Friday, 25 October 2013

The Who Report

MEP Edite Estrela put forward a draft resolution to be voted on at the European Parliament which included a reference to the World Health Organisation`s report entitled `Standards for Sexuality in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists.` Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe .



A post in Turtle Bay and Beyond points out that some of these standards for young children are:
Children aged 0-4 should be informed about: "enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body", "early childhood masturbation", "different family relationships", "the right to explore gender identities", "the right to explore nakedness and the body, to be curious", etc. and they should develop "curiosity regarding own and others‘ bodies" and "a positive attitude towards different lifestyles".
Children aged 4-6 should be informed about "enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body", "early childhood masturbation", "same-sex relationships", "sexual feelings (closeness, enjoyment, excitement) as a part of all human feelings ","different kinds of (family) relationship", "different concepts of a family", and should develop "respect" for those different lifestyles and concepts.

Children aged 6-9 should go on learning about "enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body (masturbation/self-stimulation)", but they also should be informed about "different methods of conception" and "the basic idea of contraception (it is possible to plan and decide about your family)"

Children aged 9-12 should be informed about "first sexual experience", "orgasm", "masturbation", and should learn to "make a conscious decision to have sexual experiences or not" and "use condoms and contraceptives effectively".
 Fortunately the vote went against the draft resolution which is essentially a paedophiles`s charter.

What all of this illustrates is how the United Nations globalist agenda gets worked through the European Parliament. As Turtle Bay and Beyond go on to point out: "The strategy of making Members vote on a document most of them have not scrutinised has often been successful. But it has failed this time, and it was precisely the arrogance of the Presidency, combined with the apparent unwillingness to allow an open debate on the controversial report, that has aroused awareness..."

Thursday, 24 October 2013

The pill for 13 year olds?

Here`s an example of creating a panic and then jumping in with the solution, a device often used to push forward an unpopular political agenda:
From the Telegraph
Controversial policies such as providing sex education at a younger age and free contraception for people as young as 13 are required to bring down the rate of teenage pregnancies, according to a Scottish Parliament inquiry.
A new national strategy is needed to tackle the problem in Scotland which has among the highest rates in Western Europe, the Health and Sport Committee concluded after a six-month investigation.
Convener Duncan McNeil said: "Firstly I want to make it clear that this inquiry was not about demonising the thousands of teenage parents that have children, some of which are planned.

Are these planned teenage pregnancies part of the statistics which have caused the panic I wonder?

From the Daily Record which pre-dates the article in the Telegraph above:
A SEX education DVD axed for being too graphic is still being used in Scots primary schools. Living and Growing features explicit footage of a naked cartoon couple having sex. And Channel 4, who produced it, have withdrawn it from sale in England after a storm of protest.
Now furious mums in Lanarkshire have demanded that it is taken out of use in schools in the area. Many parents say they were not made fully aware of the nature of the film...
The film includes a section aimed at children as young as five, asking them to name the body parts on a drawing of a naked man and woman.
Another segment, intended for eight year-olds, shows the cartoon couple chasing each other around a bedroom with a feather before having sex.

A spokesman for North Lanarkshire Council, who was not named, said that the vast majority of parents support the programme but those who do not can withdraw their children. Surprisingly, he went on to say that the video had been used in schools throughout the country [my emphasis] for more than 15 years.

Meanwhile a Scottish Government spokesman, also unnamed, had this to say:
 “It is for local authorities and schools to decide which resources are used with pupils,     ensuring that all content is appropriate for the children being taught.”
So ...

If the article is an accurate report and this type of sex education has been going on for 15 years with the aim of reducing teenage pregnancies and the theory is correct we should expect to see a decrease in teenage pregnancy rates in Scotland should we not?  That is, if the strategy is a sound one. Then what is the moral panic about?  Something does not add up. But there is evidence that the Scottish Government is completely out of touch with parents.

In the blogging world, a rough and ready poll has been done to survey the popularity of sex education for even younger children. The result was that over 90% disapproved. See Subrosa`s blog:

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Sex Education

Ministries of education have to play a critical role in building consensus on the need for sexuality education through consultation and advocacy with key stakeholders. So says the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, June 2009.

[Consensus. Consultation. Stakeholders: Where have we heard this language before?  We`ve heard it being used in relation to the Early Years Collaborative. UN documents are riddled with this language and so are the consultations involved with GIRFEC.  The Scottish Government is steadfastly following the UN (and European) template.]

According to UNESCO key stakeholders to consult regarding sexual education include:

Young people and organizations that work with them ;[including  youth parliaments set up by the European Commission ?]
Policy makers and politicians;
Government ministries, including health and others;
Education professionals including teachers and head teachers;
Teachers` trade unions; Parent-teacher assocations; Religious leaders and/or faith-based organisations; 
Local communities and their representatives;
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups;
NGOs, particularly those working on sexual health and reproduction;
Media; (local and national)
Training institutions for health professions;
Parents are given the status of stakeholder in parent-teacher associations but otherwise are swamped by other professionals and organisations. This strategy is similar to the consultation exercise carried out by the Scottish Government with regard to GIRFEC and the Children and Young People Bill. Consulting selected groups who may have something to say about an issue may seem a fair and democratic way of doing things at first glance but actually loads the dice against parents in favour of the Government`s chosen policy, which in this case is a UN policy.
I have never met a mother who was pleased that her five year old was receiving sex education in school before he/she has even learned to read and write. Nor have I seen a parent proud that their seven year old was drawing genitals and labelling them for homework. On the contrary there is dismay that in some way children are having their childhoods stolen from them. The problem for many parents in Scotland is that teachers often explain that this is to prevent teenage pregnancies and that research indicates that the way things are done in the Netherlands with their lower teenage pregnancy rates is evidence that it works. Who knows what factors really make the difference but whereas teachers have all ready been armed with their arguments, parents have nothing but their feelings about it and usually do not put up too much resistance.

Let`s face it. It`s only a minority who become pregnant under-aged teenagers. What they need is support. Few people expect children to remain ignorant approaching puberty but why should the majority of children lose their innocence at such a ridiculously young age ? 
Parents are informed that they do maintain the right to remove their children out of sex education classes at the moment but whether that will still be the case if the Children and Young People Bill passes into law and there is a named person who disagrees remains to be seen. It does put parents under a different kind of pressure. They do not want to have their children stand out as being different to their classmates. Is there any advantage to a child in being the one who is ignorant when all their classmates are in the `know`? Probably not. It`s a lose-lose situation. Then again, Curriculum for Excellence is set up so that health and wellbeing (including sex and relationships) is to be dispersed throughout the curriculum; so there`s no avoiding it all.
Therefore parents reluctantly acquiesce. Yet how many have explored the UN Learning Objectives? 
Here are the Learning Objectives for Level 1 (ages 5 - 8)

 Explain the concept of private parts of the body:
Most children are curious about their bodies

It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

Bodies can feel good when touched

Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

Some people masturbate and some do not

Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in privatee

This is supposed to cut down teenage pregnancies ? On the contrary, the UN cannot sexualise children early enough. I would call this grooming. It`s part of UN Agenda 21 and the drive
to break down family values.

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Data Protection?

The following article from the Daily Record shows that computer databases are only as secure as the people who use them.

Nursery teacher gave paedophile lover secret passwords to child database, tribunal is told
DETECTIVE tells hearing Heather Greenwood’s relationship with child sex offender Allan Murray could have put kids at “enormous risk”.

 Heather Greenwood worked at Lamlash Nursery
Heather Greenwood worked at Lamlash Nursery
A NURSERY teacher gave her paedophile fiancé computer passwords used to access information on kids, a misconduct hearing was told yesterday.
A senior detective told the panel that Heather Greenwood’s relationship with convicted child sex offender Allan Murray could have put kids at “enormous risk”.
Greenwood, 39, is accused of breaching rules by living with Murray and lying about their relationship.
And it’s alleged she gave him passwords for a computer database called GLOW – “a secure online community for pupils, parents and teachers”.
One of the charges against Greenwood says the database holds “personal details” of “service users”. It also includes webcam images from inside classrooms.  Read More

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Vaccination programme

An article appeared in the  Scotsman  in June 2009:

THE Scottish Government has been challenged to explain why it introduced the cervical cancer vaccination programme in a series of questions by MSPs.

Cervarix was given to schoolgirls but more than 150 girls had experienced serious side effects. A number of MSPs were asking whether enough research had been carried out before introducing the vaccination programme in schools. Ms Robison`s claim that 150 adverse reactions only represented 0.2 percent of the population of girls immunised turned out to be erroneous and was actually much higher. According to the article: "GlaxoSmithKline insisted detailed tests were carried out and any reactions to Cervarix were within the range expected of a mass vaccination programme.

For concerned parents who do not wish their daughters to suffer side effects within the range expected of a mass vaccination programme accurate information is essential in order to assess the potential benefits to health against the possible risks. It is disturbing that inaccurate information was produced on NHS websites. What is more disturbing is that Dr. Diane Harper, the lead researcher in the development of Cervarix and Gardasil vaccines has questioned their safety and efficacy at a public conference in October 2009. See the  Health Wyze Report  Despite knowing that her corporate bosses would not be pleased her conscience would not allow her to remain quiet. 
Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all H.P.V. infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years.

The Scottish Government website issued a statement 12 August 2012 that Cervarix would no longer be used in the vaccination programme and would be replaced by Gardasil which protects against 4 of the known 40 HPV strains. They go on to state that: "Gardasil has been used extensively in other countries including the United States, and in Europe, since it was first licensed in 2006." Recalling that Dr Harper spoke against Gardasil as well as Cervarix is this vaccine any safer? Anecdotal evidence from the United States suggests that it is not.  See Natural

From NHS Choices 

Steve CA7 said on 04 July 2013
The Countess of Mar of the House of Lords asked the government on 2nd July 2013 how many reports of side effects have been received by the MHRA and how many of these side effects were considered serious.
Earl Howe replied 'a total of 7,230 suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reports with Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency via the Yellow Card Scheme up to 26 June 2013.
Of these 1,287 (17.8%) were considered serious.
It is an accepted fact by the MHRA that only 1 in 10 side effects are reported using the Yellow Card system.
In Japan 1,928 side effects have been reported and the Health Ministry has withdrawn its recommendation of the use of HPV vaccine.

Dr Ben Goldacre has this to say in  Bad Science
Trial results can be withheld from doctors and patients, quite legally; trials are often poorly designed, or biased towards the sponsor’s product; doctors are misled about which treatments work best; and so on. These problems have a real impact on patient care, because we don’t have the information we need to choose the most effective treatments for patients. Often, we tolerate actively misleading information.

He goes on to say that these problems have persisted because "There haven’t been enough people from outside medicine, peering in and asking us the embarrassing questions."

A further complication for parents in Scotland is what is to happen if the Children & Young People Bill is passed into Scottish law and there is a `named person` to oversee the wellbeing of every child? What happens, if after doing their research, parents decide against the vaccination programme for their daughters because in their judgement the risks outweigh any benefits? Supposing the `named person` disagrees?

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Another NSPCC Campaign

According to an article in the Daily Record the NSPCC are launching the Now I know campaign and going into every primary school in Scotland to teach children how to recognise abuse and where to go for help. About 9000 primary school children are suffering from neglect or sexual abuse, they say.

We are told that `Eighty per cent of kids on child protection registers in Scotland are under 11 but only 14 per cent of kids who contact the NSPCC’s ChildLine are in that age group, indicating others are too young to know the signs and seek help.`

But not too young to be picked up by Child Protection Services?  So from where does the NSPCC get its figure of 9000 primary school children are suffering and what percentage of those are sexually abused ? This figure is very misleading.

According to Scottish Government statistics, there were 2706 children on the child protection register at 31 July 2012. The most common concern was emotional abuse (38%) and the least common concern was `the child placing themselves at risk `(2%). The second least common concern was sexual abuse (8%). It is also important to know that a `concern` can be merely a suspicion and that no hard evidence is required.

Table 2.3 shows that for the 2,706 children on the child protection register at 31 July 2012 there were 5,705 concerns at the case conferences at which they were registered - an average of 2.1 concerns per conference. The most common concerns identified were emotional abuse (38%), neglect (37%) and parental substance misuse (34%).

Table 2.3 Concerns identified(1) at the case conferences of children who were on the child protection register at 31 July 2012

Concerns identified at case conferences % of children registered at 31 July 2012
Neglect 1,006 37%
Parental substance misuse 918 34%
Parental Mental Health Problems 516 19%
Non-engaging family 453 17%
Domestic abuse 758 28%
Sexual abuse 229 8%
Physical abuse 471 17%
Emotional abuse 1,016 38%
Child Placing themselves at risk 46 2%
Child Exploitation 9 0%
Other concerns 283 10%
Total concerns 5,705 211%

(1) The 2012 data should not be compared to previous years' data on category of abuse/risk. The Scottish Government published revised National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland in December 2010 which expanded the categories for abuse/concerns identified at case conferences. As a result, many of the categories in 2012 may have been included in other categories previously or would not have been counted as they have no equivalent in previous years.

It looks very likely that the NSPCC are going to be supplying primary school children with the wrong kind of information to protect themselves, creating alarm and suspicion in otherwise innocent children who know nothing about sexual abuse. What is interesting is that most children who phone ChildLine complain about bullying at school, an intractable problem that has not been eradicated in 20 years of ChildLine.

Undaunted the charity hopes to raise £2.5 million in Scotland for the Now I know campaign.

Also see this article: asks, if the NSPCC is such a bunch of money-grabbing, over-paid charlatans, why are they still allowed to have such influence over government policy and allowed to tell lies that are conveniently ignored by those in authority when exposed as such?

The answers are simple, if rather depressing:

The NSPCC is the only charity with statutory powers of investigation and referral. This means that the charity is 100% an arm of the government of the day and as such, is allowed to continue its dishonest practices with impunity."
  • Its activities and falsely secured respectability mean that the government has a ‘fall guy’ when a policy goes horribly wrong. Ministers just blame the NSPCC advice and its alleged ‘research’ and claim the government was acting in good faith.
  • The royal family and celebrities have strong funding connections with the NSPCC. They give it an air of further respectability and surround it with a protected status that most will not even dare to criticise.

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

More data found in a skip

Children`s personal information was dumped in a skip in Dunfermline after a nursery was closed down. The following article reveals that keeping sensitive data about children safe is still not given a high enough priority in certain parts of Scotland.  See also the post GIRFEC and Data Collection.

The Scottish Government has recently provided this note to all CPP managers HERE
"Information sharing between services is vital to ensure that our children’s life chances are maximised and that Scotland is the best place to grow up in. "
"Whilst the ICO in its capacity as a regulator does issue substantial penalties for breaches of the Data Protection Principles, Ken Macdonald emphasises that these penalties are aimed at systemic failures and not practitioners making good faith decisions to share information in the best interests of children."
"Please circulate the attached advice around chief officers, within your Community Planning Partnerships."

Surely Community Planning Partnerships include nurseries and this breach is an example of a massive systemic failure !

Embarrassing isn`t it ?

From Daily Record

Children's confidential paperwork found in skip outside closed down Scots nursery
DETAILS such as children's names, dates of birth and learning plans were dumped alongside staff member's P45s at the Three Bears nursery in Dunfermline.

Children's confidential details and toys were found in the skip
David Johnstone Photography

PHOTOS and personal details of young children have been found dumped in a skip outside their old nursery.
The stash includes names, dates of birth and learning plans detailing the under-fives’ development.
Other confidential paperwork in the skip included staff members’ P45s and parental consent forms complete with signatures.
The documents were found by dad Iain Morrison outside the former Three Bears nursery in Dunfermline.
Iain, 42, said: “The building is on a main street in the middle of the town and the skip was right outside.
“There was a personal development plan for a child born in 2009 which included a name, date of birth, photo and details on development.

Read More

Mental Health Problems?

Angela Harrison, Education correspondent, at BBC News  refers to an article for the  British Medical Journal, in which Simon Nicholas Williams argues that screening pupils for mental health problems as young as seven would mean conditions could be diagnosed and treated earlier. This would prevent more serious social and economic problems developing in adolescence and adulthood, related to crime, unemployment, and suicide. He argues that this would be a more cost effective strategy than dealing with these conditions later.

This reminds me of the Early Years Collaborative and Scottish Minister Aileen Campbell who has said: “I want to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up and give every child the best start in life... Getting it right in the early years is the right thing to do for children and parents. By investing in development from the start, and preventing problems later on, the benefits go beyond families..."

Mr Williams has put another twist on this idea by recommending screening 7 year olds for mental health problems: Get involved with children earlier because it`s cheaper and will prevent serious social problems later. (For which there is not a shred of evidence.)

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education probably got it right when he said that this new initiative would be more likely to cause children and parents stress and anxiety than solve anything. Then there are the problems of labelling and the social stigma which follows a diagnosis and the fact that psychiatric services have a very poor record of successfully treating anybody with a serious mental illness. It is admitted by Williams in his article that a recent BMJ study suggested that school based cognitive behavioural therapy programmes may not be effective in reducing depressive symptoms. Regardless, he still puts forward his view that schools are the best place to screen for mental health issues and that socially there is much to be gained from that.

It is revealing that NICE has also got involved in the same narrative: The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) estimates that 80,000 children in the UK are now suffering with depression, and some of them are as young as five.

What is remarkable is that NICE arrived at this figure before any screening has taken place in schools, all of which leads me to believe these articles are full of spin.

The Tavistock Institute and Mind Control

Two articles have appeared recently in the newspapers. One is about NICE suggesting that teachers should offer parenting classes to parents in schools. The other is in relation to the Tavistock Clinic which advises that adolescence should be extended to age 25. Guidance and advice seem to come from all directions and this fact was raised briefly in the previous post.  But who or what is the Tavistock Clinic?

According to Wikipedia: 
The Institute engages in educational, research, and consultancy work in the social sciences and applied psychology. Its clients are chiefly public sector organizations, including the European Union, several British government departments, and some private clients. The Institute owns Human Relations, the international social sciences journal. It also edits the journal Evaluation.
It provides two MSc degree courses:
The Tavistock Institute shares common roots with other organisations that emerged from the Tavistock Clinic. This is a source of much confusion, though the facts can be ascertained from the historical account of the Tavistock by Eric Trist, one time chairman of the Institute.
The Clinic is now part of a National Health Service trust, while the "Tavistock Institute", which once did research in many areas and was funded by many sources, is now a charity.

From Educate-yourself there is a less benign account:

Tavistock began as a propaganda creating and disseminating organization centered at Wellington House, which was where the original organization was put together with intent of shaping a propaganda outlet that would break down the stiff public resistance being encountered tor the looming war between Britain and Germany.
The project was given to Lords Rothmere and Northcliffe and their mandate was to produce an organization capable of manipulating public opinion and directing that manufactured opinion down the desired pathway to support for a declaration of war by Great Britain against Germany.
Funding was provided by the British royal family, and later by the Rothschilds to whom Lord Northcliffe was related through marriage. Arnold Toynbee was selected as Director of Future Studies. Two Americans, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were appointed to handle the manipulation of American public opinion in preparation for the entry of the United States into WWI, and to brief and direct President Woodrow Wilson.
From a somewhat crude beginning at Wellington House, grew an organization that was to shape the destiny of Germany, Britain and more especially the United States in manner that became a highly sophisticated organization to manipulate and create public opinion, what is commonly termed, "mass brainwashing."
In case anybody believes that `mass brainwashing` is a far-fetched idea we have these next paragraphs openly displayed on the website of the Institute for Government:
The Institute for Government is an independent charity with cross-party and Whitehall governance working to increase government effectiveness. We work with all the main political parties at Westminster and with senior civil servants in Whitehall. We provide evidence based advice that draws on best practice from around the world. We undertake research, provide the highest quality development opportunities for senior decision makers and organise events to invigorate and provide fresh thinking on the issues that really matter to government. The Institute for Government is a registered charity in England and Wales (Registered Charity No.1123926). Our funding comes from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. In November 2010, we were awarded Think Tank of the Year in Prospect magazine's annual awards. 
MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy was published by the Institute for Government and the Cabinet Office on 2 March 2010. The report explores how behaviour change theory can help meet current policy challenges, such as how to: reduce crime, tackle obesity, ensure environmental sustainability. Today's policy makers are in the business of influencing behaviour - they need to understand the effects their policies may be having. The aim of MINDSPACE is to help them do this, and in doing so get better outcomes for the public and society.
Do we really want these Government Think Tanks, charities and trusts with their corporate backers and secret agendas to get closer to our children?  I think not.