User talk:Veraguinne

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Veraguinne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the discussion area

No problem, I must say that the title worries me a bit though - sounds a bit like a "how-to", and might have problems as a solo article as non-encyclopaedic (forgive the pre-judging). Might it not be better to incorporate in main article? Jimfbleak (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's common with very long articles to have summaries and links to subsections - see for example United States (or most other country articles) bird etc. I don't know if this helps? One thing I would do is call it "list of..." rather than "A to Z of...". Lists are accepted within the usual criteria, whereas your choice might be more suspect, Jimfbleak (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? Deb (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, subpages as such are deprecated. What you need to do is to set up a page List of terms used in...., and link to that from your main article. As I said, articles with titles like jargon buster are a sitting target. The article was tagged as a copyright violation, although if it is the link is incorrect. If you reference your sources, the article is less likely to be deleted. If the material is copied from a website, it will be deleted as soon as that is tracked by the bots. Even if you are the copyright holder for a website, you will be required to prove it (I can tell you how if necessary.

You need also to see what Deb says, as the deleter (deleted text is always retrievable, but Deb is a very experienced admin, and I think it's up to you and her to sort out whether the text should be restored. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is about. Will someone have the common sense to give an article title? I am very tempted to delete this page with {{db-context}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about an article which purports to be a user manual on the subject of "referral orders". Whilst an article describing what a referral order is (under the title Referral Order) would be acceptable, a user guide giving advice on the subject is not. The article provided no context, and I have a suspicion there may also be a copyright issue, as the text appears to be substantially copied from a printed source. Apologies if I'm wrong on that last one. Deb (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much afraid that you don't understand the issues here. I'll respond to your points in turn.

1. The introduction to the article launches straight into a description of referral orders without even saying that they are something to do with the justice system, let alone that they are peculiar to the UK (at least I assume they are - I wouldn't be able to tell that from the article). That is what is meant by "no context".
2. I referred you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This includes the following text: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: (1) Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." In particular, note Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
3. Note Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the statement that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia".
4. I'm glad to hear there is no copyright issue, but unfortunately the other considerations are such as to render this irrelevant.

My suggestion is that you go and write an article on Referral order, describing what it is, which will meet the guidelines. Deb (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I've said above. If you feel that the description of Referral Order on the existing page is inaccurate, then you should change it and/or create a new article saying clearly what a RO is. I don't know enough about the other projects to help you; I can only say that wikipedia is not the place for a manual on the subject. Deb (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An aside

There are a couple of roundabouts that I pass regularly which have signs on them saying "Maintained by the Kingston Youth Offending Team". Now if I was a youth offender and I was working on that roundabout, I would be very embarassed to have it announced in that way. Have you had other complaints to that effect? (OK, I know that most youth offenders are usually pretty unashamed but that is not the point.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Youth Offending Team/Glossary

An editor has nominated Youth Offending Team/Glossary, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashfield

"Cool dude" indeed! You have been dealing with YPs for so long, you have picked up their language! Do you know that we delete dozens of "cool" and "awesome" people from Wikipedia every day.

But seriously, I have now created Ashfield (HM Prison). I won't pretend it is complete but the whys and wherefores it needs are, I think, minimal: date became a kids nick, date PCG took over, confirm it is boys only. And clarify its status - it probably counts as an HMP & YOI but I cannot find that stated definitively. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

hi there!

I don't know who the user is, I only welcomed him. Mario1987 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Glossary

Hi. The reason the glossary is not suitable is that it consists of definitions of terms that already have wikipedia articles. If people want to know what those things are, they only need to look at the articles. Therefore the glossary is superfluous. Deb (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help it if you don't understand the explanation, and I have no idea what "additions" you are referring to. Deb (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think I have spent rather a lot of time trying to explain to you the reasons why your contributions are being deleted. My main reason for being at wikipedia is to make contributions of my own. By constantly questioning the judgment of other contributors and asking for repeated explanations, you are taking me - and others - away from that task. As an admin, I do my best to be helpful and welcoming to newcomers, but there is a limit to what I can do. I have referred you to the appropriate guidelines, but you seem unable to understand them; that is not my fault. I now have to say "enough is enough". Deb (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at WP:EAR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, edits like this do not help to make someone's day. Given things like that edit, I think this is sensible, if not nice. The easiest way for you to understand why the article was deleted was to look at the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary. There, 4 say it should be deleted for being a dictionary, while User:Deb says not appropriate, which I would assume to be the dictionary reasoning as well. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And please don't edit my user page; now I cannot tag it for {{db-author}} if the need arises because I am not the only contributor. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the DRV on Youth Offending Team/Glossary as deletion endorsed per the consensus there. I will be happy to send you a copy of the deleted content for you own off-wikipedia use. Just tell me where (e.g. an email address) you would like it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia

Note to myself really! Your glossary now has an happy home at wikia:referralorders:Glossary. And I have put up some pictures of a Youth Offending roundabout. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE Report

Thank you for making a report about 201.240.134.191‎ (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Unfortunately, this IP has not been blocked enough times, and therefore does not merit an abuse report. Next time, please make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history.Thank you. Nburden ^(T) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

CCFE

it's still pretty one sided, and if you could find some references for those block quotes it would be good. i edited it a bit to make it acceptable. ninety:one 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, what is there is factual - but what is there is just criticism, which makes it one sided. i'm doing some more. ninety:one 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

happy to oblige, but should all that be in the article about one year? it's rather UK-centric as well. ninety:one 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi Veraguinne. As I was formatting the timeline on International Year of the Child it struck me that we might create an entirely separate article with much of that information called Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom, similar to what I created at Timeline of children's rights in the United States. I found it allowed me to contextualize the information better, and it would avoid the appearance of original research, which is what you that the info you added to the article appears to be. Let me know if I can assist you in creating the new article, or simply use the US article as a template. • Freechild'sup? 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My main concern with the article on the IYC is that it does not reflect a worldwide perspective of IYC; worse still for the information you've added, many of the events are not apparently directly related to the IYC. Rather, they are UK-centric children's rights events, which, while interesting, equates to original research. Moving them to a timeline-type article will substantiate their placement on Wikipedia; however, you will need to add additional information as quickly as possible in order to avoid a notability issue. Good luck! • Freechild'sup? 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the International Year of the Child still, then its a non-issue, because I removed the UK information from that timeline and put it into its own article. Let me explain why I did that:

• The original research issue stemmed from the fact that the events you listed were not directly related to the IYC. Without citations that specifically stated, "because of the IYC, this event happened," it appeared as if you were drawing the conclusion on your own; thus it becomes original research. By creating a broader timeline focused on the general topic of children's rights, the individual events' relationship to the topic becomes indisputable. It is plain-as-day that that the UK Commissioner is related to children's rights; it is not plainly evident that the UK Commissioner is related to the IYC.
• International perspective is not about the US and UK; in an article about the IYC, which had 140 countries sign off on the declaration, there had better be more than two countries that had outcomes. If an article that is apparently international in nature simply discusses Western nations or English-speaking nations or majority-European-descended nations or any perspective that does not acknowledge a global perspective, that article can appear to reveal the systemic bias that is apparent in a project such as Wikipedia. That bias is usually not very well received; by creating country-specific articles such as Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and Timeline of children's rights in the United States we circumvent the necessity of global perspective, simultaneously encouraging folks interested in Fiji, Zimbabwe and/or Dominica to create articles focused on their nations. In an article such as children's rights or adultcentrism or International Year of the Child this becomes a more challenging task, as the examples and citations themselves have to be more international in nature. Its all very challenging sometimes, but I view it as a necessary challenge.

Also, FYI, I created the category Category:Children's rights in the United Kingdom, which should be inserted on any article related to that topic. I encourage you to use it extensively. Additionally, you might be interested in Category:Youth rights.

Let me know if there are any topics I can assist you with, or articles you've created that I can tweak for you. • Freechild'sup? 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It took a little time and energy, but I've added a substantial amount of information to Timeline of children's rights in the United States about the U.S. treatment of the CRC, per your request. I think that the information you and I have collected should be added to the article on the CRC; I'll work on that later today. Thanks for prompting me. • Freechild'sup? 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In my interpretation the "confusion" that you speak of alludes to a more dubious undercurrent that I'm only beginning to fully grasp, and that undermines the well-meaning but often implicit paternalism of the children's rights movement. (That much said, I hope you won't let what I'm about to write turn you off to collaborating with me!)

With the coming of the Industrial Age a mass labor pool was discovered in the requisite population of children, particularly those who were not well-off. However, at some point the titans of industry realized their labor pool needed to be better-prepared for the developing technologies of industry, both as laborers and as consumers of the production. These titans needed mechanisms which fostered that preparedness through training, and when the labor pool would not participate accordingly in those mechanisms, additional mechanisms were needed to either rehabilitate or remove those participants from the pool entirely. Threats to industry needed to be handled by a specialized labor pool, as did the recuperation of wounded laborers. Thus were born the social manipulations of schools, prisons, hospitals and the military - all of which were primarily targeted at "youth," a classification in Western society which was not existent until the late 19th century. Phew!

All of that said, the modern functions of those institutions has been tweaked to meet modern needs: schools are largely for training the labor pool to become mass consumers as well as productive laborers; prisons are largely for the complete debilitation of entire segments of society that are regarded as having questionable value to consumerist culture; hospitals have become mere extensions of the marketplace; and the military serves the same function it always has, with "nation-building" (aka "marketplace expansion") thrown in for good measure.

That's my two cents, and is largely rooted in my conception of neoliberalism. While it doesn't quite answer your question of where Montessori fits in, I think it rather reflects why she did not fit in - and rightly so. When interpreted against the backdrop of this analysis, Article 5 of the CRC, which wholely acknowledges Montessori, seems so far astray of the mainstream children's rights movement that its no wonder neither it, nor she, gets any significant attention today - beyond the branding of schools in this country which weakly attach her name to their practices.

Let me know what you think of all of that. • Freechild'sup? 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Juxtaposing our perspectives as an either/or won't do either of us any favors in this project; the important part of this dialog for me is that I have found a companion in critical thinking. I have found that the overly simplistic analyses that underlie the majority of Wikipedia can stand an amount of nuanced amount of said thinking, and have sought to use both subtle* and overt** approaches to inject alternative perspectives throughout this project. With that in mind, I hope we can allow our differences and work together on a variety of topics, not the least of which being the subject of this conversation.

With that in mind, I would like to pose one thought in response to your comment that perhaps you might help me understand: How to account for the apparent noblesse oblige inherent in many of the historical and modern perspectives central to CR in our countries? While the works of the first-wave feminists can't - and shouldn't - be discounted, it seems that their Victorian attitudes still pervade most of the CR movement. Its a point of differentiation that many of the current generation of youth rights activists take to heart: rather than feeling as if they are subjected and relegated to adultcentric opinions of what "children" are and are not capable of, a growing number of youth today seek to be seen as they see themselves, and in doing so, they are creating more socially-relevant roles and assuming responsibilities for themselves that are not dependent on whether or not adults agree with them. In that spirit I created articles on both pediaphobia and ephebiphobia; differentiations could be made between children's voice and youth voice, children's participation and youth participation, etc. from that place, as well. I've never been able to satisfy that question, and I'm curious whether you have any particular thoughts that may help me.

In direct response to what you wrote, I'm sure you noticed on the US article the comment that there has never been a "golden age" for CR in the States. While the first-wave did drive the initial surge of policy proposals, not coincidentally during the same period as Suffrage, they did not make significant gains. The "Big 7" youth orgs came to the US during this period; they weren't founded here. So maybe the golden age is still ahead - or maybe there is too much money, too much patriarchial power, too much adultism, or whatever standing in the way. I'm not sure.

One way or the other, I'm not sure if there is a non-essay-type approach to expounding on the connections you've made. That could provide a great basis for writing an article called Children's rights in the United Kingdom, if you are interested. Just a thought. • Freechild'sup? 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to start by apologizing for my poor choice of words above - I didn't mean to suggest that you were positing that we were on opposite sides of the coin; rather, I might have meant it as a reminder to myself before I started on a poorly worded diatribe. Thank you for entertaining this screed, by the way. Regarding the implications of a socially-oriented theological basis for your interest, I would suggest that is a firm foundation from which to build a broad understanding of CR. My own is also non-academic, instead being rooted in my life's work and experiences and the pseudo-academic ingestion of a wide array of information.

Your point about developing a new article is taken; drawing conclusions about such a seeming abstract body of work is difficult. There are also interesting points about the current conception of childhood that is built into all of this, and difficult to suss out from the rest of the din surrounding the topic. All of that goes far and beyond where Wikipedia is today, there's no way around that! If there's anything particular I can assist you with in the future please don't hesitate to let me know; otherwise, thanks for this great "discussion" - probably one of the richer ones I've had here. • Freechild'sup? 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for writing again. The timeline looks great. What a strange conversation about Jersey, eh? It kind of amazes me - but only a little bit - the minutia that people pull for on Wikipedia, even though I am sure others would accuse me of the same. Anyhow, about the illustration, I can't quite help you, as I have never uploaded pics onto WP. Honestly, I am not sure if your suggested illustration would even be allowed. There are policies about this all over; if you're interested start looking on the front page. Sorry I can't be of more assistance on that. • Freechild'sup? 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not sloppy editing - its just incomplete. You'll learn the value of writing complete citations soon enough. About the picture you shared, I don't think it would fly very far, although I'm not committed enough to find a guideline or rule to prove it. The pictures in WP aren't artistic in manner; they're encyclopedic. The one you shared - though cool - seems a bit too... artsy. That's just my two cents; alternatively, you can follow the old WP dictum to be bold. Good luck. • Freechild'sup? 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're on the verge of opening a whole other can of worms, so to speak. From what I understand, Carpenter was important to the development of schools in the UK, and your finding was central; however, the reasoning behind the development of schools there parallels that of schools here, in France, and Germany: sourced in Hindu mythology that spread throughout aristocratic Europe from the 14th century and prior, schools were always an attempt to control the masses. I almost feel like a conspiracist talking about this, but by way of evidence, in 1933 the president of the American National Education Association wrote that his organization expected "to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force." And this kind of intent prefaces that date and certainly follows it. Many of the downfalls of Western society, including its wars, famines, diseases and other inequities, seem reinforced, if not sourced, in the confines of schools. I would cautiously tread down the path you're walking, but if you do, I might suggest the creation of an article entitled Timeline of the development of education in the United Kingdom. That may be fascinating. • Freechild'sup? 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Timeline - Jersey

Surely whatever the topic is, the most important thing in an encyclopaedia is that the information has to be correct? Man vyi (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any verifiable information relevant to a timeline of children's rights in Jersey should logically go in an article Timeline of children's rights in Jersey rather than any other country, surely? Man vyi (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And if it was Timeline of children's rights in the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, Guernsey and the Isle of Man could be included. And if Timeline of children's rights in Western Europe, I suppose one could extend the inclusive approach with France, Belgium... Man vyi (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable information about Jersey can go in relevant articles, of course. Pruning off-topic info about other countries from UK-related articles is hardly sanitising, I'd have thought. Whether anything about the Greenfields employment tribunal case is verifiable is one thing, but it's certainly verifiably nothing to do with children's rights in the UK. Man vyi (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were thinking of starting an article on children's rights in Jersey, the just-published Williamson report into child protection in Jersey would no doubt be useful - and it covers Greenfields (but obviously not the employment tribunal case since that was settled and the annoying confidential settlement means that details are not in the public domain). Hope this helps. Man vyi (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. The legal system is entirely separate - criminal justice is an internal matter of Jersey (although the Bailiff is appointed by the Crown, not the UK). The UK has responsibility for defence, diplomacy and citizenship and can legislate in those areas. Man vyi (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jersey is of course entirely entitled to invite whomsoever we wish to provide external advice, whether it be from Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the UK, France, or any other country. As the UK Ministry of Justice makes clear: "The crown dependencies are Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. They are not part of the UK and have their own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal, legal systems and courts of law. They are not represented in the UK parliament and UK legislation does not extend to them."[1]. The BBC is, as everyone knows, notoriously inaccurate. Man vyi (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Royal assent does not mean UK consent - Privy Councillors act on behalf of the Jersey subjects of the Crown in recommending assent: "Constitutionally, the Committee should examine the merits of a draft Law (Projet de Loi) from the perspective of what is right and proper for The Queen's subjects in Jersey, and not from the perspective of the UK's domestic interests. Consideration of what is right and proper for Her Majesty's subjects in Jersey will be heavily influenced by the fact that the projet de loi has been adopted by the democratically elected legislature of the Island, and by any international obligations incurred by the UK on behalf of the Island with its consent."[2]; 2) UK legislation may be extended to Jersey, at the request of the States of Jersey, and (since 2005) may not be registered without the assent of the States of Jersey[3]; 3) Crown appointments are made by the Crown upon the advice of the States of Jersey and the Jersey Bar: "it has now become a constitutional convention that the recommendation of the Bailiff on behalf of the Royal Court, the States, and the Bar should be forwarded to The Queen"[4] Man vyi (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "sigh". One has to keep pointing it out to keep articles encyclopaedic. Man vyi (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but otherwise no response. Man vyi (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CR Timeline again

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[5] 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.[6]. 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)

Suggestion

Hi SJB. Quick suggestion, in line with recent suggestions: Can I move this page to Timeline of young peoples' rights in the United Kingdom? It may resolve a little of the tension brought up by Mountdrayton. Just a suggestion, although I am doing the same. • Freechild'sup? 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating! You knew they'd be there, somewhere... • Freechild'sup? 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindertransport

Having updated the Timeline about Kindertransport, and also noted in your posts an interest in Quakers and pacifism, I wondered if you were aware of the Quakers' excellent role in the rescue? --SJB (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I was, indeed, aware of both Kindertransport and the significant part played by the Quakers. Also, a number of non-Quaker pacifists joined in at the level of publicity and raising funds.

Kindertransport was not the only means of rescuing children. Quakers and pacifists joined in raising funds under the guarantee system to enable whole families, or sometimes mothers and children, to be rescued. One particular organisation was the War Resisters International {WRI). There is lovely photograph of George Lansbury, WRI president, with a small girl on his lap, and her two elder sisters at his shoulders. The caption is "Grossvater Georg", which is how the chldren addressed him. These particular children and their parents were brought over from Vienna very soon after Kristallnacht. Their mother always said that the WRI saved her family's life.

As someone has said, some tidying up needs to be done on Jewish Refugee pages, and when I have more time, I will see how I can work this aspect in.

Mountdrayton (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW My Goodness! We seem to have a common interest in King Edwards School. My own truculent and inglorius career at KEHS ceased after another row with Head Mistress JRF Wilkes, bless her....

I digress however and have dropped in to ask if you can shed any light on the extraordinary bifurcation of the Scottish and English systems, after the 1964 Kilbrandon report.

Para 6 of the latest sentencing guidelines consultation states : The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 set out to expand separation (between criminality and welfare considerations) even further, in particular providing for an increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years and providing for what has been called a “decriminalisation” of the juvenile court. However, this particular provision (and a number of other significant provisions) was never brought into force. It might hinge around the untimely surfacing of abuse allegations at Court Lees in 1967, when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary.

The Scottish system, adopted from 1971, effectively removed considerations of criminality entirely from children's proceedings in court. There are, of course, problems with the Scottish system - indeed none can be perfect. However, the divergence is all the more remarkable in the light of the 'punitive' v 'welfare' debate over English juvenile justice, ignited by the 3rd report to the UN on CRC in October.

All good wishes for 2009.--SJB (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)