, sex, colour, etc. This situation will slowly change, as established legal anomalies are progressively erased and overturned, through the skilful intervention of Advocates, demonstrating the priority of Human Rights legislation and the European Courts rulings, over ancient, established, prejudicial Laws. In the meanwhile, Government has a duty to review existing laws, in the light of 5) Institutional Ignorance:
We have a culture that evolved on the principle of the stronger winning over the weak. This principle not only applies to physical bullying, which remains institutionalised. It also applies to intellectual and emotional bullying. This is so entrenched in our culture that 'put downs', 'humiliation', 'catch 22s', 'political correctness', 'mind games', denial, delusion and projection are 'normal' characteristic of institutional management and services provision. This is why people are often fearful to stand up for their 'Rights' and 'whistle blow', even though they are 'protected' by these Human Rights and the supportive national legislation. I have frequently heard professionals argue that Human Rights are ineffectual because there are so many 'exclusions'. Actually they are very few exclusions and even these 'special powers' are severely constrained in their application, by the convention on Human Rights. Institutional Officers and Professionals, of all kinds, who choose to exaggerate these exclusions, do so because they are part of the same culture which has become reliant upon an imbalance of 'power'. Maintaining and benefitting from an imbalance of power is no different from the situation with any member of the community. This is recognised as bullying and abuse. Rape is just one example of the abuse, resulting from imbalance of power. The entitlement of some professionals to assert appropriate 'authority', under special, prescribed circumstances, can not easily be legally questioned. How and why it was done can and should be called into question, whenever there is a felt or perceived injustice. These special powers have to be used with appropriate notification (effectively informed), have to be 'least restrictive' and must be based upon appropriately acquired evidence. Suspicion alone, is not enough and disproportionate force, or gratuitous violence is unacceptable. Similarly, any form of intimidation, or threat is unacceptable. The providing of information, in a form, or style which is insensitive, or suggests a threat, is not acceptable. This is very primitive behaviour and not in keeping with modern civilised societies. There are three groups that require special protection. Those who are vulnerable due to their incapacity personal or social circumstances, those who are vulnerable due to their This is why we have resorted to establishing these Human Rights. A good metaphor, which most professionals will appreciate, is the recognition the 'No means No'. 6) Advocacy & Legal Support:
Should you require advocacy, or legal support, to proceed with a complaint, seek and insist upon finding someone who takes your complaint seriously and who is able an willing to advise and 'reframe' your complaint, in a way that provides the best chance of its success. Some advocates and legal representative are better than others in supporting particular kinds of complaint. You still remain the best advocate for your complaint and can insist that your complaint be considered, whatever your skills & knowledge in this respect. Your 'felt' injustice arising from what you believe to be prejudicial, neglectful, or abusive conduct, is enough for it to be formally investigated. The investigating agency has an obligation to justly consider your complaint and ensure it is resolved in a way that your rights are fully protected. Any professional stance which prejudices a person's Human Rights, based upon the argument that Human Rights are ineffectual, because there are so many 'exclusions', is a failure of duty. It is the duty of all professionals to actively promote and protect these Rights. There is no mitigation. The use of 'special professional powers' of any kind are severely limited and any deviation, by any individual, or agency, is a failure of duty to protect your Rights.. Professionals often misunderstand Human Rights, in terms of seeing them being the responsibility of the Lawyers and Courts, with final recourse to the European Court of Human Rights and other International Courts. The true fact can not be simpler. All citizens have an obligation to respect Human Rights. All professionals have an special obligation to understand, respect and uphold Human Rights As professionals we can either fully respect and promote, or formally describe a 'shortfall', which has lead to the compromise of a person's Human Rights. 7) Justice:
We are supposedly treated equally in the eyes of the 'Law'. The International and European Conventions on Human Rights now firmly provides us with reinforced 'common law' entitlements which, if necessary, we can required to be investigated and enforced by police and courts. This has to be done on an equitable basis, without prejudice, or favour. In the event of any contravention of your rights (or those of the person you represent), you are entitled to state your 'Rights' and require any person to respect those rights. You are then entitled to use any reasonable, proportionate and therefore legal means, to protect yourself against any infringements of your rights. In doing so, your right to do so is also protected. Where this polite request, or other reasonable actions to protect your rights, fail, you are entitled to complain to the 'next level of appropriate authority' within an institution. Failing this. you are entitled to register a complaint with an appropriately assigned body, or the police, or directly to a court, as is appropriate to your complaint. Human Rights and the Law are there to remove the tendency for individuals to 'take the law into their own hands' and behave in more extreme ways, in reaction to any injustice. Rules and Laws are established to bring consistency, equitability, fairness and justice to bear in any situation of contention. Real, equitable Justice, therefore, serves us all. The seeking of justice usually requires the presentation of 'evidence', which can be simply a description of dates, times and behaviours, along with comparison to our equals and calling 'witnesses' to the events and actions. Precedent is also important; referring to other similar incidents and subsequent judicious responses, which justify equitable treatment. Basically, our 'legal' Human Rights are now comparable with what we have reasonably experienced, or 'felt' to be our rights and entitlements. Our Human Rights entitle you to reasonable physical, psychological and emotional Security; Liberty of thought, feeling, expression and action (provided they do not abuse the Rights to others), Dignity & Respect, in all dealings, including the presenting of a grievance and in all other legal processes. You are protected from abusive, humiliating, degrading treatment in 'any' circumstances, including policing and legal processes. Your treatment at any time should show no sign of these discriminatory, disabling or distressing features and your evidence should be considered, assessed and challenged respectfully and sensitively. Failure to do so should be politely challenged, recorded and dealt with, as soon as you become aware of this. Even if the 'challenge' is not successful at the point at which you expressed it, you should satisfy yourself that it was recorded, so that you may use it as a basis of appeal at a future date, should this be needed; or, used it as a basis for further complaint about the the unjust and discriminatory process you feel you had experienced. It is important to understand that it is the character of others to 'minimise' the potency of human rights. A word of warning; If at any stage, you behave in a way that may be interpreted (rightly, or wrongly) as abusive, or as a physical threat, you may be dealt with more 'aggressively'. If the threat seemed real to the person, they may have a right to take defensive, or other legal actions to mitigate what they felt was a threat. It is important inform the person of the unacceptable distress they are causing and to try and remain calm, for your own sake. 8) Legal Culpability:
A) Culpability in Law is assumed to start, or to be established, between 8 -14 years of age, depending upon intellectual & social development of the child and area of social/criminal behaviour and the culture within which they live. The age of Criminal Responsibility starts at the age of 10 years, in UK Law. B) CAFCAS and the Family Courts, use Gillick / Fraser Competence test for deciding the age at which a child is deemed to competent to: listen to; gain good understanding; apply sound logic; provide competent answers; and arrive at sound decisions; relating to their independent choice & decisions. The main concerns that remain, in this respect, are in relation to: " 'Coaching' by parents; in such ways as to seek to reduce, deflect, prejudice, or distort parental responsibility and culpability, by the induced transfer of a particular (or both) parent's ambitions, fantasies, aspirations, lifestyle, prejudices, abusive behaviours and fears, for the purpose of the parent's gratification and benefit, rather than to promote the child, or young person's safety & security and their independent intellectual, political, cultural, sexual, spiritual and emotional development & maturity (Best Interests)". © K Baxter & T Couchman, June 21, 2009 " 'Sexual Grooming / Coaching' by any adult (including parents), having intellectual ability and maturity and acting through choice, with the purpose of seeking to instil or induce 'a sense of intellectual and emotional responsibility' for sexual or sexualised acts, into the psyche of a less socially mature, emotionally inexperienced and vulnerable young person; by the age of 14 and under 16 years of age and applying Fraser Competence, with the intention of appearing to give them a legal status of independent 'competence' in these respects". © K Baxter & T Couchman, June 21, 2009 "The assigning or ascribing, of competency (as discussed above in 8B;8B i & 8B ii) of a child less that 14 years of age, needs to remain professionally unacceptable, under any circumstances, except after careful consideration, provided by a court, having fully considered all the evidence, for and against any specific exception to this rule; arrived at in full consideration of the child's human rights and parental & institutional responsibilities for the protection and natural maturation of a young person". © K Baxter & T Couchman, June 21, 2009 Serious consideration needs to be given to the inconsistencies between the age of Criminal Responsibility (normally 10 years in UK) and the age at which a child may be deemed to be competent to provide answers; and arrive at sound decisions; relating to their independent choice & decisions taking, as summarised in 8A above (The Fraser Competence - UK Law). © K Baxter & T Couchman, June 21, 2009 There would appear to be serious contradictions and inconsistency of logic and in the assumptions made, when ascribing culpability at the age of 10 years, while at the same time and in other legal contexts, recognising that the child is not competent to provide answers; and arrive at sound decisions; relating to their independent choice & decisions taking, until the age of 14 (in UK Law). © K Baxter & T Couchman, June 21, 2009
Adjustments to considerations of 'culpability' and 'competence' must be (and usually are) made to these age markers, for someone with learning difficulties and associated emotional and social immaturity, where various 'special powers' and 'exceptions' may be judicially used, given the following: Human Rights, within this age range, are protected by the International Convention for the Rights of the Child. The process of protecting a child's safety and security should not contravene their basic Human Right, even in the process of taking actions to protect them. Any child has the right to express their wishes and have these adequately considered and incorporated into decisions, provided the professional 'response' is not against their best interests of safety, security and does not conflict with their other Human Rights. The child's basic human rights are not affected in any legal process and all actions should be 'proportionate' to the need to protect a child from the abuse of their rights (and when of an appropriate age) and their responsibilities to respect the Human Rights of others also.
