The last decade has seen an insidious drive by the
British government to turn the country into a totalitarian regime marked by
the unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion and interference in family life by
agents and employees of the State. This has been done under a perverse
pretext of protecting children and a belief system within governmental
departments that children need protecting from their parents and that the
State can raise children better than parents or at least they can transfer
large numbers of children to the care of the “approved” substitute parents
as part of a latter-day social engineering experiment.
This pretext was more than apparent than in the case of
Victoria Climbie’ –
an unmitigated disaster by the child protection services and a tragedy of
suffering for Victoria, but which the government used to justify the
creation and introduction of a massive database of every child and family in
the country. The lack of such a database had nothing to do with the death of
Victoria Climbie’ which was at the hands of her substitute parent carers
whilst child protection `professionals’ failed to intervene, despite obvious
signs of abuse and failed to communicate with each other about Victoria’s
plight. The database is of course essential for governmental control of the
population in many respects as part of its drive toward totalitarianism. The
security of such a database, or rather the lack, has already been exposed
and millions of records of the family details of millions of children are
now somewhere around the nation and no doubt will quickly find their way
into the hands of criminals and pedophiles.
Britain is not becoming what politicians term, a Nanny State and the concept
of welfare services being a `Safety Net’ no longer applies. It is much more
sinister than that. A Nanny State is driven by a benign altruism whilst the
present changes are being driven by an insidious and malignant ideology
reminiscent in some respects of the Stalinist regime in Russia. “We know
what is best for you all” is the mantra of the faceless bureaucrats inside
the respective government departments to which can be added, “but it will be
painful for some of you who will not or cannot change to fit in with our
Utopian dream!”
Some of the behaviours and actions of the populace have to be controlled by
the State in some respects, such as behaviours which are categorised as
criminal or due to madness but it is those behaviours which are defined as
borderline criminal or mad is where the drive to exert even more control is
being pushed forward. These can sometimes be very grey areas as they are
open to individual and highly subjective interpretations by the government
agents involved, such as social workers or psychologists and psychiatrists.
It is also why some people with autism and particularly Asperger’s Syndrome
have often been categorised as mad and placed in mental institutions and
prisons. This was also clearly apparent in the Orkneys and Isles of Lewis
Scandals, and other instances of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse where the
fervent religious beliefs of the State agents involved over-rode a
requirement for factual evidence and the use of logical reasoning guided by
compassion. Further evidence of these highly subjective interpretations of
`Appropriate’ behaviours can also be seen in the cases of
Fran Lyon and in
many other cases of threatened and actual child removal for specious
reasons.
It is also what gave rise to the theory of Fabricated and Induced Illness in
children which was created and promoted by the medical profession. With no
scientifically based evidence and an absence of research rigour, this was
initially merely the conjecture of an ageing and now discredited medical
Professor but was unhesitatingly accepted by the respective government
department and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and was
immediately put into practice. In the process it irreparably destroyed the
lives of many thousands of children and their families and resulted in many
parents being criminalised and sent to prison for several years.
This focus on `Appropriate’ behaviour or conduct is now part of the lexicon
of the State agencies. They have their own undefined beliefs in what is and
what is not, appropriate behaviour. For example children can now have
`Age-inappropriate’ use of language and knowledge of sexually behaviours
which lead immediately to accusations of child abuse and a invasive
investigation by child protection workers leaving at the least a highly
stigmatised family or at worst the removal of the children to permanent
substitute state-approved parents. Such decisions regarding the
appropriateness of human behaviours are often seen by those familiar with
the workings of the child protection system and the secretive Family Courts.
The opinions of those claiming that those behaviours are inappropriate are
often preceded by the weasel words of “It seems that……” and “It would appear
that…..”. So it is not even a firm opinion yet is taken as fact by the
Courts.
`Appropriateness of behaviour’ very often comes up when children are in
State care and parents are permitted some form of contact with them. Here is
where the social workers excel themselves. A letter, Birthday or Christmas
card is immediately censored by the social workers if they contain such
words as “I love you” from the parent to the child or if the parent should
dare to suggest that one day they will be re-united. In one case where a
mother dared to suggest to her children that they might one day be
re-united, the social worker sharply and loudly retorted in front of
witnesses, “over my dead body”. So much for social workers working in
partnership with parents on an `equal and genuine basis’ as required under
the laws relating to children.
So it is `inappropriate’ to say to your child that you love them.
The ill-defined boundaries of what is `appropriate’ and what is
`Inappropriate’ behaviour of members of the general population, are now
being constantly driven back by psychologists, psychiatrists, social
workers, doctors and nurses and all of those other professionals involved in
child protection work. They in turn are driven more by the alluring
seduction of fame and status within the profession for creating a new theory
of child abuse, rather than a compassionate concern for the safety and
welfare of children. A successful adopted theory of child abuse can rapidly
lead to demigod status as has been seen on several occasions albeit some of
those demigods careers and reputations now lie in ruins as the country
begins to awake to their deceptions.
To the governmental mantra of ”We know what is best for you” can also be
added, “We also know what is good for you”. This is particularly so in
matters of the health of children and the statements of the government that
vaccines are safe, when they and millions of others know that vaccines are
not safe for many children. The evidence is in the personal testimonies of
thousands of parents around the world who have found their child stricken
with autism immediately following a vaccine jab and from the thousands of
young women who have died or had serious illnesses following the Gardasil
vaccine injection. A similar situation exists with many medications for
children and which are put out for general usage with no effective research
and testing. In consequence many children have died or succumbed to
illnesses far more serious than those for which they were originally given
the medication.
But the government’s belief is in `Herd Protection’ and “Who cares if one
child in fifty dies because of vaccines or untested medications, as long as
the rest are protected!”. A parent who refuses vaccines for their child is
immediately brought under the pressures of health professionals and others
and in the USA the penalties can be even worse.
The dilemma for a parent is enormous. Risk causing your child serious harm
such as autism or even death, or risk them suffering a minor childhood
illness such as measles or mumps. Of course the government propaganda
emphasises that some children die of measles or mumps which is true in
countries where children have poor diets and are malnourished but not so in
countries where children are healthy and strong and have strong natural
immune systems. For example measles and mumps had virtually been eradicated
in Britain and America before the introduction of the vaccines and if an
infection occurred then medical personnel actually encouraged other children
to become infected to bolster their own immune system.
And of course it should be remembered that vaccines yield vast amounts of
money to pharmaceutical companies who are constantly lobbying governments
and add substantially to the incomes of many members of the medical
professions.
And if a child survives a vaccine-caused death but is left with autism or
another serious neurological condition, then of course the parent (usually
the mother) can be blamed for causing the child’s illness. Very neat for the
government and a win-win situation for the medical profession.
My only advice for anyone whose behaviour is deemed as `inappropriate’ is to
demand to know how such inappropriateness is defined and by whom and where
is the scientifically-based evidence to determine such `inappropriateness’.
Never in his wildest dreams could George Orwell have imagined such insidious
State controls over the population nor the penalties for those who
inadvertently transgress the mist-shrouded boundaries of `Appropriate’
behaviour are far worse than those which Orwell contrived..!.
ByCharles
Pragnell
January 04, 2007
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care
Expert Witness – Child Protection
and Social Care Consultant
and Child/Family Advocate..
Please read...
Petition answered with Spin and Sophism
The Silence of the Media Lambs!
Doctors in a Dilemma
Are you an `Appropriate’ person?
Childrens Plan
State Terrorism
The Seriously Unhealthy State of Paediatrics
RAD – the Return of a Nightmare
Persecution of Children and Families
Why I am Petitioning the Prime Minister
Vaccines and Child Abuse Accusations
Why did Sally Clark Suffer and Die?
Perverse Reversal of Child Custody
Child Protection in Kangaroo Courts
Fabricated and induced illness in Children
A History of Man’s Inhumanity
A System out of Control
Forced Adoption
