Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK

[edit]

A reminder to editors that the UK consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Other territories (such as Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man) are not in the the UK. Alternatively the article could be changed to cover a wider geographical area if desired. Man vyi (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This reminder is spurious, since the distinction is entirely arbitrary. The (UK) Ministry of Justice states:

“We provide the main channel of communication between the UK government and the three crown dependencies. We process legislation from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man for royal assent and we consult with the islands on extending UK legislation to them. We are also responsible for recommending crown appointments in the islands"[1]

Previous discussions are here [2] and here [3]SJB (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the UK cannot constitutionally extend legislation regarding children's rights to the CDs unless the CDs so request. And in any case, even if such legislation were to be extended, it still wouldn't be in the UK. The situation is quite clear and there is no need to obscure the situation based on any constitutional theory not shared by the UK gov. Man vyi (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is patently clear that Jersey is not in the UK. It is also patently clear to all parties that there exists a relationship of mutuality between UK and CDs, especially re the abuse investigations re Greenfields and Haut de la Garenne. Accordingly such statements as accompanied your original edit: 'Jersey is not a part of the UK; the UK is irrelevant to this question' reflects only wilful misunderstanding. Your approach might have some relevance if you were able to indicate which legislation regarding children's rights does currently extend to Jersey's children.

References to Mettray and Foucault do not imply that France is in the UK; merely that the developments cited have a significant bearing on children's rights in the UK.SJB (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any mutual arrangement between the CDs and the UK relevant to children's rights in the UK could reasonably be included. But, for example, the reduction of voting age to 16 and changes in age of consent and criminal responsibility in the CDs have nothing to do with children's rights in the UK. Man vyi (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant facts re abuse investigations are included. Please clarify the relevant ages

and legislation for Jersey, if you wish. I presume that your entry re the 1885 Act means that the provisions apply to Jersey.SJB (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK 1885 Act has nothing to do with Jersey - I never suggested it had. On the other hand, if editors wish to include information about children's rights in Jersey, at least some effort to explain why they are relevant to children's rights in the UK would be helpful for encyclopaedic purposes. Man vyi (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CR Timeline again

[edit]

Help please

I am working on the Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and wonder if you could please help me with citations to amplify details of call-up in 1942 and post-war peace time conscription. Thanks SJB (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. You seem to have set yourself a mammoth task, not least because I imagine from your spelling that you are from the other side of the pond, as they say; it would also account for one or two other eccentricities. How did you get hooked on this particular topic?

  • I'm actually in the UK and my collaborator Freechild[4] is on the other side of the pond - hence the Americanization in parts.(Along with brainwashing from my PC defaults....).It is a fascinating topic isn't it ? A more comprehensive charting of British social and political development, I couldn't possibly have imagined, when I initially set out - essentially to register the significance of the 30th anniversary of the International Year of the Child. You will see from its history that the project was not particularly well received and Freechild helped me set up the UK version, parallel with his own USA timeline.

That apart, I am also puzzled that, wide as your self-appointed remit is, you seem to have made it even wider. I cannot see that you have anywhere offered your own definition of a child. Under the UNCRC, as you will know, the age is set at 18. Yet a number of the cases and incidents you cite relate mainly, if not solely, to over-18s. Conscription in the UK is one such (about which you ask me), as it never applied to under-18s, except that, by voluntary arrangement, at the time of post-WW2 conscription, a boy coming up to 18 could ask for his call-up to be expedited if it would assist him to be released at a particular time to enter a university or college - a very minor marginal detail affecting a minuscule number of youths.

  • The remit, like Topsy has 'growed', and is curiously telling its own story of adult ambivalence, ineptitude and downright cruelty towards children, re-enacted throughout all kinds of British institutions, and at which UNCRC is justly targeted. The 'story' has proved increasingly shocking as the materials have emerged. I haven't offered my own definition, because the facts show clearly how laws or various rulings reflect whichever way the political wind blows, but is essentially linked to the age of majority. In my own terms then, when 21 was the age of majority, under 21's were legally 'children'. The UNCRC pierces the very heart of this ambivalence by unequivocally stating 18 and, indeed, this is the primary reason why the USA is one of only 2 non-signatories in the world.


It may be that you are taking the view that until the change in the age of majority, which you refer to only as the voting age, whereas it is much more than that, you are taking the view that all persons under 21 were children. If so, you need to spell that out. Even with that, some of your examples seem to go beyond the children's realm. The Brixton riot, so far as I was aware of it, was primarily an adult affair, and I would not ordinarily expect to see it discussed in the specific context of children's rights.