9) 'Advanced' Child Protection:
A) Child Protection Law is well established and effectively clarified by experienced child protection professionals, academics and the courts. There are, however, serious gaps in considering the conflict between the rights of the Child and the rights of Adults. B) I have established a clear protocol for 'contracting', the management and protection of the Risks and Rights and the wider Protection of people with Learning Difficulties, Mental Health problems and Alcohol & Drug dependencies, where Reason and Social Skills fail to reduce any imminent or actual risk; to self & others, including mediating professionals. C) In preparing to deal with clients where there have been instances of Physical Aggression and Actual Assault, and where there remains, or there is good evidence to suggest, that there remains a serious risk of assault, and the person has Mental Capacity at the time of 'contracting' with them, it is appropriate to assert: D) It should be clearly be made known to the person that the professional will take whatever reasonable, proportionate, physical action to adequately protect themselves and others from any injury, and in doing so; protect the individual from the consequences of their own aggressive, or otherwise abusive actions, whether or not they demonstrate Mental Capacity at the time of a serious aggressive incident (but excluding the reasonable expression of anger). E) Applying this kind of 'contractual' perspective and comparable protocol, to a 'minor', or young person, we need to consider: Children should not be assaulted, or neglected, but neither should they be allowed to 'assault', 'intimidate', or 'manipulate' others of their own age, younger, or adults (whether Vulnerable or not). This is in the child's longer term interests and the interests of their own psychological, emotional and social development and eventual parenting competence. Because of legal and other institutional restrictions, 'normal', accepted and even minimal 'defensive' strategies are often now felt to be inappropriate for use with children. They are also now becoming difficult to administer in relations to young people (age 10 and above and up to 16 years of age). In general, we agree with this principle of minimal physically assertive conduct as being a good basis for the paramount protection of a child, or young person. Physical restraint and other 'assertive' interventions, should only be used as a last resort in protecting the child and others from identifiable Risks of any kind. Any restraining or assertive action towards a child or young person of any age, is permissible and can be argued to be obligatory (parental & statutory responsibility), in protecting the child and others from clear direct &/or imminent physical, psychological, social and emotional Risks. Many parents and those in loco parentis, take these duties very seriously and can, as a result, be put at severe disadvantage in managing these parenting duties, while avoiding physical restraint and other more assertive actions, as they feel increasing pressured to do, because of the diminishing effects and potential for 'accusation'. These assertive actions, in the absence of previously established, natural fears of a parental and other adult authority, or any effective replacement, immediate restriction on the aberrant behaviour of a child, may now generate a response of elevated aggression, by the child and consequential physical conflict, which could result in injury.. Such a reactive, inadequately constrained, elevated aggression can result in subsequent increased physical assertion and possible increased natural aggression, by the parenting (or loco parentis) adult, which could risk injury to the Child, young person and others. Intelligent, effective alternatives to the avoidance of restraint are few and far between. As a result of positively changing social attitudes and the establishment of childhood entitlements, the entitlement to 'defensive' self protection and the appropriate 'physical' protection of self, others and the child themselves, has been seriously compromised. This is an area that has not been adequately considered and no competent protocols exist. This 'compromising' of these normally accepted entitlements (human rights) is to the disadvantage of all and also to the increased immediate and long term Risks to the child or young person themselves and others directly affected, including all parenting adults. Avoiding risks generates other, sometimes more far reaching risks. There needs to be a clear protocol which takes account of this imbalance of interpersonal power, if we are to avoid serious escalation of unfettered abusive and anti-social behaviour of young people and increasingly younger children. The effects of current restrictions upon reasonable assertive interventions are already apparent. As in considering the requirement for a protocol for adults, which is described in 9 B & C, above, there needs to be a clear protocol for protecting the child, others and parenting adults (including those in loco parentis), from the consequences of the actions of a child or young person (or a group). In placing restriction we must open up viable alternatives. The entitlement to 'defensive' self protection and the appropriate 'physical' protection of self, others and the child themselves, has not been compromised by the legal protection of children, or the International Convention for the Rights of the Child. These and other statutes, nominally take account of parental responsibilities and their rights. The entitlement to 'defensive' self protection and the appropriate 'physical' protection of self, others and the child themselves, has been compromised by the inappropriate responses of some professionals and some professional groups. In seeking support from these agencies, to correct this imbalance, the is little help provided to meet the deficit. The protection & support of the 'Family' is a primary professional obligation. By 