Proposed CT Legislation Marching This State To Socialism

By Judy Aron

Good intentions or larger plan? If you examine the proposed legislation it should become clear to what is slowly being rolled out in CT regarding how early child education, public education and mental health initiatives are all being combined. It is already happening in other states in the country, like Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey for example. The underlying agenda is to have children attend school as early as 3 years old, with health (including mental health screening) services to be administered from schools instead of your own family care. Medical facilities/resources will be located at the school. This is all taxpayer funded. While “Universal Taxpayer Funded Preschool” is now just being proposed on a voluntary basis here in CT, once the infrastructure is put into place, the compulsory school age will be lowered and all children will be required to attend school at age three. Government/taxpayer funded universal preschool is offered in most European countries, and “Social Progressives” are pushing those initiatives here. Most children in Britain already start full-time school — in so-called “reception” classes — at age 4. Standards and developmental benchmarks have been set by the State and woe to the parent of the child who doesn’t meet those standards which include nutrition and weight.

Mental health screening and early childhood education is going hand in hand in many states, as is the expansion of compulsory school age in some states to encompass age 4 to 18. The ultimate is Pre-K to age 22. Yes, age 22, as the community colleges and other forms of higher education will be part of the entire school program. The State Board of Education and the Board of Governors for Higher Education are already working together on many initiatives to encompass this “K-16” learning in CT, and that will soon be including Pre-K as well. […]

http://nheld.com/socialistct2007.htm

This is an interesting article, which describes part of a larger picture of troubling developments bubbling around the internets, like the really bad sounding ‘TeenScreen‘ where children are being exposed to scientifically groundless standardized tests which ‘pathologise’ children as neatly described in episode two of The Trap.

Listen to the clip and take a look at the documentary.

The way that they are administering these bogus tests, without parental consent, is like the fingerprinting without consent that has taken place in the UK recently.

People are not property, and it is time that parents started to get tough on this nonsense.

But you know this!

The attack pattern is tried and tested.

first, say that there is going to be a consultation.
second, find cases (related or unrelated) of abuse or wrongdoing to justify legislation
third, collect responses in a false exercise to ‘gauge opinion’
fourth, ignore all responses that do not support the party line
fifth, introduce the legislation unchanged

The fist salvo has now been fired.

They have found a case that is completely unrelated and irrelevant to home schooling, and are using this as a pretext to bring in the new and onerous regulations.

The ignorant and brain dead journalists are lapping it up and regurgitating it like the dogs that they are.

Not one of them has the brain to understand that people who do foster care are already registered as a prerequisite, and that registration does absolutely nothing to prevent abuse. Secondly, they are conflating child fostering with the care given by parents OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

This whole episode, and the way that they are trying to use it as a pretext to bring in controls over home schoolers is COMPLETELY BOGUS.

Lets take this nonsense apart line by line:

HOW COULD THIS BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?
Date : 21.03.07

The Citizen asked Gloucestershire City Council to answer the following questions:

Concerns were raised in the 80s and 90s about Eunice’s care of the children but they were not acted on. Why?

Initially these children were placed in Mrs Spry?s care by their parents. Once she became a local authority foster carer, we monitored her as required by regulations at the time.

So, they already monitor foster care, and they cannot detect when things are going wrong. Monitoring does not work to prevent abuse. The current mania for registering is simply that; a mania and a gimmick.

Once the court had given her legal parental rights, there was no role for social workers to monitor her parenting.

We responded to concerns reported to us and investigated them. Concerns included:

1) Allegation that children were left alone in a mini bus outside the house. When she was challenged Mrs S said that they were using it as quiet space to do their homework.

2) School expressed concerns about attendance and lateness. Mrs S explained it was because one of the children was slow eating breakfast

The level of allegations that came out in the trial had not been reported before.

Once again, this is all fluff and nonsense. These people are not able to organize or protect anyone. They are not even able to stop people putting garbage out on the wrong days; why do they think that they have the right to control home schoolers, and why do they think that these bogus propaganda tactics are going to work?

The council “inspected” Eunice twice a year throughout the 90s when she was teaching the children at home. Did any of these visits raise questions about the way she was treating them?

The accommodation was seen on each visit, but the most recent visits were made to the barge on which they were staying. There was no suggestion that the care of the children or the living conditions seen were unsatisfactory.

Home education staff do not have the right of access to the home.

And if they did? They would have failed as they always fail. Inspections twice a year are completely ridiculous, and nothing more than a hoop which people are forced to jump through. This is not what the DfES is after though; they want very invasive, total control over home schooling, where they will dictate what you teach to your children and how you do it, and you will be tested on that. Let us not forget that these people cannot run the schools that they are already in charge of. They have no basis for any new regulation, that is why they have to manufacture this garbage as a false pretext. They are incompetent control addicts, pure and simple.

Gloucestershire County Council has previously raised with the DfES concerns that this does not allow effective safeguarding of potentially vulnerable children.

A full national consultation is expected this spring. In the meantime, all staff working in the home education service have received training in identifying potentially harmful situations.

This is utter nonsense of course. These people should be spending time looking after the unruly schools in their catchment areas. Gloucester has a good record when it comes to its schools, but it is exceptional in this regard and the new regulations will apply to you wether you live there or in the worst part of the country. In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Even if the schools were perfect, you should not be compelled to send your child there, and if you choose to home school, you should not be subjected to monitoring, registration, surveillance, testing and any other sort of interference from any government body at either the national or local level.

4. What procedures did Spry have to go through to be accepted as a foster mother and when she formally adopted the children? What checks were carried out?

The process 20 years ago was not as vigorous as the one in place today.

When considering her application there was discussion about the fact that the children had been placed with Mrs Spry by their own parents under private arrangements and had been with her for some time. The alternative would have meant the children would have had to move from what appeared to be a settled home.

None of the concerns that had been raised at this point appeared to justify removal of the children. In fact, staff from a number of agencies working with the family gave strongly positive reports of her parenting.

What no one in the jabbering classes in the UK seems to be able to understand, is that you will never be able to absolutely guarantee that everyone is safe. There will always be crime; crime is a part of human behavior. It is a minority behavior, and the majority, the decent people should not be penalized or have their freedoms curtailed in an insane rush to try and do the impossible. The act of trying to eliminate the possibility of crime makes life itself become less and less worth living. It is only the free man that enjoys life to he full. We must accept that criminals will exist. We must watch out for them, and look after each other, but not give in to paranoia and police state measures as is all the rage in the UK

How often was Eunice’s care of the children reviewed? What did this involve? Why was nothing picked up on?

Visits were made by the supervising social worker and review meetings were held to look at the children?s progress.

None of the information that was known at the time would have led to the ending of the placement.

There is now a requirement for monthly supervisory visits to all foster carers and children and a formal annual review of the foster carers themselves.

And all of this is practically useless, and of course, has nothing to do with home schooling, though you can see how they will try and transfer these requirements to home schoolers. Remember, this war is against not children in the care of strangers, but children in the care of their own parents. It is completely absurd. What they are saying is that parents are not qualified to raise their own children, and need guidelines and inspections from the state to make sure they are doing it right.

This is anti-family, anti-logic, offensive and utterly insane.

After the adoptions and residence orders Mrs Spry became the children?s legal parent, which ended the duty to monitor their care.

There will always be crime, criminals and victims. It is very sad, but we must not over-react and throw out the baby with the bath-water.

How did Eunice manage to ill-treat these children so badly for so long without it being picked on?

Mrs Spry was given legal parental responsibility by the court that effectively ended the involvement of social care services.

Almost as soon as these orders were granted, Mrs Spry removed the children from school, taking them away from the important source of child protection monitoring that schools can provide.

And here is the lie that they inject to start their crusade against home schooling!

Mrs Spry involved numerous medical professionals, denying any one person from building up a picture of the children?s care.

As a result of this, no-one was able to build a complete picture of what was happening to the children.

Everyone who comes into contact with a child has a duty to share information when they have concerns about a child. All agencies have now signed up to an agreement on better information sharing.

See how they just slipped that in there? Appalling. There is absolutely no evidence that if these children were in school that they would have been picked up. It is total nonsense, and no one with even a single working brain cell buys any of this nonsense.

What has been done to ensure this will never happen again?

There is nothing you can do to ensure this will never happen again. Only children think in these terms. Adults understand that bad things happen, and we try and make sure that they do not, but we do not, for example, forbid the playing of golf because some people get hit by lightning every year on golf courses. This is a stupid question from a very stupid person.

Since the Climbie Inquiry (2003), a range of measures have been put in place to improve the safeguarding of children and young people. These include:

That poor girl’s case is being used to justify everything and anything. It is disgraceful.

A requirement that all children are seen and spoken to alone when concerns about them are raised
An expectation that records held by all agencies will contain a clear diary of key events so anyone accessing the records can see the picture at a glance
Appropriate sharing of key information between agencies to ensure that each knows about the others? work with a family
The creation of a Safeguarding Children Board to ensure that child protection remains a high priority

We are not complacent and plans are in place to share lessons arising from this case. What remains vital is that all those who come into contact with children, young people and their families continue to regard safeguarding as the responsibility of everyone.

