It’s everyone’s business, except that you are now presumed to be a paedophile unless you are state-approved. Anyway, let the madness begin…

The Government today set out the next steps to make sure behaviour is good in all schools, so that pupils are free to learn and teachers are free to teach.

It’s another of those we’ve-been-in-government-for-13-years-and-will-now-put-things-right moments. Just before the election. Who’d have thunk?

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls and Schools Minister Vernon Coaker launched a package of measures aimed at supporting teachers and dispelling myths around behaviour in schools. They will say teachers should not be afraid to use the powers the Government has given them to control unruly pupils.

“A package of measures” always sounds like you’ve really thought about it and come up with the best ideas: like allowing teachers to take their belts to those who are being naughty? That’s how my teachers used to control unruly pupils. And it worked, but it didn’t involve the police, social workers and the courts. No, it gave all the power to the teachers instead, which is absolutely no good to a State that now lusts after total control.

And it seems to me that the only powers the Government has given teachers are to pull their hair out and bang their heads against a brick wall. The power balance has been shifted in favour of the pupils and the ones who want to cause trouble know it. They know there is no chance of the instant pain and humiliation of the belt or cane for their misdeeds.

I had a very timid French teacher in either first or second year (I forget which) and who wouldn’t use the belt on anyone, but even she could control the class by sending an unruly child to the next classroom to get a few whacks from Mrs Falk.

The package, announced by Ed Balls at the Association of Teachers and Lecturer’s conference today in Manchester, includes:

* the first 20 of 100 Lead Behaviour Schools that will drive improvements in behaviour for the weakest schools
* guidance for teachers on how to maximise partnerships with exemplar schools
* a new report from Sir Alan Steer calling on schools to make better use of Home School Agreements to engage parents when improving behaviour.

It’s just more buzz words and a new report.

Lead Behaviour Schools

The first 20 of 100 Lead Behaviour Schools with exemplary behaviour were announced, who will receive £40,000 a year to mentor other schools to help improve behaviour across the country. Schools struggling with bad behaviour will be expected to learn from Lead Behaviour Schools and their innovative approaches to tackling behaviour problems.

This is supported by new Behaviour and Attendance Partnership Guidance, advising schools how to harness the expertise of other schools, police and children’s services to improve behaviour in the classroom.

See what I mean? It’s about getting children into the system. Get the cops involved. Children’s services. Anything but let the teachers take control of their classrooms. Teachers who do not have really good skills with children and know how to get their own way more than they do are now expected to take control, not by sending them next door to Mrs Falk to sort it out in half a minute, but to drag the child through the state system.

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said:

Today I am naming the first 20 of 100 schools leading the way in behaviour policy across the country. These schools are using a range of innovative approaches, and the powers the Government has given them, to turn around poor behaviour in the classroom.

The expert schools will be twinned with schools struggling to control behaviour and there will be an expectation for schools with behaviour problems to learn from the Lead Behaviour Schools.

It won’t work. These things rarely do.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said:

However it is not just for Government and schools to drive improvements in behaviour, and parents must play their part.

Are these the same parents who are considered perverts for videoing the school nativity play? Or have their requests for their children to opt out of certain dubious lessons rejected? Even the parents are being emasculated. If New Labour had their way, parents wouldn’t even be allowed to smack their own children.

This is why I welcome Sir Alan’s report which shows how invaluable the Home School Agreement can become. For headteachers to have the power to take court action against parents whose children continue to behave badly, disrupt lessons and impact on other pupils is a vital step in the right direction.

The right direction leading to an all-intrusive state. We are not supposed to just sort things out between ourselves and then get on with our lives. Oh no. That would never do.

The British Humanist Association are furious that some schools want to teach about sex and relationships according to their ethos.

The BHA, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the Accord Coalition have condemned a new Government amendment to its own Children, Schools and Families Bill, describing it as discriminatory.