'inappropriate' responses, we mean the inadequately critical and reflective interpretation of the assertions of a Child, where there is no clear evidence to support the assertions, or accusations; due to what is sometimes called political correctness and to the excessive, inappropriate or institutionally prejudiced use of professional powers. This can make adults vulnerable to manipulation where a child (or children) have learned to use the threat of institutional sanction against any physical contact, even where it is used to protect the child themselves, protect another child, or to protect the parenting adults (Parent, Teacher, Care Worker, Professionals and other responsible citizens). There are many instances where these real fears of 'manipulation' of the established conventions for dealing with children and young people, have put professionals, parents, and others they are charged to protect, in real danger &/or have otherwise undermined the reasonable 'control' of a child, or young person's (and other children's) behaviour. This can be especially problematic in cases of conflict between parents, where one parent (or both) uses the children to actively manipulate the other parent, where the children are primed or coached into actions which they usually cannot fully understand or control (See Section 8, esp. 8B) There are also instances where Parents promote these attitudes in children; to enable them to reasonably assert themselves in their relationship other children, with adults citizens and with professionals like; teachers, social workers and police. The attempts at maintaining balance can be problematic Consider here, the legitimate as well as the illegitimate, parental stands against any forms of institutional prejudices and acceptable and unacceptable defences against the abusive behaviour of others, especially in 'coaching' their children:
a. Sometimes these parental 'promotions' are due to their attempts to enable a child to stand up for themselves in cases of bullying, or the abusive behaviour of adults, including the cases of inappropriate or abusive use of professional power and authority.
b. Sometimes this parental 'coaching' and encouraged 'challenge', is due to the parents established resentment of the power and influence of professionals, because of poor experiences of their own, and possibly, previous poor experiences of their offspring.
c. Sometimes this parental 'manipulation' is because of poor understanding of the need for parental, professional and institutional powers, whereby the parent feels that their own entitlements and that of their children, are infringed by 'any' other adults interventions.
d. Sometimes this is due to belligerent attitudes towards any kind of legitimate authority and sometimes due to actively abusive character of the parent, guardian, or even a loco parentis professional (See Section 8, esp. 8B i, above). In addition to the range of examples previously provided, we need to consider the dynamic interrelationship between each 'form' of 'Promoted', or 'Coached' influence on children and young people, including the influence of all media, as an extension of adult influence. In addition, we can not discount and would be foolish to underestimate, the example and influence that a child's 'informed', 'badly informed' and 'ill informed' peers and siblings can have on a child's perception and conception of their 'entitlements' (and responsibilities). More important: As in considering any person's Legal & Human Rights entitlements and a Child and Young Person's equitable status in particular and; given our discussions in Section 8, we need to consider the following: The young person, in fully qualifying for these Rights and Entitlements, which they may expect from others, can not expect to have separated out, from these reasonable entitlements, the responsibilities and associated culpability that always goes with them. Human Right and any Legal Entitlements, in the absence of competence and mental capacity, have to be intelligently, justly and equitable ensured, without disempowering those with any parental responsibility, or responsibilities in loco parentis. Given the appropriate competences to fully understand their entitlements and the responsibilities, duties and sanctions that go with these, any Child of any Age, should otherwise enjoy the 'responsible' entitlements of their Human Rights. There are rarely and 'pure' forms of adult influence (as those illustrated in a-d, above). More usually there is combinations of influences within a particular parent and across the range of both parents and other adults operating in loco parentis, in a wide range of ways. In which ever case, or combination of influences, as illustrated by all the above, a child's or young person's relatively immature intellectual, emotional and social skills and generally reduced powers of rational discrimination, can lead them to easily generalise from the parents innocent as well as their more belligerent intentions. Given all the above influences, it is little surprise that some children and young people seize the opportunities offered, by inconsistent and ill considered 'adult responsibilities', (as parents or professionals), to enhance their natural child like inclinations. This explains a great deal of our increased delinquent and anti-social behaviour. This is, to argue crudely; the tendency for immature, short term inclination, to divide and rule and obtain the greatest selfish benefit to themselves and best possible deal from each of the adults. These adults (including professionals) are frequently competing between themselves to prove themselves to be most competent parenting adults, operating with the most advanced interests of the child's. What incredible and frightening power it gives some children and Young People and what potency it provides them, not only to consider their own interests, but also (if unfettered by responsibility and sanction) to harm others by the misuse of these 'powers'.
