Baby P: What’s this got to do with libertarianism? (Big-States, guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.)

I’ll tell you.

David Davis

When you beget (as you do, for one does) a child, and bring it into the world, then, whose property is it? Apart from the fundamental Human Rights aspect, which is that that (human) child belongs to itself, it is to all intents and purposes “yours”. While it is of an age when it can’t legally or informedly take certain kinds of decisions (all for obvious reasons) then you own it. It is yours. It is your child. I don’t think even the most absolutists Popes or Emperors, with the possible exception of sadly many failed civilisations and Papistic juntas authorities would have disagreed with this position.

This sad business of “Baby P” (the poor sad bugger MUST have had a _name_, for Christ’s sake, for he was Human!!!) is sadly illuminating. The “agencies” which were “involved”, and the “practitioners” who “lost opportunities” , are clearly not interested in the individual fates of individual children, at all. Firstly, we are never to know (officially) who this poor person was. Secondly, and worse, even, the organisational structure, which we have paid for (who else did?) will close ranks about itself and anodynely reassure us all that “lessons have been learned” (but I thought they said that earlier?)

This is part of what Theodore Dalrymple has just said:-

The first is that the work of child protection is very difficult, emotionally wearing and even dangerous. Staff turnover in the organisations that carry it out is often rapid. Most British paediatricians in training have experienced threats from parents or guardians, and 5 per cent have been assaulted sufficiently badly to need medical treatment. If this is true of doctors, who generally still retain a modicum of public respect, the situation of social workers is likely to be even worse. There is nothing like a constant fear of violence for undermining both the will to do anything and the judgment.

The second is that the fundamental purpose of the British public service is to provide a meal-and-mortgage-ticket for those who work in it, especially at management level. The ostensible purpose of an organisation is rarely its real purpose. I know this from my experience in the Health Service.

The State can’t assume ultimate control over the lives of all, until it can dictate not only the fate of children but also the begetting and ownership of them. People who will be designated as good “guardians” of children will be things such as “Lawyers”, “Administrators”, and the like. People who will not be so designated will be things like “Agricultural Workers”, “Retail Assistants”, ” Plaster  Ers “, “Brick Layers”, “Wait Trons”, and the like.

I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.

Mechanisms that make it look like ordinary people (sometimes carefully-chosen like in this case) can’t or oughtn’t to be allowed to have little children near them, are good for the advancement of this kind of State control. Here’s what we said yesterday, in the beginnings of our rat-smelling-operation.


  1. The phenomenon of professionalism is interesting: it is a means of regularising bribery & corruption, and functions through the rationing of derivative forms of ‘scarcity’.

    The purpose is to enable a coterie to make status over lifetime career-periods; and (similarly to corporation adstaffs), to evade /personal/ responsibility, through such dodges as ‘boards of professional responsibility” & /cet/. Broadly, a false dichotomy is set up, as between the ‘public service’ and ‘private sector’:

    In the public service, large numbers of non-productive ‘helping professionals’ between themselves deduct from the wealth of the community something like an equivalent to the grand thefts of a few hundred equally non-producing CEOs. In turn, the public for purposes of disinformation is treated to the spectacle of, for example, eighty or hundred thousand quid senior QPCs going after the occasional 150 or five hundred million pound, bent, investment banker. These cases more often than not are tarted up with tales of cocaine sex with the fourteen-year-old babysitter, her boyfriend and his sister, and declasse episodes of dogging in Barking. This mainly is in order to summon the ire of a resentful underclass who may not understand finance but most certainly do television appreciation; and, who universally delight esp in seeing their betters done for accomplishing peccadilloes in a style denied the lower orders….

    The point being that /none/ of these gentry on the (mis)management level of society could hope to so disport themselves in the first place without comprehensive government subsidy, in one form or another, of all players.

Leave a Reply