It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


“Cinderella’s Law” or "Orwell’s Parenting Law"?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 11:58 PM

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose.
Changes to the child neglect laws will make “emotional cruelty” a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse.
The Government will introduce the change in the Queen’s Speech in early June to enforce the protection of children’s emotional, social and behavioural well-being. Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

Britain’s abuser networks (in the form of “Social Services” working together with the secretive “Family Court” judges) will surely be most delighted at this new law, since it potentially makes almost any parent, a criminal…
1. Are mum & dad are too busy with business?
2. Send you to your room on a frequent basis?
3. Or even (God forbid) argue with one another?
Well good! Because now Con-Lab-Dem’s child snatchers (in the form of Social Services) can take you away, put you into a care home where you can become like a prostitute for immigrants (sorry I mean “other cultures”) and don’t worry… The “Secret Family Courts” will deal with everything therefore it will be “contempt of court” if any journalists, were to ever to tell the public anything about your abduction (i.e. by Britain’s increasingly too big, too-incompetent, and too self-serving branches of government).

But Our Big Government Has Big Hopes…

As many as 1.5 million British children are believed to suffer from neglect.
That is by far the articles most scary line. Think about it…
1.5 million children would be nearly as many parents. But for statistical safety let’s just pretend it’s 750,000 “abusive parents” (i.e. somehow one parent = two children).
750,000 would still be a figure between 9 and 8.7 times the number of all people, in prison, for all crimes (given Britain’s total prison population seems to fluctuate between 83,000 and 86,000 ).
For context: There are 11.4997 million 0 to 19 year olds in the UK. So 1.5 million would be 1 in 7.66 children.

The Reality: Only 5% of children report being unhappy with family (government’s on statistics)…

In 2010–11 children aged 10 to 15 who took part in Understanding Society; the United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study, were asked about how happy they were with their lives as a whole, and with their friends, family, school, school work and appearance.
Nearly nine in ten children said that they were relatively happy with their lives overall and only 4% reported being relatively unhappy. Children were most positive about their friends (96% relatively happy) and family (95% relatively happy) and least positive about their appearance (75% relatively happy). ‘Relatively happy’ refers to completely, mostly and somewhat happy.
Just over a third of children were completely happy with their lives overall (34%). However, well over half of respondents were completely happy with their friends (56%) and family (62%). By contrast, less than one in five respondents were completely happy with their school work or appearance (both 19%).

Therefore the idea that 1.5 million children are being abused, must depend on extremely will, social services “busy body” idea, on what constitutes “abuse”.

The MP’s advocating this law probably have enough spare bedrooms in their various mansions, to argue without the children hearing. They also probably have enough staff to ensure the offspring will always be entertained, and in any case (as politicians) it would probably not be they who hid from Social Services; but Social Services who hid from them!!

So: Even though very Orwellian, very logic defying, statistics like “1.5 million children being abused” are being used, it’s obvious it won’t be our politicians who have to face first Social Services.
And even if they did complain to their local newspaper, and were subsequently jailed for it, it would be hard (as members of parliament) for the judiciary to jail them without a word being reported.

In My View…
Obviously there's a few cases were amoral, extreme emotional neglect, happens to children. But does Britain need more legislation to jail parents? Especially for something so hard to confirm -or even define?
Social Service's already has the power to take children away, and this ultimately should be enough.
A mother who never attends her crying child, probably has something seriously wrong in her brain anyway. Making more laws will probably result in as many abuses by state employees (who have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted) as in proper uses.

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

And to think that children would ever not be happy with their families. They will be much happier once they are abducted by the state.

Even I forget how much further along it is over there.

edit on 31-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 01:13 AM
It's one of those laws that means well but is impossible to implement properly. Child abuse isn't a joke, nor is it trivial. If you were abused as a child, but refuse to acknowledge it was wrong, it can lead to you continuing it on your own. On the other hand, if you know it was wrong, you can still walk around proudly saying it made you tough.

The bottom line though, is kids don't need to go through it. They don't need to be made 'tough' in that way. Especially when there is no reason for it beyond some asshat having a tender ego and taking it out on their kids.

That being said, for most kids removed from such a situation, they have a high chance of ending up in a worse one once the state gets involved, or completely messing it up further.

Just ask yourself how many people have "dysfunctional" families. Most will say they do. And most have some kind of underlying abusive relationships in them. Humans are damn cruel to people they love.
edit on 31-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 01:42 AM
From the article…

The new offence would make it a crime to do anything that deliberately harmed a child’s “physical intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.
This could include deliberately ignoring a child, or not showing them any love, over prolonged periods, damaging a child’s emotional development.
Other new offences could include forcing a child to witness domestic violence, making a child a scape goat or forcing degrading punishments upon them.

So sending a child to their room = “deliberately ignoring them, or not showing them any love”?
Domestic violence is already a criminal offence, so I wonder if what the law means is a child having to witness verbal domestic violence between parens?
Making a child a scape goat = should be illegal
“Or forcing degrading punishments upon them” should be illegal unless what is meant by degrading is e.g. mopping the floor.

bonchoHumans are damn cruel to people they love.
Exactly. A certain amount should be tolerated before it’s a criminal matter. The problem with this law is it’s automatically criminal (as that's how all laws work). The kindest mother is prone to having a few bad days of the year, but soon if it’s detected, it’s potentially jail time.

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 01:52 AM
It's a back door way to suppress political dissidents. More than that, though, it's an easy way to keep the poor in their place.

You miss a parent/teacher conference because you're working two or three jobs? Snatch your kids away. You have a problem with the way that the schools discipline your kids or the type of things they're being taught? Snatch your kids away. Junior is out of control and you finally lay down the law? Snatch him away. Your household is really religious? Snatch your kids away. You don't follow the PC line? Snatch your kids away.

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:07 AM
I do feel that emotional neglect is just as bad/can have a worse impact than physical, so perhaps the government do have a case for this, but how will they put it in practice?

The time for this to be is not now. There is still a large minority for children who are suffering at the hand of others and even with our laws and social services some still die. Surely they should be focusing on protecting those child first? They can't even get that right.

Although there are some good social workers, the organisation in the main seems to be corrupt. They focus on the families they think they have a chance of getting the children from, rather than those in need. That is not only what I have seen, it is the opinion of solicitors who act for the parents.

Another problem with this, is the care system stinks, it provides food, clothing a roof and heating, but no proper parenting, hence the court case last year concerning girls in care being groomed and manipulated by Asian men. That is not a isolated case, it has been going on for decades. At some point this year that will become major news.

So children are removed from their parents and put into care, where they are so vulnerable and desperate to be loved that it is easy for twisted adults to manipulate them into behaviour that is dreadfully damaging on an emotional and possibly physical level.

Another thought I think its appropriate to mention, is that some years ago a senior social worker explained to me the concept of emotional abuse, (these words were not commonly heard when I was growing up). Said sw told me that every parent will inflict emotional abuse on their children at some point in someway. She went on to tell me that it was only worrying when it happened more than occasionally and if the parents were not self aware.

It is a mess and our government will not change things by making our laws stricter, the only way to solve this is by changing social services into a trust worthy organisation, who parents are not afraid to approach when they need help.

Throw the court of protection into the mix and we are looking at a frightening future for our children and grandchildren.

There are a few things we can do as individuals to protect ourselves, ensuring power of attorney is organised, then, if they decide you have enough money and a diagnosis that is worthy of their attention, you have someone trust worthy to fight your corner.

Another thing that can be done, is don't keep money in the bank, get a decent safe and put savings into gold, if they don't know you have it, they are less likely to pay attention to you.

Anyone who becomes pregnant and thinks social services will be paying them too much attention for whatever reason, should (if they are a single parent) consider putting an "acceptable" person as the second parent on the birth certificate. Eg, if your aunty is a social worker and has agreed that in the event of a problem, she would be happy to take on your child rather than it go into care, you find a way to give her legal status. There is always a possibility of getting a parental responsibility order as soon as the child is born, with jo blogs named.

we need to box clever, this is frightening stuff

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:48 AM
This has huge implications . If you don't have your child vaccinated for instance , could that be construed as neglect ? How would this be implemented . I've been discussing this with my wife , she said, they were saying on MSM that "we are over exaggerating and there is nothing to worry about . It's just to sell newspapers ". Well they can say what they like , but if push comes to shove I'm sure they'll use this against you if it suits their purpose . And what better way to control it's adult population by the fear of the threat of removing your children .

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:18 AM
so the 10 to 15yr olds that were interviewed were unhappy at home....does this extend to wanting to play xbox all night and being sent to bed so the kid goes and complains he is being unfairly treated ?

well if that is the case some kids are in for a rude awakening...

my sons mother was abusive and i guess the law could apply to her but how do they read between the lines of a teenager who wants his own way ?

