If you're seeing this message, it's because you're using a browser that isn't compliant with the latest web standards. You can still navigate around and view all the content, but the lovely layout won't display. Not to be pushy or anything, but you should probably upgrade for the benefit of viewing other sites than this. Mozilla 1.x renders this site exactly as it's supposed to look. Netscape 6 and upwards likewise. Internet Explorer 5.x does strange things with the fonts, and there are odd gaps around the place due to Microsoft's shocking misinterpretation of some basic CSS rules, but it's pretty close.

   JOURNAL | PROFILE | FRIENDS | MANIFESTO FOR 40 | ABOUT THE SITE | CONTACT
JournalWednesday 08 September 2010   

I noticed that yesterday's Sunday Express (or Express on Sunday or whatever it's called) had a headline item about two schoolgirls who had been kicked off a bus because they didn't have the right fare "even at this time of heightened fear about child abductions". Can I just mention that I'm heartily sick of this ongoing campaign the media's got on to make every parent a paranoid lunatic and every child out playing a potential abductee. I've written about this at length elsewhere, so I'm not going to dwell on it again here, but just for the record, child abductions are incredibly rare, and children's murders are many, many times more likely to be commited by family members or carers than by strangers.

Which of course is the truth that the media are really afraid to tell us about.

Posted on August 26, 2002 10:39 PM

I can't disagree with what you're saying. However (I'm not a parent) no parent is ever going to believe that their child wll come to deliberate harm at the hands of family members. At least not those who have it sufficiently together to pick up a newspaper.

Posted by Gert on August 26, 2002 11:22 PM


I agree that parents generally would rather believe that the danger to their children comes from 'out there', rather than 'in here'. But I also think that the media has a responsibility to the truth, and the truth is that 'in here' is, and probably always has been, far more dangerous. And it's pretty sickening that the press continue to peddle that falsehood for no better reason that I can fathom than that it makes better copy.

Posted by Jon on August 27, 2002 12:11 AM


it makes better copy but also allows the person reading the paper to believe that things are ok, within the family "unit" they (and their offspring) are "safe" if the papers told it like it was and people knew just how unsafe the family "unit" was i'm sure it would have an effect not only on the papers circulation (no happy ending*) and also on society as a whole, so it is neatly covered over and stepped around, much better to have someone external to the family as the hate figure (and if it can be someone in a position of trust so much the better for the copy writers)

* happy ending as in "ohmygod thats terrible, however my offspring are safe as they are in the family unit and are well aware of the stranger danger / are never out of my sight" etc etc.

Posted by dave on August 27, 2002 10:14 AM


What do you think? (Comments must be approved before they will appear.)

Name:

Email Address: (your comment won't be accepted without an email address)

URL:

Remember me?
forget me again

Comments:

The views expressed here are entirely my own, and do not reflect the views of any other individual, group, or company.
All original material is © More a way of life...., 2001-2004. So hands off.
Anonymous comments posted to journal entries WILL be deleted.
This site's Privacy and Cookie Policy is available here.