renegadeparent.net

Result

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:38:00 +0000

These people now have a roof over their heads and assurances from Irish social services that their well-loved, well-looked after children will remain with them.

Excellent.

Forced adoption: Campaigning for change and what to do next

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:26:00 +0000

Please note: I am not a legal expert and the bulk of the information below comes directly from this conference. If you can augment or improve the information in any way, please comment and I'll try and keep things updated.

Here is a super quick run down on some of the key reforms necessary to make the family courts system fairer for everyone. It's not about "opening the family courts" - it's about campaigning for the following:

Allow trial by jury. The decision to remove a baby or child from a family should not be within the complete jurisdiction of a single individual (the judge).
Remove the gag. If parents and/or children want to exercise freedom of speech to speak out about their experiences and circumstances, they should not be threatened with imprisonment for doing so, especially under the guise of protecting their privacy.
Abolish the removal of children because of perceived risk. Children should only be removed if a crime has been commited that affects them (in strictly defined circumstances).
Abolish the removal of children because of perceived emotional abuse. Children should only be removed if a crime has been committed that affects them (in strictly defined circumstances).
Disallow hearsay evidence in court. In addition, witnesses should not be allowed to speculate.
Allow Mckenzie friends to advocate on behalf of others, especially where they have been refused or are not entitled to legal aid.
Abolish the censoring of contact visits. Parents should be allowed to tell their children they love them, they miss them, and that they are fighting to keep them.
Abolish forced adoption (in line with the rest of Europe) if a parent opposes an adoption in court.

More detailed information about the reforms and why they are necessary can be found on Ian Josephs' website, on John Hemming's website and on the Justice for Families website. Please read them as this post is really only a brief reflection of what was discussed on the day and I've chosen not to regurgitate information that can be readily accessed elsewhere.

Finally, what can you do next?

Well, the most important thing is to protect yourself. After this case, it seems to me that - although families should always be free to avoid engaging with whatever if they so choose - most people would benefit from embedding themselves in strong local networks of some description or other. To avoid doing so increases the general level of vulnerability with regard to unnecessary state intervention, as discussed here. It also makes generating sustained help much harder, should the worse happen and you find yourself needing to rely on others.

The internet remains a fantastic way of sharing information and building communities of support and expertise. It's also useful for locating like-minded and helpful people in your local areas who you otherwise might not realise exist. Connecting with people online is supremely flexible, and it's also a lot quicker than having to rely on phonecalls and meetings to achieve complex tasks in a hurry. It can't replace all the benefits of face-to-face relationships - but it might just start them off and help them to flourish.

Once you've done all of that, I suggest you find your own ways of connecting with and helping other people within your sphere of influence, through a medium that you feel comfortable with. If we all did that and freely offered voluntarily accessed channels of support and resources to those who were genuinely in need, then the non-negotiable, government support we're given - whether we want it or not - would soon disappear.

By the way -

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:22:00 +0000

We raised the money we needed in less than two days.

Just to say thank you to those generous people who donated. It's a privilege to know you.

Lisa

Urgent - please can you help this family?

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Sun, 23 May 2010 11:09:00 +0000

People in the HE community may be aware of a family from Wolverhampton who have been forced to leave the country because of threats made by their local authority to remove their children. These threats appear to have originated simply because of the family's choice to home educate, and the fact that their son has an underlying medical condition (which is being dealt with by them and their son's specialist in a perfectly responsible manner).

This family are now in Ireland and, not wanting to impose on anyone any further, have been camping for the past couple of weeks. Their funds are very low. Irish social services have investigated their paperwork and seem to think that the allegations against them are entirely without substance.

The family has a case review tomorrow before the care order is lifted and it will be very much in their interests to have decent accommodation to hand. Over the weekend attempts have been made to generate a deposit for them (approximately £800 or $1,150) and we have raised half of the money required from people who many of you will know. We just need the rest! That's £400 or $575. Someone has very kindly offered to put up the full amount in advance to help the family, but it would be great if we could pay her back as quickly as possible. It's not fair that one person is burdened in such a way because of their generosity.

Please, please will you give whatever you can? Comments are closed for this post but if you drop me an email at lisa@renegadeparent.net we can make arrangements directly. It's looking like paypal payments/cheques are the best option for people. If offers exceed the amount required then I'll reduce the amounts pledged accordingly.

Readers have offered to dontate to me directly in the past and I've always refused - but if any of you are willing to give money to this poor family, you would be doing an amazing thing.

Thanks for reading and I hope that you can help.

Lisa

How to protect your family

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:52:00 +0000

Following on from my last post about tactics used to divide and conquer, here are some practical things you can do to protect your family. This is by no means a comprehensive summary but it accurately reflects what was covered at the conference. This information is to help innocent families who have experienced persecution at the hands of statutory agencies.

Don't make the first approach to authorities/statutory agencies - whether this is to ask for help or make a complaint. Definitely don't struggle alone - but if you need advice or support then go to completely independent organisations or individuals you know you can trust in real life. You can also look online for help. Avoid the urge to make formal complaints (you can't improve a rotten-to-the-core system from the inside) and instead take positive action of your own to remove yourself from a vexatious situation and/or make other people aware of it.

Demonstrate that you have a strong and supportive network surrounding you. Friends, family, community, independent professionals - showing or talking about these links and relationships makes you far less likely to be singled out for unwanted attention.

Remember the superficial. If you are visited at home, then make sure that your house is clean and tidy and that you and your children are dressed and well-presented. No, it is not right. Yes, it is important. As Laura points out in this helpful comment, there are many things that can trigger a red flag and you can't predict all of them. But you can do a lot to help yourself.

Understand what you are really dealing with, regardless of how kind and supportive a professional appears. Do not take any statements at face value and think very carefully before you do what they ask of you. This goes for signing paperwork, handing children over for "temporary" or "voluntary" foster care, admitting any fault whatsoever, giving more information that the bare minimum, and submitting to psychological assessments conducted by their expert of choice.

Be polite, calm and (outwardly) respectful at all times. Only talk about the hurt likely to be caused to your children, rather than to yourself. As difficult as it might be, try to avoid shows of excessive upset, aggression or hostility.

Always tell your children how much you love them and how, if ever they were taken from you, you would never, ever stop looking for them. Encourage them to respect their instincts and always to question the morality of authority. Make sure they learn their personal details as soon as they are old enough and tell them that wherever they are and whatever the circumstances they can always contact you.

Only ever work with a solicitor who is prepared to fight against the local authority where it is correct to do so. Find one who encourages you to speak out in court. If you cannot find a solicitor who is prepared to do this, then represent yourself.

If you are innocent and feel that your family is facing a truly significant threat, consider leaving the country before the case goes to court [update: following on from the comment below I would just like to point out that this is a serious course of action that shoud be well thought through by anyone considering it - obviously - but it's certainly a legitimate one that others families have been grateful for.]

Use the internet to connect with other people, spread the word, pass on resources and share whatever you deem to be appropriate or helpful to your case. Don't forget to educate yourself about the legality of the information you choose to share.

Campaign for reforms - to be covered in my next post.

For further, detailed information visit:

FASO (False Allegations)

Forced Adoption (Ian Josephs' website) - especially his golden rules

10 tactics that divide and conquer innocent families

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Fri, 14 May 2010 14:55:00 +0000

As per the conference, here are some of the common tactics that have been used by statutory agencies to divide and conquer innocent families.

Please remember that this is NOT an every day occurence; however if you are part of any minority community that is of interest to statutory services then it may be something you wish to consider very carefully. There are individuals and organisations that benefit professionally, financially or otherwise from the permananent removal and forced adoption of children. Every time an innocent family is torn apart, it is only the children, their parents and relatives of that family who suffer - so it really is a case of David fighting Goliath.

With this in mind, please make it your business to understand how some professionals have operated, whether consciously or otherwise.

1. Targetting the most vulnerable without their consent
Mothers. Single parents. Young people. Those with learning difficulties. Those with financial concerns. Those on benefits. Those already know to the authorities. Those who don't have a strong network of relatives, friends and community members. Those who cannot or do not access independent professional support and advice. Those with young children and babies. Those who don't understand how the system really operates and its fundamental flaws.

2. Pushing the prevention and early intervention agenda
If professionals are expected to stop harm before it happens, they have to operate according to an assumption of guilt. Rather than simply supporting families, they may be looking for evidence of risk, however small. Anything that diverges from the accepted norm of the time becomes a risk factor, regardless of the false positives that result. Only in this way can newborn babies be removed from their mothers' breasts because of a risk of emotional harm. To use an analogy from the conference, it's akin to prosecuting someone for shoplifting when all they have done is look through a shop window.

3. Promises that, providing there is co-operation, everything will be OK
Angling for compliance from parents (in respect of putting their children into foster care, signing documentation, submitting to psychological assessments etc) in return for a promised positive outcome - and then using the permissions and information gleaned or produced to remove children from their parents.

4. Engendering factions
A professional may covertly instruct one parent to maintain a distance from the other, or use conjecture to persuade a grandparent to act against their child for the sake of their grandchild. This makes it easier for the child to be removed - and often placed elsewhere than with the parent or grandparent who has been "used" in this way.

5. Misrepresentation
Professionals may misrepresent information in statements and reports to give the "right" impression (that is their own subjective impression) to the courts, other agencies and professionals.

6. Psychological assessments
Using preferred psychologists who will give a diagnosis (or multiple diagnoses) that facilitates the agenda of the local authority and is detrimental to the parent who has undergone the psychological assessment.

The objective validity of a "personality disorder" diagnosis is highly questionable, given its rather arrogant assumption that the culture within which individuals operate sets a decent standard of "order" in the first place. In addition, anything that relies upon subjective assessment by another human being who has his or her her own agenda and prejudices should be approached with caution. If a personality disorder is merely a manifestation of generally a-typical behaviours or attributes displayed by individuals then it is easy for an unscrupulous professional to disadvantage a parent (eg. diagnosing someone who quite rightly questions authority as paranoid, for example).

7. Lying to children who have been removed
Once removed, children may be systematically alienated from their family of origin. Ian Josephs has experience of cases where professionals have been trained to lie "in the best interests of the child" - although they may be wrong about those best interests. Removed children may be informed that their parents no longer love or want them, or that their parents are mentally ill and incapable of looking after them.

8. Bestowing selective rights on children
Children might not have the "right" to stay with their families or hear from their parents that they are loved and wanted. But upholding their human rights once in care can mean that professionals are prevented from intervening and stopping dangerous or destructive behaviours that can cause a child to feel more isolated, uncared for and disengaged.

9. Preventing parents from having their say in court
Lawyers (particularly those who are retained by local authorities and thus have a serious conflict of interest) may advise parents that the situation is hopeless and the best course of action is compliance. Parents may be advised against speaking out in court and compelled instead to rely on their lawyer speaking for them - thus removing a possibility for a positive resolution.

10. Preventing parents from having their say out of court
Gagging orders prevent parents and older children from speaking publicly about their ordeals, all in the name of protecting their privacy - whether they want it protected or not. Parents who breach these orders risk imprisonment. Parents are prevented from telling the truth to their children during contact visits: that they love them, that they are fighting for them, that they want them back. They may also be prevented from recording contact visits for evidence - even when their version of events contradicts that of a professional.

Parental freedoms and libertarianism

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Sat, 01 May 2010 09:30:00 +0000

I read this post on Blogdial with interest. Half of it I agree with entirely - the other half sums up why libertarianism does not, perhaps, adequately articulate how I feel. I know that Irdial encourages people to use their blogs in order to comment on Blogdial posts, so here's my (current, likely subject to change) take on it - it's something I've been grappling with for a while.

