Maggie Atkinson, is the ‘Chiidren’s Commissioner’:
First of all, what is a commissioner?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Commissioner is in principle the title given to a member of a commission or to an individual who has been given a commission (official charge or authority to do something, the noun’s second meaning).
In practice the title of commissioner has evolved to include a variety of senior officials, often sitting on a specific commission. In particular, commissioner frequently refers to senior police or government officials. A High Commissioner is equivalent to an ambassador, originally between the United Kingdom and the Dominions sharing the British Monarch as head of state and now between all Commonwealth states whether Commonwealth Realms, Commonwealth Republics or Commonwealth states having their own monarchs.
From the October Revolution in 1917 until the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, the Soviet government as well as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its predecessors used commissioner (in Russian комиссар or commissar) as a term for multiple positions. From 1917 until 1946 ministers of government were called people’s commissars (and ministries were called “people’s commissariats”). In workplaces a commissar was appointed to assure that communist political doctrine was observed. In military units such commissars were also called the политрук (politruk, literally “political hand”) or замполит (zampolit, or deputy commander for political affairs). By contrast, a военный комиссар (voyennyy komissar), or military commissar, was merely a local military official in charge of supervising the induction of military draftees.
Children’s Commissioner for England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Children’s Commissioner for England was established under the Children Act 2004 to be the independent voice of children and young people and to champion their interests and bring their concerns and views to the national arena.
11 MILLION is the national organisation led by the Commissioner that supports the 11 million children and young people in England to have their voices heard. The current Commissioner is Dr Margaret Atkinson. The office is a non-departmental public body.
What is 11 MILLION?
11 MILLION is the organisation led by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson. 11 MILLION makes sure that adults in charge listen to the views of children and young people.
So, there is no commission, but there is a commissioner.
What sick idiot came up with the idea was it set up this nauseating 11 Million organism? If they want children to have a voice, why not give them the vote; by their logic, then they would have a voice AND power.
The whole thing is a Frankenstinian monstrosity, designed to collectivise children into a group that can be manipulated via the corrupt and sinister idea of ‘Children’s Rights’ and worthless consultations so that they can more easily be wrenched away from their families by the siren song of a misshapen female gargoyle pied piper called Maggie Atkinson.
Maggie Atkinson never gave birth to a child. She doesn’t know anything about children in the way that any biological mother knows about children. She is totally unqualified and an inappropriate choice to do this task.
Maggie Atkinson having this job is
like a Saudi Arabian representing Israelis
like vegetarian representing butchers
like PETA representing fur makers
If you accept that there should be a state, and that that state should have a prior claim on children as chattel property, and that there should be a post of commissioner to represent children, then at an absolute minimum, whoever does this job, they should be a female and that female should themselves have had a child. That female should also be an active mother, not an old mother with adult children. A children’s commissioner should be able to represent the children of TODAY not the children of the 1950’s or 1960s. A young active mother will have all her maternal instincts running fresh; old mothers are a different thing entirely.
This horrible woman actually said in public that, “…your children are mine”:
Really quite revolting and unnatural.
Of course, we do not accept that there is a need for a state at all, and we do not accept that the state as it exists has a prior claim that trumps the property claim of parents on their children, and we do not accept that there should be a post of children’s commissioner.
This hideous short haired witch, remorseless, heartless, without empathy or experience in childbirth or childbearing, who has never been a mother to her own child, and who therefore cannot empathise with any woman who is a biological mother, is a perfect example of what these filthy socialists love; women who are not like women, men who are not like men, an infinite number of pointless jobs for their friends at the expense of everyone, and every opportunity to destroy nature taken up enthusiastically.
What better person to take this job than someone who can destroy families without conscience; she has never been a mother in her own family, and so therefore cannot value it the way that women who have nurtured their own families. A perfect candidate for the anti family agenda!
All decent people loathe them:
This Government funded woman says that the age of criminal responsibility for children should be raised to 12. Yet the very same government, who pay this idiot £138,000, are choosing to make criminals out of children as young as 5 on racism grounds, by asking teachers to make records of any playground incident that may be racist.
Which is to be Gordon? or in this ‘Twilight Zone’ of a country that you have created, is a violent, horrific murder considered less criminal than racism?
