Archive for March, 2010

The State comes after Wikileaks

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

The owners of Wikileaks are under pressure from both the Icelandic State and The Great Satan:

  • WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact
  • WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining
  • If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
  • Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to on Thursday.
  • One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer’s seized.That’s
  • We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.
  • We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
  • We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don’t think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

Those tweets demonstrate that WikiLeaks is considered a real threat, and that the state is going to do anything they can to shut them down; at the very least, they will use the same amount of pressure they put on Cryptome and its owner. They might go further. Who knows?

What we can say for sure is that the people who run WikiLeaks, after they have changed their trousers, need to very seriously consider what they are doing and what they are promoting.

On the one hand they are promoting IMMI which translates to, “we support the violent state” and then on the other hand, they shout “DO NOT WANT” when that very same state comes after them.

You cannot have it both ways.

You cannot be FOR the state when it is doing something that you agree with and then be AGAINST the state when it is doing something that you do not like.

It is 100% guaranteed that whoever is harassing Wikileaks from the Icelandic government believes absolutely that they are justified in doing what they are doing, as odd as it may seem to decent people. This is the problem; the state is a monster on a leash that obeys whoever the owner of the leash is. Wikileaks promoting IMMI control the leash for what they like, against the wishes of and at the expense of other people, and the people following them use that same monster on a leash to trouble them. The only way to be free of it is to KILL THE BEAST and BURN THE LEASH.

Icelanders and in this case Wikileaks need to understand that the state itself is their problem. They need to reject it, reorganise to exist without it, and do it NOW while the beast is wounded.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Home Educators in the UK have a new tool to help them keep violent busybodies out of their lives.

It is called The Home Education Database, and all over the country, the violent aparatchicks in Local Authorities are mortified that they are going to be subjected to a class of tool that they themselves use to index and harass people.

Already, in the ‘Hall of Shame‘ we get a glimpse of what this will mean:

“Her name is Marion Solomon. She is the EHE officer for Caerphilly council Caerphilly council’s website explicitly states that they do not like the law- as there is little they can do if people ‘choose’ not to allow visits. I wont allow visits to my children because she is a member of “Inclusion serices” the department who also deal with SEN provision and they engaged in an antagonistic campaign which included threats of telling social services we were abusing the children in order to get me to drop a SENDIST tribunal.I did not- and we won.

However when we withdrew the two younger children from school we were ‘doorstepped’ by an officer sent by Marion Solomon, she insisted she be allowed entry, her boss said she had to come in and complete a form about the children. I asked her to show me the form and I would complete it/decide whether to allow it to be completed. She informed me that I would not be allowed sight of the form nor the information collected about the children. This is obviously a breach of the data protection act. There then folllowed a series of breaches, including correspondence routinely copied to the head of the primary school that the children had attended, who used to refer us to social services for spurious reasons and eventually was told by the social services to stop as they were not concerned about my children.

I also recieved a phone call from my GP demanding that I bring my daughter for a medical examination. She would not give me a medical reason for this but said she wished to discuss my daughters recent casualty admissions. I said I was more than willing to discuss these by phone and then when trying to discuss and obtain the reason for her enquiry she became evasive and started to question me about my family circumstances and included the words “can I ask why you are home educating when you have so much on your plate”. I can only assume that Marion Solomon referred the case to the GP. Social services had already stated they were not concerned and presumably they wanted the GP to check my child over for signs of abuse.

Caerphilly council also require two sets of visits be carried out, one by either Marion Solomon or one of her colleagues from the education welfare department and also one by ESIS who are their school inspectors and Inset providers. These people arrange 6 monthly visits to the home where the children are tested by their inspector and a report completed. It took repeated letters to both Marion Solomon and ESIS to get them to accept the evidence I wished to provide in writing.

From the start, the tone of their letters was aggressive and misleading in terms of the law. I was not offered any alternative to visits and had to refer to case law and Welsh Assembly guidance in repeated letters to both ESIS and Marion solomon reminding them of their responsibilities and powers before they finally conceded that there remit was education and that a report of provision would cover all their responsibilities and remit.”



Fred Mowbray – Surrey LA is a very dubious character. Some of my favourite things said by Fred are:

“The reason we need to see these (HE) children is because of the Fritzl case (Josef Fritzl) That could very easily happen to home educated children over here.” Say what?!

“Home educating one child when others are at school never works, in my experience” – And that would be what, Fred?

“In my experience, single parent families can’t home educate.” Bearing in mind that he’s been in the job for 3 years maximum and when he joined SCC he sparked an imposter scare as no one (including the call centre staff and main reception) had a clue who he was, his “experience” seems somewhat questionable.

He also takes along his slippers to home visits (ie your floors are too dirty for my socks) and lies effortlessly even when confronted cold hard evidence.

He doorsteps people on a regular basis and yet for all this, can’t understand why people don’t want him to visit?!

As a group we have tried on many different occasions to open lines of communication with Surrey EHE dept. At a meeting in 07 they made various promises as the line mgr at the time was very pro HE, however since then nothing has changed and the only reason we were “allowed” to see the draft policy was because someone FOI’d it. At one of the meetings we were told we weren’t allowed to see it until it had been passed by a committee despite the dept agreeing the year before to consult with local HE’er on it.

Although Surrey aren’t one of the worst LA’s out there, they are one of the most devious and deceitful.



How long do you think it will take before one of the LAs listed on this great tool hires a lawyer to take it down? No doubt the LA intruders and potential paedophiles will bristle with resentment at being put into a tool like this against their will. That is what it feels like to be violated in this way you scum, suck it up and enjoy it, and be thankful that it was not made private and secret with access only to Home Educators; after all, that is the way that ContactPoint works, everyone except the people who are catalogued on it have access. Absolutely disgusting!

If everyone contributes to this tool, there will not be a single person an LA can send out whose behaviour, tactics and demeanour will not have been well documented, rated and catalogued.

The responses of the submitters will be neatly collated so that contributors know what to do and what to expect.


Now all that is missing is an attack dog legal firm to put the fear of God into these vicious, ignorant and profoundly immoral people.

File under ‘don’t get mad, get even’.

Very VERY well done!

The wicked pied piper Maggie Atkinson

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Maggie Atkinson, is the ‘Chiidren’s Commissioner’:

First of all, what is a commissioner?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Commissioner is in principle the title given to a member of a commission or to an individual who has been given a commission (official charge or authority to do something, the noun’s second meaning).

In practice the title of commissioner has evolved to include a variety of senior officials, often sitting on a specific commission. In particular, commissioner frequently refers to senior police or government officials. A High Commissioner is equivalent to an ambassador, originally between the United Kingdom and the Dominions sharing the British Monarch as head of state and now between all Commonwealth states whether Commonwealth Realms, Commonwealth Republics or Commonwealth states having their own monarchs.


Soviet Union

From the October Revolution in 1917 until the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, the Soviet government as well as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its predecessors used commissioner (in Russian ???????? or commissar) as a term for multiple positions. From 1917 until 1946 ministers of government were called people’s commissars (and ministries were called “people’s commissariats”). In workplaces a commissar was appointed to assure that communist political doctrine was observed. In military units such commissars were also called the ???????? (politruk, literally “political hand”) or ???????? (zampolit, or deputy commander for political affairs). By contrast, a ??????? ???????? (voyennyy komissar), or military commissar, was merely a local military official in charge of supervising the induction of military draftees.



Children’s Commissioner for England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Children’s Commissioner for England was established under the Children Act 2004 to be the independent voice of children and young people and to champion their interests and bring their concerns and views to the national arena.

11 MILLION is the national organisation led by the Commissioner that supports the 11 million children and young people in England to have their voices heard. The current Commissioner is Dr Margaret Atkinson. The office is a non-departmental public body.



What is 11 MILLION?