One of the reasons I started a personal parenting blog is because I felt that writing about my specific approach to raising my children didn't sit easily with a libertarian blog that has evolved (thus far at least) to support and promote family freedoms.

But I arrived at libertarianism only because I had invested a huge amount of time thinking about children (mine specifically), their freedom (or lack of it) and how, as a parent, I could best respect their liberty - physically, emotionally and intellectually.

I was blessed with a first child who strenuously demanded that I take her autonomy seriously. One of the earliest posts I wrote on here was very personal and it was entitled something like "Why does everybody want to hold the baby?" describing my frustration at people treating M as a trophy to be kissed, passed about and photographed, rather than a human being who was clearly vocalising her desire to remain with her parents - and her terror at being removed. As it happens, my second child actually doesn't much mind who holds him, as long as they are happy and affectionate, but the ball had been set in motion two and a half years ago and I've not stopped thinking since then.

We choose to parent peacefully, without using violence, and by modelling the behaviours we would like to see in our children. We can see them learning without being "taught" by using us and everything else around them as tools to explore their world. None of these approaches would work if we were lazy, disinterested, disengaged, immoral, unable to think critically, or lacking in empathy. But, by and large, we're not. So we - who have chosen not to hit our children, or force them to jump through development hoops - are happy to see them developing into decent human beings.

People - friends, certain family members - opposed many aspects of our parenting. Where we have responded to their needs by selectively co-sleeping, breastfeeding and slinging; shunning nurseries, the advice of mainstream parenting "experts" and the looming school gates, we have experienced the social disapproval of those who feel that the fabric of their conventional world has worked a little looser because of our choices. As a consequence, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to construct logical, rational arguments, and how to adequately articulate why we believe that we are doing the right thing for our children.

I spent some time pondering the nature of "rights", specifically children's rights, and quickly dismissed them as a recipe for disaster. Universal children's rights are easily hijacked by a faceless, anonymous third party (typically the state) in order to "parent" by proxy, making en masse decisions about the "entitlement" of your unique child to goods, services and relationships that you may heartily disagree with. It is no surprise that some vocal proponents of children's rights have been paedophiles, who want children to have the "right" to enjoy sexual relationships with adults.

None of this is to say that children should not be assured of their safety in the same way that adults are, only that they should not enjoy special privileges for as long as they are enshrined in law by a third party. But children's rights as something that are voluntarily bestowed on children by their parents - this sounds more interesting, especially where one is diverging from the mainstream and looking to connect with others who are doing likewise. As a parent, I do claim "ownership" of my children unless I want someone else to "own" them, which I most certainly do not. But it is then my responsibility to parent in the best possible way, especially because my children have had no choice with regard to their own creation and existence. And so I gladly claim the responsiblity and find myself explaining at length to others why I believe that self regulation and the self-regulated achievement of phsyical, emotional and intellectual independence is vital to my children, and why I believe that physical and mental coercion is damaging to the ultimate realisation of a truly personally responsible human being. No-one can make me parent in this way, but I can choose to do it for as long as I enjoy the freedom to make those decisions.

Of course, that freedom has been threatened by the Badman report into elective home education - that being the only way I can see to adequately ensure intellectual (and I suppose physical and emotional) freedom for my children as they grew older. In order to argue for my freedom to voluntarily bestow on my children their freedom, I have to be able to defend it rationally and coherently. I have come to realise that collectivism - of whatever political colour - is abhorrent to me, a person who has realised first hand why coercion and violence to "get things done" according to somebody else's standards is not the answer to raising independent, personally responsible, self regulating human beings who by virtue of being so are far, far, more likely to help others voluntarily.

The personal really is the political, and I suppose this understanding that so many home educators have right in front of their eyes is one of the reasons I have been so perplexed as to the immediate rejection of libertarianism from so many home educating quarters. I don't think it is logical. There either is freedom, or there is not. If you demand money from your fellow human beings, whether they like it or not, as your "right", then you are putting yourself in the position of Badman, who sees education according to his standards as a "right" of your children, whether you like it or not.