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:29 AM
The most disturbing thing about all this:

Would they try it ... if you guys still had your guns

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by Snarl

does you having guns in the US stop the NSA reading everything/Obamacare/NDAA ?
edit on 31-3-2014 by Maxatoria because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 06:30 AM
reply to post by Maxatoria

LOL Seriously? The kids are gonna break up into electrons and be taken from their parents via the post button.

And I thought the NSA was grabbing everything ... but you Know this law is only gonna be used to punish the little guy.

They're gonna take these kids and reprogram them to fit like little round pegs into little round holes.

Biggest conspiracy Ever!!

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:42 PM
Wow. Talk about a way to get kids to squeal on their parents because they aren't getting their way at home! I can see all kinds of potential for this law to be abused...

Mr. Dustbowl has two boys, ages 13 and 14, and let me tell ya, those kids are unhappy a good deal of the time simply due to the hormones racing thru their little bodies! The 13 year old thinks every waking moment of every single day should be a party - it's like he thinks that CONSTANT social interaction is mandatory to get thru life.

The 14 year old is angry. About everything. If my nine year old son sings along to the radio in the car under his breath, the 14 year old goes home and starts punching walls because the singing makes him so angry (this is what he tells us). Three years ago, he was nothing like this. It's all came about with puberty.

This move reminds me of a program the local cops were running when my baby brother was in Jr. High: "If your parents are doing something wrong to you or are not treating you right, just call 1-900-ABUSE. We will come and whisk you away from your horrible, meanie parents and they will be punished!" He threatened my parents with it all through his teenage years until he was out of the house. As a result, my parents were afraid to punish him at all. And trust me when I say that the lack of punishment did him way more harm than good. He can barely function as an adult. If my folks didn't help him navigate this big, bad world he would probably be in prison.

My folks beat my butt almost every day until I was about 13. And I'm pleased to say that I earned every lick I got - I was hell on wheels. My mother has since apologized, stating that at the time she thought she was doing the right thing, but in hindsight she thinks it was abuse. I don't know if it was abuse, but it certainly taught me respect for my elders and impeccable manners - something that is increasingly absent in today's youth, IMO.

As for my own child, believe me when I say I HATE having to spank. But on occasion, I believe it is called for. I never use anything but my hand, and I only give out three licks per spanking. I reckon that if I can't make my point in those three licks, I need to use a different punishment. Although, in all honesty, the punishment that seems to work best with all three of our kids is taking away the video games and internet. They act like it is a fate worse than death! And there is no law anywhere that states that I have to provide my offspring with video games OR the internet...yet, of course...

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by Snarl

If its like our social services around here they'll be left to their own devices pretty much all the time so they'll be thinking on their own as there will probably be one social worker per 100 kids and they'll be off due to stress 50% of the time so no chance of indoctrination.

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:53 PM
And the fools fall for it yet again...

All you folks that believe this is being done with good intention please tell me just ONCE when a law of this nature hasn't been abused? Hey! Remember the Patriot Act?

How many times are you going to fall for the emotional blackmail of child safety? Who could possibly not back a law intended for the safety of the poor innocent sweet children? PLEASE GOD! WHO WILL SAVE OUR CHILDREN?!! Let's go ask the Pied Piper! It would seem we all need a lesson in reality...

Emotional neglect... Such a vague term to be used as a weapon of the self righteous do-rights in state sponsored correction officers (sorry, Social Services).

"daddy won't give you sweets? Well, he's not taking into account your emotional needs!"
"daddy's giving you sweets? Well he obviously doesn't care for you if he'll let you eat that rubbish!"

The result ends up the same.

All the emotional bandwagon posse need to wake up and drop the emotional attachment to the subject. Yes, children are neglected, abused and molested and it is terrible that this happens but unfortunately it always has happened, it will always happen and there isn't a damn thing anyone on this earth can do about. Whether it's parents, social services or care homes or carers or foster parents it will not stop happening. The state can not and will not EVER change this.


How many of you as a teen or maybe younger turned to your parents and screamed "You don't love me!" even if it was just once? Did your parents deserve 10 years for it? I very much doubt it...

Physical, mental and sexual abuse are already covered under law, that covers any real substantial abuse. This law, along with the new state sponsored legal guardian addition, effectively makes parenting illegal and will be used as such. If you believe otherwise and support this, then I guess they've already won

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:03 PM
If you look at the back-story of most psychopaths/anti-socials/violent criminals, you'll see that the cause of their problems often stem from emotional abuse, such as lack of affection, and the parents taking out their emotional anger on their children.