It is discriminatory, yes. Just as forcing people to accept beliefs and behaviour that are at best alien to them discriminates against them. But that’s all right, isn’t it? This is how it works. Nobody is allowed to be discriminated against except those people who don’t do as they are commanded by the state. No matter how unfair or crazy.

A great myth has grown which says that discrimination is wrong. Any discrimination. Personally, I discriminate all the time, don’t you? Some food I love and others I detest. Some people I find are wonderful and others I avoid. How many parents don’t discriminate when it comes to choosing a babysitter? Fortunately, not many.

I have looked at the members of the aforementioned Accord Coalition on their website. They include The British Humanist Association themselves, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Hindu Academy, The Lesbian and Gay Christian (sic) Movement, The Socialist Education Association and the admittedly feminist Women Against Fundamentalism.

In other words, this is a political/religio-political attack on faith schools to further an atheistic/secular/humanist/socialist agenda. Dress it up as children’s rights and they think they can get away with anything.

The BHA encouraged its supporters to email their MPs,

Please do this today to ensure all young people have access to accurate, balanced SRE that promotes equality and diversity, and to prevent faith schools from teaching that same sex relationships and the use of contraception are wrong.

They go on to elaborate on the importance of promoting equality, diversity and rights: three of the main pillars of political correctness.

Ian Dunt, writing for politics.co.uk, was also upset. He wants faith schools ‘banned’. As I commented under his article,

I’m not sure if this is meant to be satirical, but it sounds like it. Mr Dunt is a ‘libertarian’ (he says) who naturally hates government interference – except when it comes to parents’ choices in how their children are educated, then they should have no choice. Despite the majority of the population having a faith, the author thinks their children should be herded into secular state institutions to be conditioned not to be ‘too religious’. I wonder what he thinks about the news that faith schools are best at building social unity:

“It found that secondary schools run by faith groups scored eleven per cent higher for their promotion of community cohesion when compared with secular schools.

“The report also concluded that faith-based schools outperformed secular schools by almost nine per cent when it came to tackling inequality.”

The Dunts and Dawkins of this country need to mind their own business when it comes to how parents bring up their own children. Oh, and stop using people’s aversion to homosexuality as a reason for getting your own angry way.”

And this is another great myth, that people who are against homosexuality being approved to children do it on grounds of hatred. We get this word discrimination as usual. That’s exactly what it is – like the babysitting example I gave above, parents and schools discriminate because they see it as the right thing to do by their children. This is their right.

Then the word homophobic gets thrown around. Never religiophobic (if that’s a word), because religious people are now, by default, in the wrong. Let us not be misled; when humanists promote homosexuality as normal, they do so against the biological evidence. Theirs is also a belief system. They believe it is right and I believe it is wrong. Why do they expect their beliefs to carry more weight than mine?

To conclude, then, what is next? How much more diversity are we meant to teach children, or be accused of the next invented ‘phobia’? Some children are already being groomed to be dysfunctional through state sex education that tells them anything goes and here are your free condoms and this way to the abortion clinic – your parents won’t find out.

This increases the underclass dependent on state intervention at every turn: the single mothers on handouts, the unemployed and unemployable, the depressed, the diseased, those for whom life has no meaning because they are used to their every whim being catered for and being shielded from the real world.

This attack on freedom of conscience and parental responsibility is demonic. For what benefit?

One third of university students do not know Gordon Brown is leader of the Labour party, according to a surprising new survey out today.

The poll, conducted by student accommodation provider Unite, asked 1,500 students about various political issues.

A third also did not know David Cameron was leader of the Conservative party, while 48 per cent did not know who Nick Clegg was.

But the lack of interest in Westminster politics did not reflect a general apathy. Many of the students questioned clearly believed passionately in more issue-based politics.

Sure. Like the ones they’ve been brainwashed to believe ‘passionately’ in, such as the climate change scam.

Four in ten said protesting or joining a party was more likely to achieve change than voting.

But almost half of students said they were unlikely to vote in the next election.

Based on what I have read so far, that comes as a relief.

Nearly two-thirds said the state of higher education has remained static or gotten worse during Labour’s time in power.

‘Gotten’ worse? Yes, I think that proves it.

*Sigh*

Not once, that I recall, were we told about their sexual behaviour.

Well now, thanks to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month, children can now learn who the famous men were who preferred to have sex with other men and the women who had sex with women. And of course, the men and women who were so promiscuous that they had sex with both genders.

It is at times like this that I feel I must have entered a parallel universe; one where the normal laws of space, time and nature have either been abandoned or changed so that this makes some kind of sense.

So what is the idea behind it?

As far as parents and teachers are led to believe, it is to help ‘LGBT’ people become more accepted and less prone to bullying.

The real purpose, of course, is to further promote lifestyles which are at odds with civilised, healthy society.

Ten years ago, Brian Souter’s private referendum in Scotland on Section 28 resulted in 7 out of 8 people who voted expressing a wish to retain this piece of legislation which protected children from such predation.

The vast majority were ignored, as usual, in this ‘democracy’ of ours and now their children and grandchildren are being brainwashed in the effort to make them ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. Just look at this from the ‘Tool Kit for Schools‘ on the LGBT History Month website:

Heteronormativity

Assertions that normal people are white, able bodied, young, middle class, heterosexual, male and Christian are endemic in so-called western societies. This results in subtle or declared barriers that affect/disadvantage people on the grounds of prejudice against anyone outside the norm (with regard to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, religion and belief, class and/or disability). Any disadvantage accrued by those ‘outside the norm’ is blamed on the person the ‘normal’ people see as ‘different’, that is, different from them or not ‘normal’.

This is what it is really about – totally re-engineering society. Notice how many of these ‘normal’ people are under attack in this so-called equality drive.

The elites don’t want ‘normality’, they want dysfunction. They can control us easier that way.

This is why our society has been engineered to hate Christians and pander to other religions. Many secularists and humanists think this is great, but they are too dumb to understand that the foundations of their culture and freedoms are being attacked.

New Labour has admitted using immigration to re-engineer society. Now we have reports of police forces being ‘too white’ and Parliament is ‘too white’. Even Radio 4 is ‘too white’.

The middle class must be wiped out because they are a major inconvenience to the success of socialism.

Feminism, which some say was created by the CIA specifically to destroy society, has indeed empowered women to sit at a typewriter, sewing machine or supermarket checkout for forty hours a week, while their children are dumped with strangers until they get home and it’s time to feed them, do the washing up and the other chores, then collapse exhaustedly into bed.

It’s not empowerment, it’s just another kind of slavery. With men and women at work, the state gets double the tax and has more access to your children to fill them with notions like heteronormativity, which was coined in 1991 by homosexual writer Michael Warner.

One of the people worthy of celebrating is Tom Robinson. Apparently. I remember his classic 2-4-6-8 Motorway, but he’s hardly a historical figure is he? Ah, but he did sing Glad to be Gay, but then became bisexual and a father, and it’s all this personal detail that gets the attention. That’s because this isn’t about History, but about promoting homosexuality.

UPDATE: Richard Borrett left a comment about ‘The Overhauling of Straight America‘, which is a sort of blueprint for homosexualising the USA and the tactics explained in it have been successfully imported into the UK and elsewhere. Part of the plan is very pertinent to the above post. Their agenda was to:

(4) Make gays look good. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know — this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as “queer” people — shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.

The trailer for the film FIT is a slick production designed to confuse humanity in the minds of children who trust the grown-up world to tell them the truth.

As I commented on The Guardian’s website,

I wonder when people are going to get wise to Stonewall’s tactics. The blueprint for a ‘gay’ America, “The Overhauling of Straight America” starts just like this trailer,

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.”

Why is this so-called charity receiving public money to peddle their propaganda to children? I think it is terrible that Stonewall is manipulating vulnerable children into believing that homosexuality is just another of those things, like skin, eye and hair colour.

Is it true that encouraging children to identify with a sexuality at an early age leads to suicidal feelings?

Does anyone care, or is this warped sense of ‘equality’ all that matters anymore?

