Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Ralph Lucas on constitutional reform | Main | Need a new policy idea? »

Hitchens on HE

Peter Hitchens discusses Home Ed today, and notes Ed Balls' decision to demand registration of home educators, with compulsory school for those who refuse to comply. Hitchens also notes another interesting decision by Balls. Children who have not received the MMR vaccination will be banned from schools.For these children, home education will be compulsory.

He hasn't thought this through, has he? A bit of a Balls-up, I would say.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (6)


This has cheered me up.

So if we don't vaccinate they can't send our kids to school even if they consider us to be crap home edders.


Why didn't I see that one before

Even if people want to vaccinate they could do it privately and pretend they haven't.

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterelizabeth
"Children who have not received the MMR vaccination will be banned from schools.For these children, home education will be compulsory.

He hasn't thought this through, has he? A bit of a Balls-up, I would say."


all he has to do now is to classify failure to immunise as abuse and <i>voila!</i> the proportion of HE children subject to abuse goes through the roof - he gets to prove the case he needed proving.
Jun 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterCleanthes
There was an interesting reaction this week in the Observer to an article the previous week about 'MMR dodgers' (which tells you what line it was taking). Apart from the obligatory letter at the top from a Dr Utterfraud, everyone else was suitably sceptical. As an MMR dodger myself (on behalf of my children) I've never been clear what the worry was - if vaccinations worked as described, then it is only those who haven't had it who are 'at risk'. The dismissal of side-effects (I also know the mother of a severely disabled child who was fine until she had the jab) is at variance with the amount of compensation paid in the US, and there are plenty of other factors in the risk-benefit analysis that rarely get aired.

I would happily educate my youngest at home if the vaccination police forbade school, but it's hard not to agree with Cleanthes that the 'child abuse' angle would be far more tempting for our modern witchfinder generals. Did Blair ever tell us if or when Leo had his jabs?
Jun 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

The argument is that high proportions of vaccinated people will shield those who haven't had the jab, like babies, from the diseases i.e. if there's nobody around to get the disease from, you'll be safe even if you haven't been innoculated.
Jun 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill
"those who haven't had the jab, like babies"

How ironic! One of the less well publicised features of vaccination against childhood diseases is that the immunity conferred is not the same as that obtained by experiencing the disease itself, with the result that breast-fed babies are more susceptible to, say, measles if their mothers have not had it themselves. Law of unintended consequences and all that...
Jun 16, 2009 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
By strange coincidence (I was looking for something else entirely) I stumbled on this:

Interesting to see the reference (further down) to David Southall and what appears to be another fake charity!

I hear what you say, Bish, about those who haven't had the jab, but that shouldn't be a problem in school, surely?
Jun 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>