11 MILLION is the organisation led by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson. 11 MILLION makes sure that adults in charge listen to the views of children and young people.

So, there is no commission, but there is a commissioner.

What sick idiot came up with the idea was it set up this nauseating 11 Million organism? If they want children to have a voice, why not give them the vote; by their logic, then they would have a voice AND power.

The whole thing is a Frankenstinian monstrosity, designed to collectivise children into a group that can be manipulated via the corrupt and sinister idea of ‘Children’s Rights’ and worthless consultations so that they can more easily be wrenched away from their families by the siren song of a misshapen female gargoyle pied piper called Maggie Atkinson.

Maggie Atkinson never gave birth to a child. She doesn’t know anything about children in the way that any biological mother knows about children. She is totally unqualified and an inappropriate choice to do this task.

Maggie Atkinson having this job is

like a Saudi Arabian representing Israelis
like vegetarian representing butchers
like PETA representing fur makers

If you accept that there should be a state, and that that state should have a prior claim on children as chattel property, and that there should be a post of commissioner to represent children, then at an absolute minimum, whoever does this job, should be a female and that female should themselves have had a child. That female should also be an active mother, not an old mother with adult children. A children’s commissioner should be able to represent the children of TODAY not the children of the 1950’s or 1960’s. A young active mother will have all her maternal instincts running fresh; old mothers are a different thing entirely.

This horrible woman actually said in public that, “…your children are mine”:

Really quite revolting and unnatural.

Of course, we do not accept that there is a need for a state at all, and we do not accept that the state as it exists has a prior claim that trumps the property claim of parents on their children, and we do not accept that there should be a post of Children’s Commissioner.

This hideous short haired witch, remorseless, heartless, without empathy or experience in childbirth and who has never been a mother to her own child, and who therefore cannot empathise with any woman who is a biological mother, is a perfect example of what these filthy socialists love; women who are not like women, men who are not like men, an infinite number of pointless jobs for their friends at the expense of everyone, and every opportunity to destroy human nature taken up enthusiastically.

What better person to take this job than someone who can destroy families without conscience; she has never been a mother in her own family, and so therefore cannot value it the way that women who have nurtured their own families would. A perfect candidate for the anti family agenda!

All decent people loathe them:

This Government funded woman says that the age of criminal responsibility for children should be raised to 12. Yet the very same government, who pay this idiot £138,000, are choosing to make criminals out of children as young as 5 on racism grounds, by asking teachers to make records of any playground incident that may be racist.
Which is to be Gordon? or in this ‘Twilight Zone’ of a country that you have created, is a violent, horrific murder considered less criminal than racism?

– Tats, UK, 15/3/2010 7:18
Rating 1063

Has Britain become a breeding ground for these fools, there are so many of them talking rubbish, and we have more than our quota, yet they are classed as experts, professors or other descripive names. Are they taught to be insensitive or does this come naturally, they certainly lack in the basic skills of common sense. Ten year old kids know exactly what they are doing, there is no naievety nowadays, and hasn’t been for the last 20 years, since all the liberal thinking fools were let loose. Nothing absolutely nothing will erase the trauma and horror of Jamies murder. It is these fools who are the stupid ones no matter what they say, we are not convinced or ever will be. Seek other rewarding work is our advice to these fools……….

– DANNYBOY, LINCOLN UK FOR NOW, 15/3/2010 7:29
Rating 942

I have heard that the Jesuits claim “give me a child until the age of 5 and I will show you the man”.

For Thomson and Venables to commit such a brutal act, something was intrinsicly wrong with their upbringing during their formative years.

They may not have been born evil, but by 10 years of age, they were and will remain so.

– Simon Knowles, Thatcham, England, 15/3/2010 16:04
Rating 832

Mrs”Unpleasant” ! Another unelected Labour apparatchik!

– Peter North, Sutton, Surrey, 15/3/2010 7:30
Rating 823

£138,000, how many more of these dangerous do-gooders are we paying for. Sack her and sack the commission if that is all they can come up with.

– Paul, Southwell, 15/3/2010 5:56
Rating 812

Dr Atkinson should be sacked. She should never have a post as childrens commissioner with an attitude like this. As a victims campaingner and a mother of a murdered child also the same age as james bulger, im appalled out Dr Atkinsons comments. I do believe though this is also the mindset of most judges in this country. Seeing case after case of soft sentancing im led to believe that the whole government including judges have gone completly cuckoo. She needs to be sacked along with all the hang ons of “advisors” and while they are at it, sack all judges and use judges that are elected into these positions. Anyone canbe a judge now as long as you got a mate who is a judge already, bit like the house of lords. Bring back elections for all these positions.

– cathy, dorset, 15/3/2010 7:27
Rating 795

It’s wooly minded do-gooders like Atkinson that caused these problems in the first place by taking discipline away from schools. She obviously lives wrapped in middle class cotton wool and never has to deal with the socially deprived street urchins.

– Keith, Chelmsford UK, 15/3/2010 16:05
Rating 758

She has no children of her own and will therefore be totally out of touch and unfit for purpose – that is why her remarks are so insensitive. Becoming a parent is a major life changing event, which she has not experienced.


– scott, Dubai, 15/3/2010 5:42
Rating 737

Finally, you simply have to understand that if you choose to accept that there must be a state, in the end, you will get Maggie Atkinson, Ed Balls, Diana Johnson, Delyth Morgan, Graham Badman, Ruth Deech, Clive Soley, and every other unethical, unnatural monster, abusing, merchandising and kidnapping your children.

It is inevitable:

Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

When will we realise that laws not only cannot cure every evil but are frequently counter-productive? Here the harm done to our criminal process may well exceed any good that the law can do. We can see that in advance, so why do we persist with it? If there was a law which made it a criminal offence to smoke or to drink alcohol, neither of which, of course, do I advocate, just think of the amount of bereavement that would be saved, the number of hospital beds that could be put to better use, and the time and energy of our doctors and nurses which could be more usefully employed. Yet we do not consider doing that. What is it about the motorist that requires him to be singled out and subjected to this sort of legislation?

The harm to justice caused by this legislation will be far more substantial than we think. When will we realise that every little infringement of liberty, for whatever good cause, diminishes the whole concept of liberty? If life is the only criterion, why did we sacrifice so many millions of lives in two world wars? Why did we not in the Second World War lie down and say “Because millions of people may die, we should let our liberty be taken away before the onset of the Nazis?” The answer is that more important than lives is the concept of liberty.

Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.


Thanks to The Filthy Smoker for that.

Ivan Lawrence was a rare voice of reason during a debate on making seat-belts in cars a legal requirement, and as we can see, his words were prescient.

Parliament does not sit to remove laws, it exists to create them. They will keep creating them until there is nothing you can do without it being regulated by the state.

Children are simply next on the list of areas that ‘need looking at’. They admit that even though there is no case for legislating Home Education, now that the matter has ‘come to light’ it will happen.

These people are INSANE, EVIL and thoroughly BAD; understanding this and that these people and their system cannot be successfully reformed is the only way you are going to be able to live free and safe from predation.

Who do they think they are?!

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

We can add warmonger to the list of sins of the unethical Mr Soley, as he is yet another Iran botherer.

Before we get on with the fun, take a look at what happens to you when you leave the schools of Delyth Morgan, Ms Deech, Soley, D. Johnson, and the vile Ed Balls:

Now that that is done, there is a comment on that Soley post that is BEGGING to be pulled apart. It is by a sweet sounding person called ‘Jenny’:

Dear Baroness Deech and Lord Soley,

Thank you for your engagement in this matter, however it is regrettable that the two of you remain either unconvinced or concerned that home education continues to be unregulated. Unfortunately your lack of flexibility in this regard is not surprising and undoubtedly you both will remain steadfast in your position despite the overwhelming arguments to the contrary.

