The Truth About IPP Sentences

Cameron’s moral crusade is all about state control

Cameron's moral crusade is merely a means of expanding government control of our lives.

Cameron’s moral crusade is merely a means of expanding government control of our lives.

David Cameron’s moral crusade, based around ‘protecting children’ from everything evil or harmful, has very little to do with child protection but has everything to do with increasing government control of the lives of the rest of us.

More so even than the previous Blairite government, Cameron has ignored the rights of adults to live their lives in freedom and has instead caved in to the vested interests of feminist groups, child protection charities and those who would have us all live in a nanny state, totally reliant on the government for all we have.

TheOpinionSite.org must point out that the clever part of all this is the way in which Cameron has specifically and frequently claimed that his principal aim is to reduce the control of people’s lives by the state and to give us all more freedom and more choice.

Unfortunately, because the British are inherently trusting of others, most British citizens have failed miserably to read these very obvious signs of ever increasing state control over our lives.

As we have pointed out in previous articles, it was Hitler who first used the excuse of child protection in order to steal the rights and freedoms of adults.

Indeed, in his book “Mein Kampf”, Hitler says the following:

“The people will bear any limitation of their civil liberties or freedoms if it can be shown that such limitations are imposed for the sake of their children.”

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that most of Hitler’s writings can be described as ideological ravings, it is equally true that his use of children and the generation and manipulation of public fear were monumentally important in creating his unstoppable rise to power.

If David Cameron was genuinely interested in protecting children from evil and harm, he would have started by increasing the age of criminal responsibility from the current and ludicrously low age of 10 years old.

Surely, anyone who genuinely cares about the welfare of children would not sanction and impose the incarceration of primary school children for actions that many of them simply do not understand?

Cameron’s moral crusade is currently based around child pornography – or as it is now fashionable to call it, images of child abuse.

Cameron’s belief, fired no doubt by the NSPCC and other organisations, is that to refer to ‘child porn’ is simply not sufficiently emotive as the description ‘child abuse images’.

While real images of abuse are of course horrific and should never be allowed, the fact is that the current law now allows for any picture of anyone under 18 – even fully clothed – to be described by law enforcement agencies as an ‘image of child abuse’.

This is as a direct result of lobbying by child protection charities desperate for money and by feminist MPs desperate for publicity.

Aside from child abuse, there are many other examples of how Cameron’s moral crusade is using children to further state control of our lives.

TheOpinionSite.org would draw the reader’s attention to just a few of them:

  • The government’s insistence that certain non-image-based websites should be blocked
  • Measures to combat the supposed ‘sexualisation of children’, whatever that means
  • The plain packaging of cigarettes
  • The need for 25-year-olds to produce ID proving that they are over 18
  • The prohibition of taking photographs of friends and families in swimming pools, parks and other public places
  • The mandatory installation of filters for the purpose of censoring the Internet
  • The never ending increase in the number of child protection charities, agencies and organisations delivering government sanctioned ‘training’ and ‘education’ for a profit
  • The secret surveillance by GCHQ of emails, Internet usage, mobile phones and social media through Prism and Tempora

When taken individually, it could be argued that any one of the above measures represent nothing more than an enactment of common sense.

What is not obvious to many is that Cameron’s moral crusade allows for a huge degree of ‘mission creep’ aimed at curtailing the freedoms and liberties of adults.

The introduction of various ‘registers”s and ‘disclosure schemes’ is an example.

To understand this, we need to consult history:

In 1997, the Sex Offenders Register was created, the idea being that police would know the names and addresses of all those who had been convicted of any sexual offence, not just those committed against children.

Since that time, measure after measure, requirement after requirement has been added to the SOR or, to give it its proper name, the Sex Offender Notification Requirements.

Every single additional measure since 1997 has been added either as a result of direct lobbying by child protection charities or by so-called ‘campaigns’ run by populist, tabloid newspapers.

Few, if any of the additional requirements have ever been debated on the floor of the House of Commons and on no occasion on record has any MP ever voted against even a single measure added to the Notification Requirements.

TheOpinionSite.org recognises that to many people, these measures to protect children from those convicted of sex offences can only be a good thing.

What most people do not understand however is that most sex offending is perpetrated by those who have no criminal record whatsoever and usually by family members against each other.

Even the NSPCC agrees with that statement, lest anyone should think that we are making it up.

Now however, we also have a register for those convicted of violent offences and domestic violence; both issues that are populist in nature when related to political ambition.

These new measures are in addition to the infamous ‘CRB Check’ system where one does not have to have committed any offence whatsoever in order to be included on the CRB list of ‘unsuitable’ people.

We would suggest therefore that the introduction of these various registers and disclosure schemes such as ‘Sarah’s Law’ and ‘Claire’s Law’ are merely the start of an increasingly all-encompassing spread of government control which will inevitably lead to most people living in the UK eventually being on some kind of register or other.

We should also make it absolutely clear that the measures above are not being ‘proposed’ by government but already actually exist.

There are other more subtle measures to prepare today’s children for state governance of their life:

  • Some schools take fingerprints of their pupils, often using fingerprint readers for registration or for obtaining access to school meals.
  • Every child in Britain who attends any sort of school inevitably ends up on a government database.
  • Many schoolchildren have ID cards issued to them by the school and have had for many years, thus preparing them to be asked as adults at every opportunity for some form of ID, the request coming from supermarkets, pubs and bars and of course, the police.

TheOpinionSite.org asked some students what they thought about having to produce ID on so many occasions. Their reply confirmed everything we have said so far:

“It doesn’t make much difference to us,” said one, “as we have always had to produce ID for something or other even at school. I suppose it’s something that we’ve just grown up with.”

