Monday, July 03, 2006
Administrative oppression
I blogged on the opening of Hob Moor as part of a write up of a Liberal Democrat publication (Focus) here. I must confess I wasn’t up to standard as I allowed myself to assume that this was a school. Focus itself used the word school in an above the headline quote, but the headline just said “New Hob Moor opens its doors”; as the old school was called Hob Moor School; I assumed the “New Hob Moor” was a school.
In the York Council Westfield Ward “news”letter a more complete story emerges showing us that although a school forms part of the new Hob Moor, it is in fact something called a Children’s Centre and is called Hob Moor Children’s Centre.
“It is unique (in York) because it brings together education, social services, and health on one … site” (my emphasis).
Now as far as I know, people are required by law to ensure their children attend school, and teachers will look out for signs of abuse etc and if they think something is amiss will inform social services. Here we see social services being administratively incorporated into the school, so without even a debate in Parliament you are forced to take your children to social services.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” really? How many parents will allow their children to go into this “school” if they have a mark or bruise, which has occurred quite normally as a result of normal child’s play, without a letter or verbal explanation to the teacher?
Freeborn English men and women will be made to account for themselves to agents of the state when nothing untoward has happened. If evidence of a crime exists then a person may be brought before twelve of their peers and a judge; and be compelled to account or give an explanation and those twelve ordinary people will decide if a criminal offence has been committed and if so the judge will decide on the sentence according to due process and the laws laid down by Parliament (common law now being virtually totally superseded by statute). So far, no law has been passed compelling people to account for themselves in advance, but with cunning administrative decisions like this that will be the result. Parents will be frightened of a social services investigation and will automatically self-report anything to the state to avoid one.
“But it’s for the children’s sake” really? Even when social services are faced with what would to most people appear obvious signs of abuse there have been times when “administrative breakdown” has allowed the abuse to lead to the death of the child and no one is ever really held accountable for these failures. You may notice that no matter how many times the state fails in its duty, no one ever seems to question if the state should be undertaking these tasks at all; but if a non-state organisation fails, all the usual statist socialists are up in arms and calling for more state involvement and more taxes to fund it.
I say that each individual has duties and responsibilities to all their fellow individuals, if they fail in these duties and where a crime has been committed they should be subject to due process and the rigour of the law (which should include the death penalty where appropriate). If the prospect of punishment under the law will not prevent a crime then neither will any amount of state interference. What this will accomplish is that the law-abiding family will be subject to the administrative oppression of self-reporting to the agents of the state.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
In the York Council Westfield Ward “news”letter a more complete story emerges showing us that although a school forms part of the new Hob Moor, it is in fact something called a Children’s Centre and is called Hob Moor Children’s Centre.
“It is unique (in York) because it brings together education, social services, and health on one … site” (my emphasis).
Now as far as I know, people are required by law to ensure their children attend school, and teachers will look out for signs of abuse etc and if they think something is amiss will inform social services. Here we see social services being administratively incorporated into the school, so without even a debate in Parliament you are forced to take your children to social services.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” really? How many parents will allow their children to go into this “school” if they have a mark or bruise, which has occurred quite normally as a result of normal child’s play, without a letter or verbal explanation to the teacher?
Freeborn English men and women will be made to account for themselves to agents of the state when nothing untoward has happened. If evidence of a crime exists then a person may be brought before twelve of their peers and a judge; and be compelled to account or give an explanation and those twelve ordinary people will decide if a criminal offence has been committed and if so the judge will decide on the sentence according to due process and the laws laid down by Parliament (common law now being virtually totally superseded by statute). So far, no law has been passed compelling people to account for themselves in advance, but with cunning administrative decisions like this that will be the result. Parents will be frightened of a social services investigation and will automatically self-report anything to the state to avoid one.
“But it’s for the children’s sake” really? Even when social services are faced with what would to most people appear obvious signs of abuse there have been times when “administrative breakdown” has allowed the abuse to lead to the death of the child and no one is ever really held accountable for these failures. You may notice that no matter how many times the state fails in its duty, no one ever seems to question if the state should be undertaking these tasks at all; but if a non-state organisation fails, all the usual statist socialists are up in arms and calling for more state involvement and more taxes to fund it.
I say that each individual has duties and responsibilities to all their fellow individuals, if they fail in these duties and where a crime has been committed they should be subject to due process and the rigour of the law (which should include the death penalty where appropriate). If the prospect of punishment under the law will not prevent a crime then neither will any amount of state interference. What this will accomplish is that the law-abiding family will be subject to the administrative oppression of self-reporting to the agents of the state.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