Alas I must confess that to put your minds at ease is simply impossible. Nothing can be said to defeat the dreaded ‘what if’. Nothing submitted can provide you and your like minded colleagues with a guarantee that no child educated outside the states direct or indirect influence will go uneducated or unharmed.

No matter how may thousands of functionally illiterate children the state schools produce or the thousands of children Social Services allow to fester or slip through their ‘nets of safety’ each year, you will always be draw to highlight the inescapable reality that one day, one ‘home educated’ child will end up stupid, enslaved or dead in the basement of a madman’s home. This and the fact that some parents have the audacity to believe they themselves more capable than the state when it involves educating their children, is enough to make your skin crawl and reasoned justification to place further restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms.

Instead of looking in the mirror and making radical reforms to this country’s educational institutions you slander a minority, hide behind a statistical insignificance and utilize the phrases “if it saves just one child” or “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”.

Perhaps I’m too cynical but I believe many people in this country would agree with your position (see follow on list). Products of a cultural pedagogy which celebrates consumerism, celebrity culture, instantaneous gratification, violence, fear, money and outsourcing child rearing has taken its toll. People today have forgotten how or perhaps lost the ability to think critically and as such, appear willing to blindly hand over their precious freedoms for the illusion of increased security.


List below…

This is a composite of all the negative comments people logged on a BBC site when asked to give their views on the creation of a home education registration system. To be sure, these comments tell us that many adults know very little about education in general, even less about home education and absolutely nothing about the law surrounding home education. In addition these comments show just how damaging Baroness Morgan’s outrageous comments were to home education.

here we go…

Why home educated children should be registered:
To make sure children are truly alive and well and at home.
To protect children from parents who what to hide them from the authorities for whatever reason.
It is in the children’s interest.
For the sake of the children.
Why not?
What difference will it make either way?
It sounds like a good idea in principle.
Parents should be accountable.
Because the LEAs need to know that parents are home educating.
To ensure these children are not simply truant with their parent’s consent.
So parents who don’t care about there children don’t use home school as an excuse.
To prevent the abuse of too many children.
To help the authorities spot abuse.
To prevent abuse.
To make sure there is no abuse.
To close the loopholes which prevent access to children in general.
To ensure every child has a right to a good education.
To help support home educators.
To maintain educational standards.
To ensure that children do not “drop out of site”
It’s common sense really.
To ensure they are not merely being kept off school.
Because I think it is right.
To protect the few children who suffer.
To prevent Chaves from home educating.
To facilitate the better distribution of materials and supplies.
Because a register affirms home education is legitimate.
To prevent another Baby P, Victoria Climbie, etc.
To get these parents off their moral high horse.
To control & monitor this worrying trend.
To make sure the child is known and remains happy.

“Generation X Factor”.

Thats a triplet dontchaknow.

The PR has a strong influence on the weak minded.

And on…

HE Parent Characteristics:

Protective. Not negligent.

Not capable of covering all aspects of the curriculum

They do not WANT the curriculum.

Not capable of actually teaching

Some of them do not want to teach.

Limit their child’s futures

LIE, HE expands your child’s horizons.

Do not allow interaction with other children

Pure LIE.

Can’t teach

Won’t teach.

Too arrogant

Not nearly arrogant enough… if there were even such a thing as arrogance.

Self obsessed

Self aware.

Care only about themselves

To HELL with you and your ‘society’!

Think that they know best when it comes to their children’s education

Absolutely true. They KNOW what is best, they do not merely THINK they know.

Discourage social and personal development

Absolute LIE.


Being right is not the same as being ‘opinionated’.





Don’t have the education to teach their kids!

Goats have kids, humans have children.

Had personal and educational issues in their early lives

Doesn’t everyone, and so what?

Choose to inflict personal issues on their offspring by keeping them out of school.

Simply FALSE.

Least qualified

Most qualified, morally justified.

Least competent to instil values

Most competent to instil values, only entity with the right to instil values. Will instil natural values, not the values of the state

Least competent to educate their own children

As a wise woman recently said to me: BOLLOCKS.

Are child abusers

Baroness Delyth Morgan.

Prevent science education to preserve religious dogma


Middle class snobs

I would rather be a middle class snob than a lower class scumbag with my children being brainwashed in a state school during the day so that I can save money for a cheap holiday in Spain, leaving my ‘kiddies’ to be breast fed by television at night, with parents who cannot read, who are alcoholics, obese, chip butty eating, football supporting coal mining subhumans who are the cannon fodder of the ages, unable to reason, unfit to have children, living in drug riddled tower blocks with no future whatsoever except to be shell suited crack smoking baby mamas and indolent dole scroungers with pit bull pets and slicked back pony tail hair, terrible acne, hoarse voices, brown fingers from cigarette smoking piercings through the nose and bad teeth.

See what its like to be smeared with a gross generalisation? not very nice is it?!

Have an amateur knowledge of how kids should be taught

Everyone knows what happens when we ‘leave it to the experts’. Oh yes, I forgot, you people CANT READ!

Dysfunctional lunatics

If being functional means being a brainwashed drone, then roll on the army of dysfunctionals say I. If being sane means drinking the Kool-Aid that this evil murdering state and its hellspawn operators are ladling out, if it means being like the people who made these comments, if it means believing every lie they tell and becoming a sheeple, I say I AM A LUNATIC and I AM PROUD OF IT.

Middle class elitists

Once again, I would rather be an elitist and see my works spread all over the world than be a sucker like all the rest.


LIE. Home Educators more than any other style of parent, are interested in and motivated by the truth. No matter what it is.

Child hiders

Hiding WHOSE child from WHOM and WHAT?



Think they are a cut above the rest

They ARE a cut above the rest, and the statistics PROVE IT.

Think they can do better than those trained to teach

They can and do. That is a FACT. You do not like facts, because you have been SCHOOLED.




You are only paranoid if they are not out to get you.

Self serving

Absolutely. And LIE. Home Educated children participate more in community service than schooled children. FACT.

Religious nutters

END TIMES! Bigotry much?


Don’t you mean delusions of grandeur?

Narrow minded

The exact opposite. And all these comments prove that the schooled are in fact, the narrow minded, closed minded, bigoted, ignorant, stupid, non inclusive ones. That is why Home Schoolers RUN AWAY from you and your schools.

HE Children Characteristics:
Are not in the real world

YEAH RIGHT. Teen pregnancy, illiteracy, hopelessness and brainwashing. You can KEEP your ‘real world’, LUSER.

Will be unable to cope in 21st century society

LIE. HE Children are better educated, better suited, more employable etc etc. It is YOU that is ‘teh lose’.

Child is barred from advanced education like university/medical school etc.


Do not get classroom interaction and interactions with other children their same age.

Bullying, lack of education, boredom, dumbing down to your level. We’ll skip it THANKS.

Miss out on education

For true?

Do not have the advantage of having properly trained teachers to educate them

ROTFL, properly trained tutors who release a legion of illiterates every year, who have been reduced to box ticking robots. Riiiiiight!

Kids are harmed

In school.

Deprived of their right to a decent education

Education is a good, not a right, and Home Education is the best form of that good. RETARD.

Truants wandering our streets

Home Educated children cannot by definition be truants.

Won’t get use to being around other children


Isolated and stunted both socially and academically

Lie and lie both lie and lie.

Deprived of social and cultural diversity

Lie again. And again.

Unable to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life

You mean of course that the playground fights are really essential preparation for drunken fights in pubs that all ‘nowmul’ adults engage in. Of course, how could we POSSIBLY have missed this?!

Miniature adults with views beyond their years

‘Your children are not as dumb as mine, so make yours dumb so we can be equal innit’

Tomorrows liability

Tomorrow’s leaders.

Not able to socialise with people from different backgrounds

Lie. Home educators are better at socialising than schooled children. SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Dysfunctional adults in the making

The exact reverse.


