It's about time only government-approved adults had contact with children

Or, so, apparently, the current government believe.
Not content with treating the adult population like children, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have decided that we need something called the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Independent as in "politically motivated", safeguarding as in "conducting expensive and pointless administration" and authority as in "self-appointed". From their website:

"We will assess every person who wants to work or volunteer with vulnerable people. Potential employees and volunteers will need to apply to register with the ISA."

They'll have to pay too - £64 for the privilege of proving that they are not a dangerous criminal or paedophile. And we aren't talking small numbers. Apparently, something like 11 million people will have to register.

In situations like this, I find it difficult not to look for some other motivation than the stated object of the ISA. Because let's face it, it isn't going to work at all. The government's old boys network of incompetent IT contractors wouldn't know a secure database if they found one on a USB stick in the back of a taxi. And even if they did, this would do absolutely nothing to stop first time offenders, or those who have otherwise steered clear of the grasping arm of the law.

It reminds me of an endearing quote regarding the banning of parents from their children's school sports day:

"If we let parents into the school they would have been free to roam the grounds.

All unsupervised adults must be kept away from children."

That's unsupervised adults as in, the kids' parents. They have not been appointed by the state, and hence, are suspect. These days, suspects too, as the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is something neither the government or police seem to be able to tolerate.

The natural end would seem to be that only the state appointed and approved can be part of the normal upbringing of a child. We already have disturbing stories of children being forcibly seized from seemingly adequate parents.

And if the fact that the idea that the state - any state - is best placed to raise children is distasteful (who cares if Plato thought it would be great?) is less concerning than the moral values espoused and then broken in equal measure by an odious succession of British governments. I wouldn't turn to them for advice in a pub; much less entrust them as the caretakers of the nation's future generations.

Are there any parents amongst this retarded goverment of ours?

So, our loyal servants in the UK government continue their seemingly unstoppable campaign to, well, stop us doing anything that doesn't fit with their idea of a model society and their religious, cultural and ethical values. Most recently lying through their teeth to "denormalise" (shudder) drinking, which follows hot on the heels of a successful campaign to make smokers demeaned and despised (yes, lies featured heavily in that process too), yes, our misguidedly paternalistic governing fathers are coming for your vice next. What was it Doug Stanhope said about vice cops in the USA? Oh yeah:
But then you think about it vice cops don't fight real crime; that's not their job. Real cops fight real crime. A vice cop's only job is to fuck up the party...

Make no mistake, if you aren't silently queueing for your latest slice of government propaganda, punctuated infrequently by words of praise for our fearless leaders, our puritanical overlords are coming for you, and your chosen vice, whether that is a type of food, or a social, religious or political idea.

But what I don't get is, are there any parents amongst this retarded government of ours? Would they seriously use the same tactics when raising their own children?

I see my job as a parent to prepare my child for the world ahead; to equip him with the necessary skills and experience to make his own decisions, which will hopefully be the right ones. But he's going to do things I don't want him to, and make mistakes. I know I did, and it's pretty likely he'll do the same. As a teenager, he'll get drunk underage, and probably experiment with drugs. He'll sleep with girls he has do desire to be in a long term relationship with and may even commit some petty crime like shoplifting.

And then, he'll learn in the only way a child truly can - by experiencing things and then deciding for himself whether it's something to pursue. Does anyone really believe that they can tell a child to do something, and they will blindly follow along? This is why not everyone smokes, and not everyone who's tried crack is a crackhead. People exercise their freedom to choose, and hey, most of the time they seem to choose pretty well. If you deny your child experience, then you will create a child without the ability to learn from their experience. A child doomed to constantly making the wrong choices.

Now, there's a cut-off point. At various points (depending on what is being chosen) a child is too young to genuinely exercise free will. They can't be allowed to experience some things, and have to be physically made to do others because do not have the experience or skills to choose themselves. A baby doesn't really have free will at all, and a toddler is on the path to learning it. By degrees, we give our children the freedom appropriate to their knowledge and experience. At a certain age (our society seems confused as to whether this is 16 or 18) a child is considered to have complete free will, and is then able to make their own decisions.

Clearly our government either believes us to be akin to babies or toddlers, or has a very different approach to parenting to me. One that will undoubtedly lead to a generation that does not know how to exercise free will; one that does not have the equipment to make the right choices based on new experiences. One that has been denied something that is essential to them as a human being able to stand alone and exercise freedom.

Perhaps I'm developing alzheimers. How could I forget? That's the intention of this government, isn't it?