– Tats, UK, 15/3/2010 7:18
Has Britain become a breeding ground for these fools, there are so many of them talking rubbish, and we have more than our quota, yet they are classed as experts, professors or other descripive names. Are they taught to be insensitive or does this come naturally, they certainly lack in the basic skills of common sense. Ten year old kids know exactly what they are doing, there is no naievety nowadays, and hasn’t been for the last 20 years, since all the liberal thinking fools were let loose. Nothing absolutely nothing will erase the trauma and horror of Jamies murder. It is these fools who are the stupid ones no matter what they say, we are not convinced or ever will be. Seek other rewarding work is our advice to these fools……….
– DANNYBOY, LINCOLN UK FOR NOW, 15/3/2010 7:29
I have heard that the Jesuits claim “give me a child until the age of 5 and I will show you the man”.
For Thomson and Venables to commit such a brutal act, something was intrinsicly wrong with their upbringing during their formative years.
They may not have been born evil, but by 10 years of age, they were and will remain so.
– Simon Knowles, Thatcham, England, 15/3/2010 16:04
Mrs”Unpleasant” ! Another unelected Labour apparatchik!
– Peter North, Sutton, Surrey, 15/3/2010 7:30
£138,000, how many more of these dangerous do-gooders are we paying for. Sack her and sack the commission if that is all they can come up with.
– Paul, Southwell, 15/3/2010 5:56
Dr Atkinson should be sacked. She should never have a post as childrens commissioner with an attitude like this. As a victims campaingner and a mother of a murdered child also the same age as james bulger, im appalled out Dr Atkinsons comments. I do believe though this is also the mindset of most judges in this country. Seeing case after case of soft sentancing im led to believe that the whole government including judges have gone completly cuckoo. She needs to be sacked along with all the hang ons of “advisors” and while they are at it, sack all judges and use judges that are elected into these positions. Anyone canbe a judge now as long as you got a mate who is a judge already, bit like the house of lords. Bring back elections for all these positions.
– cathy, dorset, 15/3/2010 7:27
It’s wooly minded do-gooders like Atkinson that caused these problems in the first place by taking discipline away from schools. She obviously lives wrapped in middle class cotton wool and never has to deal with the socially deprived street urchins.
– Keith, Chelmsford UK, 15/3/2010 16:05
She has no children of her own and will therefore be totally out of touch and unfit for purpose – that is why her remarks are so insensitive. Becoming a parent is a major life changing event, which she has not experienced.
SACK HER !
– scott, Dubai, 15/3/2010 5:42
Finally, you simply have to understand that if you choose to accept that there must be a state, in the end, you will get Maggie Atkinson, Ed Balls, Diana Johnson, Delyth Morgan, Graham Badman, Ruth Deech, Clive Soley, and every other unethical, unnatural monster, abusing, merchandising and kidnapping your children.
It is inevitable:
Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
When will we realise that laws not only cannot cure every evil but are frequently counter-productive? Here the harm done to our criminal process may well exceed any good that the law can do. We can see that in advance, so why do we persist with it? If there was a law which made it a criminal offence to smoke or to drink alcohol, neither of which, of course, do I advocate, just think of the amount of bereavement that would be saved, the number of hospital beds that could be put to better use, and the time and energy of our doctors and nurses which could be more usefully employed. Yet we do not consider doing that. What is it about the motorist that requires him to be singled out and subjected to this sort of legislation?
The harm to justice caused by this legislation will be far more substantial than we think. When will we realise that every little infringement of liberty, for whatever good cause, diminishes the whole concept of liberty? If life is the only criterion, why did we sacrifice so many millions of lives in two world wars? Why did we not in the Second World War lie down and say “Because millions of people may die, we should let our liberty be taken away before the onset of the Nazis?” The answer is that more important than lives is the concept of liberty.
Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.
Thanks to The Filthy Smoker for that.
Ivan Lawrence was a rare voice of reason during a debate on making seat-belts in cars a legal requirement, and as we can see, his words were prescient.
Parliament does not sit to remove laws, it exists to create them. They will keep creating them until there is nothing you can do without it being regulated by the state.
Children are simply next on the list of areas that ‘need looking at’. They admit that even though there is no case for legislating Home Education, now that the matter has ‘come to light’ it will happen.
These people are INSANE, EVIL and thoroughly BAD; understanding this and that these people and their system cannot be successfully reformed is the only way you are going to be able to live free and safe from predation.