[…]

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk

What is actually important is that everyone put the facts into perspective. These cases are exceptionally rare. They in no way represent a significant statistic, and should in no way be used to justify or be used as a spur to create new and onerous legislation that will only impact the decent people.

Local councils should put all their efforts not into disturbing the good families of the UK, but in fact, they should be fixing the problems that they already have lost control over.

If they were serious people, this is what their priorities would be, not the creation of the thin end of the wedge of more societal re-engineering where children become the property of the state upon birth.

What I want to know is, who drafted these answers, and wether or not it was done with the help of anyone. All statements from public servants or departments must be by named authors so that we can address them directly. If we do not have their names, then its like punching fog; we cannot get to the root of the problem – the insane people who are making up this garbage.

From CBN News…

A court in eastern Germany has taken custody of five children away from their homeschooling parents, but has not yet removed the children from the home. The parents, Bert and Kathrin Brause of Zittau, lost custody of their children, Rosine, Jotham, Kurt-Simon, Lovis and Ernst, to the local youth welfare office.

The parents can only regain custody by placing their children in public school, and the children may be physically removed by the state at any time.

According to court documents translated by the International Human Rights Group, the parents were also ordered to pay all court costs, estimated at almost $4000. The judge’s order was based solely on the parents’ unwillingness to send their children to the public school, in violation of Germany’s mandatory school attendance law.

The case in Zittau, in the eastern state of Saxony, is a separate case from the one involving the Busekros family in Bavaria, where a 15-year-old girl was taken from her homeschool family and put into a mental ward for treatment of “school phobia.” The parents no longer have custody of the girl, Melissa.

There are only about 300 to 500 homeschoolers in Germany, and many have been jailed and fined. Some have lost their businesses and others have fled Germany with their children to other countries.

Using Nazi laws to enforce Nazi attitude. Ironically Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany, while, obviously, Nazi tactics are not.

Snarfed from Jack Lewis’ blog.

Germany, and its blind citizenry have no idea of what freedom means, despite being smashed to pieces in ‘World War Two’ and being partitioned into two states, one ‘Communist’ and the other not. During the Cold War, they had on their doorstep, a nation under control of Soviet Russia, where one third of the population was employed by the STASI to spy on the other two thirds; a living nightmare of totalitarian control and paranoia. Even with that horror-show right next door to them, threatening to engulf them for decades, after it was wiped off the face of the earth they STILL have no idea about freedom. They have no idea of the real relationship between the state and the individual. The officials who trot out this home school persecution garbage cannot see that they are behaving exactly like the East German STASI beasts that dampened and destroyed the population of the ‘other half’ of Germany during the Cold War.

It makes any reasonable person sick to their stomach.

That the UK is in bed with such people is terrifying. That their laws can now be enforced in the UK is almost too frightening to contemplate.

If you are a German overseas with children, you can register with a correspondence school and be exempted from Schulpflicht (compulsory school attendance).

If you are a foreigner with a child over the age of 14 years you may be allowed an exemption in some regions on compassionate grounds but that is a big ‘may’.

But if you are a foreign visitor to Germany you are allowed no dispensations.

See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulpflicht

Surely if one has applied to their national education Ministry and been approved through submission of intended curriculum then the German government could accept that and also grant a reciprocal exemption?

Surely if there is evidence to suggest that children under the age of 18 living in a foreign country are better to be with their parents rather than separated and sent away, that would be enough to acknowledge that the stability provided by parents, actually helps in acculturation and doesn’t propagate a parallel society.

[See the research by Ruth Useem and David Pollock’s book]

The sheer residency of a family and children in Germany is usually by choice, and for the most part will see many families there temporarily. The intention therefore would be for the family to move on or return home and reintegrate with their own culture and society. Is it not then a good idea for those children to be, if it is the parents choice, educated in the systems and language familiar to them, to advance their future?

When Germany grants temporary residency on one hand is it not creating a parallel society. Then on the other hand it tries to mandate assimilation.

[…]

Educating Germany

Well well well. Let that be a warning to anyone with offspring wanting to move to Germany for any reason. As soon as you get there your children will be assimilated, Borg style.

Lord Turnbull the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks has confessed it was not “appropriate” for him to have described Gordon Brown as acting with “Stalinist ruthlessness” and other al-Qa’eda attacks, according to an edited transcript of a hearing at Guantanamo Bay released by the Pentagon late last night.

Other senior civil servants and Ministers are known to share Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s critical views of Gordon Brown

Lord Turnbull – a former Cabinet secretary who was Mr Brown’s senior mandarin at the Treasury before becoming head of the civil service – sparked uproar in Westminster when his unguarded comments, read for him during a closed-door military hearing at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, about the Chancellor were published by the Financial Times today. He also indicated that earlier statements he had made to the CIA were the result of torture, but said his confession on Saturday was not made under duress.

He later said he had not expected to be quoted by the newspaper – although he did not dispute the accuracy of the comments – and admitted that the language he used was not appropriate for publication.In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of the Chancellor, according to the Associated Press. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on the independence of the Bank of England, the three-year spending round, much of the fiscal framework and targets for departments, and Turnbull has long been a suspect in the killing.Turnbull said in the statement that the attacks were part of a larger military campaign.

In the interview, published the day before the Chancellor delivers his 9/11th and almost certainly final Budget, Lord Turnbull killed 2,972 people, destroyed the World Trade Centre and damaged the Pentagon. Speaking through a translator, accuses Mr Brown of exhibiting a “Stalinist ruthlessness” in government, belittling his cabinet colleagues whom the Treasury treats with “more or less complete contempt”. Turnbull said he was “not happy” about the victims, saying he did not like to kill people, but justified his actions as part of a holy war against interest rate rises.

“I was the operational director for Sheikh Osama bin Laden for the organising, planning, follow-up, and execution of the 9/11 operation,” he said. He also accused the prime minister-in-waiting of a “very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues”. Around 385 men are being held in the Guantanamo Bay base on suspicion of links to al-Qa’eda or the Taliban. Legal experts and journalists have criticized the US decision to bar independent observers from the hearings. “There has been an absolute ruthlessness with which Gordon has played the denial of information as an instrument of power.”

“Do those ends justify the means? It has enhanced Treasury control, but at the expense of any government cohesion and any assessment of strategy. You can choose whether you are impressed or depressed by that, but you cannot help admire the sheer Stalinist ruthlessness of it all.” The presiding colonel said Mohammed’s allegations of torture would be “reported for any investigation that may be appropriate” and would be taken into account in considering his enemy combatant status.

“He cannot allow them any serious discussion about priorities. His view is that it is just not worth it and ‘they will get what I decide’. And that is a very insulting process,” Lord Turnbull said.

But in a statement today,Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said: “The FT article does not give a balanced account of my views nor of the conversation I had with the FT which covered a much wider range of issues. Mohammed, who was arrested in Rawalpindi in 2003, also allegedly acknowledged responsibility for over 30 other terror attacks or plots, including plans to bomb other landmarks in the US and the UK, including Big Ben and Heathrow airport.

“My remarks to the FT about the way Government business is transacted were not made with the intention or expectation that they would be quoted verbatim nor, I acknowledge, were they expressed in language appropriate for that purpose.”

(via the Telegraph)

+++

Good to see the randomised masthead back.

So BBQ is reporting that ‘10,000 passports go to fraudsters’.

This is of course, spin to engineer support for the new interrogation centres that are popping up all over the country.

The fact of the matter is this. ‘Home Office minister Joan Ryan said the IPS had 16,500 fraudulent applications during the 12 month period, 10,000 of which went undetected.’ This is clearly a lie. If they know that 10,000 were fraudulent, they in fact were detected. If the Immigration officers used my system where each passport can be checked in realtime over the internets with just the information in the machine readable part of the passport, with no biometrics, then each of these 10,000 people could be caught as and when they tried to use these bad passports.

If the Home Office has detected these ‘10,000’ passports, then they have a list of all their numbers, and this list is not being used. It is sitting in a paper file somewhere on someone’s desk. That is not very smart.

The Tories it seems, are not very smart either:

Conservative MP Grant Shapps, who compiled those figures, said they raised “serious concerns” over the risks of identity fraud and terrorism.

Identity has nothing to do with ‘terrorism’. I’ll say it again, “Identity has nothing to do with ‘terrorism'”.
It is not the government’s responsibility to guarantee identity. We have said this again and again and again.

Note how this article fails to mention that everyone ordered to report to these interrogation centres will be fingerprinted like a criminal and their details entered on the NIR, and note too that the ‘Related Links’ are only to the government and not to No2ID and or Privacy International.

BBQ, you are the lowest of the low!

By Jeremy Manier
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 17, 2007

In the first case of its kind in years, a 2-year-old boy is being treated in Chicago for a rare and life-threatening infection that he contracted from his father, a U.S. Army soldier recently vaccinated against smallpox.

The Indiana boy is in critical condition with eczema vaccinatum, an unusual side effect of the smallpox vaccine that can affect people who receive the shot or their close contacts.

Doctors also said the boy appears to have passed the infection to his mother, who has a much milder case of the virus in the smallpox vaccine, which is also called vaccinia. The virus is not smallpox, though it is similar enough to offer protection from that deadly disease, which was declared eradicated in 1980.

The mother and child are being treated at the University of Chicago’s Comer Children’s Hospital, which withheld their names at the family’s request. There is no infection risk for the general population, government officials say, since the vaccine virus can spread only through close physical contact.

But the boy’s diagnosis last week has prompted a frenzy of activity and daily conference calls involving the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the state and city public health departments. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave emergency authorization for the hospital to treat the boy with ST-246, an experimental drug for smallpox that is untried as a therapy in humans.

The smallpox vaccine fell out of general use in the 1970s, but the case could be a lesson for the U.S. military, which has vaccinated 1.2 million personnel against smallpox since 2002 amid fears of bioterrorism.

[…]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

The only ‘bioterrorists’ are the people manufacturing these poisons and the fear-mongers engineering the false causes for their injection.

But you know this!

Staff in every nursery in England will monitor children from birth on their progress towards a set of 69 Government “early learning goals”. These goals cover the skill levels expected of five-year-olds in reading, writing and rudimentary maths.

Parents’ groups attacked the new Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) curriculum, which will be a legal requirement for all childminders and children’s centres from September 2008.

Margaret Morrissey, from the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: “I think it’s really sad that we have reached the point now where instead of reducing children’s stress we have increased it.

“Will nurseries be worrying more about children reaching these targets than caring for our children?

“It worries me that we are expecting children to reach these targets when they have not even had their first birthday.”

The Department for Education published practice guidance alongside the curriculum document, detailing how childcare staff should assess the progress children make at different ages.

Babies from the age of birth to 11 months should be assessed for “the different ways babies communicate – such as gurgling when happy”, the guidance said.

At this age, babies “communicate in a variety of ways including crying, gurgling, babbling and squealing”.

Staff were advised to record how babies under 11 months old “begin to explore their own movements”, mimic adults’ facial expressions and “gaze” at things that interest them.

Under the section dealing with learning to write, babies between birth and 11 months should be observed for the “random marks” they make in their food, the guidance said.

To help develop the early numeracy skills of babies under 11 months, nurseries should display toys and objects like fir cones or shells in small groups and as single items.

Staff should then record “the attention that young babies give to changes in the quantity of objects or images they see, hear or experience.” […]

Daily Mail

I am not making this up, obviously.

These are the insane people who want to control every aspect of life from the cradle to the grave, starting with how often you, “goo goo, gaa gaa” as an infant.

And that is completely GA GA.

One comment on this site says it all:

Moral: don’t put your baby in a nursery; look after it yourself. If you can’t do that, it probably means you shouldn’t have had the poor mite in the first place.

– Jane, Preston, England.

Amen.

By Peter Sayer, IDG News Service

The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.

The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.

Dear oh dear; France is not in the USA you simpleton. They have their own problems, their own anniversaire mauvaise; why on earth do you think that Rodney ‘cant we all jus get along’ King has anything whatsoever to do with FRANCE.

If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.

There you are. I found one for you and linked it for you. No need for a bogus transcontinental Rodney King anniversary after all.

Senators and members of the National Assembly had asked the council to rule on the constitutionality of six articles of the Law relating to the prevention of delinquency. The articles dealt with information sharing by social workers, and reduced sentences for minors. The council recommended one minor change, to reconcile conflicting amendments voted in parliament. The law, proposed by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, is intended to clamp down on a wide range of public order offenses. During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of “happy slapping,” in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends.

‘happy slapping’… a British Invention I believe.

The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said Cohet. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet.

The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, blog hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules. The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories.

Well.

France has a long history of getting the internets wrong. They banned 128bit crypto, and then reversed its policy when someone pointed out to them that it was the basis of all e-commerce.

There are lots of other stuff too. Google it. France is not perfect. No country is. But I can tell you right now that France, and in particular Paris as a place that welcomes people and that is human in its feeling is about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES SUPERIOR to anywhere in the us or the uk.

I am loath to take the side of Paris bureau chief Peter Sayer who Reports on ‘Services; Enterprise hardware; Apple’ when it comes to pointing the finger at a country for passing repressive laws. Interesting; Sayer is in Paris, but cant find an example of french police repression being filmed. hmmmm anyway, I have no idea wether this guy is an american or not. If he is, he should STFU about france and go drink a tizane. He is in one of the most beautiful cities on earth, in a country that is one of the last decent places in the west. Concentrate on your own myriad problems.

In any case, as we have seen, France can change its mind for the good. They will do it, so lay off Bon à Rien american!

They are the “safest ever”, according to the Government. But the Daily Mail reveals today how easily a person’s identity can be stolen from new biometric passports.

A shocking security gap allows the personal details and photograph in any electronic passport to be copied from the outside of the envelope in which it is delivered to homes.

The passport holder is none the wiser when it arrives because the white envelope has not been tampered with or opened.

Using a simple gadget built from parts bought on the Internet, it took the Mail less than four hours to copy the details from one passport.

It had been delivered in the normal way by national courier company Secure Mail Services to a young woman in Islington, North London.

With her permission we took away the envelope containing her passport and never opened it.

By the end of the afternoon, we had stolen enough information from the passport’s electronic chip – including the woman’s photograph – to be able to clone an identical document if we had wished.

More significantly, we had the details which would allow a fraudster, people trafficker or illegal immigrant to set up a new life in Britain.

The criminal could open a bank account, claim state benefits and undertake a myriad financial and legal transactions in someone else’s name.

This revelation will prove a major embarrassment to ministers. Since their introduction a year ago, more than four million biometric travel documents have been delivered by courier.

And I have no sympathy for any of them.

All of them were warned well in advance about the dangers of these passports, and yet, they all lined up for them like sheep.

The Government believes this is the safest way of sending out passports. But this may be an illusion.

It is an illusion, and you have just proved it!

Each of these passports is now an ID transmitter that silently puts your information out there to whoever wants it.

The passports are dispatched in white envelopes which are easily recognisable from the distinctive lettering and figures on the outside.

This is not the worst of it. Anyone carrying one of these ID transmitting passports around can have their information snarfed as they walk down the street. A smart snarfler will put antennae near the entrances of banks (or anywhere else that people regularly show their passports) and then sit back and watch the data roll in. They will not even have to be there. All they need to do is set up a system that phones home when it collects a batch of passports. Cheap laptops in a small box could do it with ease.

There is no identity check on the person signing for the passport when it arrives. In multi-occupancy flats they can be handed to anyone at the address. Thousands have already gone missing.

That is irrelevant, since the data can be snarfed in transit or no matter where it is, wether the right person receives it or not.

We began our investigation by asking Elizabeth Wood, a 33-year old web designer, to apply for a new biometric passport.

She telephoned the Identity and Passport Service on Monday, February 12.

Because she wanted the passport quickly, she was asked to go to the IPS office in Victoria, Central London, the following afternoon.

If she had not requested the fasttrack service, the passport would normally have been sent out without a face-to-face interview.

And now we have the sneaky advocation for the interrogation centres that HMG is setting up.

The next day Miss Wood met an official for ten minutes. The details on her application form were verified using two forms of ID – normally a household bill and a bank statement. Her photograph was also examined.

Miss Wood paid 91 for the fasttrack delivery and was told her passport would be sent to her home by secure courier in exactly seven days.

That is as it should be. Getting a passport is a RIGHT. It is used only to tell governments of other countries that you are a British Citizen entitled to protections afforded to such people. Far too much weight is given to passports and identity documents like driving licenses.

In fact, it took just four days, arriving when Miss Wood was in the shower. Her boyfriend went to the door and signed for the document. He was able to do so without showing any form of identity to the courier, who did not ask for Miss Wood.

This is also perfectly acceptable. If her passport goes missing, she will report it to the Passport Office and then they will cancel that passport number, meaning that it will become worthless. That is why it is ok for her boyfriend to collect the passport for her. A passport is not some magic book that confers UlTimAte PoWer to its holder. Get a grip you idiots!

But there is another gaping hole in security. At first glance the new biometric passport looks much like the traditional one.

The only clue on the outside of the document that it contains an electronic chip is a small gold square on the front.

Inside the passport there is a laminated page containing the holder’s picture, passport number, name, nationality, sex, signature, date and place of birth and the document’s issue and expiry date.

At the bottom of this page are two lines of printed numbers and letters which can be read by a computer when the passport is swiped through a special machine by immigration officials. It is called the Machine Readable Zone.

On the back of the page is a tiny computer chip, surrounded by a coil of copper-coloured wire. This is a Radio Frequency Identification microchip, which can be read using radio waves.

Encoded on the passport’s RFID chip are three important files. One contains an electronic copy of the printed information on the passport’s photo page; the second holds the electronic image of the holder’s photo. The third is a security device which checks that the previous two files are not accessed and altered.

In order to get into the files, the computer needs an “electronic key”. This is the 24-digit code printed on the bottom line of the passport’s Machine Readable Zone. It is called the “MRZ key number”.

When an immigration official checks the passport by swiping it through his machine, it reveals the key which is then used to open up the electronic data on the microchip.

And this is the error that my system overcomes.

The official checks that the photograph and information printed on the passport match the details on the chip and the holder is allowed to pass in, or out, of the country.

The Government says the biometric chips are protected by “an advanced digital encryption technique”. In other words, without the MRZ key code it is impossible to steal the passport holder’s details if you do not have their travel document.

Yet it took us no time at all to unravel the crucial code, using a relatively simple computer software programme and a scanning device.

There is no extra utility in using RFID in a passport. This is simply vendor pushed garbage. A printed paper cryptographic public key system is far more secure than any RFID system.

The Mail was helped by computer security consultant Adam Laurie, who advises public bodies and private companies on combating IT fraud. He discovered glaring weaknesses in the biometric passport’s security system.

The first flaw is that a hacker can try to access the chip as many times as he likes until he cracks the MRZ code. This is different to putting a pin number into a bank machine, where the security system refuses access after three wrong combinations are entered.

The second is that there are easily identifiable recurring patterns in the MRZ key codes issued. For example, the passport holder’s date of birth always features, as does the passport’s expiry date, which is ten years after the issue date.

These are schoolboy howlers. PGP signed documents do not have this vulnerability. The problem with PGP is that it costs nothing and vendors cant make a killing out of it.

The Mail is not publishing full details of Miss Wood’s passport to protect her. We know exactly how Mr Laurie cracked the MRZ code but we are not going to reveal the process for security reasons.

Crucially, he only needed one new piece of information – Miss Wood’s date of birth.

In under two hours, the Mail had found this by checking the electoral roll, birth records and looking at genealogical sites on the Internet.

Miss Wood’s photo page soon popped up on Mr Laurie’s laptop screen. He had not needed to see her actual passport – the white envelope containing it remained unopened on the desk.

And RFID passports make all of this much easier.

Crucially, some banks, including the Post Office, no longer require to see a full passport as proof of identity from a new customer opening an account. They ask for a photocopy of the photo page to be sent in the post instead.

This is not crucial. Opening a bank account is simply a service. Its your money. If you put your money in a shoe box under your bed or in a bank it makes no difference. You should be able to identify yourself by whatever means you like if it is YOUR money in YOUR account. Ahhhh journalists!.

Miss Wood’s photo page could easily be copied and used for this purpose. Mr Laurie said: “I used public information and equipment that is legal. The software took me three days to write. It is incredibly easy to thieve data from the passports. It could be put onto another chip and implanted in a blank passport.”

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of NO2ID, a group pressing the Government to abandon plans for identity cards, witnessed our experiment.

“This shows how easy it is to steal a person’s identity from the new passport without the innocent owner even knowing,” he said.

“The Government has repeatedly said this information is secure. You have just shown that it is not.”

AND SO?

And so, “you should not on any account carry one of these passports. You should not be interrogated in one of the new centres. Period”. THAT IS WHAT YOU NEEDED TO SAY!

Last night a Home Office spokesman said: “We do not believe it would be possible to successfully forge a new passport by doing this.

“The security around the UK passport chip prevents anyone changing or deleting any of the data or information on the chip, which is what is required to successfully forge a passport.”

What they need to demonstrate now is that this too is a lie. But then again, it doesn’t matter how many times you do this sort of exercise; if people are going to line up to get these passports, then there is nothing that you can do about it. Four million have already been issued. Its bad news.

Americans do not have to be fingerprinted or interrogated to get new passports, which have RFID people who care are being instructed to use a hammer to destroy the RFID chip. The passport is not invalidated if the chip is broken, so there is no reason for you not to hammer your passport, and roll it back to an acceptable document.

I wonder why they did not issue an instruction to the four million holders of bad UK passports to hammer the chips so that they do not work?

It beggars belief.

ENMESHMENT – A New Threat To Homeschooling Parents

Parents who undertake their responsibility to instruct their own children face many challenges, and yet they do not undertake this responsibility lightly.

Most see it for the awesome responsibility that it is.
-It involves a total commitment on the part of a parent.
-It involves accepting responsibility for the child’s education, rather than surrendering that responsibility to others.
-It involves caring for the child’s entire existence.

Parents who instruct their own children often must comply with certain governmental “regulations”. Sometimes, those in government may allege that parents who do not send their children to a public school are guilty of “educational neglect”.

Parents who instruct their own children know just how false such an allegation is. Parents constantly must “educate” those who are misinformed about the nature of “homeschooling”.

Proving that parents who instruct at home are not “neglectful” may be an inconvenience, but has been relatively easy to do. The very fact that we care for, nurture, educate and engage ourselves with our children is proof that we are not neglecting them. Right?

Wrong.

Now, a new threat looms on the horizon. It is a threat because it will attempt to prove that a parent is neglectful when they homeschool their children.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “neglect” as “to omit, fail, or forbear to do a thing that can be done, or that is required to be done…”

Webster’s Dictionary defines “enmesh” as “to entangle in…”

The term “enmeshment” has found its way into psychological and sociological literature. While it is not yet a recognized “diagnosis”, it has gained apparent widespread popularity among the psychological and sociological community, particularly among those who are intimately involved with governmental agencies in determining whether or not children are “neglected.”

Unfortunately, the term “enmeshment” has been used, astonishingly enough, to find parents guilty of “emotional neglect”, as one judge put it, because “there is a fine line between protection and overreaction.” In that case, the parent was found to be “emotionally neglectful” due to “enmeshment” for “fostering in her child a feeling of mistrust toward school officials and teachers.” In one judicial case, the parent simply wanted the school officials and teachers to follow the instructions of the child’s physician to administer medication immediately to the child in the event of an allergic reaction. The psychologist who found that the parent and child were “enmeshed” did so by concluding that the child is “strongly aligned emotionally and intellectually with his mother, dependent upon her to a very significant degree, and relying on her views and actions to protect him and to keep him alive.” One would think that this would be considered to be the ultimate duty of a parent, the duty to protect and to keep the child alive. The court, however, found the parent and child to be “significantly enmeshed” such that the parent was deemed “emotionally neglectful” of the child.

In essence, for a parent to be aligned emotionally and intellectually with a child for the purpose of protecting the child constituted “neglect”.

This is fundamentally an oxymoron, to say the least. “Enmeshment” would appear to be the opposite of “neglect”, yet, it has proven to be the basis for a court finding of neglect!

If a parent cannot disprove neglect by protection and care, how can a parent disprove neglect? […]

Consent of the Governed

This is one of the most absurd things that I have ever read.

I have known several children who are severely allergic, and one who is allergic to peanuts. At every school he has ever attended, the staff have been informed of his immediate need for Epinephrine via injection with an ‘Epipen’ should he be exposed to peanut. Not only that, he was not the only child in the school with this requirement, and many of the schools he attended already had well thought out policies in place before he joined the school.

The need to administer medication immediately to counter anaphylaxis is widely known. It is simply astonishing that this case went before a judge and that no medical professional was there to confirm that this is absolutely normal practice world-wide in cases where people who can suffer anaphylaxis are in situations where it is impossible to have 100% control the foods they are exposed to. It is also amazing that none of the societies and groups dedicated to severe allergies were consulted. A simple google search will bring up many of them. There are bracelets that sufferers with severe allergies wear…need I go on?!

This is not an oxymoron. It is in fact Orwellian doublethink; the ability to keep two contradictory thoughts in your mind simultaneously and to believe that both are true. Simply astonishing.

This whole affair reminds me of the ‘W’ sitting non issue that recently made the rounds in relation to toddlers and the way they sit. It is another fad, another false categorization, another reason to medicate, interfere, obstruct, disrupt, destroy and dismantle family life.

Was there an appeal?

We have not faced anything as Kafkaesque as Entanglement, but if such nonsense is codified, you can bet that the enemies of Home Schooling will be adding this garbage to their arsenal.

Imagine the German model and ideology of education (as introduced by the Nazis under Adolf Hitler) where children are not allowed to be home-educated because “the obligation to attend school is a civil obligation, that cannot be tampered with”.

Imagine you are a German. You have four children. You have just landed a job in Dubai. The state says to you, “Herr Leuchtenmueller, you and Frau Leuchtenmueller may not take your children with you to Dubai, because whilst you are living there, they will be made to attend non German schools, and when they return to Germany, they will be un-German in their attitudes and mannerisms. Please deposit your children at the local boarding Kindergarten where they will be looked after in your absence. You will be billed for this service quarterly”.

That sounds absolutely insane doesn’t it? The fact of the matter is, it is not at all insane, and is in fact a logical conclusion of the idea that children must attend schools set up by the state so that they are well integrated into society. If a court can stop you from home schooling in Germany, and the police can be called to haul your children off to school, why should the state not prevent you from de-Germanizing your children by moving to another country for whatever reason?

[…] Last September, the European Court of Human Rights supported Hitler’s 1938 schooling bill. The Strasburg-based court, whose verdicts apply in the entire European Union, ruled that the right to education “by its very nature calls for regulation by the State.” It upheld the finding of German courts: “Schools represent society, and it is in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to educate does not go so far as to deprive their children of that experience.” […]

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=613

If this is the case, then anyone leaving Germany for another country, for any reason, should not be allowed to take their children with them, because by doing so they will be depriving them of the child’s interest in becoming part of German society. Many Germans have left Germany so that they can exercise their right to educate their children as they see fit all of these families are depriving their children of the right to be a part of German society; why were they not stopped at the airport and their children forcibly removed from the parents? If they can leave the country whenever they like so that they can home-educate without any restriction, or take jobs, or move for the weather, why should they have to leave their own country in the first place because of this bogus anti home-schooling ‘integrating into society’ nonsense?? They are going to be taken out of German society one way or another, surely it is better for Germany if these families are left in peace and the children allowed to be Germans in Germany – and let us not forget that Home Schooled children outperform institutionalized children in every metric.

Germany is better off with home-schooled German adults in its population.

The people who enforce these Nazi era laws clearly know nothing about home-schooling, or the results of it. They have no idea about the rights of men. They have no real idea of why they are following these absurd regulations. They are robotic, anti-family, monstrous and utterly without logic or morals. They don’t even have a sense of long term self interest – sending people like this out of your country is bad for your society.

A description of EO’s Government Policy Group and its work, can be found at:
http://www.education-otherwise.org/Legal/Consultations/GovConsultFrtPg.htm

The following report is my description of a meeting between DfES and EO on December 19th 2006 for ‘an exchange of views’, and ‘pre-consultation discussions’. DfES appear reluctant to confirm their proposals for the consultation, and hesitant to state whether they are determined to go ahead with the consultation or not. This is reflected in the fact that DfES have not agreed the notes from the meeting, although more than 3 weeks have elapsed since the notes were sent to them. This description is therefore my views of the meeting, and the formal record will be the notes when they are issued. The purpose of a pre-consultation meeting is for DfES to hear the views of stakeholders, and to ‘sound out’ the draft proposals. The delay in agreeing the notes, and going ahead with the consultation suggests that this process has not gone as smoothly as they might have liked. There have also been indications this week (w/c 22nd January) that the policy team are reconsidering aspects of the proposals in the light of feedback, and are discussing aspects of the consultation further with ‘stakeholders’.

It should be remembered that everything discussed at the meeting was provisional proposals from DfES on possible draft versions of the consultation. The consultation might or might not go ahead, and any of the items proposed might be withdrawn or altered if a consultation occurs.

1) INTRODUCTION

Further to DfES signals in late November and early December that they were about to conduct a new review of local authority arrangements for home educators in England, Education Otherwise were invited to DfES, Sanctuary Buildings, London to hear from DfES the intended content of the consultation and have an initial “exchange of views”. The meeting took place in London Tuesday 19th December. The meeting lasted an hour and a quarter. The EO team was Jill Fisher (former chair of EO), Martin Wise (Vice chair of EO) and Phil Hicks (Chair, Government Policy Group). The DfES representative was Peter Walsh who may be the coordinator of the consultation, but he has indicated it is equally likely that Elaine Haste, the official normally responsible for home education, will have that task. He said he has also met with Norman Wells of Family Education Trust http://www.famyouth.org.uk/, and would meet with Jane Lowe of HEAS http://www.heas.org.uk/ The consultation was not fully written, and the start date has not yet been fixed, although January has been mentioned more than once, and more recently February. The consultation will be open to all to respond to, and will last for 12 weeks.

2) SCOPE OF POLICY CONSULTATION

DfES are planning to conduct a full public consultation via the e-consultation website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/ about the statutory framework for home education. Individuals can register their interest in participating in this consultation, and in being advised of its launch, by contacting the DfES official for home education Elaine Haste, at Elaine.HASTE@dfes.gsi.gov.uk. For information on what to say look at the information flier at http://www.filecrunch.com/file/47v or look at the campaign pages which will soon be available on the EO website.

Local authorities are telling DfES that there is difficulty with ensuring/defining suitable education and with addressing some welfare concerns. DfES believe that the current situation between local authorities and home educators can to be improved by better regulation. DfES recognise that home educators are concerned about LAs going beyond their powers and that there is a wide variation in local authority practices around the country. DfES want to engage with home educators and want to improve policies.

The present plans for the consultation focus on three main areas:
1. Compulsory registration of home educators
2. Clearer standards defining ‘suitable’
3. Monitoring of standards

3) CHANGES TO THE LAW

DfES are considering introducing new law (changes to primary legislation) which would alter the legal framework which currently exists. The stated intention is to make clear the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the main intention would be to define what is ‘suitable’ education by parents at home. It was mentioned that the changes may supersede existing case law, so they could amend the meaning of the existing s7 and s437 by further defining the terms used, or they might replace those sections, but DfES did not state precisely how they would go about changing the law. They did confirm that if this went ahead it could take some time, one or two years, as new legislation would need to be added to a suitable passing bill, or be proposed as a specific item. It was mentioned that standards might be specified by regulations enabled by new primary legislation.

4) COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF HOME EDUCATORS

DfES see compulsory registration as a means of simplifying the present situation. Section 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires LAs to identify children who are not receiving education. To do this they have to find children who are not in school and eliminate home educated children (who are not missing education) to leave those ‘missing education’. EO’s recent response to a consultation on section 4 can be found at http://www.tiny.cc/nle3H. (Section 4 comes into effect in February 2007). Section 12 of the Children Act gives LAs some powers to gather data from other agencies to do so (the information is gathered into an Information Sharing Index * ISI). EO’s response on a consultation on section 12 can be found http://www.tiny.cc/LnYIk). This means that all families who are not now known to LAs are increasingly likely to be identified, or notified to LAs. There are a large range of public bodies who are obliged to notify the LA of children who they are aware may be missing education. While officials need not notify the LA of children who they are told are home educated, it is likely that some will. (EO are considering modifying the text on membership cards to state that section 4 does not require the notification of home educated children to the local authority, so that the card with the statement can be shown to officials. While this will not protect all families from discovery by the LA in the long term, it may slow down the process). LAs will hold a register of children who are not in school and record their place of education. DfES think that compulsory registration will save home educators the problems of being notified in the Children Missing Education and Information Sharing Index arrangements. It would also save them money as they would have less need to follow up children notified to them but who are not on their registers.

We avoided speaking to this subject at any length because it was less important than the questions of standards and monitoring, and if standards and monitoring are not accepted, then ISI, CME and registration are not required. We commented that since they plan to be in annual contact with all home educators, compulsory registration will not save LAs any costs as they will have to make regular contact anyway. We stated that compulsory registration will be seen as a change to parents rights and will be strongly opposed by many home educators.

5) STANDARDS FOR SUITABLE EDUCATION

DfES say that they are not considering anything as specific as the national curriculum, but certainly something more prescriptive than a list of characteristics. They described their intention to set a standard of outcomes rather than provision. They mentioned outcomes for literacy and citizenship, ie children should be able to communicate well and access public services, and be familiar with public institutions. The pubic communications unit mentioned to one home educator it was anomalous that independent schools had standards to meet, but home educators did not. (Independent schools do not have defined curricula, but have standards – mainly for provision. The independent schools “standard” is described in part C of the information pack on this page http://www.dfes.gov.uk/reg-independent-schools/, and the underlying legislation is http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031910.htm ).

We presented arguments at length to make the point that any form of standard would be restrictive, and would cut across parents’ right to determine the form of educational provision and responsibility to match it to a child’s ability and aptitude. Flexibility is needed on the part of LAs to allow parents the discretion they have responsibility for, and standards conflict with that flexibility. The setting of standards would cut across many forms of home education that are currently exercised successfully by parents. Because children are individual and home education is tailored to the child, there is and can be no common standard to measure it. DfES produced the hard cases argument at this point, asking what they do when it’s not apparent that a child is making progress or that parents are making effective provision, and parents are unresponsive to enquiries. They are concerned that some parents are unwilling or unable to make suitable provision. EO presented the characteristics listed in the Scottish Guidance on Home Education (See Appendix) as a counter point, arguing that in the existing legislative framework its possible to make a professional judgement that suitable education is being provided by considering whether some of the characteristics are evident. The characteristics in brief are parental involvement, an educational ethos (not necessarily formal), learning experiences available, activities offered, and resources provided. We presented several scenarios of learning outcomes where no formal curriculum would have been apparent over long periods but the outcomes were good. We pointed out that for many home educated children with special needs and unusual learning styles, any form of age related standard may be an ineffective measure. For example when a child is ready to read may vary from 3 years to 13 years or later, but late reading often still leads to academic outcomes which fulfil the child’s potential. We mentioned that at the start of home education there may be long periods of apparent lack of activity while a child adjusts to the new approach. The parents’ approach and philosophy is the only reference point for evaluating whether they are being successful in making suitable provision. Also the alternative options need to be considered, even if HE outcomes appear poor, that child might have the same or worse difficulties in a local school. On average home education outcomes are generally good when compared to school education.

DfES confirmed that the consultation will contain specific outlines of what is being suggested regarding standards and monitoring.

6) MONITORING

DfES are considering proposals to require parents to have an annual interview, with children present, and to fill in a pre interview questionnaire giving some details of the child’s activities and progress. EO responded that flexibility is required to meet different families’ needs and situations, as happens in best practice around the country now. Reports, and voluntary discussions without the child present are equally valid ways of assuring the LA that education is being provided. The point was made at length, and with examples, that many parents are strongly opposed to meeting the LA, and that conflict with schools and LAs may make such meetings inappropriate for parents and especially children who have had difficult experiences before leaving school. EO suggested that it’s impossible to evaluate outcomes for a single child until many years later. We argued that the existing legislation is adequate, and provides a firm foundation for good practice, being a sensible balance between parental rights and primary responsibility for education, and the state’s role as a backstop in extreme situations.

Although the subject of welfare was not specifically covered in our discussion we know that Normal Wells of the Family Education Trust discussed it with DfES and they confirmed that they accept that they do not have powers to insist on visits to the family’s home.

7) EVIDENCE BASE FOR DfES’ CONCERNS

DfES acknowledged that the evidence base is limited. The studies which have presented conclusions from which the consultation proposals are drawn lack impartiality and objectivity. These shortcomings are discussed in detail in a briefing paper on the background to the consultation at http://www.tiny.cc/mBGKL

8) COST OF IMPLEMENTATION

DfES acknowledged that this will cost a lot in first contact and monitoring costs. EO argued that the result will also be more court cases rather than less.

9) GYPSY, ROMA, and TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES

DfeS state that “research” suggests there are concerns about home education within Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. They say that home education in those communities is sometimes an excuse not to provide a suitable education. Local Authorities feel the current arrangements for monitoring are not good enough. The underlying research is by Arthur Ivatts: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW77.pdf The objectivity of the “research” has been criticised by home educators and some local authorities. The study makes the presumption that within their particular communities travellers can be considered likely to be ill equipped to provide sound home education. This is prejudicial to these communities and this premise, and the conclusions based on it, need to be reexamined. Also Mr Ivatts goes on to make recommendations for all home educators based on his observations about the situation of the particular group he was studying. These conclusions are beyond the scope of his study so the recommendations should be discounted.

EO should not be considered to represent Travellers who home educate other than in the general sense of home educators. Traveller Communities are not well represented in the membership base or active in making their views known through EO, so EO cannot speak effectively about unique aspects of their situation. Separate communication will be needed directly with traveller groups.

10) ENGLISH GUIDELINES

DfES stated that it is planned to issue the English Guidelines in February or March. DfES may choose to do proceed with changes to legislation as a result of the consultation, or may not. Either way the guidelines will fill the gap at present and may be sufficient if new legislation is not proposed.

11) CHANGING THE LAW WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE

In the last sections of the discussion we argued that the present system works fine, and that trying to create criteria against which to measure education will make things harder for the LAs not easier. Also that these plans, which they envisage would reduce the need for SAOs, would probably have the reverse effect – ie if they have rules, then they will end up with broken rules, so they will need to make more s437 prosecutions than before.

12) SUMMARY

DfES propose to issue a full consultation in January or February on changes to the law on home education.

The consultation has been motivated by local authority concerns about their perceived welfare responsibilities under Every Child Matters initiatives.

The evidence base that there are real problems underlying local authorities concerns is very poor, and was acknowledged by DfES at the pre-consultation meeting to be limited. The studies are neither impartial nor objective.

There is no evidence base for concluding that new legislation would improve educational outcomes. Nor has there been any comparison of the education outcomes recognized by home educators, and how they differ from local authorities expectations.

EO will advise DfES throughout the consultation that the existing legislation is perfectly adequate. Introducing new regulations will seriously damage outcomes for a proportion of home educated children, and put others at increased risk. It would not offer any significant positive benefits, and the cost of monitoring and of prosecution when provision is deemed unsuitable will be enormous.

APPENDIX 1

Typical characteristics of an efficient and suitable education are included in section 5 of the Statutory Guidance on home education issued by the Scottish Executive in 2004

• Consistent involvement of parents or other significant carers * it is expected that parents or significant carers would play a significant role, although not necessarily constantly or actively involved in providing education.
• Presence of a philosophy or ethos (not necessarily a recognised philosophy) * it is expected that the parents have thought through their reasons for home educating, showing signs of commitment and enthusiasm, and recognition of the child’s needs, attitudes and aspirations.
• Opportunities for the child to be stimulated by their learning experiences.
• Involvement in activities * a broad spectrum of activities to cater for wide varieties of interests appropriate to the child’s stage of development.
• Access to resources / materials required to meet the objectives of the parents * such as paper and pens, books and libraries, arts and crafts materials, physical activity, ICT and the opportunity to interact with other children and other adults.

(Improved versions of these characteristics were proposed in section 3.15 of the EO response to the draft English EHE Guidelines 2005. http://tinyurl.com/3c7m22 ).

The government of Bliar is thinking about bringing in Nazi style education guidelines to control home-schooling.

Now for those of you who think that its over the top to use the word ‘Nazi’ in this (or any) context, let me reassure you that I am not the first to use this word in association with this government, and it is also absolutely appropriate to use this word here, because control of Home Educators was mandated by the Nazis at Hitler’s command, in order to ensure uniformity amongst all growing up and subsequently living under the rule of the Third Reich.

The present German government has not erased these Nazi laws from their statute books, and adheres across all political parties, to the Nazi principles that ‘Home Schooling is Bad’, laid down by Hitler. Read this assessment of the sad state of Home Schooling in Germany from the Washington Times and my original post about the police hauling off German children to forcibly attend school.

Not to be left out of the rush to exert total control over everyone everywhere, Bliar’s government is preparing a ‘consultaiton’ on Home Schooling, and amendments to the law. That means they have already made up their minds about what they want to do:

“We believe the best place to educate a child is actually in school.”

Article from The Guardian, Home schooling ‘triples in eight years’

[…]

You can be sure that they have written up a long shopping list that they know no one will swallow, and are in the process of testing the water so that they can see what will be accepted with the least resistance:

The DfES 2007 consultation about changes to the law on home education was expected during January but DfES now say: “FURTHER WORK IS NOW BEING DONE, AND MINISTERS HAVE NOT YET MADE ANY FIRM DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE INCLUDED”. The government now has its sites set on taking away the rights and responsibility of UK parents to choose the form of education they wish their child to have. They are doing this by the back door – making it appear that this only affects home educators. This issue does not only affect Home educators it affects all UK parents. Up until now the law has stood like this:

The responsibility of parents in England and Wales is clearly established in section 7 of the Education Act 1996 (previously section 36 of the Education Act 1944):

7. The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

This law is about to be changed and our right to determine our children’s education removed. If they can take away this most fundamental of rights, there is no limit where this will lead. Determining what and how our children learn will become the responsibility of the state, if we resist we will be breaking the law and our children forcibly removed.

Europe is way ahead of the UK on this, Hitler made home education illegal and this law has never been revoked. At this moment children in Germany are being forced to school by police, HE families are having to flee to Austria for sanctuary, a German teenager has been sectioned because she is school phobic. When this case was taken to the European court of Human rites, the German government’s dictat was upheld.

That is from an HE mailing list.

The law as it stands is perfectly adequate. All are required by law to be schooled. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that the child receives an education. Rightfully, the law does not go into detail about what education is because that can only be defined by a parent. This is well understood on some level even by parents who send their children to school; all over the world there are PTA’s and parent involvement in school decisions.

Home schooling is as natural as breast feeding. Most home-schooled children are at least two years ahead of their peers. Certainly the family life of home-schoolers bucks the trend in society of families not eating a daily meal together. And lets not forget the latch key kid syndrome, where both parents work and children are simply left to their own devices. Home-schooled children are better off in all the factors at which the UK was shown to utterly fail when it comes to the welfare of the child. Read the UN authored report in full.

“We simply cannot ignore these shocking findings”
BBQ

says Bob Reitemeier of the Children’s Society. This is true, and what will certainly make matters worse is if parents who want to Home School are prevented from doing so or interfered with in any way.

Its clear that the government has no answers whatsoever. They are obviously incapable of organizing schools. Members of the Cabinet again and again remove their children from the state sector or poorly performing schools and then give glib excuses or no excuse at all, as the utterly grotesque Diane Abbott did,

“You can’t defend the indefensible – anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical.”
BBQ

We agree with Ms. Abbott. You cannot defend the indefensible. We also agree with her decision to move her child to a school best suited to her child’s needs. A parent’s first responsibility is to the welfare of their offspring. What is utterly offensive is the idea that people like Ruth Kelly, Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman can decide what is right for everyone else while they pick and choose the best options for themselves.

Making any rules that will affect Home Schooling in the UK is absolutely indefensible. Government has no business interfering with the private affairs of the family, bad record on education or not, and certainly, you would have thought that with such an appalling record on education and schools, and cabinet ministers fleeing from ordinary schools, this government would be a little more circumspect and humble when it comes to telling Home Schooling parents what they should and should not be doing, and how they should educate their children.

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor said of the UN report:

“I don’t actually think government has the answer to all these problems.

“This is not all about politicians in Westminster passing laws, it’s about social responsibility, it’s about parents taking greater responsibility for their children…”
BBQ

Indeed. Lets think about what Home Schooling actually means.

It means that either the Mother or Father or both parents spend many more hours with their children than is the average, on a daily basis, teaching them, guiding them, feeding them and eating with them. What could be more natural and healthy than that? Home Schooling is ideal parenting. It is parents taking not greater, but full responsibility for their children. It is something to be held in the highest esteem, a dream of all parents, many of whom have to hold down two jobs just to pay the bills.

Mothers who stay at home to teach their children are the gold standard of mothering. Which is better for society, all mothers in the population going out to work, or all mothers staying at home with their children teaching them?

What I am trying to illustrate is that parents who Home School should be actively encouraged to do so, and not interfered with. They are what society actually needs; a return to real family life, to full time parenting. Anyone who is against that is actually for the further destruction and dismantling of society. They are for the feral children that ravage cities, that cause the knee jerk requirement for ‘ASBOS’ and Control Orders.

Once again, we see that Bliar and his cabinet colleagues are completely clueless about families and what they really mean. This is hardly surprising. All of the women in the cabinet gave up mothering to become career politicians; they have no idea of what it means to raise children correctly, never mind Home Schooling them. The men in the cabinet are twentieth century men; blinkered ignorant and utterly useless. But I digress.

In a country like the UK, full to the brim with museums, places of interest, steeped in history, there is no better schoolroom than the entire country.

Home schoolers are very organized. They use The Internets. They meet regularly for social events and trips to museums, and in London this activity is nothing less than wonderful. Many institutions recognize Home Schoolers as a group, and put on special events for them; theaters, museums, and any place you can imagine are more than happy to put on special events and lectures for Home Schoolers. The richness of the Home Schooling life is second to none. Anyone that knows anything about Home Schooling understands this, and once again, Home Schooled children outperform state schooled children in every metric that counts and many of the ones that don’t.

Finally, the law as it stands with reference to Home Schooling is perfectly fine. Home Schoolers get on with their work, pass their exams, attend University, and lead fruitful lives. There have been Home Schooled children in the UK since cave men taught their sons how to shape flint spear heads; the current mania for all children to attend some sort of institutionalized school is, in the long view of history, an aberration.

Parents are home-schooling because its better for the children, better for the family and better for society. They are a highly intelligent, motivated and dedicated group. Any attempt to interfere with them is wrong. This is not Germany. We are not Germans. The British are free people, a man’s home is his castle and woe betide the person who tries to interfere with it and his family.

We will not accept any ‘guidelines’ whatsoever. Home schooling parents specifically do so to get away from the corrosive, anti-family influence of the incompetent state.

The DfES would be far better off spending its time trying to fix the horrific mess it has made of the state school system, rather than viciously and vindictively trying to destroy something that it has no understanding of, which works perfectly and which, if they interfere with it, will only suffer from their corrupting touch. They should actually be consulting with home schoolers to try and fix the hopelessly broken schools in their charge.

Brian Farmer, Research Associate of the John Birch Society.

One would have thought that all vestiges of National Socialism were erased, when the Federal Republic of Germany was established after World War II. But those who created post-war Germany apparently were willing to extend freedom to the German people only just so far. They were not willing to allow German families the right to educate their children outside of the state-run system.

That stands in stark contrast to America’s Founding Fathers’ view of education. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that education comes under the authority of the federal government. And the Tenth Amendment makes it perfectly clear that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Our Founders understood very well the perils of a compulsory educational system run by the federal government. As Sheldon Richman wrote in his book Separating School and State:

Throughout history, rulers and court intellectuals have aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations. The model was set out by Plato in The Republic and was constructed most faithfully in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany…. One can see how irresistible a vehicle the schools would be to any social engineer. They represent a unique opportunity to mold future citizens early in life, to instill in them the proper reverence for the ruling culture, and to prepare them to be obedient and obeisant taxpayers and soldiers.

While the number of home-schooled children is growing in the U.S., and has reached almost a million today, home-schooling in general does not always get a very favorable press. A recent network television documentary on home-schooling highlighted situations of neglected or abused children, parents who were portrayed as neurotic sociopaths, etc. It’s no surprise that teachers unions are against home-schooling and lobby states to make home-schooling as difficult as possible for families, by setting up a regulatory maze for parents to contend with.

Despite the Constitution’s clear restriction on federal government involvement in education, the federal Department of Education was created during the Carter administration. Is it mere coincidence that the performance of American students on a variety of standardized tests has steadily deteriorated, since the Department of Education was established?

As pointed out in the article, despite the increasing popularity of home-schooling in America, it is threatened with being made illegal. This threat comes from the attempts to form regional trade blocks, such as the North American Union, which is an obvious imitation of the European Union. And the ultimate threat comes from the United Nations, which is pushing member states to embrace international law. The long line of U.N. conferences over the years makes it clear that the final goal is to create an international system that will control every aspect of human activity everywhere on the planet, including education.

Just because Hitler liked the arrangement of centralized education doesn’t mean that we should. Education should be left up to the choice of the parents in their local communities, not coerced by an unaccountable bureaucracy, regardless of its political label.

[…]

http://www.jbs.org/node/2884

I wrote about the German Police enforcing Nazi Laws on home schoolers a month ago.

Now it seems that the rest of the world is catching up, and are rightfully horrified. My emphasis:

Earlier this month, a German teen-ager was forcibly taken from her parents and imprisoned in a psychiatric ward. Her crime? She is being home-schooled.

On Feb. 1, 15 German police officers forced their way into the home of the Busekros family in the Bavarian town of Erlangen. They hauled off 16-year-old Melissa, the eldest of the six Busekros children, to a psychiatric ward in nearby Nuremberg. Last week, a court affirmed that Melissa has to remain in the Child Psychiatry Unit because she is suffering from “school phobia.”

Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools. The home-schooling community in Germany is tiny. As Hitler knew, Germans tend to obey orders unquestioningly. Only some 500 children are being home-schooled in a country of 80 million. Home-schooling families are prosecuted without mercy.

Last March, a judge in Hamburg sentenced a home-schooling father of six to a week in prison and a fine of $2,000. Last September, a Paderborn mother of 12 was locked up in jail for two weeks. The family belongs to a group of seven ethnic German families who immigrated to Paderborn from the former Soviet Union. The Soviets persecuted them because they were Baptists. An initiative of the Paderborn Baptists to establish their own private school was rejected by the German authorities. A court ruled that the Baptists showed “a stubborn contempt both for the state’s educational duty as well as the right of their children to develop their personalities by attending school.”

All German political parties, including the Christian Democrats of Chancellor Angela Merkel, are opposed to home-schooling. They say that “the obligation to attend school is a civil obligation, that cannot be tampered with.” The home-schoolers receive no support from the official (state funded) churches, either. These maintain that home-schoolers “isolate themselves from the world” and that “freedom of religion does not justify opposition against the obligation to attend school.” Six decades after Hitler, German politicians and church leaders still do not understand true freedom: that raising children is a prerogative of their fathers and mothers and not of the state, which is never a benevolent parent and often an enemy.

Hermann Stucher, a pedagogue who called upon Christians to withdraw their children from the state schools which, he says, have fallen into the hands of “neo-Marxist activists,” has been threatened with prosecution for “Hochverrat und Volksverhetzung” (high treason and incitement of the people against the authorities). The fierceness of the authorities’ reaction is telling. The dispute is about the hearts and minds of the children. In Germany, schools have become vehicles of indoctrination, where children are brought up to unquestioningly accept the authority of the state in all areas of life. It is no coincidence that people who have escaped Soviet indoctrination discern what the government is doing in the schools and are sufficiently concerned to want to protect their children from it.

What is worrying is that most “free-born” Germans accept this assault on their freedom as normal and eye parents who opt out of the state system with suspicion.

The situation is hardly better at the European level. Last September, the European Court of Human Rights supported Hitler’s 1938 schooling bill. The Strasburg-based court, whose verdicts apply in the entire European Union, ruled that the right to education “by its very nature calls for regulation by the State.” It upheld the finding of German courts: “Schools represent society, and it is in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to educate does not go so far as to deprive their children of that experience.”

While it is disquieting that Europeans have not learned the lessons from their dictatorial past — upholding Nazi laws and sending dissidents, including children, to psychiatric wards, as the Soviets used to do — there is reason for Americans to worry, too. The United Nations is also restricting the rights of parents. Article 29 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that it is the goal of the state to direct the education of children. In Belgium, the U.N. Convention is currently being used to limit the constitutional right to home-school. In 1995 Britain was told that it violated the U.N. Convention by allowing parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes.

Last year, the American Home School Legal Defense Association warned that the U.N. Convention could make home-schooling illegal in America, even though the Senate has never ratified it. Some lawyers and liberal politicians in the states claim that U.N. conventions are “customary international law” and should be considered part of American jurisprudence.

[…]

Washington Times

Wow.

As you can see, there are many people who understand perfectly that the right to educate your child is fundamental to your freedom and to the health of ‘society’. A society full of people educated out of a single system is one where everyone is not compliant like sheep, one where a totalitarian government cannot easily take hold, because everyone thinks differently on a fundamental level.

This is directly analogous to the times in the UK where there were only two television channels being watched by millions of people. It was easy to get a single message across to everyone simultaneously, and to herd thought in this way. Now, with many different outlets for thought, it is much harder to steer opinion. The Muslims watch their news on The Islam Channel which has a distinctly different take on reality and what is and is not news.

By eliminating home schooling on a wide scale, you make it much harder for a group of outsiders to exist and to have any sort of voice, and as we know, in the age of the internets, it takes a very small number of outsiders to completely change everything.

German schools are used, overtly, to control and shape society keep everyone in thrall. That is why the Germans (and the populations of Belgium, Italy and other EU states for that matter) accept ID cards without question. That is why they have no understanding of human rights. I have been saying this since 1995, when I wrote a lightweight analysis of the German Constitution, which gives rights and then takes them away with the same breath.

Now these Nazis are breathing down our necks via the EU and the UN. We won’t have it.

The philosophies that are injected into the minds of children in the state sector are simply horrifying. Completely artificial concepts like ‘Hate Speech’ are taking hold in the previously (more) free thinking west because the teachers are drilling this drivel into the young, who take it on faith that indeed there is such a thing as ‘Hate Speech’.

The same goes for all of the other lies and molten lead doublethink that gets poured into the minds of young students – and it doesn’t just happen in the classroom. Schools that are requiring students to be fingerprinted to get books out of the library or to eat lunch are softening up the students to accept this method of criminal control, this violation, as normal and acceptable. The indoctrination runs across the most innocent of actions and activities, and we have the absolute right to say ‘no’ to it and to educate our children to our own standards and in our own philosophies, whatever they may be.

This is a reply to a post on a Home Education mailing list; it was written by a glove puppet (or a perfect imitation of one). Note the flawed logic, doublethink and straw man tactics that are common to all glove puppet / inflitraitor posts. Yes, ‘infiltraitor’.

Here we go:

> I’ve been reluctant to pass comment on the Government’s HE monitoring
> proposals as I think I’m in the minority on this list but, having
> read the comments on the BBC site, I think I will take the plunge.

uh oh.

>
> Doesn’t monitoring imply 2 concerns – child protection and ensuring a
> ‘suitable education’? The Victoria Climbie case sparked the whole
> thing off and it concerns me that my children have been ‘invisible’
> for all of their lives.

I can scarcely believe what I am reading. You sound just like one of Bliar’s cabinet with that ‘Victoria Climbie’ nonsense. Just because one child is hurt that doesn’t mean that all children in the UK must be registered in an Orwellian system of controls. There is no logic in it. Crime is like rain; you will never be able to prevent it, you need to learn to live with it. You do not destroy the very foundations of your life because of it i.e. not going outside ever because it MIGHT rain and you MIGHT get wet and you MIGHT catch a cold you BUY AN UMBRELLA, and use it when you like. You do not get the government to shield you from the rain, or build a giant roof over the entire UK to ensure that you are always dry.

> I could do anything to my children and nobody
> would know.

Yes, you COULD, and you COULD also take a kitchen knife and kill your postman, or burn your own house down with a box of matches, or strap your children in your car and drive into the sea to drown them. You could do alot of things…bad things…but you WONT, and the vast majority of people never do, and just because you have the capability to do these bad things that doesn’t mean that everyone should be under total state control. Not only that, state ‘monitoring’ of everyone and every child will not prevent a single crime, especially the silent crime of child abuse.

> A comment on the BBC site mentions ‘thick, weird …
> downright barmy’ parents home educating and people have been quick to
> reply ‘but we’re not weird’ etc. But what happens if an ‘evil’ parent
> chooses HE? Where’s the child protection?

Wheres the logic? You sound like the type of glove puppet infiltrator that Bliar’s government employs to monitor groups that they consider could be a threat. The same sort of people were used against the fuel protesters. They would attend meetings and this would happen:

The new recruits spent a lot of time arguing against taking any action and spreading doubts about the need for it. “They were saying things like: ‘Think of the hospitals, what happens if it goes like 2000?’”…

Read all about it here: http://tinyurl.com/2ftbvg the organization is,

…the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). Few have heard of it, but its role in controlling dissent is central.

They infiltrate groups, and go onto the internet posing as people on the side of any cause, only to present government arguments as if they are coming from inside the group, as we are reading in your post. They are the ones who always write, “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” on the subject of ID cards on every forum out there. They are the ones who pollute the BBC ‘Have Your Say’ comments with pro government propaganda. Beware of people who say they are willing to give up their rights or accept more government control because a single person got hurt. Its Bliar logic, and they and their arguments are utterly bogus, scripted nonsense.

> I would gladly give up my
> children’s invisibility to protect other children. It is a worthwhile
> price to pay if it prevents a child going through a similar ordeal to
> Victoria’s. (And I am aware the Victoria’s case wasn’t HE based but
> it could have been.)

And there you go! Its pure Blair speak. You admit that the Climbie case is irrelevant to HE, but cite it as a reason to give awy your privacy (which you incorrectly call ‘invisibility’) anyway, saying that it COULD have been related to HE. That is utter nonsense, and you know it. We all know it. “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security” Benjamin Franlkin. You and your children will have neither security nor liberty if you are willing to give up your right to live without the government looking over your shoulder. The worst thing about it is, no amount of monitoring can prevent crime, and so you are advocating giving up liberty for NOTHING. That is completely insane.

> Of course the level of monitoring/interference should be the real
> debate. Will they simply try and find the ‘invisible’ children and
> put them in the same inspection regime as the others? Or will the
> regime be toughened up for all HE children? I have to say I’m
> optimistic for a number of reasons. What resources will there be for
> all the extra ‘found’ children like mine? Will local authorities
> really be prepared for extra children AND extra supervision? I think
> not.

Astonishing. Firstly, the ‘real debate’ is wether or not the government has any business regulating HE in any way. And once again, there is no such thing as an ‘invisible’ child. HE’d children are not ‘invisible’; stop characterizing them in this way, it is pure evil and a propaganda technique. Secondly, you are saying that you are willing to give up your rights, then you are saying that you are not too worried because even if you do, there are not enough staff to watch everyone! You are not very good at this game are you?

I will help you.

If they decide that all children in HE are to be monitored, what they will do is put the burden on YOU. YOU will have to report somewhere with your children regularly to be inspected. YOU will have to fill out forms detailing your children’s performance. YOU will have to obtain a license to educate your children at home.

Get the picture?

> Also Summerhill School (the ‘run by students’, ‘no rules’ school) has
> survived inside the school OFSTED inspection system. And, as a
> teacher, I’m inspected and, although it’s very irritating for me, it
> doesn’t stop me teaching my students the way I feel is best. In other
> words I listen to the inspectors comments and simply ignore those I
> don’t agree with. I haven’t lost my job yet. And very often they make
> suggestions that I actually agree with!

This has nothing to do with us free parents who want nothing to do with you, your OFSTED inspections, ‘your’ opinions and your vile way of interacting with the system whilst pretending to be against it, and all the time bolstering it.

> We live in a country with a history of compromise and ‘fudging’.
> Isn’t this going the same way?

We are not going to submit to any of the government’s new, draconian, Soviet Style controls; that means NO to the children’s database, NO to ID cards and NO to the introduction of compulsory schooling, or ANY interference in HE.

> Sorry I couldn’t resist putting another point of view into a debate
> which seems rather extreme – ‘change nothing’ or ‘ban completely’– at
> the moment.

It was deliberate, and the language you use is highly indicative of you being a shill. We are on to your games however; you don’t play them very well and really, its not your fault. Bliar is asking you and your glove puppet colleagues to do the impossible – argue for the rights of children and families to be destroyed. No one will go along with it, on any level.

If you are indeed a genuine person, not in the employ of the government, I am even more horrified that you could write such drivel and present it as a valid argument.

What you are advocating is nothing less than the mass enslavement of all the children in the UK. No one in their right mind would advocate that, even as a theoretical possibility, because it is so abhorrent and contrary to the natural feelings of any parent or human being.

If you are not a glove puppet, then you may not realize that we are in the middle of a war for our freedom and the freedom of generations of British Citizens. This is not the time to play games with ideas like, “gladly give up my freedom and the freedom of my children”. If this response has come across as particularly harsh I hope that that is the case, because people like you who advocate, even in theory, the enslavement of my children are my mortal enemies.