for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 124: Summer 2006

In this issue:

 

 

Children: Over Surveilled, Under Protected

There is mounting concern across a broad spectrum of organisations about the extent to which the government is using technology to enable professionals and agencies to share personal information about individual children.

In the government’s view, information sharing is ‘the key to successful collaborative working and early intervention to help children and young people at risk of poor outcomes’, 1 but a conference held at the London School of Economics (LSE) on 27 June questioned whether there was any empirical evidence to support such a claim.

Eileen Munro from the Department of Social Policy at the LSE referred to a growing culture of surveillance which brought no obvious benefit to children and which was undermining family autonomy and parental confidence. Far from helping children fulfil their potential, there was evidence that collecting and sharing data quickly degenerated into ‘passing the buck’.

Dr Munro detected a shift away from parents and towards local children’s services to ensure that the basic needs of children were met. It marked a major change in the relationship between the family and the state, she said.

Official surveillance system

In the Every Child Matters Green Paper, the government had announced its intention to ‘remove the legislative barriers to better information sharing’. However, as Dr Munro pointed out, there were already no legal barriers to sharing information about children suffering abuse or neglect. The government evidently wanted to remove obstacles that prevented it from sharing information about children for whom there were no child protection concerns.

Dr Munro noted: ‘You have to be suspicious of parents to want to bring in an official surveillance system. Parents are not the enemies of their children; they are for most children the strongest source of protection and help.’

Terri Dowty from Action on Rights for Children gave a very helpful overview of the various databases already in existence, including the School Census and National Pupil Database (NPD), which covers all children in state maintained schools and nurseries. From 2007 this was to be extended to cover children in all forms of daycare. Many parents are unaware that more than 40 items of information prescribed by regulations are collected about their children three times a year and stored on the national database. Maintained schools are under a statutory duty to supply the information and no consent is necessary. The government has confirmed that data held on the NPD will never be deleted.

Mrs Dowty also referred to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), a detailed assessment tool to enable professionals to identify a child’s unmet needs. The government estimates that between three and four million children (around a third of England’s child population) require additional services at any one time. Practitioners are advised, ‘ You can do a common assessment at any time you believe a child will not progress towards the five Every Child Matters priority outcomes without additional services’, but in this case, the prior consent of the parent and/or child is required.

While the practitioner’s guide advises professionals working with children and families that they should base their assessment on objective evidence rather than subjective impressions, several of the sections on the CAF form require the practitioner to form an opinion on issues such as the quality of children’s relationships and the capabilities of their parents.

The proposed new database

Notwithstanding the considerable level of concern being expressed about information sharing, the government is pressing ahead with its plan to establish a database covering all 11.3 million children in England. Later in the summer, the government will be launching a public consultation on draft regulations and statutory guidance governing the operation of the database.

Compared with other records such as the NPD and the CAF, the new database will contain only limited and basic information about children in England and contact details for other services working with the child so that practitioners can identify and contact one another quickly to share relevant information about children who need services.

According to Education Minister, Lord Adonis, the new index will receive initial data and regular updates from existing databases to help establish and maintain accurate records, but there are no plans to establish a link with existing databases for any other purpose. 2

For further information, see http://www.childrenoversurveilled.lse.ac.uk/

Notes
1. ‘Information Sharing Practice’, Every Child Matters factsheet, DfES, December 2005.
2. Hansard (HoL), 8 June 2006, col 1382.

^ Back to the top ^

Annual General Meeting & Conference

Saturday 24 June 2006

The Annual General Meeting and Conference at the Royal Air Force Club, Piccadilly, was again well-attended, with over 80 members present and a further 70 sending apologies.

One mark of the day’s success was that so many supporters had come prepared to contribute to the local reports session that the Chairman was presented with the problem of how to fit them all in. He dealt with this admirably and extended the morning session.

The official business was again efficiently dealt with, and the Chairman, Arthur Cornell , gave his report. He outlined some of the pressures on young people and considered that the way so many decisions were now made without even the knowledge of parents, let alone their consent, was increasing the vulnerability of young people and smacked of exploitation rather than care.

