Research indicates that abuse in intimate relationships between teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds may be higher than previously thought. The issue was examined, for the first time, by the University of Bristol in collaboration with the NSPCC.

Worryingly, many of the study’s subjects appeared to consider violence as an unavoidable evil of relationships.  Christine Barter, lead author and Senior Research Fellow at Bristol University’s School for Policy Studies, expressed concern over the findings.  She stressed the reality that many girls were reluctant to realise the harmful consequences of such relationships; together with not fully acknowledging the violent nature of their partner.

In line with this acceptance, many deprived young women did not report instances of violence to their assigned social workers.  Worryingly, this was because welfare professionals were perceived as not being interested in such information. This strongly signals the need for a re-visiting of working methods when addressing issues faced by disadvantaged youths.  This is particularly so seeing as young mothers may choose to remain in such relationships in a bid to avoid the risk of being stigmatised.

Andrew Flanagan, Chief Executive of the NSPCC, has stressed that young people need to be better educated on violence and violent relationships. A move which he feels will empower affected individuals to seek help.

Certainly education is one part of the jigsaw.  However, establishing a good relationship between youngsters and social workers is equally crucial.  Failure to do so means that issues of this sort will continue to surface only through studies.  A scenario which would continue to leave many affected individuals in dangerous situations.

The Prime Minister is a well-known advocate of family life: a conviction he has now employed to encourage the British public to stigmatise non-present fathers, writes Therese Wallin. 

Children facing this reality, he argues, run the risk not only of inadequate financial support, but also the deprivation of the unique roles played by each parent.  Alongside cracking down on errant dads, Mr. Cameron believes that commitment should be encouraged by implementing tax breaks for married couples.  A policy which has met with criticism from shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who warns it may benefit absent fathers who remarry.

The PM has another proposed fiscal shake-up in the equation: currently payments from absent parents are managed by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but controversially the Government is considering implementing a fee for couples resorting to the Commission, hoping that this will encourage them to reach a solution privately.  The opposition has seized on this proposal too, accusing Mr. Cameron of double standards: simultaneously criticising absent fathers and potentially creating a financial burden on the primary-carer parent seeking financial support.

Looking beyond the financial, Erin Pizzey, founder of the world’s first women’s refuge, has argued that Mr. Cameron is failing to properly grasp the breadth of relevant issues by neglecting factors: from the instances where fathers are being denied the opportunity to play an active role, to the reality that bad behaviour in the separation scenario stretches between both sexes.

The bottom line is that parenting certainly plays a decisive role in the upbringing of children. As such, any criticism must be supported by both solid facts and an awareness of the range of the surrounding circumstances. Ultimately, surely the best way forward is two-fold: firstly, providing ‘broken’ families with advice and support, but also crucially, addressing the roots of later problems by emphasising the responsibilities that come with becoming a parent.  For those unwilling to take on the responsibility of parenting, greater thought on how to avoid becoming a parent in the first place is in order. 

Wading into the debate over whether Clegg, or any others are hypocritical for their views on unpaid internships is a good way to avoid the argument.

Clegg claims unpaid internships are discriminating against the less well off, and as they are a vital leg-up in the world of work, this is a real hand-tied-behind-the-back problem. Without the internships they can’t afford, the best jobs will be closed off to them and social mobility will be stunted.

This may be true to a limited degree, but the majority of highflying internships are paid and those that aren’t are a reflection of the tough economic times. Major banks, law firms and consulting bodies all offer remuneration, negating Clegg’s argument, while others that aren’t paid are still satisfied by the quality of intern they bring in. If people didn’t want them, there would be no takers. The real unpaid phenomenon appears to be concentrated in the world of Westminster – perhaps his announcement was the sign of a guilty conscience…

Are unpaid politico roles socially backward? As MP Jake Berry said, his unpaid internships were ‘more along the lines of work experience’. This holds true for a significant number of wageless positions. Their length is often less than paid ones, weeks rather than months, and their responsibilities fewer. It would be a folly to rely on someone who isn’t actually obliged to turn up for work in the morning.

In these short periods, the intern is likely to be getting far more out of the experience than the employer, who will be training someone up and may only get a few weeks’ real productivity. The tables then turn when the length increases and the employer is gaining a real asset – and should pay for the privilege.

Other than the obvious free labour, which some companies will inevitably exploit, unpaid internships make it easier to hire – knowing that your intern isn’t workshy means recruiting is much easier and for some SMEs, the ability to offer unpaid roles could mean the difference between deciding whether to take on a new employee in the first place.

The real issue is perhaps less socio-economic than geographic. The vast majority of internship-offering firms are in London, and if you don’t live in or around the city, hard cheese. There are few, regardless of class, who could afford to rent temporarily in London for the duration of an internship, and at that level, whether it is paid or unpaid will make little difference.

Interestingly, given many unpaid internships cover travel expenses, this can be a better bet for some interns living in far flung locations with huge travel costs that the minimum wage but no travel expenses could not cover.

Does there need to be a resolution? Perhaps – Clegg raises an interesting if precarious point, but there should really be a limit to the time one can work unpaid. The real problem, of London being inaccessible, is something neither Clegg nor the Government can do anything about, except maybe to significantly lower the outrageous cost of train travel etc, making it affordable to commute in and out of the city.

Like the minimum wage, the unpaid internship has voracious defenders and opponents, but for once, it would be good to see the political argument based in reality rather rhetoric.

(In the interests of openness: Civitas offers unpaid internships up to a maximum of 6 weeks. Paid internships are offered for a commitment of three or more months)

Observing the bitter chill of winter whilst cocooned within the fuzzy warmth of the capital’s stuffy microclimate is like watching a fairytale from a distant land unfold; that is until an arctic front knocks on your door signaling the time to dig out your most unfashionable fleecy paraphernalia.  It’s only when schools close-shop for Christmas and the remnants of yesterday’s office party—a few rogue canapés and wine stains on my skirt—remain, does the impending dread of returning to the paternal nest along with some three previous generations develop.  It’s not so much the cold trek across London with a couple of suitcases and the kitchen sink that creates a foreboding like never before; at this time of year tube traveling is bliss – Transport for London heaves a sigh of relief as passengers either pack away their Oyster cards or never reach the platform having suffocated under the weight of overpriced presents in an Oxford Street department store.  Rather, it’s what lies ahead: the hopeless anticipation of presents from Amazon being delivered on time, fuel rationing and suspended food deliveries.

Energy minister and Christmas Scrooge Charles Hendry astutely warns that if more snow falls, the situation could become ‘very serious indeed’.  The subtext of numerous weather reports makes for a Freudian heyday: never mind the serious conditions outside, the threat of depleted food supplies will bring new meaning to the word ‘treacherous’—with suspended M&S home deliveries in the worst affected areas of the North, quite how the Scots will cope without their connoisseur Christmas pudding packed with plump sultanas and steeped in Courvoisier cognac I don’t know.  We’ll have to give up our favourite cashmere cardigans to keep geriatric relatives alive and the only hotspot in the house, running on half the required heating fuel, will be available on a strict minute-by-minute rota.

Why Hendry is only now having discussions with the Office of Fair Trading about the price of fuel given that November’s trial dip in temperatures gave the rest of us cause for concern is beyond me.  Short of postponing Christmas until the spring, thereby allowing us to thaw out and enjoy a belated but civilised festive period with ample food and elbow space, let us learn from previous winters past and the very recent frosting: cold spells invariably spell havoc.  So, instead of seeing the dull repeat of last year’s news, how about a proactive approach to relieve the avoidable symptoms: numb toes, an empty stomach and an absent Santa.

The report, by Helen Reece of the LSE, argues that the current approach focuses disproportionately on past wrongdoing, rather than assessing the significance of a criminal history in terms of future risk. ‘Risk, not guilt’, Reece rightly contends, ‘is the basis for placing sex offenders into the ‘reduced-rights zone”, and yet this is precisely what the system fails to achieve. Indeed, the most dangerous offenders are those who have not yet been caught. Having committed an offence in the past is manifestly a matter of ‘historical fact’ and should be treated as such. Only 20-25% of sex offenders reoffend, in comparison to an embarrassingly high proportion of other offenders, and rates of child sex murders have remained remarkably stable over the past four decades. Furthermore, the blanket ban obliterates any meaningful application of the principle that once an offender has served their sentence they should be able to ‘re-enter society on equal terms’.

There is a deceptive contradiction at the heart of this ban, as there is no absolute prohibition on children living with adults who have committed sexual offences against a child; relatives and pre-existing foster carers are exempt. In the case of ex p B, two young children were living with their grandparents under a care order as their parents were unable to mind them. Although some 36 years earlier their grandfather had been convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl, the care authorities were satisfied that he posed no risk to the children. Nonetheless, he was not allowed to foster them. The only issue in contention was how those living arrangements would be ‘legally conceptualised’. If it is safe for a child to live permanently with an ex-offender, it is illogical to bar what is, crudely speaking, a legal formality.

This is certainly not an argument that all sex offenders should be able to adopt children. In Re P, the House of Lords found that discrimination in cases of social policy must have a rational basis. Yet whilst the state can legitimately draw ‘bright lines’ to guide the administration of social legislation, Lord Hoffman dismissed as irrational the proposition that ‘a reasonable generalisation can be turned into an irrebuttable presumption for individual cases’. Nevertheless, this ‘fallacy’ still permeates much current practice. Indeed, the publication of the new report comes just weeks after the RCN successfully challenged the legality of the automatic element of the ISA’s vetting and baring scheme, which had resulted in experienced nurses being placed on the Children’s and Adult’s Barred Lists after accepting a police caution for very minor offences.

In June, Home Secretary, Theresa May, pledged to ’scale back’ the ISA regulations to ‘common sense’ levels, to mitigate their ‘draconian’ implications and the Civitas report, Licensed to Hug, has called for dismantling the system of automated vetting altogether. However, what is required is not simply a new procedure in this area, but an ‘enlightened’ approach to all such schemes. Re P concerned not whether the cohabiting couple would adopt, but whether they would be eligible to adopt. Adults who wish to engage in certain behaviour or assume a particular role should justifiably be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Suitability should be decided at this stage, not previously and automatically dismissed on groundless assumptions. Any system which purports to act in the interests of the child cannot allow those interests to be smothered by a myopic, overriding ban without defeating its own purpose. It is essential that robust protection replaces the current prevailing presumption that everyone is a potential risk.