As usual I was pretty much a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Such has been the conditioning to accept homosexuality as normal and harmless, Guardian readers fail to understand that there is an opposite side of the coin where teenagers are troubled by the pressure to identify with a sexuality when their hormones are all over the place and they have many other things to be concerned about, like exams.

From the article Which Gay Teens Attempt Suicide?

The researchers say that suicide attempts appear to be related to “coming out” at a younger age, gender atypicality, low self-esteem…

Two key points can be inferred from these studies. First, that treatment for Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood (GID), which is now under strong attack from within the psychological profession, may indeed be therapeutic for prevention of suicide attempts in adolescence. Gay and feminist advocacy groups have been lobbying for deletion of the diagnostic category.

In contrast, clinicians such as Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley believe that it is ethical and therapeutic to help children become more comfortable with their biological maleness or femaleness (Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents, 1995, New York: Guilford Press) and to alleviate the emotional and family problems often associated with childhood gender nonconformity.

Second, since early gay-self-labeling is associated with attempted suicide, it seems unwise to encourage young people to label themselves as gay during the volatile teenage years. The teen years serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be eroticized. “No service is done to our children by offering them lifestyle options before they are properly able to make informed choices about them,” says Dr. George Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and a specialist in psychosexual disorders at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.

This really is a shocking indictment of Stonewall’s tactics and needs to be addressed urgently.

Someone calling himself danny360 insults me and adds,

Ask a hundred gay people, a million, ten million. Every single one will tell you they did not choose their sexuality, because it is NOT a choice, any more than height or skin colour. It is NOT a ‘lifestyle option’.

This is a very common and ignorant belief and the one which Stonewall wishes to perpetuate with its film. Peter Tatchell writes in an article entitled Homosexuality isn’t natural that sexuality is far more complex than people think:

Many studies suggest social factors are also important influences in the formation of sexual orientation. These include the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, family expectations, cultural mores and peer pressure.

This new film will affect the three factors I have highlighted. I consider this to be child abuse by a state-funded organisation.

And don’t expect the Tories to have any sense of proportion either. They have recently apologised for Section 28 – the legislation that protected children from this sort of propaganda.

Firstly, homosexual behaviour is not normal for the very obvious reason that the human anatomy is designed for sex between a man and a woman. For a man to enter the waste passage of another man is abnormal in the extreme. It is also not harmless. Changing sexual behaviour in Australia is being blamed for more oral and anal cancers. Harmless? If homosexual and bisexual behaviour, as well as adultery/multiple partners, is normal and harmless, then why is there so much disease associated with the behaviour?

Homosexuals are generally very promiscuous and many engage, not just in buggery, but in anilingus (or rimming) too. No wonder diseases spread like wildfire when the bacteria in faeces is so easily shared. Harmless? What a ridiculous lie!

As leader of the LibDems, you would think Nick Clegg would be a liberal. Certainly, his past sexual behaviour is indicative that he is, so it might be considered strange that he is so illiberal as to want to force faith schools to act contrary to what they believe in and tell lies to children concerning homosexuality.

A senior Anglican bishop (who asked not to be named) told The Independent:

I think this will go down badly even among the not overtly evangelical. Instituting something that must be taught, come what may, is frighteningly fascist.

And in these strange days of newspeak and doublethink, Clegg is keen for the definition of marriage to be changed.

If we don’t want to discriminate, why do we make differences in language? Language is a hugely important signifier of how we segment society and how you seek to create differences between people. Since we don’t want to make differences on this and the law has moved a great deal to do that, we should be linguistically the same too.

The fact that, since the beginning of time, the definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman obviously means nothing to Clegg. Want to gain the pink vote? Simply change the meaning. Liberals like to talk about ancient Greece as if it somehow justifies homosexuality, but where can they point to to try to legitimise homosexual ‘marriage’? The concept is especially ridiculous since such unholy unions are unlikely to be monogamous.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, welcomed Mr Clegg’s comments but added that he believed Mr Cameron had genuinely changed his views on gay rights.

Therefore, for those of us who are keen to return to a society of decent values – and freedom of belief – there is no point at all in voting for any of the three main parties at the general election. No point whatsoever.

Christian home-schooling parents who had their son taken away by Swedish Government officials have lost their court case to have him returned.

Dominic Johansson, who is just seven years old, was taken away from his parents in 2008 and a court has now ruled that the Government was within its rights to do so.

Critics have called Dominic’s removal a “disgraceful” abuse of power.

Christer and Annie Johansson had boarded a plane with their son to India, Mrs Johansson’s home country, when officials seized Dominic.

I wonder if they used ‘anti-terror’ legislation to monitor their movements. This must have been a very unpleasant experience for the child they claim to care about.

In December a Swedish court decided that the Government’s actions were within the law.

Yes, their own stinking anti-family laws probably.

It cited the fact that the young boy had not been vaccinated as a reason for taking him away from his parents.

Even if this had been the reason, he could still have been kidnapped and force-vaccinated as he was (this is the EU, remember!) and then returned to his parents. Clearly, the real reason, just like recent cases in other countries, is that the ‘authorities’ do not want any child escaping the system and growing up being able to think for themselves. They really are that scared now. No wonder they want to censor the internet, for the cheeldren.

The court also claimed that home-schooled children do not perform well academically or mix well with others.

I don’t know about the ‘mixing’, as if this is a government matter anyway (can we expect an EU directive stating the number of friends we must have?), but I believe that academically, home-schooled children are brighter than their peers in state schools. It would be hard for them not to be.

Swedish social services initially limited the couple’s visits to Dominic to two hours per week but have since cut that to one hour every fifth week.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an American organisation which defends religious liberty, and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which works to uphold the legal rights of home-schooling families, are supporting the Johanssons.

ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska said: “Parents have the right and authority to make decisions regarding their children’s education without Government interference.”

He added: This is about a socialist Government trying to create a cookie-cutter child in its own image.

That’s it in a nutshell. The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, held out before signing the Lisbon Treaty because he knows the EU is as bad, or worse, than the Communism they escaped from 20 years ago. I can imagine the final version of the EU being the sum of the rottenness of all its constituent parts.

HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly said: “It’s one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed.”

Mr Donnelly added: “We have heard that other home-schooling families in Sweden are having more difficulty with local officials.

“We fear that all home-schooling families in that country are at risk.”

As they are everywhere, it seems. In October, I wrote about a girl in New England,

“The court conceded that the New Hampshire ten-year-old is bright, sociable and academically advanced for her age, but decided she should no longer be home schooled.

“The reason, says her mother’s attorney, is simply that the girl’s “religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held” and need to be “mixed among other worldviews”.

It’s that mixing again. They want her mixing in school for 30 hours a week with those who have been indoctrinated by the state for years. They may well convince her that her parents are old-fashioned and weird and that she should be doing drugs and sleeping around instead of studying and going to church. What she won’t learn is how to be an articulate and effective voice against government corruption.

Some home schoolers in Germany have had to flee the country. One family made the mistake of moving next door to France.

Germany’s well-established persecution of home-schoolers caused the Wunderlich family to flee for France in hopes of finally being free to educate their kids. A few weeks ago, however, French police raided their home and took custody of their four kids.

And soon it may be our turn in the UK, due to New Labour taking an interest in the subject. They have already been considering mandatory visits to homes in order to interview children without their parents being present.

This is the way the EU is going. Every child must be separated from their parents for as long as possible, be it in school, after-school clubs, and via the computer games and the televisions they all seem to have in their bedrooms these days. And of course, a generation of women has been persuaded to go out to work, resulting in children being separated from their mothers so much earlier than used to be the case generally.

Sweden is well known for its high taxation and big state. It is cheaper to dump your toddlers off at a state re-engineering nursery there than it is here. In 2008, David Cameron paid a visit. The Guardian tells us,

British policymakers frequently cite Sweden as a good example of childcare provision.

