i must have been an at-risk child…

because the following from the list at [www.spy.org.uk] would have all applied to me as a child:

Missed medical appointments
Bad Behaviour in School
Learning Difficulties
Involvement in Anti-Social Behaviour
Denies part in /does not believe commits Anti-Social Behaviour
Non-constructive spare time / Easily bored
Social Isolation
Victim of Bullying or Discrimination
Other

…or as I tend to think of it: didn’t like school vaccinations, was smarter, larger, and younger than my peers, unchallenged by lessons, ignored supposed authority as irrelevant, thought nothing of openly arguing points of morality or information with teachers, was persistently bullied, and lived several miles from anyone of similar age.

In short, I was a perfectly normal geek. Being a geek-kid, sucks. This is normal. Calvin’s dad would call it character building.

However if this [www.spy.org.uk] is the Governments response to hysterical calls to “save the children, oh the poor poor innocent little children” by the parents who want to wrap their progeny in cotton wool and protect them from disease — if this is what they propose, then I do wonder how many normal geeks will have their homelife disrupted by the thought-police.

Comments

2 responses to “i must have been an at-risk child…”

  1. Jonathan Care
    re: i must have been an at-risk child…

    Yep, and this sort of nonsense is used frequently by people such as CAFCASS who are wrecking lives up and down the country on a daily basis.

  2. dave.walker@sun.com
    re: i must have been an at-risk child…

    Hmm, many of these criteria apply to me too. Being a geek-kid definitely sucks.

    The trouble is that while thought police would be better employed going to work on the normals who give us grief – or just leaving the hell alone – they don’t realise it.

    Hmm, are we certain that the thought police don’t have any geeks working for them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *