THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
British values - just what are they?
If it's the right thing, why don' t they tell the families?

The truth is out there (preceded by "not")

BBC NEWS | UK | Paedophile checks scheme defended.

The British state says that 11 million people must be certified and logged by a state authority before they can safely be allowed to give their children's friends a lift to the swimming pool. This is as offensive (and revealing) a concept as could have been conceived by our uppity public "servants."

A government employee sexually abused and then killed two little girls for his sadistic pleasure. Had the school been private, its screening and hiring policies would have been challenged and its management would have been held to account for its failure to protect the children in its care. As it was a state school, its management is of course perfect. So we all become suspects instead.

Ignore all examples of child abuse by "carers" in state institutions. Ignore the risk that the database will be abused to smear, punish, and/or blackmail those who offend the state's minions. Any such incidents will be mere aberrations, for in their eyes we are the dark and they are the light. Only when that light shines upon us can we truly be safe.

You may be surprised to read that the linked BBC piece actually lists everything that is wrong with this scheme. You just have to break the code. Ignore the appeals for calm. Forget the soothing Newspeak job-titles ("chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority"). States have always been adept at making evil sound cuddly; consider for example the French "Committee of Public Safety". In particular, be careful to ignore all noble-sounding objectives, like "...protect children from paedophiles...". The more noble the objective sounds, the more wicked the measures the state seeks to justify.

To find the truth, look to the things any given apparatchik denies. In this example, the Witchfinder General chairman of the ISA tells us that the scheme is NOT about;

  • interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs;
  • subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive [note the weasel qualifier] scrutiny of their person lives
  • creating mistrust between adults and children
  • discouraging volunteering
So there you have it. The scheme, perfectly-described in bullet points. The truth is in there. You must just know how to look.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


My grave fear is that this together with other absolute gobshite rubbish coming from this 'government' are designed to provoke protest, riots and ultimately the introduction of the civil contingencies act, and the end of democracy as we know it. Heck did anyone watch the Spooks repeats on 'watch' last night?

Might sound implausible but Gordon Brown is at minimum a psychologically flawed sociopath, who has spent his whole life aiming to be Prime Minister of Britain. Do you really think his fragile little mind is going to cope with utter rejection at the first chance the British public get to actually excersise their democratic right to vote on him as PM??

We must be careful for the next 250 or so days.

I can't think of another explanation for the acceleration of unbelievably stupid vote losing measures coming out of Labour at the moment...


"My grave fear is that then these clowns, or the ones from the next circus, will say this hasn't worked, and then insist on further and better laws."

Isn't that exactly what has been happening for about 60 years?


This is just about the final nail in the coffin of this government, or if not, this once fine country deserves the misery this government and social environment it continues to create. Matthew Parris wrote very well addressing this point in Saturday's Times ( although I am not fully with his summary at the end of the article.

If this is not the trigger for either what passes as mass protest (and given even the BBC seems to get that this insane it might be), or, as Parris highlights, this is surely a law that goes too far and by necessity results in mass breach, rendering it useless. Sadly, the unintended (?) consequence is likely to be that fewer people will provide the support, guidance and effort that children need to grow and develop, with the obvious consequences for us all.

My grave fear is that then these clowns, or the ones from the next circus, will say this hasn't worked, and then insist on further and better laws.


The net result, of course, is that people will refuse to gie lifts to friends' kids, with the result that there'll be more kids on the street.

Dick Puddlecote

Spooky. That's exactly how I read his denials. Cleverly couched to misdirect the gentle reader/listener.

How have we come to this isn't the question anymore. It's how have we arrived here at such supersonic speed.

David Davis

So of course the scheme _is_ about doing all those things listed.

Margaret Thatcher famously once said that she "formed policy" by reading what the Guardian commanded each morning, and deciding to do the opposite. Perhaps that's why the Enemy Class had her killed.

But I have frequently written over at our place that, if and when a substantially libertarian polity does manage to form a (very limited statist) governemt in the UK, many many very necessary and possibly politically-difficult measures will have to be taken against the future involvement of statist members of the Enemy Class in any form of public or social life.

Being libertarians, or even (classical small "L") liberals does not imho mean that we have ultimately to be lenient, or even tolerant, and certainly not polite or gentle, towards those who have actively and deliberately planned to demolish our (at least a bit) liberal civilisation based on voluntary institutions and individual trust - for really quite Gramscian reasons.

We ought to be Gramscians-turned-upside-down: we ought to prosecute a war of Hegemonic Discourse _on our terms_ against the British (and later in foreign lands, for Jihad is a duty) Enemy Class. At the point of our victory, it ought to be impossible for a human to be able to admit in public, without permanent ostracism and social isolation, his involvement with the Enemy...that he/she was an employee of any of thousands of "agencies" or departments. In the case of "ministers", or major TV producing-staff of helot-promotion-media, the same should apply.

I do not really know, as a libertarian, what to do about the Wireless Tele Vision "industry" and its pre-occupation with "popular culture" which is designed to anaesthatise critical thoughts about liberty and politics, and for brainwashing "the masses": "measures" sounds too draconian and totalitarian in return. But I'd welcome suggestions.

But Enemy Class individuals should ultimately feel the displeasure of lovers of liberty, for the rest of their natural lives.

This ISA process is just one of their directed and purposeful schemes to destroy and undo ordinary individual social interaction that is un-monitored by The British State.


Maybe we need a database of Mp's and People who want to be MP's and anyone works for a quango or be in charge of telling us what to do.

We could vet anyone who wanted to run anything against the list and bar them as a public menace.

The comments to this entry are closed.