I will say it again: the EU will end up being the sum of the rottenness of its constituent parts. There will be no freedom to raise your family according to your beliefs, because everyone must have the same grey, atheistic, secular outlook; to be deprived of hope and opportunities; to be in debt as early as possible and for life. Total slaves of the system. Ultimately, there will be no ‘opt-outs’ or ‘red lines’ as we are ‘promised’. in 1971 Ted Heath promised:

There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified

And this in 1975:

There is no danger of a single currency.

It’s not just New Labour who know how to lie about the EU. Mr Heath, I believe, later confessed to knowing that integration would be far greater than he admitted when he was Prime Minister.

The whole EEC/EU agenda was to create, by stealth, a united Europe. This was admitted from the start. I can’t seem to find the quote I’m looking for, so hopefully someone can let me know in the comments.

Under the proposals, lessons in sex and relationships would begin at five, when children would label body parts and learn about simple changes to their bodies.

As per my previous post, haven’t the parents told their five year olds the simplest things? In this case, the appropriate names of their body parts? Correct me if I am wrong, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the State.

The classes would be part of the government’s new Personal Health and Social Education (PHSE) curriculum that includes teaching 14-year-olds about parenting, body image and ‘moral dilemmas’.

As Shadow Children’s Secretary Michael Gove rightly observes,

The most important thing for young people is securing the qualifications which will guarantee a good job and a bright future.

Every statistic shows that underachievement leads to risky behaviour and a greater risk of drug addiction or teenage pregnancy.

Margaret Morrissey, from campaign group Parents Outloud, said

I am struggling to think why we need parenting education as young as 14.

She added the lessons could create an interest where none existed.

And that is the whole point, which I have been making for the past few years. This government is ‘advised’ by people from the providers of abortion and contraception ‘charities’ like Brook and the FPA. Surprise, surprise: their advice has led to greater use of their ’services’.

Children aged five to seven will learn about the “simple physical changes to their bodies since birth” and the differences between boys and girls. Between seven and nine, they will be taught about puberty and “how to form and maintain relationships”. In the final two years of primary school, pupils will learn about human reproduction.

Right, so from seven, boys will learn that kissing boys and not just girls is okay.

The curriculum for 11 to 14 year-olds covers sexual orientation, contraception, pregnancy, HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases, homosexual relationships, civil ceremonies and the importance of marriage.

I cannot believe that the homosexual stuff will wait until now. Stonewall will fight for it to be promoted as early as possible to ensure ‘equality’. (Whenever SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) is taught, civil partnerships must be discussed.)

Mr Balls believes the classes will put pupils off having children until they are ready.

Sorry, but he’s either a liar or a fool.

The Christian Institute reminds us that,

Last year a £6 million Government-backed project designed to curb teenage pregnancies saw conceptions more than double.

The project involved giving teenagers sex education and advice about contraception but at the end of the scheme there were more teenage pregnancies among the youngsters who had taken part than among a comparable group who hadn’t.

And that’s the agenda. Does anybody still believe the government cares about the cheeldren? They are screwing up their lives to have greater control over them. Just like they lie about climate change: for more control. Just like they get patsies to keep the ‘War on Terror’ going: for control.

We literally have a freak show of evil running things.

Children as young as five will receive lessons on managing their piggy banks as a means of improving financial responsibility among the public.

From what I remember of my childhood, the whole savings thing involved the entire family. Receiving money, putting it in a piggy bank, then spending it once enough had been raised. And counting it every week or two!

The proposals come as part of a frantic set of policy announcements from both the government and the opposition today, as the general election campaigns begin with a vengeance.

If this is what frantic produces, I recommend some calm, clear thinking.

Ed Balls also promised a £50 million fund for early interventions where six or seven-year-olds are falling behind in maths or English.

Strange how they started falling behind just before an election.

A new personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) curriculum will begin in September 2011 under the government plans, and would focus on teaching children how to manage their current and savings account.