The Chairman drew attention to the growing emotional pressures on young people. The Audit Commission had found that 20 per cent of secondary aged pupils has a clinically defined mental health problem; and ‘Young Minds’ reported that in any school of 1,000 pupils aged 11-18, 50 pupils are likely to be suffering from depression, 100 will be in a distressed state, 20 will have an obsessive compulsive disorder, and 10 an eating disorder. The major contributory factors were: unstable home situations, an absent parent or guardian, peer pressure, exam pressure, body image and drug abuse.

Mr Cornell referred to a new book entitled Toxic Childhood , by Sue Palmer, a former headteacher and government advisor, in which she documented the factors that were contributing to a marked rise in behaviour problems among young people. Mrs Palmer considered the antidote to be ‘good parenting’: giving children clearly structured lives, being ‘authoritative’ without being ‘authoritarian’, combining affection and praise with firmness and strict rules. Parents needed to give time to imparting values to their children and take control of what they eat, when they go to sleep and where they play. ‘It is time,’ Mr Cornell said, ‘to take back control of children’s lives.’

He concluded by referring to a ‘new absolutism’ that was creeping into society in the place of the traditional absolutes of our forefathers. Political forces had formulated new absolutes and were now seeking to impose them on the nation by means of subtle legislation. It was necessary to be watchful and to fight to preserve the freedom to maintain family life in a form that responds to the needs of children and the welfare of society as a whole. His final words took the form of a call to action: ‘There is a time to speak up and stand up for our convictions… You do not stand alone.’

In his Hon Treasurer’s report, Simon Ling, explained the accounts. The Trust was in a stronger position financially as a result of a large legacy and its more economical premises in Whitton. However, the level of income received from members had continued to fall, and Mr Ling encouraged supporters to recruit new members, especially younger people. He also encouraged members to give tax-efficiently by means of Gift Aid and suggested that some may wish to consider making a bequest to the Trust.

In his report, our Director, Norman Wells , referred to the wide circulation of the Trust’s health education leaflet, Sexual Spin , in doctor’s surgeries, medical centres, sexual health clinics and pregnancy crisis centres throughout the UK and beyond. The previous year had also seen the publication of a report on Fiscal Policy and the Family , which had been funded by the Trust and published by Civitas.

Mr Wells reported that it was rare for a day to go by without receiving a press or media enquiry from a journalist, or a researcher or producer from a radio station or television company. The Trust had been asked to comment on around 50 topics in the course of the previous year, and had responded to consultation papers on a wide range of issues, including childcare, demographic trends, the information sharing database for children’s services, the review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, sentencing guidelines, sexual health and teenage pregnancy, and youth services.

During the autumn term, the Trust had written to the Head of PSHE at all 5,000 secondary schools in the UK and to the PSHE advisor in every local authority to promote Valerie Riches’ book, Sex Education or Indoctrination? the video The Three R’s of Family Life , and other relevant publications. An encouraging response had been received from a good number of schools.

Looking to the future Mr Wells highlighted four particular challenges that lay ahead and announced the launch of a ‘Respect for Parents’ campaign with the twin aim of raising public awareness of the various ways parents were being undermined, and of emboldening parents to take more responsibility for their children. (An extract from the Director’s report is reproduced below.)

Eric Hester, Vice Chairman 

^ Back to the top ^

Challenges to marriage, freedom, family and the welfare of children and young people

An extract from the Director’s report.

1. The future of marriage

At the end of May, the Law Commission published a consultation paper with a view to giving increased recognition to cohabiting relationships. Two days later, Esther Rantzen came out strongly in support of marriage. Having lived with her husband prior to their marriage she said she was not making any moral judgment, but insisted that:

‘ the state of living together is fundamentally and utterly different from the state of marriage… People choose to live together before they get married because they know it doesn’t have to be a permanent relationship… They have decided to retain a degree of separateness, so that they know they can walk out of the door and into a new life whenever they want or need to.’1

Any blurring of the distinction between marriage and cohabitation is bound to undermine the institution of marriage which lies at the foundation of a stable society and is by far the best context in which to raise children.

2. The gay rights agenda

The government is proud of everything it has achieved for homosexuals:

  • the reduction in the age of consent for homosexual males to 16;
  • same-sex couples can apply to adopt a child jointly in England and Wales ;
  • same-sex couples can gain formal legal recognition of their relationship by registering a civil partnership;
  • the repeal of Section 28 – ‘an irrelevant and deeply-offensive piece of legislation’ which had prevented the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities.2

The extent to which the pursuit of a gay rights agenda is presenting a threat to our freedom of speech is becoming increasingly apparent. For example, Lynette Burrows and Joe and Helen Roberts have been subjected to police investigation for ‘homophobic’ views for expressing the opinion on national radio that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children, and asking for permission to place Christian literature alongside gay rights literature on Council premises respectively.

As the Bishop of Durham put it in a recent House of Lords speech: ‘[I]t isn’t just the invention of new moralities that should concern us… It is the attempt to enforce them’.3

Later this autumn the government is planning to introduce new regulations to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and practice in the provision of goods and services. Under the proposed regulations the owner of a bed and breakfast establishment would place himself at risk of legal action if he refused to provide a double room to a same-sex couple.

To take another example: photographers, caterers, chauffeurs, florists, printers, and others who provide a service to couples getting married would be compelled to offer the same service for same-sex couples registering a civil partnership. The government’s proposed regulations are far-reaching and allow no room for any freedom of conscience on such matters.

As a correspondent to The Times put it: ‘By telling us that there is only one way to think on moral issues the government is dangerously near to becoming the Orwellian thought police. By attempting legislation to cover such a range of eventualities, the right of conscience and conscientious objection is inevitably infringed.’ 4

3. Sex education

We receive more emails and telephone calls from parents concerned about sex education in their children’s schools than about anything else and the battle is likely to intensify over coming months.

In February, the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy and the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health published a joint report calling for compulsory sex education in all schools from the age of five5, and in May, the Sex Education Forum launched a year-long programme with the same aim.

Sandwiched between these two initiatives, Channel 4 broadcast a series of three programmes in March, presented by Davina McColl, also calling for compulsory sex education from the age of five.

The series asserted that there were only two obstacles standing in the way of a more liberal approach to sex education: parents and the press. The secondary school headmaster who featured in the series said he very much wanted to implement what he had seen in the Dutch school he had visited, but he was afraid of opposition from parents and negative press coverage. In his view, the onus was on the government to take the lead so that schools could tell parents they had no choice.

4. Confidentiality policies

Just recently, I came across the following ‘confidentiality statement’ in a local clinic:

‘Although strictly speaking, it’s illegal for some-one to have sex with a girl under 16, we know that maturity does not suddenly arrive on the 16th birthday, and that many young people are mature enough to make their own decisions about their lives.

‘Things are usually easier for young people if they can discuss their relationships with their parent(s), and parent(s) can be very understanding and supportive. Unfortunately, things are not always like this, and we believe that it is up to clients to decide whether or not to tell anyone at home about their visit here.’

Can you imagine such a casual approach being taken to law-breaking in any other area? Can you imagine a statement that begins:

‘Although strictly speaking, it’s illegal to drive a car under the age of 17, we know that maturity does not suddenly arrive on the 17th birthday, and that many young people are mature enough to make their own decisions about whether or not to drive’

I am almost tempted to make a poster saying just that and see what happens!

A few months ago, we received a DVD produced by a Primary Care Trust to advertise a young people’s clinic. The DVD played out the scenario of a 15 year-old girl seeking an abortion. Abortion was presented as a very simple operation, available on demand, in confidence if preferred, with no mention of any possible adverse consequences at all.

We need to do what we can to challenge such resources and such clinics. We also need to do what we can to restore a proper respect for parents in a climate in which the role and responsibilities of parents are being progressively undermined.

Norman Wells

 

Notes
1. Daily Mail , 2 June 2006.
2. http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/
3. House of Lords speech, 9 February 2006.
4. Dr Nigel Scotland, The Times , 6 June 2006.
5. Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy, Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health, Personal, Social and Health Education in Schools: Time for Action , February 2006.

^ Back to the top ^

Local Reports

The reports on local activities given at our annual conference were both stimulating and inspiring. A number of contributors mentioned the assistance they had received from the office. Several lessons emerged from the reports and from subsequent discussions over lunch:

  • Letters and other action almost always did some good even if they seemed not to produce an immediate response;
  • Many bodies, especially schools, feared negative publicity and so to involve local newspapers and the media often produced a positive outcome;
  • When seeking information from public bodies, it was often useful to invoke the Freedom of Information Act;
  • Since attendance at school parent information meetings and other public gatherings was often very poor, it was worthwhile both to attend and to encourage other concerned parents to be present.

^ Back to the top ^

 

Scotland

In her written report from Scotland, Ann Allen referred to the Family Law Act 2005 which had reduced the waiting time for divorce from five to two years without consent, and from two years to a year with consent. Additional rights had also been granted to cohabiting couples and unmarried fathers now had automatic parental rights if they registered the birth of the child jointly with the child’s mother.

The Adoption and Fostering ( Scotland ) Bill set out to permit adoption by unmarried and same-sex couples. There had been some debate as to whether a conscience clause should be introduced which would allow faith-based adoption agencies an exemption, but the issue looked likely to be overtaken by the sexual orientation discrimination regulations that were due to be laid before the Westminster Parliament in the autumn. Mrs Allen expressed concern that this could result in faith-based agencies being subject to legal action under the Equality Act 2006 or through a European Court of Human Rights challenge if they refused to place a child with a same-sex couple.

^ Back to the top ^

Avon

Gail Mills referred to a meeting arranged by a local school in Avon to discuss making the morning-after pill available on school premises. The nine parents who attended were not asked for their views; they were simply told that it was going to happen. The school was also planning to introduce a psychology unit to provide counseling for children. Mrs Mills expressed concern that children were suffering emotionally as a result of early sexual activity and abortions.

Mrs Mills had supported Mrs Julie Kosmala in her opposition to the ‘C’ and ‘U’ card schemes aimed at making contraceptives available to children. As a result, they had been interviewed for the Channel 4 series on sex education. Mrs Mills and Mrs Kosmala had set up a table in a busy shopping centre and collected over 330 signatures in support of a child protection petition, but the clip shown on Channel 4 gave the impression that there was little interest in their campaign.

^ Back to the top ^

West Sussex

Richard Baker spoke about the introduction of the Massage in Schools Programme in the primary school his children attended. The programme was run by the Massage in Schools Association and was being promoted in schools across the country.

While advocates of the initiative claimed that 10-15 minutes of ‘peer massage’ per day helped children’s concentration, confidence and self-esteem, Mr Baker was concerned that the practice was unhygienic, risking the spread of infection, and that it could break down children’s natural reserve and modesty, making them vulnerable to exploitation. He also noted that the programme used meditation and visualisation techniques to promote an altered state of consciousness and was firmly grounded in New Age spirituality. The handbook seemed to elevate the teacher to the place of a spiritual guide or guru. Mr Baker had raised his concerns with the headteacher who had referred it to the governors for their further consideration.

^ Back to the top ^

Cornwall

The doughty words of Cornwall’s Ann Whitaker are always an anticipated feature of the morning session. This year she was no less clear and determined as she outlined what she and her colleagues had done to support the family in the face of the many assaults launched against it. Miss Whitaker encouraged members to take advantage of radio phone-ins and to write letters to local newspapers as a means of influencing the general public.

Miss Whitaker drew attention to the report, ‘Finding the Right Support’, published by the Norah Fry Research Centre in Bristol. The report related how parents with learning difficulties were being monitored from the ante-natal stage so that professionals could determine whether or not they were competent to raise their children. Miss Whitaker warned of the intrusive nature of social service interventions and cited examples where voluntary help and support had been sufficient to help struggling mothers over a difficult period without any need for state intervention.

She was concerned about the way that doctors and nurses were being brought into schools under the Healthy Schools initiative. Education was about teaching virtue and truth, while hospitals were in the business of repair; the two should not be confused or put together.

^ Back to the top ^

Republic of Ireland

John O’Reilly had submitted a written report on developments in Ireland. While Ireland had the highest birthrate in the European Union, its tax and welfare policies did not support the family and it was becoming increasingly difficult for young married couples to set up a home.

The country was governed by a disparate coalition. The larger party was broadly pro-life and pro-family in its rhetoric, but this was not always followed through in practice. In the run-up to the next election, the Irish Branch was highlighting the government’s record on pro-life and family issues. In particular, it was focusing on abortion, assisted human reproduction, and the registration of same-sex partnerships.

The production and distribution of the Response magazine remained the main work of the Irish Branch and it was also active in making submissions to parliamentary committees and government bodies.

^ Back to the top ^

Devon

Christine Hudson had represented Family and Youth Concern on a BBC Radio Devon debate about the high teenage pregnancy rate in Torbay and had been active in writing letters to various newspapers.