Free minded!

Hidden from society

Fuck society. No one owns human beings anymore you villain!

Minds filled with lies

No, YOU.


If removed from school, salvaged. If never been in school, saved.

Live under the regime of a closed environment

You cant make this shit up! CLASSROOM MUCH you RETARD.

Why home educators should be monitored/inspected/regulated
Because no one knows the exact numbers in home education.

Insufficient cause.

To check on the child’s education.

Asked and answered.

For the protection of children, let us poke our noses in and see what is going on!

Poke is right. Busybodies!

We have all read about the other sort [of home educator].

And you ALL BELIEVED IT. Kool-Aid!

To monitor there welfare and progression.

No, Home Educators are not property of the state.

You would not trust a school that refused to be inspected so why should a home-school be closed to criticism.

A home is not a school, you straw man retard.

So the children will know who to blame for their inabilities.

And then sue for compensation!

To ensure curriculum and safety needs are being met.

Home Educators do not follow the state curriculum, and the state has no right to enforce it upon people who do not want it.

Because withholding a child’s access to education is a form of abuse.

Lie. Home Educators are EDUCATORS not Home Education WITHHOLDERS.

Because the vast majority of home educators must be terrible.

Generalisation. Go back to your council block!

Children could be abused.

In any home.

To verify that they are receiving an education and not being used as child labour in a sweat shop or whatever other horrors the authorities might dream up to justify their interventions.

The nightmares that the ‘authorities’ dream up are actually the daytime perverse fantasies of sick SICKK people.

To ensure the children reach a certain standard and that their welfare is in order.

The state does not own people. Home Educators set their own standards, and the welfare of children who are being educated at home is statistically GREATER than that of children who are sent to school. MATHEMATICAL FACT.

For the sake of the child.

Go fuck yourself.

To help and advise the home educating parent.

Home Educators do not need advice thrust upon them. They know where to get help if they need it. They are a resourceful and exceptional elite bunch, overqualified, intelligent, snobs who can do everything for themselves. Right?

To ensure their children are being taught is in line with the National Curriculum and meets quality standards.

Asked and answered.

To maintain standards so they can get qualifications and a job.

Asked and answered.

To ensure the proper standards are met.

Asked and answered.

Children could loos out for life if not educated properly.

I think your children are going to end up cleaning the loos that our children are missing out on.

To confirm the children were receiving the correct level of education.

Asked and answered.

To ensure that they are being given an adequate education.

Asked and answered.

To ensure that children are not being exploited.


To ensure Afghani girls are educated properly and not abused.

Not my business. Check all the Afghani families and not the non Afghani families.

Because some home educators could used their power to raise suicide bombers.

…. ???g I thought that was the power of ‘teh internet‘?!

To ensure every child has the right to a good non-sectarian education.

Not your business, bigot. Education is a good not a right, Asked and answered.

To ensure they are following a recognised and approved syllabus.

Asked and answered.

To ensure against abuse at home.

Asked and answered. Retard.

To protect them from growing illiterate.


To protect our children.

NASTY! Your children are yours not the property of others!

To make sure the children are happy with the education they are receiving.


To protect against shoddy, insufficient or inappropriate teaching.

Asked and answered.

To check for appropriate levels of education and care.

Asked and answered.

Other thoughts:
Regulate home schooling or abolish it altogether.

Sieg HIEL!

Should have lessons plans etc.

Autonomous learners say NO!

Parents should take a test or attend an annual lecture/course to obtain the skills needed to teach.


How can you teach your kids without any qualifications?

Let us SHOW YOU.

A significant percentage of these cases are where parents are hiding abuse or using it as an opportunity to fill their child’s mind with their own narrow minded views on religion etc.

It is your philosophy that is not only narrow minded, but violent. It is your children’s minds that are being filled with tunnel vision ideas of what life is, as well as the idea that violence is completely acceptable.

Education is enabling you to grow as a person and you won’t do that stuck at home with yr Mom!

Low IQ + Keyboard = ↑↑↑

There is no way any parent is able to teach Maths, English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, French or German, etc, etc. at least to GCSE and probably A level.

This is just a LIE!

Should follow the same basic curriculum as in school, with tests to make sure they are actually learning.


The social benefits of going to school far outweigh any justification to educate at home.

Collectivism much?!

They need to maintain a record of time spent on education and regular tests to ensure children are keeping up with the curriculum.

They don’t follow the curriculum dunderhead!

Both the parents and the state are responsible for the education of children.

FALSE, only the PARENTS are responsible for the education of children. At least you have your pronouns correct!

If you have nothing to hide then let the inspectors in.

Fuck off and DIE Eloi.

If schools are inspected then home educators must be inspected.

Non Sequitur.

Children should be immediately removed from parents who use the word “evidence” as if it were a transitive verb.


There is no reason to home educate when there is a perfectly good education system in this country.

If only it were ‘perfectly good’. What LOW STANDARDS you must have!

I would never support home education.

Don’t. No one is asking for you to support it jackass.

Parents should undergo checks and inspections just like everybody else who works with or educates children.

You obviously do not have children.

Home education could be used to keep children hidden away to cover up abuse.

Baroness Delyth Morgan.

I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose a bit of extra care towards the well being of children in this country.

You have no imagination, and no knowledge. Obviously.

I think parents should expect some monitoring/interference from the state.

You do not think. That is the problem.

The fact is 80% of kids being taught at home are being taught at home because they’ve been expelled from school and typically these are dysfunctional families.

If that is the fact, then the state already knows who these people are, where they are, and the fact that they are dysfunctional. These people are nothing to do with Home Educators who are the other 20%, i.e. from superior homes where superior parents teach superior children. By your own logic, there is no need to register ALL Home Educators since the vast majority of them are already accounted for.

Should not be permitted unless the parents are educated to degree level.

Why not PHD, or MA? RETARD. While you are at it, why not mandate Michelin Star training for all those who want to cook at home? DUMBASS.

If parents want to take responsibility to educate their own children, they need to demonstrate their ability of provision is comparable to the state.

WHY? The state does not own children or parents or anyone else.

Any who seek to home school their children should have to undergo rigorous testing to assure their competence in education.
Parents should have some qualifications to home educate.


Have those who are home schooled examined on the core subjects (English, Maths, Science, History, Geography) and if they pass then there’s no need for added state intrusion.

The state wants to intrude BEFORE the time for exams in these subjects, not AFTER, you DULLARD.

Home schooling is just a cop-out and fails to provide the child with the skills needed to cope in the real world.


Children’s education is not just the parents’ business but all of societies.

Is it now? So the COLLECTIVE owns a quotal share in all children? One eleven millionth for each adult? YOU ANIMAL.

This is a threat for equality; the children should be educated together.

Freedom is not free, free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you shouldn’t have a problem with it.

Nothing to think, nothing to say. STFU.

All educational syllabi and all home educating parents should be tested and supervised by Joint University Boards of Education

??!! Must have been written by a SCHOOL TEACHER.

They need to sit the same examinations as their peers so that they will not be disadvantaged.

They do, and they regularly EXCEED the performance of their peers.

No wonder you’d be against someone checking on how the home schooling is going, you’re a bunch of child abusers.

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome!

Parents wanting to educate their children should be thoroughly vetted as a minimum.

I have two words for you: VANESSA GEORGE.

Apart from the super rich I have suspicions to what these people are teaching their kids.


Only the rich can be trusted with their own children!!! To my utter astonishment, someone has actually said that as a matter of fact.


Of course, what she is saying really IS true; the rich do not come under suspicion simply because they are rich. This new law is only for the poor, the people who do not have lawyers and money to pay them. It is a foul and loathsome piece of legislation.

We already know that the government explicitly accepts this proposition; the children of the rich and famous are to be excluded from the absolutely evil ContactPoint


Are Members of Parliament and the Lords ethical?