Sponsored by Barclays, probably. Judging by the failed sex ‘education’, money education will tell the children they can have all the things they want on credit and worry about the consequences later.

We didn’t heed the call to spend, spend, spend our way out of the recession when Mr Brown asked us, so the next generation must be taught better manners.

Between five and seven, children would be taught how to identify different coins and notes, and how to save money, while seven to eleven-year-olds would be taught how to manage their bank accounts.

Eleven to 14 year-olds would be taught about credit cards, mortgages and basic household finance.

Sixteen-year-olds would be given classes on the effect of money and debt.

I got into quite serious debt and finally paid it off in 2005, so I am not against educating older children to prepare them for the real world, but I smell a rat, and when you smell a New Labour rat, there’s probably a sewer full of them.

Will the government be sending out teams of bedtime storytellers next? I wouldn’t bet against it.

For a complete takeover of the individual, his conscience must also be brought into line with State expectations. Churches must employ people who live contrary to Christian ethics. Teachers must impart lies to the children in their keep. Even the pharmacists’ conscience clause is now under threat after centuries of protecting the rights of dispensing chemists.

The right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense controversial drugs is under threat after a consultation asked if it should be scrapped.

For centuries, pharmacists have been able to decline services with which they disagree on moral or religious grounds.

A significant number, mainly Christians and Muslims, have refused women the morning-after pill because they believe it is a form of abortion.

To alarm, however, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, a Government quango that oversees the health professions, is asking whether the practice should continue.

How many quangos and fake charities is that we have pushing abortion? All to ensure Regulatory Excellence, of course.

Calls for the conscience clause to be scrapped have come from pharmacists as well as groups such as the National Secular Society.

It would be the Secularists, wouldn’t it? And obviously the ‘calls’ only came from certain pharmacists. And why should they be concerned? If some chemists refuse to prescribe abortion pills, then that means more (blood) money for them.

What’s next? Will bakers be forced to sell battenburg cakes against their will? Will newsagents who disaprove of Halloween be required by law to stock masks, witches’ hats and rubber bats? Of course they won’t. That’s because contraception and abortion and the whole promotion of sex thing is part of a social engineering agenda which has to be seen through to the end. It’s the same blitzkrieg approach that means parents are being denied the right to have their children opt out of sex ‘education’. They must be indoctrinated at every opportunity. Nobody should be allowed to escape the net and be in a position to tell others there are better ways. Even those children who are home-schooled are to be under greater state scrutiny.

When the Bible warns us that we are “not our own,” it means that we are God’s, not the State’s.

But anti-abortionists are warning the code of ethics is in danger of being ‘hijacked by an anti-life agenda’.

Eugenics is here to stay. There are even plans to introduce five year-olds to their ‘rights’ to abortion. This really is how far we have fallen and we’re still falling fast.

The consultation, which ends on January 12, is part of plans to set up a new General Pharmaceutical Council to regulate the profession.

Regulate the conscience, you mean.

The Department of Health denied that Ministers, who have been struggling to bring down teenage pregnancy rates, had any role in the questionnaire.

They are struggling to bring down teenage pregnancy rates because they concentrate on doing just that and that alone as if pregnancy just happens in isolation and there are no other factors that need addressed. This is because people from abortion and contraceptive ’services’ like the FPA and Brook ‘advise’ the government to promote abortion and contraceptive ’services’. It is a vicious circle from what I can deduce.

When you see that some teenage girls have been getting multiple terminations on demand, you begin to understand who benefits from the government’s strategy.

Some experts have questioned whether the clause is ‘in keeping with the rising rights and expectations of Health Service users’.

As usual, someone mentions the word ‘rights’. No doubt everyone will flap around desperate to promote this new ‘right’ and ensure the nation complies. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

The Church of England, however, says many Christians would wish for their right to refuse emergency contraception to be preserved.

But the humanists and secularists say we should just shut up because we have no right to influence society. We should keep our beliefs private. They, on the other hand, should boss us all around based on their beliefs. I bet they cannot see the folly in their thinking.