Oh, the poor dears . . .

I note that the warm-and-fuzzy brigade in the UK are getting their panties in a wad over a manual of "restraint and self-defence techniques for unruly children in secure training centres" issued by that country's Ministry of Justice. The Daily Mail reports:

The document, Physical Control in Care, authorises staff to 'use an inverted knuckle into the trainee's sternum and drive inward and upward.' It adds: 'Continue to carry alternate elbow strikes to the young person's ribs until a release is achieved.'

Written in 2005 and classified as secret, it also tells staff to 'drive straight fingers into the young person's face, and then quickly drive the straightened fingers of the same hand downwards into the young person's groin area.'

Staff are warned that the techniques risk causing suffocation, skull fracture and 'temporary or permanent blindness caused by rupture to eyeball or detached retina'.

Carolyne Willow, national coordinator of the Children's Rights Alliance for England, said: 'The manual is deeply disturbing and stands as state authorisation of institutionalised child abuse. What made former ministers believe that children as young as 12 could get so out of control so often that staff should be taught how to ram their knuckles into their rib cages?

'Would we allow paediatricians, teachers or children's home staff to be trained in how to deliberately hurt and humiliate children?'

The campaign for publication of the manual began following the deaths of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood in 2004.

Gareth, 15, died while being held down by three staff at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre in Warwickshire. He choked on his own vomit.

Adam, 14, from Burnley, hanged himself at the Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in County Durham.

Phillip Noyes, director of strategy and development at the NSPCC, said: 'These shocking revelations graphically illustrate the cruel and degrading violence inflicted at times on children in custody.

'These restraint techniques have resulted in children suffering broken arms, noses, wrists and fingers.

'Painful restraint is a clear breach of children's human rights against some of the most vulnerable youngsters in society and does not have a place in decent society.'

There's more at the link.

Sounds horrible, doesn't it? However, there's another side to this, one the gasp!-shock!-horror! brigade haven't considered. As a former prison chaplain, I'm intimately familiar with just how very dangerous young offenders can be . . . and I find the techniques described above to be absolutely appropriate, under very limited circumstances, in order to prevent worse injury to staff and visitors.

Let's face it - these techniques aren't used on every child, nor are they applicable in most institutions. They're specifically designated for use in 'secure training centers', which aren't your typical youth hostel environments to start with - they're jails for the worst kids. Children assigned to such institutions are typically violent, non-co-operative and aggressive to begin with. They fear neither God nor the Devil, and certainly won't submit to authority - if they would, they'd have been anywhere other than a secure institution!

A hardened criminal in his early to mid teens may be legally a child, but he can be just as deadly dangerous as an adult. I know. I've watched 'kids' that age damn nearly kill their peers, assault prison staff, and even turn on me. I vividly recall one 'child' of fifteen who was built like a brick outhouse, all muscle and scar tissue, tattoos everywhere, a hardened gang member, who assaulted his probation officer during a routine visit because she found marijuana in his room and (unwisely) informed him he'd be locked up again for the violation. Fortunately for her survival, she had a couple of cops with her, but that didn't stop him knocking her to the floor and stamping on her so viciously she suffered severe internal injuries (including a ruptured spleen). He then turned on the two cops and beat them severely before one could deploy a Taser and subdue him; they had several cuts and bruises and three broken bones between them. I might add he wasn't unusual in being so dangerous . . . at the time, I was helping to 'ride herd' on at least a dozen like him.

I don't care whether or not the law says a person like that is legally a 'child' . . . they're a clear and present danger to anyone, and if one of them gets crossways with me, I'm going to do anything and everything I have to in order to avoid becoming another notch on his tally stick. I won't set out to be cruel; I'll do only what he makes it necessary for me to do in order to survive his assault without suffering serious injury or death. The restraint techniques suggested by the Ministry of Justice are, under those circumstances, entirely appropriate and vitally necessary, bleeding-heart liberal orthodoxy notwithstanding.

Peter