This is a complicated area and it is reasonable that a child and an adult should seek appropriate intervention by a police officer, or a social service agency, or CAFCAS officer, or Guardian according to the nature of the problem and the age of the child. In urgent cases of sudden onset 'lack of parental control', the mediating influence of police and social services professionals is crucial. This is often essential at short notice and should be adequately informed, in terms similar to those described above. Similar interventions would be appropriate where the is an identifiable loss, or corruption of parental control. Currently, requests for intervention are usually resisted and may be deemed mischievous, but by insisting and stating the 'risks', a professional assessment will be undertaken and the concerns therefore recorded. This then acts to protect the child and the adult in their attempts to protecting the child. It is currently necessary to insist on such an assessment and the recording of concerns. It is also useful to insist on a report of the interview &/or assessment. 10) Support for Parental Control (Redressing the Balance): Given the above. If an older child assaults an adult, it is the Adult who can be at a disadvantage; if they feel unable to safely and appropriately defend themselves. The Law is there to protect Adults as well as the Child or Youth, in these circumstances. Criminal Responsibility is presumed from as early as 10 years and legal competence by age 14. (See 8B & 8, qual. by 9). For an Adult who is a Parent of the Young Person, this is a doubly problematic, in dealing with any assault, through normal legitimate means; either as a response of 'minimum force' and 'reasonable restraint', or as a referral to the police (and if you are feeling lucky, through Social Services). Being a 'step-parent' is further complicated by step-parent caricatures (prejudice). The issue of 'public interest' comes into play and police & social services often do nothing on the basis of a complaints of assault. Even a parent's (or advocate's) disclosure of appropriate concern 'in the best interests of the child', produce a poor response. Such issues do not register under social services '4th tire' criteria; a form of unlawful, funding induced exclusion. The Conventions on the Rights of the Child and other Child Protection Legislation, are designed to protect them against abuse, neglect and exploitation, etc. These are basically all forms of 'abuse' and come in some generally identified forms, like sexual abuse, but the variety of abuse, neglect and exploitation is unbounded, once an abusive adult sets their mind on the task. In contrast, a child's challenge to normal parental responsibility is not limited to their potential physical abuse of a parent. Intellectual and emotional abuses and intransigent behaviours, are all manifestations of the misapplication of the principles of the Rights of the Child. With a sentient child, as with an Adult, Human Rights carry associated proportionate responsibility. Like so many liberalisations, the ignorant and ill-considered implementation of social policies are as dangerous in their effects upon the longer terms security of a child as the punitive forms of parenting which the Conventions and Legal Obligations were set to alleviate. Young people have always 'reacted' to parental authority but parental authority has never been so diminished. The manifestations of this breakdown in parental responsibility, due to the disempowerment of parents in meeting these responsibilities, generates many of the 'delinquent' behaviours we can observe today. These are increasing and are becoming more extreme. More importantly, they are no longer just the consequence of more adventurous and demanding minority of youths. Even if we wish to ignore the Human Rights of parent, in respects parental responsibilities (as is often done by institutions), we can not ignore the immediate and longer term effects upon the child and their later competence as Adults and Parents, in their own right. Neglect of of the support of Parents, in their attempts to meet parental responsibilities, under increasingly difficult circumstances, has and will continue, to generate increased demands upon all our institutions. The raising of a child is a complicated task. It involves a balance between: The child's reasonable wishes and normal, socially established 'felt' entitlements; the celebration of anniversaries; need to feel part of an established group; etc. The parent's hopes & aspirations for the child, given their philosophy and felt moral obligations, etc.; necessary as part of the nurturing framework. The parent's natural and institutionally determined responsibility to ensure their health, safety, security and natural development of the child. The actual resources that parents has available to them in order to meet these responsibilities, including those made available by the social institutions. The institutional requirements which formally direct some of those obligations and inform and enable entitlements of the child and the Parent(s). The social pressure of parental peers and the peers of their children, which influence and pressure parents, often through their child and the child's siblings. The special needs of a child and the particular demands and needs that these special needs place upon the child, the parent, the child's siblings and involved institutions. The disabilities and inhibitions of one or both parents, which inhibit or disable any of the above requirements or other obligations of parenting. The conflict that can arise, naturally between parents and that which is generated by these other contradictory demands, complicated by the Coaching & Grooming of the Child. The failure of any one, or more, of the above criteria to be adequately met by the Parent(s) &/or the supporting institutions, for any reason.
