Thursday, 29 January 2009

Fuck the NSPCC

Over at Bishop Hill, I see my least favourite charidee is getting a bit of a kicking:

The organisation's head of policy, one Diana Sutton, is quoted as saying

We welcome the Government’s decision to review the guidance on home education. We believe the existing legislation and guidance on elective home education is outdated. We support the view set out by the London (LA) Children’s Safeguarding Leads network that the government should review the legislation to balance the parents’ rights to home educate their children, the local authorities’ duty to safeguard children and the child’s right to protection. We welcome the fact that this review will look at where local authorities have concerns about the safety and welfare, or education, of a home educated child and what systems are in place to deal with those concerns.

I don't think there can be any doubt where they think the balance lies. In the realm of home education the NSPCC's aims cannot be met without crushing a fundamental civil liberty -- that of being left alone to bring children up how one wishes. They cannot become involved with this kind of decision without becoming overtly political and becoming a threat to our freedoms. In fact, the aims of the NSPCC are probably wholly incompatible with civil liberties.


Unfortunately, I think the Bish is being a bit too Christian with these cunts. They are so deeply entrenched in the managerialist government of this country that they are doing their very best to promote the statist agenda. They are not accidentally helping trample our civil liberties, they are and have been for ages now, part of the government's divide and conquer, "won't someone think of the children" salami-slicing of our rights.

The next time they send you a prepaid postage envelope for one of their tear-jerking campaigns, I suggest you stuff it as full as you can of bits of scrap metal or scrap paper and send it back to them. Make it as heavy as you can. Engage them in wasteful correspondence, like filling in the supplied forms with made up details that look plausible but are total nonsense. They're trying to fuck up our lives using our own money. They're not interested in the welfare of children. They're interested in the use (or abuse) of children as a means to control everybody.

Fuck them.

10 comments:

The Penguin said...

They are like every fucking charity, they exist to pay themselves fat salaries.

Meanwhile Social Services continue to experiment with their nasty social engineering, please see my blog for details.

The Penguin.

JuliaM said...

I just keep the free pen.. :)

Mark Wadsworth said...

They are a fakecharity to boot - they get £1 million a year from the government.

Damo Mackerel said...

And wasn't it some 16th century bishop who said: the poor, they are a goldmine?

Umbongo said...

Mrs Umbongo - a generous soul - sends £100 pa to Barnardo's. For this she receives a monthly phone call asking her for more + a demand to make a bequest to Bs in her will and, in addition, she is sent a quarterly letter from Bs to the same effect (just in case she forgets). Every time Bs comes on Mrs U asks politely NOT to be phoned in future and, while they're about it, NOT to mail her. The Bs caller says this shall be done (as if!).

Her £100 pa is on a standing order and she's quite happy for B's to save its money and not keep her up to date with Martin Neary's latest attack on heterosexual couples bringing up their own children. Anyway, this week another phone call coincided with another junk missive. Mrs U finally lost her cool: she slammed down the phone and immediately cancelled her SO online and next day instructed our solicitor to draw up a codicil striking Bs out of her will.

She sent the good news to Bs in a Bs prepaid envelope. I trust Martin will be pleased. But, of course as MW informs us, since Bs is just another fake charity, for the forseeable future, the Umbongos (and you, good reader) will be coughing up through HMR&C for Neary's tea and biscuits.

Oldrightie said...

All part of this nasty Statist Government's agenda. £100,000 plus headmasterships if you vote Labour, Chief Constable's jobs, council senior officers, charity bosses and so on. Snotty Brown used to love the massive, full power jet of inherited wealth from the Tory administration.
Not so chipper now the hose has a trillion puntures and no power.

JPT said...

As the whole sorry pile of shit unravels so the powers that be become more desperate.

Anonymous said...

Is this the same NSPCC who a while ago spent more money on "administration" that on actually what is supposed to do?
Will they tell those twats who harrass me and the better half when we go shopping to fuck off, saves me doing it. While your at it you can add these twats to the growing list of uncivil servants.

Anonymous said...

Do I remeber correctly that it was the NSPCC who issued an official statement/press release praising the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution - as if it had anything whatsoever to do with them. And were then forced to backtrack in the face of criticism. Fake. Fake. Fake charity indeed.

Carlotta said...

What happens to the law surrounding home education is not just of concern to home educators. In seeking with the help of the NSPCC to control home educators, the state will in effect appropriate the duty to educate and raise all children in England. Every English parent everywhere, schooling or otherwise, will no longer be responsible for ensuring the education and welfare of their children.

If you doubt this, read the questions in the recently instigated home education review: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1605&external=no&menu=1

eg:

"Question 3: Do you think that Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that all children in this country are able to achieve the five outcomes? If you answered yes, how do you think Government should ensure this?. If you answered no, why do you think that?"

(The 5 outcomes eg: enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, be safe, be healthy, are actually ambitions, not targets...see Every Child Matters...and LAs have NO legal duty to do anything other than to cooperate to promote these ambitions...see Section 10 Children Act 2004.)

It would help if all parents, not just home educating ones, would respond to this review with a resounding "bog off".

There is a draft response here, if anyone needs any ideas:

http://daretoknowblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/draft-response-to-review-of-home.html