Peter I'd start with a look around the National Child Protection Clearinghouse - http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/ I've seen some detail on the breakdown of family type and the proportion of children in that family type previously but can't find it currently.

There is a summary sheet at
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.pdf and an interesting read at http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/ncpass/ncpass.pdf

The bit's that stick out for me. - Kids are safest in natural two parent families but that does not prove cause and effect. There is a high prevelance of other issues which often travel with substantiated child abuse and neglect - family violence, poverty, substance abuse, mental illness etc. All factors which probably increase the likelyhood of the natural parents not staying together in the first place.

Placing pressure on disfunctional parents to stay together probably won't make kids safer. At a guess if we could tidy up the mess around family law which keeps parents in conflict (CSA, winner takes it all property settlements etc) we could probably cut down a proportion of the risks for kids from seperated families.

Reading comments in what I've skimmed of the above documents and in previous reading a lot of the "increase" in child abuse can be attributed to improved community awareness and a greater likelyhood of reporting, to changes in definition to cover emotional abuse and other related fators.

R0bert

Examinator
I agree with your comments but in some aspects this article raises some good points in terms of child protection. I do believe that we have lost the plot on some of the issues Warwick raises. It is a case of playing the ball and not the man.

And yep...the danger is in the underlying agenda I can see that too. :)

pelican, the problem from your point of view is that no-one has posted an article here on OLO that has done a much better job than Warwick has here. They are all the same - heavy on emotion pleas and light on hard evidence showing the problems they cite cause the problems they worry about.

This article did initially spark my interest when I saw the stats that Warwick quoted - but it turned out they were very rubbery. In particular the wording of "number of children _needing_ protection" - pity is wasn't the "number of children _in_ protection according to ABS stats". Needing is such a flexible word, isn't it? The rest of them weren't changes at all - for all I know they could have remained the same despite this supposedly rampant "sexualisation of children" going on in our midst.

To have a hope of putting a convincing argument, someone has to define what observable phenomena that cause sexualisation of children, some other observable phenomena that are the harmful effects of sexualisation of children and then show that changes in one cause changes in the other.

Until that happens articles like this one can easily be dismissed as just strident moral bleating. You do seem to have a handle on this stuff. Why don't you write one?

RObert
"but you wont get much assistance from many on this Forum " - not when it's about using the abuse of children as an excuse to promote the views of a religion with a long history of sexually abusing children and creating unhealthy views of human sexuality.

If the author and others want to "man up" then they could address that history and be outspoken about change within the church and it's teaching.

I am the author of the quoted words and you can be assured that I ain't about supporting the "religous" societies of this or any other country
The so-called ones that swear allegance to the laws of god are the very ones that took me from my mother and my son from his parents allowing lies perjury and continued abuse of my son and not even giving him an education
These people being The Solicitors,Magistrates,Barristers and Judges who claim to uphold the laws and swear an oath on the bible claiming it the words of God
I stand against child abuse in all forms and plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman
If you are going to make claims against me and what I stand for at least get your facts straight
What they have done to my innocent son is unforgivable and to think I am supposed to be low life because I have done time but many that have been tied to my sons case wouldn't last 6 months the other side of the wall for what they want to and do, do to children
Thanks Dave
If you want to know more contact graysond49@yahoo.com and your correspondence will only be between you and I unless you take it further

A correction in my last post

"I stand against child abuse in all forms and plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman"

Should have been

I stand against child abuse in all forms and FOR plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman

I apologise for the error
Thanks from
Dave

Dave your post read as an attack on those who disagree with the author of this thread and his supporters.

You also also said in relation to other posters on this forum
"As long as it is not them it is okay
Society is just grooming the next generation of abusers,drug addicts and drunks
Children were once allowed be children but today they are being taught to be adults while still children "

Frankly offensive comments. My choice and I presume the choice of others posting on this thread to disagree with the religious ideology behind this thread and most of the posts supporting it does not imply any of what followed in your post.

R0bert