nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ruairi Quinn's Child Abuse Priority

Condatis

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has said in the Dail (IT 25 March) that a child who is not read to at bed time is an abused child.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Min

Did he really say that?

If he did, what an idiot.

James Jones

A CHILD not read to when going to bed at night was an abused child, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil. “If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse,” he said.

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

Condatis

If you don't make them wash their teeth is that also abuse?

metrovelvet

I dont know what has happened to the word abuse. When I was growing up it meant being locked in a box or hell I was going to say thrown up against walls or welts, but even that just fell under 'discipline.'

I don't know what it means anymore.

Did he not mention anything about government departments which protect the identity of pedophiles? No... that didnt get a mention... but not reading goldilocks and the three bears did....

Perspective anyone?

Bottle_of_Smoke

He should have just said it is bad prenting not to read to your child. Child abuse is something more sinister

Humans eh!

Condatis wrote: »

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has said in the Dail (IT 25 March) that a child who is not read to at bed time is an abused child.

Only if you are reading a Tribunal Report.

Mark200

James Jones wrote: »

A CHILD not read to when going to bed at night was an abused child, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil. “If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse,” he said.

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

Mr Quinn said literacy started in the home. “By the time a four-year-old arrives in junior infants, outcomes in literacy have already been significantly determined by the commitment of parents, no matter what class or socio-economic group,” he added.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

OP has less than 100 posts and will never come back to check on the thread. IN other words, he's a journalist, that's why.

prinz

I think Quinn is correct. It is a form of abusend neglect IMO to ignore the importance of literacy where your kids are concerned. You don't have to weigh up one problem against another constantly.

Gyalist

There's a big difference between "an abused child" and "child abuse".

James Jones

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

While talking about reading in the home, and specifically about children, according to the Irish Times, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

Maybe the Irish Times is wrong quoting him.

I then made a statement:

James Jones wrote: »

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

I wasn’t quoting Quinn but giving my opinion that Ireland, with its history of abusing children, covering up the abuse and failing to deal with the abuse, should not trivialise the term “Child Abuse”.
Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

Gyalist wrote: »

There's a big difference between "an abused child" and "child abuse".

Go on then, tell us the difference or give us your definition.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating.

No he isn't. At what stage does something 'qualify' to be referred to as abuse nowadays so as not to 'trivialise' the past? What do we refer to it as then? Where do we draw the line in this new understanding?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

No he isn't. At what stage does something 'qualify' to be referred to as abuse nowadays so as not to 'trivialise' the past? What do we refer to it as then? Where do we draw the line in this new understanding?

Pages 31-33 of Children First covers Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

Pages 31-33 of Children First covers Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse.

3.1.1 Child abuse can be categorised into four different types: neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse

3.2 Definition of Neglect
3.2.1 Neglect can be defined in terms of an omission, where the child suffers significant harm or impairment of development by being deprived of food, clothing, warmth, hygiene, intellectual stimulation, supervision and safety, attachment to and affection from adults, medical care.

Intellectual stimulation such as reading, writing, literacy skills? Thanks for providing the perfect source by the way. So is anything Mr Quinn said contradictory to the above sections?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

Intellectual stimulation such as reading, writing, literacy skills? Thanks for providing the perfect source by the way. So is anything Mr Quinn said contradictory to the above sections?

I think you might have been late editing that insulting post as it has already been reported.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

I think you might have been late editing that insulting post as it has already been reported.

Really? That the best you can come back with, accept you've been caught out trying to get on a high horse? I thought better of it and edited it myself, but it wasn't an insult James. Merely highlighting the exact wording of your own source.

MagicMarker

Sensationalist article is sensationalist.

I have no problem with the actual words that were said.

Gordon Gecko

Surely if the Dept. of Education were doing their jobs the children would be reading themselves, not relying on their parent. This is State sponsored abuse! :pac:

strobe

Damn it James Jones! Stop making me thank Prinz's posts. I find it unsettling....

Saermegil

I think in context (e.g. discouraging a child from reading, not providing any mental stimulation, popping them in front of the telly for the whole of the day ) it can be abuse. Poorly phrased/quoted though.

Aoifey!

And what if a parent is illiterate?

CrazyRabbit

What if you read After Hours posts/threads to them at bedtime? Isn't that also abuse, as no doubt it will leave them traumatised.

strobe

Aoifey! wrote: »

And what if a parent is illiterate?

They learn to read?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

Really? That the best you can come back with, accept you've been caught out trying to get on a high horse? I thought better of it and edited it myself, but it wasn't an insult James. Merely highlighting the exact wording of your own source.

I wasn't trying to get on a high horse. I made a mistake:o. You were right in your earlier insult as I obviously did not read the Children First guidelines properly, so asking if I was abused due to my lacking in the literacy dept. wasn't as far off the mark as I thought. Maybe I was a touch sensitive to being asked if I was abused because I have come to equate "abuse" with what has been going on in this country for decades but you were right, the definition of abuse as used by Ruairi Quinn in the context of a lack of stimulation for children was correct according to Children First. I might not agree with that but so be it. I will contact the mods to withdraw my complaint.

I am the first poster in the history of boards.ie to prove themselves wrong with their own link?

Naikon

This is bull****. I picked up reading skills outside of school throughout the years simply by reading articles and magazines. If you want something done correctly, you have to do it yourself. I just can't assimilate information by listening to others. It's never worked for me.

Saermegil

Naikon wrote: »

This is bull****. I picked up reading skills outside of school throughout the years simply by reading articles and magazines. If you want something done correctly, you have to do it yourself. I just can't assimilate information by listening to others. It's never worked for me.

But I think the point is whether you were encouraged to pick those skills up by the behaviour at home - abuse would be taking place if the parents didn't like their children picking those things up. Oh and each person is different, being read to every night helped me a great deal growing up - helped me mostly by encouraging me to read loads of books on my own later in life.

Condatis

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Condatis wrote: »

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

You'll be able to provide a direct source, then, right?

Condatis

Irish Times 25th. March, Dail Report .

Mark200

Condatis wrote: »

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

No he didn't. The article (and you) said that, not Ruairi Quinn.