At the end of the day, the parents legally have the primary 'responsibility' to care for their children and to do so they have to have appropriate 'powers' and adequate resources to ensure that all is done in the longer term best interests of the child. Any policy that inappropriately interferes in, or disables these powers, puts the child at some Risk, immediately and in the longer term. Any encumbrance upon the responsible institutions to meet their obligation is supporting parents in difficulties, while It is important, in taking away or significantly moderating the method of managing these powers of parental responsibility, that parental powers are adequately compensated, by the provision of alternatives. In a parent's failure to be able to meet parental responsibilities, because of felt restrictions on parental powers, the provision of appropriate instructional support is necessary; in order to re-establish appropriate parental control. A child is otherwise immediately put at risk. A Parent (incl. loco parentis) asserting Parental Authority can be Vulnerable:
Vulnerable Adult status can be identified, or recognised for 'any' temporary, or permanent incapacity or impairment, which makes and adult person particularly vulnerable to the physical, psychological, emotional, social and financial abuses from others. People with Learning Disability, Disabling Mental Health conditions, Elderly Frail and any Women who is raped, or in any way severely physically abused, are all easily considered to be 'vulnerable'. In these circumstances, complaints are more likely to be dealt with and considered more sensitively. Referral to Vulnerable Adults Units is probable. Men are rarely included as vulnerable in normal, or even exceptional circumstances of assault and women who do not play the classical 'victimised' role, and have no physical evidence of abuse, are often excluded from being considered on this 'vulnerable' basis when seeking support. This is the 'Hidden Shame', which is more to do with professional attitudes and reactions, rather than the person's psychological & emotional status. There is no doubt that men, like women, become 'vulnerable' in circumstances of domestic violence and are often victims of protracted abuse of all kinds; including intimidation, humiliation, stalking strategies and the use of their children as a medium and mechanism for these kinds of abuse. Coaching and Grooming of children in this way is commonplace. Police and Social Service responses are often minimal, prejudiced &/or degrading. Men, and women, who resist being 'victimised' by any intimidating processes and therefore appear well composed, are often dealt with discriminatorily. A person's 'vulnerable' status is rarely considered in these instances, whereas 'victimised presentations' usually are. There is poor understanding of Vulnerable over Victimised. In instances where Parents (Male & Female) are abused by the Coaching and Grooming of minors, by any Adult, including a Parent, have damaging effects upon the Adult which then affects their ability to effectively Parent. This, and the direct effects of Coaching & Grooming, have compounded, long term effects of the Child's Relationship Formations and Health Socialisation. The may become abusers, in turn Young people sometimes 'use' the 'abuse' argument to promote their interest and obtain illegitimate 'power and control', and defence from being seen as culpable for an assault and other anti-social behaviours. It is not unusual for there to be Parental Coaching and Grooming in these instances, along with poor Parental Modelling and the effects of some physical, psychological and emotional Neglect (which are often inseparable in reality).
Basic parental powers, and the Law in general, are organised to help Adults avoid having to resort to normal, legal and sometimes excessive 'adult means', to rectify an abusive situation (physical defence / potential violence) where a child mistakenly believes, or has been Coached into believing, that they have cart blanch to do and say what they wish and are protected in the abuses by their Human & Legal Rights and status as an 'abused child' (real or invented). The statutory authorities, including the various 'police & social services', which are nominally available for supporting and protecting adults in meeting their parental responsibilities, are also protecting the child's interests in the longer term. The actual situation, in terms of constructively supporting parents who request help, is really very poor. Police & social services see their involvement in such cases as unsubstantial and unnecessary and are thereby neglectful.. To do this effectively, police and Social Services would have to take a more intelligent strategy, an improved reaction with a more balanced perspective on any conflict that arises between young people and their responsible adults. In spite of the increased emphasis on Child and Family focused working, the early support to families is almost absent in most cases. Again, Police and Social Services are there to mitigate these potential areas of risk and the police have powers to avoid a breach of the police. They often failed to competently do so, by inappropriately 'taking sides', out of a sense of 'political correctness'. Their 'crisis' interventions are usually inept and aggravate situations further, forcing a wedge within families. This 'presumptive' approach, which assumes children at risk as primary and women at risk secondarily, is sound for a In the mean time, until this situation is adequately resolved, a similar approach should be made, as described in the previous instances. Police and Social Services / Child Protection Services are tending to negate mediating and enabling roles, which was intended to repair relationships. Parents and other members of the community, may be considered culpable; if by an act of negligence, or active promotion, a child comes to assume they can assault you (an Adult) See Section 8 B above. Any Adult 'encouraging' a child to assault you, is culpable (responsible) and should be reported along with the child. As an adult, being potentially seen as culpable for 'excessive response' to a child's assault, or other abusive behaviour, you are entitle to protection. A Report of the incident and the circumstance leading to it, should be made to the police and / or social services, with an expectation of an 'assessment' (investigation) and any appropriate, least restrictive action. If the assault is continuing, or there is a imminent threat that it will resume, you can expect an immediate and proportionate response. Any refusal, or delay in doing so, or inappropriate treatment as a result, should be reported through the complaints procedure / process of the institution you have approached. This usually means progressive reference to the next higher authority (manager). Allowing 2 weeks between each stage is reasonable, unless a shorter, or longer period is specified. If the consequences are still on-going, you are entitled to insist on more immediate response. Similarly; Any adult male wishing to record an assault by a female, of any size (and, in fact, of 'lighter' build in particular) is often at a policing and social disadvantage, if he wishes to withhold 'defensive' retaliation (where this may be reported as a 'primary' assault). Such incidents should be recorded and reported as an assault, even where there is no serious physical injury. This may be difficult to do, because of prejudices within the legal institutions, but it may be the only way to . Any resistance to recording and dealing with this as a result should be challenged at a higher level (as explained above). This bias is often used by unscrupulous men and women (and youths), to provoke a physical reaction from the partners of either sex and from members of peer groups. It is a bullying technique that tries to 'reverse' the culpability for the bullying. That said, please respect the fact that this bias, although unjust and inappropriate, is there for good reason. Women have been bullied and assaulted unjustly and without full protection in Law, in the past. This bias needs adjusting, that is all. Women (and other disadvantaged groups) have rightfully earned equality under the Law, in this and other respect. Modern Women enjoy that protection now, and with comes the responsibility and culpability, when they miss-use their situation to disadvantage others. Whoever you are, you are right to resist taking 'physical retaliation', or basic 'defensive action', in these circumstances (wherever you can). If you are 'male', you are usually seen as culpable in 'defending' yourself against unreasonable, intrusive & abusive behaviour, including assault, if the abuser, or assailant is female, a child or smaller in size. Institutions do not adequately appreciate this and it is unjust for the reasons given. None-the-less; Report such incidents without shame. It protects you and others. That is the purpose of the Law, which should not discriminate. You may expect some significant prejudice & may even be judged for physically defending yourself, even minimally. Let the police and the courts judge the balance of assault and injury. If you are clear in your perceptions that you were assaulted (and injured in any form). Report this fact and provide statements and evidence to support these facts. If you did take some reasonable actions to protect yourself and these have been identified, interpreted, or presented as assaults, stick to your evidence and don't be intimidated to accept culpability. If they are argued to be 'excessive' actions then you may have to defend your case. All defensive action have to be (or believed to be at the time) reasonable & appropriate and in keeping with the circumstances and the level of 'any' danger you believed existed at the time. Clearly describe the all the risks to