When I was a boy, like hundreds of thousands of kids in the educational system at the time I was slippered frequently for mischievousness and several times caned. It degraded me; and the person meting out the punishment, but it didn't turn me into a beater of children. Quite the reverse, it made me vow never to use violence on my own kids because it didn't work on me.

Most of the other hundreds of thousands of people who were beaten likewise DID NOT end up beating their kids. Although my parents hardly ever hit me, I knew kids who got beaten regularly at home, and witnessed a few quite shocking occurrences. Those mates of mine grew up and now have families of their own. They don't use excessive violence on their own kids either.

I know that the links the Child Scare Industry has made between violence begetting violence is incorrect, yet I support their intention to attenuate violence against children for that is sensible. When I was eleven I and my friend were accosted in the park by a paedophile who led us into a hidden area and then abused us. This serious assault was quite frightening at the time and we went through with the police investigation and everything which was even more upsetting. The culprit was never caught, but I soon got over the fear and learned to cope. It didn't have any serious or long-lasting effects on my life except to teach me not to trust strangers and to look after myself. It didn't turn me into an abuser and it hasn't marked my friend either who has also brought up a family successfully without problems.

I know that some children have suffered abuse far worse than I, but I also know that when the child scare industry says that abused people are more likely to abuse they are wrong. I also know that when they say that sexual abuse ruins your entire life, they are wrong. There may be some people who are sensitive enough and abused enough to be mentally crippled for life, but the child-scare industry says that EVERYONE is in some way travested for life, and that is simply not true. In fact it is an insult to people who have had to overcome big tragedies.

You can get over things in life. It is the adversity of life which builds character and our knowledge of who we are. We make informed choices based upon our own experience of life. My niece died some years ago at the age of 4 from cancer. It was a far more appalling experience to me than being abused as a kid. Life is hard but people recover. If people can live like animals in Nazi concentration camps, then rebuild their lives and bring up healthy, balanced kids who do well for themselves, people can just about cope with most things.

There are terrible things which happen in peoples' lives because life is, in sum, essentially tragic. It would be foollish, of course, not to learn from these experiences, not to warn others and not try to limit the risk, but the biggest tragedies occur when it is no ones' fault and humans are powerless. When the elements kill thousands in one swipe; when famine and pestilence murder millions, when storms sweep away whole villages, etc., without respect of sex, age or person. But the way I see it is this. It does no good whatsoever to carp about these things continually or give them undue prominence. By coming to terms with disaster we can overcome it, but if we constantly focus upon these tragedies, find someone to blame and re-live, re-hash or campaign about them we are actually perpetuating the suffering for the victims and disrupting the healing process.

This is how it is with the current wisdom in child-care. The carers insist that people who have been abused will NEVER get over it. Yet the experience of hundreds of thousands of people prove that is not true. One has to ask oneself who will benefit from perpetuating the suffering of abused people? The insistence upon a permanent state of trauma serves to arrest the natural development which is inherent in the learning process. For instance, when a loved one dies the ritual process of the funeral is not for the deceased, but those who are left behind. It is a universal method of coming to terms with grief. However if we consistently and continually focus upon it and dislocate the mind's healing systems , it actually develops the problem, not the solution.

It is a natural thing for anyone whose child has been killed in a car accident to campaign for safety so that other children do not have to die unnecessarily like theirs, but it won't bring the child back, and the only way to truly make motoring safe is to ban all motor vehicles. That would actually contribute to a collapse of our society, anarchy and far more unnecessary deaths than would have been saved. In short there has to be SOME risk in life because life is a risky business. It is the abject refusal to accept the fact that life is dangerous and that deaths will occur despite however many precautions we put in place, that has led to the idea that there is always a solution to erradicate life's tragedies.

So there has developed a tendency to rely upon academics and 'experts' to define what these solutions might be. They are the secular equivalents of the soothsayers of old. But if we had needed 'experts' to prosper in life then humans would have never survived as a species. The faculty that nature provides as an antidote to danger is intuition but the development of personal intuition is being atrophied by reliance upon 'experts' and 'statistics' which over-ride them. Hence 'experts' may actually increase the risk to children. It would be far better to teach our children discernment than to lock them away from any human interaction or bind them with legislative nightmares in order to save them from the risk of abuse.

The child abuse industry is always telling everyone how difficult it is to catch paedophiles because they are so 'clever' and 'cunning'. Almost every month there are horrific revelations about extensive long-term abuse within care homes, within churches, and even by social workers themselves. The evidence shows that the most powerful aid we could give our children is the ability to fend for themselves in a risky environment. To develop their intuitive and discernment skills so that they could sense when they were being put in harm's way and provide routes for them to call in help from adults who care. Routes which were noticeably absent in the recent Welsh Care Homes debacle. No matter how many laws we put in place, if these interpersonal skills are not developed in children they will be prey for paedpohiles - of all kinds.

Whenever the interminable blunders within social work turn up, the child-welfare charities and the social workers always bleat about lack of funding, lack of resources and lack of training. After every public enquiry they are given more money, more resources, more power or new laws, and yet within a few years the same cycle recommences. More blunders, more innocent kids abused, and more lives disrupted; in the case of Wales right under the noses of these 'champions of child protection'. One has to ask just what are they doing if they cannot fulfill their stated purpose?

Statistics PROVE that, in general, child care social workers are inept when it really matters, that child protection charities spend more time raising money than protecting kids from harm, and that the constant Child War undertaken by a procession of 'experts' to influence government has virtually proved useless in protecting children. There is MORE statistical evidence of this than on the foundation stones upon which the edifice of 'modern child care' has been built, yet it is the false gingoism of the latter which are constantly being pushed, whilst the real causes of child suffering go unattended.

The child protection 'experts' say that more abuse occurs in the home. That abusers are more likely to be male family members. That abused people are more likely to abuse others. That one in ten people have been abused as children. That international paedophile gangs and rings are the greatest danger to children. However, the true facts about child care, which can be CLEARLY seen from any review of what actually happens are that at least three new children every week will be abused by Priests or lay-preachers yet the Child Abuse Industry turns a blind eye and lets that abuse occur because it embarrasses their power base. That they have known about this for years but will do nothing. That the greatest amount of abuse occurs to children whilst they are in local authority care in a system which THEY designed and oversee. That the most consistent type of abuser exists within the ranks of the care system itself and is often protected by it due to professional antagonism over outside interference. That over 80% of child-charity income goes into furthering the charity and its officers rather than actually saving children from harm at the sharp end. These are the FACTS which are being hidden from an unsuspecting public.

This article is about the welfare of children and their protection. We see the rights of children as being equal to the rights of adults. Harm caused to anyone is unacceptible, whether that is victimising women, children, or men. Children, especially very young children, need special care, but that is the job of their parents and it is no good for the social work industry to bleat about celebrated cases where parents killed their kids. Such cases are extremely rare. S.A.F.F. statistics show that most of them occur AFTER the social services became involved. Of course the full force of the law should be brought to bear on any perpetrator, however the S.A.F.F. do not agree that a handful of abnormal cases like this in thirty years which might have been prevented if the child scare industry had done its job right in the first place, is sufficient justiication for invoking laws which put the state parent mentality above the rights and wishes of the vast majority of caring loving families.

The British government appears to agree, in that Tony Blair has personally intervened to re-vivify the adoption rules and regulations to put an emphasis on one-to-one care. However this still plays into the hands of activists in the Child Scare Industry who are out to undermine the rights of parents, to bring in licences for having children, to enforce the indoctrination of parents with their supposed 'inadequacy' in parenting schools, impose old-aeon religious-based ideals of ' family' life which would victimise single parent families, bar adoption to anyone but WASPS, and impose the widest restriction on the free-will of the individual in human history. None of this is necessary for the well-being and protection of children, but it will consolidate existing controls which have crept into pre-natal care, post-natal care and nursery education to create childrens' commissars who will take total control over the lives of people from the cradle to death and basically rob parents of the rights to bring up their own children.

If humankind had needed 'experts' in child care the species would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago. My grandparents cared for my parents under very hard and difficult circumstances; my parents cared for me and built upon the decency which my grandparents worked hard to perpetuate; I cared for my children and brought them up in one of the most well-nourished ages and with the highest standard of living that the world has ever known. My family was no different to MILLIONS of other U.K. families - where do the Child Scare Industry get off attempting to promote the scurrilous lies about parenting being an acquired skill? IF parents want help and advice then they will do what we have always done for millennia past, we ask mother. It always worked before because if it hadn't we wouldn't be here!

As far as I am concerned to try and stop my offspring from perpetuating this PROVEN cycle of family heritage is an evil of the greatest magnitude and ridiculous scares about pan-global satanic conspiracies will not persuade me otherwise. The S.A.F.F. utterly and totally opposes any trend in child-protection which robs parents of the control and succour of their own offspring. It goes against the UN declaration of human rights, the european convention of human rights and many other international precedents.You have been warned. Ends: