For thinking individuals, alarm bells should be ringing as soon as they recognise the involvement in the debate about Named Persons of prating religionists. People who put faith before facts and dogma before reason. People who hold absolute belief in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence to be the purpose and ultimate achievement of the human intellect.

People who have forsaken knowledge, reason and enlightenment in favour of medieval superstition, primitive fear and sectarian intolerance.

When considering the issue of child protection, who but a reckless fool would turn, in the expectation of a rational assessment of policy, to those who worship a deity notorious for its cruel and hateful attitude to children?

If this was not enough to set off those warning klaxons, take a look at who these religious zealots are associated with. Self-serving politicians interested only in scoring points against hated rivals. And irresponsible media mouthpieces interested only in flexing their manipulative muscles.

Were this not enough, even the most moderately intelligent person who has not completely relinquished the capacity to think for themselves should be deeply suspicious of the highly-coloured, blatantly pejorative and unashamedly emotive language deployed by those who, for whatever dubious reason, so vehemently oppose efforts to improve the effectiveness of systems and procedures intended to safeguard our children and young people.

Terms such as ‘spies’, ‘snoopers’, ‘state guardians’, and worse, have no place in serious discussion of child welfare policy. This is not the language of rational debate. This is the language of unreasoning fanaticism. This is not language intended to inform. It is language intended to inflame.

Such language is used to obscure rather than illuminate. We are entitled to wonder exactly what agenda this disreputable rabble are trying to conceal in a fog of grotesquely misleading rhetoric.

Views: 155285
Please follow and like us 🙂

5 thoughts on “Alarms!

  1. Proud Cybernat

    I wonder what view the BBC has on this, Peter? I wonder if there is anyone that organisation might have thought our young people might have needed protection from in the past? Anyone BBC?

    The junior management there totally knew what was going on and, over the years, that junior management became the senior management. And yet STILL they did not crack a light. Disgusting organisation.

    S0–what say you BBC? Do you think this legislation might have protected our young people from one of your own?

  2. Scunnered Scot

    This article does little more than smear opponents of the scheme, followed by innuendo suggesting that opponents don’t also have concerns for the best interest of children, and for good measure, a wee pop at those who suggest the scheme is Orwellian. Anyone who looks at the ramifications of this scheme, as struck down, would surely take time to consider the possibility that law which allows the sharing of confidential information and relies on the subjective idiosyncrasies of individual Named Persons, each with their own interpretation of ‘wellbeing’, is bad law.

    Address the arguments. Play the ball, not the player.

Leave a Reply to Scunnered Scot Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :