For someone so critical of people who dismiss children as feral, it was strange to read about Barnardo's boss Martin Narey using that word himself in relation to the Baby P case.
Indeed it has been a controversial week for Barnardo's with its latest advertising campaign drawing criticism for its shock tactics - a strategy formerly used by the NSPCC but since abandoned.
I wasn't at the speech Narey delivered so I am not privy to his tone. But in print his comments read like the sort of invective raged by a radio shock jock with rabies rather than the head of a leading children's charity.
In short, he said Baby P might have become "feral, a parasite yob helping to infest our streets" had he lived into adolescence.
In Narey's defence, he added a modifier in that the standard response to such criminal behaviour would have been "to lock him up - but we believe children deserve better".
But it was unwise for Narey to have assumed with such apparent certainty that Baby P would have turned into such a dysfunctional adolescent. There is a saying about never speaking ill of the dead; Baby P barely had a chance to live, which makes Narey's prediction even more off beam.
Only recently in The Guardian Narey laid into people who used words like "feral" to describe young people. He surely doesn't have the right to commandeer the word as his own, as if only he has the right to use it correctly.
If it was intended to shock, it did.
But so has Barnardo's latest advertising campaign, Break the Cycle, which was broadcast for the first time this week after the 9pm watershed.
It consists of five scenes depicting the five-stage descent of a teenage girl from mugging to shooting up and then shows the scenes repeatedly to emphasise the cycle the subject is locked into.
The Barnardo's web board drew a mixed response and is worth a look. Some contributors described the ad as "sickening", "big brother television" or the "Clockwork Orange treatment". Others said the charity's name had been tainted and they would no longer donate.
But there was a substantial number who backed the campaign, including one person who thought it "fantastic" and had themselves gone through what the advert depicted.
Possibly the most enlightening comment came from the contributor who wrote: "As a nation we are so desensitised by what we see, hear and read that it is hard to shock us into change."
And that might explain the thinking behind both the ad and Narey's comments.
why hasnt anyone asked how can this charity justify spending that amount of money on an awareness campaign esp at that peak time when the money should be used to deliver preventative services. Also when is the public going to challenge all the big 5 charities to say combining all their income they ALL fail to end death or abuse of these children and young people. How much more money and more time do they need or isnt it the case that there is such a lack of distinction between them all now that they all pass the buck and blame on society, statutory sector etc when really they have failed to do what they say they will do in their expensive campaigns !! Its dishonest racketeering
Not sure what Jane is going on about? What "preventative services" are paid for by children's charities? They are provided by Local Authorities and are paid for out of our taxes. How could Dr Barnado's have possibly stopped Baby P's mum, stepdad and lodger (?!) from systematically beating him to death? What a lot of garbage people have talked about this story. Why are people moaning about public services and charities "failing" to do anything, when, surely, the real question is: "Why would mature adults living in a civilised country do this to their own child?" Not so long ago the same Social Workers were being castigated for taking children off parents, now they're being sacked for not doing it. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made - but, Jane, the problem really is with society. I have to agree with Narey's comment. I live in inner-city Nottingham and everyday I see bad-mannered, foul-mouthed, obnoxious, badly behaved children and, guess what, they have bad-mannered, foul-mouthed, obnoxious, badly behaved parents - most of whom appear to be not working and claiming benefits and many of whom think it's normal behaviour to drink a can of Stella when walking their kids to school...in the morning! Tell me why this isn't society's problem that there are so many people unfit to be parents having kids left, right and centre - and then tell me what you expect Social Services and Dr Barnado's to do about it?!
Well said, Jon, couldn't have put it better myself.
Jane, most charities, if not all, that work in relation to child protection strive every day to help those who need it. It's not a job, it's a dedication to these folk and they work damned hard. So when you have finished questioning how money was spent and why and if and what, why don't you do something productive and get involved yourself? :)