We have become hardly aware in Britain of the degree of intolerant indoctrination imposed upon the lives of children and adults in Britain. There is a systematic and gradual deterioration in the natural freedom of adults and children. Central government and the corporate world remain determined to control the lives of of all us and bend our will to their demands.
Example One
We read in our newspapers this month the results of the biggest inquiry into primary school education in Britain in 40 years. The report strongly criticised the current ideological dogma of primarily restricting small children to learning reading, writing and arithmetic. The report said such an approach to education is “even narrower than that of the Victorian elementary schools”, whose practices most people claimed the country had outgrown. As you can see, this is a very damming comment on the abuse of the minds of the young.
The report recommends that children should be largely left to learn through play. Children should not start their education until the age of six as in other European countries. Going to school so early in life can lower children’s confidence for years in the future, said the report.
The report rejected the view of UNICEF, the UN agency, that British children are among the “unhappiest” in the West. Mind you, the UNICEF view should not be summarily rejected.
The authors of the report told the government: “The Stalinist overtones of a state theory of learning enforced by the machinery of surveillance and accountability league tables, testing targets are as unattractive as they are serious. The general air of pessimism and powerlessness (among teachers) could be an accurate reflection of how people feel anywhere, when their freedom of action and thought in the area which lies at the heart of their work is reduced.”
The Esne Fairbairn Foundation conducted the report, the largest since the Plowden Report of 1967. Will the British government take any notice of this report? Will the massive amount of research and analysis lead to change in government policy? Don’t hold your breath.
The report stated: There is no research evidence that an early access to formal learning does children any good and lots of evidence that it can actually do them some harm.”
Our Stalinist style government, whether Labour or Conservative, continues its policy of robbing children of their childhood to force them to adapt to the demands of government policy and the private and public sector. Conclusions arising from years of research must not interfere with government policy,
Example Two
The British government appointed respected scientists to serve as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. When the chairman of the Advisory Council , Professor David Nutt, presented his scientific findings and insisted that the government take notice of the Council’s findings, the government sacked him.
The government fired Professor Nutt after he criticised the government for upgrading cannabis from a class C drug to a class B drug. The Professor also stated that scientific research showed that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
The Home Secretary could not stomach the scientific conclusions so the messenger had to go. The government had made up its mind about its drug policy and didn’t want the public to be confused with the facts.
Leading scientists are now looking for an assurance that the Government remains committed to proper considerations of the advice of scientist who have spent years engaged in research to determine the way drugs, alcohol and cigarettes impact on the physical, emotional and mental life of human beings.
Most intelligent people have long since realised the damaging impact of alcohol and tobacco on individuals and society with around 10% of the population showing some measure of addiction to alcohol and cigarettes with all the personal and social cost involved – cancer, heart disease, violence, debts, depression and unpredictable behaviour. In comparison, marijuana and certain other drugs are far less dangerous. The government refuses to address the blindingly obvious and instead sacks its own senior advisor. Incidentally, the entire Drug Abuse Advisory Council works on a voluntary basis.
Example Three
The Government’s economic advisor on climate change, Lord Stern of Brentford, publicly encouraged people to become vegetarian as part of the campaign to stop global warming. He made public the meat and dairy industries vast contribution to climate change. The government subsidises millions of pounds of public money into factory farms and importing animal feed grown in various parts of the world after deforestation.
Lord Stern said that livestock globally could account for 18% of all greenhouses gas emissions. When you look at the livestock industry, it’s not just about cows burping methane but pollution caused through the transportation of meat, storing meat and cooking the meat and particularly the impac of human consumption of meat, especially red meat, on health. Vegetarians live healthier lives and make much less demand on our health services.
The government immediately came to the defence of the meat industry. The Chief Scientist for the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Professor Ian Cute, wrote a letter to The Times. “Sir, Giving up meat is not the solution – it would make only a marginal difference to greenhouse gas emissions…..”
Once again, the British government appoints an advisor, Lord Stern, who makes clear specific steps forward, including changing our diet, and then government rejects the science. The Government’s Chief Scientist then states in his letter: “Grazing animals – cows or sheep – are the best way to use this land resource to produce a food suitable for people…Livestock andmeat production has an important role in feeding the world decades ahead.”
No sign there of the government encouraging the meat bosses and meat farmers switching over to use of land for crops, vegetables and fruit that will feed far more people than a handful of cows or sheep in a field munching grass and eating imported animal feed.
Next month, the United Nations holds its Change Chang Conference in Copenhagen. There is nothing to feel enthused about. The rich nations, including the British government, have little or no interest in signing up to a legally binding treaty despite overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, global warming, melting icecaps in the polar regions, deforestation and emissions of destructive pollutants worldwide, especially carbon emissions from human activity.
Governments live in terror of any possible reduction of economic growth. So politicians pay lip service to the world’s 1250 leading scientists, initiated by Nobel Prize winners, and 2500 scientific reviewers, who unanimously agreed that the industrial world and demands of government, business and consumers on resources created changes in climate. The rich nations have to sign up to real cuts immediately in their emissions to reduce the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere AND provide serious financial help to the poor nations. Once again, science takes second place to politics.
The policies of government, who have become agents of business, show little or no regard for the real welfare of humankind and all sentient life. There is only lip service to addressing climate change. We live in a period of Stalinist control over our lives. No doubt, the police will use force to break up peaceful protests in Copenhagen to marginalise the movement for meaningful change. Nothing must stop growth of international business.