When is consent not consent?

When IS consent not consent? When it doesn't agree with you, of course.

Children are to be asked if they like being home educated. "Catalina, do you like being home educated?"

"Yes, I do," replies Catalina.

The enquirer turns away, staring hard at the parent nearby. "Ah, I see your mother. Do you actually LIKE home education or does your mother want you to say you like home education?"

Catalina is six. She doesn't comprehend the question. The enquirer nods, marks it down in his little black book. Child says she likes being home educated but is only saying that because her mother wants her to say she likes being home educated.

This is one of the reasons that I don't think it's a good idea for children (in some cases) to be grilled like hamburger on a griddle by unscrupulous agents who will twist the children's words to suit the purposes of the agent. However, in some cases, some children will turn around and flame the griller to turn the grilled into the grillee.

And if we refuse to let the agents see our children, refuse to allow the agents to grill our children like hamburger on a griddle? Then there is cause for alarm. Loads of red flags wave in the breeze. Agents get agitated. Police are called. People bring riot gear. They manoeuvre battering rams into place. (Don't snort 'that is ridiculous'. It happened to one home educating family).

Children may not want to talk to strangers. Heck, I seldom do myself. Young people may not enjoy speaking to people with forked tongues and be too polite to say "Mrs. Agent, you are talking complete bilge. Will you please go away now and let me finish watching 'Hamlet' in Greek?"

This is why we don't 'engage' and 'have good relationships with LAs.'

We know, down to the bone, that these agents swallow the whale of lies that the government thrusts down their gullets. That 'school is safe' (often absolutely untrue) and that 'children cannot learn unless they're at school' (cancel their piano and kung fu lessons on Tuesday and Thursday evenings - you're wasting your money).

These agents don't think and don't question. They don't peer behind the rhetoric. They don't challenge the complete and utter rot. Don't or won't.

Either way, they are no fit company for our children.

Consent and the Janus-faced government

I've been digging into the consent issue which I see as pivotal in matters that children can understand.

In medical issues children as young as 10.3 years can give assent to a treatment, or disagree with it. So say professionals. Parents believe that their children of around 13.9 are able, and young people themselves think that 14 is the magic age. (From
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/shield/)

This is consent to medical treatment. Or refusal to accept medical treatment.

Going to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4008977
I notice that the leaflet 'Consent: A Guide for Children and Young People' is available in English, Bengali, Chinese, Greek, Gujarati, Polish, Punjabi, Turkish, Urdu and Vietnamese. The Department of Health thinks it important enough to present it in ten languages.

Ten languages to tell children that they can choose what happens to their bodies and their health.

"While the age of informed consent remains contentious, an attempt should be made fully to explain the procedures and potential outcomes to the child, as stated by the European charter, even if the child is too young to be fully competent. After all it is the child who will have to live with the outcome of the procedure." (From http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/shield/)

That is an important statement: "After all it is the child who will have to live with the outcome of the procedure." So true. The child will have to live with possible errors, and the parents will have to pick up the pieces.

Your body, your health is vital. A child's health is something incredibly important. We all want children to be healthy. We all want them to be happy with the decisions they make.

Why, then, is ContactPoint, a list of every child's details, being mooted at all? Where is the consent from every child who has to suffer the consequences if their personal information gets into the wrong hands?

Children are either competent to understand what is going on and give their consent or they aren't. You cannot pick and choose areas where children are allowed to have sway over their bodies or their information. Children's rights - another pretty idea - pretty toothless. Every child has a right to maintain their privacy from a totally unnecessary and potentially dangerous group of database users. Yet young people aren't even consulted. LAs are stockpiling children's personal details and adding them to a database which is abysmally insecure and probably illegal.

I wonder which child will challenge it in court?

"After all it is the child who will have to live with the outcome of the procedure."