yourself, any children present and any others who may have been affected by the person's actions. These effects may be physical, emotional, psychological, social, economic, vocational, etc. Their cumulative effect, one in relation to the others, is also important. They may have been affecting your relationships with 'others' (including children) and put you in compromised situation which you believed also put you at risk of injury of any kind, from others, provoked by the behaviour you are complaining about (defending against). Apart form assault upon yourself there may be other, equally important, illegal actions that need considering. Further Guidelines are provided. If anyone has seen written Law, or legal advice, based upon precedent, that the size, sex, sexual orientation, or any other physical, or social feature of a person makes them less likely to be the assailant, or the victim, and that this feature therefore makes them less entitled of protection in law, this website would like to see that reference and the evidence that supports it. The police may have to learn to get their heads round this; but 'combinations of size and sex' really do not matter. Police Officers and their managers are not experts in Law. They administer it by following policies and guidelines. Exceptions make Law. Stick to the facts and events. Assault is assault & the Law is there to remove the inclination to retaliate. That is what makes us civilised. You are entitled to protection under the Law but, how this is administer is no longer clear. Police have some clear obligations, in some serious incidents but other responsibilities may lay else where. Your Human Rights and Legal Entitlements are described by various agencies, some of whom are listed and 'Externally Linked' on the right. These are UK biased and for general Guidence. These links should open in new windows, or separate tags, so you can keep contact with this page (let me know if this does not happen). You should also seek advice from any and many, agencies locally (Citizens Advice, Victim Support) and research the internet in your own right. There is a protected 'Google Search', filtered search engine below (Bottom of page). This will filter out most of the rubbish and get reasonable links for you. Always be discriminating. The local policy may direct police resources in a particular direction but this does not remove your entitlements in Law, only your protection by 'police officers and their support workers', in particular locality and for particular incidents. Find out what protection you can expect to get from 'all sources'. Let each know the involvement of the other. Some situations are ambiguous but you know if you been violated and that no one deserves this, whatever the background circumstances. You may actually find yourself unable to immediately and adequately articulate, or express, how you were violated. Do your best. Report the incident\(s) to the police and make an initial statement. Get help and advice in articulating the evidence and then pursue the case with good support. You do not have to do these things alone and justice is not restricted to the availability of Legal Aid, or the lazy inclinations of Solicitors. In some circumstances, because of past experiences, social prejudices and the prevailing 'power' relationships within a group, or organisation, we may find ourselves 'tolerating' physically intrusion in ways that are unacceptable and are injurious, in that the perpetrators behaviour is humiliating, controlling inappropriate, embarrassing. If that behaviour included uninvited and inappropriate physical, particularly 'sexual', touching (and suggestive comments and non-verbal innuendoes), and you request, or even discrete attempt to demonstrate, that it should cease, but the behaviour continues, that, I believe, constitutes an assault and should be reported and strongly pursued with the police, whatever you sex, age, or or inclination. Conserving the evidence and recording the events is therapeutic as well as important for securing a satisfactory outcome to any charge that you eventually wish to support, with the police backing, or not. Give this evidence to a solicitor, if the police are not interested. Have it on record, somewhere 'formal'. There are times that you may have doubts about circumstances and the sequence of events, this is natural, especially if you have been a a 'target' of an ongoing crime of assault, as in 'Relationship abuse', or where you have given evidence of some wrong doing. Both Victim Support & Witness Support may be an appropriate services to solicit help from. Some confusion and doubt can arise if you have been drinking, or taking drugs. These are 'normal' circumstances in which these various criminal and civil 'incidents' can happen. It does not excuse them. Record, or report, what you can immediately and return to clarify and update your 'evidence' when you have had time to recover from all effects. Record what you can, or give your accounts to someone in authority at the earliest opportunity. This could be the police, if they get there quickly. It could be the Doctor, or a nurse treating you. It could be a a close friend, or anyone with some credible standing in the community, or one of its institutions, Local Councillor, MP, etc. Police response vary dependent upon location but they also vary according to the immediacy of the danger. Police responses to rape are now very good, the response to common assault are sometimes quite poor, if the assailant has gone from the scene. If you give the impression it is all over they will often delay coming, especially on Friday and Saturday nights and the early hours of the next mornings. When in shock we sometimes perform too well and go into a kind of 'calm'. Assume the worst, that the person is still about in the locality, just outside the door. Threatening someone else, is likely to explode again. Do whatever you need to do to get the 'emergency' across to them.  This page is in the stage of preparation.
There are some links on the right that may be helpful: | NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full, I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