I agree with elevating emotional abuse to the same level as physical and sexual abuse.

It will be difficult to implement in a lot of cases, but that shouldn't negate it from becoming law.

I'm sure we've all been in a situation in public where we've seen or heard a parent talking to their young child like crap, and angrily, spitefully (and borderline sadistically) making statements and non-physical threats towards the perplexed and distressed child.

We all know exactly how that child is going to turn out in 10-15 years.
edit on 31-3-2014 by AnimatedMatter because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2014 by AnimatedMatter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

While I'm fiercely in support of VOLUNTARY efforts to DECREASE DRAMATICALLY the degree and incidence of causes of ATTACHMENT DISORDER . . .

this smacks of horrific and draconian power grabs by TPTB to turn our kids into robotized cogs in their massive machines.

I think, GENERALLY, kids do better without government getting their grubby traitorous hands on the precious kids.

However, NEGLECT IS a horrific problem. And it costs the kids and society very severely.

I don't know what the practical solution is. This just sounds like a cure worse than the disease.

I'd say fine the parents who were found to be neglectful . . . but the neglect may well be highest with single parents struggling to eek out a living without any fines.

I'd say force neglectful parents into child parenting classes where role playing and other nitty gritty instruction methods were an integral part of the training UNTIL the parents DEMONSTRATED quality parenting skills.

But any fines or forcing of parents even into classes is also an involvement of the draconian BIG GOV. And that's just a sure fire route for disaster for parents and children, imho.

I'm kind of stumped on a solution.

Perhaps if employers began to voluntarily follow up on the welfare of their employees--treating them AND THEIR FAMILIES AS PRICELESS individuals to be honored to care for--we could see some change. But how many employers are even going to do more than laugh in that direction?

And the middle class is already being squashed and squeezed into oblivion by TPTB and their current White House Destroyer In Chief. O-'care' is already putting tons of extra pressure and impossible demands on employers and employees.

I'm afraid that it seems to me that parents who really care sufficiently . . . WILL FIND WAYS to communicate quality loving in sufficient quantities for their children to grow up with a sense of worth and confidence.

And the rest--the vast majority currently--still won't. And their children will continue to be mangled and will continue to rebel and become additional parts of more and more horrific problems to their and society's hurt.

Certainly neglect is a serious and devastating issue every bit as contributive to brain damaged ATTACHMENT DISORDER as well as alcoholism, sexual abuse, battering, etc.

I just don't want government to try and 'solve' the problem. Their habit is to make problems worse.


posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:07 PM
I'm pretty sure that most countries' legal definition of domestic abuse includes emotional and psychological abuse.

Why should a partner or spouse (a grown adult) be protected legally from this kind of abuse, but an impressionable young child shouldn't?

Is there any reasonable argument (not paranoid, conspiracy theory laden fantasies and hyperbole) why emotional abuse towards children shouldn't be unlawful?

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 10:02 PM

Animated Matter Is there any reasonable argument (not paranoid, conspiracy theory laden fantasies and hyperbole) why emotional abuse towards children shouldn't be unlawful?
1. Most reasonable punishments could be called emotional abuse. Children unlike adults, can be punished without a legal process. It’s how it’s been for millions of years, and the way it needs to be.
2. For extreme situations government already quite rightfully has the power to take children away. That’s enough punishment for a parent, and if it isn’t, it’s still enough punishment providing they observe the ban on children.
3. The reason why Britain has not had this law before is not because Britain is a country that’s only just started to care about children. We’ve had such laws for at least two centuries. Scores of politicians have seen the error of a law that invites so much abuse from both state employees, hostile enemies, and accounts backed by children’s words –not evidence.

A child wants to call child-line, or their teachers and say “I’m unhappy at home, please someone take me away” then I am all for that right.

But: Given the primary purpose of prison entailing legislation is deter crime, and since this is crime based on children’s words, I really don’t see this law being very successful at all, but I do see it causing a lot of misery (and solicitor fees) all because all children are prone to lying, whilst possessing little comprehension of the chaos lies cause –let alone how they entrap the beholder.

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by Snarl

Trust a gun nut to try and hijack a discussion about a totally unrelated topic, and try and twist it about about guns.

Also, please try and educate yourself better. Guns are not illegal in the UK. I own two.
edit on 1/4/2014 by BMorris because: clarification

new topics

top topics


log in