  • There were 3 riots over the years in Brixton.[5]. The first was youth-led and resulted in the Scarman report and introduction of Appropriate Adults - a extraordinary previous omission in policing practice.

On the other hand, though you have fascinatingly dug out some interesting early cases, I looked in vain for Denis O'Neill, who died in 1945 as a foster child in Shropshire, for Lady Allen of Hurtwood (incidentally the widow of Clifford Allen), whose letter to the Times you refer to in a footnote, but without giving her the credit, and for the Curtis Committee, all of which led to the Children Act 1948. I mention these simply because they sprang immediately and automatically to mind, without my having to turn to any works of reference ot the web, as I read through your timeline.

  • How delightful that your knowledge extends much further than mine; otherwise the entire inter-war and post-war period would have been sparse indeed. Thank you for your additions. I only stumbled across the Times article latterly and by chance, but didn't include the fosterchild's story and Lady Curtis' intervention because I am angry that the story is becoming more about various political figures' careers, than about children. Sorry !

As you will see, I did some tidying up as I read through your screed, but before I go into the details of WW2 conscription, I need to know how you see it affecting "children".

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for tidying up my sloppy editing and I hope from the above that you will accept that I have not presented a POV, but that the facts are speaking for themselves - as Prof Radzinwitz noted re Economic conscription via the Reformatory Schools movement. SJB (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have added to the article intro a definition of "children" on the lines we have discussed. This is important, so that readers (and contributors) are not confused. I hope you approve.

I was about to log off when your message came through, so I will defer your original request to another time, I ought, however, to say that neither Lady Allen nor Dame Myra Curtis (she was not a "Lady") was a political figure, and their work was very sincerely and, indeed, movingly directed at the lot of children deprived of a normal home life. They certainly moved me, and that was how I was able to respond immediately to your article.

Mountdrayton (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • An excellent clarification, thanks. I should amplify my point about 'political careers' to refer to those with political power or access to it - an old chestnut, I know, but nonetheless important. What the article makes clear is the failure of the notion of noblesse oblige in relation to children - a thread which has continued unabated into the 21st century, inspite of Liberalism and Democratic Socialism.( Please note, I write this advisedly and with due respect, since your contributions are indicative of a person of considerable standing). Again, UNCRC strikes at the heart of conventional power politics. Also gender politics, for the record, since in the discussion when the idea originated, I posited that the history of the CR movement would reflect that for Women's Rights. True to a certain extent, but I hadn't reckoned on discovering Thomas Spence's work. Sigh. SJB (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have clarified the 1941 legislation, which came into effect early in 1942.

Mountdrayton (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your heroic Anglicising of the dates !

I'm still digging up fascinating material from Google, but struggling to find anything about the post WW1 period. Maybe the wipeout of a generation of young males solved the problem of juvenile delinquency. SJB (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks about Anglicising the dates. Re immediate post-WW1 developments: the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was in slow gestation in part of this period. But work was being done on other aspects than delinquency: you should look for the Hadow Report on education and the Maternity and Child Welfare Act of, I think, 1918 - it introduced the principle of free ante-natal care, and free medical care of under-fives.

Mountdrayton (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks again for this valuable information which amplified Dr Helen Meller's findings which, in turn, and incredibly, shed much light on the Eugenics issue which surfaced later in UN/UNESCO politics (lower case 'p'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veraguinne (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spectacular uncovering of the eugenics connection, and one that should be explored further. Another piece to uncover is the connection between phrenology and child development, and the effects of those findings on children's rights. The puzzle unfurls. • Freechild'sup? 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey

[edit]

It is nit-picking to exclude Jersey. However I recommend a move of the article to Timeline of young people's rights in the British Isles or "… British Islands". Note that British Isles and British Islands are different here! "Young people" gets over the problem, discussed above, of refs to people over 18 and British Isles allows for the historical refs to times when the whole of Irelend had been dragged into the United Kingdom. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they would! When an article is moved, a #redirect is created on the old title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than make mountains out of molehills, I have added a final sentence to the intro section, which I trust will satisfy honour on all sides in this dispute. With regard to what is now the Republic of Ireland, references to that territory pre-1921 can legitimately be included under the existing title of the article.

Mountdrayton (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SPCA was founded in June 1824 not 1822 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.33.36 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, verified, and text amended.

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:James bulger.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brehon Law

[edit]

Having a little difficulty with formatting in this new section. Assistance appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. Also to Freechild,again.SJB (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_young_people%27s_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1209674518"