What works in one sphere may well work in another

In a post headed by a quotation of Lenin - Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever - Restoring Britain writes about an education paper presented to one of his children, a post well-worth reading and one that every parent who cares about his/her child - and the education he/she receives - should read.

On a similar theme, one of child indoctrination, an article appeared in yesterday's Daily Telegraph by Peter Stanford in which he queries whether the best is being achieved for children in care, in particular where the question of adoption is concerned and asking the question why is the system seizing up. He offers various reasons, one being an institutional bias within the social work profession against white middle-class adopters. Links to the two charities he mentions can be found here and here. (Interestingly, the annual accounts for the first can be found via their website, whilst it appears those of the second cannot.) 

Reports have appeared in the media detailing instances where couples have been refused permission to adopt, or to act as foster carers, for what appear to be bizarre reasons, here for their Christian views on homosexuality and here for once having smacked a child for swearing. As with the education of children, so with the care and adoption of children - in each the 'rules' are set by people over whom the customer has no control.

If we also include children taken into care by social services, a subject on which Christopher Booker has written endless examples where this has been done and has catalogued examples of 'rules' set again by those over whom the people have no control, one has to wonder if there exists an unseen programme to create model citizens of the future - a programme that may have a hidden 'common purpose'?

Not insinuating anything, you understand - as usual, just asking.......

Facts & Figures = Deception

We all have to learn our 'trade' and when dealing with the public most employers ensure that we have some expertise and knowledge of a product or idea prior to our being 'let loose'. Not so it would appear where the Daily Telegraph is concerned, especially in relation to Sebastian Payne who we are informed is a data reporter (what ever the hell that is) and writes about facts and figures in a sensible way.

That the MSM is in the business of misinformation is well known, a talent that young Sebastian appears to have easily grasped in the manner of a duck taking to water. This young lad writes what I believe is termed a 'puff piece' playing down the importance of the European Union and the effect it has on our lives. Whilst acknowledging that a poll explained that voters do not particularly rate Europe as a pressing issue, we then get the 'throw-away' line: "though many of the higher-ranked matters are intrinsically linked to our continued alliance". He then continues:

"Only 10 per cent of voters cited Europe as an issue important to the country, ranking 8th – below the economy, crime and immigration to name a few. For issues important to individual voters, Europe ranks even lower, at 11th place with 8 per cent expressing a concern."

It doesn't appear to have crossed this young man's mind that problems with our economy, crime and immigration are directly related to our membership of the EU - and if it had crossed his mind, he conveniently forgets to mention it. Likewise, earlier in his piece he writes that during last week's PMQs Cameron stated (for the umpteenth time) that he did not see a case for an in/out referendum and that he believed Cameron had judged the public mood correctly; whilst not bothering to acknowledge that where the governance of this country is concerned it is the people who should be asked the specific question and that it is not one that an elected dictator should pre-empt.

Mind you, where the art of misinformation is concerned young Sebastian is in good company, namely that of Roger Helmer against whom Autonomous Mind has another 'pop' in a well-crafted dissection of both Helmer and the 'Useless Eustice Eurosceptics' group of Conservative MPs. On this subject of disinformation Guido Fawkes has a post, one in which if he deleted the word 'theory' would mean that his opinion of  this Useless Eustice movement would be 'bang on the money'.

It is disgraceful that our MSM, who should be informing the public whilst at the same time exposing the disingenuousness of our political elite, continue to avoid their true function - and the newspaper section of the MSM continue to wonder why their circulation figures fall? Where the politial elite and journalists are concerned, as I have said previously, it is virtually impossible to discern in whose pocket is who.

MCC

It is ironic that the initials of what were the governing body of cricket in England, Wales and throughout the world, a game that personified all that was good about our country - our sense of fair play, honour and principle - should become sullied by a politician who should have those same beliefs.

I refer to yet More Conservative Crap being reported by the Daily Telegraph and in particular the latest utterances of William Hague who, in an interview in The Times (£), is apparently blaming the LibDems for his party's inability to be more 'Eurosceptic'. From the Coffee House we learn Hague tells the paper that ‘A point of difference in our manifesto was the aim to repatriate some powers. Clearly that’s something I’m in favour of, but that’s the area we had to compromise on in return for other compromises'. That is, I believe, the first admission by a politician that two parties of opposing views were prepared to ditch sections of their manifestos in order to pursue their personal political careers. 

That Hague obviously has no honour nor principle I believe I amply demonstrated in a previous post and which coupled with this latest interview illustrates that we can no more trust what Hague says anymore than we can trust what Cast-Iron Dave says - the latter who, according to Neil Hamilton in his address to the Ukip conference in Eastbourne, appears to be suffering from metal fatigue.

With Cameron telling the Liaison Committee that he believes any Treaty change unlikely in the foreseeable future being immediately contradicted by Merkel and others, the point made by the Coffee House that any opportunity to achieve the impossible - repatriation of powers - is likely to occur during the lifetime of this Parliament whilst Hague and his cronies are dependant on LibDem voting support is one well made. I am reminded of the old adage that when in a hole etc etc..........

When considering the political elite's belief that membership of the European Union has, in Cameron's own words, "no case to answer" it is perhaps again ironic that Hague's own words may well come back to haunt him (and it won't be the first time - see previous linked post) when history comes to pass judgement on the subject. From the Telegraph article:

"would stand as a monument in time to how group–think can go so seriously away from what is realistic"

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...........................

Hague - Foreign Secretary?

Peter Oborne has an article in the Daily Telegraph online, one that will presumably appear in Saturday's print edition of the newspaper, entitled "After years of shameful neglect, William Hague has restored the Foreign Office to its proper dignity". Commenting on the changes that Hague has introduced, mainly in procedures and the raising of the FO's profile - a subject on which I am unable to comment, but one that Charles Crawford as an ex-diplomat would be so qualified - my only comment and criticism of this article is that it illustrates journalism at its worst, which bearing in mind the journalist concerned is only to be expected.

Oborne writes:

"The Foreign Secretary has also regained control over foreign policy itself."

Err, as a member of the European Union do we not have a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who has just set up at great cost Embassies throught the world; and who is, in effect Foreign Policy Chief. Did not Joao Vale de Almeida, installed as EU Ambassador to the United States, not famously state that in his area code, he should be called first, whilst insisting that he did not wish to impose himself on member states' ambassadors, who will continue to oversee "bilateral matters." but where a common position existed, he was the one leading the show?

Hague may have the title of Foreign Secretary just as Cameron has the title Prime Minister - unfortunately neither possess the full powers of either post. They both may throw their weight around, now and again, but then who actually pays attention.....................

A tad misinformative Mr. Oborne, if I may say so.