Every child is at risk

It's all very well being a wacky libertarian like me, but aren't all these government databases justified if they help protect children at risk?

The trouble is, the definition of "at risk" has been stretched to such an extent that it could now include every child in the country.

ARCH - Action on Rights for Children - says:

'At risk' now means at risk of not receiving services that arguably might prevent a child from:

• becoming a criminal;
• failing at school;
• becoming pregnant in her teens;
• becoming 'socially excluded'.

The Government estimates that 3-4 million children (one-third of the child population) will need 'additional services' to avoid these outcomes.

I am surprised that it is only one child in three. Of course, the more children you draw into the net, the less likely you are to be able to find and help those who really are in danger of serious abuse.