One particular issue Mrs Hudson had been pursuing concerned the liability of school governors in the event of an adverse reaction to the morning-after pill after it had been prescribed to a child on school premises. The Department of Health had advised her that the school nurse would be responsible in such a situation, but that the governors may have some liability if they had not properly consulted parents.

Mrs Hudson had also opposed the introduction of sex education in her son’s primary school. Out of a school of 800 pupils, only four other parents had attended a meeting to discuss the issue; one had been in favour and the other three had been ‘docile’. A subsequent meeting had been attended by only three parents. Pupils had been given a questionnaire to take home to their parents, but it had been very vaguely worded and had not even mentioned sex education.

As an example of the strong antipathy towards parents in some circles, Mrs Hudson cited a recent interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in which the academic, David Archard, had insisted that, ‘parents don’t have a right to dictate the education that the state provides to children…If the state has a view about the values that children should grow up with, then those should be taught to the children’.

From North Devon, Neville Wheelan spoke of the pressures faced by parents of disabled children. Three of his own eight children were profoundly disabled and required special measures in education that were not always available. He expressed concern about proposals to legalise euthanasia, based on a failure to recognise the dignity of all human life. He had personally protested outside Parliament against the Joffe Bill which would have placed many disabled people in a very vulnerable position had it been successful.

Mr Wheelan also spoke of his concern about the character of sex education in schools and moves to introduce drop-in clinics on school premises. One secondary school in North Devon had already established such a clinic and another was considering doing so. Mr Wheelan had written to each of the governors of both schools and had held a public meeting to increase public awareness of the issues.

^ Back to the top ^

London

Jenny Thompson spoke with dignity and simplicity about a dispute with her daughter’s school over confidentiality which had been reported in the Daily Telegraph earlier in the year. In June 2004, her 17 year-old daughter had lost her bus pass. It was not the first time she had lost her pass and because she was afraid to admit it to her parents she photocopied a friend’s pass. Having been caught using the photocopied pass, she received a summons to appear at the Magistrates Court. She pleaded not guilty and was released on unconditional bail.

Without consulting the girl’s parents, the Head of Sixth Form at the school advised her to change her plea to guilty. She did so and was fined £100 plus costs. The girl asked for time to pay. The first her parents heard about the episode was when a bailiff’s note was issued for non-payment.

When Mrs Thompson and her husband raised the issue with the school, the headteacher insisted that the school had been unable to discuss the matter with them without their daughter’s permission. While the school handbook stated that parents would be contacted in the event of any problem, whether academic or pastoral, the school maintained it was bound by the principles of confidentiality enshrined in the Gillick ruling.

Mr and Mrs Thompson had asked the school to put in place a clear policy and went to the press when no policy had been forthcoming. In their view, parental involvement would have made a difference to the outcome as they would have ensured their daughter received proper legal advice. As it was, her future was blighted by a criminal conviction.

^ Back to the top ^

Oxfordshire

Eileen Wojciechowska reported that her children’s school had failed to honour her instructions and her youngest child had been subjected to a very graphic, value-free sex education demonstration without her knowledge.  For six years Mrs Wojciechowska had obtained the timetable from the PSHE Co-ordinator in order to remove her other children from sex education lessons, and had made it clear to the Head, Chair of Governors and PSHE Co-ordinator that she would not be allowing her children to attend any of these lessons without her consent. It was therefore devastating for her to have been undermined in such a way.  When challenged, the matter was treated in a very lighthearted way as ‘just an oversight’, without any apology.

Mrs Wojciechowska was now carefully going through the school’s sex education policy statement, with its references to ‘family values’ and would be asking the school for evidence that it was complying with its policy at every point. She felt that many parents trusted schools to do the job and were not sufficiently pro-active in finding out what was actually taught.

^ Back to the top ^

Challenge Team UK

Sue Relf reported that the Challenge Team had visited 44 schools and 10 youth groups over a 10-week period during the Spring term, giving a total of 72 presentations to over 10,000 young people. The feedback had been positive and opportunities were beginning to open up in Scotland.

The present team was about to disperse and Mrs Relf was looking for new presenters to take the presentation into schools and youth clubs (see ‘Gap Year Opportunity’ below).

The Team had secured funding for administrative support for a further year and would have funding for a full-time team leader from September. In the longer-term Mrs Relf wanted to appoint a volunteer organiser in every part of the country.

Eric Hester and Norman Wells

 

^ Back to the top ^

The effects of early childcare on children’s development

Jay Belsky , Professor of Psychology at the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, at Birkbeck College, University of London, treated our annual conference to a masterly overview of the academic research on the effects of early childcare on children’s development.

 

In 1978, Professor Belsky had been the ‘darling of the childcare community’ when he had stated that there was no research to demonstrate that daycare was associated with any particular risks and problems. He stressed that he had not said that there were no such risks; simply that there was no evidence.

For the following eight years, he received regular invitations to speak on daycare. However, that was to change when, in 1986, he wrote of a slow but steady trickle of developmental risks associated with daycare. Though not compelling at that stage, there was emerging evidence of a link between non-maternal daycare and increased rates of aggression and disobedience, particularly when the daycare began at an early age, was provided for long hours, and continued until the children started school. Immediately, Professor Belsky found himself shunned by the daycare industry and discovered that academia was not as openminded as he had previously imagined.

NICHD study of early childcare

He had subsequently served as an investigator for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of Early Child Care in the United States, which followed over 1,300 children from different geographic regions, economic backgrounds and ethnic groups, who were placed in a variety of childcare settings. The study was ongoing and it was only possible at this stage to comment on the impact of daycare up to the age of eight.

It was often claimed that the quality of daycare was the key to its success. However, Professor Belsky explained that while quality was important , it was not all-important . Pre-school children who received higher quality childcare displayed, on average, better language skills, but children who spent longer periods of time in daycare showed more behaviour problems and experienced more conflict with their caregiver, irrespective of quality. Meanwhile, children who spent more time in group daycare settings tended to have more positive interactions with a friend, but experienced more behaviour problems. Studies in the UK similarly show that high levels of group daycare before the age of three (and particularly before the age of two) are associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviour.

Effects of childcare on motherhood

Commenting on the effects of childcare on the relationship between a mother and her child, Professor Belsky noted that the more time a child spent in daycare during the first two or three years of his life, the less sensitive mothering he was likely to receive at the age of six, 15, 24 and 36 months, and the less harmonious the mother-child relationship would be. For white children, the more time spent in care up to the age of 54 months was likely to lead to less sensitive mothering up to the age of six.

Professor Belsky referred to a range of factors in the experience of young children that would have a negative impact on them, including divorce, alcoholism and television violence. Early childcare was potentially another element in the general smog. However, family factors were more consistent and stronger predictors of virtually all developmental outcomes than any other factor.

In conclusion, Professor Belsky suggested that while the negative effects of daycare that had been detected so far were small, they were not necessarily insignificant. He left us with this question: ‘What is more important: a large effect that impacts few, or a small effect that impacts many?’

^ Back to the top ^

The Fight for the Family Goes On

Lynette Burrows set the annual conference afire with a hard-hitting and wide-ranging account of the way that the family and freedom of expression are under attack. The following extract captures something of the spirit with which she spoke.

 

Why did a Metropolitan policewoman telephone me to tell me that ‘a complaint’ had been made against me by a member of the public who thought I had made a ‘homophobic comment’? ‘Since when was it an offence,’ I said, ‘to express an opinion on a matter of public importance on the media?’ But she explained that it wasn’t an offence; it was just ‘recorded against me’. I felt sorry for her; I honestly did and told her so. ‘You are phoning me from a city awash with crime, crawling with drug dealers, preyed upon by muggers and burglars – and you are phoning me to harass me about what “a member of the homosexual community” thinks of an opinion of mine. Are you mad?’ I asked her. ‘Just doing my job,’ she said flatly.

I’m glad to say that it all blew up in their faces and the subsequent publicity meant that they apologised for their actions and said they would be more ‘sensitive’ in future. Which is not very reassuring when what we need is a tough, principled police force; not a bunch of hand-wringing social workers. No doubt the fact that a group of lawyers in the Inner Temple intended to take the Met to court for the common law tort of attempting to suppress free-speech helped. But no newspaper was ever able to find out who sanctioned the police to act like that in my case and several others. All these things are unattributable; they just happen by secret means, down undiscovered conduits, unmarked pathways that lead back somewhere to power.

Who is setting the agenda?

