this is a useful reference/reflection

https://doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2019.142.22

“the meaning of the child” has never been more important, no?

the indo-pacific-economic-framework-prosperity-ipef is the trade agreement brokered by the US during 22/23 to ensure UK entry as only European country joining the trading bloc on 15th December 2024. a bit back like in 2009 I had conversation with the EC DG Grow about the increased likelihood of child sexual exploitation arising from the poor due diligence undertaken throughout public procurement and competitive processes they said what has child protection got to do with us; the EC 2011 Directives on CSE followed and by 2014 the UK has to forced into some examination of compliance with this Directive. Agency workers were (mis)used to lift the lid on what was a problem surfacing within youth justice and suppressed although Ann Cryer MP raised the issues in the HofC. After which Sammy Woodhouse and a survivors group called Out of the Shadow’s continued to fight for access to justice victim’s and survivors. Similarly, The Forgotten Boys is seeking reparations for the survivors of the English borstal system.

The definition of words ‘grooming’ and ‘gang’ must be treated carefully as PM Cameron said the problem has an industrial scale; the lesser expectations for children to have a childhood are rooted in how the economy is structured and the separation of any consideration of “the meaning of child” woefully inadequate in these trade talks.

The Tories and Babenoch(sp) brokered the indo-pacific-economic-framework-prosperity-ipef prior to the election without so much of a whisper of what this means for the local delivery Education, Housing and Welfare services.

The focus on regionalism the enhanced function of Regional Purchasing Organisations similarly divorced from any consideration of the impact these issues will have on the everyday quality of life for children and families; the legacy of the late, Frank Dobson and his Quality Protects Programme is worth reviewing today as ‘we’ are falling way below the standards needed for planning modern services as an advanced economy and it’s shameless; by design!

The Guardian has good coverage of the difficulties Labour’s AI path dependency is running into.

The spat between Musk and Philips isn’t mentioned neither is a guarantee of online safety without the buy-in from Musk and Zuckerberg. Trade agreement trade-offs, eh!

Here’s the thing:

A reliable proxy of whether the Government is, actually, taking child sexual exploitation and abuse seriously is the scope of AI super language modelling being used in its detection and as part of the process of reparations arising from it.

How, for example, is the DWP, assessing the lifetime impact such experience can have ~ Known as cptsd.~ the condition remains outside the scope of UK disability and equalities legislation; why?

Characterised by disassociation, emotional numbing, thought rumination with subtle and gross reenactment of often subconscious past events. The condition is treated by and large by primary care professionals as anxiety, depression and PTSD, and for sure there’s overlap between these and cptsd, but there’s also a world of difference. It’s requires specialist intervention from highly specialised psychotherapists so where’s the investment?

Those with cptsd simply have diminished internal reference ~ there’s no sense o self. Its a horrible condition and largely masked by learning how to please and appease, a lack of selfworth and crippling self Blake and shame.

Here’s the thing:

The DWP don’t recognise cptsd as being within it’s scope and as condition isn’t covered by UK disability and equalities legislation; the super language modelling by design discriminates against those with exposure to and direct experience of child sexual exploitation and abuse ~ the same is true of other violence, and mainly against women and girls although not exclusively.

Jess Phillips and Bridget Philipson, both steeped in services sticking up for victims and survivors of abuse, should be shouting out against the DWP culling of welfare benefits to disabled people and the seemingly lesser legal, if non existence of, protections offered.

The Front Bench may not actually suit them and I hope that they can reconcile the gains of Office with decades spent fighting to hold hard fought ground.