Cameron’s moral crusade is also very much about David Cameron’s attempt to stay in power after the next election.

The man is so disliked – some might say almost universally – and so distrusted that his chances of winning an overall majority are very slim indeed.

He is hated by the low paid and the poor, hated by the middle classes for the squeeze on living standards attributed to present government policies and the upper classes don’t care anyway; they can always leave the country whenever they want to.

Cameron’s only hope is to exploit the fear and paranoia of parents for the safety, welfare and education of their children.

A fear and paranoia incidentally which has been artificially manufactured not just by this present government but also by that of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair before him.

In their willingness to suffer limitations of their own liberties for the sake of their children, Britain’s adults are failing to see and failing to recognise the constant erosion of individual freedom that surrounds us all.

At the risk of repeating ourselves, TheOpinionSite.org may not be entirely wrong in suggesting that politicians generally couldn’t care less about children, their safety or their welfare other than in political terms.

The only possible exception being the welfare of their own children, even at the expense of the welfare of others.

Politicians using a Trojan horse to achieve their aims is nothing new; the technique has been used since politics was invented.

Politicians being blatantly dishonest, lying and misleading isn’t new either; that’s also been around for ever.

The difference today is that we have the Internet and social media; both methods of instant communication and of disseminating information, opinions and doctrine.

Every government in the world hates the Internet or, to be more precise, hates the fact that ordinary people have open access to the Internet and can use it to express their often unpopular views.

One politician told TheOpinionSite.org:

“…the bloody Internet is the curse of modern politics. Governments used to be able to rule the people but now the Internet means that MPs really do have to serve the people as was originally intended.

“While this may be great in principle, it’s almost impossible to deliver in practice. In order to do anything, politicians must be re-elected and that’s really all any MP cares about.”

Honest words, perhaps surprisingly, to come from the mouth of a politician. However, we have no doubt whatsoever that were we to name the politician who gave us their opinion so freely, they would deny having ever said any such thing.

The reality therefore is that as in the mythical ‘Land of the free’ – the United States – citizens in the UK are also losing their freedoms and their liberties as a result of the ever increasing introduction of measures and restrictions put in place supposedly for ‘the protection of children’.

The difference between the US and the UK however is that people living in the UK are losing more freedoms and losing them faster than anywhere else in the Western world.

What British parents need to understand is that if their own freedoms and liberties are eroded and eventually taken away, their children will also lose those freedoms and liberties.

It should also be remembered that once any government removes, limits or curtails any freedom or liberty enjoyed by its citizens, that freedom or liberty is gone for ever; it will never be given back.

Cameron’s moral crusade is in our view a fraud.

Cameron’s moral crusade does not address real issues of child protection or welfare.

Cameron’s moral crusade is entirely driven by political ambition and populist opinion.

Cameron’s moral crusade risk eroding the freedoms and liberties of adults – and their children.

TheOpinionSite.org would suggest to its many readers that the time has come to put the children on one side for a moment and to concentrate on the welfare and freedom of their parents.

To do otherwise is to ignore the ever increasing controls used against UK citizens by the present government (and that which will inevitably succeed it) and to invite the state to take over our lives entirely. As it is, we are already signing up for greater government control of our lives and therefore the lives of the very children we are supposedly being encouraged to ‘protect’.

(Discuss this further in our Forum)

5 Responses to Cameron’s moral crusade is all about state control

  1. JdL
    January 2, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    This is my first visit to your site and my initial impression is positive. If anything, I think you’re too apologetic over going against orthodox opinions. I do recognize, however, that strategic considerations dictate trying to woo people gently, not slap them hard in the face.

    As your motto is “…where we tell it as it really is”, I’m guessing you’re based in Britain, not America, where one would almost certainly say “…where we tell it like it is”. (another clue, I suppose, is “Discover the hidden agenda behind UK criminal laws and government policies”).

    I’ll bookmark you and look forward to reading more.

  2. JH
    December 2, 2013 at 2:20 am

    A brilliant article Mr Peytors which provides a clear insight into the present state of our so-called democracy, and where it’s heading.

    Our administrations don’t care about or even like children any more than they do any other human type; it’s simply that they see children as a valuable commodity. For the Government that commodity helps them get votes; and for all the agencies and NGOs (and ‘pretend’ charities) it’s a source of income.

    The English mentality – a combination of ignorance, paranoia, prejudice, vigilantism (I doubt vigilante thugs have any love for children), and schadenfreude – must take a large share of the responsibility for the ease with which self-serving governments persuade citizens to give up their freedoms. I suspect the French would never let their governments get away with such oppression.

    I agree with Arthur above – we must wake up to what is really happening on this nasty little island – now.

  3. SamB
    December 2, 2013 at 1:47 am

    No-one, including police who I have asked has ever been able to answer this question :
    if viewing a ‘child porn’ or ‘child abuse’ photos is abusing the victim all over again as police, judges, prosecutors and ‘child protection experts’ claim…what happens when police etc view them in the course of an investigation?
    Are they too abusing the child or is this abuse somehow temporarily suspended ?
    One policeman I asked became quite hostile and a ‘protection expert’ accused me of being a ‘pedos best friend’ by simply asking a logical question.

    • Raymond Peytors - theopinionsite.org
      December 2, 2013 at 11:30 am

      Editor’s note: You are quite correct. Police are not liable to prosecution if they view such images as part of their duties or as part of an investigation. – Ed

  4. Arthur
    December 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    This article is so true.

    Why can’t anyone else see that this child protection stuff is just a political ploy to get more control.

    Come on people – wake up!!

Leave a Reply

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

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.