The real story behind the accusation that I once suggested that Baby Peter was "feral"

1. Baby Peter: What I said and what the Daily Mail pretended I
said…
In about November 2008, Barnardo’s, the children’s charity of
which I was then Chief Executive, ran a poll to ascertain the
attitude of adults in Britain to young people. We found that many
adults were all too willing to agree with propositions that
teenagers were out of control, were feral or behaved like animals.
I made a well-received speech in Whitehall in an event hosted by
Professor Rod Morgan and attended by more than an hundred
judges, lawyers, politicians and social workers. Baroness Butler-
Sloss was a distinguished member of the audience. In that speech I
made the point that, as a society, we seemed to understand neglect
and sympathise with its victims, so long as they were toddlers or
babies. But I said that we were too quick to abandon any sense of
sympathy and understanding when children grew into teenagers
and young adults.
To illustrate the point I said that the politicians, the public and the
media were, quite properly, united in their sympathy for the short
and troubled life led by Baby Peter. But, I said, had Peter survived
and had his lack of care, the neglect and abuse he suffered turned
him into an unruly young man, the press would have turned on
him and the Daily Mail and others would have called him “feral”
or a “yob”and with no attempt to understand or make allowances
for the grave disadvantage and hardships he had suffered since
birth.
Nobody in that room misunderstood me. And, indeed, no one
who read a text of the speech misunderstood me. But the Daily
Mail, despite being sent both a recording of the speech and the text
reported that I had said that Baby Peter was feral. One or two
other newspapers followed up the Daily Mail story. Private Eye
repeated the story and then swiftly withdrew it. The Sunday
Times gave prominence to the speech but reported my meaning
accurately.
The Mail refused all attempts by me to correct the story and it was
not until the intervention of the Press Complaints Commission,

2. some weeks later, that they removed the story from their website,
sent me an unequivocal apology, published a short apology in the
newspaper and donated a four figure sum to Barnardo’s. But the
proposition that I would condemn a child who suffered so much
or that I believe that it is inevitable that every neglected child
grows into a troublesome youth re-emerges regularly. References
to it appear frequently on the web and on Twitter. The most recent
tweeter on the issue was gracious enough to agree to let me record
the full story and hence this piece…
The PCC case summary, which can be found at:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTczNw==
is included here:
Mr Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Barnardo’s, complained that the
newspaper had reported on a speech of his in a misleading fashion. In his
speech, he had referred to the possibility that Baby P may have grown up
to be an unruly child, and so subject to pejorative descriptions such as
“feral” and “a yob”. The article referred to these comments, but did not
make clear that the complainant was quoting such terms as examples of
negative coverage of children, rather than using them himself to describe
Baby P.
RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper sent a letter of apology
(which could be circulated to charity members), making clear that it
accepted the complainant was not endorsing the use of critical terms to
describe Baby P, and made a donation to the charity.
Martin Narey
September 2012