Children's Commissar must go

Maggie Atkinson, the Children’s Commissioner, wants the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from ten to twelve.

Is this the same Maggie Atkinson that was overwhelmingly rejected for the role of Children’s Commissioner, when she appeared before the Commons select committee on which I sit?

Is she the same Ms Atkinson who was appointed to the £130,000-or-so role all the same? Appointed despite Gordon Brown saying that there needed to pre-appointment confirmation hearing for precisely such roles?

There are arguments for and against raising the age of criminal responsibility. There is no case whatsoever for having the decision shaped by unaccountable, anti-democratic quangocrats like Ms Atkinson. 

The Children’s Commissioners role is to be the independent voice of children and to speak up in their interests.  I have yet to hear Ms Atkinson explain how children’s interests would be protected by not prosecuting those who murder children.

She has zero democratic mandate. In a democracy, she must have no role determining public policy.

Posted on 14 March 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

It should be pointed out that it was Mr Balls who was arrogant, and stubborn, in his determination to appoint this women against the Committee and its Labour Chair Mr Sheerman. They had concerns. Mr Balls ignored them. They were right. This fact should be pointed out by the Tories very loudly indeed.

Posted on 14 March 2010 19:46 by johnj

Agree totally, but who is promising to stop these ridiculous quango policies?

Where's the thunder from Dave?

He's probably too busy attending a gay rights parade or something else equally important.

Posted on 14 March 2010 21:13 by David Newcastle

"The Children's Commissioners role is to be the independent voice of children and to speak up in their interests."

But how would anyone ever know whether this post represented the views of children?. Children don't vote and their is no mechanism for "consultation". It is just another post for a leftist educationalist or child "expert" to pontificate their ideological ignorance from. This pointless post did not represent the views of Jamie Bulgers mother when refering to his murder as "unpleasant". What an despicable way to refer to a child murder.If this pointless post was abolished tomorrow, who would notice ?. Who would be disadvantaged?. Nobody that I could think of. The murdered children in Doncaster in recent years weren't saved because the post of Childrens Commissioner existed.

Like Trevor Phillips of the ECHR or Keir Starmer of the DPP why do I even know the names of these people who should be administrators of public policy, not thise formulating it.

Abolish the Childrens Commissioner for another instant saving of public money with no loss in public service.

Posted on 14 March 2010 21:47 by Yorkshireman

Mr. Carswell,

New Labour truly hate children. Can you guarantee that under a Tory government, things like the 'ITV for schools'/Channel 4 sex video shown to 7 year-olds will be a thing of the past (I think prosecutions are also in order)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255483/Parents-anger-class-seven-year-olds-shown-graphic-sex-cartoon-school.html

Posted on 14 March 2010 22:04 by Stewart Cowan

The people who should have been in the dock were the parents of the 10 year olds who's abuse created the damaged children in the first place.

Posted on 15 March 2010 07:32 by Chris Southall

The great catch phrase these days is "Somebody must be responsible".
If children are not to be held responsible, the adults who are in charge of those children must be held responsible for the children's actions. They should be prosecuted for the crimes that their children committed.

Posted on 15 March 2010 23:30 by English Pensioner

Make A Comment