Archive for the 'Home Schooling' Category

Dirty people are dumber and more dangerous

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Two related articles that swirl around the recent nonsense:

(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.


The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.



There you have it. Men who are monogamous are on average of a higher intelligence.

Now steel yourself for this:

The case of Khyra Ishaq and the problem of child sexualisation show up the failures of the big state

Two stories on the Today programme this morning brought into sharp relief the inability of social engineers to see what they are doing to British children. One was the appalling case of Khyra Ishaq, the girl starved to death in Birmingham by her mother and her boyfriend. The preceding item featured everyone’s favourite shrink, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, who condemned the sexualisation of children and called for restrictions on lad’s mags, sexy music videos and, more ominously, school lessons about “gender equality” (dog whistle Marxism, if such a thing exists).

As my colleague Gerald Warner has pointed out, the authorities and media have leapt on the fact that Khyra was homeschooled, using it as an opportunity to plug the Badman report, the Government’s sinister crackdown on homeschooling.

That Khyra is not typical of homeschooled children is an understatement – most parents who take this unusual step are conservative, decent, loving parents who simply see that, for all the good a loving home can do, peer pressure can undo it. They don’t want to send their child to the local comp where they’ll learn little else but how to speak Jafaican and t0 avoid appearing to be interested in learning, as is the prevailing ethos. And, for that matter, they don’t want their children to be indoctrinated with citizenship classes, second wave feminism, directions to the nearest Marie Stopes clinic or other sacraments of the state religion.

For girls being sent into modern centres of learning [cough] there is the added pressure of sex, and of sexual bullying both by boys and girls. Censorship and gender equality classes are not going to significantly change this prevailing atmosphere, which is a market problem: throughout history societies have swung between periods of promiscuity and Puritanism, but what’s different now is that the welfare state has fixed the metronome in an artificial position. Whereas in non-social engineered societies the fear of poverty and squalor would exert pressures towards chastity, and likewise periods of wealth would cause people to let their hair down, so that every part of society would find its equilibrium, the state now artificially prevents this process through cash incentives.

Khyra was not put at risk by homeschooling, but she certainly was put at risk by the fact that she lived with a man who was neither her biological father nor married to her mother – children raised in these circumstances are 100 times more likely to be murdered at home before they hit 18 than children raised by two biological parents. And yet the state incentivises these non-family forms, which is about as logical as subsidising cigarettes or cage fighting.

Khyra’s father had left his wife and six kids to the care of the state, which today plays the role of stepfather to millions of British children; she lived in a housing association property, a single mother with a council flat and zero confidence, and almost predictably, a sinister and violence-prone man moved in and dominated her (just like in the Peter Connelly case).

If our lawmakers really wanted to stop children being sexualised on the one hand and abused on the other, they must realise that the state is the problem, not the solution.

Ed West at The Telegraph

I do not know who ‘Ed West’ is, but he is ABSOLUTELY 1000% spot on with all of this. Check out the ‘furthermore’ part of this post.

If you subsidise something, you get more of it. This is true of everything, including single mothers who squeeze out as many children as possible, knowing that for each child they produce, a bigger house is required, until they can secure for themselves a SEVEN THOUSAND POUND A MONTH home in Maida Vale, living next door to millionaires at the expense of the milk cows (the british public).

The cause of all the problems in the UK is the state. Without the state stealing money from the milk cows, there would be no ‘social services’ to entice women to have children out of wedlock for the sole purpose of scoring a mansion for themselves. People from all over the world, rather than risking their lives to get to Britain, would shun it completely if there were no welfare state and guarantees of mansions for those who manage to produce enough children.

Even if you believe in the idea that the state is legitimate, and that it is legitimate for the state to steal from the many to redistribute wealth as seen fit by parliament, you cannot refute the idea that this system has a capacity – an upper limit after which the system must break down completely.

But I digress.

Ed West points out what we have been saying on BLOGDIAL for years:

  • Home Education is ideal parenting
  • Home Educators are the best parents
  • Home Educators are the most dedicated parents
  • Home Educators are the most decent parents
  • Home Educators are the most intelligent parents
  • Home Educators are the most hard working parents
  • Home Educators are most insightful parents
  • Home Educators are the most resourceful parents
  • Home Educators are the most community minded parents
  • Home Educators are the most diligent parents
  • Home Educators are the most natural parents

The children of Home Educators outperform all others in every metric you care to use.

These characteristics are the exact polar opposite of the anomalous, savage, unnatural, beastly, promiscuous, immoral, subhuman trash that are now being held up to be representative of what Home Education is about.

The people who are making this fallacious and scandalous assertion know exactly what they are doing, LYING, and they are the lowest form of human garbage imaginable.

If you accept that legislation has any validity at all, any sensible person knows that you should draft it not using the statistically insignificant cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you are legislating for as the basis, but you should legislate for the societal norm.

In the matter of Home Education, there is no need for legislation at all, since there are no cases of Home Education being linked to abuse and Home Education is simply full time parenting.

What this corrupt, paedophile natured government is doing is analogous to legislating against locust swarms because there have been cataclysmic meteor events. The two are not related in the first place, and secondly, you cannot by legislation, prevent the terrible and rarely occurring things that happen in life; bad things happen; that is part of being alive, and there is nothing you can do to stop them from happening. All of this is quite separate from the absurd idea that parents should be registered and monitored simply because they are with their children. Only a sick minded monster would suggest such a thing, and New Labour is full of these creatures.

This is the same twisted mentality where people cry out for the banning of kitchen knives because a sole person is killed by one or even (and Im not making this up) banning Venetian Blinds because a single child was strangled by the cord that operates them in a bizarre and astronomically unlikely accident. But even those examples break down when we discuss Home Education, since the pretext for this new legislation does not even exist.

What is very satisfying is the fact that there will be no money for any of this. No one is going to obey it. There are a million ways around it should the scumbags pass it into law. The Tories have promised to scrap it. From whatever way you look at it, this paedophile project of Ed Balls, Graham Badman, Delyth Morgan and all of these purely evil, sinister, destructive, anti-family monsters is going to stall at worst, and be utterly scrapped at best.

Their diseased philosophy is being discredited on a daily basis. Libertarianism (wether people know they are libertarians or not) is spreading like wildfire. These people are finished in the same way that the controller class of the Soviet Union were finished when as they saw their herd of cattle turn, trample and gore them.

Some lurkers have asked why we have not picked apart the recent dribbles of the lying BBC re Home Education. We have already done this at length, and really, measures should have been taken to PREVENT those new and vile articles appearing, instead of simply reacting to them again.

The BBC is going to continue to lie because someone is bribing them to. Until someone goes in there and bribes them not to lie, they are going to continue to do so.

Sickening blue dots

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Look at this map very carefully:

View The Abuse of Children in Care Settings in a larger map

This is a map showing the locations of incidents of the abuse of children in care settings. All the blue points on this map show a case where abuse took place despite CRB checks.

The priceless Alison says:

Putting professional child abusers on the map

As Balls, Badman, Birmingham Council and the BBC shamefully continue to breach the bounds of decency in the wake of Khyra Ishaq’s tragic death by cynically seeking to shift the blame from serial failures on the part of social services on to home education (because the child had stopped going to school when she was already giving profound cause for concern), we thought it was time to pronounce our own verdict: professionals cannot be trusted.

To demonstrate just how many dangerous teachers, nursery staff, doctors, nurses, social workers, police officers, youth workers and other ‘caring’ professionals there are out there, we have put a selection of state sanctioned professionals-turned-child abusers firmly on the map.

Liz Davies, the social worker who blew the whistle on the Islington care homes paedophile ring in the 90s, is arguably best qualified to comment on how and why things went so wrong for Khyra and she has done so eloquently. Disappointingly for the bigoted Balls et al, home education doesn’t come into it; rather it was the abject failure of so called professionals to intervene in what was a clear cut child protection case.

A highly respected social work lecturer and practitioner with specialist expertise in child protection, Liz Davies shares our own low opinion of Lord Laming, whose Every Child Matters recommendations were said to have been informed by the Victoria Climbie case but who we know was simply putting in train the citizen surveillance agenda already decided years earlier in Lisbon. The ‘child protection’ cover story may have worked on the BBC and most of the non thinking masses, but it is increasingly hard to sell as more and more children die as a result of skewed priorities and the failure to focus and target resources on the most vulnerable children. Children like Khyra who were already known to be at serious risk.

We at Home Ed Forums have become increasingly concerned by this government’s blanket claims that children are safe in schools, nurseries and other non family settings as long as they are in the care or company of ‘vetted’ professionals. So much so that we’ve been linking to news reports of the activities of a never ending stream of professional child abusers who have used their ‘trusted’ status to take evil advantage of vulnerable children. Our abuse of children in care settings got so long we thought we’d produce a map to demonstrate the prevalence of abuse by the very people this government has deemed suitable to work with our children. These are the sort of people Balls and Badman believe should have unrestricted access to private family homes and direct access to home educated children alone without the oversight and protection of their parents. Blogdial has already spoken on the perils of the paedophiles’ charter that has their distinctly dodgy backing.

Meanwhile, Hollie Greig is still awaiting justice, but there’s no sign of an investigation, review or even a peep from the BBC. Perhaps that’s because the presumption of innocence is now only selectively applied.

Do feel free to email us new entries as we will (sadly) be putting more child abusing professionals on our map.

Home Ed Forums

Anyone who thinks that CRB checks and the new ISA check have the power to stop crimes from happening is totally insane. The only thing a CRB check does is give criminals unfettered access to their prey. As long as they never get caught, the CRB check is in fact a license to abuse since all the morons out there will take this as a certificate of worthiness instead what it really is, a red flag that you are in terrible danger.

It is my opinion that anyone who wants to work for a ‘service’ that inspects other people’s children is immediately suspect. There are no doubt, people who actually believe that they will be doing good by becoming a ‘social worker’, but as I see it, these people are nothing more than busy bodies, nanny statists, control freaks and potential paedophiles. It is simply not natural to want to earn money to control, kidnap and be the parent of the children of complete strangers. This is of course, completely different to being a paediatrician or a nurse; those people are completely honourable in their professions because their role is not to control, but to heal. Yet, those noble people are being prevented from doing their jobs by the pernicious CRB check system:

Children have missed out on surgery because of “chaotic” Government regulations, medical professionals say.

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) warned their members could not cover absences or work at different hospitals due to Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check restrictions.

Young patients either had to wait or travel long distances to see a surgeon at a different hospital, due to “overzealous” interpretations of the rules by NHS trusts and long delays in returning results, it said.

The RCS said medical staff with an enhanced CRB check should be allowed to work in any hospital, and pointed out the restrictions prevented trainee paediatricians from gaining experience in different areas.

Some trainee surgeons went through more than 10 separate checks in two years, according to the college president John Black.

This is what happens when you leave madmen in charge of a country. They have turned Britain into an insane asylum, with the lunatics, paedophile shielders and peeping toms in charge.

The only proper response is to have nothing whatsoever to do with them on any level. That means not begging them for laptops or any other favours, funding or anything at all. They are completely illegitimate, immoral, un-ethical and dangerous.

Now that many people can see this clearly, they really must make the correct choices, like not paying the BBC TV License. They should do this and then never pay again. The BBC is a factory of lies that has colluded most viciously in the denigration of Home Education. Anyone who continues to pay for them to lie in this way… you get the picture.

The Tories have said that they will not allow this paedophile enabling legislation to stand, should they be elected:

Tories would scrap new duty for parents that educate children at home

The Tories would scrap a new duty that requires parents who educate their children at home to be registered with councils.

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, said that he would block plans which “stigmatise” home educators.

Under the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which has almost finished going through Parliament, local authorities will setup databases of home-educating families and visit them to ensure that standards are met.

It came after a report into home education by Graham Badman, a former headteacher and director of children’s services, published last summer, who said that there was a need for greater regulation.


Mr Gove said that he thought parents who educated their children at home did a wonderful job. He said: “Government should support them and we won’t allow the current Government’s plans to stigmatise home educators to get through.”

Mr Gove promised that clauses of the Bill relating to home education would never become law if the Tories won power in the general election.


If you are the voting sort, and you are Home Educator, if you do not vote Tory, you deserve everything that you get.

Lest you misunderstand me, I am completely aware that the Tories are going to run a bad government. It is the nature of the whole business. That being said, your number one goal in voting should be to 1) punish the paedo-enablers of New Labour. 2) gamble that the Tories will come through on this promise, which will not only cost them nothing, but which will actually save them money. Even if they fail to deliver on this promise, they will not have the money to run this appalling system of home innovations and paedophile grooming.

If the Tories do win, you can expect a short reprieve from inspections, monitoring, home invasion, paedophile grooming and a complete end to autonomous learning. During that reprieve, if you do not organise professional PR to counter the lie machines that are used against you, you are very foolish indeed.

Lets take a look at the current spate of bad press.

  • Everyone knew in advance what the date of this trial was going to be.
  • Everyone knew that after it, there would be a torrent of bad press deliberately crafted to smear Home Education while the odious Bill was passing through the house.

Instead of using a professional PR firm to prime, inoculate and inform all the journalists in advance of this trial and the inevitable bad press, there was no professional campaign whatsoever, save a pathetic, entirely reactive damage limitation exercise, where the participants speaking for Home Education were appended to the end of each piece for the sole purpose of satisfying the ‘journalists’ need to be seen as presenting a ‘balanced picture’.

If what newspapers and the BBC say is so very important, it is obvious that a professional, full time approach to handing perception is an absolute necessity. The map in this post is an extremely powerful image. Imagine it appearing in a national newspaper as part of an ‘explainer’ detailing why CRB checks are complete nonsense. It doesn’t take too much imagination to work out that it would have a huge impact, just as full colour spreads in Grazzia and Tatler would have to explain to those brain dead MPS that Home Education is the most desirable form of education out there, and that Britain is one of the best places to do it – a sphere that Britain is actually leading in for a change.

If this doesn’t happen, if no professional, full time PR firm is engaged to educate every sector of the public about Home Education, then we will be at the same place we are now when Labour return, perhaps with the unctuous monster Ed Balls as Shadow Prime Minister. When they are elected with him in charge, you can say goodbye to Home Education once and for all.

And they WILL be re-elected, I assure you, barring a revolution in Britain.

This full time PR endeavour has only one purpose; to make it psychologically impossible for any MP to consider any controls on Home Education. It should be anathema to them; they should bristle at the suggestion of controlling or interfering with Home Education. The only way this is going to happen is through a properly funded, professionally run PR campaign as I have described, with a small number of people in absolute control over it.

MPs are completely ignorant about Home Education. Most journalists and newspaper editors are also ignorant. None of them can use The Google. If you do not take the information to them on a silver platter (Vogue, Tatler, OK, Gruaniad, Observer, Sunday TImes) then they will never get the ‘opportunity’ to learn what they need to learn, and when the next changeover comes, you WILL be steamrollered. This legislation will be dusted off, added to to make it one thousand times worse, and then Prime Minster Ed Balls will roll it up into a tight cylinder and shove it down your throat while his ‘wife’ the Education Secretary holds you down.


A Madeline Bunting attack, and this time, she brought her army

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010


After a very nice day out, some evil lurker tricked me into clicking a link to a Madeline Bunting blog post.

It’s year 10’s English class in a London comprehensive. Forty kids are debating the purpose of a school. “Teaching social skills,” they suggest. Why do you need them? I ask, playing devil’s advocate. “To get a job.” Is that the only point of having social skills? “Yes, what else is there?” One demurs, hesitant and not entirely sure how to ­express herself. “No, there’s more to life than a job. There’s happiness. Social skills are needed to make you happy.”

Yet another example of why state run schools are some of the most poisonous places on the planet. Of course, this shameless, brainless apologist for the state and all its systems of control cannot question the very idea that children are sitting in a class segregated by age, brainwashed and almost incapable of speaking English.

Talking about ethics to these prisoners is completely absurd; first of all they are all in a classroom in a state of involuntary servitude. This is like discussing ethics with slaves. Secondly, the school that they are in has been paid for through by the coerced extortion of monies by the violent state; the notion of discussing ethics in this extremely unethical environment is a profoundly schizophrenic act. On an instinctive level, any child can feel that being in school by force, and in that form is completely wrong, an injury to them, and unethical.

If this demonstrates anything at all, its that Madeline Bunting has no idea of what is or is not ethical. If she understands what she is doing, then she is a state propagandist of the first order, who gains directly from the unethical nature of the state and its predations.

Amazingly in the comments to this drivel, someone actually (partially) gets it:

Any ethical/moral debate needs to embrace issues of ownership and control – a debate thet has been effectively abandoned in the 21st century. In particular we desperately need an intelligent dialogue about the ownership and control of our money system.

We need ask if there has ever been a more dysfunctional, immoral and unethical form of money creation than our current system, which allows the private creation of money in parallel with debt (i.e. credit) for the profits of financiers and at the expense of the people: Abraham Lincoln said that “the privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government?s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles? the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” Until we understand this we are morally bankrupt and economically enslaved to the financiers.

Ethical money means gold coins in the hands of the public. It means the complete removal of the business of money production from the clutches of government.

‘People’ like Madeline Bunting cannot understand this; they belong to the school of thought that holds money to be a sort of magic thing that ONLY governments can make. They are not interested in piercing the veil on this subject, and if they do, they hate where it leads, because to be ethical at that place means LESS government and not MORE and they are ALWAYS for more government.

It was a fascinating illustration of how deeply the instrumentalist values of the market have penetrated our everyday thinking when kids talk in this way.

Actually, what it demonstrates is that school is not a place to go if you want to learn how to think. It demonstrates that those children are nearly brain dead, like a drowned man brought up from the bottom of a lake and revived only to exist as a vegetable on a respirator. Thats what these children really are, and for the record, ‘kids’ are the offspring of goats, human beings have CHILDREN.

“Social skills” is the type of phrase management experts dreamed up to put a market value on a set of human characteristics.

Its called ‘socialization‘ when people like Madeline Bunting are talking about Home Education, and why that natural, beneficial and wonderful practice is not a good thing.

Cheerful, punctual, able to co-operate, take instructions: these are all marketable skills. But to many of these kids, equipping them for the labour market was the primary purpose of education. Any idea of it as enriching and deepening their understanding of what it is to be human and lead meaningful, contented adult lives, had been entirely lost to view. The one girl who offered an alternative was just as instrumentalist, only her goal was different: social skills were needed for not a job but for her personal happiness.

Oh dear.

Firstly, the marketable skills listed above (obedient to the state being the glaring omission) are exactly why schools were designed. They are factories that produce workers and nothing more.

Education that enriches and deepens the understanding of anything can be had outside of school, and in fact, many argue that it is only out of school that such things can be acquired organically. By using the phrase ‘lost to view’ she implies that none of the bad things schools do is deliberate, that somehow everything has evolved into this state by the accumulation of many innocently made bad choices over decades. No, that is not the case Madeline.

Now to the one girl who offered an alternative. On the one hand, Madeline decries the lack of schools providing enrichment, meaning and understanding so that students can be contented (happy), but when someone wants to get to the goal of happiness in a way other than she approves, this is ‘instrumentalist’.

This can be translated to, “be happy, but only in the way that I say happiness should be achieved”. Pure paternalist drivel of the most loathsome kind.

These were bright and interested 14-year-olds, but if you ran this argument in any other school, you’d probably get pretty similar responses.

This is why so many people are fleeing schools for Home Education.

The gap that intrigued me was the absence of any notion of being a good person, or of the many values that might not be able to command a market price such as being challenging, courageous, truthful, honest, spontaneous, joyful or even kind, compassionate.

This is absolutely astonishing.

These insane people, people like Madeline Bunting, are completely irrational, brainwashed anti-freedom monsters. They are the same sort of folk who associate the word ‘democracy’ with ‘fair’ and ‘just’, and in this particular instance, ‘free market’ with evil, greed, destruction, inhumanity and badness.

This paragraph is as wrong as a paragraph can be. A person who is ‘a good person’, who is challenging, courageous, truthful, honest, spontaneous (creative) and joyful has traits that are ALL highly marketable and desirable; employers desperately want people who have even a subset of these qualities, let alone all of them, and if you are a person who has them all, especially the essential trust quality, you will be LITERALLY worth your weight in gold.

How is it that this monster cannot understand that being trustworthy has a high market value? What sort of evil mind set produces a person that thinks being trustworthy is worthless to others?

It beggars belief.

I started with this classroom anecdote because it seems a good way to make concrete an absence. The central premise of the Citizen Ethics supplement published in this paper at the weekend (the full pamphlet can be downloaded on Comment is free) is that we have lost a way of thinking and talking about some very important things.

It is only the intellectual slave class of the state and their drooling followers that have lost the ability to think and talk about ethics in a coherent and rational way. From Matthew Parris and his nauseating and fawning noises of total allegiance to the state, to Henry Porter’s similar sickening concessions and total submission to the all powerful state as the final, natural, indispensable legitimate monopolist of violence, who thinks:

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve always believed that the democratic state must be given power to act on behalf of us


These people, Bunting, Parris and Porter, none of them can explain how it is that the power to ‘act’ (murder, steal etc etc) can be given to them by people who do not themselves have that power or right.

This is the way of thinking and talking about very important issues that has been ‘lost’. Of course, many of us do not think that it has been lost at all; these aparatchicks deliberately tow the line that the state is legitimate, while they in fact know that it is not.

The preoccupation with market efficiency and economic growth has loomed so large that other activities, and other values, have been subordinated to its disciplines.

When Madeline talks about ‘economic growth’, she means the increase in pollution and consumption of resources. Economic growth does not need to mean an increase in destruction; it can come about by an increase in efficiency. The very internet that her shabby article was accessed through, the computer that I am writing this on, and the server that hosts these words are just the smallest example of what increased market efficiency really means.

Not a matchstick of wood was needed to make this transaction; this is what happens when people are free to invent what they like and use and share what they have invented in the way that they like; we get the internet. People without imagination, like Madeline Bunting, even though these miraculous cost free increases in efficiency are literally staring them in the face, still insist that economic growth is an entirely undesirable and negative thing. Its a lie of course, and there are many examples of people similar to her who made all sorts of dire predictions and miscalculations that made them look silly in hindsight, thanks to the relentless innovation of man, who continues to inspire and free us from useless toil and waste, in spite of the state and its brain dead boosters.

“You can’t buck the market,” said Margaret Thatcher

As evil as Margaret Thatcher may or may not have been, this statement by her is absolutely correct. You can no more buck the market than than you can cause light to be dark, water to be dry or change the nature of the universe on the most fundamental levels.

The market, market forces, the nature of man and of money are things that are a natural, spontaneously emerging consequence of reality. These consequences are governed by laws:

  • F=ma
  • Pe=mgh
  • Ke=1/2mv2
  • E=mc2

All of those are examples of laws that describe how nature works. They are reliable, inviolable, unchangeable and absolute.

Money is another thing that obeys strict laws, in the same way that energy is governed by laws. You cannot create something out of nothing; this is the truth in both physics and economics, the science of money.

Madeline Bunting and all of her Grauniad cohorts do not understand these facts. That is why they can print that ‘Quantitative Easing’ (printing money) is the solution to the problem of the current crisis. They believe, as a child does, that Santa Claus brings presents to all the good children in a single night. They believe that government creates jobs. They believe that government creates money. Of course, government does create money; what it cannot do is create value by printing words on paper that they pass off as money. Money does not have value, “because people believe in it”. This is the sort of fantastic thinking that these people soak themselves in, and they shun the warm dry towel of logic so they always stay wet.

Until Madeline Bunting and the other fools at the Graunaid and everywhere else in the media either decide to stop lying for the state or come to their senses, i.e. wake up from their delusions and magical thinking, you will never read a factual article in their papers that deals with ethics and money. Period.

, and no government has disagreed since.

That is a lie. The crash would not have happened if that were really true.

It was the adage that was used to justify soaring pay for the highest earners and stagnant earnings for the low-paid.

Jealousy politics raises its revolting head yet again. Rates of pay are always justified. People are never paid more than what they are worth. There is no such thing as ‘too much money’. These are the ideas of the fantasist where the world is an unjust place every second that men everywhere are not absolutely equal. There is no such thing as a ‘fair’ wage. Minimum wage laws hurt people, not help them. Minimum wage laws make jobs scarce. It is all the fault of the state and its insane supporters, the Madeline Buntings of this world, and everything I just wrote is true.

The market ruled, and questions of injustice, honour or integrity were all secondary or irrelevant.

The market always rules, just as gravity always pulls down, wether you like it or not. The crash is the market asserting itself against the delusionists who think that you can eat yourself fitter.

Injustice is the state stealing money while Madeline Bunting and Henry Porter cheer them on. These people are not honourable by any definition; they are for violence, theft, murder and enslavement of their fellow man. They have no integrity, as on the one hand they call for conditional rights and ‘civil liberties’ and then on the other, profess their undying loyalty and support for the state (Porter and Parris). Yes indeed, honour and integrity are secondary to these people, secondary to their love of the evil state.

A poll for the World Economic Forum last month found in 10 G20 countries that two-thirds of respondents attributed the credit crunch and its ensuing economic recession to a crisis of ethics and values.

And that tells you all you need to know about the depth of understanding of economics at the World Economic Forum and of Madeline Bunting. They know nothing whatsoever about economics.

The crash / credit crunch had nothing to do with a ‘crisis of ethics’ not even when you turn that phrase onto the murderous state and its insane lust for the printing press, because the state is fundamentally unethical, and so there is no possibility of crisis in ethics there, since there are no ethics to begin with.

Sir Thomas Legg declared in his final report on MPs’ expenses that there had been a failure of ethics.

Here we have a scandal over a thimble full of water dipped into the ocean of stolen money. The trillions stolen by these MPs to murder and enslave is not the scandal, but instead, Madeline Bunting wants you to believe that a few pennies here and there to repair the houses of, and to service and entertain the thieves, is the great crisis of ethics. Never mind that these people want to force all children into the very schools that even a monster like her finds disturbing, making illegal any better, natural human alternative that produces the people that she claims she wants to see coming out of the education system. Never mind that they mass murder, colonise and destroy at will, unquestioned by these Grauniad ‘journalists’; none of that is important; only the duck house of an MP is a crisis in ethics.

This is a classic case of the media diverting attention away from the true crimes to focus on the sensational, the irrelevant and the petty, while crimes of mass murder and unprecedented theft go unreported, and when they are reported they are justified with false reasoning. Appalling, unforgivable behaviour.

There’s a widespread perception that social norms have subtly and gradually shifted towards the centrality of personal self-interest. As long as it’s legal, it’s legitimate; no further individual judgment is necessary.

And here we have the call for all actions to be illegal, whatever they are. A permission based society where everything is illegal to replace the free society, where everything that is not illegal is legal. Madeline Bunting wants a world where you have to have permission to do everything, no matter what it is. That is the only way she will feel safe from the chaotic free system, where people are able to peruse their own ideas of what is or is not good. This is anathema to Porter, Bunting and Parris, who would have everyone under control of the monolithic state ‘for their own good’.

It is only the unfettered personal self-interest that has brought mankind the great achievements. Men working to fulfil their destinies as they see fit, working voluntarily for profit or not; this force of nature – man unleashed – is the only way we can have peace and prosperity in abundance. Madeline Bunting and her imagination-less monster companions would have us live without, for example The Google, because they want to enrich themselves by printing books. They would keep us in horses and carts to save the buggy whip manufacturers. They are the luddites, the fear soaked nanny statists, the health and safety fanatics; they are everything that is wrong with the west.

However much we may have laughed at the Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” line, we can now see how it seeped into powerful institutional cultures such as the City and parliament.

Greed is good. Greed is the manifestation of the desires of men to make things and to act in the world. Greed is self interest; the lust for knowledge, for a better toaster, for commercial space flight, for faster computers. Greed is what makes the world good. Greed IS good.

The City is a collection of private firms; it is not a ‘powerful institutional culture’ any more than a packet of yeast is. Yeast does what it does and people in business do what they do.

Parliament on the other hand is a criminal organization that is precisely like a mafia gang. It extorts money, murders (actually the mafia NEVER murdered as much as any state ever did) and uses violence to get what it wants solely to prop up its own existence. It is a parasite, a drain on the resources of the good, the innocent and the productive. Once again a Grauniad hack fails to make the distinction between private business and the state; but this should come as no surprise to anyone; these are the same people who think money comes out of a printing press.

Citizen Ethics was a project to ask nearly four dozen prominent thinkers what this was all about. Did ethics really have a role to play, and had it failed? First, despite plenty of disagreements, on one thing there was a clear consensus: ethics are crucial.

Whose ethics?

There are people who believe (correctly) that the Madeline Buntings of this world are fundamentally unethical, and they can prove it. Without stating the source of your ethics, its foundation, its basis, its formulation, this word is just another meaningless posture.

Ethics are not something that you can make up as you go along. It is not something that you can design by the pick and mix method, like some of the very confused people who want to be free in their lives, but who insist that others should be violently restrained, licensed, inspected and controlled.

Like economics and physics, there is only one set of ethics that is correct for man, within which he is able to act morally and when he acts in groups of people, all achieve their full potential in harmony.

This one set of ethics is not self contradictory, does not make exceptions that allow for unprovoked violence or theft or other immorality. It is complete, logical, and unassailable, just like the basic laws of motion, that produce predictable results every time ad infinitum. You know its name because you read BLOGDIAL: Libertarianism, as described by Murray N. Rothbard.

They are the underpinning to all political debate; they frame the questions we ask of ourselves and of our political economy and therefore do much to shape the answers we end up with.

And that is why if you start without the facts and the laws that govern reality, you will never be able to predict where the cannon ball will fall when it is shot, or put a spacecraft in orbit around Saturn. Without Newton’s laws you cannot do these things, and without Murray Rothbard and Libertarianism and Austrian Economics, you have no starting point based in the world as it actually is to be able to get to the correct answers.

They are vital to the civic culture in which both politics and economics are ultimately rooted.

Economics is rooted in immutable laws. The way men deal with each other ethically is rooted in what their true nature is. From those two things flows the shape of how the world should be.

So, as Will Hutton will do in his book, Them and Us, out in the autumn, if we really want to understand how some of the incredible myths perpetrated over the last couple of decades have gone unchallenged, we have to go back to some basic arguments of philosophy. What is justice? Who deserves what? What constitutes human flourishing?

What is justice? First we need to know what man is. Who deserves what? Once again, what is man, where do goods come from, what is property, who owns property, what is theft, what are rights, what are not rights; these are the questions that are answered by Murray Rothbard. What constitutes human flourishing? That is not for anyone to define except by those who want to impose their will on other people, I can tell you that for free.

Too many of these questions have simply been shelved for too long.

They have never been ‘shelved’ unless you are writing for the Grauniad, where they hold that they are the protectors of the revealed truth of how the world works. People all over the world are turning to Libertarianism because it is demonstrably true and because it tells us what is wrong with how the world is currently organized.

Austrian Economics can predict the crashes, why they happen and how money really works. On the contrary, rather than being shelved, these questions are being asked and answered more now than ever, and the Madeleine Buntings and Henry Porters of the world are running scared, because their false world view is crumbling before their very eyes, just like the Soviet Union disintegrated before the eyes of the people who believed in that immoral, unethical, unworkable system.

Questions of justice and reward were left to the market to resolve; questions of human flourishing were privatised.

Justice is the business of courts. Remuneration is an absolutely private affair. Human flourishing takes care of itself, just like weeds do. This is a perfect example of wrong thinking, where there is no distinction between the sphere of the state and the world of the private, where words have lost their meaning, where an ethical foundation is missing.

It was left to everyone to decide their own sequence of pleasurable experiences in life with little acknowledgement of how many of those depend entirely on mutual co-operation.

It is only through everyone deciding and taking their own path that all man can reap the maximum rewards. Men voluntarily exchanging causes mutual co-operation to spontaneously emerge; we need each other to achieve our pleasure, whatever that may be. Madeleine Bunting does not understand how the world really works. She does not understand where prosperity comes from, what prosperity is, how innovation works, how capital flows, and what man is.

The classic paradigm is sitting in a traffic jam in your 4×4 with its astonishing powers of acceleration rendered useless.

If all the roads were privately owned, and there were no speed limits, traffic would flow better.

One explanation for this abandonment of the debate is that we lost a language in which to think and argue about ethics.

There is no ME in your WE.

Perhaps this is partly attributable to the vexed legacy of institutional religion and the long shadow it still casts. The promotion of ethical behaviour has been bound up with particular institutions, and as they decline, it leaves a vacuum of authority.

I agree with the second sentence.

Who dares talk on this subject with confidence?

The Libertarians especially Lew Rockwell.

It prompts fear that any such discussions are really a Trojan horse for promoting a religious belief. There’s a suspicion that words such as “morality” tip us quickly into the kind of instinctive conviction made infamous by Tony Blair in which sincerity is regarded as an adequate substitute for careful reasoning.

Whatever the basis of your morality, as long as you do not bother anyone, what you choose to believe and how you choose to act is entirely your own business.

Even the language itself is mired in a history of social control; morality and virtue are words that are reluctantly used, since both still convey overtones of intrusive monitoring of (particularly female) sexual behaviour.

Unbelievable; this person talks about brainwashed children in schools and “intrusive monitoring of behaviour” in the same breath!

But since most of the contributors to this pamphlet express their commitment to ethics without any reference to religious practice, perhaps it is finally possible to move beyond these familiar anxieties and resume a task of ethical reasoning regarded through most of history as essential to being human. This is philosophy as the Greeks understood it – love of the wisdom to lead lives of meaning and fulfilment, not some kind of abstract game with words.

Ethical reasoning starting from where? And with whom? Whose definition of meaning and fulfilment? Violence is not an abstract or a game with words; what these people want is total violence against everyone who does not believe what they believe. They want children imprisoned in their brainwashing schools, so they they can indoctrinate them in THEIR ideas of what is and is not ethical, that they have muddled together from scratch.

Ethics is a word that derives from two Greek words, ethos for habit and ethikos for character, and it better fits what Citizen Ethics proposes rather than “morality”, which comes from the Latin word “mores” for social institutions and customs. This is not about reasserting conventions, a preconceived code, but about reinvigorating a habit, a process of reasoning to the perennial question: what is the right thing to do?

This is not the perennial question, and that a group of people should want to force their version of what the questions should and should not be is a gross form of violence. As far as I am concerned (and you can do and think whatever you like, I could care less as long as you do not interfere with me in any way whatsoever) the questions are, “what should I NOT do?”, “how can I DO NO HARM?” and all the other questions the answers to which will ensure that I never harm anyone else with violence either by my own hand or by proxy through the state or its agents. With this as the basis, a moral existence is a natural consequence; what you do with it, on top of it, voluntarily, is all bonus.

People who are interested in ‘doing right’ are the most dangerous humans in the world. They are the sort of people who come up with political correctness, affirmative action, miscegenation laws, minimum wage laws, censorship and ever other evil that decent people hate. All of those are a direct consequence of not having a properly operating ethical code that prevents the doing of evil, that does not define what man is and what his true relationship is with the world and with other men.

We wouldn’t claim there is a consensus waiting to be found – on the contrary, our aim is to provoke a noisy debate on what kinds of habits and characters we need to run the good society.

Is it now?

Habits are how animals behave; men do not act out of habit, they act from reason. Once again, who is this mythical ‘we’ that she speaks of, and why is the running of the ‘good society’ (whatever that is) the goal? Who decided this, and why should anyone be forced to go along with it all? The answer is they should not, and anyone who wants it forced upon everyone is violent.

To go back to the lovely kids in the classroom, what is the good society we want to inspire them with – beyond their future roles in the economy as workers and consumers? What habits and character can we offer them as conducive to deeply rewarding lives? If we don’t know plenty of possible answers to that question, it’s no surprise they don’t.

  • What is ‘the good society’?
  • Who is the ‘we’ that wants to inspire other people’s children with it?
  • Who is the group that decides what animalistic habits the children of today are going to be brainwashed to reflexively exhibit?
  • Who decides what is or is not a man of good character?
  • Who decides what is or is not a ‘rewarding life’?

And what an insulting condescending monster to assume that just because SHE does not have these answers, children cannot find them out for themselves by whatever means, without HER HELP.

The ever insightful Mimi Majick puts it plainly, “This woman knows exactly what she is doing; she is utterly wicked”.

I agree.

Now on to the document ‘Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis‘ which is hosted on Scribd… wait a minute, I thought Scribd was EVIL?!

No surprises here; an intolerable, appalling mishmash of violence, pronoun abuse, lies and vile collectivism.

Here is a nasty taste:

The financial and political events of the past year have given rise to a crisis of ethics. Bankers and MPs acted legally but without integrity, and we lacked a language to respond. How are we to articulate our misgivings? How can we regain our ability to reason ethically?

Bunting. What a joke!

‘The times call for new ethical understandings as much as remembering old ones’

Anyone who wants to redefine what a human being is or is not is your mortal enemy. That is EXACTLY what Bunting is saying here; ‘we’ (whoever that is, and we know she means the authors of this bad document and their sick followers) have to construct a new ethics; in the same breath she admits that ‘we’ (meaning actually THEY) do not have the language to create such an ethics. Very very DUMB!


Michael Sandel


So, as frustration with politics builds on both sides of the Atlantic, it is worth asking what a new politics of the common good might look like. Here are four possible themes.
A first concerns citizenship, sacrifice and service.

Slavery, theft and violence. Pure evil.

To achieve a just society, we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life

‘Reason together’; this translates to “we have to enslave everyone to obey the majority rule”. No thanks, and no sale!


In a world that has laid bare the pitfalls of individualism, we must learn once more to live in the real world, says the Archbishop of Canterbury

Apostate Christian calls for enslavement:

‘We have looked into the abyss where individualism is concerned and we know it won’t do’

There we go with the ‘we’ business again. Individualism (which is the true face of what it means to be a human being) is the only way that man can reach his full potential. Real Christians understand this through the idea that man has been given free will, and that this is the only way that he can actually choose good over evil.

These apostates want man to be FORCED to do what THEY think is good. That diminishes man entirely to a creature. But then, this is exactly what they want, and the very language they use to describe their brainwashed followers reveals this; this man has s FLOCK. Nuff said.

Self-interest and calculation have derailed our values. To get back on track we must remember the affective bonds that link us to one another

Mark Vernon

Heavens above, they are all INSANE.

Self-interest and calculation are the ultimate tools for enlightenment, prosperity and freedom. Without them, man is reduced to property.

our current moral discourse lacks a compelling vision of what it is to be human

It doesn’t have to be compelling, it only has to be true.

Ethics is a form of practical intelligence. Like friendship, we nurture virtues best by our engagement with others and the world. Such skills must be learnt afresh in every generation – another reason why a fixed, codified system never inspires: it contains little conception that life is to be lived.

This is completely false.

What man is is FIXED, just as the laws of nature are fixed. The result of setting the ideas and beliefs of what man is to zero every generation is so absurd that I can barely believe that someone would be stupid enough to print it.

The entire reason why man is able to do what he does is precisely because he can transfer information across generations. Each generation can do what it likes, but what they cannot do is redefine what man is or what right and wrong are. What is ethical and what is unethical is fixed. The result of not knowing what these set rules are is tyranny accepted as normal and ethical, as the people who write in the Guardian do. It would be like people having to learn mathematics from scratch every generation. I can tell you exactly what those people are; they are Gorillas and the other primates who never change, who act by habit and instinct only, who do not write anything down and who do not have any awareness of what they are.

By the nature of what knowledge is, there will always be a first person who correctly identifies and then codifies the one true ethics that emerges from the nature of man; that philosopher was Murray Rothbard.

He discovered and wrote down the ethical equivalent of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica where the laws that describe what man is and is not and how he is governed by this immutable nature and the immutable nature of reality have been laid out clearly and completely.

Murray Rothbard’s triumph was to expose the absolute base of what man is as he exists. He did this without any reference to religion; it is purely logical and derived from reason only.

From this basis, everything else that you want to believe and any action that you want to take can be tested to see wether or not it is ethical. Libertarianism is unambiguous, clean, without contradictions and easy to understand. In the same way that Newton’s laws of motion can get you to the other planets with pinpoint accuracy, Murray Rothbard’s Libertarianism can get you to a complete understanding of the way the world should work, with absolute clarity and precision, with an infinite amount of space for any personal belief you wish to hold, an infinite amount of leeway for you to help others in any way you choose, to collaborate, exchange, build, grow, live, worship and be a total human being.

This is what the writers of this pamphlet DESPISE.

often on the fringes of critical debate, Islam has much to offer when it comes to the development of an ethics based on our common citizenship,

Tariq Ramadan

Uh oh…

‘Our’ Common citizenship? Of WHAT exactly? I am not a citizen of ANYTHING in common with you Mr. Ramadan. The same goes for you Rowan.

Ethics based on anything other than the true nature of man is worthless. Libertarianism, with its infinite space for any sort of belief, accepts every type of religion. What you believe is your own business. You are even free to offer it to others, ad infinitum. The only thing you are forbidden from doing is harming others or their property. You cannot steal, coerce or initiate the use of force against others, for any reason whatsoever.

And now, we have the very disturbing, suspiciously ineffective Shame (yes SHAME) Chakrabarti, who answers a questionnaire:

What’s the fundamental code we all should live by?
The simple code for living is equal treatment. There are all sorts of rights and freedoms we have and hold dear – freedom of speech, privacy, conscience and so on. And they can’t necessarily be absolute, but what we can say is that any changes to them have to be universal. So for example, take the issue of body scanners at airports. You can argue that it’s an invasion of privacy to have them, you can argue that it’s necessary to prevent terrorism, but what you can’t argue is that it’s ok to compromise someone’s privacy and not others. So it’s not going to be ok to isolate certain sorts of passengers, who look different maybe, and only use body scanners on them. It’s about equal treatment: if you make compromises on liberties, you make them for everyone, not just for some people. That’s paramount.

Equal treatment? Equally good or equally bad?. I think the answer is BAD, since this monster believes that rights are not absolute, but conditional on the word and by the leave of the ever present ‘we’, who will decide what ‘beneficial changes’ are to be made… universally of course… by the power of the omnipotent state, for which this witch is a shill.

Look at her treatment of body scanners; they are justified as long as ALL people go through them equally. These are the words of MONSTERS, and collaborators and TRAITORS, traitors to all souls everywhere… These words should make you BRISTLE with anger.

Clearly not one of the people who were invited to write for this document or answer the questionnaire have any idea of ethics, where they come from, or anything else about them. They are without a moral compass, evil, violent, control addicted, statist MONSTERS, ‘the enemy’ if you will.

Capitalism has been undermined by an abuse of the very principle that is its cornerstone: fairness. It is essential that we reclaim the idea of just rewards

Will Hutton

Profit is ethical to the extent it is proportionate to effort and not due to good luck or brute power

I’m not making these up, they are directly copied and pasted!

And finally, before I vomit all over my keyboard:

What would the economist John Maynard Keynes make of the state we’re in? We asked philosopher Edward Skidelsky to press Keynes’ biographer, his father Robert, on what the great man might say

‘The great man’

oh… no… I’mgoingto p-huuuuuurllllargh!!!!!!!!

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to hire potential paedophile

Friday, February 12th, 2010

A diligent lurker sent us this job posting for Doncaster council, who are looking for someone to fill the position of ‘Elective Home Education Consultant’:

Elective Home Education Consultant

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
South Yorkshire
Up to £100000
Solbury 9-12 Plus 3 spa
Job Details


Required for April 2010.

NB This is a part-time post equivalent to two days per week and for one term only in the first instance.

The School Improvement Service is seeking to appoint an education professional to visit families who elect to educate at home.

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

  • Monitor the quality of education for children who are being educated at home
  • Provide feedback to a senior officer of the LA and to families
  • Liaise with Education Welfare Service and Traveller Education Service as necessary
  • Provide detailed notes of visit

For further information relating to this post please contact Caroline Greening on 736261.

Closing date for applications is 19th February 2010 12noon.

Interviews will take place on week commencing 8th March 2010.

If you have not heard from us by this date, please assume you have not been shortlisted for interview for the post.

Doncaster Council is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people and adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment. This post is subject to an enhanced CRB check.

Many thanks for your interest in this vacancy.

Please be aware that this job closes at 12:00PM on 19/02/2010

Lets do this!

Elective Home Education Consultant

First of all, this is not a consultancy job. The correct title for this is ‘Elective Home Education Inspector‘.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A limited liability company it seems! You do know about this do you not?

The School Improvement Service is seeking to appoint an education professional to visit families who elect to educate at home.

Home Educated children are NOT IN SCHOOL (even though sometimes they are called ‘HomeSchoolers’) and so it is entirely wrong that a person attached to ‘School Improvement’ should be entering the homes of private people to spy on what they are doing with their children. Families who elect to educate their children at home should not be subject to suspicion by default, guilt before being proven innocent, licensing or registration. Neither are they entitled to any special treatment or gifts or anything else from the state. They should be left completely alone to do whatever it is that they do, and they should assume full responsibility for whatever happens to them. Period.

The candidate appointed will be expected to:

  • Monitor the quality of education for children who are being educated at home

This is entirely illegitimate. If parents want the progress of their Home Educated child to be monitored it is up to them to employ someone at their own expense to do this. Is it not the proper role of government to monitor the families who do not opt to partake of their ‘free’ ‘education’. Whatever the nature and quality of the education being delivered or not is the private affair of the family, full stop. It is no one else’s business and no one has the right to enter a person’s home to carry out an inspection of this kind. This is non negotiable.

  • Provide feedback to a senior officer of the LA and to families

As I said above, this is not a consultation job; the person doing this it is an inspector; an inspector who gathers data and then reports back to the Company LA. Once again, families that want this service should pay for it themselves; also it is completely absurd that this inspector should provide feedback to the family that is being inspected. They already know what it is that they are doing. The subtext here is that Home Educators are not competent by default, and that they need some metrics provided to them to measure their performance.

  • Liaise with Education Welfare Service and Traveller Education Service as necessary

What on earth does Home Education have to do with Travellers? Home educators can also be travellers… or not, but the two should not be conflated. What on earth is ‘Education Welfare’? You can have ‘education performance’, ‘curriculum compliance’ or any number of combinations that make sense, but education has nothing to do with welfare; Home educated children are being educated. They are at home, and so their welfare is not in question; if it is, then it is a welfare issue which is a separate thing entirely from education.