But it is not my intention to go over all the things that we know are wrong with us. I am rather more interested at this stage in exactly how we can identify what it is that is eating the moral heart out of us and why no-one seems able to counter it. It is truly mysterious and almost defies rational explanation that we can for so long pursue policies which bring misery and ruin upon so many – really to millions – without ever coming to the conclusion that they are wrong and that we must change course.

I make no apology for referring to what G K Chesterton said about it nearly a hundred years ago because he was in at the start of this particular rot and its development has been continuous, and predicted by him, from then.

Chesterton wrote this in 1913: ‘Government has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that it cannot see where it should stop. The chief feature of our time is the madness of government and the meekness of the mob.’

Does not that make you draw in your breath at the accuracy of the description of our own day? There is scarcely any wild and immoral legislation that has been passed in the last thirty years that came in response to public demand. Nobody asked for divorce to be made easier; nor for no-fault divorce; nobody wanted children subjected to dirty talk in the classroom; there were no calls for abortion and contraception to be given out to underage girls without their parents’ knowledge and consent. The public did not want mock marriages enacted between homosexuals that guaranteed them rights not available to family members who lived together for a lifetime, caring for parents until they died.

Most people regard unlimited welfare to those who don’t work as wrong – they have to pay for it. Other countries don’t do it – and they are not considered decadent. We financially encourage girls to take the career option of getting pregnant and living off the state. All other countries, including dear Holland, simply say the girl is the responsibility of their parents – and have low illegitimacy rates as a result.

Permissiveness and the end of tolerance

No, it has all been top down, as they say – which is why it is never changed when it plainly doesn’t work. It is intended by those – somewhere – who govern us and they are not telling us why; even though it must be defended and put in place by the well meaning minions whom G K referred to as ‘gigantic dupes’ who roll out the arguments that we are all long familiar with.

Once morality becomes simply what the top people of any period want – then our traditional freedoms can no longer be considered safe.

This was, Chesterton felt, why most governments tend to favour agnosticism, or even better, scepticism, in its populace. A sceptic cannot be tolerant, because only a person with a fixed moral standpoint can exercise tolerance. The word itself implies there is something to be tolerated but not accepted. Without a fixed morality, with nothing either right or wrong, one cannot be tolerant, one can only be permissive. Governments much prefer this because they can then manipulate the populace into accepting what they want them to accept on the grounds of permissiveness. In our own day, political correctness has been evolved as the perfect tool to enforce permissiveness and since it does not allow certain ideas to be expressed at all and permits only the expression of what suits it; it is true censorship.

Permissiveness without limits

Chesterton found this not only repellent but also dangerous. Since permissiveness is dependent on a mood, what happens when the mood changes – as it did in Germany and the thoroughly permitted homosexuals of the Weimar Republic were marched off to death in the concentration camps ten years later? Neither course of action was subject to moral scrutiny; it was simply what the government permitted.

Just as we are ordered to be ‘permissive’ about homosexuality today – we could be ordered to be permissive about forced abortions for unmarried mothers tomorrow – or any other nightmare you like to conjure.

How can the government talk of allowing ‘marriage’ to be between two people of the same sex? Marriage is a human, universal institution; it is not within the gift of government. Likewise, abortion isn’t about choice, because the person killed doesn’t have a choice. You might as well call murder pro-choice on behalf of the murderer. It is utterly fascist to change the meaning of words to suit a political class.

^ Back to the top ^

Gap year opportunity

Challenge Team UK trains young adult presenters and sends them to schools in teams with a prepared presentation. They explain why saving sex for marriage is so important and invite pupils to consider making the same decision themselves. Practising chastity is presented as a realistic and positive option. The presentation has no religious references. A Team consists of two young men and two young women aged 18-28.

Challenge Team UK is currently seeking new presenters from the end of September 2006 to the end of May 2007 in term times. There is no charge to join a Team and all expenses are paid while touring, including travel to and from home. Support and sponsorship should be sought from family and friends towards personal expenses as no pocket money is provided nor accommodation in the school holidays.

Team members travel together in a vehicle which is provided by Challenge Team UK. The itinerary is prepared in advance and the Team travels from school to school staying overnight with host families nearby.

