Slashdot Mirror

The article quoted is fiction.

http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8846

While there are plans to move the worst offenders into monitored units, there will not be a single CCTV installed into a single home.

News for Nerds? The comments appear almost identical to what one would read from any forum other than slashdot - one-third raging right-winger rants about the welfare state, one-third left-wing rants about the social causes of the problem, one-third insults directed at the media. I count just two posters pointing to what seems to be the original source material (http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678) and maybe a half dozen total (~2%) replies to those messages.

When composing a reply to such articles, people - rather than defending preset opinions about this issue, how about digging up the actual proposal and critiquing it on its merits? This appears to be an extension of some "child protective services" program. What's the alternative to society supporting some form of CPS? CPS already has authority to take your kids away pending judicial review - is that not more draconian than providing at-risk families the choice (apparently) to move into a closely monitored housing unit? How that monitoring occurs is a separate issue - too often technology is seen as a low cost alternative to hiring police or caseworkers.

On the other side of the question, there is a statement of expanding what already seems to be a pilot program to extend to 20,000 "units". (I would refer to these as households, but have no evidence to suggest they function as such.) Presumably each residence has multiple cameras, so this may amount to a few hundred thousand 24/7 camera feeds. Who is going to watch all those cameras? If the data are to be recorded, for how long will the data be archived? This is a huge ongoing expense and describes a job that few qualified people would be willing to take. How will the cameras be protected? Cameras in a house are going to be within reach of the inhabitants to tamper with - or simply repoint to leave rooms or hallways unmonitored. Will there be audio? Will the cameras pan and zoom? Will there be cameras in the bedrooms and bathrooms? Who is going to protect the at-risk children from predators behind the cameras?

Topics on slashdot are not necessarily different than topics on mainstream forums. What distinguishes slashdot from other forums is the quality and point-of-view of the comments. A discussion about our pet topics will often be illuminating and insightful. We should bring the same intellectual rigor to the broader issues facing society.

Your reaction is pure hyperbole, even though I do not agree with some of the social engineering that is being down by the state (such as the issuance of ASBOs as a step under the criminal justice system).

If you actually go to the source -

http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678

You can see that these families are offending and creating a poor environment for their communities.

I don't see anything in there about CCTVs -- are you sure that's the source?

Where did you get the "non-negociable" [sic] from? Read the sanctions section of the government document. If you don't want the intervention then they CSA and police will proceed through the usual channels (meaning the children will be taken into care and the adults will most-likely be put in prison for criminal damage / child abuse).

Please read the government's description of the scheme. 24-hour monitoring is the top tier (not the only tier, as the Express implies) and the scheme is never compulsory. It is an alternative to full-scale intervention by the police and child support agency.

The citation you need is here. The program provides three tiers, and at the top tier the family is moved into a 'core residential unit' which is monitored 24 hours a day. This is an option which is intended to try to keep families together; if they choose to opt out then the children can be taken into care (and the parents potentially tried for any of the forms of antisocial behaviour they've been engaged in, including child abuse). If you read the Express article, you can just about see how it relates to this scheme, but you'd have to take a lot of drugs for them to be seen as the same.

I take it you only read the inflammatory article from the Express (for US readers: Think Fox News with more breasts and less journalistic integrity), rather than anything actually containing facts. You can find the government's description of the scheme online. Notice that nothing in this is compulsory. It is an option presented to families as an alternative to being prosecuted. If they think they have done nothing to warrant it, or that a potential custodial sentence would be a better choice, then they are welcome to take that option. Note also that the 24-hour intervention is described as the most extreme case here (while it's the only part of the scheme described in the Express article, with the assumption that it will be applied to all of the 20,000 families).

Indeed, you can read about these schemes here. No mention of CCTV anywhere. It's almost certainly just made up.

Your reaction is pure hyperbole, even though I do not agree with some of the social engineering that is being down by the state (such as the issuance of ASBOs as a step under the criminal justice system).

If you actually go to the source -

http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678

You can see that these families are offending and creating a poor environment for their communities. There are several levels of intervention and that the last of which is the core residential unit, which is some sort of support facility which these families attend, as a family unit. Afterwards they are moved into social housing.

This is the same type of people that in the US people would be called trailer trash. The difference is that in the UK, the system of social housing is quite good, and these people live in populated areas and causes disturbances resulting in less desirable neighborhoods. I am curious if this works at all, and the raw data of the existing program should be released and analysed, but I don't believe this program is used to create a system to oppress political ideas.

The Sunday Express is not exactly the most reliable news source. This is why a bit more digging is in order. One Google search later, I came over this site: http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=7524

The verdict is: if you happen to live in UK you're fucked

There's no mention of CCTV cameras, but the programs these people have border on downright nazi. They talk about getting the "right" outcome in courts, tackling important issues like noise nuisance or vehicle nuisance and they use some cryptic acronyms which when translated are plain scary.

Some examples:

ISSP - intensive supervision and surveillance programme

YIP - youth inclusion programme. YIPs operate in local neighbourhoods and are aimed predominantly at young people identified as being at risk of offending, but who have not yet entered the criminal justice system.

LAA - A local area agreement (LAA) is a three year agreement that sets out the priorities for a local area agreed between central government and a local area.