« IPPR Welcomes Collaborators | Main | PC stands for Polar Cooling »

Teaching the kids that property is theft

One of my children was given this book to read tonight as homework.


The story begins that nice Mr Pennyfeather lets the kids play on his tree in his front garden, but he gets too old to live in the big house and sells it. The story continues below...





The glorious day has arrived where the mayor lives in the wicked capitalist's house, everyone is happy... should I drop a note to the teachers or am I wasting my time?


Bloody hell I didn't realise the social engineering/brainwashing was this explicit! This is shocking.

It's all in there, illegal "protesting" being right -n, token female mayor, rainbow kids, PC police and the horrible private land owner sent packing....

Please tell me this is a joke or the thought of emigration will rise another notch in my mind. If this doesn't go round all the right thinking blogs like wildfire I'll be very surprised.

"Please tell me this is a joke or the thought of emigration will rise another notch in my mind."

Well, it's not a joke, but if I can help put you off emigration by telling you that it was written twelve years ago by a woman born, raised, and resident in New Zealand, I shall count the day as not wholly wasted. Still, complain about it if you want - heaven knows what you'll say if they dare to show the kids Watership Down. Animal rights extremism as well as environmentalism!

If one of the children had fallen from the tree would its parents have thought "there is nobody to sue for compensation because trees belong to everyone"?
Has anyone else heard of tree preservation orders that a local authorities can place on trees to prevent the owner cutting them down or even pruning without authorisation? In addition, permission has to be sought by landowners from the Forestry Commission for felling more than a certain volune of timber.

Reminds me of the school play.

Just burn the mofo down.

Personally I blame those layabout lumberjacks.

If they'd piled straight in and felled the tree one skat instead of lopping off a couple of small branches first, the kiddie commies little protest would have been in vain.

More seriously, while I obviously disagree with the socialist agenda being promoted vis a vis private property, my own particular bugbear is that other peice of subtle conditioning. Madame Mayoress gets to drive round in a shiny black car and deserves an entire house for her office.

Nice to see the little kids being taught so young that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, isn't it?

This is nothing. This sort of attitude is endemic in a lot of subjects especially Geography (env. propaganda) Science (ditto) Citizenship (entirely left wing stuff) History (ditto) but it runs riot everywhere.

For example, the A-Level ICT project last year was about producing an auctioning system that allocated houses a bit like eBay does. Fair enough, save for the fact that about a third of the project specification was filled up with rubbish about how the houses were built in an environmentally friendly manner (hurray !) and didn't use evil capitalism as a basis (boo !).

It was so unsubtle it was laughable , even compared to the tree story, and it was also completely irrelevant to the task which wasn't specified properly in the remaining part, all the effort seemed to have gone into the first bit.

Until my son was moved to a private school he used to regularly come home spouting the most idiotic rubbish ; we're all going to die next week if we don't save the whales.

Are there by any chance any trees in the school grounds, or maybe in a teacher's garden? An opportunity to test the teacher's sincerity I think.
I think that most kids will learn from life that the lesson is bunkum, and conclude therefor that teachers are either fools or liars or both.
Of course used correctly this book does give an to innocculate kids against one bad idea before they have to learn the hard way- an opportunity that the Englishettes clearly had, though not thanks to the teacher.

Sorry- the missing word in the penultimate line is "opportunity"

How about slipping a few illustrated copies of 1984 into schools?

Of course the only contact I have had with the local authorities concerning trees is an order to cut them back because its branches overhang the back alley. Note: we are not talking of blocking the path.

A few weeks ago my son brought home his Science test paper. He was proud to have scored high marks.

The questions were all about energy production, the vast majority about wave, wind, tidal and solar power. In fact the only science was about how these worked. Coal made a rare appearance in one question which tackled:

"What are the disadvantages of coal power stations".

My son got full marks because he mentioned: dwindling resources and CO2. Strangely, the real pollution of coal such as sulphur and ugly spoil heaps were not discussed; nor was there any need to understand any actual benefits of coal.

Another question dealt with gas generation with similar answers required.

In contrast potential problems with alternative sources were underplayed. No where were the true shortcomings of windmills approached. True, they had to acknowledge no wind meant no power but the idea that windmills require a backup during calm was not broached. The fact that too much wind power will destabilise the grid, too advanced I guess.

I don't recall anything about nuclear but perhaps my energy started to be decommissioned prematurely.

...and the story continued:

One day there was a huge bushfire in the area.
The tree, along with all the undergrowth in the surrounding bushland, caught fire. Miss Brooks' house and many of the neighbouring houses burnt to the ground and some people who lived in the houses were kiled. Miss Brooks and the families of people who had lost their homes and loved ones in the fire sued the Mayor, the Council, Mr Pennyfeather and the little f*ckers who all had claimed the tree belongs to everyone for sh*itloads of money that took them the rest of their lives to pay off.

The End.

I love the comments - "I didn't realise the social engineering/brainwashing was this explicit" - I don't know if anyone knows who is trolling who!
Has everyone just migrated here from a 9/11 conspiracy forum or something? Is that black helicopters I can hear??
Yeah, so it's a bit flowery, but what's the difference between breaking the law and cutting down a protected tree, or breaking the law and smashing up a McDonalds or a bank? Are you calling for smashing up ALL private property? I can't work out if you're communists or socialist but it doesn't look good.

But great work on posting a selective snippet from a 12 year old book. Slow news day, is it?

This is a major issue, and always has been. There is indoctrination all over the place in education. I think it's naive to believe we can eliminate it completely, but there is certainly scope for reducing it. I've written more on my own blog.

Jon, you appear to be confused so I will spell it out before everyone jumps on you: The book is advocating the view that property is theft and the people here are a) disagreeing with the book and b) objecting to such a book being used to teach children to read. I think you got something the wrong way round.

See also Rainbow Fish.

And that's what they sent HOME. If you sit in the classroom and hear what they say to the kids without parents around, it is even worse.

Even if kids are smart enough to see through the bunk in that one book, enough trickles through to get them to accept some of it.

If they say anything in class to counter the drivel they're fed, they'll get the full dead-eye treatment from the teacher, reinforcing that it isn't enough to love Big Brother.

One time we sent in a note to a teacher that a fact in a textbook was wrong. We sent a letter, explaining what was wrong, and the source for the correct information. Daughter was tested on the factoid and was marked wrong for it. When we questioned the testing, the teacher explained that she had to go by the textbook and how it would be unfair to mark our daughter's answer correctly.

It was not long after that we made the decision to homeschool.

Away down to the schoolhouse with you, as soon as you have printed your big posters that say "The headmasters car belongs to everybody! All are permitted to climb over it."

Rob; 'fraid it looks like you either didn't read it properly either or deliberately (or not) aren't getting the point!
The tree has a TPO on it - this is a legal device (as stated earlier in the book and also in the last page reproduced above).
Miss Brooks and her solicitor/the vendor/contractors are entirely at fault here for not checking out what TPO may be present on the any trees in the house.
The children and the Pennyfeathers are merely stopping Miss Brooks from breaking a law and possibly getting a criminal record and spending time in jail.
TBH, I think they're doing her a favour.

And are you really saying that you can just walk over a law if you don't like it? I know a lot of laws suck, but then you might as well say that an anti-capitalist could use the same excuse to smash a McDonalds. I just can't believe you'd say something like that...

Jon: *Of course* if Mr Pennyfeather made a contract with the new owner about the tree it should be enforced, but that's hardly made explicit and is certainly not how anyone else is reading it.

Oh, TPO = Tree Protection Order. And you're saying this is made explicit in an un-quoted part of the book? Well, just because it's the law doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it okay to teach kids that it's right.

TE - I have checked and there wasn't anything in the unquoted part of the book about the old man donating his tree to the community or any TPO like listing of the tree.

Of course what the kiddies don't realize is that in volume 2 the Health & Safety mafia of the local authority pop along and stick up a big notice about how climbing on the tree is dangerous. Jemma still thinks the tree is hers to climb but PC Plod disagrees and arrests Jemma's parents for wilful neglect of their children. Jemma then spends 3 years in an abusive foster home before running off to London to make her living as a drug addicted child prostitute. Meanwhile the Health & Safety folks have had another look at the tree and noticed that it is very slightly rotten and in danger of falling down in the next category 5 hurricane. So they order Miss Brooks to cut the tree down anyway TPO or no TPO.

Speaking of personal property, I'm sure you have permission to reprint these pages. Right?

Thanks, TE.

The argument I always use is that the countries where trees and forests are privately owned, and where private property is vigorously protected, just as it used to be in England, have far more trees, and indeed far better trees, by which I mean better-looking indigenous broadleaved varieties, or whatever the native type is, than other countries.

A good source book is Oliver Rackham's History of the Countryside (http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Countryside-Oliver-Rackham/dp/1842124404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235691933&sr=1-1), which destroys a lot of old myths, such as the wicked iron-masters of the Weald of Kent cutting down all the trees for charcoal, and the rest of England being deforested to build the Georgian navy.

If it were my child, I would in all seriousness have a meeting with the teacher and administrators and tell them that their job is not to send children home with communist propoganda.

I'd pull them out of school that day. Then I'd blog about it. Then I'd call the newspaper. Then I'd call the school board.

Honestly, if they assigned Mao's little red book to school children, I'd be rather less offended because Mao's little red book is rather less subversive.

You brits lost your country in 1997 when you stupidly surrendered your weapons. Whatever the commies in your govt. do to you after that you fully deserve.

Don't understand? Start here: http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

And don't miss my british insanity page:


to Yasmin: You must be kidding.

Lookout: It's known as fair use. It is used as an editorial device and as such is not a copyright infringement.

How funny, was this book printed on thin air? I don't remember being asked if one of MY trees could be cut down to be pulped and spat out in the form of this hypocritical dribble fest. Also was that one of those new thin air cars teaching children that to be seen as successful you have to have a SHINY black gas guzzler. I have a black car and it needs to be washed regularly to be shiny.

This book was written by a 6 year old right?

This is just the sort of dumb idea that was responsible for the ferosity of the bushfires in Victoria, Australia, that have, so far, killed 210 people. Many of the people in the areas of the bushfires were taken to court by their local councils for chopping down trees around their properties as fire breaks (IT BELONGS TO EVERYONE kind of mentality). Those who defied the council, ended up being taken to court - court costs and fines were over $100,000 per offence. Perhaps it was a small price to pay for saving home and family? It will be interesting to see if the 'they belong to everyone' will apply when the compensation gets handed out............ and we keep burying our dead..........

What a bloody joke - just like heritage-listings (If the govt wants to prevent you from making any modifications to your house, they should damn well pay for the subsequent fall in value).

There's a few great tree poisons available...and lightning has a habit of striking at such big trees...and ferocious dogs to keep trespassers off. No wonder they took your guns, it's so they can take your property.

If a brat fell out of the tree, which of the 'saviours' would these politically correct families (read neo-marxists) sue first?

I can't wait for part two, where a few dozen kids read about this incident in the local news, and come round to try out this amazing tree. And the first kids say "Nah, get your own tree - this one's ours!"

Post a comment