I have 3 children, all educated privately. At no point have I told the local authority about them, there being no reason for me to do so nor has the local authority ever asked me about any children I might have. So if I were minded to educate mine at home I would just go ahead and do it and ignore the state.
Surely this falls under the scope of Protocol 1, Article 2 of the ECHR, which would prevent the Government from forcibly educating children according to its agenda?
Sorry to post about something off topic, but while on my lunch break, at work, I went to read your website and it had been filtered under the "Weapons" category. Really pissed me off.
Surely this falls under the scope of Protocol 1, Article 2 of the ECHR, which would prevent the Government from forcibly educating children according to its agenda?Probably not in practice. Compulsory school attendance is fairly mainstream on the continent. If schools are not always state run, they are usually state approved.
And where there's a freedom there's an interest group trying to curtail it. The state is not rigorous enough for some in merely attempting to control parents who educate their own children:
I sometimes strongly disagree with Mr Peter Hitchens - but he is correct on this one.
The idea that the government in charge of perhaps the worst "eduction system" in the Western World is to set itself up as the judge of home schooling is absurd.
And the idea that this is to prevent "child abuse" is a lie.
More generally this "draw up plans - meet with officers....." approach is the way of operating that has destroyed so much in Britian (from manufacturing industry to social events in Church halls).
If people have to fill in endless forms and deal with Civil Servants and Local Government Officers they will just give up.
The ordinary British people are just no good at such things - no matter how good they may be at such little things as educating their children, inventing and manufacturing new products, and so on and so on.
Once the paper work and the officals come in, the activity (social, economic, or educational) is doomed.
As for freedom of speech.
Of course this whole policy (by the aptly named Mr "Badman") is about CRUSHING free speech and freedom generally.
Badman is a bureaucrat. His report recommends more bureaucracy. Why is anyone surprised?
The mindset of Whitehall was revealed by a civil servant at the Home Office at the time of yet another futile crackdown on the legal ownership of firearms: "Controls are good." That's what they think. That's what they all think, at all times and in all circumstances. If they did not think that, they would not be able to function in the mind numbing, brain dead, intellectual wasteland of the British bureaucratic state.
While I completely agree this is an unwarranted imposition on homeschoolers, the internet greatly ameliorates that imposition. All that is necessary is for the brave pioneers that negotiate the labyrinth to post their experiences and documentation. Subsequent applicants can then download boilerplate docs to submit and answers to memorise.
That's how we expats cope with the demands of the local immigration authorities and it works fine. Remember bureaucrats want an easy life like anyone else. Supply them with complete documentation and all their boxes ticked so they can show they did their job and everyone's happy.
We just this year beat a scheme in New Hampshire to try to impose regulation on Home Schoolers.
It was my first trip to the Capital, after moving as part of the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/). There were a couple thousand people at the state house, giving testimony and submitting cards showing their opinion of the new legislation. Almost none of them were in favor.
I concluded, upon seeing the crowd and hearing their passion on the subject, that my decision to become a Porcupine was a good one.
Rich you must be using the word "Porcupine" in a different sense to the old libertarian sense of someone who has given up on other people and just hides out in a stronghold (secret or not).
What you are saying is that many people still believe in liberty - and that they can cooperate together to defeat statism.
Paul, the FSP has adopted the porcupine as their logo or mascot, not precisely in the sense you meant but more along the lines of "I'm non-threatening but don't touch me". See the logo at the top of their website. Their annual gathering is called a "PorcFest".
I'm still stunned that Mr. Badman isn't a fake name.
Many thanks Laird - I had forgotten.
I apolgize for my error.