Applicants should be:

  • committed to the lifestyle choice of saving sex for marriage
  • effective communicators with experience of working with teens
  • good team players with leadership potential
  • able to supply excellent references

Before each tour the presenters attend an intensive preparation programme when presentations are prepared and rehearsed and the details of scheduled itineraries explained.

For further information or to request an application form, email info@challengeteamuk.org (Tel: 01323 638744 ).

^ Back to the top ^

Sexual orientation regulations

The Women and Equality Unit has received over 2,500 responses to its consultation paper on proposals to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and practice in the provision of goods and services.

The government’s proposals pose a serious threat to the freedom of individuals and organisations which believe homosexual practice is morally wrong to speak and act in a manner consistent with that view. There is also a risk that schools could be forced to present homosexual relationships on a par with marriage across the curriculum.

The Women and Equality Unit has consistently failed to recognise any distinction between same-sex attraction on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other, and appears determined to create a society where homosexual relationships are universally approved of and even celebrated.

It is anticipated that regulations will be published later in the summer and laid before Parliament after the recess.

Our response to the consultation document is available on our website at: https://familyeducationtrust.org.uk/pdfs/GettingEqualResponse.pdf

 

^ Back to the top ^

Ideology perpetuates Dutch myth

During the second programme in a three-part series on sex education broadcast on Channel 4 in March, presenter Davina McColl took two headteachers and a group of British pupils to the Netherlands to see how sex education ‘should’ be given. The pupils were visibly shocked by the explicit nature of the videos shown at the school they visited. One of them described it as ‘pornography in cartoon form’. The programme also showed a class of six year-olds being taught about homosexuality and youth workers taking teenagers to sex shops and organising sex fairs.

All this was presented as ‘normal’ in the Netherlands and ‘typical’ of the Dutch approach. It was also claimed that such ‘comprehensive’ sex education explained the lower rates of teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands.

At no point did the programme mention that not all Dutch schools offer such explicit sex education. Family Education Trust had been contacted by the production team at an early stage and had sent them a copy of our report, Deconstructing the Dutch Utopia , showing that sex education in the Netherlands varies very much from school to school and that there is no standard sex education package. But the production company chose to ignore the facts because they did not fit in with the message they wanted to get across.

^ Back to the top ^

School nurse accountability

School nurses are personally accountable for the supply of the morning-after pill on school premises whether with or without the sanction of the governing body, according to Education Minister, Beverley Hughes. In a Written Answer to a question about the potential liability of school governors in the event of an adverse reaction to a pupil under the age of 16 as a direct consequence of taking the morning-after pill, Ms Hughes stated that the school nurse would be accountable, but would have vicarious liability protection with the NHS or Primary Care Trust that employed her, provided she acted with their consent.

Hansard (HoC), 6 June 2006 , col 533W.

^ Back to the top ^

 

RCN votes against smacking ban

At its national congress in April, the Royal College of Nursing rejected a resolution calling for it to lend its support to the campaign to ban the physical punishment of children by a clear majority of 259 votes to 155.

Delegates opposing the motion rightly expressed concern that legislation against smacking would inevitably lead to parents being prosecuted.

^ Back to the top ^

Law Commission consultation

The Law Commission is currently consulting on whether legal remedies should be put in place to relieve the potential financial hardship suffered by cohabitees on the termination of their relationships through separation or death.

The 373-page consultation document, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown , does not contain any final recommendations for law reform, but discusses the issues in some detail and invites responses to provisional proposals. The scope of the review is limited to ‘“couples”, either opposite-sex or same-sex, who live together in intimate relationships’.

The consultation has been prompted by the growing number of cohabiting couples. According to the 2001 Census, there are over two million cohabiting couples in England and Wales (a rise of 67 per cent since 1991). Nearly three-quarters of a million cohabiting couples have a dependent child or children, with over one and a quarter million children dependent on a cohabiting couple.

The Law Commission emphasises that it is not proposing the creation of a new status of cohabitee, conferring a broad range of rights and privileges. Rather, it is concentrating on ‘the extent to which cohabiting couples should be able to claim financial remedies from each other following the termination of their relationship’.

The Commission hopes to publish its final report in August 2007, setting out policy proposals and recommendations for law reform.

See the Law Commission website for a copy of the consultation document: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp179.pdf
There is also a summary available at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp179_overview.pdf
The closing date for responses is 30 September 2006.

 

^ Back to the top ^

>