But the reverse is also true: for a libertarian to embrace violence on a personal level is not logical either, to me at least. If you truly believe in freedom then initiating force to get things done - whether it's helping the poor or picking up toys - is wrong. It's a short-sighted, quick fix that leads to dependency on authority and risk aversion in decision making. Those well-behaved children from the 1950s that Irdial references have grown into the majority of mature adults we see around us today: unthinking, dismissive of real freedom, willing to use violence to get things done, reliant on the state to help the poor, blindly promoting the current political system as a long-term solution. It really is a bleak picture indeed.

Whilst I still defend your freedom to parent as you choose because there is no better alternative, I also believe that different actions have different values. And, as far as I can see, to spare the rod is to save the child - to save that child from an implicit understanding that violence is the best way to get other people to do things that you want them to do. That, to me, is an essentially statist view of the world I want no part of at any level of my life. I don't use violence, I try to help other people, I give to charity, I aim to run the business ethically and I desire always to act with integrity. Whilst I can't force others to do any of those things, I can say from the bottom of my heart that choosing to do them voluntarily has been the most enriching experience of my existence - and something I wish for my own children, if we are to have any hope of changing the world for the better.

"Child Snatching" by the State: Crackpot conspiracy theory or legitimate concern?

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:06:00 +0000

We'll start off with my thoughts on this, I think. The other posts should follow naturally on from it.

If you're reading this, then the chances are you do not think that child snatching by the state is a crackpot conspiracy theory.

The problem is, the people who are directly involved in forced adoptions rely (whether consciously or unconsciously) on the characterisation of those who oppose their actions as irrational or unhinged. In this way, they can contine to do what they do (often believing it to be the "right" course of action for the child) unimpeded.

Then there is everybody else, including many people who don't consider the relevance of something as apparently far-fetched as forced adoption to their own family situation. It is an easy and somewhat comforting approach to assume that you are sane and safe, and the proponents of an idea you'd rather not follow through to damning logical conclusions are just plain crazy.

An addition spanner in the works is that people who are comfortable exploring ideas that threaten the fabric of conventional society are also less likely to feel the need to conform in other ways. They may dress differently, say unexpected things or behave unusually in the company of other people. Again, rather than being curious as to why it is that somebody who is so clearly comfortable in his or her own skin makes us feel uneasy or alienated, it's much easier to label them as mad.

And finally, of course, there is the passion and emotion that people who have experienced the threat (whether theorectical or actual) of having their children removed - not to mention those who have had their children taken from them - this force of feeling is easily dismissed as mental instability. But you should know the quote by now:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

And each innocent parent should be at liberty to protect their child. People who speak out about forced adoption are not insane by virtue of doing so. They are simply describing a brutal practice -- permanent removal of children from parents who have committed no crime against them, do not want them to be removed and do not know where they will end up - whether they are safe, well and happy.

Does anybody genuinely think that the killers of Victoria Climbie, Peter Connelly or Khyra Ishaq, who showed so little regard for the value of human life, would have campaigned so tirelessly for the return of their children if removed from them? Would they have made such an effort to raise their profile and gain as much publicity as possible? Or would they have slunk off somewhere else, glad to be let off the hook?

Amongst the children who are happy and relieved to have been removed from their parents and placed into care, are there any whose parents had not committed a crime against them? Almost certainly not.

It's understandable that people do not want to think about this in detail. It's easier to make throwaway comments that actually require a level of thought and analysis, such as: social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't (it's complicated) or some people shouldn't be allowed to have children (that's coercive eugenics) or more children should be taken into to care (an easy assertion to make if there are financial incentives for doing so).

But returning to forced adoption for a moment, how can it ever be right that people who are not found guilty of a crime nevertheless have their children removed from them, permanently, and placed with strangers for the rest of their lives?

Forced adoption is perhaps too polite a way of putting it. It really is state sponsored child snatching. It is unnatural and immoral. It is a situation that people perhaps avoid thinking about because it is so distressing. But it happens, right here, in this country, and with the power that statutory services currently have, it could happen to any one of us.

As Ian Josephs rightly said, there is absolutely no need for a conspiracy theory. A complex set of independent, interdependent and dependent arrangements and agendas have unhappily produced an environment within which:

Statutory services can intervene in families with ease
Fallible individuals within statutory services have the power to make subjective assessments and definitions of suitability
Fallible individuals within statutory services can remove children permanently from families without their parents ever having committed a crime against them
Cases are heard in closed family courts which are not subject to scrutiny, do not operate with a jury, accept hearsay as evidence and rely only on the judgement of a single fallible individual (the judge)
Parents and children are subject to gagging orders preventing them from deciding whether or not they want to put their private matters in the public arena for wider scrutiny
Social services departments, lawyers, judges, expert witnesses, (fake)charities, foster and adoption agencies all benefit financially each time a child is removed from his or her family

Financially indexed adoption targets may have been dropped, but they nevertheless exist in a different incarnation. And as anyone responsible for performance knows, what's measured gets done, often exerting pressures and causing all sorts of unforeseen consequences elsewhere in a system.

Some lawyers are retained by local authorities; when this is the case it is not necessarily in the long-term interests of those professionals to put up a fight against their biggest source of income. We already know about parasitic fake charities. Foster carers can receive up to around £20k/child, so goodness knows what fees the agencies (often set up by ex-officials) managing these arrangements command.

And none of these people will feel the sickening heart wrench that parents bereft of their children are biologically destined to feel. Only those with real empathy and a desire for the truth will ever try. To come close to even imagining is painful, so it is no wonder that emotive language is used, personalities clash and tempers are lost.

Unfortunately, these outbursts can put people off pursuit the truth. But so, of course, can perpetuating the sterile, numbing vocabulary of the bureaucrat, or (worse) the slick corporate doublespeak of the social care salesperson.

The best we can do is be true to ourselves and use whatever tactics, information and contacts we have at our own disposal. A willingness to reflect on the efficacy of our actions and change where necessary is always valuable. We also need to remind ourselves that, although the world contains psychopaths, rent-seekers, crowd pleasers and professional cyncics, there are also people like me and you. I am an ex-local authority worker who not so many years ago didn't really think and probably wouldn't have believed that bad things happen, but now -- I do. My ability to think and challenge is the only leaving present I received when I finally walked out of that environment - and the best one I could have hoped for.

"Child Snatching" by the State conference: first thoughts

"Child Snatching" by the State conference - first thoughts

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:54:00 +0000

Su and I attended this conference at the weekend. It was a pleasure to meet her (and her family, albeit briefly!) I am hoping that Su will write up her notes, too, and I will amend this post as necessary.

There was a vast amount of information to take in and I am still processing it. What I propose to do in this post is to provide a brief rundown of the speakers and the key themes that arose from the day. I will then expand on the key themes and offer some analysis over the next week or two.

We started off with an introduction by Brian Gerrish, who is well-known for his work on forced adoption and Common Purpose. I fully acknowledge that some political bloggers exercise extreme caution around the issue of Common Purpose, preferring not to be labelled as conspiracy theorists, but nevertheless I think that there are valid criticisms to be made of this organisation, its modi operandorum, and the outcomes it seeks to achieve.

Fewer people doubt that children have been and are removed from innocent families by incompetent or vindictive local authorities. This problem - now covered by the mainstream media on a regular basis - is exacerbated by the closed nature of the family courts system, and the gagging orders that prevent parents (and children) from speaking out about what is happening to them.

Then Ian Josephs spoke. He witnessed first hand the collusion and corruption that can occur within local authorities when children are unnecessarily removed from their families and placed into care settings. Even now, many years later, he still offers free legal advice and help to anyone who is threatened by unnecessary legal action.

Ian described in some detail the individual and organisational drivers for forced adoption that operate interdependently, creating tightly controlled situations with foregone conclusions that are difficult to avoid. However, he also provided clear information and instruction on the best way to deal with such situations and ensure the greatest possible chance of removing one's family from threat.

Jack Frost, author of the Gulag of the Family Courts, articulately described the deeply embedded and organisationally protected nature of false abuse accusations. Two consultant paediatricians alleged that his wife had Muchausen's Syndrome By Proxy, after his daughter became ill at the age of 12. His family had direct and prolonged experience of:

the veritable thriving yet dependant food chain of social workers, charities, local government officials and ‘public officials’, whose livelihoods and careers depend on instigating care proceedings and taking ever more children to feed the conveyor belt of linked foster care and adoption agencies. Which agencies are themselves, often owned or managed by ex-social workers and ex- local government officials!

After lunch the stage was given over to parents who had had their children removed from them by local authorities (in at least one case aided by the NSPCC), and children (now adults) who had been taken from their parents and abused in care settings. This was the most distressing part of the day. No professionals attended; to stand in front of these people and justify or defend current safeguarding policy - policy that fails abused children and non-abused children alike - is, I think, an impossible task, regardless of what Lord Laming says.

There followed a talk by a Canadian, Kevin Annett, who "told the untold story of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada". He provided information and exerpts from his film, Unrepentant, to highlight the brutal treatment, torture and murder of children in church-run Indian residential schools. Whilst this topic was somewhat tangential, it was nevertheless something I was glad to have brought to my attention, and it also confirmed two other areas of thought:

The tactics that people use to break up families and break down individuals are the same the world over, and
State sanctioned, organised "care" of children is unfortunately ideally placed to be hijacked and appropriated by those who harbour abusive, fascist, or eugenic tendencies.

I was also made aware of the Indian Act, which (as I understand it) mandates that Indians who live on reservations in Canada are essentially wards of the state, and cannot refuse the "offer" of medication or immunisation, for example.

So, just off the top of my head, here are some key themes I am happy to expand on:

Crackpot conspiracy theory or legitimate concern?
Common tactics to divide and conquer
How to protect your family
Campaigning for change
What to do next
Reading list and resources

What do you think?

The battle in the midst of the war

blog.nospam@nospam.renegadeparent.net (RenegadeParent) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:02:00 +0000

It's official. Certain provisions of the CSF Bill have been dropped, including those pertaining to home education.

This is good news: At the very least it is much-needed breathing space.

But Ed Balls, true to form, has already stated his unswerving intent to "provide proper protection to home educated children" (through measures that will, if implemented, put significant numbers of children at risk psychologically if not physically) should Labour win the forthcoming election.

And Michael Gove has foreseen the need to "make some changes" if and when the Conservatives succeed.

Then there is Nicola Woolcock, Education Correspondent for The Times, who has picked up on the panic bird set free by the likes of Balls by publishing today's "analysis" on leaving the vulnerable unprotected. She cannot even be bothered to spell the name of Khyra Ishaq correctly, and conflates the unfortunate death of that little girl with all manner of prejudice regarding families who simply say no, thank you to state provision. This woman appears to be labouring under the bizarre misapprehension that, once people achieve the status of parent, they can enjoy "unfettered freedoms" to abuse and murder their children without fear of detection or punishment. Shoddy journalism.

So all I would say is, celebrate winning the battle, but do not take your eye off the war that still wages unabated. We have all done so much: Developed and strengthened friendships; built links around the world; really supported each other - non of this non-negotiable support so beloved of our current government; generated a plethora of ideas to change, subvert and disobey; educated, publicised, analysed, challenged, highlighted, engaged with and debated - repeatedly. We've done this online and in real life; locally, regionally and nationally. All entirely voluntarily. Isn't that wonderful? I think so.

Let's keep calm and carry on.

Links to elsewhere:

Have I missed anyone? Let me know.