Anyone who has seen the recent TV adverts to raise awareness for Childline will be aware of what I’m talking about, so if you’ve not seen them (most likely because you’re not in the UK) then I sincerely apologise. Who knows, maybe you can find it on YouTube or something? I’ve not been able to but I’ll admit that I didn’t actually look that hard. It would be rather disturbing to dedicate large amounts of time to sifting through YouTube for Childline adverts. Sounds like the sort of thing a repentant child abuser might do, so rather than have the police at my door asking awkward questions, I’ll leave that experience to you. Enjoy.
Anyway, in the advert they mention how hard it is for them to ensure they have enough operators to answer the phone. They rightly draw attention to how hard it is for an abused child to have the courage to call. Being beaten is one thing, I myself was, but the whole ethos of abuse is that the abuser is, in the victim’s mind, omnipotent. So far, so good, I certainly can’t fault them for the appeal. They raise awareness of the issue, they point out why they need money (for the operators). This is exactly what you’d expect from an appeal of this sort.
However then I notice the detail. The child in the advert has a mobile phone. Now, I’m not saying this is particularly inaccurate, as everyone and their dog has a mobile phone these days but I wonder if that’s an indictment of modern society. Parents perfectly willing to neglect or abuse their children, but heaven forbid the kid go to school without a mobile. Think of the horror, the shame, it would be like going to school with only one eyeball! Ok, maybe I’m just an old fogey, but I really did find it incredibly telling how, in order to make it seem realistic, the teenager, even as a victim of abuse, had to have a mobile phone.