  • Provide detailed notes of visit

So, this person is to be let into a house in Doncaster, so he can whisper into a voice recorder as he observes the goings on in a private household.

You cant make this sort of thing up.

Anyone who allows this sort of violation deserves everything that they get, and no, you DO HAVE A CHOICE.

Doncaster Council is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people and adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment. This post is subject to an enhanced CRB check.

Let’t think about this.

Doncaster Borough Council Limited is going to hire a STRANGER, someone that THEY DO NOT KNOW to enter your home and ‘inspect’ you, who also do not know this STRANGER. This person, a potential paedophile, will be CRB checked… just like the other people who were CRB checked and who turned out to be monsters yet who had jobs giving them access to children.

Every paedophile in Doncaster (that has not been caught) is going to line up for this job. It is a part time job, so they can carry on with their other work while they prey on the innocent families of Doncaster, grooming them as they go, and be PAID for the privilege.

That Doncaster can claim that they have the best interests of people at heart, and that it will be OK because they are going to CRB check this inspector is beyond a joke.

The reality is that Concaster (yes, Con-caster) cannot vouch for the intentions of any stranger who they send into the homes of private people to do this nasty job. They are hiring someone who they do not know, and sending him to homes where they have no business. Even if they did know the person they are sending very well, that still does not lessen the insult of the idea.

The price of your privacy, by the way, is £100,000 per year. Thats what someone will be paid to force their way into your home, and then determine wether or not you should be home educating. He can report you to Social Services based on his personal prejudices and interfere with your life at will. There will be a huge queue of busybodies lining up to do this; many of them with a chip on their shoulder, drooling at the opportunity to lord it over other people, tell them what to do, frighten them, harass them, and potentially rape their children.

A retired teacher may take up this post. You know that means instant, blistering hostility to the idea that teachers are not needed to educate children, and the slightest perceived infraction will mean you are reported as being a bad parent. For 100,000 pounds a year and a pension for two days work per week and unlimited power to destroy… this is a dream job for monsters.

Whatever way you want to look at it, this job posting is a terrible indication of how the system of licensing and inspection is going to work. Potential paedophiles are going to be the ‘front line’ of this violation. It means nothing but trouble, guaranteed if you let them into your house. And do not forget, that these well paid potential paedophiles will have the power to DEMAND that they interview your children without you being there. If you refuse, your home education license will be revoked.

Incredible ay? Still, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Councils up and down the country are downsising, and the people who are being chopped are from Child Services:

Unions demand talks over Birmingham Council job cuts

The council needs to save millions from its budget

Union bosses want talks with Birmingham City Council over its plan to cut 2,000 jobs.

The UK’s biggest local authority needs to slash £69m from its budget and plans to cut 5% of its workforce in the process.

Unions say children’s services are expected to be hardest hit, with more than 1,200 positions that could go.

The council hopes the cuts can come mostly through early retirement and voluntary redundancy.

Tony Rabaiotti, of local government workers union Unison, said: “What the council is trying to do is offer a kind of moral blackmail to employees and that is not good enough. These are political decisions.”

Patrick Burns, BBC Midlands Today political editor, said the cuts showed it was the turn of the public sector to feel the pain experienced by the private sector last year.

“To some extent the public sector was protected from this initial wave of austerity,” he said.

“Well now comes Phase 2, where the public sector gets its share of this chill wind.”

Some councils will not be able to start this fiasco at all. There simply will be no money for it. As the New Zealand government has had to admit, spending money on monitoring home educators is a total waste of resources.

The coming financial collapse will wipe out these councils as we have known them. In the mean time, those delusional busybodies at Doncaster LA will use the cheapest possible people do fulfil ‘their duties’. Once again, depending on where you live, you may be left completely alone by your Local Authority. There are many ways you can get around this vile legislation and its animalistic implementors:

If you do not register, they cannot find you.
If they find you, you can refuse to deal with them by whatever means you like.
You can leave the country.
____________________ <<< insert your escape plan here There are a whole raft of ways that you can stay away from this nonsense. All you have to do is make up your mind that you will not tolerate this abuse, and then act upon that decision. Lets make one thing perfectly clear. You cannot ask for a free laptop from the government AND demand that you not be registered and inspected:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow home educating families to apply for home access laptop grants.

At the moment home-educating families are purposely excluded from the Home Access free laptop scheme for families on low incomes in England. We believe this to be discriminatory against families who strive to bring a nurturing and personal education to their children and at their own cost. Ed Balls said that children without access to the Internet at home are “…at a disadvantage to their peers…” yet is utterly at home leaving a tiny section of society in that very place: at a disadvantage to everyone else.

Please make the laptops available to home-educated children too. The current criteria is negligent and exclusive. More here.

What the hell?

Perhaps the home educators who are asking for free laptops are the ones that are ‘comfortable’ with registration and monitoring. Who knows? What is for sure is that this sort of utter bullshit makes the case for registration:

Exchange between Graham Stuart MP and Minister Diana Johnson, Bill Committee Thursday February 4th:
MP Graham Stuart: “A few weeks ago, when looking on the DCSF website, we found the programme that allows children to have a home computer and it said specifically, “but not if you are home-educated”. No access to IT then. The website said that on the very day the Minister told us how the Government wanted to change things.”

Ms Johnson: “That point presents an interesting issue. The reason why the home access scheme is not being made available to families who home educate is because we do not know who those families are. We have no accurate register to look to. Some families have put themselves forward and notified their local authority, but there is no accurate record. That is the problem, and the nub of the issue. We do not have an accurate record of families who are home educating.”

MP Graham Stuart: “Time and again we get the circular argument that we need registration before we can provide support. We have 20,000 home-educated children who are known to be registered with their local authority. Has that led to any provision for them? It has not.”

Reminder of Baroness Morgan’s answer to Lord Lucas, Tuesday February 9th:
“In order to be eligible for a Home Access Grant, the learner must have their education funded by an English local authority or the Department for Children, Schools and Families. When a learner is withdrawn from, or is not enrolled in school, the family opts out of receiving the statutory funding towards that learner’s education. As such, those who elect to educate their children at home will not be eligible to receive a Home Access Grant.”

And there you have it.

Diana Johnson makes a statement that is pure logic, “how can we give you your free sugary laptop if we do not know where to send it my pets?!”. Amazingly, there are some people who would sell their own children for a laptop. That is their right of course. What they CANNOT do is say that they are AGAINST registration of themselves as home educators (and the subsequent inspections), and then ALSO DEMAND that the state steal from other people to provide them with laptops (or anything else) without the state asking ANYTHING of them whatsoever. The state is answerable to the taxpayer, and they have a responsibility to allocate scarce resources efficiently. That is all the excuse they need to register you if you are going to ask for a ‘free’ laptop.

For all we know, the people who put up that petition at No10 worked for the DCSf, and were glove puppeting. That makes more sense than home educators begging for laptops whilst in the middle of an epic battle for their freedoms and the safety of their children.


People in the know on teh internetz ask:

“Isn’t Doncaster one of the most incompetent LAs where lots of children die?”

the answer, it appears, is YES:

Doncaster Social services facing inquiry after seven suspicious deaths:


10,000 != 100,000


Thanks Billysu!!


The listing has been REMOVED by the employer:

Home Edders rock! ‘This vacancy has been withdrawn by the employer’! £100,000 for a 2-day week :-)

But someone clever made a screengrab of it:


and here is another:

BBC liars at the Biometric trough again

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

The BBC has lied yet again about biometrics. Paul Murphy is a BBC propagandist first class; watch him in oily action:

The scheme does free young people from constant requests for proof of age

This is a LIE.

Every time you go into this vile off-license, you will be asked to EITHER show ID OR scan in. Putting your fingerprint in that database does not excuse you from any future request to identify yourself, it merely changes the way that you do it.

This reporter is either mentally retarded or is deliberately lying to make the violation inherent in this system more palatable to the sheeple that get their news from TV.

And did you see the ugly pageant of fat, disgusting, brainwashed pieces of flesh all saying that its a ‘good thing’?

This is the enemy that people who want to be free are up against; brain dead blubber bodies who swallow anything they are told and who are then willing and eager to contribute to violence against anyone that does not believe and act as they do.

its had an enthusiastic response from all the people who have joined

Indeed; what about the response from the people who have NOT joined?

Furthermore, there are ‘young people’ do not have concerns because SCUM LIKE YOU deliberately fail to provide them with the larger picture; you only ever tell them tall tales about convenience and compliance. You peddle propaganda, pure and simple.

Rob Parker should not need a license to sell alcohol, and there should be no age restrictions on who can and cannot buy it. It is no one’s business who he sells his property to PERIOD, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a brainwashed promoter of VIOLENCE.

but people watching say “we don’t want alcohol sold to underage (sic) they’ll actually welcome this; they will say its a positive move”

Some people say?

Now the presenter demonstrates powers of telepathy as well as prognostication.

‘WE’ don’t want? So you use VIOLENCE against people who are not forcing their wares on anyone, just because “WE” want? Who is this “WE” that these BBC subhuman trash monsters keep referring to? For the record, once again, there is no ‘ME’ in your ‘WE’:

These violent scum are the same ones that want to control what you eat, what sort of car you drive, what you can and cannot think, and how you heat your house. They are the same dangerous and repulsive animals that want to force you to send your children into their brainwashing schools so that they can end up fat, brain damaged and turned into cattle like the pitiful creatures in this video clip. They are the same people who have no problem with the state stealing on their behalf for their own benefit. Their way of thinking is the root cause of entire problem, and you can identify it by its smell.

but what is there to worry about? Its a voluntary scheme, nobody’s got to do it


This presenter, without a shadow of doubt, knows that HMG lost the data on millions of people, knows about how these systems are open to abuse now and in the future – he knows that is is presenting a fallacious ‘side to the argument’. We can see this because his questions are all the wrong ones and not the right ones.

He MUST know that this data could be subpoenaed by the police and then stored and abused by them. There is no way that they are not aware of all of this and how it can be used against you.

And yet they continue to lie and lie and lie again.

All we need now is a Climate Gate style release of secrete documents to totally blow away the NIR/ID Cards biometric net / security scam once and for all. As for the funded by theft BBC, their days are numbered, and every lie they tell presses on the accelerator of the engine of their demise.

I can’t wait to see it!

American Judge: German Government still Nazi

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

A Home Educating family from Germany has just been granted political asylum in the USA. This is highly significant:

Homeschooling Family Granted Political Asylum

Immigration Judge Says Germany Violating Basic Human Rights

In a case with international ramifications, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted the political asylum application of a German homeschooling family. The Romeikes are Christians from Bissinggen, Germany, who fled persecution in August 2008 to seek political asylum in the United States. The request was granted January 26 after a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 21.

“We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution,” said Judge Burman. “The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”

Burman added, “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.”

In his ruling, Burman said that the scariest thing about this case was the motivation of the government. He noted it appeared that rather than being concerned about the welfare of the children, the government was trying to stamp out parallel societies—something the judge called “odd” and just plain “silly.” In his order the judge expressed concern that while Germany is a democratic country and is an ally, he noted that this particular policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans.”

The italics are my emphasis.

Of course, this is exactly what is happening in the UK, with its new fascist law. Under this new law, if a family in the UK fails to apply for a state license to home educate, the quality of home education is not to be taken into account in any proceedings, a home education license is to be automatically denied, and an School Attendance Order is to be issued.

This is not the action of people who are interested in the welfare or education of children, it is the act of people whose sole concern is that everyone is registered.

‘Embarrassing for Germany’

“This decision finally recognizes that German homeschoolers are a specific social group that is being persecuted by a Western democracy,” said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney and director of international relations for Home School Legal Defense Associaton. “It is embarrassing for Germany, since a Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children. This judge understood the case perfectly, and he called Germany out. We hope this decision will cause Germany to stop persecuting homeschoolers,” he added.

The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has been intensifying over the past several years. They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate.

The Romeikes expressed relief when they heard the decision.

“We are so grateful to the judge for his ruling,” said Uwe Romeike. “We know many people, especially other German homeschoolers, have been praying for us. Their prayers and ours have been answered. We greatly appreciate the freedom to homeschool we now have in America and will be building our new life here,” he added.

Donnelly testified at the hearing on January 21, telling the immigration Judge that homeschoolers are persecuted all over Germany.

‘Ignoring the Truth’

“There is no safety for homeschoolers in Germany,” Donnelly said. “The two highest courts in Germany have ruled that it is acceptable for the German government to ‘stamp out’ homeschoolers as some kind of ‘parallel society.’ The reasoning is flawed. The fact is that homeschoolers are not a parallel society. Valid research shows that homeschoolers excel academically and socially. German courts are simply ignoring the truth that exists all over the world where homeschooling is practiced. They need to look beyond their own borders.”

In 2003 the highest administrative court in Germany, which interprets its federal Constitution, ruled in the Konrad case that it was permissable for parents who have jobs that require them to travel—such as circus performers and musicians—to homeschool, but homeschooling was prohibited for parents who wanted to for reasons of conscience. The highest criminal court said in the Paul-Plett case in 2006 that the government was allowed to take custody of children whose parents want to homeschool for reasons of conscience.

Reasons of conscience, and your right to act by their motivation is an essential freedom that everyone has. It is the same for conscientious objectors, people who will not eat meat, etc etc. For a german court to rule in this way, that it is OK for people to home educate for reasons related to MONEY but not conscience, is an accurate indicator of the pure evil that resides in the bosoms of Germans. And once again, this is not just the German government that is on trial here; just as it was in the 1930's the German people cannot claim that "I know nothing" A German family has FLED due to this persecution. They are all culpable. PERIOD.

Donnelly challenged the reasoning of the German courts.

“It is ridiculous for German courts to say that homeschooling is allowed if you have practical reasons but disallowed if you have conscientious reasons,” Donnelly said. “This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history. Homeschooling is a growing social movement all over the world, and the Germans want to stamp it out based on a fabricated notion that homeschoolers are a ‘parallel society.’ Germany’s treatment of homeschooling families is worthy of condemnation from the international community. I am proud that a United States immigration judge recognized the truth of what is happening in Germany and has rendered this favorable decision for the Romeike family.”

German homeschoolers have been organizing and trying to draw the attention of German politicians. It has been difficult. Juergen Dudek is a homeschooling father who had been sentenced to 90 days in jail for homeschooling, but whose sentence was reduced to a $300 fine. He noted that officials in Germany have no appreciation for homeschoolers who think differently than the state.

‘Send a Loud Message’

“It is incredible to me that these officials give absolutely no weight to our faith or other conscientious objection to attendance at the public schools,” said Dudek. “We have had a number of families who are not homeschoolers, but who know that the German school system is failing, who called us to encourage us. In our re-hearing the judge issued a decision reducing our sentence from jail to a fine but was totally dismissive of our reasons for wanting to homeschool. We have always been encouraged by the support of American homeschoolers, and we hope that this decision will send a loud message to the German people that what our country is doing is wrong.”

A board member of the Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit, an organization working for freedom for homeschoolers, said that the ruling would be helpful to homeschoolers in Germany.

This decision reveals to the rest of the world that the German state acts outside the mainstream of Western democracies. Germany is in the company of countries like China, North Korea and others where fundamental human rights are not respected. Germany’s behavior exposes the totalitarian character of the German school law that takes away a parent’s right to educate their children. A decision on behalf of the Romeikes puts blame on the German government and is a serious warning to Germans officials to change their policies and further accept the rights of the parents. We hope that the decision will send a clear message to authorities in Germany to make changes right away!”

Mike Smith, president of HSLDA, also applauded the decision.

“It’s recognition that the German state is persecuting homeschoolers,” he said. “We are pleased to have been able to support this courageous family, and we hope and pray that this decision will have a decisive effect on German policy makers who should change their laws to recognize parents’ rights to educate their own children.”

What this jugement says is that Germany is an illiberal and unfree country, where illegitimate and immoral Nazi era laws, rather than being removed from the statute books, are being enforced with a ferocity, zeal, fervour, glee and intensity worthy of the original Nazis.

This Jugement means that any worker from the evil Jugendamt who tries to come to the USA to kidnap Germans on this most absurd of pretexts will be told in no uncertain terms to go back to Germany. Contrast this with the shameful way that France treats Germans on the run from the Nazis.

This story is going to cause Germans to re-assess their perfect society to which no parallel is to be allowed. This judge is calling all of Germany a state that is not fit for free people.

The Swedes should look very seriously at their Utopia and how the world perceives them; what is for sure now, is that any Swedish family that wants to escape their fascist government now has a country where they can escape to and be guaranteed that they will be protected. All they have to do is get on the plane without having their children kidnapped before it takes off.

The Romeikes are going to find that they have landed on their feet. They are now in a country that not only accepts Home Education, but it is also a place where there are millions of Home Educators. They will have a great Home Ed social life. In the USA Home Educators are highly organised; it is a place where there are services and publishers that will be happy and eager to serve them. The Universities are competing to attract Home Educated people to become their pupils. It is a place where Home Education and its practitioners is not a sponge cake soaked in bitter and foul ideologies where irrational, negative, serf minded and noxious people are desperate to control others whilst demanding freedom for themselves.

And best of all, they will not have to be constantly looking over their shoulders… it’s a place where they can be free!

Should they be foolish enough to set foot in Europe, they can expect to have their children kidnapped on the spot of course.


Read this shameful article in Der Spiegel, which shows that the German public and in this case, the press, are completely culpable:

Religious Persecution?
German Home-Schoolers Granted Political Asylum in US

Why the question mark? These people are being persecuted because they are Christians. PERIOD.

A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.

They did not ‘say they were being persecuted’, they WERE being persecuted!

Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.

A shameful, Nazi law promoting scumbag wrote this article. CLEARLY they did not BELIEVE they were being persecuted, they WERE being persecuted, and that is why they were granted asylum.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, say they were forced to go the the US because they wanted to educate their five children at home, something that is illegal in Germany.

Judge Lawrence Burman issued the ruling on Tuesday in Memphis, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.

The family left Germany after several run-ins with authorities.

They FLED Germany, to avoid being fined, imprisoned and having their children kidnapped by the state. That is a little different from ‘leaving Germany’.

The parents had ignored repeated orders to send their children to school.

As is their duty and right. The writer inserts this as if it is a proper pretext for the law to act.

German state constitutions require parents to send their children to public or private schools and they can face fines or even imprisonment if they don’t comply.

Now this Nazi is trying to put a spin on the true origin of the law, Hitler, by saying that ‘German state constitutions’ require school attendance. This shameful lack of acknowledgement of the origin of this evil law makes the writer complicit in it and the persecution of this family and all other Home Educating families in Germany.

In October 2006, police came to the Romeike home and took the children to school.

This is not right, understandable, moral or defensible. That it is stated as a plain fact is nauseating.

In November 2007 Germany’s highest appellate court ruled that in severe cases of non-compliance, social services could even remove children from home.

‘Severe cases of non-compliance’… is that all it is? ZIEG HIEL!

Uwe Romeike told the Associated Press that the 2007 ruling convinced him and his wife that “we had to leave the country.” The curriculum in public schools over the past few decades has been “more and more against Christian values,” he said.

A decent parent.

‘The Freedom to Choose’

Lutz Görgens, a German Consul General in Atlanta, Georgia, said in an e-mail statement that German parents had a range of educational options for their children. Mandatory school attendance in Germany ensures a high standard of learning for all children, he said.

This is a lie, and a distraction. No matter what schools are on offer anywhere, the parent has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to educate their child in any way they see fit, and this is not the affair of the state in a free country.

“Parents may chose between public, private and religious schools, including those with alternative curricula like Waldorf or Montessori schools,” said Görgens.

If you cannot choose no school, you have no choice. Only a brainwashed Nazi boosting official like Lutz Görgens could put forward this rationalisation.

But Romeike was not comfortable sending his children to public school anymore. He said three eldest children had had problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. “I think it’s important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught,” he said.

The couple took the kids out of school in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg in 2006 and were fined around €70,000 ($100,000).

Par for the course; the state dolls out theft, followed by violence.

In 2008 Romeike, a music teacher, sold his collection of pianos and rented out his home in the village of Bissingen. The family now live in Morristown, Tennessee, in the so-called Bible Belt. Like many of their neighbors they teach their children at home.

And MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS you pathetic beast.

The decision on the family’s political asylum could still be overturned if the US government appeals the ruling. But Mike Donnelly, the attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he hopes Tuesday’s ruling will influence public opinion in Germany — which is part of the reason his group offered to represent the Romeikes, he said.,1518,674312,00.html

First of all, why would the US Government appeal this ruling? On what grounds?

Once the news of this gets out, it is unlikely that anyone in the US will go against this family. The millions of Home Schoolers in the USA will make such a deafening noise (or at least, in a perfect world that is what would happen) no politician would DARE call for this family to be sent back to the reich.



Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

This astonishing document is snarfed from the TPUC site:


This is taken from

OK – so now the cracks are really beginning to appear.

I am indebted to my good friend and fellow Freeman on the land, for allowing me to use his documentation for this:-
Let me fill you in on the background so you have the case history:-

“Jim” (As we will call him”) is a Freeman on the Land along with us (More on that here & – and a few months back he decided (Like many of us) that he wasn’t going to pay the UNLAWFUL Council tax that they were trying to enforce upon him via thier unlawful statute legislation. So he stopped paying:-

In due course he started receiving the threatening letters until one day the “summons” appeared on his doormat. (Note: A summons is merely an invitation to attend their place of business to discuss a punishment – its an offer – Read more – just as the Council Tax Bill is an offer to contract with them – read more on this)

The “invitation” was to appear before Wirral Magistrates Court for a hearing concerning the issuing of a liability hearing. Now as we all now ALL magistrates courts are merely a trading styles of the “run for profit” company called “Ministry of Justice” – see below and you can get a copy of the document I have acquired clearly showing:-

  1. The corporate status of the Ministry of Justice
  2. The Directors (Lord Falconer of Thoroton & Others)
  3. The fact that Ministry of Justice has County Court Jugements against it
  4. The trading styles of MOJ (Top right – which includes “Magistrates Courts”


Now call me blonde but I would say this is pretty damned conclusive that we are dealing with a corporate court convened by a corporation to simply lift money from you and I.

So … “Jim” jotted the council a little letter which is shown below:-


Jim sent this letter about THREE WEEKS before the date that the hearing was due to be heard on.
So … the DAY BEFORE the hearing, Jim received a phone call from the Wirral Council LEGAL DEPARTMENT and what they said was staggering …


  1. Now this is incredible that on the back of one letter they decide to withdraw and more importantly confirms the following:-
  2. Council tax is UNLAWFUL, as you and I well know that if these leeches had once ounce of a lawful case for taking this money then they would fight it to the death

They KNOW Council Tax is unlawful and are simply robbing those who haven’t woken up to the facts yet to the tune of £140,000,000,000 per annum (thats 140 BILLION of our money!)
So, Jim being the experienced fellow he is – asked them to email him with confirmation that they were going to withdraw and printed below is their email.


Jim then asked for further clarification in a formal letter and here is the letter that they sent!


Then Jim asked them to confirm in writing that because there was now NO LIABILY that the council tax was no longer due
This is the letter they and this is probably (in my opinion) one of THE single most important documents in the fight against Council Tax as it PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that we DO NOT HAVE TO PAY this UNLAWFUL COUNCIL TAX.
Look at the bit in red!


So not believing a word of the Council or the courts Jim rocked up to the court on the morning of the Liability hearing and standing as a Freeman on the Land asked the Judge to confirm the withdrawal of the other side which the Judge duly confirmed. The judge then told Jim that he needn’t have turned up and then Jim hit with it.
“I know that sir, but there is the small matter of mys costs”

BAM! – They were not expecting that one!

So, Jim has now duly entered a claim for costs of £1,400 against Wirral Council which is still ongoing at this time as the courts are trying to play silly buggers with Jim – he has even had one judge step down and refuse to adjudicate in favour of his costs – as you can see – its a stitch up!

Anyway – Jim has some other things planned and I will keep you abreast of developments but there you have it.
A UK Council running away from a court hearing because they KNOW they dont have a LAWFUL leg to stand on and the whole Council Tax is a scam to relieve you and I of money.


Now. After having read that, and caught your breath after having counted from one to ten slowly, you need to ask yourself two questions.

  1. If the councils are nothing more than private companies, how is it that the ‘social services’ attached to them are able to steal children? If Tesco’s came to your house asking to see your children, “to make sure they are safe” you would laugh in their face would you not?
  2. How is it that these people think they can serve you with a school attendance order, if everything else they do is accepted by them as non binding without a written and signed contract?

These are questions you have to answer for yourself before you consider ‘registering’ with them, accepting delivery of an SEO, or engaging with these creatures in any way whatsoever.

If I were you, I would have a close read of the articles at TPUC, and then try and explain to yourself how it is possible that these people can do what they are doing.

Old Holborn gets O.U.T.

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Today marks the first day of my self declared freedom to live under common law and simply ignore whatever “laws” those 646 idiots in Parliament decide on my behalf is good for me.

I have become a “Freeman of the Land”.

Great, you say. Wait and see what happens when the bailiffs or the coppers turn up. Well, that is exactly what I intend to do. Common law has worked for the people of England perfectly well until Parliament decided they could do the job better. I see this journey as a massive learning curve, involving huge amounts of researching law and challenging authority, standing up to bullies and thieves and living the one life I am lucky to have as I see fit.

The first of a raft of letters goes out tomorrow informing various authorities that I no longer submit to their authority. The fact that I was born does not mean I have to give my earned income to the State in taxes, it does not mean that I am not free to speak my mind wherever and whenever I chose and it does not mean that anyone has any authority over me. To use a religious argument, if I am made in God’s image, then he and he alone has authority over me. No one else. By law.

So, what do I expect to happen? Well, they won’t like it, that’s for sure. I expect lots of various bodies to come knocking on my door, demanding my appearance at court or payment for this or that. Tough luck guys, Old Holborn has learned how to say no and mean it. It is not negotiable and never will be.

If you want to understand how common law works, there are numerous sources on the Internet, like the excellent TPUC site. Freemen are growing in number and living their lives as they wish. They don’t drive Ferrari’s, don’t own villas on the South Coast of France and they (generally) don’t wear Ted Baker suits either. They don’t have credit cards or P60’s, Rolex’s or iPhones. But they do have their God Given liberty and they scare the establishment shitless.

Today’s first step is a little sign on the garden gate. It states quite clearly and politely:

“No Intended Access”

Walk up my garden path and I will assume you to be as hostile to me and my family as if you’d jumped over the back garden wall. You take the consequences of that action to enter my property, uninvited. (Note to self: let the milkman know)

So here’s to a year of bankruptcy, arrest, summonses and threats. Just for simply saying no.

Bring it on. Others lost their lives in wars for rights and freedom. I have my entire life to gain.


This is very significant.

Old Holborn runs a top twenty political blog (16th in the UK), which is read by hundreds of thousands of people.

Two things are going to happen. If he does this, and demonstrates that he can do it without consequences, other people will follow him and the curtain will finally and quickly be pulled back, the fat naked emperor will stand shivering in the cold and it will be the beginning of an explosion of true liberty in Britain. If the state decides to make an example of him, it could spread the message of the ‘freemen of the land’ by the power of the national press and if it’s ‘D Noticed’ by the even more powerful blogosphere.

Either way, there is going to be some noise.

There are many people in the UK who are ready to follow Old Holborn and to get O.U.T. and like we and all the other smart people keep saying, there is nothing that they can do about a mass refusal (mass implosion) to accept anything that comes from the state. No violence is required, no pointless demonstrating, 1, 2, 3, 4, and the (n+1).

The absolute last thing anyone needs is to replace one state with another ‘better’ state; the state itself, as a concept, as a way of ‘organising society’ is the problem. The freemen on the land, particulate, individual, self governing, property owning, freely interacting, contracting and exchanging without any coercion or force is the ideal. In practice not having a state would mean that there would be no one to tell you you can or cannot do something on your land or in your own house that does not affect anyone else. It means there is no one to tell you that you cannot imbibe whatever you like, say or print what ever you like, cook food for strangers and all the other things that are regulated ‘for your own good’ – in other words, you are free. Some people (and they are, despite their claims to the contrary, completely violent types) will rail against and resist freedom, claiming that violence needs to be used against people who cook food for others or who drive on the roads or who build houses or cut hair for a living etc, all meted out by a state. There will always be violent, control freak types. Without a sate to back up their violent tendencies, they will be reduced to nothing more than hot air machines.

Old Holborn has a family. He is not putting just himself at great risk of physical harm. What he is doing should be instructional to all those who still think that engaging with the state is in any way a sensible option. Pulling apart their illogic and lies is entertaining and informative and should be done, but there has to come a point where you throw up your hands and say, “enough is enough”, and mean it.

All eyes on Old Holborn, everyone O.U.T.!

CRU FOIA request scandal – sound familiar?

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Image from which contains the entire contents of the liberated CRU files, featuring the heads of well known scientists that smelled a rat, and who are detested by ‘Global Warming’ / ‘Climate Change’ / ‘Climate Chaos’ alarmists for telling the truth.

The CRU CLimate Gate affair continues to inform and outrage. With respect to FOIA requests, Home Educators will be familiar with this behaviour and bad, un-servant like attitude:

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, explains how he lobbied to overturn UEA’s FoI Officer’s instruction to answer FoI requests and schmoozed the person responsible for FoI appeals:

“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [a popular "sceptic" website] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC [Vice Chancellor] is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with.”

Prof Jones’s colleague, Prof. Keith Briffa – who is a Reader at the CRU – spells out their attitude towards Freedom of Information quite neatly:

“I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.”

This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.

This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.

Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request.

On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:

If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.
This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.

Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:

“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”

If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.

Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.
Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.


“Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this.”

I couldn’t agree more.


I wonder what sort of dirty shenanigans went on over at the DCSF, who have refused to release information requested by some diligent and persistent Home Educators on the most flimsy of excuses? No doubt there are bombshell revelations hidden in their computers also, that if released, would cause scandals, heads to roll and misconceptions to be swept into the garbage, scuppering life changing legislation in the same way that the Global Warming / Climate Change ‘Carbon’ legislation would have done.

Once again, there is a common element to both the DCSF and the CRU refusal to release information; both of these organisations are intimately connected to the existence of the state, and in both, the people working there are not adopting the position of servants. The people who work at the DCSF are public servants, and scientists are in service to the truth, wether or not they take money from the state to do their work.

If there were no state, then there would be no problem with scientists making stuff up to steer policy and social engineer; there would be no apparatus to force their crackpot ideas onto anyone. The same holds true for education. Without a state, there would be no DCSF, Department of Education or any other apparatus to interfere with you and the good of education that you want too avail yourself of.

There is that foul smell again!

Achtung! Prosecutor says only jail deters homeschooling

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

World Net Daily has a story that sounds like it could have come out of the Large Hadron Collider i.e. from the future of Britain:

By Bob Unruh

A prosecutor demanded jail time for two parents accused by German authorities of homeschooling their children, and he erupted in anger when the Nazi foundations of the ban on parents teaching their children at home was cited.

Juergen and Rosemary Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, were given 90 days in prison last year because they homeschool their children. They received the sentence after prosecutor Herwig Mueller asserted it was the only sufficient punishment for the family’s “crime,” appealing a lower-court order to issue a fine.


Armin Eckermann, chief of the homeschool organization Schuzh, has attended the trial. He told HSLDA the judge said he thought a jail sentence was too harsh for the Dudek family, but the prosecutor “took a hard line.”

In Germany, many Christian families object to the public-school system because it advocates for sexual and social activities that conflict with biblical teachings. The sex-education program, for example, is explicit.

Mueller also erupted when Dudek asked local school officials called to testify if they knew the current laws that criminalize homeschooling are based on laws from 1938.

“All those Nazi laws have been suspended, and this one is democratic, and you’ve got to accept it, and that’s it,” Mueller argued loudly, reports said.

Dudek said the facts don’t support the claim.

“The ‘Schulpflicht’ – the laws that require school attendance – are on the books in the German states,” he said, “and have been traced back to the ‘Reichsschulpflicht Gesetz’ [federal compulsory attendance laws] which was passed in 1938. Except for the removal of references to the Nazi party, these laws are identical or substantially the same as the laws passed by Hitler’s government, criminalizing parents who keep their children home for school.”

Practical Homeschool Magazine has noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, commented previously on the issue, contending the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

Drautz said schools teach socialization, and as WND reported, that is important, as evident in the government’s response when a German family in another case wrote objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”
Donnelly says the German characterization of homeschooling as a “parallel society” isn’t accurate, either.

“Homeschoolers are definitely a distinct social group but are not a ‘parallel society’ the way the German courts are trying to use the term,” Donnelly said. “The irony of German court decisions is their position that the state must teach ‘tolerance for diversity’ by forcing children into public schools and stamping out a diverse form of education recognized in all other Western democracies as a legitimate educational approach. Pluralism is supposed to stand for distinctive groups living peacefully together.”

HSLDA has reported the Dudeks believe homeschooling their children is the right thing to do, and they are determined to resist laws barring them from home education.


These people are clearly insane; as insane as the monsters who are trying to enact the same regime in the UK, which, by the way, will not take into account the quality of the education you provide ‘your’ child if you are caught committing the crime of Home Educating. This is, to say the least, odd, coming from people who claim that it is their number one concern that children receive the best possible education. But you already know these people are lying about every aspect of what they are doing.

Read the rest of these stories for more glimpses into the future of Home Education in Britain:

State tries to deny homeschoolers vaccinations
War in homeschoolers spreading?
Police ‘nab’ 7-year-old homeschooler
State could take custody of teen homeschooler
Court orders Christian child into government education
Will homeschooling parents end up behind bars?
Homeschooling parents to appeal prison terms
Parents sent to jail for homeschooling
Government chases homeschool family
Judge: Homeschooling like driving drunk
Amendment protecting parental rights urged
Courts offer homeschoolers zilch, expert says
Court upholds Nazi-era ban on homeschooling
Parents sent to jail for homeschooling
Parents losing custody for homeschooling kids
Girl sent to psych ward for homeschooling, parents billed
Prosecutor wants homeschool parents jailed
Homeschool family reaches England
Parents race to escape before court takes kids
Truancy hearing targets homeschooling mom
Homeschoolers facing $6,300 fine
American missionaries targeted for deportation
Courts offer homeschoolers zilch, expert says
Court gives Melissa back to family
Western homeschoolers need political asylum from democracy
3 families face fines, frozen accounts
‘Youth worker’ lies about homeschool student
5 ‘well-educated’ kids put in state custody
Girl, 15, begs to return to homeschooling parents
Psych tests ordered for homeschooling parents
3rd Reich homeschool prohibition defended
Homeschool family told to give up 5 other kids
Homeschooler’s parents allowed 1 visit a week
Court-ordered foster care replaces psych ward
Homeschool student disappears from psych ward
‘Psych ward’ homeschooler case goes international
Court upholds Nazi-era ban on homeschooling
Constitution threatened by homeschool case

The End of the Global Warming Hoax

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

George Monbiot concedes defeat in The Guardian:

It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.


And check out this simply amazing comment from Monbiot, in reply to a comment on that post:


But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.


I nearly fell off my chair when I read that.

FINALLY, the Global Warming Hoax is utterly, comprehensively and irrecoverably destroyed forever.

Every regulation, piece of legislation, directive, business project and scheme surrounding ‘Carbon’ is now completely discredited and on the way to being destroyed.

This is a monumental, earth shatteringly significant and wonderful event, and whoever leaked those emails is a hero of the most historic kind. Thank you, whoever you are, for blowing this totalitarian scheme out of the water forever.

Search through the emails for yourself:

This event shows that the rest of whole facade is just that; a facade, a fantasy, a sham. The omnipotent, incompetent, immoral, thieving mass murdering state, the push for world government, the control freakery… everything that we have been saying is true IS TRUE.

George Monbiot and all the people at the Guardian are just as knowledgeable about and WRONG about, The Environment, Economics, Education and Politics.

George Monbiot, to his credit, at least has the balls to stand up and say, “I was wrong, and I apologise”. That guy has some grapefruits, has a core of decency in him, and was just a tool, a useful idiot, being manipulated by the globalist statists and evil scientists, the latter to be made the scape goats in this.

For some time it has been clear that a scape goat would have to be found and sacrificed as the Global Warming hoax slowly unravels. I thought it would be Al Gore, since he is the biggest liar and booster of this scam and was the one who stood to make billions out of the fake ‘Carbon’ economy. Luckily for him, he can now say that he too was simply fooled by these scientists, apologise and then be let off the hook. We shall see.

The sad thing about all of this is that the real problems surrounding the true problems that face us, like millions of people pumping detergents into the water and genetically modified organisms being unleashed into the environment, will now be thrown into the same basket as Global Warming as a total hoax. This is a pity. Even if the detergent problem or any other real environmental problem is true, we should never turn to the state to solve these problems. But all of that is another story.

I wonder if the Sheffield students who lampooned the ‘deniers’ will now also now back down, if they are even aware of any of this.

While we are at it…

Global Warming scam booster James Hansen debunked

Environmentalism and the state: destroying progress and capital

Climate Cops: The Unboxing

A Handbook for Deniers

A new loathsome creature to entertain you

Carbon ration cards: ID Cards and NIR by the back door

Global Warming Brainwashing

Climate Change Hoax: rerun of a fraud

Watson On Monbiot

Of particular interest is the ‘Climate Cops: The Unboxing’ post. Many educational books have a slant that contains blatant Global Warming propaganda. Maths books ask you to calculate how much carbon would be produced in a scenario. Chemistry books talk about the greenhouse effect, and so on. All of these books now need to be replaced with books that do not contain this propaganda. Children will now no longer have vile world government, malthusian propaganda shoved into their ears.

This is a very important event; what it also demonstrates is that all the time this has been going on, decent people have been living a complete lie. The next question that should be asked is this, what else that I believe is a lie?

Sadly, everything that you read on information outlets that tell only the truth is true.

The money you have in your pocket is worthless.
There is a decades long plan to set up a world tyranny run by evil bankers.
Lack of regulation was not the cause of ‘the banking crisis’.
911 was an inside job.

Instead of waiting for the people who are behind the lies in the documentaries and sites listed above to come clean, people who were gulled into beliving the Global Warming Hoax should take a serious look at all the assumptions they have… about everything, and then throw out the garbage.

How can they detect the garbage?


The common stink

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

There is a common element to almost all the bad things that are and have been swirling around us for decades. Here are three examples.

We already know that ‘Global Warming‘ is junk science and a complete fraud. Now there are no doubts left for even the most ardent religious fanatic that spouts Anthropogenic Global Warming garbage or its latest incarnation ‘Climate Change’.

You can read the rundown at The Telegraph. Put plainly, these people have been caught with their pants down. They have been caught trying to nobble a scientific journal, deliberately leaving out data so that they can make their case and so on and so on; every single thing that honest scientists cannot do if they are to remain objective and true scientists, they have been caught doing.

This perversion of science and the truth is behind the Cap and Trade legislation that will destroy America’s economy. It powers the thinking behind the absurd ‘saved carbon’ displays that are attached to solar panels. (in this example one million pounds was spent on solar panels, whilst the castle itself is falling to pieces due to damp). It is behind the ridiculous and illogical ban on incandescent light bulbs. It is behind the absurd rainbow styled energy rating certificates that the EU mandates for all properties that are for rent or sale (the owner is forced to pay for inspection to get a certificate; a new burocrazy), and that even extend to devices. It is behind the proposed personal carbon trading schemes that will create an artificial economy based around ‘carbon’, where you will have to swipe an ID Card whenever you buy anything or travel anywhere.

These corrupt scientists have concocted a complex and difficult to penetrate lie, so that the world economy can be distorted and a few people can become billionaires in this new artificial economy that will sit on top of the real economy. They ignore the truth, suppress it and suppress and destroy the reputation of anyone that tries to uncover their lies so that they can personally benefit.

The same thing is happening with Education in the UK:

Government’s key adviser on Academies makes millions …from setting up Academies

A key Government adviser on Labour’s flagship City Academy scheme is now earning millions of pounds in fees from the taxpayer by setting up the controversial schools.

The scheme was at the centre of the so-called ‘cash for peerages’ scandal when police were called in to investigate claims that Labour was offering honours to businessmen who invested in the schools.

Now a series of leaked documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveal how the Government’s vision of local business helping to rescue failing schools has been replaced by fat-cat consultancy firms earning huge fees to set them up.

Daily Mail

If you have been reading BLOGDIAL you already know that Home Education has been under serious and increasing threat for over five years, culminating in a scandalous, fallacious and vile report by Graham Badman, that, precisely like the Climate Change scientists involved in the scandal above, revolves around the misuse of statistics, fabrication, baseless opinion and fear mongering, all of which is designed to engineer legislation whose sole aim is totalitarian control over people who were previously at liberty to live as they chose, so that a few people can make money out of the existence of children.

This fear mongering was supported by evil social workers and fake charities (NSPCC) who all repeated lies about Home Education for the sole reason that it would provide them with unprecedented access to children for financial and other, more sinister purposes.

Finally we have the spectacle of ‘Lord’ Mandelson and his nauseating and corrupt intervention into the workings of the internet at the behest of the buggy whip wielding entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry has been spreading false reports of heavy loses due to ‘illegal copying’ for decades, whilst suppressing any evidence that copying music helps expand the market for music products.

The frictionless distribution offered by the internet represents the greatest opportunity ever for artists to expose and profit from their work. Copyright was originally envisioned as a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the makers of works a short time period where they would have the exclusive power to control who can do what with copies of their works, after which, everyone would be able to exercise their property rights over the copies that they own.

Now copyright is a weapon that is being used to destroy the property rights of individuals, as well as the rights of speech of people world-wide.

This is being done by Mandelson at the direct command of the entertainment industry, who, if they could, would shut down the internet entirely to preserve their ancient and hopelessly broken business model.

These luddites (the book publishers and newspaper hacks are no better) would see the greatest invention since the Gutenberg Press crippled and made less useful, for no good reason at all, simply because they lack the skills and imagination to make use of it.


All of the matters above have one thing in common; the common stink that you smell whenever you encounter matters like this. That stink is the smell of THE STATE.

Without the state, none of these things could happen; they all rely on the state to ruin progress, rape, steal money and destroy life.

The monsters involved in Education rely on money from the state to do their evil with children. That includes the people who designed and sold ContactPoint, who are making money directly off of children. Without the state, there could be no ContactPoint contract.

The same goes for those academies; the contracts to create them could not exist without the state. Some argue that education itself would cease without the state running it. This is completely false.

Every evil to do with education comes out of the state’s involvement in it. The Home Education scandal in the UK is a direct result of the state provision of education, and compulsory schooling laws; were it not for that, there would be no ‘School Attendance Orders’ that could be issued to parents. If the state was not responsible for the education of anyone, which it should not be, the idea that Home Educators should be registered would never have arisen.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The blatantly corrupt and evil Mandelson, plainly and clearly acting at the behest of the entertainment industry, would not be able to create a new set of laws in addition to The Copyright and Patents Act if the state did not act on behalf of industry to facilitate the monopoly on ‘intellectual property’. As is made clear in the book in the previous link, we would all be better off in every sphere of life without copyrights and patents. The internet has partially demonstrated how a copyright free world could operate and bring huge benefits to everyone who consumes and creates works. If there were no state, there would be no threat of the crippling of the internet, and the even more astonishing threat of unlimited powers to do anything as long as it is in the service of protecting copyright.

The state is the rotten smell behind it.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax, a scam second only to the Federal Reserve System in its magnitude, is another example of how in the absence of a state, scientists would have little (or at least different) incentives for falsifying data.

Without a state mandating widespread changes in how people voluntarily interact with each other, it would be impossible to build a business on a lie like ‘Carbon Capture’ or ‘Carbon Footprints’, or gain employment based on a lie. Artificial stimulus of industries to cater to this Climate Change lie could not exist; the capital used to create them would be diverted into places where it is needed. An example of this is, once again, the incandescent light bulb. Capital has been diverted away from improving it and into new, unpleasant, poisonous bulbs. The incandescent light bulb, had capital not been diverted away from developing it, would have greatly exceeded its current efficiency, if indeed, that is what the market required of manufacturers.

The fact is that since AGW is false, energy efficiency is not a priority with regard to ‘carbon emissions’. You may want to spend less money on your electricity bill, but that is an entirely different matter to the artificial, state created pressure put on the light bulb industry, powered by corrupt and lying scientists.

Once again, the state is the rotten smell behind it.

The only way that everyone will be free to live to their fullest potential, is in a situation where there is no state. There is no need for a state. There is no need for one to protect anyone, ensure anything, to educate anyone or to foster creativity. All of these assumptions, that a state is needed for these functions, is false.

Finally, you cannot believe on the one hand, that we need a state for some things, but not others. As soon as there is a state, like a foul smelling weed, it will begin to rapidly grow and take over everything, killing every other living thing and strangling your liberty.

You cannot, on the one hand, be for your own individual rights, but be for the banning of smoking, or the banning of hunting, for example. If you are for the banning of anything by the state, you are against whatever rights you wish to claim for yourself. If you are for the taxing of the rich, so that they pay ‘their fair share’ then you are against your own individual rights, and furthermore, you are an advocate of theft by violence, as are the people who insist that ‘something must be done’ about Home Education, or ‘pollution’, or file sharers. The people who advocate these things are all violent types, and there is no escaping it. All of this is an unavoidable fact, and many people are having a great crisis in their lives because they are being unconsciously confronted with the stark reality that they hold and espouse two conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Before you can begin to think clearly, you have to address the root of a problem and then align your thinking correctly so that there are no contradictions. The outcome might be unpleasant, but in the end, it is the only way to develop a mode of thought that when it is applied to or tested against anything, returns the correct, and logically consistent answer every time, giving you an opportunity to get to a solution.

The state is the cause of everyone’s problems. It destroys or distorts everything it touches. The sooner it has been gotten rid of, the better. This is the fact, the unspeakable, unthinkable fact that you must come to understand if you are interested in your rights and the protection of them.

Tories: “we will kill off Queen’s speech bills”

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Tory peers will use time pressure to thwart Gordon Brown’s ‘electioneering’ package
Queen’s speech focuses on pensioners, parents and economic recovery

Tory peers are ready to block most of the government bills to be announced in the Queen’s speech tomorrow, threatening to mire the final days of Gordon Brown’s government in frustration and delay.

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the Lords, predicted that few if any of the bills announced amid tomorrow’s fanfare and pageantry would reach the statute book without the consent of Tory peers.

“We all know that this Queen’s speech is all about better electioneering and politics rather than the better governance of the country,” he told the Guardian.

“If these measures were so important they would have been in the legislative programme last year rather than being left to the last moment of the fifth term. That does not suggest they have the greatest priority or urgency.”

The government is expected to launch a total of 15 bills, encompassing measures to provide residential care for old people, new controls on the parents of antisocial children and a fiscal responsibility plan compelling the government to halve the public deficit within four years.

But as the government takes parliament into a fifth session for the first time since John Major in 1996 – when the Tories had to jettison legislation before the election the following May – Conservative peers can use the government’s lack of an overall majority in the Lords to block bills owing to lack of time before an expected May 2010 election.

Strathclyde said the Lords would not abandon its responsibility to scrutinise. His remarks underline the degree to which the Queen’s speech will be seen as the first draft of a Labour manifesto rather than a realistic legislative prospectus.

He said: “There are now only 33 legislative days left in the Lords between January and Easter [the most likely date for parliament’s dissolution]. That does not give much time at all to carry out the Lords’ proper duty to scrutinise legislation. Historically the Lords has taken its job of scrutinising legislation very seriously. We should not throw away that reputation or duty at the last moment.”

Strathclyde said it was “too early to say which bills we will allow through, but we will have to look at each bill in turn”.

Tory strategists know they will have to tread carefully not to be seen to be blocking popular measures, something governments perennially accuse oppositions of in the runup to an election.

Sources in the Lords said that in practice the government would have to jettison vast tracts of bills in order to get non-controversial clauses through. Even if the Conservatives do not have an overall majority, they can use the government’s lack of time to extract concessions.

The Lords tend to spend as long as seven weeks scrutinising a bill. Unlike the Commons, all amendments can be selected for debate and no time limit is set on how long an amendment can be debated.

Labour has 212 peers, the Conservatives 190 and the Liberal Democrats 71. Bills most likely to reach the statute book are those carried over from the previous parliament, including the equalities bill, the child poverty bill and the constitutional reform bill.


Now whether or not you have the right to educate your children at home without interference rests on wether or not there is enough time to debate a bill.

All those who pick or bite their nails will no doubt be getting their plasters ready.

And what if there had been enough time? Would that make the result correct? It would be a great relief that this evil is killed, but really, the very fact that it has gone so far as to be actually drafted is a big wake up call to all those who think that they have any guaranteed rights.

Graham Stuart said in a speech:

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said that she has been persuaded that a light-touch registration scheme for home-educated children would be appropriate. At first glance it looks as if that would offer benefits, just as with ID cards it seemed obvious at first glance that they would provide us with defence against terrorism and make us more secure. The more we gained an understanding of how ID cards would actually work and of the nature of the terrorist threat, the more the efficacy of ID cards to help us in that regard melted away. I would suggest that the idea of light-touch registration to make children safer or to make it more likely that they will get a suitable education will, on closer inspection, also melt away. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people who move around the country will not be caught by the net, but the typical people who will be caught by it are those who live in one place, who are committed to elective home education yet have to face someone from a local authority coming and knocking on their door.


The problem with this of course, is that the ID Card fiasco, despite everyone shouting at the top of their lungs for almost a decade that it was a huge and immoral mistake, not only passed in a vote, but has had a vast fortune spent on it, and it is in fact being trialled right now in Manchester, despite the Tories saying they are going to scrap it.

Why should anyone have to put up with the violations in this bill for even one second, only to have the bill undone when these people realise what any idiot can, that it simply is WRONG. The answer to that question is that they should not have to wait, or be damaged, or disrupted or forced to pull up stakes and move on the word of a few venal and evil people. No one should have to suffer because these sinister busybodies do not have a complete understanding of technology and no morality.

Sadly, even if this bill is killed, the threat of other reviews and new bills will still be there and then there is the even bigger threat of the Lisbon treaty that can be added to without any review process whatsoever. If an anti Home Education article is added to that treaty, then all the states that are signatories will have to implement it, and of course, since most of the EU is already rabidly anti Home Education, you can expect no sympathy or help from them in that potential fight.

Its been said elsewhere, and here…

  1. No more reviews into Home Education, no matter who is involved in them.
  2. No new legislation regarding Home Education. Period.

Home Education is well understood and understandable for anyone who cares to spend a day on the Google. And now, for that speech:

Why cannot the Government adopt a humbler approach?

Because totalitarians are not humble.

Why can they not invest more money in research, enabling us to gain a better understanding of who is not at school and who is being educated at home?

Spending money on research is not an ‘investment’. Home Education is already very well understood. People who are educated at home are not the responsibility of the state. That money would be better spent in the failing schools that the state is already in charge of.

Why can we not be given a better understanding of where problems might lie among electively home-educated people?

All you have to do is ask, if you are interested, which apparently most MPs are not. In any case, there are no problems in the first place; the idea that there is a problem with Home Education is a fantasy concocted by people who want to make money off of children.

Why can we not have a voluntary registration system, perhaps involving additional financial support for families educating children at home?

There already is a voluntary registration system in place; you can register with your Local Authority if you like. This is hilarious coming from someone who used the ID Card fiasco as an example of what should not be done; the government first said that the cards would be voluntary, and of course, getting the card might be, but if you want to leave the country (renew your passport) you will have to be entered onto the National Identity Register by force… or you can never leave the country. Yes indeed, that’s really voluntary.

The present position is absurd.

It is absurd. They say the current system is unworkable, and that is true; the Local Authorities have been given duties that are beyond their remit in a free society. They have no business getting involved in family life in the way that they have been doing. The onerous and immoral duties that have been placed on these people should be removed; THAT is the way to solve the conundrum of them being given the responsibility for the supervision of Home Educated children but not the power to interfere with them.

A home educator told our Select Committee that one father had to pay £1,000 to cover the cost of GCSE exams taken by his daughter, although he was a taxpayer like the rest of us.

I do not know about anyone else, but if I had a daughter that wanted to take some exams, I would find the money so that she could take them, and not complain about it. That amount is far less than a decade of fees in a private school. In any case, this is a simple matter to solve. Schools that are examination centres should be required to allow anyone to come and sit exams just like the students who attend the school. Problem solved.

Why do we have to go down the compulsory route?

Because the people behind this are monsters, as are the people behind the fake charities that feed off of the existence of children. Without compulsion, the contracts for the licensing databases, and all the companies that are now lining up to offer training in ‘Elective Home Education’ would be worthless. This is what it really is about, and as long as those pressures are there, there will be vampires lobbying for these sorts of immoral measures.

Why do this Government always think they know best?

They are completely delusional, psychopathic monsters who are not acting in the best interests of anyone but whose sole driving impulse is to cause harm on a massive scale on every front that they can touch.

Why can they not work with people on a voluntary basis,

Because they believe they are the masters of the population, not the servants.

build up the picture and then and only then—with a complete picture and a real understanding of the risks in respect of safeguarding and education—come forward with proposals, which might involve compulsory registration if there is due and proper cause.

Even if, out of the alleged eighty thousand home educators, ninety percent of them were really terrible parents, that would not mean that the remaining ten percent should have their lives disrupted, and their rights wiped out. There are many types of bad person out there; we do not register everyone just because there are a few, or many ‘bad apples’. You are innocent until proven guilty. You should not have your liberty in any way curtailed just because there are other people who are bad. This is a fundamental principle of living in a free country and of liberty itself. That is why no legislation of this kind can ever be justified or moral. The ISA is another example of this sick and twisted thinking, straight out of the evil totalitarian philosophy of New Labour.

Due and proper cause does not currently exist, and I sincerely hope those aspects of the Children, Schools and Families Bill that deal with home education will not become law.

Once again, even if there are some bad parents, that does not mean that all parents should be interfered with. And wether the bill is passed or not, everyone will be working against its measures except those who will stand to profit from them, and the corrupt and immoral system that produced this travesty will be even further discredited, if that is even possible.


Hansard does not record how many people were there to hear a speech, but according to the Daily Mail:

No one was there to hear this speech. And that photo from the ever lying BBC is cropped; the complete wide angle view shows nothing but row upon row of empty green leather

You can guarantee that none of the MPs not there to hear the speech will be reading Hansard to comb through the drivel to inform themselves before any vote, so this speech might as well have been given in the house of commons loos for all the influence it will have.

And on the same page as this, is an amazing tirade from Barry Sheerman:

Childhood ought to be protected, warns MP, as he reveals young pupils are staying up late to watch pornography

Children as young as five are imitating sex acts at school because they are being allowed to stay up late and watch pornography, a senior MP has warned.

Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, said that teachers are witnessing ‘disgusting’ behaviour in the classroom by pupils who are too young to know what they are doing.

Mr Sheerman, MP for Huddersfield, blamed the increasing amount of pornography that could easily be watched by children on satellite channels and over the internet.

He said Britain was ‘awash’ with promoting sexual activity to youngsters far too early in life.

In a Commons’ debate on the Queen’s Speech he said: ‘I think it is very serious the access to pornography to children.

‘You go to infant schools now and teachers say to me: “Children come here at five and six simulating sexual behaviour that they should know nothing about.”
‘We are a country awash with focus on early sexual activity.’

He said the amount of pornography on the internet and satellite television that was available to children ‘ disturbed’ him. He added: ‘I believe that childhood ought to be protected.’

His comments echo those of other MPs who are calling for tougher measures on ‘lads mags’ to ensure they are kept out of children’s reach.
Earlier this year a survey warned that teenagers said they had learned about sex from pornography.

Nearly nine out of ten 14 to 17-year-olds had looked at graphic images and nearly one in five viewed them more than once a week, according to research for Channel 4’s The Sex Education Show Vs Pornography.

Daily Mail

This government, wants to force decent people with unblemished children who are very sensibly running away from these insane asylums known as ‘schools’ to send their sons and daughters to be corrupted by the children described by Barry Sheerman.

If it wasn’t all happening you would not be take seriously if you said the words out loud.

This is also the government that wants to force all parents to expose their five year olds to sex education in state schools.

None of this makes any sense.

On the one hand, you have Barry Sheerman saying that children are not acting appropriately in state schools, then on the other, he is saying that any parent that does not want their children to be exposed to this is not being a good parent. Then the same people want to force all five year olds to have sex education, but with the same breath, say that ‘childhood ought to be protected’ and that these children are demonstrating knowledge about ‘behaviour that they should know nothing about’.

If they should know NOTHING about it, then how on earth can you advocate TEACHING THEM ABOUT IT?

And just what kind of lunatic would observe that some children are clearly being exposed to things they should not be seeing, but then insist that all children must be locked in rooms with these children from bad homes?

Any sensible person would say, “I am not having any part of it”. And damn them all to hell from whence they came.

Finally this is on top of the fact that these schools are fundamentally and systemically broken places, where if you send your child there, you risk them not being able to read, write or do arithmetic. Or know the difference between the ion form of an element and an element.

It just got worse

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Dumped into our inbox; it’s worse than your worse nightmare:

This is bad. Here is the link to the bill on home education.

http://www.publicat ions.parliament. uk/pa/cm200910/ cmbills/008/ 10008.38- 44.html#m01s

You would have to apply to register your child for home education. It lasts one year. This seems to me to mean that you have to get permission to home educate your child, because in some circumstances, like when they decide your information is inadequate, the LA can decline to register your child, and if they think it would be “harmful to your child’s welfare” to home educate, the LA must refuse registration.

You have to give prescribed information about your child’s education when you apply to register. (To be defined in later regulations or guidelines.)

The local authority should arrange to see your child, and the parent or educator, at least once during the year, and visit at least one of the places where education is taking place at least once a year. These arrangements “may, unless the child or a parent of the child objects, provide for a meeting with the child at which no parent of the child or other person providing education to the child is present.” (So maybe you can meet at a museum? And maybe you can stop them meeting with your child alone, but then again, you may get a lot of pressure and they just might decide that you are not cooperating? see below.)

The local authority is to decide whether the education is suitable, whether it accords with the information you provided them, what the child’s wishes and feelings are, and whether it would “harmful for the child’s welfare for the child to continue to be a home-educated child.” I

The LA can revoke your registration if :

  • you “fail to fulfil an undertaking” given in your statement of prescribed information — ie you didn’t do what you told them you planned at the beginning of the year;
  • information provided in connection with your application is incorrect or inadequate in a material respect whether or not it was correct when you gave the information — I can’t figure out just what this means but it seems like if circumstances change, the LA can revoke your registration;
  • it would be “harmful to the child’s welfare” to continue to be home-educated; or
  • you don’t co-operate with the LA, by not cooperating with the annual meetings with you and your child or if you give an “objection to a meeting” and the LA decides this does not leave them “adequate opportunity” to decide if your education is ok.

I have to say the lawyer in me is very worried about how fuzzy these standards are, and the many opportunities to deny the right to home educate, fearing that in some ways this is worse than I feared from the dire Badman report . . .


So you have to not only be licensed, but you have to APPLY to be licensed.

Autonomous learners need not apply obviously.

This bill is completely outrageous in every way that something can be outrageous.

Notice at the end, there is language that hints they understand that ContactPoint is going to be scrapped:

A local authority in England must make arrangements to enable

them to establish (so far as it is possible to do so) the identities of


If they have ContactPoint in place, they would have written that the ‘national register of children should be consulted to create a list of all those who are unaccounted for’ etc.

But all of this is moot.

The legislation is drafted. They will successfully argue that it needs to be passed intact.

If they do pass it, there will be no route out for anyone that wants to educate their child at home without interference.

Take a look at this:


In determining whether the condition in subsection (1)(d) or (f) is

satisfied, an authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and

consistent with the child’s welfare, give due consideration (having

regard to the child’s age and understanding) to any wishes and

feelings of the child ascertained by them.

This essentially means that the the Local Authority becomes the parent of the child if you apply for registration as a home educator, and ‘your’ child can short circuit your parental authority, duty and care either by accident, misinterpretation or deliberately, causing your licence to be revoked, and your child withdrawn from your care.

For all those who bristle at the idea of children being property, your registration of ‘your’ child will turn over parental responsibility and ownership to the Local Authority, who will have control over your child in the same way that a parent should. Registration of your child is a transfer of property and of responsibility.

No doubt, this bill is going to be picked to pieces by the people who are good at that. There is nothing good to be found in it whatsoever; it is thoroughly bad.

This bill gives carte blanche to Local Authorities to absolutely control Home Education and Home Educators, and of course, the next round of legislation and or guidelines defining what a suitable education is is just around the corner, and will be the final nail in the coffin.

It effectively destroys it completely, leaving no room for anything other than what the Local Authority thinks is good for ‘your’ child.

They said that they respected Home Educators. This is their version of respect. They said that Home Educators would be operating within the law, unlike the Germans. Clearly there is not going to be any real Home Education at all in the UK should this bill pass.

I said that everything they say is the reverse of what they really mean; they said they want to strengthen Home Education, when they actually mean they want to destroy it. Well, now we see that this is precisely the case.

Parliament put on notice: DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Dropped into the BLOGDIAL inbox (twice!):


This is urgent, and requires active participation by all HEs. Please read and forward to all HEs and HE lists that you belong to.

This act is not in competition with or an attack against any HE person or HE organisation. Now is not the time for an HE civil war. We need to deal with the real threat first, then try to resolve conflict within the HE community later. OUR STRENGTH IS NOT ONLY IN OUR CONVICTIONS IT IS ALSO IN OUR NUMBERS.

The Badman recommendations have generated a great deal of fear within the HE community; but the threat is an illusion. If we ALL refuse to cooperate nothing will happen – they will NOT come for you and your children. Their power over us is based on our own fear.

This is a declaration to parliament, putting them on notice that they should not add the recommendations of the Graham Badman Report into new law, and that we will not co-operate with any such law should they dare to enact it.

If you agree with what it says, select all the text between the dividers, copy the text to a new document, print it, sign it or otherwise make your mark on it, and then send it to your MP. Then forward this entire message to any Home Educators and parents that you know and urge them to do the same. You may disseminate this public notice to anyone and any place you think will help it gain momentum.

Whether you are involved in the petition or any other initiative makes no odds. Use this to deluge your MPs and show them once and for all that we are united!

To find your MP’s address use this site:

Notice of Refusal to Co-operate


WHEREAS the recommendations of the GRAHAM BADMAN REVIEW OF ELECTIVE HOME EDUCATION have been accepted in full by the Secretary of State.

AND that these grossly disproportionate recommendations hold serious implications for the civil liberties of parents, children and families in this country.

AND that these recommendations place primary responsibility for assessing the suitability of education and the welfare of the child on the state, rather than the parent – with no prior evidence that either is unsatisfactory prior to this grossly intrusive intervention.

AND that the recommendations of the review assumes that the home is an inherently unsafe or unhealthy place for the child to be.

AND that these recommendations undermine the role of the parent and trample over family freedoms in its haste to set parent and child up against each other, bestowing additional and selective “rights” on home educated children that only the government can adequately minister to.

AND that these recommendations destroy the very possibility of true autonomy in learning.

AND that these recommendations operate from a position of requiring proof of parental innocence rather than reasonable suspicion of guilt.

AND that these recommendations discriminatorily use the coercive and interventionist tools of parental licensing, warrantless entry to the home, inspection according to arbitrary external standards, and an unconscionable new power to interrogate the child without the parents present.

AND that the outcome of these recommendations will be horribly discriminatory to a minority community, the measures eventually having to apply to anyone who has their child at home with them: parents with under 5s, those whose children attend private school, and also those with school-aged children who are at home in the evenings, over the weekends, and throughout the summer holidays.

AND that the outcome of these inspections will be based on the very human whim and prejudices of a local authority officer, who will have the power to destroy the life and education that that parent has conceived for his or her child.

AND that if the government is to avoid further discrimination it also stands to reason that each child who attends school must be given the same “rights” as home educated children – to “have their voices heard” regarding whether or not they are happy to be educated in school, whether they are satisfied with their teachers and whether they feel safe in such an environment.

WE ACCEPT that it is right that appropriate and proportionate action, as currently outlined in the law, may be taken to rectify a situation if there are serious concerns about a child’s welfare, observing that a child being at home with its parents is not, and never has been, in and of itself a child welfare issue.

AND HEREBY RESOLVE that any such utterly disproportionate legislation if passed will fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and state, and would constitute a fundamental violation of our rights,

AND that any such legislation is illegitimate on its face.

NOW UNDERSTAND that by this declaration, Parliament is PUT ON NOTICE that I and others will not co-operate with any such legislation, and strongly caution you not to consider, debate, or enact any such legislation.

Signed _______________________________


Well well well. At last, the sleeper has awakened!

No more begging. No more pleading. No more nonsense.

No means ‘NO’, and that does not mean ‘maybe’, or conditionally, or partially or “come back after you have thought about it some more”.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and no matter what, this is the LAST STRAW. You may go NO FURTHER.

I have said it many times before; there is nothing they can do to force you to obey them, and they rely on your good and honest nature as if it were a character flaw so that they can do bad things to you. They cannot stop the hunters from hunting, they cannot keep drugs off of the street and they cannot even keep them out of the prisons. They are massively overstretched on every front, almost to breaking point. There is no money to come after Home Educators, who are the lowest priority of all priorities. Ed Balls and the other evil clowns have announced a list of 23 new guarantees for all pupils; how are they going to pay for all of it when they are CUTTING The budget by TWO BILLION POUNDS? The answer is THEY CANNOT.

Anyone who says that they are going to cooperate in any way is quite simply a total fool. Filling out their vile forms and engaging with them does 99% of the work of control. If no one communicates with them, if no one cooperates with them they will find their plans to be completely stymied. There are not enough of them to chase up and control everyone. There are not enough of them to collate all the information they need, and of course, whatever they can write down will not have your consent and will be worthless. Even if they could do it, there are not enough people to enforce their disgusting plans.

The facts are these; if you want your liberty you can take it; it is yours, right in your hands right now. You need to put all of your fear aside and simply… ‘do not’.

But that is only if they manage to pass the legislation, and that might not even happen. Certainly it is not going to be made easy for them.

In the final analysis, no matter what happens, either way they have LOST!


In case any of you simple minded people out there have any doubts about the ill intentions of these monsters, take a look at where the Home Education licensing proposal is listed at the website of monster central:


under ‘Safeguarding the Vulnerable’!

Full screen grab here, in case they try and re-write history.

Absolutely unbelievable. These people are declaring that the children of home educators are in need of safeguarding, simply because they are educated at home!

Are you angry yet?

This is just like the scandal of Neu Liebour officially listing Landsbanki as terrorist organisation:

Absolutely appalling.

Once again, there is no depth to which these people will not sink, no lie they will shirk from telling in order to get their grubby fat hands on your children, and as we have seen, the women are as bad as if not worse than the men.

If this has not pushed you over the edge, then you do not have a pulse.

If you are wasting your time bickering over nonsense instead of doing everything you possibly can to put a stop to this, you deserve everything that you get.

They really are the worst bunch of people imaginable, and they really are after you and your children!

Three fat clowns and ‘your’ democracy

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Three fat clown monsters want your children to march to their beat. You know their names. See how it runs:

They may just get away with it. Why? Because there are many intelligent, well meaning, thoughtful, dutiful and innocent people who believe in fairy tales and outright lies, like ‘democracy’.

[…] This travesty of a review and constant consultations are discrimination and prejudice against a law-abiding population who are shouldering the very important task of providing an education to their most precious children.

It is true; this is a form of vile discrimination, but it is more than that; it is a deliberate and premeditated project to snuff out the emergence of a properly educated army of thinking people, who would constitute a grave threat to the status quo.

Home educators should be honoured and encouraged, not vilified and harassed by a pretend and disgraceful shambles of a concoction thrown together by a bunch of people (Badman, Balls and the various LAs) who have reason to manacle home educators. Schools are dying. Everyone knows that a school education in many cases is tantamount to no education, therefore we must have alternatives in this country.

No, ‘therefore’ you and your home educating must be snuffed out. You are a forest fire that needs to be put out. You are a threat. Your children are a threat. Your success is threatening, because as people learn about what you were able to do, they rightly believe that they can do it too. A trickle becomes a torrent, a torrent of fire that is scorching out the belief that, for example, only a qualified teacher can teach a child, or even more shocking, that a child needs a teacher at all.

To cut the throat of other interesting and lively possibilities like home education is to cut the throat of a vibrant and economically sound Britain.

If anything is clear, its that these people do not know anything about economics. Economic illiteracy reaches from the the lowest person to the highest in this and almost every other country. It is a very big problem. As for interesting and lively possibilities, these monsters with no souls do not want anything lively to be anywhere within one hundred thousand miles of them. Why do you think they outlaw playing music in clubs and dancing in open fields?

The only reason Britain has lasted as a sovereign nation thus far is that Britain has been tolerant of minorities and encouraging of difference. This quality in our once-glorious country is disappearing fast and will leave Britain trailing along behind those devastated economies that treat people worse than pigs and snuffle up the left-overs of more primary nations.

Britain has lasted for such a long time on the momentum of the empire, and nothing else. Tolerance of minorities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Government ministers must realise that they are actually accountable to the people. They must be aware that people have rights and work on that premise.

And if they do not, then what? What are you going to do about it? Neu Liebour does not in any way think that it is accountable to ‘the people’, in fact, quite the opposite. They do not accept that you have any rights other than the ones that they describe and grant you, and all of those, including the right to life, are conditional. That is the sole premise upon which they operate. That is why they believe that they have the power to enter your home and speak to your children without you being there, and they propose it without any fear that they will be stopped or in any way seriously challenged. What is even more nauseating than the fact that there are subhuman monsters that think they can do this, is the fact that there are parents who say out loud that they will comply with any such law should it be passed. I wonder just what it would take to make those parents say, “that is a step too far, and I will not do it”. I wonder, if they passed legislation saying that all parents must give their child up to a state run kibbutz upon birth, to be returned when they are 16, that these parents would say, “I am not sure if I am going to disobey this new law”. Just what sort of people are these, that they would obey such violations? What will it take for them to say, “enough is enough”? Teaching their children that they are required to submit to strangers is clearly not ‘enough’.

They must assume that people who seem to be doing their best ARE doing their best.

No they must not. This is pure projection; this is what you, as a reasonable person, WANT them to assume.

We are angry, and we have a right to be angry.

Anger is a good, not a right.

We have been slapped in the face with time-sapping and time-wasting consultations. We have been told that we are not fit to educate our children. We have been called child abusers. We have been investigated in case our children have been forced into domestic servitude or trafficking as sex slaves. We, mothers, have been suspected of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (another charming defamatory statement). How much more do we have to put up with? How much defamation is TOO MUCH?

You tell us. It seems like there is nothing that the state can do to some people that will be too much. Like a pack of hungry wolves, the state knows when the prey has no fight left. Until you are willing to really put your foot down, these predations will continue until you literally have nothing left, and are torn to shreds.

Local authorities regularly treat home educators like enemies.

You ARE their enemies. You represent an element outside of the system. You are ‘the anomaly’. You can spread this systemic threat, by simply existing in the way that you do. Also, you live the sort of life that they are too frightened to live. They are intensely jealous of you. That is why they hate you.

They lie to home educators.

Home Educators LET THEM LIE. The law is available to everyone; they refuse to group together and set up legal defence funds, they refuse to hire lawyers on their own, and so they are WEAK and will be picked off like foxes picking off chickens. It’s as if they have no knowledge of the history of collective resistance and mutual assistance… it beggars belief that it goes on, and honestly, if they refuse to use the power that it at their fingertips, they deserve what they get.

They encroach on their time and energy, and they make up the rules to suit themselves. So MPs are intent on giving them MORE power?

Why not? What are you going to do about it either way? There is nothing that some parents will not obey, so their thinking is, “why not go all the way with every sick proposal that is imaginable and unimaginable?” Remember these are the same monsters who want mandatory sex education for five year olds; there is no depth to which they will not sink. This should be absolutely clear to everyone by now.

Where is democracy? Where is fairness?

THIS IS DEMOCRACY!!! ‘Democracy’ is not a synonym for ‘fairness’, ‘justice’, ‘decency’ or anything else that people routinely misuse that word for. Democracy is exactly what has produced everything that you hate and these attacks on you and your family. The sooner you wake up and understand this, the quicker you will get to the solution to your problems… or at least a real understanding of them.

Where do we look for justice? Not to Parliament, we fear.

Parliament is the seat of democracy.

What do we tell our children? That MPs don’t care about you or your rights? That they’ll listen to you but not take heed? That you can refuse medical treatment but you cannot refuse to be led away by a stranger to be questioned by yourself (no matter who that stranger is)? That your mother and father have to be on a list because they might hurt you and some faceless bureaucrat with ice in his heart might have to ‘check’ that you’re not being brutalised?

You tell your children THE TRUTH. And the truth is that democracy is the thing that is about to criminalise you and which abuses you and your family. It is the thing that steals from you, corrals you like cattle, and uses the fruit of your own labour to do it. If you do not tell your children this truth, then they will be slaves just like everyone else. Slaves to false ideas of what is right and wrong, of who and what they really are and what their true place in this world is. And you will have utterly failed them. AND YOU DO NOT LET THOSE PEOPLE INTO YOUR HOME.

I am sickened and disgusted by this whole farce, and wish I had never returned to what I considered ‘home’ from Canada. At least, in that country, home educators can do their duty in peace and be free from scurrilous attacks on them from people with dirt in their souls.

Go back there. At least you have a place to go to; many people do not have the means or the place to go. If you are going to stay here and obey, then you really should not waste your time complaining, since no matter what you do, they are going to try and crush you, and only a definitive ‘no’ will be of any real value. And make no mistake; this is just the beginning. There are unthinkable predations on the horizon that come right out of the best/worst science fiction dystopia scenarios, and Britain is where they are going to try them all first.

Gordon Brown to apologise for Britain’s ‘shameful’ child abusing Home Education policies

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Britain is issue an official apology for the “shameful” forced attendance of tens of thousands of children to failing state schools with the promise of a better education, only for many of them to end up illiterate, abused and neglected.

By Richard Alleyne

In what Ed Balls, the children secretary, described as “stain on our society” the anti Home Education programmes saw healthy, perfectly safe, hard working and intelligent Home Educated children sent to state schools, against the expressed wishes of their families.

Many ended up illiterate, many suffered abuse and neglect and many others were used as “slave labour” in factories.

Now after years of campaigning from pressure groups, Gordon Brown has agreed to meet with representatives of the surviving children before making a formal apology next year.

Mr Balls said the apology would be “symbolically very important”.

“I think it is important that we say to the children who are now adults and older people and to their offspring that this is something that we look back on in shame,” he said.

“It is still happening today. But I think it is right that as a society when we look back and see things which we now know were morally wrong, that we are willing to say we’re sorry.”

The government has estimated that a total of 80,000 British children may have been forced to attend state schools under a variety of immoral programs that continue to operate.

A report said that between 6,000 and 30,000 children from Britain and Malta, in perfectly normal families, had their children seen alone by social workers, whereupon they were abused.

Some of the children were told, wrongly, that they were having their “rights” protected.

The anti Home Education laws were intended to stop the children being a burden on the British state by suppressing their natural intelligence, providing the country with pliant workers.

A 1998 British parliamentary inquiry noted that “a further motive was racist: the initial pretext for the changes in the law was forced marriage seen only in certain countries that used to be British Colonies”.

Mr Balls said that while an apology would not “take away the suffering” it was important to the victims to admit it was wrong and to make sure lessons are forgotten.

He said the government was talking to the victims’ organisation to work out how to frame the apology.

“These were children who were stripped of their childhood and education, without their parents permission, and because of our abuse, went on to be illiterate labourers thousands and thousands of miles away from their true destinies, suffered physical and sometimes sexual abuse as well and it was something that was sanctioned, facilitated and encouraged by me and my government and that how we like to treat children,” he said,

“I think there have been discussions going on for some months about how to do this but to be honest it’s a matter of shame for our country and countries around europe that this terrible policy of banning Home Education happened for so many years and decades and it’s actually my government policy.”

The issue of the UK Home Educators was investigated by the Commons select committee, a process which led to the no changes in this immoral policy.

Barry Sheerman, the chairman, said Mr Brown wrote to him over the weekend to confirm he would issue an apology in the new year.

The Prime Minister told him “the time is now right” for the UK government to apologise for the “misguided policies” of this government.

However some survivors felt the apology was too little too late.

Harold Haig, the secretary of the International Home Education Association, said he was appalled that the British apology has come so late and without any change in the law.

“Gordon Brown should hang his head in shame,” he said.

“It is an absolute disgrace. He should hang his head in shame.”