world

Britain, NZ failing on children's rights: global survey

16 Comments
By JIM WATSON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


16 Comments
Login to comment

"Of course the situation in the UK is far better than in Afghanistan or Syria, but it's relative to their position," Dulleart said.

So what you're basically saying is that your ranking is extremely subjective and offers close zero informational value. Got it.

If you actually look at the data, they're claiming that the 'Child Rights Environment' is 700% better in Saudi Arabia than in the UK or NZ. 1670% better in Sudan. 3570% better in Syria. 6670% better in Zimbabwe. The UK and New Zealand come dead last in this category. This is just absurd, even by NGO standards.

https://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Child-Rights-Environment

8 ( +11 / -3 )

It does seem quite an odd way of ranking countries. After browsing the link kindly provided by @M3 I couldn't find any specific information for each country. Here are the respective category rankings for the UK / Zimbabwe

Life 20 / 135

Health 35 / 131

Education 12 / 136

Protection 30 / 140

UK is in the top 20% in all categories yet ranked 178-181 overall. Zimbabwe are ranked overall 51-61. I guess they are saying that the UK should be doing better, whereas Zimbabwe is doing well despite their handicaps. Still a bit embarrassing though to be ranked so lowly.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Has to do with the lacking accompanying exemplary relationship methodology, all highly subjective, and prone to flawed political interpretation, prominent in the definition of indicators participially........ Domain 5. Enabling Environment for Child Rights........

For domain 5, the information derived from the qualitative Concluding Observations was initially scored on a scale between 1 and 3. Assignment of the actual score to each sub-indicator was based on the language used by the CRC Committee in the Concluding Observations: predominantly negative language = 1, a combination of positive and negative language = 2, predominantly positive language = 3. The resulting final scores have also been standardized by using the above mentioned linear scaling technique.

Open to "guess-o-monics".

The human development UN reports and data have been subject to questionable accuracy and integrity in compiling so called trends and indicators from statistical source.

A country’s total score on the KidsRights Index (T) has been calculated as the geometric average of the scores of the five domains. Each domain has the same weight. The scores for each domain are calculated as the average value of the indicators. All indicators have been standardized using a linear scaling technique

This could explain the huge discrepancies. Defining each indicator/domain value, in quantifying a/the country by country associated contribution.

A missed opportunity i fear....

http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/data

https://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Methodology/Methodology

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It isn't that hard to understand. The UK and NZ are doing badly relative to their wealth - in other words, we should be able to expect a lot better from them.

considering their economic status and it is a democracy *and it is a country not in war, then it is appalling in such a rich developed country that the score on the basic principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the lowest score*

In other words, there are no excuses. The UK and NZ can and should do much better.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

So basically these countries aren't kowtowing enough to migrants already, so they're getting bad scores by some group nobody has ever heard of? Right.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@ClippetyClop

You missed one important category in your UK/Zimbabwe comparison.

Child rights environment

0.01 / 0.67

That is the big difference and the reason Zimbabwe rates higher overall to the UK.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Is it either practical or logical to attempt to define, *economic status, democracy, ***if a *country is at war or not **, or *a rich developed country, as a “quantifiable sum? **

To then sausage machine, a conclusion from a linear scaling technique to league table a score on the basic principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is nonsensical.

The time and cost could have been better served just lobbying governments to pay closer attention to the rights of the child.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@cleo

It isn't that hard to understand. The UK and NZ are doing badly relative to their wealth - in other words, we should be able to expect a lot better from them.

The UK and France have nearly the same GDP per capita, but the study suggests that the 'Child Rights Environment' in France is 75 times better than the UK. How can anyone believe this? You don't have to know a single thing about children's rights to realise that this ranking is seriously flawed.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Look the OECD has the most comprehensive data topology and research statical analysis. The auditing procedure is of benchmark quality. Globally all counties could do better. I believe the data below is up to date.

The KidsRights Index, although well meaning could be interpreted as politically motivated propaganda.

PF3.1: Public spending on childcare and early education

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_1_Public_spending_on_childcare_and_early_education.pdf

4 ( +4 / -0 )

nice ranking system LUL

3 ( +3 / -0 )

'who cares about bloody children's rights, education and literacy when you have 4 teams in the euro cup finals!?' are probably thinking our English friends (and they're right, sort of)

More seriously, as much as I would like to believe that euros and aussies (all in the top 20) are much, much better than the poms & kiwis when it comes to humans/kids' rights etc, am pretty sure (well I know) it isn't true.

(good on the Dutch for publishing 'this' though, too damn tempting, I know)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All depends on the "design", "criteria", and "content" of the survey and the underlying "intent". It also depends on how and exaclty where under what situtaion, circumstances, and under what condition those surveys were taken from whom with what qualifications and authority based upon what kind of data.

Obviously the this report shows that the survey was looking for the "scapegoat", for finding worst, and not necessarily the best to emulate and motivate and bring others to follow such better examples.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pretty sure I'd prefer to grow up in NZ or Britain than some backward dung hole in a cycle of internal violence topped off with religious violence that limits my daughters and wife to a life of servitude. But that's obviously wasn't in this surveys parameters.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My grandparents used to say that children should be seen but not heard. There were 101 things that I would never have dared asked my parents.

We would have been even lower on the children's rights list back then, I guess, lower than the lowest.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There's lies, damn lies, and then there's Statistics....

I wonder what the Population sample sizes were for each country.

Interestingly the US is excluded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@M3M3M3 the reason France rates higher than Britain despite the similar GDP per capita is that France does a lot more to look after it's children than Britain does. France's social service system actually cares about children, whereas in Britain it is worryingly common that abused children will be allowed to remain with their abusers while no action whatsoever is taken, usually culminating with the death of that child. France is much better at dealing with this compared to Britain. They actually do something in France. They actually care.

The ratings are based upon the scores on each criteria in relation to the county's wealth. If you're looking at one or the other, it's no wonder that people are getting confused by this. The situation in Britain and NZ might be better than places like North Korea or Syria, but relative to their GDP, both Britain and NZ ought to be doing a lot better. This is why Thailand and Tunisia are ranked so high. They might not be very wealthy, but they're investing so much of their national wealth into safeguarding children's rights and investing in the next generation. Britain and NZ just aren't doing this. They're wasting money elsewhere, and it's the children who suffer as a result. This is why we rated so poorly.

As @Cleo said: it isn't that hard to understand. It really doesn't take a genius to understand why Britain and NZ are scoring so low while others, even war-torn countries, are scoring higher. It has nothing to do with "kowtowing to migrants" as Joe Blow said. It's about failing to protect children's rights and ensure their wellbeing despite having hugely more money to do so than war-torn developing nations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites