A libertarian leaning, common preference seeking, pro-science, pro-critical rationalism, humanist blog, which is mainly, but by no means exclusively, about home educating in the UK.
Sorry, wouldn't tell the woman if her hair was on fire.Voted strongly for ID cards.Voted very strongly for anti-terrorism laws (which were based on spin and fear)Voted very strongly for the Iraq war."But I have no sympathy for those who have been profiting unfairly from the present arrangements and whose complaint is simply that they don't want to pay their fair share of tax."http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/comment/2127458/dawn-primarolo-argues-government-position-personal-services-company-crackdownFrom one who filches taxpayer's money for her mortgage.Additionally, here:"Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens [including children] without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out. New law introduced by the backdoor in January this year obliges the Secretary of State for Health to implement any recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: [Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Vaccination].Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-what exactly ‘right’ meant [under the new NHS constitution] with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’“ In other words, if a parent does not want a child vaccinated but the JCVI have recommended all children be vaccinated, the JCVI are asking can their recommendation be challenged by the parent. It would seem once they have their answer, they will decide whether or not to make their recommendation. This appears one step from compulsory vaccination for children regardless of parental views or concerns. If the JCVI decide to make their recommendation, and a legal case ensues this might mean a Guardian is appointed by the State to represent the interests of the child and through the Guardian sue its own parents to insist on the “right” to be vaccinated as mandated by the JCVI. The parents would in effect be forced to defend the case against their own child brought through the Guardian to oppose their own child being vaccinated. Once the first case was decided, the matter would be settled in practical terms for all UK parents.Thus the UK appears to be on the verge of ‘1984′ style legislation and guidelines in which freedoms are taken away from citizens framed in terms of rights granted. And this has happened without political or public debate, scrutiny or democratic vote.The newly published draft minutes for the JCVI in February disclose that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by executive order in January seem designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution."http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/compulsory-vax/So new status granted by this Primarolo woman for a dodgy agency to force children to have vaccinations.Do you think she'd give a damn about home educators?Danaehttp://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com
Post a Comment