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

The latest evil demon to bear its teeth and unsheathe its wickedness on the matter of Home Education is Ruth ‘Baroness’ Deech. She claims to be an ethicist. I put it to you that what she proposes by not only supporting this bill but calling for extensions to its core evils is unethical in the extreme.

First, lets do some easy picking apart.

In answer to a reply to her speech on the cruelly misnamed ‘They Work For you’ site, Ms Deech had this to say:

Ruth Deech
Posted on 9 Mar 2010 10:11 pm (Report this annotation)
It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”, as home educators claim they do. Rights have to be enforceable by an authority outside the two parties involved, otherwise one is subject to the other. That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights. The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.


There is much missing from this entirely insulting fob off. There are a raft of assumptions, assertions and nonsense that even people who have only a slight understanding of ethics would smell a rat at.

It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”

Insufficient to whom? If it is sufficient for the parents, the owners of the children, then that is enough. Also, by leaving out ‘the’ before ‘children’s rights’ she is not talking about the natural human rights that inhere in each person, but the fallacious, suspicious and completely artificial ‘Rights of the Child’ concocted for the sole purpose of undermining the structure of family and giving access to children to paedophiles and the burgeoning ‘children’s industry’ that makes money from the existence children in a myriad number of ways.

as home educators claim they do

Home Educators are no different to parents who send their children to a school. There is absolutely no reason why Home Educators should come under this scrutiny. ‘We do not know what we do not know‘ is not sufficient cause to enact this legislation and to violate the homes of people who have done nothing wrong.

Rights have to be enforceable

Rights exist wether they are enforced or not. If the state creates the right to spinach, no doubt Ms Deech would claim that the mouths of all children must be opened under state supervision and that food be spooned in. The rights she is talking about are not real; they are fictions, concoctions and nonsense, no different to the utterly absurd ‘right to internet access‘ that is being trotted about.

Creating a right to internet access means that ISPs will be forced to provide minimum standards or even ‘free access’ (access at their expense) so that everyone can get online. With children’s rights it is access to the children of other people that is the goal, so that people are forced to conform to minimum standards set by the state at the expense of everyone’s liberty.

by an authority outside the two parties involved

Which two parties are under discussion? From our point of view, the family is a single party; the parents and their children are one unit. When the state makes demands of children (for example, to not be anti social) it is through the parents only; children are not able to take full responsibility for themselves or their actions; that responsibility falls to the parent, the owner of the child. It is completely illegitimate for the state to interpose itself between the parent and its children in the matter of education, diet, living arrangements, or any of these other purely private matters.

Some argue that a state is needed to be the protector of people’s rights. This is false. There have been stateless societies in the past that have existed for generations before being destroyed for one reason or another. A simple use of the Google will introduce you to the way it worked and will work.

By what authority does Ms Deech believe that she has the right to set herself up as the sole authority to act as arbiter and supporter of anyone’s rights? Why should everyone not be able to seek their own solutions to the problems that they have (or in this case, do not have). No matter what Deech says, a parent’s rights and wishes take precedence over her dark desires and prejudices.

It is clear that none of these people can be trusted; no reasonable person would put their children in the hands of the state. They lie, steal, murder, cheat, rape and expect to be paid and fawned over as compensation.

Ruth Deech and Mr Soley are not needed to ensure the safety or prosperity of anyone. They are not fit for purpose, unneeded and unwelcome, and I think that this is what rankles them the most; that there are thousands of people who exceed what their state can provide, who shun their predations and yet thrive. They prove that the state is not needed and this is why they must be utterly destroyed.

That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights.

Britain does not have a Bill of Human Rights of its own creation; it was forced upon this country by the EU. Even if Britain had created such a document for itself, if it lists rights that are the delusional fantasies of sick people whose Raison d’être is the control of other people, then such a document would not be worth the paper it is printed on.

The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.

Once again, this line is from the family destroying paedophile’s charter. The parent is not trustworthy; only the monolithic, omniscient state can be relied upon to do this. It is utter nonsense of course, and even if it were true, we have seen during this annus horribilis that the people espousing this nonsense steadfastly refuse to take into account the wishes of children who have submitted their opinions when those opinions do not agree with submitting themselves for summary violation.

Note how there are now three parties, where before there were two parties.

You can’t make this stuff up!

Now on to the subject of this post; are the people in Parliament and the Lords ethical?

Ms Deech claims to be an ethicist. We note that she does not claim to be ethical merely that she has an understanding of the subject of ethics.

Lets assume that it is better to be ethical rather than unethical for the sake of this post; after all, it is not US who are after the children of other people. WE are the on the moral high ground in this matter from the off.

First, let us roughly define ethics:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.



… many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the Apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics … for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.


So, we can say that an ethical person (especially if that person is a public servant) in this context:

  • does not rape (or facilitate rapists)
  • does not steal
  • does not murder
  • does not assault
  • does not slander
  • does not commit fraud
  • does not lie
  • has compassion
  • is loyal
  • respects the right to privacy


The supporters of this bill are calling for access to children to be given to potential paedophiles against the wishes of parents, for no reason whatsoever, other than that they wish it.

We can say very certainly therefore, that:

  • The supporters of this bill are going to steal money from constituents to make this bad magic happen.
  • The majority of MPs voted for the unjustifiable calamity that is the invasion of Iraq, where over 600,000 people have been murdered
  • The supporters of this bill are for the assault of children, since they are calling for force to be used to make them attend their schools.
  • The supporters of this bill have slandered Home Educators.
  • The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on what some have called a fraudulent report.
  • The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on untruths about Home Education.
  • Ms Deech shows a complete lack of compassion and empathy for the needs and right of others in her scandalous speech.
  • The supporters of this bill who spoke against it but who voted for it under the whip are disloyal to their constituents.
  • The supporters of this bill (and Deech in particular) do not respect the privacy of families. (ContactPoint).

These people including Ms Deech are the very definition of unethical.

They fail every test, are unethical by every measure. Even those in the house who are for Home Education are unethical, since they voted for a bad bill they knew was immoral and insupportable and which they did not in fact, support.

We can say for certain that violence against people and property that is not defensive is unethical. Anyone who participates in or orders the violent entering of another person’s home simply because the owner of that home does not conform to the prejudices and opinions of the violator is an unethical person.

Deech, Soley and all the other people who are calling for the registration, interrogation and violent kidnapping of children are unethical by definition, since violence will be used to make innocent, non agressing people obey their prejudices and unfounded beliefs.

There are no two ways about this. There is nothing at all wrong with expressing an opinion; everyone has the right to express their thoughts in any way they see fit. What is entirely unjustifiable to moral and ethical people is the use of force by the collective that has the exclusive monopoly on violence which Deech and Co control to make other people obey them.

This explains how the creation of false rights causes so many problems. If children have a right to education, and education is defined by the state, Deech and her cohorts, then they have a wide pretext for violating your family, in the most intrusive of manners, in the name of ‘protecting the innocent and defenceless’ where in fact no harm is taking place.

This is why it is so important to be able to define what rights are and what rights are not. When we define rights correctly, we find that there are a very small number of ‘root rights’ that inhere in you by virtue of your nature, that emerge as soon as you are alive and out of your mother’s womb. All of your freedoms derive from this small number of rights.

One of these rights is the right of property. The right of property has consequences that extend to every part of your life. Out of property rights comes your right to own the shirt on your back, and your right to fend off thieves who want to steal it from you. The most important of these real, natural rights is the property right you have in yourself; self ownership. From this right stems many of the other rights that are real; the right to free speech (someone stopping your printing press is violence against your property; the paper or studio where you create an disseminate your speech. In the same vein, someone putting their hand over your mouth to stop you speaking is assault), the right not to be killed (killing a person is stealing their life) and so on. Read about these rights in this book by Murray N Rothbard.

Man has a nature. That nature is fixed. The rules that his body obeys are defined by nature, and they are immutable. If the natural rights of each person are respected, then there is no need to concoct false rights at all. It follows quite logically that everyone has a right to be on the internet, since being on the internet is a simple matter of property in the computer you are using and your right to speak freely.

Once again, if you desire to defeat the unethical predations of the demonic Deech and her legions, you need to understand and accept that your children really are your property.

First of all, instinctively you know this. Secondly, since Soley says it is not so, you know for sure that it must be. Thirdly, Deech, Soley, Balls, and Morgana all want to exercise property rights over your children. How can they do this if children are not property? They want to control how and what your children learn, where they learn it, for how long they learn and what they then do with that learning after they have finished with them. They want to assess your children, examine them, interrogate them without you being there, and they will wrest them from you by force if you do not agree to any of their demands. They want to use the purely evil ContactPoint to number your children, like cattle, and you may not refuse to have your children in that database.

If these are not the acts of people behaving as if they own something, I do not know what is.

Children are property. That is a fact. The only question is whose property are they? Do they belong to the state and its monstrous predators, or do they belong to you, the parents?

People attempt to assert their right to control their children using a mishmash of the most flimsy of pretexts:

“I look after my children 24/7, that gives me the right to say how they are educated”. This is not logical a basis for an argument to explain why you alone have the right to say how your children are educated. We can break this argument very simply: if you have a Philippino nanny that looks after your children 100% of the time, does that confer any rights over your children to her? Of course it does not, and in fact, you can sack her at any time.

Some argue that, “I know my child better than any other person; that gives me the right to say how they should be educated”. Once again, this is false. If you send your child to boarding school from the age of seven, the teachers there will know your child better than you do; does that confer the right to control your child to that institution? Of course not. The schools know that you own your children, which is why they say they act in loco parentis while your child is in their care.

You are not acting in loco parentis with your own children; that is why these arguments fail. You, by virtue of your property right in your child, are the ultimate, top level director of that child’s life. If anyone tries to short circuit this through arguments like David Chaytor’s or the other collectivists and ‘education experts’, they are actually attempting to become the owner of your children.


As I say in that post, who has the right to say how a child should be educated is a matter of property rights. The only way to construct an irrefutable, irrevocable, closed, and completely defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.

If you do not accept this, you concede that the state is the de facto owner of your child. If you are not willing to claim your own child, then you may as well stop arguing against this legislation, because you are waiving your property rights and have no more of a moral claim to ‘your children’ than an unpaid au pair does.

If your number one priority is the protection of your child (and of course, it is, since you Home Educate), then you must accept the property rights position as it is the only position that offers you a complete defence, where you cannot be arbitrarily substituted for someone who can do ‘your job’ as well or even better than you.

Think also about the logical conclusion of these false ‘Rights of the Child’ and you not accepting that you own your children. If you decide to leave Britain for more free shores, it is entirely possible that you might find yourself blocked from doing so for the good of ‘your child’s development’. We have already seen that the Germans are willing to chase down their citizens (literally ‘theirs’ in property terms) to other countries to retrieve ‘their’ children; if you do not believe that it can happen to you, you may have a nasty surprise in your future.

Every cloud has a silver lining, even a cloud as dark as the one coming from these unspeakably evil and corrupt people. That silver lining is the total destruction of any fairy tale belief in Democracy, which for many people is now so completely discredited that there will never be any going back.

That is a good thing.

Soley, Duff and Deech feel the fire

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

The rage is let lose on the Lords who would steal your children here.

Unfortunately for these three twisted and sick individuals, Home Educators in the UK have had many months to hone their arguments, to collect data that that completely refutes the state’s insane position and to cool down the incandescent heat of their ire until now it merely heats them enough so they can act.

Take a look at the words of Clive Soley:

I think McDuff is right about the lobby response but it’s good to get this out for debate. I also think Tech sums up the position of many when he says: “It isn’t your place to *allow* parents to home educate – that is the whole point!”

Tech. You are going to take us right back to the 19th century with that philosophy. Remember that was one of the arguments against compulsory education. The principle of home education is fine. The problem is how to ensure children do have the right to an education and how you protect that right. Most of the entries here seem to acknowledge that there can be problems but then try and avoid the difficult issue of how you ensure good standards.

I notice also a desire to duck the difficult problem of girl’s education for some groups who do not believe that they should have the same educational rights as boys. How do you answer that?

This legislation may need improvement so lets start from the right of parents to home educate and the question of standards and children’s rights. I am assuming that most of you believe that children do have rights. If you don’t please say so as that will clarify the position.


Clive Soley

Lets do this!

Tech. You are going to take us right back to the 19th century with that philosophy.

Who is the ‘us’ that this person is talking about? The state has no business compelling education, and taking us back to the 19th century would be a very good thing in the eyes of many people. The state is too big, too intrusive, and people like Clive Soley and Deech are perfect examples of how it has all gotten way out of hand. In the 19th century we can say one thing for sure; the centrality of the family was sacrosanct, and no parliamentarian would dream of legislating that the state should take the powers that are being discussed right now.

Remember that was one of the arguments against compulsory education.

And it was completely correct then, as it is now. The state does not own human beings, children OR adults. It is not the place of the state to compel people to be educated, to set the standards of education or to have anything whatsoever to do with this field of human activity. When Deech and Soley say that the state has a right to do this, this is nothing more than an assertion based on their own prejudices; just because they say the state has this right that does not make it true.

The principle of home education is fine.

We already know this, and we do not need you to confirm it. And what if you had said that it was NOT fine? Your word should not be law, or the initiation of law.

The problem is how to ensure children do have the right to an education and how you protect that right.

This problem is defined and created by you. It is not a real problem. Children do not have a right to education; education is a good not a right. When you say ‘YOU’ protect that right, if we concede that there is a right to education (which I do not) then from your own words, it is MY ‘problem’ to find out how to protect that right that inheres in MY children. It is not YOUR place to do it, since MY children belong to ME, and not YOU.

Most of the entries here seem to acknowledge that there can be problems but then try and avoid the difficult issue of how you ensure good standards.

Once again, what MY standards are have nothing to do with YOUR standards (the standards of the state). You are responsible for the schools that the state runs. You should concentrate all of your intellectual prowess on that elephant in the room, rather than immorally and unjustifiably interfering with the private lives of completely innocent people, who have and want nothing to do with you.

I notice also a desire to duck the difficult problem of girl’s education for some groups who do not believe that they should have the same educational rights as boys. How do you answer that?

No one is ducking this ‘difficult question’ save the ostrich posturing Parliamentarians; it is you and your colleagues who are ducking the problem of the large communities of people with different cultural norms, which is the cause of the very existence of the ‘problems’ that are fallaciously being conflated with all Home Educators.

If there is a problem with those groups, and you believe that it is your duty to stop them fulfilling their natural roles as dictated to them by their cultures, then you should attack that problem directly and leave the English who do not exhibit these cultural traits completely alone.

It is absolutely unacceptable and illogical to claim that you must inspect every family that home educates in England because an unrepresentative and small number of people who are not English choose to follow the culture of their original country by (for example) marrying off their girls at a ‘young age’. This has nothing to do with the majority of people in Britain, and not only the English; you can put a large number of people from other countries who do not carry on these practices – all of whom live here peacefully – into the category of ‘not a problem’ when it comes to the vile assertions of Delyth Morgan.

Finally, children who are girls do not have the same educational rights as boys, because as I said above, education is not a right, it is a good.

That, in a nutshell, is how I answer that.

This legislation may need improvement so lets start from the right of parents to home educate and the question of standards and children’s rights.

I have a better idea; let’s start from the proposition that you have no business legislating on this matter in the first place.

The only proper thing to be done with this legislation is scrap it entirely. The cause of its creation has been proven to be faulty, the man who wrote the report that inspired it has been totally discredited, and there is not a shred of legitimacy left to prop it up. Your best move now is to delete it completely and then take some time to learn what Home Education is, by doing some work on your own, rather than rely on the words of paedophile enablers, rent seekers, liars, social engineers, fake charities and charlatans.

As another smart person said, it is not in the gift of parliament to grant parents permission to Home Educate. This is non negotiable. Parliament cannot legitimately decree what a suitable education is, or how education should be delivered outside of schools that it does not organise. The standards that parents set for their children is not the business of the state or you and your colleagues. This is also non negotiable.

I am assuming that most of you believe that children do have rights. If you don’t please say so as that will clarify the position.

Children’s rights are nothing more than a fantasy concocted by social engineers and paedophiles who want to destroy the family so that they can have unfettered access to children.

Children are the property of their parents. As human beings, they have the same rights as any other human being. None of these rights are created by the state, but they instead, inhere in the human being from birth. Once the child reaches maturity, they then own themselves, as adults do.

Any position other than this, puts the state in the role of being the owner of children until they reach their majority, with the parent relegated to the level of an unpaid child minder who has to obey the state. This is nothing less than slavery.

You, Mr. Soley, cannot assert that you have the right to inspect a child without the consent of its parents, or kidnap that child by force to make it go to one of your schools, or steal a child from its parents to be given to other people to foster and then and also claim that the state is not exercising property rights over children. These acts are the very definition of the behaviour of an owner of something.

No false reasoning about ‘the rights of society’, or the ‘rights of the child’ can change the nature of these acts; you are claiming that you are the ultimate authority and property owner of all children, and that the power of the state trumps all moral rights and natural rights.

The area of ‘children’s rights’ is profoundly dishonest and sinister. It is corrosive to the family and unacceptable to all thinking and moral people. That you and your colleagues rely on this concept so heavily is a good indication of your natures.

Should you pass this legislation, no one who does not want to be affected by its sinister predations is going to be touched by it. People will leave the country, go into hiding or make arrangements that will prevent your agents from carrying out their illegitimate approaches.

You are on a hiding to nothing.

Cordon Bleu

Monday, March 8th, 2010


Associated Press: Jerry Coyne says Islamic Qur’an “is lying to children”

Sunday, March 7th, 2010


Associated Press Writer LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn’t taken a friend’s advice and tried a textbook from a popular Islamic publisher for her 10-year-old’s biology lessons.

Mule’s precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth’s excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Al Sabbah Educational Group, which disputed Charles Darwin’s theory.

“I thought she was going to have a coronary,” Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. “She’s like, ‘This is not true!'”

Islamic-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Qur’an-based version of the Earth’s creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children “religious or moral instruction.”

“The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as Muslims,” said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. “Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of Qur’anic component to their home-school program.”

Those who don’t, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

“I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids,” said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn’t attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

“Those who do not believe that the Qur’an is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling,” says the introduction to “Biology: Third Edition” from Jeddah University Press. “This book was not written for them.”

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its “History of Life” chapter that a “Islamic worldview … is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is.”

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Mohammad Iqbar said the sentence made it into the book because it is true and will not be removed from future editions.

The size of the business of home-school texts isn’t clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don’t give out sales numbers. Slatter said home-school material sales reach about $1 billion annually in the U.S.

Publishers are well aware of the market, said Achmad Al Wahad, a former chemistry professor in Tehran who helped launch the Al Sabbah curriculum in the early 1990s.

“If I’m planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I’m going to at least find out what my demographic is,” Al Wahad said.

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.

“We’re not religious home-schoolers, and there’s somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered,” said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.

Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

Wendy Womack, another Lexington home-school mother, said the only scientifically credible curriculum she’s found is from the Maryland-based Calvert School, which has been selling study-at-home materials for more than 100 years.

Al Sabbah and Ryadh University Press say their science books sell well. Al Sabbah’s “Exploring Creation” biology textbook retails for $65, while Achmad Al Wahads’ “Biology” Third Edition lists at $52.

Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Al Sabbah and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

“If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they’re being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology,” Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Al Wahad countered that Coyne “feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up.”

Adam Brown’s parents say their 16-year-old son’s belief in the Qur’an’s creation story isn’t deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Al Sabbah curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he’ll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

“He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school,” Polly Brown said. “But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education.”

Democracy will be the death of Britain

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Those paying attention know that David Chaytor MP thinks that all children are owned collectively in Britain, and that the parental rights of ownership of children are secondary to the prior claim of the state.

Now with that in mind:

What Mr. Chaytor is saying is that the community (the state) has a prior claim on your child; that your child is the property of those people from birth, and that you have no say in what is best for that child. The ‘community’ is the parent of your child.

This opens up a whole slew of questions. WHICH community does your child belong to? If you are a part of a community that believes that honour killings are perfectly legitimate, should your child be subject to that, simply because other people believe it?

If you live in Tower Hamlets where there are literally dozens of different communities living together, which particular group should take precedence over your right to own and rear your own child?

As you can clearly see, the only way that everyone’s rights are protected, and all children are reared in a way that is suitable to them, is that NO ONE but the PARENT should be able to say what is or is not good for a child.

It is very encouraging that there are Home Educators out there that at least in part, understand that the state does not own children. The more people are woken up to this fact, and then to the reality that they in fact own their children or someone else does, the less likely it will be that there will ever be another Badman report written by the next imbecile in waiting who wants to impose her personal prejudices on total strangers and free people.

Then we have this:

Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists

A London borough is accused of being infiltrated by extremists after a Government minister said activists were trying to oust him by covertly gaining control of his local Labour party.

Tower Hamlets council is alleged to have fallen under the influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe and is braced for further claims in a TV documentary to be broadcast tonight.

But former mayor Ken Livingstone and a spokesman for Respect MP George Galloway both suggested that Dispatches, to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm, amounted to “scaremongering” against Muslims.

Mr Livingstone, who follows Tower Hamlets politics closely, said: “This furore smacks of racism and Islamophobia. Of course Tower Hamlets council is not infiltrated by Islamists. Just because some people are Muslim and go to the mosque is not argument enough that they are Islamists.


Evening Standard

and then…

Islamic radicals ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party
A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches […]


And there is another article in the Daily Mail on this same subject.

And then this:

Anger as National Front is consulted on race policy in schools

White extremists have been consulted over government policy on tackling racism in schools.

A team reviewing race relations policy for Children’s Secretary Ed Balls held a meeting in a hotel with a member of the National Front.

It is understood an approach was also made to the British National Party, although the BNP denied it had been approached by the review team.


Daily Mail


All you need is one braincell to see that there is a very big problem here. This problem has nothing to do with the particular ideologies involved in these articles. The problem here is democracy.

No matter what the people above believe, democracy gives them control over you and your property, simply because they have a large number of members.

What democracy does is allow anyone who can gather enough people to legitimately overrun a country and change it to their tastes. Depending on what side you are on, ‘change’ means liberate or destroy.

The National Front wants to kick all ‘blacks’ out and create an ultra far left Britain. Neu Labour wants to rape your children, catalogue and number you like farmyard animals and steal your money and property. The Muslims want you to live under Sharia Law. The Greens want you to live like a cave man and sterilise you to satisfy their false god ‘Gaia’. Each one of these groups are identical in that they want absolute control over you. They all use the same tool to do this; democracy.

People whining and complaining about the National Front or the ‘islamist infiltrators’ are not thinking clearly. Both of these groups are using perfectly legitimate, legal means to achieve their ends. Their only crime is that they are not yet in a position of numerical superiority to wrest control from the current regime who do have numerical superiority. Anyone who rails against these groups and who also is FOR democracy is not playing with a full deck of cards; democracy IS what these people are practicing. Democracy is not a synonym for ‘fair’ or ‘just’; it is a system of politics where whoever gets the most votes makes the laws. That is all it is; it is not a religion to be followed, it is not even a great tradition; it is in fact a very dangerous way of running a country, and by its nature it is immoral, since it uses coercion as its instrument of control.

The only way to permanently de fang these people and to protect yourself from their predations and their philosophies is to remove democracy in its entirety, and replace it with a Libertarian space, where the number of people who think a certain way and grouping together can not be the source of you losing your rights or your family or your property.

In a Libertarian space, you have absolute rights that are real rights. These rights inhere in you as a human being, and are not granted to you by a state, which would not exist in a Libertarian space.

What are real rights? Watch this for an explanation. What we can say for sure is that there is no such thing as a ‘right to healthcare’ or a ‘right to education’, ‘black rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘woman’s rights’, ‘children’s rights’, or any of the myriad other false rights that the state has concocted and enshrined in their illegitimate laws over the years.

All human beings have the same number of rights, and it is out of these rights that the basis of a free country can be built, where all people share the same advantages without any group controlling any other.

Take for example, the business of marriage. Gays have been whining for ages that they cannot marry. The fact is that they have the absolute right to marry, and always have had this right, because they are human beings. Marriage is a private contract between people; note that I do not say two people; the rights and wrongs of polygamy are no one’s business save those who practice it.

In a Libertarian space, there is no state to certify your marriage; if you say you are married, then you are married. How you perform the ceremony, what your arrangements are is nobody’s business but yours and your partners. Of course, people who are married in any particular way have no right to force others to accept them and their arrangements; they have an absolute right to their property, as do you, and this is non negotiable.

You can worship in whatever way you like, live in whatever arrangement you like, and do whatever you like. If gays contract to have children by surrogacy or by adoption, that is totally their affair; it is not the business of anyone to interfere with the private interactions of individuals in any way whatsoever, as long as they are not doing harm to anyone, and by ‘harm’, Libertarians do not consider that teaching or not teaching any particular philosophy can be construed as harm.

In a Libertarian space, women have the same rights as every other human being; to name two (which are actually one, since the first gives rise to the second), they have the right to property and they own themselves. This means that they have the right to have an abortion performed upon themselves. Or to abstain from abortion. They have the right to give birth in whatever way they see fit, and there being no State, it would be impossible for home birth to be outlawed or anything else to do with the biology of women. Under Libertarianism, women would at last be truly free, to live without the threat of coercion by anyone, in all matters, no matter what they are.

If you want to gain the full picture of what living in a Libertarian space would be like and what its foundations are, you need to read ‘For a New Liberty‘ and ‘The Ethics of Liberty‘ both by Murray Rothbard. You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.

The fact of the matter is that as time goes on, areas of Britain are going to undergo demographic change. Libertarians have no problem with this. What it does mean however, is that these people, whoever they are or whatever it is they believe, will be able to use democracy to violently control their neighbours, and that means you.

The type of life you will be able to live will depend solely on where your house is; if you live in Tower Hamlets, your daughter will not be able to walk in the street without having her head covered, should the council be taken over by a group that wants to introduce sharia law, and they introduce it, and 51% of the people living in the borough agrees with it.

This is a simple fact of democracy and maths; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of philosophy the 51% believe. Should the council there be taken over by Greens, you will find that the entire borough is made car free. Those people who own cars will lose their ability to use their property in that borough, and there would be nothing they can do to stop it. There is no authority to appeal to, since the green majority is the authority. They could levy swingeing garbage taxes, a scientifically baseless ‘Carbon Tax’, a tax on families that have more than one child; the sky is the limit. Literally.

Effectively, you have no guaranteed rights under democracy; all you have is what the state deems fit to give you at any one time, based on the prejudices of the majority. You may have thought that you were free to Home Educate in ‘a properly running democracy’, or that you were free to smoke in pubs, light your house in whatever way you like, own whatever breed of dog you like, shoot pistols as a hobby, leave your house and walk the streets without having to carry a license to do so (a national ID Card). In fact, all of these things were not your right, but merely what the state had not bothered to legislate on.

If you want to restore and keep your liberty, if you want to be free of the eternal danger of democracy, you have to get rid of it, because it is absolutely guaranteed that its usurpations are only going to get worse, and when the people who are the usurpers hold ideas that are as different to yours as different can be (The National Front or New Labour for example) the usurpations will be beyond intolerable. Remember; legislatures exist to write new legislation, they almost never repeal it. Even if the people who ran ‘your’ democracy were just like you in their philosophy, in order to justify their existence, they need to keep generating legislation. That means eventually they will come round to dealing with you and your hobbies, lifestyle and whatever else you do that does not currently have legislation governing it.

Do you you really want to continue living under the constant threat that one day, your way of life is going to be outlawed? Are you not sick and tired of having to justify the most basic rights that you posses to the army of imbeciles, liars, perverts, collectivists, and human garbage who lust after you and your property?

If you are sick of doing this, then you need to have to hand, a pattern for living that will allow everyone to be free without requiring coercion of anyone. A way of living where there is no possibility of a group of people taking a monopoly on the use of force to make you bend to their will. That pattern is Libertarianism.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be for your own rights, but against other people having theirs. You cannot support the use of violence to make your personal beliefs the law, whilst at the same time, complain that others are grouping together to outlaw your practices. In other words, you cannot be FOR democracy and FOR liberty at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive; democracy always leads to someone having their rights suppressed; Libertarianism leads to everyone having free use of their rights and no one being able form a collective to destroy them.

Finally, on the subject of ‘human rights’, your rights do not come from statutes, and as stated above, there is no ‘right to education’; education is a good, not a right. Your right to control and educate your child has nothing to do with the United Nations declaring that you have this right. Your rights inhere in you, and are born with you. If you use these sorts of flimsy arguments to define your rights, you will be standing on thin ice, since these false rights that are created by statute can be arbitrarily rescinded, leaving you without any basis or argument for what is yours by birth.

Some declare that because, “I look after my children 24/7, that gives me the right to say how they are educated”. This is not logical a basis for an argument to explain why you alone have the right to say how your children are educated. We can break this argument very simply: if you have a Philippino nanny that looks after your children 100% of the time, does that confer any rights over your children to her? Of course it does not, and in fact, you can sack her at any time.

Some argue that, “I know my child better than any other person; that gives me the right to say how they should be educated”. Once again, this is false. If you send your child to boarding school from the age of seven, the teachers there will know your child better than you do; does that confer the right to control your child to that institution? Of course not. The schools know that you own your children, which is why they say they act in loco parentis while your child is in their care.

You are not acting in loco parentis with your own children; that is why these arguments fail. You, by virtue of your property right in your child, are the ultimate, top level director of that child’s life. If anyone tries to short circuit this through arguments like David Chaytor’s or the other collectivists and ‘education experts’, they are actually attempting to become the owner of your children.

Who has the right to say how a child should be educated is a matter of property rights. The only way to construct an irrefutable, irrevocable, closed, and defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.

All parents instinctively know this, but some lack the language to express it, or are so brainwashed by this collectivist society that they bristle at the idea that their children are property. The fact of the matter is that until you adopt this natural and correct idea of the true nature of your children, you are putting them at the mercy of the small number of people who write the statutes, and hand down diktats of what your rights are and are not. The very same people who confer a right upon you are able to take it away from you; this cannot be acceptable to any thinking person. If the UN, like the League of Nations before it, ceases to exist, will your right to educate your child as you see fit suddenly cease to exist also? Of course not. Depending on institutions for the definition of your rights is building your house on sand.

Learn what rights are and what they are not. Understand what a human being is, understand what property is and you will suddenly be basing all of your beliefs on solid rock.

For a New Liberty
The Ethics of Liberty
both by Murray Rothbard.

You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.