NEW YORK — The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.
The U.N.'s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an "informed approach to effective sex, relationships" and HIV education that they say is essential for "all young people."
How on earth did we survive as kids without the United Nations looking after our minds?
As an ex-Brit, I’m well aware of the authorities’ love of surveillance and snooping, but even I, a pessimistic cynic, am amazed by the governments latest plan: to install Orwell’s telescreens in 20,000 homes.
£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs.
The state continues to entrench itself into every aspect of peoples’ lives, to monitor and regulate everything.
It comes after a housing trust installed up to 112 CCTV cameras in their eight three-storey blocks and pointing towards residents' front doors.
And people wonder why abolition of private property is always pursued by totalitarian regimes/ ideologies…
People living there say the move is an invasion of their privacy and fear they will be spied on 24 hours a day.
Tenant Phillip Mays, 44, was one of the first to be affected after a camera was installed outside his flat.
He said: 'They'll be able to sit watching who comes and goes into each of our flats 24 hours a day.
'If we were in prison we could expect security like that, but not in our own home.
It isn’t security, it’s surveillance. How does it make you more secure? Criminals will cover their faces. Only the law abiding will have their behaviour recorded, just like only the law abiding will be affected by draconian laws.
And again, the same old ‘fighting anti-social behaviour’ excuses are trotted out. Disruptive behaviour by feral brats, which just so happens to be the direct consequence of the welfare state and the governments’ war on families.
This is how these bastards operate. They destroy any and all institutions of independence, companionship, support that people naturally form and maintain, whether that be communities, real policing, nuclear families etc. The resulting chaos can then be then be used as part of the problem-reaction-solution for justifying more tyranny and restrictions.
Stronger drinks - and larger measures - have become more popular in recent years, and the study warns that drinkers could be unwittingly risking their health even if they do not go out on “binges”.
Jonny Forsyth, senior drink analyst for Mintel, the leading market research analysts who produced the report, said: “The over-45s are drinking more regularly but not thinking they’re in danger.
Danger? Oh no!
“Alcohol has also got stronger so it doesn’t take as much to get your units.
Alcohol has gotten stronger eh. Don’t they mean alcoholic drinks? I guess in their rush to panic people they forgot to actually think about what the hell they were writing. Same as with cannabis. I’m surprised they haven’t linked it to terrorism. Yet.
Note the repeated statements about ‘units’. Your state-mandated allowed alcohol intake, those same units that are completely fabricated.
The Mintel report warns that although the total volume of alcohol being consumed is falling, as wine overtakes beer in popularity, people are often buying stronger drinks without realising it.
That is an assumption. It is also highly offensive, they assume people are too thick to read alcohol contents on bottles. But that is the general attitude to people these days, hence the nanny state, to protect you from yourselves.
The Office for National Statistics was forced last year to change its method for calculation safe drinking levels to reflect increasing strengths, as well as the trend for larger wine glasses.
So, alcohol use is falling, but the state forces the ONS to cook its books in order to keep up the War on Drinkers.
A large 250ml glass of wine is now classed as three units, as is a pint of continental lager.
Says who? Not me, so fuck ‘em. Now they have indoctrinated the public about these moon-units, they are slowly changing the goal posts, lowering the threshold of ‘acceptable alcohol use’ and trying to force people to feel guilty about drinking (again). Give it time and they will be classing the 250ml glass as four units, then five etc. The result is the same amount of drinking can be manipulated to convey a false image of ‘more units being consumed’.
So what really is the point of this article, apart from demonising innocent people living their lives.
Professor Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians, said: "This study shows very clearly that our problems with alcohol are not confined to binge-drinking youngsters – there is a striking increase in overall consumption in the last decade that mirrors the rising deaths from cirrhosis and other health consequences. Many regular drinkers who don’t consider themselves at risk are undoubtedly exceeding safe limits as drinks get stronger.
"This has to be tackled by providing better unit labelling information, but if we are to make an impact on the escalating health damage this must also be accompanied by bringing down the total amount we drink as a nation through a minimum unit price for alcohol.”
My emphasis. See, there is always an agenda with these prop pieces. I have said it before and I’ll say it again.
The biggest problems we have are not drinking, or cannabis or whatever. It’s the government itself. It needs to GO.
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to assign equal anonymous rights to both rape victim and accused until verdict is given.”
Details of Petition:
“It seems more than obvious that whilst rape is a very serious crime, being accused of rape is just as serious. With rape, the stain of being accused does not wash away with the verdict, it stains a character and prevents an equal footing guarenteed by law, especially since until the verdict is given, the accused is innocent. There is no plausible argument for releasing the name of the accused as this does nothing to further justice, but only serves to punish them outside of the judicial system. The only punishment for rape, should be passed down by a judge, not by newspapers, their peers, or their employers. Therefore revealing their identity is an unjust punishment without basis in english law. We therefore request that ALL parties to a rape case are anonymous, until a verdict is reached.”
The response is as follows, with my comments;
The Government does not agree that releasing the name of an accused is a punishment and does not agree that there should be anonymity for defendants in rape cases. The Government is satisfied that the law as it stands is operating satisfactorily and has no plans to change it.
Well it is not satisfactory for the ever increasing numbers of men now finding themselves the victim of fraudulent rape accusations, is it?
Complainants in rape cases are granted anonymity in order to encourage them to come forward. The potential harm and distress caused by publicity could discourage complainants from bringing proceedings and thus enable very serious offenders to escape justice.
And what of the very real harm and distress caused by tarnishing innocent men with the horrible brush of ‘rapist’. Men have their lives threatened, been physically attacked, their families and friends attacked, livelihoods ruined, even committed suicide, purely because they are not offered the protection of anonymity until proven guilty.
Note I said proven guilty, not proven innocent, which is what this government policy seems to assume for men in this situation. So much for equality and so much for the Rule of Law.
Defendants in rape cases are not properly comparable with complainants but with defendants in other kinds of criminal case. Defendants accused of other criminal offences do not have anonymity, regardless of the offence involved.
Correct in a way, defendants in rape cases are not properly comparable. Defendants, when their name is plastered all over the media, have their lives destroyed regardless of the outcome. The damage is already done.
This is about trying to make examples of innocent men to please feminists. This is about one rule for the accuser and another for the accused. This is about the government doing its best to encourage rape accusations, whether they be true or not and pushing for convictions, whether the man is guilty or not, for higher statistics which inevitably equals more laws and regulations over peoples’ behaviour and more money for feminist, man and family hating quangos.
This is about demonising all men as rapists, instilling fear and encouraging female mistrust of all men.
This is state-sanctioned misandry for power and political gain, nothing else.
![big-brother-poster[1]](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_LLzbnwqj58w/SpfH_TWZt1I/AAAAAAAAANk/co7IoTp_VdI/s1600-h/big-brother-poster%5B1%5D%5B2%5D.jpg "big-brother-poster[1]")
Posts
