Yet again it becomes clear that CRB checks do not ensure that children in care settings are protected either from abusers, or from people who are not sufficiently moved by witnessing child abuse to intervene:

A nursery manager committed a string of cruel acts against babies in her care including telling non-white children 'you shouldn't even be in this country', a court heard yesterday.  

Laura Pettitt, 27, also smothered babies with blankets stopping them from breathing when they wouldn't go to sleep, it was alleged.  

Croydon Crown Court heard Pettitt was able to continue 'abuse' for nearly three years because she terrified staff working underneath her.  

Importnant to understand, but today it's not my main point.

As a libertarian, I believe that parents should be free to raise their children as they wish, within the bounds of any law that exists. I also believe that any law should be universally agreeable - that is to say likely very minimal, and conceived at the highest possible level to remove (where possible) subjective interpretation.

However. I would ask anybody who considers themselves to be truly liberal to ask themselves whether their fundamental principles are adequately reflected in their preferences for how children should be treated.

Two irritations of mine:

• Confusing correlation and causation
• Lack of consistency and logic

So when I hear so-called libertarians demanding a return to "proper discipline" in order to rectify the problem of "feral" youths (whose existence, as a erstwhile youth worker, I do not doubt) then I bristle.

Because a "return to proper discipline" so often pans out in a blog post to mean corporal punishment, either doled out by parents or, worse, teachers. Or it is an expectation that children should unconditionally respect those who are traditionally deemed to be deserving of compliance and obedience: that is to say adults, specifically those who are in positions of power and authority - teachers, police officers, magistrates, libertarian bloggers and so on.

The assumption is that a traditionalist, authoritarian approach, whilst not acceptable for liberty loving adults, is the correct way to bring up children, simply because it appears that there are more of these youths now than there were then, whenever then was. But correlation is not causation and baying for past conservatism in bringing up future generations is not likely to produce adults who are any more capable of thinking critically and functioning independently, although I concede that they may well drop less litter.

Any approach that encourages children to rely and depend upon on an externally appointed authority for decision making leads to adults who are far, far less likely to adequately assess right from wrong in challenging situations, or have the courage to act upon their moral convictions.

I don't respect a person because they happen to hold a position of supposed authority; in fact I question them rigorously. Wearing a uniform or badge does not guarantee the integrity of anybody, unfortunately. When you elect to hold a position of power over other people, especially people who are vulnerable by virtue of their minority, strength or capacity, then you should expect eagle eye scrutiny. Because injustices can and do happen in nurseries, schools, police stations and courts across the country - so why is it OK for anyone to be given the collective seal of approval to implement "proper discipline" over other people's children? Because a so-called libertarian says that it should be so? I think not.

This is what happens when people are coerced into accepting authority:

Nursery assistant Chloe Neely, 21, worked at the Little Stars Nursery in Bromley, Kent, for three years starting in January 2006.

She told the court: 'Laura would be racist towards the kids, and call them names like "Joe Daki" and things like that.

'When they were crying and upset she said things like "you shouldn't even be in this country".

'I just found her really intimidating, when I was up in the room with her she would say about how her family are always in trouble and how they were quite violent people.'

Describing how Pettitt treated one tiny, premature baby, Miss Neely said: 'She used to shake her quite violently. We used to get left upstairs with nine babies and I could see Laura getting more and more stressed.

'Laura would start pacing up and down the room and wouldn't speak to the girl and if I asked her to let me take the baby she would just completely blank me.

'She used to try and make the babies sleep all the time and put them in their cots continously - she didn't want them up.'

Miss Neely told the court that Pettitt would cover the children's faces with a 'a blanket and hold it over them so they couldn't breathe'.

'One boy, on one of his first settling in days, was really upset and couldn't get comfortable. Laura got really annoyed that he was crying.

'She took him off me and started pacing the room and I was watching her because I was getting scared about what she would do.

'She threw him at the sofa - she must have been one or two metres away and she just threw him. He hit his face and it left a big graze.'

'Laura started saying "I can't believe he hit the sofa, he was meant to land on it".

'She said: "Don't say anything, just put it down as an accident".'

Miss Neely said she felt 'intimidated by Pettitt, but because 'she was the manager, she was in charge'.

You end up with people who are incapable of challenging authority in abusive situations.

'I know it's bad that I didn't say anything but I think it shows how intimidating Laura was,' she told the court.

You end up with people whose first reaction is to blame somebody else for their actions (or lack thereof).

'I let her get away with child abuse for that long. There's no excuse for not saying anything.'

You end up with people who perhaps know, deep inside, that something is terribly wrong, but by the time they reach adulthood they have internalised the lessons that they have been taught so many times. Saying NO becomes impossible for all but a handful of brave or rebellious individuals.

Miss Neely, who was 17 when she began working at the nursery, said she felt her young age had made it difficult for her to tell senior management about what was happening.

You end up with people who believe that youth is an excuse for not listening to a conscience - and acting upon it.

She also told the court that the nursery manager Cass Collins was not up to her job and very frequently left early and only secured her position through nepotism.

You end up with people who are prepared to witness corruption unfolding before their eyes, and yet say nothing - even when tiny children are put at risk.

Eventual whistleblower Nicola Fiddler, 20, also called Ofsted three times.

But according to Miss Neely, despite the alarm being raised no-one came to inspect the nursery.  

Describing how she saw Pettitt feed a child his own vomit, Miss Neeley said: 'She was force feeding him, pinching his nose and tipping his head back.

'He started vomitting when she was holding his nose, he couldn't breathe. He was trying to get away. He was being sick and she was feeding it back to him.

'He had a Tommy Tippee bib with a plastic tray which the vomit was going into.  

'She scooped it back up with a spoon and put it in his mouth.'

You end up with people who, when challenged with the requirement for immediate action, are programmed only to wait and beg at the door of another pre-approved authority, often an unhelpful, unwilling or impotent one. They are incapable of doing the right thing and intervening immediately when a human being is abused in front of them - unequivocally so.

Children are human beings. Treating them as such is a sign of a civilised society, not one that has gone to the dogs. To believe that they are intrinsically wicked, or lazy, or stupid, is to believe that all human beings are intrinsically wicked, or lazy, or stupid, and in sure need of proactive intervention and non-negotiable support. 

If you accept that the government is immoral in its use of violence against individuals, then surely the same logic can be applied to the "disciplining" of children. To discipline means to teach, not to punish, so leading by example, modelling preferred behaviours, and letting children learn through their own actions wherever possible is the best way to secure freedom for future generations through the very real promotion and nurturing of of personal responsibility and kindness to others.

This means not being hypocritical, which requires hard work and humility. If you want them to be law abiding, abide by laws yourself. If you want them to appreciate the value of human life, then show them love and respect. If you want them to be charitable, volunteer in your community. If you want them to understand that harming others is wrong, apologise when you screw up. If you want them to resolve situations without violence, practise effective dispute resolution in your own relationships and don't hit them to make your point. 

Or not - your choice, of course. But remember that children have no choice about who they are born to, and often how they are treated. If you favour disproprotionate and violent action or logically inconsistent rationales for forcing children to fulfil your subjective beliefs of what is right, at least until the utterly arbitrary age of 18, then don't be surprised if the resulting adults stamp on you with their hobnailed boots or fail to stand up for your cause when you need them most.