Went home last night, dosed myself liberally with Sudafed and had an early night. Surprisingly, because I have almost no faith in pills, it worked and I’m feeling much better today. I could even be feeling happy. :)
Our broadband was installed, they came & drilled holes in the wall to put a new line and box in, but it ain’t turned on yet.
I finished GENJI, the PS2 game Miguel & Begonia got me for my birthday. I rock. :)
Today is another busy day at work – boss has decided to put the foot down this week, so loads of things to do.
But I heard something on the news this morning that made me stop. Apparently a leading children’s charity is about to release a report that claims 1 in 10 children in the UK has a ‘clinically significant’ mental health problem. Bloody hell! (See, I knew there was something wrong with kids today!) The same report also states a 100% increase in children with ’emotional disorders and conduct problems’ since 1930.
OK. Whilst that’s digesting, of course there’s a significant increase. In 1930 I sincerely doubt we knew as much about mental health or had as many diagnosed disorders as we do now. I’m pretty sure that no-one new what ADHD was in 1930. That alone would account for probably about 80% of the increase…
But that 1 in 10 kids has a ‘clinically significant’ mental health problem? Makes you wonder how fine is their net. When I worked for Child & Family Mental Health I got exposed to these kids and, yes, some of them are a right handful. But some you think are well able to work out their problems themselves with a wee bit of discussion and guidance. And yes, there never seemed to be a shortage of them. But 1 in 10?
Perhaps like many others, I am naturally suspicious of psychiatrists and their (seemingly compulsive) prescription writing. I’m less, but still suspicious, about psychologists – since they can’t write prescriptions they have to talk to their patients. But I still don’t think this 1 in 10 claim is accurate.
Talking to a workmate about it, he said that kids have a lot more stress today than our generation (Gen X). And thinking about it, he’s probably right. I mean consider how you spent your childhood and how much time was spent under your parent’s eye (as opposed to off somewhere with friends digging for gold or making forts or playing in creeks or catching tadpoles or whatever.) Kids today don’t have the freedom that we did, because of the prevalence of ‘bad men’ ; or of parental paranoia. But then we fall back on the old adage, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
This colleague was telling me that recently in Cambridge Tescos (supermarket + more) was shut, barricaded and no-one was allowed to leave because a child had gone missing. A full search was done instore and found the child in the toilets with a couple of men who had cut off all her hair and were trying to dress her in boys clothes. (No idea when this was, or if it’s true, but this guy has kids of his own so he’d notice this story more than I would.)
So how does a kid form without the freedom we had? It’d be like some bizarre experiment – keep your child indoors or under your close and immediate protection for 15 years and then analyse the result. And I don’t think it’s because there were less ‘bad men’ when I was growing up. Just maybe that we kids travelled in packs, all the kids from the street would congregate at our house when I was young, and even though we had every freedom we never really went off alone.
So why are parents today more scared to let their children out of their sight? Are kids today losing the ability to get dirty and have fun? Makes you wonder.
Bit of a scary thought just how many totally screwed up people the UK is producing. I really didn’t think that life here was that bad. Bodes well for the future, don’t you think?