UK Plans To Monitor 20,000 Families' Homes Via CCTV

metrix007 points out a story in the Sunday Express with more surveillance-camera madness from the UK, where the government now wants to place 20,000 CCTV cameras to monitor families ("the worst families in England") within their own homes, to make sure that "kids go to bed on time and eat healthy meals and the like. This is going too far, and hopefully will not pass. Where will it end?"

Comments

Big Brother

[sopssa]

Dont worry people! This will be broadcasted on television too so you wont be missing anything. As you know, the tv show "Big Brother" viewer amount has been going down and advertisers want something fresh!

Re:Big Brother

[arogier]

There is no freedom if everything is criminal.

Re:Big Brother

[flowsnake]

Every one of these "Big Brother" TV programme will just show groups of people sitting around in different houses, all watching different "Big Brother" TV programmes. It will be quicker and cheaper to just replace all televisions with mirrors so we can watch ourselves.

Re:Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy 1984 has in the news a lot recently. 15 years late?

Re:Big Brother

[peragrin]

yea but you can't record a mirror

Re:Big Brother

[daveime]

Depends if you're stuck in 1999, or here in 2009 with the rest of us ?

Re:Big Brother

[regexgreg]

They should put a camera up my arse and monitor my health..

Re:Big Brother

[mefdahl]

How would they put the commercials into the mirror?

Re:Big Brother

[Brian Gordon]

On the other hand, there's no crime if there's no freedom.

Re:Big Brother

[KudyardRipling]

Wrong. Never underestimate the power of government to call anything a crime, even the mere existence of certain people.

Godwin's Law is a cop-out.

Re:Big Brother

[oldhack]

Watching that crap show is definitely criminal.

Re:Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

It *IS* 1999, it has always been 1999.

Re:Big Brother

[ciderVisor]

Well, tonight I'm gonna party !

Re:Big Brother

[jesset77]

Damn! Yes, let's brainstorm this! ;D

Re:Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure a lot of those people actually applied for "Big Brother" anyway. They will not be surprised when the cameras are installed.

Re:Big Brother

[Fluffeh]

quicker and cheaper to just replace all televisions with mirrors so we can watch ourselves.

Oohhhh.... the things I have seen with a mirror. You don't want to see these things. I had a hard time accepting them myself.

Re:Big Brother

[Nispero]

England Prevails!!!

Re:Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

You believe it's the year 1999, when in fact it is closer to 2199.

Re:Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no freedom if everything is criminal.

There is no freedom if everything is criminal.

There is no crime if everything is free...

Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an actual, verbatim representation of Orwell's vision for the future (today's present). There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984. Wow.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The telescreen was giving forth an ear-splitting whistle which continued on the same note for thirty seconds. It was nought seven fifteen, getting-up time for office workers. Winston wrenched his body out of bed--naked, for a member of the Outer Party received only 3,000 clothing coupons annually, and a suit of pyjamas was 600--and seized a dingy singlet and a pair of shorts that were lying across a chair. The Physical Jerks would begin in three minutes. The next moment he was doubled up by a violent coughing fit which nearly always attacked him soon after waking up. It emptied his lungs so completely that he could only begin breathing again by lying on his back and taking a series of deep gasps. His veins had swelled with the effort of the cough, and the varicose ulcer had started itching.

'Thirty to forty group!' yapped a piercing female voice. 'Thirty to forty group! Take your places, please. Thirties to forties!'

Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.

'Arms bending and stretching!' she rapped out. 'Take your time by me. ONE, two, three, four! ONE, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! ONE, two, three four! ONE two, three, four!...'

The pain of the coughing fit had not quite driven out of Winston's mind the impression made by his dream, and the rhythmic movements of the exercise restored it somewhat. As he mechanically shot his arms back and forth, wearing on his face the look of grim enjoyment which was considered proper during the Physical Jerks, he was struggling to think his way backward into the dim period of his early childhood. It was extraordinarily difficult. Beyond the late fifties everything faded. When there were no external records that you could refer to, even the outline of your own life lost its sharpness. You remembered huge events which had quite probably not happened, you remembered the detail of incidents without being able to recapture their atmosphere, and there were long blank periods to which you could assign nothing. Everything had been different then. Even the names of countries, and their shapes on the map, had been different. Airstrip One, for instance, had not been so called in those days: it had been called England or Britain, though London, he felt fairly certain, had always been called London.

Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war, but it was evident that there had been a fairly long interval of peace during his childhood, because one of his early memories was of an air raid which appeared to take everyone by surprise. Perhaps it was the time when the atomic bomb had fallen on Colchester. He did not remember the raid itself, but he did remember his father's hand clutching his own as they hurried down, down, down into some place deep in the earth, round and round a spiral staircase which rang under his feet and which finally so wearied his legs that he began whimpering and they had to stop and rest. His mother, in her slow, dreamy way, was following a long way behind them. She was carrying his baby sister--or perhaps it was only a bundle of blankets that she was carrying: he was not certain whether his sister had been born then. Finally they had emerged into a noisy, crowded place which he had realized to be a Tube station.

There were people sitting all over the stone-flagged floor, and other people, packed tightly together, were sitting on metal bunks, one above the other. Winston and his mother and father found themselves a place on the floor, and near them an old man and an old woman were sitting side by side on a bunk. The old man had on a decent dark suit and a black cloth cap pushed back from very white hair: his face was scarlet and his eyes were blue and full of tears. He reeked of gin. It seemed to breathe out of his skin in place of sweat, and one could have fancied that the tears

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think it's 2009.

Re:Holy shit.

[buchner.johannes]

I think there is a plan behind it. A project was founded to find out how much surveillance people will endure until seriously, unavoidable riots occur in a well-off society. I also think the reason the project was started so that people, after revolting against cuts into their privacy, have a better foundation and understanding for freedom and privacy.

However, the Brits didn't react according to the expectations of project coordinators. Unfortunately, no end date was agreed upon for the project.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always been 2009.

Re:Holy shit.

[Jurily]

Does anyone have anything original to say, or are we going to end up with 500 "OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!" comments?

Dude, we're talking about surveillance cameras to make sure the kids go to bed in time. What did you expect?

Here's another application of cameras, which would've been unthinkable even 5 years ago. Pretty soon, you'll get used to it like you did with public cameras, and a bit later, you'll find it natural that everyone is monitored constantly for their own safety. Or you won't, and it will cost you dearly.

How is that not 1984?

Re:Holy shit.

[Lundse]

It bears repeating...

Re:Holy shit.

[haifastudent]

This is an actual, verbatim representation of Orwell's vision for the future (today's present). There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984. Wow.

Somebody should give Amazon a call, I hear they have experience in making these "1984" matters disappear.

Re:Holy shit.

[Jurily]

After reading the article, here are my thoughts:

1. This is not something you can vote on, or discuss. Some goverment official just said "Hey, I have an idea, here's 400 million pounds, go implement it."
2. Youngsters don't get into crime because they have a chaotic family life. They do it, because it's cool, they have too much free time, and they live in a neutered society. They simply have no outlet for violence, which is a pretty basic instinct if you think about it (ever seen a little boy who just starts to walk? The first thing he does is picking up a stick and beating stuff with it).

Re:Holy shit.

[haifastudent]

OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in Orwell's book the cities were literally crumbling, and the political elite surpressed the masses just for the hell of it. Scary though it it, the government thinks what it's doing is best for the people - which is a marked difference from the novel.

Re:Holy shit.

[DMalic]

I don't really need to say anything. The article cracked me up and I'm still laughing. It's a a giant 1984 joke which could have been written by the Onion.

Re:Holy shit.

[iserlohn]

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.

Re:Holy shit.

[FourthAge]

It has to start somewhere.

I live in Britain and I hate those white-trash types. "Chavs", we call them. Funded by state benefits, which become generous when you include the free housing that they live in, the chavs do no work other than producing children, who then live chaotic and deeply miserable lives. Sometimes these children appear in the media, normally when they've been murdered (Baby P) or kidnapped (Shannon Matthews) by their own families; or perhaps when they're a bit older and have entered the petty crime lifestyles of their parents. There is no escape from the chav ghetto.

I always remind people that the welfare state created this problem. By taking away the need to work, the need for self-improvement, it locked these people into their lifestyle. The purpose of welfare is to keep the poor poor, and thus ensure that there will always be jobs for Socialist politicians, who can offer to solve the problem. Not in an 1830s Poor Law sense, i.e. "There are no benefits-- get a job or go in the workhouse", but in the Soviet style, with surveillance technology to keep them in line.

It has to start somewhere. There's a short step between a welfare state and a totalitarian state, because eventually the state has to control who gets benefits and how they are spent. First they came for the chavs. The rest of us are next.

Re:Holy shit.

[peragrin]

welfare state created them that is total bullshit.

Without a welfare state they still wouldn't work, or care for their kids, or any of that and the entire family would be even worse off stealing for food, clothes and everything else. What people like to think that it is the government fault however some people are just lazy and they still wouldn't do anything if they had to. The only way to make that group actually work is to force them to go to work. and I do mean Force as those types of people are so lazy that they can't hold a normal job on their own anyways.They won't show up on time, etc.

Just because they accept state welfare doesn't make them lazy, they are on welfare because they are lazy. Learn the difference. as a work chain gang will be the only way to get them to do anything on time.

Welfare keeps them for being even worse off. What is needed is a way to tie welfare into a real job paycheck so you can't get one with out the other. Though that too will create other problems.

Re:Holy shit.

[Saint Stephen]

The ironic thing is the original definition of Proletariat or "Prole" in 1984 in Latin were people who offered no benefit to the state other than raising children. The Proles didn't have Big Brother in their homes, and Winston longed to live like them. Somebody should tell the UK they're not doing it right :-)

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Exactly. Labour, like their "more extreme" (heh, are we really quite sure about that ?) brothers the communists, never let reasoned discussion get in the way of totalitarian control over society. Think of the (children|environment|poor|minorities|...) ! Stories like this make you think government should be outlawed.
2. Wrong, unfortunately, the most reliable indicator whether someone will become a criminal is whether their parents were (at age 0). When the kids grow, past behavior becomes the most reliable indicator. Perhaps "once a criminal, always a criminal" is too strong, but there is certainly some truth behind it (it correlates about 80% and yes, it means causation since they're aware of the temporal relation. The question is whether a first offence correlates with the likelyhood of a second offence. Since they correlate strongly there is a chain of causation X -> first offence -> second offence). Note that while tempting, this does not at all mean that criminal behavior is genetic since it does not apply to adopted children (criminals have an unfrotunate tendency both to have more kids and not to take all that good care of their family, resulting in more orphaned children than society in general).

Re:Holy shit.

[TheRaven64]

I principle, I'm against this kind of action, but when you look at the numbers and the people involved, you see that it's basically an alternative to prison. Given the choice between a custodial sentence and something closer to house arrest, I suspect most people would choose the latter. The danger with such a system is that it can be expanded. The original system was for 2,000 families, now it's for 20,000. How big can it grow without being abused?

Re:Holy shit.

[xaxa]

Saying "it's 1984! 1984!" isn't useful. I have mod points, and I was tempted to just mark them all redundant, but there were too many. It's more interesting to look at why something like this has been (or could potentially be) proposed.

As others have said, there are areas in the UK where some kids/teenagers are completely out of control: vandalising stuff, intimidating people, stealing stuff, letting off fireworks in the street, shouting to each other until long past midnight. I live in one -- but it's in London, where there's generally still money and jobs around, so it's not that bad. Kids intimidate/bully some old people, but they ignore someone like me. It would be different in an ex-mining town in the north of England: no money, no jobs, no future. What have these kids got to lose?

Generally, the police would take kids causing trouble back to their parent's (mum's) house. Most of the time mum will deal with it. But what should society do if mum doesn't care?

Re:Holy shit.

[nyctopterus]

2. Youngsters don't get into crime because they have a chaotic family life. They do it, because it's cool, they have too much free time, and they live in a neutered society.

I think you'll find this is flat wrong. The number of children from stable families that get involved with crime is dwarfed by the number who do have a "chaotic" family life--or no family life at all. Experiencing neglect or abuse, or worse, going into the care system, dramatically increases your risk of juvenile and adult crime. Something like half of the kids in care will go to prison.

I will find cites if you think I'm wrong. Making stuff up, as I suspect you have, isn't a good way of diagnosing the causes of societies complex problems--yet it seems to be the most common method.

Re:Holy shit.

[matt007]

Being poor does not make you a criminal...
Especially if the state helps you so you do NOT have to steal or whatever just to live.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with what you are saying. However, this can be done differently. Just look at the Scandinavian countries, they are the leaders of welfare in the western world and this is not a problem there. Perhaps people are getting too much in the UK for being on welfare and need to be made poorer? Perhaps it's just a problem of culture? I'm a Scandinavian living in the UK myself, and I too hate chavs!

Re:Holy shit.

[smallfries]

Wow a real Tory alive and living in England. Are you too young to remember the eighties?

It's nice that you "remind" people that the Welfare state created this problem. And ironic given the 1984-slant on this story. I'm sure that as someone who lives in Britain you are well aware that the Sunday Express is a gutter-rag on par with the National Enquirer and so this story probably has no basis in reality.

When you "remind" people about how the Welfare State created chavs do you also remind them that we have never had an underclass at any point in history before the 1940s? Do you also point out that the breakdown in social cohesion that we attribute to chavs living in sink-hole estates has never before been associated with poverty?

Finally I hope that you "remember" to point out that the Welfare State "created" this problem by fixing other related problems - such as injury or loss of work forcing entire families out to starve to death in the streets.

Re:Holy shit.

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

I think there is a plan behind it.

I think you're interpreting things, and there is no need to do that according to the deeply insightful GP:

There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984.

It's literally 1984 really, no need to interpret anything. Ok?

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ed Balls and his team need to be hit with a big stick! Do also note that those to be "sin binned" would be the poor and less educated and therefore would most likely be a little more ignorant to the idea of politics in general I believe. Who said it? "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. The welfare estate is to keep people poor? Workhouses are a better alternative? There is a short step between a welfare state and a totalitarian state? You aren't British. You might live here but you have to have been educated in the USA. It is the only way you could have developed such ridiculous notions. Either that or last time you voted it was a choice between the Whigs and The Tories.

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

>>>welfare state created them that is total bullshit.

Is it?

I am currently being paid the equivalent of $14 an hour to sit on my butt doing nothing, and that unemployment benefit will last one-and-a-half years. Basically the State is "encouraging" me to be a slothful bum.

Fortunately I would rather be working which is why I'm still actively looking (plus it pays about three times more money), but it would be very very easy to just sit back, do nothing, and collect my $14/hour checks from my Democrat President and Congress.

The welfare states *does* create the lifestyle.

Re:Holy shit.

[OrangeCatholic]

>>I think there is a plan behind it.

>I think you're interpreting things, and there is no need to do that according to the deeply insightful GP:

Actually, he was being funny. Read it again.

Re:Holy shit.

[douglas98765321]

Gordon Brown has already stated how there are plans for the "job seeker" to do mandatory work and training after a year of signing on. This would be a good move, but I wonder if this is just another trick to help massage the unemployment statistics e.g. New Deal.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that there are enough jobs for everyone? That the long term unemployed only have themselves to blame.

Do you realize the terms on which you have to work when you start at the lowest rung? One big deal is that you will work for years without getting a permanent position. That they will call you up with a days notice and if you say no they might not call you again. 40 years ago people wouldn't stand for it and no one should today.

Being unemployed is a job and it prevents you from doing anything useful with your time. The "Chav" term is just another tool to create a barrier between you and other people, a rally point for people seeking to affirm their identity as positive agains some Other. Pathetic really

Re:Holy shit.

[FourthAge]

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them. If they couldn't afford beer, Sky, fags and takeaway, they would do something about it. Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth :).

But I agree with your second point. Welfare won't ever be scrapped in Britain, but it does need reform. Unless you are a highly skilled worker, you actually take a cut in income when you move from benefits to a job! This is partly because British people who live below the poverty line still pay taxes when they work. Economically speaking, it actually isn't worth getting a job.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

omgwtflol!!! the brits r def crazy! ...
http://rompa.mybrute.com/ :D

Re:Holy shit.

[OrangeCatholic]

The OP is talking about why affluent children get into crime. Sure, if you're a crack addict, and your kids grow up to be car thieves, no harm no foul.

But if you went to Harvard, and your rich, white kids grow up to be heroin addicts, it means you did something wrong.

Re:Holy shit.

[tverbeek]

Why not just give these "worst families in England" to the 456 and be done with them?

Re:Holy shit.

[iserlohn]

There will always be a problem with non-productive members of society. The answer to that problem is much more nuanced.

Your argument along the lines of - "first they came fore the Jews", is nonsensical. The definition of a state revolves around the responsibility it has to it's subjects. The state is always responsible for at least some sort of welfare to its people, whether it is in the form of keeping order, providing infrastructure and emergency response or maintaining national security.

The program in question is not restricting individual rights for arbitrary or political ends, but it is an extension of the criminal justice system, in a social engineering capacity. Now, I do not support the use of such programs as I do not believe they are effective, but it is disingenuous to claim that this is a erosion of civil liberties.

There are issues that are much more importance this this, including the extension of the 28-day detention for terror suspects without charge, in effect a suspension of Habeas Corpus by the state. That is stuff we should be focusing on with regards to civil liberties, and there is where our outrage should lie.

This argument against this program should be cost and benefit to society. How much are we actually spending on this program and how much benefit does it give us.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

How big can it grow without being abused?

Obviously not very. If it was originally for 2,000 families, it's already being abused.

Re:Holy shit.

[FourthAge]

My point is not that the chavs should be starving in the streets. My point is that they should help themselves.

For example. We know that it feels good to send aid to help starving guys in Africa. But it's even better to help them get their economy started so that they don't need any more aid. Same with the chavs. By sending them aid, we actively discourage them from getting their lives together.

We should be doing something other than giving them money. They're misspending it, and now we are apparently saying that we need to check up on them constantly, 1984-style. It would be better to not give them any money in the first place.

The story may be bollocks, but it's believable bollocks from New Labour given the other things they've done. Incidentally, I'm not a Tory, the Tories are left-wing "progressives" now and basically agree with New Labour on every matter. Also, you should be aware that the scale of the chav problem certainly changes in response to welfare payments. When it doesn't make economic sense to work, hey presto, people stop working.

Re:Holy shit.

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

>>I think there is a plan behind it.

>I think you're interpreting things, and there is no need to do that according to the deeply insightful GP:

Actually, he was being funny. Read it again.

Potentially, funny. Actually, he is modded +5 Insightful. That's funny. No need to read it again.

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

You essentially rephrased the "think of the children" argument. And it still isn't morally right.

On top of that, it probably won't work, are they going to put 20000 individual social workers in front of the screens to watch everything? As soon as those kids discover they get away with almost everything, it's back to square one.

But what should society do if mum doesn't care?

What is wrong with community service for the mum/kid?

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that not 1984? Well because it is never going to happen that's why. I guarantee this will never be heard from again. I also guarantee that their is nobody reporting this anywhere who has not got their information from the newspaper article in 'The Daily Express'. Newspapers like the 'The Daily Express' and 'The Daily Mail' provide Americans with lots of 'proof' that they have it better than the British. This somehow comforts them while their own country is turning to shit. The problem is these papers frequently print out utter lies. Not just selective truth or a creative take of the facts, they out and out make things up. What's more is they do so from an apparent position of respectability unlike 'The Sun', 'The Star' or 'The Mirror'. If you get suckered in by one of their stories you are no better than people who think Fox News is an unbiased news source, actually you are probably a little bit worse.

And do you know what else? 1984 References make you look like an idiot. 90% of the people who make them have not seen a film version let alone read the book. All they know, thanks to pop culture osmosis, is 'Big Brother' and that makes everything into that the government does that they don't like into 1984. By referencing 1984 it simply marks you as the kind of pseudo-intellectual who has no way of articulating what you mean so you simply cry 'OMGWTF!! 1984!!!!'

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

You are mentally ill, that book you refer to never existed. When you hear the knock on the door, go quietly...

Re:Holy shit.

[Hognoxious]

Are you suggesting that there are enough jobs for everyone?

There are. Why do you think all those Poles come to the UK?

Re:Holy shit.

[FourthAge]

That's quite amusing :). Many people would agree with you, but I wonder if they have really thought about the issues involved.

Re:Holy shit.

[Hognoxious]

How is that abuse? If 20,000 families really need to be kept in order in this way then the number is right. If 40,000 need it then it's not going far enough. Do you think crime has quotas?

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

Reason Magazine calculated the total benefits an unemployed U.S. person receives (food stamps, free housing, et cetera) is equivalent to an $11 an hour job, with some states like California going as high as $20 an hour.

They argued since the average person is not stupid, they recognize that they are better-off remaining unemployed rather than take a "cut in pay" working for $7 at Walmart or McDonalds.

Re:Holy shit.

[RDW]

'This is an actual, verbatim representation of Orwell's vision for the future (today's present). There isn't any needed for interpretation, it's literally 1984. Wow.'

There's also a pretty strong theme in Nineteen Eighty-Four about not necessarily believing what you read in newspapers. I'd suggest that a story backed up only by an article in the Sunday Express (which is not far off one of the 'rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology' produced in 1984 'at a lower level for the benefit of the proletariat') should be taken with a Siberian mine full of salt. Does anyone have a reliable source for these claims? The announcement about 'family intervention' on the dcsf site doesn't seem to bear any relationship to the Sunday Express's story:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2009_0138

But perhaps the Thought Police have already edited it...

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't riot. They'll write letters to newspapers and MP's. They'll hold support groups. They'll do everything they can to object, without actually standing up and drawing a line in the sand.

It's a consequence of the vilification of active political protesters that has been going on since the mining strikes. People who dare to disrupt the norm are looked down on as dirty hippies with no work ethic.

The laughably sad part of this, is that the losers who won't lift a hand to save themselves, consider themselves to be heroes for working within the rules to no effect. I just pray that one day they realise they're fighting against the bastards that make the rules... and they're not playing fair.

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Scary though it it, the government thinks what it's doing is best for the people - which is a marked difference from the novel.

• Cromwell's dictatorship
• Robespierre's terror in the French revolution (Committee of Public Safety - how ironic in this context)
• the Spanish Inquisition
• the Crusades
• Hitler's "Final Solution"
• Communism

were all motivated by "doing the best for (their own) people".

Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war with the republicans against the fascists. In his time there were dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Hitler,... so it is easy to understand where the inspiration and fear came from.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always remind people that the welfare state created this problem.

How do you explain the problems that occurred before the welfare state? Granted there weren't constant newspaper reports about it - but we didn't have tabloid trash in the 19C. The only difference is now the problem sections of society live off benefits, and then they lived off crime. Which would you prefer?

Re:Holy shit.

[Culture20]

Saying "it's 1984! 1984!" isn't useful. Then why did we all read the book if not to use its name as a quick reminder of what should not ever be? It really is 1984 over there assuming that England's "National Enquirer" is being truthful. It's a bad result no matter what the reason is.

Re:Holy shit.

[FourthAge]

I mostly agree. The detention without charge thing is a great example of New Labour's disrespect for civil liberties, in itself much worse than TFA. However, really widespread problems can go ignored, perhaps even contribute to the descent into authoritarianism. The chavs are one such problem, and if we were only prepared to think of the problem in a different way, maybe we could help them out of the poverty trap and towards better lives.

Re:Holy shit.

[smallfries]

Ok, so what would you give them instead of money?

Re:Holy shit.

[digitig]

Somebody mod parent insightful, even though they are AC.

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Is it?

So you give one (1) anecdotal example that says "welfare state does not create the problem" and from there draw the conclusion "welfare state does create the problem"? I think you just introduced a whole new class of logical fallacies.

Re:Holy shit.

[digitig]

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?

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

are they going to put 20000 individual social workers in front of the screens to watch everything?

simple, just outsource it to India

Re:Holy shit.

[xaxa]

You essentially rephrased the "think of the children" argument. And it still isn't morally right.

The rights of individuals must be balanced with the rights of the rest of the community (i.e. other individuals). I think the proposal is trying to do something without having to resort to community service or prison.

I still don't think it will work, but I was trying to give some explanation for it even being proposed.

Re:Holy shit.

[macbeth66]

Orwell's "1984" is not about socialism gone wrong. It is about socialism gone right.

Hits the nail right on the head.

Re:Holy shit.

[NonSequor]

So you're saying England is more like A Clockwork Orange than 1984?

Re:Holy shit.

[digitig]

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them.

Nice theory -- when there is work. But I don't think unemployment is rising in the UK at the moment because fewer people want to work, or because not working has been made more attractive. It's because their services are not wanted by anybody -- at least, not enough to pay them. And if they have no legal way to support themselves a few will commit suicide and the vast majority will turn to illegal ways. That would be a pretty certain way to make this a very dangerous place to be.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

ex northern mining town no future no jobs? First i happen to live in one such town, such a view is outdated in my personal opinion. There are plenty of opportunities, i did very well for myself.

The difference is attitude, and the fact some people just don't care, or don't know any better due to parents attitudes passed down etc etc. Some people just aren't willing to take the opportunity, and would rather have it handed down on a plate.

The problem with the suggested solution is it go's way too far. It set's the precedent for a path i sure hope we don't go down.

Next year employers will be campaigning for cameras to monitor tele-workers performance!

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is quite funny. Labour has gotten smacked in the face by their own monumental and constant incompetence, so there's actually quite a few tories nowadays. Maybe that doesn't make you happy.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG!!! They have already started changing history!!!! Amazon is the new minitrue!!!!!

Re:Holy shit.

[kevingolding2001]

Do you think crime has quotas?

When the crime is 'thoughtcrime', the quota is 100%

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, of course, all the disabled and ill people on benefits are too lazy to work. The fact that there are no jobs (a job that can't provide mimimum wage can't legally exist outside the voluntary sector), that's because people are too lazy to work? You make it sound like accepting welfare is an option. I doubt you'd choose to live on the street if you had no income. No, you'd be accepting welfare. Only I suspect you'd be explaining how you deserve it because of all the taxes you've payed. Not like all those other people signing-on. They're the real lazy ones.

Re:Holy shit.

[xaxa]

-4 Troll, -2 Redundant, +2 Interesting.

Looks like you don't even need to state an opinion to fall victim to the Slashdot Groupthink now.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the welfare state was created because people decided that families slowly starving to death in squalor because there werent enough jobs for everyone was a bad thing.

Re:Holy shit.

[anarchyboy]

When you "remind" people about how the Welfare State created chavs do you also remind them that we have never had an underclass at any point in history before the 1940s?

Wait what? what do you mean by underclass? because I don't think thats true.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyanide

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they accept state welfare doesn't make them lazy, they are on welfare because they are lazy

That clearly depends upon what part of the UK they reside. The northern areas used to be big on manufacturing, mining, textiles etc. Lots and lots of low paying dross jobs. Over the last few decades most of these have been lost to other countries, so large population no longer has any chance of the level of work they would have had access to before.

So move south you say. Well, that's all well and good until you see the huge cost of property and limited work for unskilled workers. They can't afford to buy, and rental rates are very high due to the south being very developed and limited housing stock, there is no such thing as affordable housing. Within the welfare system you can "swap" your state paid property with another from a different area, providing you can find someone willing to swap. But no one wants to move up north, unless they're retiring to take advantage of the huge equity disparity. The result is a large number of people well and truly pissed off with their lot in life and knowing there isn't an easy path to escape.

Now add in the million Polish immigrants that have appeared in the UK in the last decade. Extreme right anti-immigration feelings are rife, where clear nut-cases are getting elected in local elections.

Finally, the boozing is really bad. No idea why that's become so nasty. Lots of young girls drinking way too much and losing control, they fight, mug and roam in gangs, local ER units will be full of victims each weekend night. Some how it has become cool for females to turn into thugs.

Re:Holy shit.

[physburn]

I'm so sorry to live in a country once so proud of freedom, that now places such little value on basic human freedoms like privacy.

---

Privacy vs Surveillance Feed @ Feed Distiller - Add your blog if its on topic

Re:Holy shit.

[seven of five]

The telescreen was giving forth an ear-splitting whistle....

...sentimental hogwash!

Re:Holy shit.

[camg188]

They simply have no outlet for violence

ROLLERBALL!

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

welfare state created them that is total bullshit.

No it's not.

Without a welfare state they still wouldn't work, or care for their kids, or any of that and the entire family would be even worse off stealing for food, clothes and everything else.

They had a solution for that once. Two solutions actually. They worked quite well I'm told.

Australia and the gallows.

Re:Holy shit.

[ComputerGeek01]

ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS: Chav: synonyhm: Wigger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav I had to look this up because it was at least the 5th time it was used in this thread. Thank you cousins to the east who find it increasingly nessacary to remind us that we no longer speak the same language :p.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

even worst, with the advances in medicine and social engineering this is becoming 1984 and a brave new world put together but with very few of the benefits provided by those dystopian visions, rather more like " new policies for a modern world" meaning the all pre democratic despotic fun of the 17 century with the big business as part of the royalty and a frightening amount of hight tech to keep society that way.

Stop the world, I want to leave.

Re:Holy shit.

[Vahokif]

That's not true, because a lifestyle supported by real work is currently still better than the alternative they live in. They still don't want to work, because they're born into a culture where hard work isn't appreciated.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you dare - if the AC wanted a good mod he could have posted a link to the REAL story in The Times. Instead, he sank to insulting people by telling them they're stupid "pseudo-intellectuals" that want to "feel better about themselves" while their country "is turning to shit". I, and quite a few of my friends (more than 10%) have read Orwell's 1984, a book that happens to be #8 on The Big Read's 100 best-loved books of Britain. And referencing it is appropriate - what isn't appropriate is believing one news outlet that you know nothing about. But that's very common these days.

Re:Holy shit.

[dcollins]

"I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them... Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth :)."

For people who are self-destructive, this is simply not true. Feel the fatal logical gap in laissez-faire economics.

Re:Holy shit.

[Acer500]

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them. If they couldn't afford beer, Sky, fags and takeaway, they would do something about it. Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth :).

Over here (Uruguay), welfare hasn't gotten to the point where it can afford someone what you describe.

You know what happens? They do "work", in a sense, but not the kind of work we'd want them to have: families have chariots (litterally, with horses pulling them), and go scrounging around the trash cans. They are now supposedly authorized by the government (after some tense protests), there are an estimate of 50.000 of them (Image: http://www.180.com.uy/tmp/thumbs/a93c0188583eb74b25d3814529e88b28.jpg ), they live by classifying the refuse, trying to separate metals and cardboard and plastics.

And those are the ones that do work. There's also another kind, who send their children to board buses and ask for charity, or to ask for money at the street lights (basically every significant street light has its beggars). Children are beaten if they don't fill the "quota" set by their parents. And they do get enough money, more than what's usual for a day's works at minimum wage.

Other people "work" as "car minders" (?).. they stay at the block where you park, and ask for money in return for "caring" for your car (and god help you if you don't pay them..). Don't think that just by paying them they won't steal if they have the opportunity (I've personally seen the one in my block steal, and now I'm in a kind of cold war with him, and can't park in my block anymore), and they're no insurance against having your car stolen either.

In all, the "refuse classifiers" (the guys on chariots) at least try to do something. Though the municipal government complains that they make the trash cleaning job a lot worse, because they leave a mess behind after they go through the trash cans.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding wild rabbits results in an increase in the population of wild rabbits, to the point where they require your food just to sustain the level of health they had before you started feeding them. If you started feeding them because many of them appeared to be starving...you will quickly find that there are now more starving rabbits than when you started. If you increase your providence, you only succeed in creating even more rabbits to starve. At some point you simply run out of rabbit food, and far more of them starve to death than would have if you just left them alone.

Humans are no different, the effect is just slower. If you provide for their needs, they will breed more than they otherwise would have, and the increased number of offspring (due to the environment in which they were raised) will be just as dependent upon government providence as their parents (if not more so).

If you force them to work, some of them turn to crime, get arrested and sent to jail, where they have fewer opportunities to breed. Others work, and dislike it, and try to find ways of bettering their lot.

Some also starve to death, which is unfortunate. We have such a hard time coping with this consequence that we wind up creating a much larger problem for a much large number of people, which eventually results in even more crime and even more starvation.

Compassion is a virtue but only when intelligently applied.

Help the poor by helping them help themselves. Don't give them luxury money for televisions and vehicles and what-not. Give them free school for both child and adult job training, a good public transportation system, assisted programs for worker relocation and so on. Some will live in worse squalor (bringing it only on themselves, in that case), while others go to school and eventually get jobs that lift them from their lot.

Some people cannot be saved from themselves. But by not providing for their needs, you at least save many of their would-be children from them.

Re:Holy shit.

[digitig]

But you might notice that the real story bears practically no resemblance whatsoever to the story posted -- the AC is entirely correct that what the Express [spit] says is going to happen ain't going to happen in the forseeable (because nobody is proposing it -- yet, at least), and is entirely correct that the gutter press has seriously misrepresented this story. The bit that is pure 1984 (yes, I have read it) is that the press is lying to us, not the surveillance aspect.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anpheus]

Why would it be any different?

Re:Holy shit.

[mdwh2]

Er - and where do this "work" come from, if they are unemployed? Promising to solve unemployment by "giving people jobs" is like me promising to solve world poverty by "giving people money".

It's already the case that people have to take jobs if they are available. This new plan makes no sense (and it was the Conservatives' idea first - amusingly Labour rightly slagged it off, yet now for some reason they've adopted it for themselves...)

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop letting them come and then the wages would be worth more than the benifits. Immigration lowers wages.

Re:Holy shit.

[st0rmshad0w]

How is his argument any more flawed than the unsubstantiated speculation that he is replying to? Maybe the problem doesn't come from the first people forced on the dole, but I would think that there is a much greater likelyhood that those who grew up with their family getting provided for by the government would learn to expect it.

Re:Holy shit.

[mdielmann]

What is wrong with community service for the mum/kid?

And take away work from a public employee?!?!

Re:Holy shit.

[mdwh2]

You're right about the Express being what it is. There are some other sources confirming the idea of "24-hour supervision", and encouraging other parents to snoop on them:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-the-mad-democracy-of-snooping-1759137.html

Although I can't find any other sources about CCTV specifically.

Some more general information at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8165209.stm

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

- redistribution of wealth -
????? isn't that new speak for robbery?????

Re:Holy shit.

[Hognoxious]

The question was whether there were enough jobs, not whether the jobs that do exist pay as much as some people think they deserve.

Stop letting them come and then the wages would be worth more than the benifits.

Or just cut benefits.

Re:Holy shit.

[canadian_right]

The rest of the community, ie "society" doesn't have any rights. Only individuals have rights.

Every argument in favour of group rights is an argument against individual rights. It is always someone try to subvert an individuals rights in the name of "the greater good".

So while I support paying taxes to fund universal education, and health care, I don't pretend my supporting these taxes doesn't infringe on the rights of people who don't support these taxes. I am subverting individual rights to support my point of view. A very popular point of view where I live, but I don't pretend that imaginary "group rights" makes it all morally wonderful.

Yes, there are laws that are in place to make society better, and some of these laws infringe our individual rights. Society may decide to infringe basic rights for the "greater good", but don't pretend it ISN'T infringing individual rights. When you admit you are infringing individual rights I would hope you would be much more careful about infringing rights.

In this case I would say that installing these cameras goes way too far. It infringes basic rights to privacy, it involves a whole family, most of whose members are innocent of any crime. Group punishment is generally against the law. This is a case of a government wanting to show "it is doing something" and deciding camera's are a lot cheaper than hiring and paying social workers and police. They don't really expect this to help. They just want to be able to say to the voters, look, we tried.

Re:Holy shit.

[Oyjord]

The purpose of welfare is to keep the poor poor, and thus ensure that there will always be jobs for Socialist politicians, who can offer to solve the problem.

This is arguably the single stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Ugh. Congrats on such an acclaim.

Re:Holy shit.

[flyingfsck]

No under class before the 1940s? Try the 1840s... You are forgetting that the UK used to export its 'surplus population' to its colonies. It even emptied its jails for the benefit of one colony in particular.

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

In '97 the city of Antwerp started the "Witte Tornados" (White Tornadoes - Dutch isn't that hard) keeping the city clean and providing entry level jobs for people that would otherwise be probably unemployed and living of social benefits. About 150 of them.

That's 150 persons with increased self esteem.

That's 150 persons having a positive contribution instead of being a liability.

That's about 6000 hours of extra cleaning per month - and it has the added effect that it encourages people to not throw things on the street with all the rest of the litter.

If you would do the same with those problem children/mums that might be a similar positive experience? (minus that being an actual job) you don't have to let go one of the 150...

But then again, you probably just went for a joke?

Re:Holy shit.

[canadian_right]

Numerous studies have shown that kids that grow up in families "on the dole" tend to grow up to be adults that collect "the dole" much more than other families. The most popular theory for this is a lack of good role models. If you grow up with parents who do not work, do not try to teach you the value of work, who are not well educated, and do not teach their children the value of education, often, not always, the child grows up thinking that going on "the dole" is just the way things are. Work is for some other class of people they can never belong to. Many children DO escape this life, often due to the influence of teachers, or relatives that do work.

In many places it has been found that working hard to break this cycle can work. Set welfare (dole) rates low enough to live on, but just barely. Anti-poverty activists will yell about a lack of dignity, but I'm of the firm opinion dignity comes form working. Do NOT make getting on welfare easy for children. Where I live you can't get on welfare as a child if your parents are alive and you are under 25. There are exceptions for cases where the parents are abusive. You have to do work training, and / or actively look for work if you are able. You cannot stay on full welfare for more than 2 years if you are able bodied. Then the welfare payments decrease.

Welfare should exist to help people out when they suffer a string of bad luck, or are handicapped and can't work. The rules for welfare should encourage working. For example, if it pays more than the minimum wage why would you work? If welfare rules claw back all your wages when you start working part-time, why would you work part time? Make it hard to get on welfare when people are young. Have separate systems that give extra support and training to break the cycle for young people.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are those people.... Haven't we always been at war with East Asia?

Re:Holy shit.

[Reziac]

The solution is obvious -- stop paying the dole that enables the chavs.

As you note, locking people into a gov't program (and most do, by unreasonably limiting your assets**) is a major step toward totalitarian gov't. And it also locks in votes for that gov't, since no one votes to end the handouts.

** I'm not sure what the asset limits are elsewhere, but here in SoCal certain welfare recipients cannot own more than $500 worth of property (including a car, which ensures that those who can't commute via bus CANNOT get to work) AND you cannot ever have more than $500 in the bank (ensuring that you never have the seed money to get out of poverty). As you say, the welfare system is designed to keep poor people poor -- because that ensures employment for the bureaucracy and votes for its overlords.

Re:Holy shit.

[canadian_right]

The welfare state is not meant to keep people poor, but it inadvertently does that in some cases.

If the welfare benefits are higher than the benefits of working (in the USA having free medical while on welfare is worth a LOT) it makes no sense to work.

Welfare systems should include extra training and support for young people to help break the chain of poverty.

Re:Holy shit.

[Hadlock]

That's an interesting point. From that point of view, you could argue that large, full scale war culls society to some extent. We don't really have any large wars killing large portions of the "underclass" these days in the first world. Sure 2,000-3,000 here and there in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's well within the margin of error of any study on 300 million people. Natural disasters kill more people than wars do in the first world.... prior to 1940, easily 5% of a population (usually the poorest) might go to war and not come back. With a significant war of some type every 20-30 years that's at least once a generation.

Re:Holy shit.

[smallfries]

Err... kind of my point. Just to clear it up I *disagree* that the Welfare State created chavs, that we had no underclass prior to its formation, and that the breakdown in social cohesion that we see amongst those on Welfare is unique amongst societies living in poverty.

I thought that the sarcasm was pretty clear...

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth :).

I enjoy some of the benefits of capitalism as much as the next unabashedly self-interested guy, but you've got some real blinders on, bud, if you think it's commonly seen to have been an effective system for redistribution of wealth.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick of society going in the way that everyone should be "nannied". This welfare crap is just one example.

People that can't provide for themselves within society's rules should not be surviving. Nannying them along will only let their population grow (not through procreation, mind you.) They should die off. And if they manage to survive by going against society's rules, then they should go to prison. Oh, and make it illegal to actively beg for money on the street, too. That should solve all poverty problems in western society. And if the poor don't like it, they can go live off the land in the countryside. And if all else fails, dump them in Africa. That place is cesspool anyways.

Re:Holy shit.

[SomeStupidNickName12]

Wow, you honestly could be describing South Africa with that post. Same problem here with those on welfare in exactly that same situation. The major problem, is that we all live in global culture that expects handouts. Its really sad, but I don't expect it to change any time soon. Its is getting so ridicules that I have been here stories of people intentionally getting HIV and then not taken medication so that there CDC count drops and then qualifying for additional welfare because they now have AIDS.

Re:Holy shit.

[XcepticZP]

Except for the trash sorting example you cited, you have explained the situation in South Africa(and most of the rest of Africa) almost perfectly.

I'm specifically curious as to why the "car minders" as you call them don't happen lots in other parts of the world. I'm guessing it's a symptom of poverty.

Re:Holy shit.

[green1]

Ok, so what would you give them instead of money?

How about food, water, shelter, clothing, and job training?

This would take care of the necessities of life (what welfare is supposed to do) while denying them any "luxury" items unless they are willing to work for them, while giving them the ability to go out there and work. I should also be perfectly clear that I do classify alcohol, cigarettes, and TV service in with the "luxury" items.

I think the idea of a welfare "cheque" is the wrong idea, this gives too much discretion to the person receiving the money, many of whom have shown an inability to properly use such discretion. As a telecommunications technician I have installed full digital HD TV service in a house while the occupants discussed which charity to get their next meal from, the money they are spending on the TV service each month would cover food for most of a month if they knew how to shop effectively. I have also seen people in the media claiming welfare doesn't provide enough money to buy groceries while they stand there surrounded by empty cases of beer and chain smoking... it isn't a matter of not enough money, it's a matter of incorrect priorities.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

it is because the state has to steal from the rest of us to pay for them to sit around and be parasites

Re:Holy shit.

[misexistentialist]

Infecting yourself with HIV to get additional money is not because you "expect handouts", but because you are fucking desperate.

Re:Holy shit.

[iserlohn]

Trying to apportion blame onto New Labour for plans such as this waters down the argument of good governance and the emphasis that should be placed on civil liberties. This is a struggle that transcends party politics; whoever is in power has to answer to the people, accountability is the key.

It doesn't equate to civil liberties being lost, and there should not be a knee jerk reaction to it pretending it is something it is not. It actually does a disservice to the cause of civil liberties because of introducing fringe issues into the discussion.

To be honest, I do not believe that the Tories would have done any different than Labour if they had been in power. Think back to the Thatcher years, it was the state that had to absorb the enormous number of claimants to the disability benefits and welfare because of Thatcher's restructuring of British industry. This is the legacy we are actually seeing now, the people that had been so dependant on the welfare system has largely been those that are made unemployable structurally by poorly thought out free-market policies.

Now, I am not a Labour supporter by any stretch of imagination, but I believe that for the Tories to market themselves as the alternative is the biggest joke of all. Under Major, the problems we are facing now would be more serious or at the very least, be of the same level of severity.

What we need in politics is a voice of reason, to temper the tendency of government to over-react. The British press has a history of sensationalism, but this problem has been exasperated in recent years by quality journalism found in the like of Daily Mail and the Sunday Express. What we need are politicians to say not that they are addressing the issue whenever some scare story pops up, but to say that after analysing the issue, it is not at all an issue that needs to be addressed.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillarious! Lowest-common-denominator-thinking like that was long ago exposed for the tripe is it, you dolt! Everyone knows that the only ones who ever benefited from the so-called "welfare state" were the upwardly mobile white conservative landlords and land owners who profited from government handouts you freakin' idiot! And you have the pluck to come to /. and kick that dead baby around??? Frakkin hillarious!

Get back under your rock, slug.

Re:Holy shit.

[techprophet]

When you "remind" people about how the Welfare State created chavs do you also remind them that we have never had an underclass at any point in history before the 1940s?

Now that, sir, is complete and utter bullshit.

Ever heard of feudalism? No? Read about it!

Re:Holy shit.

[fortunato]

What you describe sounds more like A Clockwork Orange than 1984. Maybe one set of problems causes the other?

Re:Holy shit.

[religious freak]

Dude, have you ever READ 1984? Maybe you're a little jaded because lots of things get compared to 1984 (which I could understand)... but this is truly, literally one of the most chilling and, at the time of the writing, outlandish aspects of 1984 British life brought into the real world. Literally.

Yeah, I can see a certain amount of 'OMG!! its 1984zz' exhaustion, but this is not hyperbole when compared to the book. It's scary.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the people you're talking about who actually abuse benefits (the number of which is really much smaller than you probably think) really would just sit in their own filth because thats pretty much what they already do. Capitalism would just put them out on the streets trying to beg, borrow or steal instead of sitting on government benefit. At least this way we can kind of keep them out of trouble and set up a way to give them a good prod towards getting a job.

However, its not that easy to get a job for many people living on benefits. The type of work you do get is dull or exhaustive, and now that the government has wrecked education in this country they can't even get the qualifications they'd need. You ever been on one of those stupid learn at home courses? They're bloody useless. Hey, why wouldn't they stay on benefits? I would in that situation.

Capitalism isn't the answer at all. It never is when you're dealing with actual human beings rather than consumers. The old Labour method of doing this could very well have helped us out right now, but we'll never know because now Tory Plan B has screwed it up for us.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Will people quite perpetuating that myth. 1985 was NOT a prophetic vision of the future. It's original title was 1948, the year it was written. It was the publisher's idea to transpose the last to digits to make it more provocative.

Re:Holy shit.

[Goldberg's Pants]

I want to know who decides what "on time" is. My kids stay up pretty late. Mainly because I don't want to be woken up at 6am.

Who decides what time is right? Who decides what is "eating healthy". Does this mean pretty much a salad diet for the kids. Which of course would be covered in pesticides.

Giving them pizza punishable by death?

When are the British people (of which I was one until 1996) going to stand up and say "Enough!"

So glad I don't live there anymore. What the government have done there since I left is absolutely despicable.

Spoke to a friend their recently and she informed me that putting the cameras up in the local town center, all it's done is moved the crime out of that area and into others.

Re:Holy shit.

[Dravik]

It does a very effective job of redistributing wealth. Those who work hard, and especially those who innovate, get wealth; while those who don't work get to starve.

Re:Holy shit.

[shutdown -p now]

... people who offered no benefit to the state other than raising children

You forgot the part about doing all the hard labor jobs (which is most of them), as well as serving as soldiers in the endless wars. Aside from that, no other benefit...

Re:Holy shit.

[Goldberg's Pants]

The disintegration of family life is most definitely to blame in part. Near where I live two nine year olds just burned down the local McDonalds. These children were "well known to police". NINE YEARS OLD! That has nothing to do with outlets for violence and everything to do with shitty parenting.

And I've seen little boys who've just started to walk. I have three of my own. And you're off by about a few years. My kids, they were far too excited and proud of the fact they were able to walk. In fact I've never seen any of my kids exhibit the behaviour you say. But then perhaps I'm a decent parent who gives them other outlets and hasn't abandoned them to look after themselves like the parents of the aforementioned nine year olds.

There's definitely something to be said for boxing in regards to a violent outlet. Most kids are NOT violent. Those that are need their focus guided elsewhere, and clearly the parents aren't doing it.

Putting cameras in the home is not the solution. But then this is the country that is encouraging people to spy on their neighbours, encouraging kids to report their parents and families "climate crimes" etc...

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG!!! No it isn't. 1984 was written about what Orwell was seeing in 1948 (notice that transposition). It is NOT ABOUT THE FUTURE!

Re:Holy shit.

[Carrot007]

> In this case I would say that installing these cameras goes way too far. It infringes basic rights to privacy, it involves a whole family, most of whose members are innocent of any crime.

Indeed, if they are that bad at raising the kids, which seems to be the main issue here, then the kids need removing. And prefereabley them being fined. Forced sterilisation maybe a no no, but fineing those who fuck up their kids may stop them trying again. And yes that means jail for those with no money,

Re:Holy shit.

[Goldberg's Pants]

"Tie welfare into a real job paycheck."

So if you can't find work, you don't get welfare. Yeah, that makes sense.

That's hilarious. In a collapsing economy where more people lose their jobs every day, you're advocating a system where people need a job to get the benefits they need to survive...

So basically what you're saying is "I have a job and income. Fuck everyone else."

For every person claiming benefits who is a lazy bum, there are a 100 with legitimate needs.

Re:Holy shit.

[Goldberg's Pants]

Mandatory work?

Sounds like a newspeak term for slave labour to me.

What people seem to forget is in the case of the unemployed, as in those who had a job but then lost it, have PAID INTO this program. It's not like they are stealing other peoples money. Christ, I paid into it then moved out of the country. Meaning I've lost quite a bit of money to the UK system which I have no chance of ever claiming back. OH NOES! But then I'm actually a caring, calm individual who realises that 99.99% of those claiming benefits actually need it, and there will always be a few bad apples. You know what I do? I get over it.

It's all about juking the stats. Making it look like Brown and friends haven't sucked just as badly as the last guys.

Re:Holy shit.

[Goldberg's Pants]

I love how you are all saying "they would HAVE to work", as if there is some infinite job market with jobs for everyone willing to work.

What planet are you people living on? Because it sure as hell isn't this one.

Re:Holy shit.

[peragrin]

Here is the point for your spot. You had a job, can you imagine the mess you would be in right now if you didn't have welfare covering your ass? You as a person and family would be bankrupt and ejected from your home. Welfare right now is making your life hard but possible. You are actually a welfare success story. We forget just how bad things would be right now without welfare. You say you are actively looking what happens if you can't find work in the next 12 months? expand out your bills then and try to imagine your life.

The people I am talking about aren't like you. You want to work, they don't want to ever.

Re:Holy shit.

[sjames]

Seems like a pretty big indictment of care to me. I'm not so sure any measure that increases the extent of their influenxce over children could be considered a good thing.

Re:Holy shit.

[rumcho]

Not to worry, every welfare system is doomed to eventually collapse. Look at the Soviet Union - the whole system was welfare, everybody was on welfare. It collapsed.
Liberty and free markets are the only long-lasting and sustainable system where people depend on themselves or voluntary contributions of other people. It will take long time for humanity to unequivocably come to this conclusion but it is just a matter of time before they do. Truth will always prevail, and when we discuss economic systems the truth is that liberty, capitalism, and free markets are the best system to take care of the maximum number of people.
I am strong believer in liberty and our time will come, it just takes a while.

Re:Holy shit.

[UncleTogie]

As for point #2, you've just doomed us all; we're all criminals. Did you have a particular segment of criminal in mind instead? If so, where do you draw the line? Reminds me of an old story I read about torture. Started with a bunch of people conscripted into the role of torturer for use in high risk cases. They're horrified at the beginning, but by the end of the story they're handling misdemeanor stuff, and are inured to the "messier" parts of their jobs. The story ends with the guy that recruited 'em first bein' on the table. They got all eager.

Can't remember the name of the story, but I always felt it was a good reminder of the "slippery slope" problem... especially considering recent events.

Re:Holy shit.

[nyctopterus]

The care system is a disaster, it's true. Major, and possibly very expensive, reforms are badly needed (just about any expense would be justified by the savings to the criminal justice systems later on).

However, you seem to be confused on the point of what the "care system" is. The care system consists of foster carers and children's homes, not the majority of social workers.

Social services face bad outcomes no matter what they choose to do. They can leave a child in the care of parents who are (sometimes horrifically) abusing their children, and try to face the music when something goes terribly wrong. Or they can hand them over to the care system, which has statistically worse outcomes.

I don't think people appreciate how bad things are for abused and neglected kids. They've got next to no chance.

Re:Holy shit.

[tftp]

I'm specifically curious as to why the "car minders" as you call them don't happen lots in other parts of the world.

Such small-time racketeering must be tolerated by the police in order to be worthwhile. So the society must first decay enough so that it's safe for a man to issue threats right in the public street and get away with it. Corruption of the police is usually required.

Re:Holy shit.

[St.Creed]

(...) were all motivated by "doing the best for (their own) people".

Ehm, no. Virtually every example of mass terror was started as a means of getting a seriously unruly mass of ordinary people under control again. They were sold externally as "doing the best for their own people". That's slightly different from "being motivated by". Be careful about lumping really different social environments together as well: it may look good to compare the spanish inquisition to the fascists, but there's a world of difference in social composition, background, ideology and so forth between them. Lumping them together oversimplifies things and it reduces your ability to understand each of them.

Case in point: the French revolution's terror probably took between 16000 and 40000 lives. While that is a considerable amount of bloodshed, it's a bit hard to equate it with the nazi deathcamps that, I've been told, killed a bit more people. Also, the dynamics were totally different and if you really must include the French, you could better compare it to the Paris Commune's decimation (30-50000 victims) which had a dynamic that was much more comparable (a revolution that failed, and fear of the revolutionaries driving the almost ousted rulers to extreme measures).

Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war with the republicans against the fascists. In his time there were dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Hitler,... so it is easy to understand where the inspiration and fear came from.

But not so easy to understand his personal experience with both. You should read Homage to Catalonia if you want a better understanding of the writer.

Re:Holy shit.

[pjt33]

Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war with the republicans against the fascists. In his time there were dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Hitler,... so it is easy to understand where the inspiration and fear came from.

To be precise, he fought with the Marxists - not because he chose to, but because his letter of recommendation was from the Independent Labour Party. As a result of that arbitrary quirk of fate, he was denounced as a "confirmed Trotskyist" and had to flee for his life from the Stalinists, who were nominally on the same side. He certainly wasn't a fan of Franco, but it might be appropriate to emphasise Stalin a bit more in your list.

However, your phrasing "fought ... against the fascists" is very appropriate, as that's where he put the emphasis. For the purposes of the wider discussion, though, it's interesting to note his answer to the hypothetical question he might have been posed as to for what he was fighting: "common decency". It's an interesting yardstick against which to measure "what's best for the people": anything which fails the common decency test probably isn't.

Re:Holy shit.

[smallfries]

Jesus, not another one. Didn't you read the other replies? Don't you understand sarcasm?

Re:Holy shit.

[bigngamer92]

Not to mention Imperialism. Except that was for other people.

Re:Holy shit.

[mikael]

I worked for a company which was located in an industrial estate next to one of these areas. There weren't any jobs for which the local residents were suitably qualified (requiring skills from sales, management or engineering experience), they wouldn't have the right attitude about taking orders from someone else (they really don't like being dissed), and wouldn't speak clear English either. Their teenage offspring will be openly drinking alcohol in the streets and abuse any Taxi driver or bus driver that refuses them on, to the extent that these areas will be inaccessible by public transport. There was actually a shortage of bus and train drivers in that area, so you never knew whether a particular bus or train was actually going to arrive.

In the past, council housing was based on waiting list time, now it based upon who is most desperately in need (number of children, single parent, breadwinner in prison, drug addiction, mental illness), so all the other residents will end up wanting to leave, and the cycle continues.

Re:Holy shit.

[plaxion]

In other news, sources have learned that Amazon.com deleted George Orwell's 1984 from Kindle owners libraries because they were correcting a mis-categorization. 1984 has now been moved to the non-fiction section.

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

Normally, there is social mobility between generations, but these people seem to be forced away from normal society into one where there are no direct incentives to improve oneself, indeed, there are only disincentives, as any work will push them off of the welfare roles. If the parents had to provide for themselves, they would either get jobs, and start upward mobility themselves, or they would wind up in prison, and their children would go to responsible people, thus allowing for intergenerational upward mobility.

Bad systems breed bad people. Read "The Lucifer Effect", which is about the Stanford Prison Experiment, and you'll see how bad systems can even turn good, upstanding people into monsters within a few days. ALL welfare systems are bad systems, save perhaps for those with a set limit of time for which they are available (so as to help people become independent, rather than encouraging them, and their children, to become fully dependent).

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

Some people are self destructive, therefore all must be controlled by government. Excellent. See you at the next Party meeting, Komerade!

Re:Holy shit.

[PachmanP]

Numerous studies have shown that kids that grow up in families "on the dole" tend to grow up to be adults that collect "the dole" much more than other families. The most popular theory for this is a lack of good role models. If you grow up with parents who do not work, do not try to teach you the value of work, who are not well educated, and do not teach their children the value of education, often, not always, the child grows up thinking that going on "the dole" is just the way things are. Work is for some other class of people they can never belong to. Many children DO escape this life, often due to the influence of teachers, or relatives that do work.

Make birth control mandatory and test for it in order to receive welfare. I think a significant issue is people who theoretically can't work because they have children, get welfare, then have more children! I think that would go a long way towards breaking the cycle. It's harsh and controlling, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:Holy shit.

[ydrol]

"white-trash" - I really hate that phrase. To me the adjective implies that this is a notable kind of trash. Whereas "black trash" - well that goes without saying doesn't it? Not that this is a reflection upon the person that says it. (as it is uttered by all hues), just a sad reflection of our perceptions of society. Some of which might be justified, but much not.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's stealing. Moron.

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

Unfortunately, your government is corrupt, and has created systemic corruption that makes it almost impossible for the market to function to the benefit of all, as it does elsewhere, such as in Singapore. What the government has done to those people is to create a sort of dead end job from which there is no escape. Because they get paid more than market wages, there is no incentive for them to take a lower paying job that has a future.

Government intervention inevitably introduces inequity in the system, and reduces efficiency. They do this merely by the fact that they employ people to do things that would be taken care of naturally in their absence (think "Department of Education"--didn't we have schools before the formed that bureaucracy? Weren't we ranked higher relative to other nations in student quality before they came in? Wasn't it cheaper to send kids to school back then?).

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

It's quite a leap to go from cradle to the grave government dole to starving in the streets because Daddy broke his back in the factory, but by God you made it.

I mean, surely there was never such a thing where people could give money, perhaps monthly, and receive funds back should they fall injured, or out of work. Alternatively, there could never be an impulse for people to voluntarily give money, perhaps to some sort of charitable organization, to help out such families in those types of situations. Such things could surely never happen in a free market. You're right, it's much better that we pay half or more of our total income to support a permanent underclass, as well as a massive government bureaucracy to administrate them.

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

I don't give anything to anyone unless I get something in return. I would give them money in exchange for goods or services, such as labor. You know, a JOB.

Re:Holy shit.

[PRMan]

"But if you went to Harvard, and your rich, white kids grow up to be heroin addicts, it means your nannies did something wrong."

FTFY

Re:Holy shit.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

He certainly wasn't a fan of Franco, but it might be appropriate to emphasise Stalin a bit more in your list.

I doubt Stalin was a real ideologist, more a successful, ruthless opportunist, I believe. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky on the other hand would fit better in my list... Now if I was to make a list of the most evil men in history, he might fit in easily.

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

Prior to the 1840's (in England, more like the 1640's), EVERYONE was in the underclass, save for the "nobility". Free markets created the opportunity for people to advance, an opportunity that has been denied to the masses since the Roman Welfare State collapsed in on itself and created feudalism in a last gasp at maintaining the power of the state (ie as people fled to the countryside to avoid taxes, regulations, and price controls).

Re:Holy shit.

[sjames]

I'm sure I cannot fully appreciate how bad it is for abused and neglected kids since I fortunately was not one of them. I can, however, see that however bad it is, if the outcomes are WORSE for the care system (or in the U.S. the foster care system), then it must on average be even worse.

I'm not exactly sure where the dividing like in the U.K. is between social workers and foster care. In the U.S. when the problem is serious enough (at least in theory), the child protective services remove the children and place them in foster care.

In any event, if social services CAN be a strong positive influence, why don't they visit the kids in care and keep them from becoming statistics? Surely in that situation they would face much lower legal barriers to helping the kids in need since the carers don't actually have parental rights?

One thing I do wonder, there seems to be a long-standing assumption (quite in evidence in this discussion) that the characteristics that lead to being in a lower social class also lead to child abuse and neglect. Yet, I see no evidence presented ANYWHERE that it's not the other way around, that is, being in a lower social class leads to unemployment and then child abuse/neglect.

Perhaps the best thing that can be done to curb the problem is to create better educational and employment opportunities.

I don't know exactly how the social programs in the U.K. work, but I do know the ones in the U.S. are practically perfectly designed to make absolutely certain that once a person is in the system, they won't get back out. Just as soon as someone shows signs that they might get back on their feet they hit the program limits and end up worse off than when they were unemployed. To show the extent of the problem, just having $300 in the bank is enough to get services terminated, even if it was a one-off windfall or an attempt to save for a car so you can get work.

The people who get out are the ones who just had a spell of the worst sort of luck and were then able to resume working for considerably more than minimum wage. If you expect the worst of people, then punish them for doing anything but the worst, it's not hard to guess what will happen.

Put another way, how many people of ANY social class will be inclined to work more in order to have less? Or even to just stay where they are? I don't think very many would.

Meanwhile, many HR departments are not terribly interested in a 30 or 40 year old with a family applying for an entry level position. That is, a person who did exactly what society said they should and improved their education to get out of a dead end situation then finds that the window has closed.

Re:Holy shit.

[dbcad7]

What's the unemployment rate ? .. What's the percentage of people on welfare ? .. It's a simple matter of.. If you want your unemployment check or your able bodied and want your welfare check, then you must apply for x amount of jobs.. Caught gaming the system, and no check for you.. The thing is, most of the people who are disgusted by things like welfare, have a decent job and can't fathom why everybody else doesn't,, Saying things like "they" would work if they HAD to, is not true if there are no jobs.. and if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself out of a decent paying job, your tune will change quick.

Re:Holy shit.

[cyber-vandal]

People dying of starvation or preventable diseases doesn't sound like a better lifestyle to me. If the welfare state has been such a disaster then how come our standard of living and our longevity has gone up and up in the last 60 years.

If you think removing state protections will somehow magically make things better then I suggest you read your history books again and see how many people actually escaped from the Victorian slums because of the wonderful workhouses.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them. If they couldn't afford beer, Sky, fags and takeaway, they would do something about it.

If by work you mean assorted criminal acts. Then yes Britain would be much better off without this welfare rubbish. *sigh*

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Other people "work" as "car minders" (?).. they stay at the block where you park, and ask for money in return for "caring" for your car (and god help you if you don't pay them..). Don't think that just by paying them they won't steal if they have the opportunity (I've personally seen the one in my block steal, and now I'm in a kind of cold war with him, and can't park in my block anymore), and they're no insurance against having your car stolen either.

"My car is touched- by you, by anyone- I will come back here and kill you." What're they going to do, call the cops on you?

Re:Holy shit.

[ishobo]

The Reason Foundation promotes supply side economic princples and unrestrained free markets, which have never been shown to work. You might as well quote the John Birch Society.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an article about putting telescreens in people's homes. Asking people not to mention 1984 after reading such an article is akin to asking them not to mention the colour blue after reading an article about the spectrum of the daytime sky in the absence of cloud!

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

>>>So you give one (1) anecdotal example that says "welfare state does not create the problem"

Someone doesn't know how to read. I'm sitting here on my ass all day, getting paid $14/hour, over the course of 1.5 years. So yeah I'd say welfare DOES create the problem of encouraging slothful citizens. Why work when you can just collect money for doing nothing?

And you say it's just one example, but if you drive through any American city you can observe thousands such examples where people collect government money for doing nothing all day.

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

>>>can you imagine the mess you would be in right now if you didn't have welfare?

I'd be just fine. I spend about $1000 a month on rent plus electricity plus food, and I had $220,000 saved at layoff, so I could sustain myself for about 220 months, aka eighteen years with no assistance whatsoever.

>>>Welfare is making your life...possible.

False. See above. I had enough sense to save my money and be prepared for hard times, so don't use me as your excuse to justify the BS that is welfare. The grandparent poster was correct that a welfare state encourages sloth and dependence and "white trash" families.

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

I am not persuaded by ad hominem (against the name) arguments. They are a logical fallacy which prove nothing.

Reason Magazine's studies are just as valid as any study Obama might quote. If you don't think the $11/hour welfare earnings is accurate, than get the study and demonstrate where it is flawed. Alternatively quote a different study from a different think tank which estimates how many dollars/hour welfare benefits are worth.

Either of those would be a valid argument. The ad hominem attack is not.

Re:Holy shit.

[douglas98765321]

You hit the nail on the head. Caressing the statistics for unemployment has worked with the New Deal. Why must the government stop there? It is the culture that needs to be changed and influenced positively, not this ridiculous idea of monitoring. Technology is still proving to help divide those with money and those without. How sad that the government want to continue to separate those who have, and those who do not.

Re:Holy shit.

[techprophet]

He forgot his tags. The [/sarcasm] ones.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Food that tastes like shit, water treated with iodine so it's clean but tastes like shit, and shitty living conditions. If they want non-shit, they can get it themselves.

Re:Holy shit.

[douglas98765321]

Good point. There are very few jobs at the moment. Recession doesn't help that fact, not at least under this government. I started work myself after having no work for a while. Sadly agency work. In a factory... I could go on about the problems I had with the agency, but I will say one thing. I would not have even got that work had the government not bribed my employer with a £500 back to work bonus for taking on an unemployed person. What's more the employer would get another £500 26 weeks down the line if they still have the "job seeker" on the books. It's all a con!

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't mod you any higher, so I will settle for giving you an honorary Post of the Year award.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Brits have never had to truly fight for their freedom tooth and nail. That there is the root of the problem. They have lived under a perpetual all-powerful nanny fiefdom their whole lives, including their ancestors. One day this will get so bad they will have to fight back or be squeezed to death by their ever-loving mother, the British Empire. India and America had to bite back hard on the impersonal hand that reached over great distances at choke us at the same time it pet them lovingly, now you get your chance. The real question I suppose is, how long can the British people put up with it?

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Tory, the Tories are left-wing "progressives" now and basically agree with New Labour on every matter.

You have it backwards old chap, Labour moved to the right, closer to the Tories (you're correct in believing there's no difference between the two, however). See Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievment if you don't believe me.

Re:Holy shit.

[ishobo]

I do not see what Obama has to do with the Reason Foundation. Stay on topic. There was no ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the character or motives of a person. I pointed out that the Reason Foundation is a biased organization, on the same level as the John Birch Society. Although, the Foundation likes to bill itself as non-partisan, it is indeed partisan and not a good reference source.

Then again, I did not pay attention to your signature. Now it is making sense.

Re:Holy shit.

[sonicmerlin]

Unfortunately there are a certain class of people who wouldn't work even if it meant living terrible life-styles. People are stubborn and irrational, and their behaviors are products of a series of complex neural connections and interactions that they have no direct control over. You're simply projecting your own mindset to them, which isn't really fair. They aren't like you, and their brains don't necessarily work the same way as yours.

Re:Holy shit.

[idlemachine]

Well, in Orwell's book the cities were literally crumbling, and the political elite surpressed the masses just for the hell of it. Scary though it it, the government thinks what it's doing is best for the people - which is a marked difference from the novel.

But that isn't necessarily any better, which is something we've known as a society for centuries: "Hell is full of good intentions or desires." (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1091-1153)

Re:Holy shit.

[Tuoqui]

Welfare keeps them for being even worse off. What is needed is a way to tie welfare into a real job paycheck so you can't get one with out the other. Though that too will create other problems.

Part of the problem is that companies stopped paying a decent living wage to their workforce. It used to be homes could be handled on a single income so the father (or sometimes Mother) worked and the other stayed home and took care of the kids. Nowadays both parents need to work. Meaning kids get less attention and discipline which is what caused this problem in the first place.

Re:Holy shit.

[TheNarrator]

Pretty soon they will have half the population watching the other half sit around and do nothing. What a way to run a country!

Re:Holy shit.

[TheNarrator]

I read Homage to Catalonia, which is Orwell's account of fighting with the POUM forces. The POUM were anarchist communists. They were actively underminded by the Stalin backed communists and less favored by the Stalinists than even Franco's forces. I think 1984 was Orwell's attempt to describe what would happen if Stalinism, as he had come into contact with it in Spain and other places, took over the world.

Re:Holy shit.

[pjt33]

Ah - I thought it was a list of people who made Orwell fear authoritarian government.

Re:Holy shit.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Do you have any actual points to make, or did you just want to randomly slag on the Reason Foundation some more?

Re:Holy shit.

[Man On Pink Corner]

So what I'm reading over and over in this thread is that "welfare" is just a polite term for "extortion." You're literally paying the chavs not to engage in assorted acts of shopcrasting and ultraviolence.

Do I have it right?

Re:Holy shit.

[squizzar]

Well of course. You didn't think the government would be able to get a project like that done on time did you?

Re:Holy shit.

[xaxa]

In the U.S. when the problem is serious enough (at least in theory), the child protective services remove the children and place them in foster care.

They do the same here (there aren't enough people willing to adopt children, so there are also children's homes run by social workers).

In any event, if social services CAN be a strong positive influence, why don't they visit the kids in care and keep them from becoming statistics?

Social services visit every child in a children's home, and also those with foster parents.

Surely in that situation they would face much lower legal barriers to helping the kids in need since the carers don't actually have parental rights?

Sometimes a child in care might assault one of the staff. The staff can't fight back or punish the child, they have about as much power as a school teacher. Perhaps they can withhold some reward, but from the point of view of an overworked social worker, would you bother with the argument? So, the children don't really learn right from wrong and get used to getting their own way. Out in the real world they'll assualt someone, get arrested and go to prison. (The social worker who told me this said something like a quarter of the children from the home she worked at ended up in prison/etc soon after leaving, but that would be in a bad area.)

The problem is the social workers don't have enough rights that parents do.

I don't know exactly how the social programs in the U.K. work, but I do know the ones in the U.S. are practically perfectly designed to make absolutely certain that once a person is in the system, they won't get back out.

For someone with no children, it's reasonably easy to get out of the system -- you get enough money and help to get more education or training if you need it, and help finding a job. I've not experienced any of the schemes myself. The most basic is "Jobseeker's Allowance", an extra £80 (or so) a week -- to get it you have to prove that you're applying to at least three jobs a week. That's on top of whatever's given for having a low/zero income (income support) and probably free/subsidised housing (housing benefit).

However, a single mother with a couple of young children is probably better off not working -- income support, housing benefit plus child benefit is easily sufficient to live on, and a part-time job doesn't earn enough to make up for the money she's no longer eligible for.

Just as soon as someone shows signs that they might get back on their feet they hit the program limits and end up worse off than when they were unemployed. To show the extent of the problem, just having $300 in the bank is enough to get services terminated

£6000 here, as far as I know.

even if it was a one-off windfall or an attempt to save for a car so you can get work.

At least here there's public transport (which in some areas is much cheaper for people with a low income). I don't know if someone on income support could afford to run a car, it probably varies depending what else they have to pay for (parking, insurance, fuel).

Re:Holy shit.

[VJ42]

It's the Daily Express, TFA almost certainly bares no resemblance to the truth.

Re:Holy shit.

[daem0n1x]

Are you schizophrenic? If you're reaping the benefits what are complaining about? Without unemployment subsidy you'd be living on the street because you were unfortunate enough to lose your job. How would it be better, for society or yourself?

Re:Holy shit.

[xaxa]

This just published on the BBC News site (I'm linking it to show that we're trying to fix the problem):

"Short jail sentences and overuse of custodial remand make no sense. Imprisonment leaves a lasting mark on the young. Being a former prisoner while still a teenager usually leads to wasted lives, years of misery and public expense. Surely we can do better than this?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180527.stm

(Cynically, the reduction in youth offending is because the police have been told to be more lenient.)

Re:Holy shit.

[VJ42]

Australia and the gallows.

I don't think Australia would take our criminals now that they're an independent country and all...

Re:Holy shit.

[daem0n1x]

All that you say is wonderful, but it takes an actual commitment from the government and society to change something. Today, the mantra is "less state, better state". The governments prefer to pay these people in cash just to keep the crime and violence rates relatively controlled.

Getting people out of the poverty cycle takes decades and it's not easy. But what, invest in the future? Are you fucking crazy?

Re:Holy shit.

[DiamondMX]

Solution: Minimum wage increase - if benefits are supposed to cover the minimum acceptable level of income for someone to live on (and that's certainly what they represent here in Oceania - erm, the UK) then full time employment should not be permitted to pay less than that.
Of course you could argue that would hurt the economy or some bullshit like that, but the fact is that $7/hour is a piss-poor wage and *that* is what makes people sit on the dole for a lifetime. Some of them probably are too lazy to work - but most of them are too lazy to work for less money, significantly less respect, and much more effort. Plus there are costs involved with working such as travel, eating at work, etc - in other words it's not the benefits that create the problem, it's the lower-class worker exploitation that $7/hour represents.
Plus, how much enthusiasm can you have for a job where the manager might fire you just because he's in a bad mood that day?

Re:Holy shit.

[smoker2]

Chicken and Egg. The reason companies started paying less, and being able to pay less, is that in a relatively short time, the workforce went from being mostly male, to being roughly 60/40 male / female. Do you think that they suddenly had need for all these new workers ? Sudden extra orders to fulfill that needed an extra 40% more workers ?

The existing jobs were gradually split in order to provide extra places with less productivity per worker. Of course the companies are going to pay less. Add to this scenario the governments legal insistence that companies MUST employ certain fractions of women, disabled, ethnic minorities etc, and you quickly end up with a situation where there is not enough work to go around. You can now also add immigrant workers from the EU soaking up work at lower pay rates than the indigenous people.

You may see my post as misanthropic, mysogenous, or racist, but the simple fact is that you can only provide for a certain number of people by dividing what is available. You cannot run at a deficit on job availability or you end up with lower wages and unemployment. Just because the economists want to believe that continuous growth is indeed possible, it doesn't make it true. All that happens is what exists gets divided among a greater amount of people, driving down each individuals share. Welcome to the future. With global population rising, each earthling is due less and less as time goes on. You may think it's alright to rely on capitalism to allow you to climb over others heads to grab your "fair" share, but the number of people who are able to do that is vastly outnumbered by the increasingly devalued masses.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking I have a solution to this problem, but lack of solution does not mean lack of problem. We obviously can't confine women to the home like in the 1950s, we can't hire workers based on race, religion or (lack of) handicap, people do migrate to find better conditions for themselves and their families. But we also cannot continue to subdivide the available work and expect to maintain the same standard of living. The UK is flooded with jobs for office staff who basically do nothing other than input data to computers. This kind of work is precisely the kind of work that computers were supposed to make obsolete. But Britain Needs Jobs ! Companies get subsidies for hiring staff, so they create meaningless jobs to gain the subsidies.

I have (almost) always been a manual worker. I liked my life and the pay while not being stellar was almost invariably better than working at the lower levels in an office (twice the pay in most cases). Now immigration has increased, manual work has become less well paid and harder to find. So where's next ? The office job is paying half my old income level, do I give up my life and possessions to conform to the new income, or try to fight to the top ? Will it matter in the long run, or by the time I get there will the finish line have moved on ? These are not simple personal problems, they are important political problems, which most politicians are trying hard to ignore because they can't easily be solved and so will not make them look good. Capitalism is not going to solve this, and neither is the current crop of socialists, because they have morphed into capitalists "with a heart". Sometimes you need a firm hand on the tiller in government, because the people should not always get what they want. Sometimes it is better for everybody if the population are forced to accept changes they don't like, even if it costs them personally. I don't see any current politician with the balls to get the country out of this even if there were a relatively easy solution.

To swing back on topic, there is a reason why we have a chav culture, and whole generations of a family living on benefits - the govt. LIKES it that way ! Less active workers means less jobs needed, means higher pay for those who do work and the bonus is that it is all paid for by those who work. The unemployed still buy stuff, sti

Re:Holy shit.

[smoker2]

You think the wars were real ?
Interesting.

Re:Holy shit.

[smoker2]

You obviously don't come from a country where nearly half of all adult males were killed in 2 world wars. And 99% of those who were killed were working class. The whole country paid with blood sweat and tears in the first half of the 20th century, and at the end of WW2, the people felt that things should be better. We elect the government to do things on our behalf, we give them lots of money to enable them to do it. Just because the system has been subverted by ne'r-do-wells does not diminish the concept. At least if the govt. has our money some wank banker can't go bust and take our insurance coverage with him. Do you really pay half your income in taxes to support welfare ? I don't. Maybe you are closer to the cut than you realise, hope you've got good insurance.

Re:Holy shit.

[smoker2]

If you want freedom, don't fuck your kids, don't claim the dole for ever, don't be noticed by the system. It works for most of us. You may as well say we shouldn't lock up criminals because they have a right to freedom. The people who will be housed in these places are already at the lowest point on the scale. In most cases they have no-one to blame but themselves. Should we just ignore them, or should we make an attempt to actively monitor what's going wrong ? You think they won't lie if you ask them to fill in a questionnaire ?

I'm so sorry to live in a country that breeds idiots who take everything they see in the news as gospel, and makes no effort to educate themselves. Or to put it another way, how much of a pay cut are you willing to take to make sure these poor people have a job to go to ? How many evenings a week will you give up to ensure that parents don't abuse/murder/prostitute their kids ? I'm betting not much in either case.

But a trite sound bite makes so much difference, thank you.

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Without unemployment subsidy you'd be living on the street

False.

See my most-recent post about my $220,000 savings and that I did Not need welfare assistance.

Re:Holy shit.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I pointed out that the Reason Foundation is a biased organization, on the same level as the John Birch Society.

Actually your precise words were "The Reason Foundation promotes supply side economic princples and unrestrained free markets, which have never been shown to work. You might as well quote the John Birch Society."

That certainly qualifies as "an attack on the character or motives of a person" or organization (which of course consists of people). It's an ad hominem argument which is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid. It proves nothing.

Citing a Reason study is just as valid as citing a MoveOn.org study, or a New York Times study, or any other study. If you think the Reason study is not accurate, then look at the study and show me where it's wrong. Or quote a different study that reaches a different dollars/hour conclusion. THOSE would be logical, valid arguments.

Don't resort to logical fallacies like ad hominem arguments.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

People, not just children, perform criminal acts for many reasons. I speed because I think the speed limits on Minnesota highways are ridiculous. When i was in high school (83 - 86) my friend sold low-watt drugs to make money. Other people took drugs for various reasons. One of my friends stole a car and took it for a joy-ride to impress his girlfriend (now ex-wife). A girl I knew became a prostitute to get meth.

Tucking kids in at night and making sure they get their veggies has nothing to do with lowering the crime rate. It has everything to do with eliminating child neglect. Maybe there is a correlation. I don't know.

Do you?

Re:Holy shit.

[tmosley]

Yes, giving all of your money and power to a small group of collaborators turned out so well for Germany, or Russia for that matter.

Surely, no-one would ever try to divert public money into their own pockets, or compromise the good of the public for the good of themselves. This time, it'll be DIFFERENT. This time, we've elected the RIGHT powerbrokers, who only care about us, and are immune to the temptations of nigh-unlimited powers.

Pull the other one, mate.

Re:Holy shit.

[sjames]

Sometimes a child in care might assault one of the staff. The staff can't fight back or punish the child, they have about as much power as a school teacher. Perhaps they can withhold some reward, but from the point of view of an overworked social worker, would you bother with the argument? So, the children don't really learn right from wrong and get used to getting their own way. Out in the real world they'll assualt someone, get arrested and go to prison. (The social worker who told me this said something like a quarter of the children from the home she worked at ended up in prison/etc soon after leaving, but that would be in a bad area.)

That would certainly lead to problems! I can understand that they want to avoid any potential for abuse within the system by setting sharp limits well on the safe side, but it sounds like that's been overdone. I would say it is important to the child's development that an adult DOES bother with the argument!

That's not meant to condemn the individual social worker as it sounds like there are simply too few of them. Parenting can't be done in the same ratios that teaching can. Teaching only manages that with kids because the teacher can refer a problem to the parents if necessary. I know when I was in school, no student wanted to have their parents called by the principal and certainly didn't want to have their parents told to come get them.

£6000 here, as far as I know.

Either way, that's the sort of thing that leads people on assistance to buy things they can't really afford on the basis of use it or lose it.

Of course the limits are set by people who quite likely have never been at risk of being late on the bills and for whom tightening their belt means going easy on the caviar.

At least here there's public transport (which in some areas is much cheaper for people with a low income). I don't know if someone on income support could afford to run a car, it probably varies depending what else they have to pay for (parking, insurance, fuel).

Fair enough, that's a geographical difference. Here, there are a great many areas where public transport is simply not an option. Many workplaces aren't a reasonable walking distance from a bus stop.

It's a good thing I'm not in that situation. When I need to actually go in, I need a car to get to public transportation. I do that primarily to avoid the daily traffic jam and catch up on my reading. Even then, there are limitations. The last train runs at midnight and then there's nothing until 6AM. One reason I can do that is that I'm not on a time clock. Those that are would have to allow a generous amount of time in the morning for a late train.

Re:Holy shit.

[smoker2]

Do you support young kids being allowed to go to the pub with their parents - at 10pm on a school night ?
Do you support the idea of kids being raised on a diet of chips and burgers ?
Do you think it's the kids fault if he/she steals, vandalises, or assaults others ? Or might there be a lack of parental guidance there ?

As usual, the lazy assholes in society fuck it up for the law abiding majority. Maybe if personal freedoms weren't so much demanded people might realise that if they brought a kid into the world, they have a duty to care for it and train it before they release it into the wild. But no, single mothers have a RIGHT to go drinking every night, they have a RIGHT to go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth. But somehow their duties to their kids and to society (by bringing up useful well mannered members of society) are forgotten in the constant stream of me, me, me.

What about my right not to be assaulted as I walk the streets ? What about my right not to have a paving slab dropped on to my vehicle as I pass under a bridge ? What about my right to get some sleep because I have to start work at 4am, but can't because some kid's having a party until 3am or later ?

I've never been imprisoned, I've worked and paid my dues, but somehow I have less rights than people who do what they want with no service to anybody but themselves.

Do us all a favour and don't come back - ever. It's your kind of attitude that has put us in this mess in the first place. You proved that in your first line. You're not interested in your kids welfare, you're only interested in YOUR welfare, no matter what it does to them or anybody else. I'm glad to see that the UK is exporting chavs, it can only be a growth industry.

Re:Holy shit.

[nyctopterus]

Yes I do know, and there is a very strong correlation. Your examples above don't seem to refute my point anyway.

Re:Holy shit.

[Tuoqui]

Yeah those drivers are such parasites. The state has to steal from us pedestrians to pay for them to drive their big fat gas guzzling SUV's and repave all those roads.

Re:Holy shit.

[mSparks43]

I'm all or supporting industry, but I didn't think car boot sales were so high up on the agenda.
Assuming most of these cameras will end up on ebay or car boot sales within a week of being installed.
________
disclaimer: Not that I'm questioning the accuracy of the Daily Express, but I see nothing on this anywhere else, either on ed balls's own site, or even the slightest mention of it in his recent chat with the Telegraph
If this is already being trailed in 2,000 homes, I think those should be claiming compensation
Basically, WTF?!?!?!?!?

Re:Holy shit.

[mSparks43]

heres the actual home office press release:
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/government-prevent-youth-crime

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's forcing you to take the $14 per hour. If it's such an evil thing, why not show the courage of your convictions and just starve?

Re:Holy shit.

[amplt1337]

nless you are a highly skilled worker, you actually take a cut in income when you move from benefits to a job! This is partly because British people who live below the poverty line still pay taxes when they work. Economically speaking, it actually isn't worth getting a job.

Sounds like an excellent case for an improved minimum-wage law and a more progressive tax system. Thanks for making it!

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Every argument in favour of group rights is an argument against individual rights. It is always someone try to subvert an individuals rights in the name of "the greater good"."

You give up your individual rights when you have kids... imo. You take on a responsibility and if society is goign to have to bear that responsibility for you it comes with restrictions. Noone is going to stop you from having kids... but we're damn sure going to make you take responsibility for them.

Re:Holy shit.

[sjames]

Alas, your cynicism is probably justified here. I doubt it will truly stop the problem unless they come up with a really great alternative to the custodial solution.

Re:Holy shit.

[peragrin]

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

This recession without welfare == worse than the great depression. Indeed it has been welfare that has largely kept the recession from getting a lot worse. There are no food lines, few people flat out starving. those who have lost homes have found new ones.

Welfare has made this simply a pain. it may drag the recovery slightly. however it won't take a world war to do so.

Re:Holy shit.

[frogmourne]

"Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

Re:Holy shit.

[mdielmann]

What's that sound? Yep, that's the sound of it going right over your head.

Re:Holy shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in the same situation as commodre64. Now there are two (2) anecdotal examples posted, and about 30 million more who have not got around to posting yet.

Jesus Fucking Christ

[EdIII]

You just can't make hyperbole out of this shit anymore. Get the fuck out of England while there isn't a 30ft concrete wall preventing you from doing so. Either that or start killing your politicians.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mustafap]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. As an englishman living in england, I can tell you these newspapers are rubbish. Page 3 probably has "Elvis is alive and working as a roadsweeper".

There are about 50 million people in the uk, so it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish and the remainder to buy newspapers printing it..

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[hairyfeet]

You know, we Americans really ought to give the guys in the UK credit. I mean, every time we seem to sink farther and farther into a police state, with crap like warrant-less wiretapping ( gotta love that hope and change!) and other Big Brother style crap, along comes the UK to prove "hey, it could always be worse!"

So I personally would like to extend the folks of the UK a hearty golf clap, for proving that no matter how bad of a corporate ass kissing, police state loving pile of douchebags we end up with writing our laws that we will always have the UK proving that nobody beats them for CC loving, neighbor snooping, big government bullshit. Thanks UK! /golf clap/

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[gnupun]

How is this different from the US? There's security cameras in every business, bus, train, plane, street, traffic cameras etc. We urgently need laws preventing these so-called security cameras from stealing what little freedom we have.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mrmeval]

You sound like a 1990's conspiracy theorist.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mikesd81]

But the UK wants to put it PRIVATE houses. Not in PUBLIC areas where expectation of privacy doesn't exist.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sumdumass]

If you have to ask how it is different, I'm not sure you will be inteligent enough to understand.

First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.

When you are in the public view, anyone watching can see your actions. That is different then closing your front door and getting out of the public view. If I put a camera through your window, I would go to jail for being a pervert. If I taped you walking down the street, the most that would happen is a few funny looks. There is a big difference between the privacy of your home and the ability to live your life the way you want and being in public with the government telling you what you can and can't do.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Look; I know that this is a touchy subject, but after working for 5 years (in Australia - things aren't quite as bad here as they are in the UK or the US) as a teacher with kids from the rough side of town, I can tell you there are some seriously fscked up families out there. That warrant some kind of intervention, yet too often the departments responsible for this sort of thing are too fearful of being seen as some Orwellian over-lords. Often it comes down to an issue of human rights, particularly with children involved. Why bother having laws against child abuse if you don't police them? Democracy isn't "do whatever the hell you want" - it involves responsibilities to our fellow people, and people who don't want to undertake those responsibilities need to be handled in some way. Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.

I'm not for a surveillance sort of a state, but when everyone complains of governments becoming "nanny states", I see a lot of people that need a nanny.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[bertoelcon]

If we Americans go above and beyond we might question why we ever left.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[u38cg]

I agree with you; but my response is that if the parents actually need 24 hour supervision to look after their kids properly, then the kids need to be taken away. I can't really see how that's a worse outcome than growing up in such a messed up family.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[leenks]

These aren't in private houses. They are in publically owned houses (or at least publically paid for houses). The UK has a very "good" benefits system - so "good" that it is the aspiration of thousands of teenage girls to get pregnant as early as possible such that they can get their own flat and benefits so they don't have to work. The biggest problem is we are now entering at least the second generation of this kind of thinking/upbringing, so the teens don't know any better. It isn't obvious what the solution is either.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sudotron]

Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.

In the US, we have a nice little thing called due process, which guarantees (or at least it used to) that, before a person could be deprived of their rights in such a way as having a camera installed in their home, they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Hognoxious]

They aren't planning to put them in everybody's homes. They're for families who frankly ought to be behind bars anyway.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[leenks]

First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.

The majority of the "millions" of cameras in the UK are owned by private businesses too, not the government.

And yes, this is inside the homes. And about frickin time too - these parents don't raise their kids, the kids have to figure it out for themselves. The 9 year old daughter has to look after the baby, the 13 year old gets bawled at for being in the way in the house, or wanting to watch something other than Jeremy Kyle on the TV. In some situations kids are subject to violence (and I've first hand seen kids explain that the burn marks on their arms are because their father stubs out cigarettes on them. And all of this goes on in populated areas, much of it integrated with expensive new housing, and the resulting crime from the kids affects everyone else (tyres slashed, WD40 windshields, petty theft, etc)

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Pax681]

um... Population: 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

i truly don't worry about it as a Scotsman living in Scotland this would NEVER get past the Holyrood parliament.

roll on independence and the referendum in 2010 is all i can say

however point to note, just like the anglocentric english to count the population of england as the population of the whole uk

you know sometimes you have to realise their is more to the so called "uk" than england

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Threni]

Exactly. You have to understand how violent England has become in the last 25 years, and how many completely worthless people exist. I went to a baseball game in Pittsburgh a few years ago, and was amused to see about 10 police from when I left where I was staying, getting to the stadium, and back home again. You'd probably see a group of more than 10 police at the the nearest tube station when there's a football game in the UK. I'm concerned about my liberties in terms of net access, email, right to take photos etc, but if there's some sort of clamp down on the families producing criminals and lowlife who are just going to spend their entire lives living on benefits provided by my tax; stealing my car; making *every* town in the UK a loud, dangourous, smashed up place between 10pm and 2am (when pubs close) then I'm 100% behind it.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't live in the UK, but how the hell are they going to monitor cameras in millions of homes? This would never pass, because the ones who do watch the camera to make sure the kids go to bed will also get to see the kids changing, sleeping in their boxers, nude, whatever. These videos would leak out and there is no telling how many child porn (well it wouldn't be porn, but you get the idea) videos would pop up of children in THEIR OWN BEDROOM.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Hognoxious]

Well aren't you just wonderful!

How do you think the UK is selecting the "people" for this scheme - picking them at random from the phone book?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish [...]

You mean "idiots", as in "politicians changing the legislative"?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur. All of the politicians in the UK must die. The Royals soon after.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[TheRaven64]

Okay, you're confusing two issues. One is cameras in general and you, like many Americans, seem to have read the article in one of our trashy tabloids giving an estimate about the number of cameras in Britiain and failed to read the retraction printed a few weeks later where they admitted their methodology was entirely nonsense[1].

The second issue is putting cameras in the homes of people who are basically criminals. Look at the numbers involved. They are doing this in 20,000 homes out of 25 million. That works out to 0.08% of the population. If you add this to the percentage of the population in prison, you get 0.228%. Compare that to the 0.756% in prison in the USA. Would you rather that we just put the parents in prison and the offspring in foster care or orphanages?

[1] They took a busy commercial London street and counted the number of CCTV cameras along a mile of it, including (as the majority were) privately-owned cameras covering businesses. They then multiplied this number by the number of miles of road in the UK and printed this in their headline. I've been in the USA quite a few times, and seen a lot more CCTV cameras in US cities than I do back home.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mustafap]

>m... Population: 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

Geez, this isn't a test you know.

>roll on independence and the referendum in 2010 is all i can say

Absolutely. It's about time those of us in england stopped paying taxes to support you whiners up in scotland.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[TheRaven64]

Not sure why this is a troll. Between unemployment benefit and child benefit, a couple leaving school with a child gets more from the state than they would in a typical job near where my mother lives. Given this kind of environment, it's difficult to explain to children why they should want to do something productive with their lives.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Fantastic Lad]

You're only looking at the symptoms.

This is your basic statecraft Judo; Tension is created to excuse the use of Gestapo muscle. In this case the tension is created through a mult-generational application of terrible education and terrible living standards so that people become frustrated fit to bursting. The youthful rage you're talking about is an honest and healthy reaction to slavery. The solution isn't MORE pressure.

But people have been successfully dumbed down to the point where this is no longer as obvious as daylight, and so they welcome the Empire.

-FL

"So This Is How Liberty Dies. . . With Thunderous Applause"

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[IamTheRealMike]

According to the governments documentation on these schemes (which makes no mention of cameras, by the way) the 24 hour supervision is used when the parents are indeed one step away from having the kids taken away from them. Having the kids taken is the stick used to try and improve their behavior.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[nyctopterus]

I think it would be a mistake to think that having cameras in their houses will fix these problems. It might result in a lot of kids being taken into care earlier--but guess what, state care is often worse than the original abuse, and is stretched to the max anyway. It's a difficult situation, but I think the money should be spent 1) teaching the parent better parenting skills (this does work, according to studies), and 2) training better foster carers and paying them a lot more.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[gerstens]

There are about 50 million people in the uk, so it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish and the remainder to buy newspapers printing it..

It takes a much smaller fraction of the population to pass this into law.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[nyctopterus]

I agree with you; but my response is that if the parents actually need 24 hour supervision to look after their kids properly, then the kids need to be taken away. I can't really see how that's a worse outcome than growing up in such a messed up family.

While that seems like a reasonable position to take, the truth is that going into care is just about the worst outcome for a kid (according to delinquency and suicide rates). It's an absolute fucking disaster. This has a lot to do with the deplorable state of the care system, which is stretched beyond capacity, and has failures so bad and so frequently you might think it's better to abandon the whole thing.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Artifakt]

Yes, there's many times when the kids only chance is to get them into a normal home environment. If the society can come up with enough good foster parents, or ways to find more stable relatives and get them to take in the grandkids, nephews or whatever, this is frequently the best option. Unfortunately, taking the existing kids away doesn't stop people from having new kids. That would most probably require compulsory sterilization in most cases. There we are, several slips farther down the slippery slope many of us fear.
      What's really needed is firstly, well defined standards for when to start controlling people's lives. If the society is as tough on major screwing up for the people whose jobs are to manage programs or spot battered kids, as it is for the people we're considering monitoring, it has some chance of working. Cut bad cops lots of slack, ignore teachers who have lost all interest in actually teaching, reelect politicians who promise to clean up the mess and fail time and again, and nobody at the bottom will accept the authority of the society to control even the worst behavior.
      Secondly, you have to have carrots, not just sticks. Orwell described a hellish situation, but a sure way to move towards just what he described is to rely only on negative reinforcement. If the system only has money to watch the most screwed up people in public housing, but none to provide jobs for the kids who stay in school, that's precisely what moves the whole society towards 1984. One thing that is working fairly well in the US, is those places where people get better public housing if they keep the kids in school, get at least part time jobs, and keep out of the court system. Quite a few states have programs where people get a chance to save something towards owning a home, and eventually getting out of the welfare system entirely.
      Thirdly, there's the issue of criteria. Parent A drinks and beats his kids. Parent B drinks but doesn't beat his kids, Parent C doesn't drink or beat his kids. (Maybe there's a Parent D who doesn't drink, but beats his kids anyway, maybe those are rare as hen's teeth in the real situation). If the social programs assume that there's something about being a lower class parent, and all parents caught drinking should automatically be presumed to also beat their kids, (or worse, that all of them beat their kids even if they haven't been caught at anything else yet), there's that negative heavy reinforcement again, or at least wasted resources.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[xaxa]

We'd need better children's homes. They're pretty much equivalent to a messed up family -- the kids can do whatever they please (with the state paying for it), and the staff at the home can do nothing to stop them.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Artifakt]

So if the persons were first subject to due process, would cameras in their homes, having to let people inspect the home situation with no notice, and counseling for the family's disfunctional dynamics become valid options to replace jail time?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[teh kurisu]

Myth.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Mouldy]

"The kids need to be taken away" philosophy simply doesn't work. Once you've taken these kids away, what do you do with them? I for one don't want to be a foster parent for someone else's ungrateful, chavvy brat of a child and I'm sure a lot of other people would rather not either. Chavvy kids are unwanted by society - very very few people would be willing to adopt them to try and change them.

That problem could be solved by taking the kids away at a young enough age, before they're permanently scarred by chav culture - but then we have the issue of, how do we know the parents are doing a bad job before they've done it? On paper, when I was a baby, my parents weren't wealthy, we were living in a rough area in a council house, my mum was unemployed (to look after me and my brother) and my dad was working in the lowly ranks of BT. On paper, they didn't look particularly good. But as I got older and eventually left home, my parents are both doing very well for themselves (mum's a solicitor, dad has his own business) and they have 2 uni educated kids; 1 an accountant and 1 working out of a web development firm in London. For parents where only 1 of them worked and lived in a bad area, they didn't do a bad job.

My point is, the government can't decide who to take young kids from, and for older kids, it's too late - nobody wants them.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[GCsoftware]

"Latest estimates show the tax take from Scotland - buoyed by the financial success of companies such as Royal Bank of Scotland - is higher than anywhere outside London."

I think I read somewhere that the entire Scottish economy would have collapsed due to the RBS bail out, so you might want to revise this particular "busted myth".

Ah yes, here it is: Vince Cable: 'RBS would break Scotland'

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[commodore64_love]

>>>There's security cameras in every business, bus, train, plane, street, traffic cameras etc

Perhaps if you wankers would stop stealing clothing from my store, I wouldn't need cameras. But you do, therefore I do. I have a right to monitor what happens inside MY business. If you don't like it, don't enter into my small piece of real estate.

As for street cameras:

- being caught speeding by one of these "electronic cops" is no different than being caught speeding by a human cop. Don't want to be ticketed? Than don't speed (or else change the law to eliminate speed limits). You do not have to right to break the laws on a public thoroughfare, and if got caught, then be a man and pay the fine.

As for private homes:

I agree that the government has no business to enter my private domain. No quartering of troops in my home; no crossing the threshold without a warrant. That's the supreme law of the land.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[jgardner100]

As a visitor, you missed a small part of the Australain psyche. We tried your approach back in the 1960's. Any Aboriginal family that looked even slightly disfunctional and "whoosh" the children were removed to be saved from their situation. About 15 years later as those children started to grow up we finally realised we weren't doing them any favours. They grew up displaced, confused and entirely disfunctional, whereas the ones that stayed behind sometimes went bad and sometimes turned into great people. We don't do it anymore unless the child is truely at risk as your best chance in life is to grow up amongst your family and peers, not be hauled off to an alien lifestyle and strangers (no matter how well meaning they are.)

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sploxx]

Well, I have to agree with you that you have to draw the line somewhere and there are probably also cases where intervention is the only right thing to do.

Certainly, there need to be laws to keep people from violating the freedom of other people. And this is also very true for the children of abusive alcoholic parents.

That said, I am highly doubtful and even suspicious about the measures being implemented to do this. Of course, the right balance has to be found through proper discussion.

But I think that there a lot of points to consider in this case.

There are probably already laws in place in the UK (I'm from germany) to keep children from their parents if needed, and if dertermined to be so by a court. So I think that the first thing the pro-CCTV-in-homes fraction should do to convince people is to make the arguments that support the additional CCTV measure. I have not seen any real ones yet, apart from the very diffuse 'we have to do something'.

That said, all power you give to the state will be abused. Maybe not yet by the all powerful dictator, but the people running the comissions to decide about such video surveillance will surely be at least partly staffed by authoritarian, nanny-type persons. I am personally (without any proof, just my impression from dealing with authority figures) convinced that positions which have power (police etc.) will be mostly sought-for by people who want to wield such power (anyone having a reference on this?). Then there is incompetence. In my field (technical and should therefore be a lot easier than working with people) I could already see in various ways the effects human nature has on getting to the right decisions (which is quite often simply not happening). Mistakes by myself included, mistakes by people with a lot of authority and knowledge included. Now, I do not believe that outside of the 'technical nerd subculture', people are so much more infallible and better that they can be trusted to have to much influence on the private lives on other people. Just watch the news for that...

IMHO, the core problem here is that still to many people believe that they are right in every regard and that anyone else is a stupid idiot to be controlled by the government in their actions and more often than not also in their thoughts. (Interesting side note: The older I get, the more anti-authoritarian I become; I shared some of such authoritarian views ten years back but the more I see other, even quite bright people argue for authority and getting into very muddy waters along the way, the more I like the personal freedom POV)

And this nanny-state mode of governing is so prevalent that it already has hurt a lot of innocent people along the way of implementing 'the perfect world' (which I think is simply not possible) that even if you are purely utilitarian in nature, you should calculate the losses on both sides before implementing such legislation.

And I am sure that it will not be clear-cut at all.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Pax681]

ROFL

so you'd never miss the 32 millions a day from oil/gas and then the many billons per year from whisky and tourism?

Scotland's net input to the union is far greater than it gets back. that is FACT

so take yer Scotland is subsidised fantasies elsewhere...LOL

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[teh kurisu]

Hm, true. And I can't even blame the English PM and Chancellor. Blast!

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[jez9999]

Alex Salmond, is that you?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Hognoxious]

One thing that is working fairly well in the US, is those places where people get better public housing if they keep the kids in school, get at least part time jobs, and keep out of the court system.

Good luck with that in the UK. If you don't treat everyone equally it's not fair!!!!

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Pax681]

nopes and i am not even a member of the SNP

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[jez9999]

Do you have any facts and figures to back up the notion that England has become a lot more violent in the last 25 years?

See, I think that this is mostly utter bullshit spewed out by right-wing (or just moronic) redtops, and echoed mindlessly by the BBC, to give the government excuses to intrude evermore into people's privacy. Ever think that maybe there are more police in the UK because the people think they need them when in fact they don't? How many of those police were actively involved in quelling violence?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[OrangeCatholic]

It isn't obvious what the solution is either.

I'm not entirely sure there's a problem. Apparently the reason to give pregnant girls their own flats was to prevent babies from being raised homeless. Mission accomplished.

If by "problem" you mean that kids are now making this their goal...why is that a surprise?

It's like opening a soup kitchen and being surprised there's more people now than last year. Well if you're going to give away free food, you should expect it to become more popular. It's not the soup kitchen's job to put itself out of business. It's somebody else's job to provide a superior alternative to welfare.

For example, some good employment opportunities. Something that makes being on welfare seem crappy in comparison.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[jez9999]

I still say putting cameras in their homes is a very bad 'solution'. Putting them in prison WOULD be better.

They always say you shouldn't hit a child for punishment because it teaches them that violence is a reasonable solution to relatively minor problems. I agree, and the government putting CCTV in these people's homes teaches a lot of impressionable people that CCTV in homes is a reasonable solution to antisocial behaviour, or other misdemeanours. It is not. Put them in prison if they're that bad, or find another way to deal with the problem.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

roll on independence and the referendum in 2010 is all i can say

A small question before picking sides: what would be the impact on whisky prices?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

That slope is pretty dang slippery, isn't it?.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

[...] in Australia [...] as a teacher with kids from the rough side of town [...]

Just exile them to England, seems fair to me...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Larryish]

Unless the benefit amount is reduced when a child is "taken" to juvy by the State, the parents may not mind it so much.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the NSA just sent you a gag letter forbidding you from discussing this story with anyone.

At least in the UK, we don't try to hide our surveillance culture.

In the US, these people would already be in prison, so watching them 24/7 is a moot point.

Much like in Orwell's 1984, In the UK, the underclass are permitted to endlessly cycle in and out of revolving-door police stations, since we reserve our prisons for people who can be made an effective example of, rather than people who are a drain on society.

As a side-note, I'm sure anyone from the UK would agree the main problem with this story is that the scum are being watched, instead of lined up and shot.
Throwing money at problems like these won't fix them, some people can't be helped to help themselves.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It looks like violent crimes are down over the last 15 years:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/10/it_is_an_almighty_embarrassmen.html

But, the 10 years before that seem to have seen a huge climb, such that it is only back down to roughly the original levels of ~|25 years ago:
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/policy_review/security/key_facts.asp

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I Just booked a flight to Spain for my holidays and the travel company required that I fill a form with information about my passport, nationality......, all because the new policy to record and control who is leaving the country, things are getting serious slowly but sure.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he's one up on you. You sound like just another contemporary denialist.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[gnupun]

I agree that the government has no business to enter my private domain. No quartering of troops in my home; no crossing the threshold without a warrant. That's the supreme law of the land.

So privacy is only possible (for now) within the tiny confines of ones home -- several hundred to couple of thousand sq. feet. What about the miles of land outside the home?. In this age of high speed computers, fast computer networks, Wi-Fi, facial recognition software (tools for a big-brother society) etc., can citizens expect any privacy outside their homes or does nobody care anymore? Frankly, all your comments are frightening how willingly you surrender your freedom to any govt.

All it would take is one more 911 style attack before there is a hue and cry to centralize all video feeds from these businesses, streets, buses into some google datacenter.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] very very few people would be willing to adopt them to try and change them.

Sell them as barbeque meat. If it sells well, price it decently and get back some of what was lost via child support. If it doesn't, replace welfare checks with food stamps, which are exchangeable only for some pre-defined goods, including chav steak (fillet pieces will still cost real money).

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Reziac]

It would be interesting to correlate those stats with the street price of common illegal drugs, adjusted for inflation.

I'd bet they go hand in hand.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

You just can't make hyperbole out of this shit anymore. Get the fuck out of England while there isn't a 30ft concrete wall preventing you from doing so. Either that or start killing your politicians.

Agreed 100%

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[beefnog]

If your population, when considered as a whole, has little in common with the greater union then there is little point in remaining in the larger union. One of the reasons that city, county, state, and federal governments exist in the US is because Omaha, Nebraska has no clue what Los Angeles, California truly needs.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. As an englishman living in england, I can tell you these newspapers are rubbish. Page 3 probably has "Elvis is alive and working as a roadsweeper".

There are about 50 million people in the uk, so it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish and the remainder to buy newspapers printing it..

So the cameras on virtually every street corner are a myth too? The English put up with far more crap than Americans do. Our rights are a little different and it's harder to do here. They do still do it but a lot of it is actually illegal. It would be illegal here to put cameras in homes except maybe for home detention. What to be afraid of is the near future. Already all Macs have cameras and most would be connected to the internet. It'd just take a software utility installed by homeland security to turn them all into streaming video sources. Eventually TVs will come with cameras and internet connection. Now we are talking hundreds of millions of cameras in homes at no cost. That's the future boys and girls. We'll install the cameras for them.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup that's how you do it, fill the papers with trash so that no-one cares about the parts that are true anymore...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[misexistentialist]

it is the aspiration of thousands of teenage girls to get pregnant as early as possible

And suddenly living in the UK and having cameras in homes makes sense!

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Blakey Rat]

There are about 50 million people in the uk, so it only takes a *tiny* fraction of the population to have enough idiots to write this rubbish and the remainder to buy newspapers printing it..

How is it we have 300+ million people in the US, and we rarely see crazy news like this from US papers?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, not worrying too much has brought us far. Why stop now?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[techprophet]

right-wing (or just moronic) redtops, and echoed mindlessly by the BBC

I would hardly call the BBC right wing. Maybe center, but definately not right. More to the middling left.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[jez9999]

And then it would be interesting to do an analysis about how much (not whether) violent crime would go down if we legalized and regulated soft drugs. Lead to the breakdown of the fabric of society?? Hah! It would damn well strengthen it! Drug legalization opponents are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sumdumass]

So they are for situations where the entire family has been charges and convicted of a crime and this is an alternative to jail? Well then, that makes it completely different.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sumdumass]

So you think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to step in a raise your kids because one of the got yelled at and the other takes care of your youngest sibling?

Simply amazing if you ask me. Never in my wildest dreams would I think someone would advocate the government raising their kids because they watched too much TV.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[sumdumass]

Here is the problem I have, "basically criminals" indicates that they didn't break a law, or didn't get charged with breaking a law, nor were they convicted of breaking any laws in a court of their peers, but instead someone either said "there ought to be a law about that" and the government is stepping in with strict monitoring instead of creating a law, or or prosecuting violations of the law.

As for Camera's, Britain now has more CCTV cameras in public spaces than any other country in the world and it seems the average Briton is being recorded 3,000 times a week. That point there doesn't bother me as much as violating the privacy of citizens in their own homes with a "well, the basically or might as well broke a law".

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

It's somebody else's job to provide a superior alternative to welfare.

Seriously? How do you compete with, "If you choose not to work we'll give it to you for free." except by arguing principle?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[shutdown -p now]

I mean, every time we seem to sink farther and farther into a police state, with crap like warrant-less wiretapping ( gotta love that hope and change!) and other Big Brother style crap, along comes the UK to prove "hey, it could always be worse!"

Didn't you know? It's because of a secret US-UK treaty, that requires UK to do something like that every time US slips down one step. So that you Americans remain on your high horse at all times, even as it drowns in the shitter.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The security cameras in businesses don't count. Those are privately owned, not government controlled.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[IamTheRealMike]

Actually I believe one of the strongest correlations is with the prevalence of leaded petrol. The fact that heavy metals can cause violence and mental degeneration has been well known for a long time, and the 25 years preceding 1990 were notable primarily for a massive expansion in car travel and trucking based on leaded petrol. Lead exposure in children is highly correlated with violence when they grow up. Levels of violence started to slowly drop once leaded petrol started to be phased out and this has been observed across all developed countries, with Britain one of the last to phase out tetra-ethyl lead and one of the last to enjoy a drop in violent crime.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[uncqual]

For example, some good employment opportunities. Something that makes being on welfare seem crappy in comparison.

That's easy - make welfare less attractive. It's not possible for everyone to have good jobs (someone has to clean up the crappers and people with IQ below 90 need jobs that suit their abilities).

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[uncqual]

I agree that the government has no business to enter my private domain. No quartering of troops in my home; no crossing the threshold without a warrant. That's the supreme law of the land.

Which land?

Did merry England disallow quartering of troops in private homes after those of us on my side of the pond complained about it over 200 years ago? Or, were the British soldiers breaking their own laws at that time?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The security cameras are owned by the operators of the building/vehicle. The MTA can see subway film footage, the grocer can see the camera outside their store, Mr.Trump can see the cameras around his buildings. The police can kindly ask to see the tapes, and are normally allowed to, however unless asked to by a court for locating a specific crime/action you cannot be forced to disclose the tapes. Also the police themselves never look at them to "make sure everything is okay", rather there's a specific incident they're looking for. In england the CCTV cameras are operated by one agency, who monitors them for general suspicious activity, and therefore concentrates the power of surveillance, in the US to "follow" someone with cameras, you need to actually manage to be able to own all of them, when in reality every block has cameras owned by different people.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[ImNotAtWork]

As for street cameras:

- being caught speeding by one of these "electronic cops" is no different than being caught speeding by a human cop. Don't want to be ticketed? Than don't speed (or else change the law to eliminate speed limits). You do not have to right to break the laws on a public thoroughfare, and if got caught, then be a man and pay the fine.

It is different when
1. The cameras do not record the entire situation. In the 5 (U.S.) states I've lived in It is legal to be in an intersection on yellow and finish your turn (left/right) or go through straight as it turns to red. These ticket cameras record this action as running a red light and ticket it. A cop can reasonably let you go the camera does not.
2. City's have been caught messing with the yellow light timers too. Shorter yellows = increase revenue and increase risk of drivers.

citation: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_27met.ART.State.Edition1.5100182.html

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[roc97007]

I saw that in Men in Black. I thought they were kidding.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[tomcrick]

...more breasts and less journalistic integrity...

This I can deal with, but IMHO the Daily Express has sadly too much of the latter rather than the former.

Ditto for the poisonous Daily Mail. At least the Daily Sport is upfront (no pun intended) about what it is...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, some good employment opportunities. Something that makes being on welfare seem crappy in comparison.

Trouble is, a lot of jobs--particularly those that the typical welfare recipient is qualified for--are no more prestigious than sitting at home and drawing welfare. You know, why scrape shit off stall walls, or take orders from ungrateful patrons who'll deny you tips for the slightest incursion, or whatever, for 39 hours a week (i.e., no insurance) when it earns you no more social capitol, and barely any higher a standard of living, than being on welfare? The only people who are going to do that are the ones who believe it's better to work than "mooch off society," but those people aren't on welfare, anyway.

Put bluntly, the problem is inherent in any large human society, and not something we can cleanly and ethically fix. You either support those people (through cheaper welfare checks or more expensive jail expenses), or you kill them. There aren't enough "good jobs" to go around.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[TheRaven64]

If you read the actual source, they are not violating the privacy of individuals in their own home, they are moving them in to a monitored unit. People are not coming around and putting cameras in your house. This is a step down from taking the children into care. Rather than break up families, they are moving the entire family (who is already in state-funded housing) into a dedicated monitoring unit where they can protect the children without having to take them away from their parents. And, you will note that the Express conveniently failed to mention, that the 24-hour monitoring (which is more likely to be done in person than by CCTV) is the most invasive of three tiers, and not the one that the vast majority of these 20,000 families will be experiencing. It's a last-ditch effort before taking the children into care.

And now you're citing the Telegraph? Slightly better than the Express, but only slightly. Original research by the Telegraph, with no published methodology and no published source data is likely to be about as accurate as pulling a number out of your arse (well, probably slightly less accurate since this is the Telegraph). And even with this 'source' you'll note that they are counting private cameras and that this scary 3,000 figure counts any time anyone records personal information about you. Slashdot has my email address, so every post here would count. Supermarket purchases with loyalty cards and any purchase with a credit card count towards this total. You'd be hard pressed to spend an afternoon in any busy city without being recorded a few hundred times, and if you connect to the Internet then you certainly will. My mail client polls my mail server every minute for new mails. This means that every hour I add 60 to my total because my mail server is adding a line to the mail log file recording my username and IP address. Actually, since I do this with three email accounts, I get to add 180/hour to this total. That puts me at well over 3,000 per week without leaving my house.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[leenks]

I'm saying the parents don't raise their kids because they've got no interest in doing so. They don't care what the kids get up to, and they don't care what they eat.

And those problems are real. Either you are lucky enough you don't have to experience it, or you don't care about it.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mustafap]

>Scotland's net input to the union is far greater than it gets back. that is FACT

Four words: Royal Bank of Scotland.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7942773.stm)

Not england, not wales, Scotland.

Back in your court dude.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[aaandre]

Maybe you're right. Look at the number of comments here at /.

In an attention economy, scandalous is gold.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[cyber-vandal]

This is printed in a British tabloid newspaper and is therefore more than likely a huge exaggeration if not an outright lie.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[cyber-vandal]

The solution is to stop believing what you read in the tabloids since our tabloid journalists are no more trustworthy than our politicians.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Name two, besides your mother.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Reziac]

My point exactly :)

I can't think of a single benefit from the "war on drugs", but it's done no end of harm to us as people and as a society. Reducing that harm can't help but reduce hostility and crime.

Legalize, regulate, and tax it. Works perfectly well for alcohol and tobacco!!

Funny thing, that would also reduce the "need" for surveillance.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[ydrol]

No police needed at a rugby match either. - and alcohol freely available.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Reziac]

Problem is, that theory doesn't really hold water; it's a handy coincidence but look at the rest of the issue: The previous generation was much more heavily and DIRECTLY exposed to lead in paint and plumbing (remember both were commonly used in every house until -- what was the cutoff date, about 1972 in the U.S?) -- and leaded fuel started being phased out in the U.S. in the early 1970s (and was essentially gone by 1982 or so). If lead exposure is the culprit, it follows that the 1900 thru 1970s generations should be far more violent, and there should have been no hooliganism at all in the most recent generation or two.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with putting cameras in homes is that it sets a dangerous precedent. If the cameras can be installed to monitor the very worst families, then why not the those who are only a bit better? Once it becomes acceptable to 'monitor' people, it will come to be seen as an option for solving nearly any sort of social problem. And because it is an easy option, requiring only the merest understanding of the problem and giving a very strong illusion of effectiveness, it shall become commonplace. At what percentage of the population does it become unacceptable?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Hognoxious]

Yes. It's just a variant of probation, really.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Legalize, regulate, and tax it. Works perfectly well for alcohol and tobacco!!

I wouldn't use the word "perfect" to describe the situation with either of those drugs.
"Good enough" or "better than anything else we've tried" might be more appropriate.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[dr_blurb]

Okay, you're confusing two issues. One is cameras in general and you, like many Americans, seem to have read the article in one of our trashy tabloids ...

Spot on. Can we stop publishing articles from made-up-news papers like the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?

If not, then maybe US readers can start posting stories from the National Enquirer and the Globe?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[leenks]

Sorry, I don't read tabloids. I live on a modern private housing estate with a reasonable number of "affording housing" units. The part-owned properties are fine, it's the people in the rented (with the rent paid for) that are the problem.

I've also had first hand experience of my property being damaged by these people (I've watched their kids scratching my car, damaging plants in my garden) and I've been threatened by their parents for telling them off (a family with 8 kids, mother had no idea what their kids were doing and that they weren't in school - then blamed the school).

These girls DO actively turn round in schools and state they have no interest in learning, and just want to get pregant, Ask any teacher that works with year 9-11 girls in a "deprived area", or one of the schools that councils have used for collecting children in this situation so that their other schools don't look bad and their league table results shine.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mustafap]

>How is it we have 300+ million people in the US, and we rarely see crazy news like this from US papers?

Err... I think you will find that's because you're one of the crazies who thinks it's not crazy...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[akadruid]

Us parents live in terror of cases like the recent one where two children were taken by Social Services, on the basis that one had been violently shaken. Some years later, the state was forced to confirm that the child was in fact suffering from a rare illness and had never been shaken... but the real parents are still unable to even see their children, since the Social Services (SS?) decided the children were now too settled with their foster parents.

I'd settle for 24 hours surveillance if it meant the state not taking my children over a stupid "guilty-until-proven-innocent" screw up.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out as a child in the uk, even in a small no-where town, violence between youths is insane, I have personally been given shit for the last 3 years or more because i have long hair, and then made the mistake of sticking up for myself. The police are useless wankers who are as bad as the rest (I've persoanlly witnessed police roll joints for 14/15 year olds).

You cannot rely on the police, you cannot fight back, the only way to beat these kids, and i mean kids (14/15/16) would be to kill them and their entire usless famileys. Fuck this country.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Reziac]

Well, yeah, but "good enough" is the best standard for regulation anyway. "Perfect" doesn't happen unless you have total control over everyone's behaviour, which obviously isn't going to happen (not even in a totalitarian state). And corner cases make for bad law.

So "perfectly well" really means "good enough for all practical purposes".

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mattwarden]

What a load of statist crap. You do not get to decide how I run my family. You are not smarter than me. You are not better than me. Your morality is not superior to mine. Get the fuck out of my family matters and my morality.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I can personally speak for the quality of British newspapers. It may, however, be of interest that this story has been picked up by these papers as well:
Liverpool Daily Posthttp://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/07/23/sin-bin-for-uk-s-worst-families-92534-24219445/
The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html
I gave their front pages a cursory look over and they seem reasonably solid.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Except saying it is rubbish isn't enough. Backing it up is important since people will point out that nobody has denied these alleged plans. /logic

Only 25 years late.

[siddesu]

And it didn't even take a revolution.

I can't wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for some homemade CCTV pr0n. Diligently waiting to download as we speak.

Re:I can't wait.

[Grimbleton]

Uh... these cameras are focused on the kids, too, you know.. so..... PEDO!

Re:I can't wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's tight it's right. That's what I, Father Brady, and the rest of the folks down at the NAMBLA safe house say. Why are you such a prude. What is so unnatural about a 40 year old hairy IT tech plowing a 9 year old who is asking for it. Really, some people...

Re:I can't wait.

[sneilan]

That's what I was thinking too. Maybe this Ed Balls guy (The secretary for Children in Britain) is really just a total pedophile who wants to make endless hours of child porn videos by installing cameras in 20,000 homes.

Oh god, the Daily Express

[ttlgDaveh]

For the love of jebus, ignore the Daily/Sunday Express just as much as the Daily/Sunday Mail. They are terrible, borderline-racist, reactionary publications with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show) and 'foreign types stealing our jobs'.

There's a site dedicated to the terrible nature of these publications, which is well worth a read, if only for a giggle.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Computershack]

Err, you are aware that this scheme is already in existence?

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[AxeTheMax]

There's a scheme for CCTV watching people in their own houses, already in existence? I've missed it, obviously I've not been reading enough of the Daily Express.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[91degrees]

with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show)

Although they don't exactly ignore the TV show.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

Took'a'dzioooo !

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[bmsleight]

Err, you are aware that this scheme is already in existence?

Where, citations ? Please a good source of truth not the Express.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[malkavian]

From the phrasing of that post, I'll have a stab and say you're quite left wing, and happily buy into the Labour spin.

First off, there are sites saying how bad the news is on any given source (including things like the BBC and so on). This does not mean the site that decries the news sources is any more reliable themselves.

Secondly, throwing in the word "racist" and expecting any argument to be over just doesn't work so much these days. Quite a few studies have shown that everybody discriminates (on just about every factor you can think of). Including the papers you read (which presumably you think are ok, because they say what you want to hear, and you don't feel like hunting down a site which says how bad the news quality is in it).

Finally, and most importantly, show me the disputation that proves this isn't actually happening. You'll be hard pressed, because it is actually in place at the moment, merely being expanded upon.

Classic spin tactics on your part. Really must applaud. However, wrong.

Oddly, however, I've known families like the ones being watched. They're the kind that'll send their kids round to burn out your car because you told their dog off for savaging your baby. Playing the club music at full volume until 4am every night and generally making the neighbourhood a really bad place to be in (because, of course, it's a free country and they can do anything they want any time they want, nobody's allowed to tell them any different, otherwise they don't have any 'respeck', and thus deserve a knife in the gut).
I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?
You just know that as soon as any measure is put in place, it'll widen in scope to creep up to the point it encompasses everyone, and then what do you do?

Much as my 'knee jerk' reaction is to say that this is awful, being surveilance, it's one that leaves me feeling edgy, but it's worth looking at. And keeping an eye on very closely to watch its creep.

Like fixing anything badly broken in a system, sometimes you have to use extraordinary measure to fix a dire problem. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Hognoxious]

I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?

Three strikes and you're out. Or how about breaching parole means your original sentence is doubled and starts again?

Basically something that involves locking them up early and leaving them there for a long time.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?

If they refuse to abide by societies rules, you remove them from society. In other words, lock them up.

The problem is "locking them up" costs money, and the NIMBYs scream whenever and wherever anyone suggests building a new prison.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Marcika]

Basically something that involves locking them up early and leaving them there for a long time.

That is extremely expensive and puts them together with other career criminals -- and more importantly, isn't allowed for the underage chavs. And they are the ones who are most likely to throw bleach in your face or stick a knife in your gut...

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Xtravar]

I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?

Give them guns and free birth control, let them live in their own isolated areas that the middle and upper class are afraid to venture into, and just watch from a distance, hoping they never find the bus line out to your suburb.

I probably shouldn't say things like this, because they'll come back to bite me when I run for political office some day.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Hognoxious]

Not allowed by what, the laws of thermodynamics?

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[colonslashslash]

You've veered a bit off-topic there, but if I had any mod points left I would still mod you up Insightful. Excellent post man, this is precisely why I still browse interesting stories with all the comments unhidden. :)

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a few studies have shown that everybody discriminates (on just about every factor you can think of). Including the papers you read

You do realise that discriminating against* someone because of their opinions on subjects and how they think is completely different from doing based on someones skin pigment or sexuality? i.e. things they can't help.

If the paper constantly refers to all asylum seekers and refugees as lazy, criminal, foreign scum attacks the government at every turn, even when it involved taking both sides of an ideological argument - then its OK to slate idiots that defend that fucking trash.

Its fucking near impossible to discriminate against someone for something they have chosen*. Racism, sexism, nationalism, ageism - all of these are stupid (and disgusting but thats a different matter) because you can't judge how a person will behave and think based on the colour of their skin or where they come from or how old they are. But you can judge how someone will think and behave, when they express how they think everyone should behave!!

*Assuming your not discriminating against them by withholding a public service or product. Its not discrimination to dislike someone who chooses to be an idiot and to express that opinion.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

From the phrasing of that post, I'll have a stab and say you're quite left wing, and happily buy into the Labour spin.

Does anyone actually consider Labour to be 'left wing' anymore? Just wondering...

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Dravik]

You could always hang them. Rope is cheap and ensures that they never commit another crime. Workhouses are also a possibility.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[AxeTheMax]

From respect.gov.uk - "families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit"

OK, that is a source, but that is not CCTV. However I read it, there is no mention or implication of being watched by CCTV,. The statement is that they are always supervised when in the unit. This is already supposed to happen with problem children. The alternative for the problem families is that the children are taken into care. In which case the adults are left to fend for themselves, and the children continue to get the 24 hour supervision but in care rather than with their actual parents.

Re:Oh god, the Daily Express

[Anonymous Coward]

From the phrasing of that post, I'll have a stab and say you're quite left wing, and happily buy into the Labour spin.

First off, there are sites saying how bad the news is on any given source (including things like the BBC and so on). This does not mean the site that decries the news sources is any more reliable themselves.

Secondly, throwing in the word "racist" and expecting any argument to be over just doesn't work so much these days. Quite a few studies have shown that everybody discriminates (on just about every factor you can think of). Including the papers you read (which presumably you think are ok, because they say what you want to hear, and you don't feel like hunting down a site which says how bad the news quality is in it).

Finally, and most importantly, show me the disputation that proves this isn't actually happening. You'll be hard pressed, because it is actually in place at the moment, merely being expanded upon.

Classic spin tactics on your part. Really must applaud. However, wrong.

Oddly, however, I've known families like the ones being watched. They're the kind that'll send their kids round to burn out your car because you told their dog off for savaging your baby. Playing the club music at full volume until 4am every night and generally making the neighbourhood a really bad place to be in (because, of course, it's a free country and they can do anything they want any time they want, nobody's allowed to tell them any different, otherwise they don't have any 'respeck', and thus deserve a knife in the gut).
I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?
You just know that as soon as any measure is put in place, it'll widen in scope to creep up to the point it encompasses everyone, and then what do you do?

Much as my 'knee jerk' reaction is to say that this is awful, being surveilance, it's one that leaves me feeling edgy, but it's worth looking at. And keeping an eye on very closely to watch its creep.

Like fixing anything badly broken in a system, sometimes you have to use extraordinary measure to fix a dire problem. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become.

ROFLMAO, exceptional trolling :golfclap:

CCTV part probably fake

[Florian Weimer]

Other news sources (Telegraph, Daily Mail) mention "24-hour supervision", but no CCTVs. Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[sopssa]

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Yeah, I want my family living under forced 24 hour supervision, like elderly homes.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[pennyloafer]

Around 2,000 families have gone through Family Intervention Projects, but ministers intend to increase its scope to 20,000 more in the next two years - each costing between £5,000 and £20,000. Are things that bad there?

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[phooka.de]

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Except it's "non-negociable2 meaning "forced on families" and highly invasive to their lifes. I'd challenge it in the european courts for breach of human rights in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the united kingdom is part of an organization that does recognize those.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[jimicus]

Well, there are families which constitute the dregs of society, same as you'd get anywhere else. Think "mother had her first child at 15, now has four children with five different fathers, drinks like a fish, has never really paid any attention to what her kids eat, what they do of an evening or how they behave and if they get in trouble is more likely to rush to their defence than to make any effort to find out if they really have done something wrong".

These families are very much in the minority, though they probably cause upwards of 70% of the trouble in any particularly troubled area.

It's these that such schemes are targeting - of course you've got the "slippery slope" argument and there may be some truth to that - I don't think anyone in the public sector in general from the prime minister right down to the lowliest PCSO has ever voluntarily relinquished some of their power, and this gives some people an awful lot of power. But making an effort to understand the causes and treat them rather than the symptom would be far too much like hard work for the majority of ministers.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[IamTheRealMike]

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

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Florian Weimer]

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Except it's "non-negociable2 meaning "forced on families" and highly invasive to their lifes. I'd challenge it in the european courts for breach of human rights in a heartbeat.

I guess lots of old people don't want to be put into a home, either. As you said, it's invasive, and it's undeniable that you've lost control of your own life when it hits you. It's better if they are taken care of in the environment which they are used to, but that's not always possible.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Hognoxious]

If your family are the kind of chavs this scheme is targeted at then that's the least you deserve.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Hognoxious]

I guess criminals don't want to be put in jail either (which is much closer to the situation we're discussing). Life is hard.

P.S. The Europeasn court of human rights can fuck off, all they care about is criminal scum.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[roseblood]

"mother had her first child at 15, now has four children with five different fathers"

Hell of a trick to pull that off!

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[nyctopterus]

Of course these families are often breaching their childrens rights. If you did the sort of things that go on in these families to anyone else's children, you'd go to prison for a long time (where you can be damn sure there'll be surveillance).

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[nurb432]

So? Being supervised in your own personal business by the government is still wrong.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Sulphur]

One was named Schroedinger.

--
Lies, damned lies, statistics, delivery schedules, benchmarks, campaign promises.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. If I was the government the ECHR would be the only thing keeping me from culling people like you, and I doubt they'd be very happy about it.

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[Viperlin]

Yet another case of Timothy impressing his own anti-UK views onto an article, I'd say distrust his article content as much as the daily mail as well until you have RTFA yourself, this is about social workers being pushed to the limit in a society where the people are so dumb the culture actually glorifys idiocy and the kids willingly get pregnant at 14/15 because that's how their parents got a place to live. Then they attempt to raise kids, its effectively creating Alabama-Britain.

but if I wish to impose my own agenda on America's social workers in Timothy like fashion:
Last time I checked America still stole children off the worst family's and put them in prison like conditions... to make sure that kids go to bed on time and eat healthy meals and the like. This is going too far, and hopefully will not pass. Where will it end? KEEP CHILD ABUSE ALIVE PEOPLE!!!!

Re:CCTV part probably fake

[VJ42]

P.S. The Europeasn court of human rights can fuck off, all they care about is criminal scum.

THe ECHR only enforces a treaty. It's a very simple treaty with little legaleese mostly written by Churchill's lawyers after WW2. Which of it's articles do you object to?

that is truly nauseating

[Anonymous Coward]

unacceptable, exactly the kind of thing common sense would tell us *NOT* to do. Exactly the kind of thing that would cause anyone in their right mind to express anti-social behavior. Do not let such cameras in your home. This is madness.

Re:that is truly nauseating

[laederkeps]

Madness? This is the UK!

...in other words, the guys who decide on these things haven't even gotten warmed up yet.

1984, literally

[FrostDust]

Too often, people describe things they don't like as "being just like 1984", using hyperbole to over-exagerate how bad the situation is.

Sticking cameras in people's houses to monitor them on CCTV, however, especially against their will, is literally right in the book. I think it's even on the first page if I remember correctly.

Is the British government unaware of how they, every day, come more and more to resemble the exact institution warned against over half a century ago, or are they just taking bets on how far they can push things before people wake up and fight back?

Re:1984, literally

[turgid]

The brits can't fight back. They've been disarmed.

You don't need the bullet when you've got the ballot - G. Clinton.

Re:1984, literally

[MaskedSlacker]

You really think you have the ballot?

Re:1984, literally

[jimicus]

The ballot doesn't do you much good when your options for leadership are a couple of lizards and the people assume that the government they voted in more or less represents the government they want.

Re:1984, literally

[Nathrael]

Tell that to the Iranians.

Re:1984, literally

[AHuxley]

Yes you will face a "'Forward Intelligence Team", no shoulder numbers and ready to stop your air supply as they where on a "counter-terrorism operation".
You will be filmed, identified, monitored, logged into the Crimint database and cross-checked.

Re:1984, literally

[damburger]

I agree. The UK is lost. Where do you suggest I go instead?

Re:1984, literally

[daveime]

David Icke, is that you ?

Re:1984, literally

[nyctopterus]

Yes. What's your point, beyond silly hyperbole?

Re:1984, literally

[teh kurisu]

A ballot? If you don't vote for the winning candidate in your constituency your vote is effectively discarded.

Fortunately this measure only applies to those UK citizens that don't have an alternative parliament.

Re:1984, literally

[jimicus]

No, it's a (somewhat oblique) reference the the Hitchikers' Guide:

http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html

Re:1984, literally

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah thats right, and we Americans haven't fought back with all our guns because... we're happy... Yeah thats right! We're happy with the way our rights have been eroded!

Now if you'll excuse me, American Idol is on in 5 minutes and I need a beer.

Instruction Manual?

[XFire35]

Maybe the politicians do read books. It really does come across as an instruction manual for them.

And away we go...

[24-bit Voxel]

Children's secretary Ed Balls sure does have some.

That they are even talking about this is nefarious indeed. What we the people should be doing is insisting on our legislators and lawmakers being CCTV'd 24/7 along with phones. (With exceptions for national security.)

Imagine how much corruption would be uncovered this way. If the representatives choose to conduct business elsewhere it can be assumed they are guilty of something or at least worthy of voting out.

Yes, that sounds much better.

Re:And away we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

No! especially no exceptions for national security. No wriggle room at all. If you allow an exception, any exception, everything will be under that single heading and nothing will change.

Re:And away we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

That they are even talking about this is nefarious indeed. What we the people should be doing is insisting on our legislators and lawmakers being CCTV'd 24/7 along with phones. (Including for national security.)

Fixed.

Time to get up and go

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Canada is nice.

Louise, UK.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Fantastic Lad]

We have our problems, too.

We just have the comfort of knowing that we live on the edges of ridiculously huge tracts of unpopulated, un-cleared wilderness bigger than most European countries into which we can run off and live, (and conduct guerrilla warfare from), should things get really sticky. Our brand of political asshole remains vaguely aware of this fact. I think that's partly why there seems to be a campaign afoot to ensure that everybody turns into a fat, lazy, ignorant, TV-watching, video-gaming idiot. They run slower, have fewer hours in the day to think, and in the end, simply put up with a lot more bullshit.

A hunter isn't scared of the same things everybody else is, because s/he knows that should society crumble, survival isn't a matter of how many digits are recorded after one's name in the local bank machine.

-FL

Re:Time to get up and go

[Ivlis2]

I hear Canada is nice.

Not all of Canada is nice. In Quebec, the system is biased against medical malpractice victims. You can read my story here.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Reziac]

Good points. And as the number of viable places for people to escape into is reduced, gov't control increases apace.

A nasty voice in the back of my head just whispered that this could be behind certain federal land grabs of remote areas. I think my tinfoil hat leaks.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Alcoholist]

Like people in other Western nations, 95% of Canadians have no idea how to live in the wild, or even without a grocery store close by. Which is one of the reasons why that wilderness is mostly empty.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunters are not survivalists. The average hunter has never made fire with anything but a lighter. Plus more hunters get lost in the wilderness every year than any other group. You just don't hear about it because they don't have the guts or physique to go tromping more than a couple days away from civilization. Though I say this with a fully loaded pack at the ready that can and has taken me hundreds of miles away from the nearest road, let alone hospital, on foot by myself. Lack of fear doesn't denote lack of danger, just lack of knowledge.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Quinapalus]

Yeah, because all hunters know how to make their own ammunition and grow their own food.

Re:Time to get up and go

[Fantastic Lad]

Hunters are not survivalists.

You're talking definitions. I meant 'Hunter' in the sense used by Castaneda. I certainly wasn't thinking of armed hosers in orange hats.

Definition games are boring.

-FL

Re:Time to get up and go

[Fantastic Lad]

Like people in other Western nations, 95% of Canadians have no idea how to live in the wild, or even without a grocery store close by. Which is one of the reasons why that wilderness is mostly empty.

Sadly, I'd say that it's closer to 98%. But that's still about a half million people, more than enough to burn a nation to the ground. --And about quarter of the remaining 98% are just sleepers who might wake up if things get too hot too fast, which is why the government works so hard to keep them asleep and to step lightly.

The rest of the population is comprised of retarded bog creatures; I can honestly understand why the elite feel no compassion when making them into slaves. They're wonderfully useful machines used for moving wealth from the world into your pockets and they're altogether too stupid to realize they're being used in this way; they eat up the manipulations as though manna were falling from heaven, and they even vote for the very people who despise and use them.

It's sometimes hard to care about them at all, but then one realizes that they are stupid exactly because the Powers That Be have worked to keep them in the dark. Humans could be amazing if they weren't enslaved.

Defeat the slavers, emancipate the Light.

-FL

Orwellian

[w0mprat]

In case you were wondering Orwell's1984 is not actually a manual for statecraft. Just to clear that up.

Re:Orwellian

[RLiegh]

May not have been written with that intent, but it's serving that purpose rather nicely so far!

Re:Orwellian

[selven]

I read that as "1984 is not a manual for Starcraft". We were always at war with the Protoss!

Re:Orwellian

[martas]

if there has ever been a self-fulfilling prophecy, this is it.

Sick to my stomach.

[Computershack]

It makes me sick to my stomach to think that I put on the uniform of my country, fought terrorism and their war in the early 90's just to have the country turn into a Stalinist State. I tell you this; the USSR was nothing compared to what this country has become. The difference is that in the USSR they were aggressive whereas our KGB use a quasi politically correct and "rights aware" approach but seem to forget that people have a right to privacy in their own homes.

Fuck em. Fuck the Police. Fuck the government. Only a year to go and we can fire the whole lot of them.

Re:Sick to my stomach.

[damburger]

And do what? Elect the fucking tories? Some people have very short memories. There are, however, some people in the country who still remember the massively heavy handed response to the miners strike, the use of the SAS as an execution squad on multiple occasions, just to name two things. Understand that UK government policy has been entirely consistent since 1979. If you look at graphs of poverty levels, or declining earnings of people with low incomes, or the GINI coefficient, the election of Labour in 1997 doesn't even show up. Its a smooth decline all the way.

Re:Sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: This is all much too little, much too late.

Just make sure you don't vote for the Conservatives, who want more of this bullshit.

Soviet Russia

[Rik Sweeney]

No one is watching Big Brother in the UK anymore, so instead they're going to use the classic Soviet Russia twist:

(takes deep breath)

In UK, Big Brother watches you!

Plus, Davina McCall needs something to do besides those hair colour adverts.

Re:Soviet Russia

[bothemeson]

When I was in the British military (in the early 1980's) we took it for granted that the main difference, as it affected world security, between the USA and USSR was that only a tiny proportion of the Soviet people believed their state propaganda. We certainly believed little that came out of the BBC.

New, updated version of the poem...

[jez9999]

First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile.
Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie.
Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family.
Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[santax]

I don't know mate. Putting up cams in my 13 year old daughters bedroom tells me they don't have a problem with paedophiles.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[damburger]

"Problem family" is a euphemism for "Working class". The current Labour leadership hail from the middle class, and are mainly there to forward middle class interests (communicated to them through focus groups). Part of this is enforcing middle-class behavioral norms on everybody in the population. Or else.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[lukas84]

Err, no. Working class isn't a problem. Chavs living on the dole are.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[damburger]

The fact you assume you can tell who is and isn't on benefits based on their appearance speaks to your arrogance, your insular upbringing, and your stupidity.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[lukas84]

Read what i wrote - "Chavs living on the dole are".

So, if you have a little reading comprehension, you'll see that i don't think that Chavs in general are the problem.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[damburger]

I have very good reading comprehension. I read what you said, and comprehended exactly what sort of person you are. Reading between the lines is not a sign of poor comprehension, you stuck up cunt. Your cowardly scapegoating of the weakest people in society is the core of what is wrong with the UK. You are your ilk are providing the government with the impetus to turn Britain into a police state, just to satisfy your warped, pathetic, and hypocritical sense of moral order.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[lukas84]

So you don't see people without a job and no interest of getting one as a problem? What's the government doing wrong then, in your opinion?

Should we give them more money? Less money? No money?

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[Mashiki]

Come to Canada, we'd welcome you here.

Oddly enough I met a former Brit teen, and his family a few weeks ago who moved here because they were tired of the entire nanny state. Nice group of people. They said they'd picked 3 places to move to:

New Zealand: Good choice, but way way too far to move to visit or to be visited by any family in Europe.
US: Another good choice, but would be required to go through tougher hoops, and have a longer immigration entry.
Canada: Best choice for them, parents were in high demand work field, closest to the former home. Fair immigration policy, easier cultural transition.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[jez9999]

I'd love to, but obviously finding a job before coming there is tough. If you can line me up with one, I'd be happy to apply. :-) I have about 2 years' commercial experience with .net, C#, VB.net, a year's with Perl, SQL server, mySQL, and some other stuff like HTML etc. I have a CV with this stuff on.

End of the day, I'm just not as attractive as a Canadian candidate, so it aint easy.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[Mashiki]

Depends on where you look but it's more word of mouth here. One thing I have heard through the grape vine is that the feds and provinces are dumping money into funding for this right now. So watch in the montreal(Quebec)/toronto(Ontario)/kitchner&cambridge&waterloo(ontario) areas.

Best I can suggest, but even here in Ontario with all the company layoffs jobs are in short supply. Going west for the most part is better.

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[florescent_beige]

Come to Canada, I'd be happy to sponsor you.

Um, random question here...how do you feel about indentured servitude?

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile.
Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie.
Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family.
Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)

Fortunately, the U.K., U.S.A., Australia and many other countries have extradition treaties with Canada. So if we want you, we'll get you one way or another, you damned terrorist!

Re:New, updated version of the poem...

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's 13 she probably is fertile and thus anyone watching would not be a pedophile since pedophiles by definition go for prepubescent children. Stop ruining the language.

Why not start in the House Of Windsor . . . ?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . their kids always seem to find some trouble to get themselves into . . . naughty kids == bad parents . . . ?

Re:Why not start in the House Of Windsor . . . ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they already under the camera 24/7? The papers certainly seem to uncover everything they get into (and alot they don't, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day)

Get Real

[Anonymous Coward]

"reactionary publications"

Stop being so closed minded. Yes that is a problem with *all main stream media* in the UK (as they bias news as they fight each other for peoples attention), but that doesn't change the core fact the UK is becoming a police state. Living in the UK there's an ever growing sense of the politicians trying to gain ever greater power over peoples lives.

Given the amount of evidence in the UK in even just the past few years, if you still can't believe the UK is slowly becoming a police state, then theres no hope you'll ever see through the political lies and chess moves to gain ever more power for themselves over peoples lives. The UK is slipping into a police state run by an increasingly self righteous arrogant political elite who care little for any opinion that differs from their own. They want ever more power and all the personal gain that power gives them and they keep showing they are determined to use whatever technology they can to increase their power over peoples lives.

What's the difference between England and the USA?

[Norsefire]

England admits they're doing it!

It's OK...

[denzacar]

They are all BAD...

Let me be the thirst to say ...

[gerddie]

In the UK, TV watches you!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[MaskedSlacker]

In Labour Britain, TV watches you!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[toriver]

As if the Tories are any less concerned:

We cannot tackle crime unless we also address the causes of crime, such as family breakdown, drug abuse and binge drinking.

All of which these cameras probably will help with. The Conservatives are very unlikey to remove them, at least, if set up before any change of government.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Crime_and_Justice.aspx

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[commodore64_love]

>>>TV watches you!

So the British author who wrote 1984 was clairvoyant. I wonder if he's related to Nostradamus?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not spend the 400million on replacing the idea of "private security guards" on a more affective social support system. I'm a technology obsessive as much as the next Slashdot-er, but this is NOT the answer. Better trained support workers, and more importantly a more advanced support network for parents, and children is required. The government have really sunk low this time! This must not happen! Think of the corruption that could ensue with that CCTV system. I don't like it at all. CCTV in the street is enough for the British public to deal with, when for the most part more "trained" bobbys on the beat would resolve most of the issues there, I feel. So that given, apply the same "more men on the ground" idea to fixing (and preventing) the problems of "failing" families, rather than caging then as if you would a guinea pig, poking with a stick and viewing from a distance. I am SICKENED by this proposal! Further more, does this not break the European Humans Rights Act?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Kifoth]

FTA:

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is all much too little, much too late."

Between the lines:

much too little : Expect more from the next government.

much too late : Expect it soon.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[damburger]

Social workers are leaving like rats from a sinking ship. Social care offices are horridly understaffed and what staff there are, are underskilled. The political culture since 1979 places a very low priority on any kind of social services, because everyone is assumed to be the sole architect of their own circumstances. This has led to the collapse of social mobility in this country, continuous under both Tory and Labour governments. It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class, an increased sense of alienation which would require more social services at the same time social services are being deliberately gutted in a conscious attempt to turn social democracy into social darwinism.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Hognoxious]

It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class

The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[damburger]

Some of the best people I've known would be categorised as 'chavs' based on their physical appearance (which is how people are classified as such). Essentially, you and the rest of the chattering classes consider people who dress and speak differently from them as 'scum' and are willing to vote for politicians who want to use the police to lean on them despite them not having committed a crime.

The poor do more honest work than the rich, and always have done. Those who don't work have almost no chance of getting back into work and the few jobs available to them are so horridly well paid it usually isn't worth giving up 40 hours a week for them (especially if this incurs childcare costs).

You are an ignorant, suck up, mothers-basement-dwelling retard who is willing to write off mostly decent human beings just so you get the warm fuzzies about being 'better' than someone.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[digitig]

It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class

The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.

QED.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, life sucks. Congratulations

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Reminds me of a story my father, who grew up in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, told me about a government proposal to put baths in every home. One of the ministers objected to it because the poor would 'just use it to store coal.' Thankfully, that man wasn't listened to.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Selivanow]

Where do you think they get these ideas? You don't think the Governments come up with them on their own, do you?
I just can't wait until someone in the States thinks this is a good idea and wants to follow suit.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who don't work have almost no chance of getting back into work and the few jobs available to them are so horridly well paid it usually isn't worth giving up 40 hours a week for them (especially if this incurs childcare costs).

If they're home all the time, why can't they watch and raise their kids properly? What is it they're too busy doing? Watching the Jeremy Kyle Show?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[gtall]

I wouldn't worry about it coming to the States, we believe in the right to bear arms which means we get to shoot the eyes out of any camera they attempt to put in our homes. "I'm sorry officer, sir, but that camera started smoking and I was worried the family would get burnt, so I had to shoot to put it out of its misery before it killed us all."

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is we don't pay nearly enough to social workers, teachers and other people working with children. Who wants to do a difficult job with a very demanding workload and with the potential for children to end up dead if you screw up and your career to be ruined, when you are unappreciated and underpaid?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[sycodon]

Those Brits do know how to insult someone..."ignorant, suck up, mothers-basement-dwelling retard "...Gotta write that one down!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[JustOK]

Like business people ever work an honest day.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[MaskedSlacker]

I wasn't actually slamming Labour per se, just that it fit the poetic meter of 'In Soviet Russia...' much better than the GP's version (although so does spelling out United Kingdom I suppose).

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[MaskedSlacker]

"Why did you shoot the camera?"

"Skynet. It's everywhere sir. The resistance is already forming. Which side are you on--Man, or Machine?"

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Hognoxious]

Some of the best people I've known would be categorised as 'chavs' based on their physical appearance (which is how people are classified as such).

No it isn't. Chavs are chavs because of how they act. Just admit it, you live in Islington, you've only ever seen them on TV.

Essentially, you and the rest of the chattering classes

That internet mind reading device you bought - did you keep the receipt?

consider people who dress and speak differently from them as 'scum'

Except they have. To be considered for this scheme they need to be last chance cases.

want to use the police to lean on them despite them not having committed a crime.

You might also read some of the things I posted about the G8 protests & the arrest of the power station proters near Nottingham. After that you can apologise or shut up.

You are an ignorant, suck up, mothers-basement-dwelling retard who is willing to write off mostly decent human beings just so you get the warm fuzzies about being 'better' than someone.

Odd definition of basement - the view seems rather too good. Want to accuse me of going to Eton, just to be completely wrong? Nonce.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

First the poor are the hardest workers, then they can't get a job?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Major_Sarcasm]

Hmm, I think he cocked up the insult. I'm fairly certain it should read "stuck up".

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As most houses in the UK don't have basements, I doubt he is a Brit.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Agreed. I found this one online a few days ago, and I think it applies too,

This douchebag is WORSE than a steaming sack of coon poo and fur ball retchings. He makes that rattling bag of stinky turds and cat spew look like the acme of human achievement. Fuck these people.

and I liked this one too:

His cranio-rectal inversion is so severe, he can lick his own pancreas

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Quite a lot of people actually.

I've never heard of a shortage of applicants for social worker positions.
Or teachers, for that matter.

I guess that means that either they are working under duress, or are not actually underpaid.

The problem as I see it, is that once in these positions, few positive results are obtained.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Ex-MislTech]

Do not buy the left right paradigm, it is a game to divide and conquer
the different groups with different agendas.

As long as you keep thinking your politics are a soccer match
you are going to continue to be gamed.

Both sides are bought and paid for just like they are here
in the USA with a very few exceptions.

You can tell by their voting records which ones are the parasites
that do not represent their voters.

We no longer have a representative democracy, we have
a hybrid of a Corporatocracy, Plutocracy and Kleptocracy.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[AmiMoJo]

You say you have never had a shortage of applicants, but information obtained under FOI shows that there is a shortage of social workers which has lead to the existing ones taking on too high a workload. In fact, the enquiry into the Baby P case mentioned that specifically as a contributory factor.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor do more honest work than the rich

And this is one of the core problems with England today the constant class wars. Doing honest work is NOT exclusive to the poor, and being a lazy bastard is NOT exclusive to the rich.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Selivanow]

Yeah, well, at least in NY they would love nothing better than to strip us of that pesky 2nd amendment. Lets just hope there are enough of us left with our heads screwed on correctly.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Some of the best people I've known would be categorised as 'chavs' based on their physical appearance (which is how people are classified as such)"

It's not that simple. Dress--of any kind--is a generally willingly put on uniform to communicate something to the world. It's like when some kid goes to great length to portray a rebellious image by getting lots of tattoos and piercings and then disingenuously shouting "Don't judge me by my looks, man!" While some people will judge based on how a person is dressed there are just as many who are dressing that way on purpose, to communicate something to society.

There is always going to be something used to discriminate. I do it. I'm sure you do it. I do it based on different criteria; mostly by the way a person acts. I've seen plenty of well-dressed people who behave crassly (e.g. swearing in public) and narcissisticly, and I've seen plenty of not-so-well-dressed people who have staggering amounts of empathy and decency.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[dintech]

Yes but the rich lazy bastards aren't the ones sponging off the state.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all in favor of this...PROVIDING they also put the monitors in the homes of every member of the Lords and Commons who vote in favor of this, AND all the inspectors who monitor the program.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

-10 troll. What a dickwad.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[MaskedSlacker]

There is a huge difference between a shortage of applicants and a shortage of hired workers.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've not read the comment to which you were replying, so I am being as objective as possible in this post.

I must say I'm surprised you've been modded so high for Insightful - your comment reads as nothing more than a knee-jerk response which is full of exaggerations, generalizations and outright unnecessary obscenity - a shame considering your original point was fairly good.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Nursie]

The poor do more "honest" work than the rich?

What's honest work pray tell?

And if they're so hard working why are they still poor?

I have a lot of friends from a variety of backgrounds. The ones that work hard and honestly are not poor any more.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck shooting the eyes out of cameras. Should they decide to put a camera in my house, I'm shooting the eye out of the politician who thought it was a good idea, simply for being a defective representative.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Fluffeh]

Hey hey hey! I am a business analyst, I am out here working hard! No, wait, I am here on slashdot in between meetings. Damn and confound your arguments!

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[TheLostSamurai]

It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class

The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.

Could someone please translate this post into English for me?

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Bob9113]

The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.

Sounds to me like either your dole system is broken or there is a caste system rejecting these people. Either way, fix the system. Your broken system doesn't give you the right to put people in a surveillance based modern equivalent of debtor's prison.

Hate poor people? Figure out how to make the system not produce poor people. Or don't, and tolerate them. Turn the dole off, or keep it, or change it. But creating an unter-class without civil rights is not a reasonable option.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

UN and EU human rights treaties have lovely little clauses in them that say something to the effect of... oh and after all of that, by the way, you have no rights, just kidding.

The EU is the last place to look for justice from a police state. It is one (in the making).

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because they own the place. The entire system is their income.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[rtb61]

The most reasonable definition of honest work is where you actually do less or an equal amount of work for the value of that work. Dishonest work is where say, someone else does the work and get's paid less than the value of that work, often significantly less than the value of the work, and you keep the difference, hardly working, get it.

Now as it happens the working poor often get demonised for not being good enough for anything else but the minimum wage because the exploiter of their labour is trying to hide their guilt not only from themselves but everyone around them ie. blame the victims.

Of course monitoring those you don't trust to be responsible especially with children is dumb, if they can not be trusted with children the why the fuck are the children left in their custody, what so it is easier to convict them when they beat the child to death. Perhaps it is the whole guilty until proven innocent ie. we believe you are guilty and are going to strip you of all rights of privacy and effectively punish you and even worse, your whole family will get punished along with you.

Last but not least, people who do end up at the bottom, who do spend their lives on welfare with nothing much to show for it, do not do it by choice, they are there because they are mentally incapable of dealing with modern society and it's excessive competitive preassure and they and especially their children should not be punished for it. They should simply be treated and cared for in a reasonable and humane fashion. Treat them like criminals and they become criminals, often very violent (mentally aberrant behaviour, get it) criminals and you have done their victims no justice by being a knee jerk reactionary rather than looking at the problem clearly and coming up with a sensible and more effective solution.

Hey, but if you want to wallow in crime and see everyone around you suffer, then go the violent society route, lock them up, make them suffer, humiliate them, turn them into them into bitter violent criminals who will kill to survive and then pat yourself on your back for that self righteous victory.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Kral_Blbec]

Baloney. The vast majority of bums and destitute I've talk to (and that being a lot as I do a lot of volunteer work, simply don't want to work for anything and would rather be poor and lazy than work a little and get out of poverty. Many of them are career criminals as the only form of work they seem to tolerate is theft.

I'm going to be modded as flamebait for this, but it is the honest truth about those I've worked with. I like them (most at least) and I pity them, but I also am honest about why they are the way they are.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[damburger]

Really? Remind me again where the government dumped hundreds of billions of pounds recently? The biggest spongers in this country wear suits.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Manchester, where the term Scally is used in place of Chav, and the rest of the North the clothes they wear are a uniform. How do you tell the difference between 4 or 5 malnourished pasty white skin heads all dressed completely in dirty black track suits wearing black golf gloves and their trousers tucked into their socks? Its pretty difficult especially when they move around like velocoraptors. They could have had off with half the contents of your shop while you are trying to watch one of them.

All of the clothing has a purpose, it has evolved, it is not for show! The golf gloves are thin and are ideal for shop lifting, the trousers tucked in socks mean you can throw things, such as small high value items, down your trousers and they don't fall out of the bottom and the almost identical nature of the clothes and hair cut means its difficult to spot one of them out of a group. The clothing while loose is not gansta baggy, this means its difficult to know where the body itself is, which is useful when your are in a fight (very much like samaurai) but also means you can get over a barbed wire fence without too much difficulty. They also don't wear their trousers round their arse as this would hinder legging it.

In an urban jungle they are a quite a developed scavenger.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[Pippinjack]

Happy to help:
Chav (or Ned here in Scotland) is a term for working class ne'erdowells.
A Dole Bludger is a term I've not come across before, but apparently it's an Aussie term for people who claim unemployment benefit and never look for a job.

Re:Let me be the thirst to say ...

[sinisterish]

Sod the system, better off removing the chavscum from the gene pool. What purpose do they serve when they're too stupid to use as IED fodder, and they've gotten rid of the workhouses? All they know is how to breed for benefits and council housing. Chlamydia was the last best hope to stem the flow of these inbreds, why advise them of the risks before they're sterile?

honestly, some people need this.

[timmarhy]

i can see where this might actually be needed, there are lots of people out there who make an absolute fuck up of their lives and drag EVERYONE (their kids)down with them. the problem is who gets to say who needs monitoring and who doesn't, until there is a way to answer this, it's out of the question in my books.

Re:honestly, some people need this.

[NickFortune]

i can see where this might actually be needed, there are lots of people out there who make an absolute fuck up of their lives and drag EVERYONE ... down with them

I believe the term you're searching for is "Member of Parlianment".

Re:honestly, some people need this.

[AlHunt]

the problem is who gets to say who needs monitoring and who doesn't,

I'll do it.

No, really, you can totally trust me.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's a good alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good alternative to taking the children in to care, I think - a chance to sort things and keep the kids of (very) bad parents safe, without social services having to ruin all their lives by splitting the family up.

Re:It's a good alternative

[Nathrael]

If a family fails so much at parenting that they have to be supervised by the government to do their job, I really don't think that it would change anything. Sure, it might prevent the parents from beating the crap out of their children, but if they do that, taking away the children is a better idea anyways, or do you really expect them to turn into loving, good-citizen parents just because Big Brother is watching? I'm not as opposed to surveillance as most of the /. crowd, but this...they aren't just completely invading *private* homes, it's also completely stupid - that is, if it weren't just to increase government power. Yes, the UK is really becoming a Stalinist state, slow maybe, but they sure are. And like in every authoritarian state, they already disarmed their citizens. I'd get out of that country ASAP if I'd be living there.

Re:It's a good alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just kill them all. It's a far better solution. Maybe they hope to learn something from the half-animals. Führer Brown may not be impressed.

Re:It's a good alternative

[damburger]

A family 'failing to do its job' is by their definition a family that doesn't comply with middle-class behavioral norms. What if your child says something at school deemed a bit too radical (such as 'Blair should be hanged in accordance with the Nuremberg laws' or 'armed revolution is the only thing that can save us now') they may decide you are not a proper parent and give themselves a pretext to place you under constant surveilance. Of course, if they catch any moderately subversive activity whilst they are checking your kids go to bed at the right time, you have only yourself to blame...

Re:It's a good alternative

[TheRaven64]

The pilot scheme is claiming that 4/5 families improved as a result of intervention. A lot of the problems in the UK with this kind of family comes from a sense of entitlement without responsibility. They leave school, pregnant, and the state provides a house and an income without any requirement for them to work. There is very little middle ground for the agencies that deal with them - they can do nothing, or they can prosecute the parents and have the children taken into care, but they can't do much between the two extremes. This scheme provides a shock, letting the families know that they aren't invulnerable.

And like in every authoritarian state, they already disarmed their citizens.

I think you need to look at history a bit more closely. A lot of authoritarian states (including Nazi Germany and a number of middle-eastern states today) encouraged private ownership of firearms because presenting a foreign threat and stressing that individuals have to be ready to defend their country against foreign aggressors is a very easy way of promoting xenophobia. In such a situation, people may realise that their government is not ideal, but it's better than letting the foreigners come in and take over, and from there it's very easy to portray any political dissent as foreign-sponsored.

The USA made heavy use of this policy in the cold war era. It was the patriotic duty of every American to own a gun and be ready to defend against the Red Menace. Any politician who proposed social programs was hinted at being a communist sympathiser or a Russian spy.

Re:It's a good alternative

[nyctopterus]

Sure, it might prevent the parents from beating the crap out of their children, but if they do that, taking away the children is a better idea anyways [...]

This is commonly believed (and I can understand why), but taking children into care has some of the worst outcomes of any course of action. The care system is an almost unmitigated disaster. Children are shunted from home to home (over three moves is very, very common), and the system is rife with neglect and abuse. It's almost state-sponsored child torture.

Re:It's a good alternative

[timmarhy]

clearly you don't grasp just how badly some people fail at parenting. we aren't talking about mild middle class rebellon or little johny telling dirty jokes.

we are talking about famlies where the 10 year old daughter is pimped out by her mother for drugs and gets HIV, where daddy busts up his kids whenever his soccer team doesn't win. I can totally see why someone would see this massive problem and just throw a solution out there in desperation.

a lot of people only see problem -> solution, when they need to look at problem->solution->consequences. unfortunately running peoples lives comes with really bad consequences for the rest of us, which we just won't stand for.

Re:It's a good alternative

[damburger]

That is your definition of a problem family. Under this kind of legislation, the definition of a problem family will most likely rest entirely at the discretion of petty officials such as magistrates. Such people have no qualms about using the force of the law to push their own personal opinions, tastes, and morals on others.

Re:It's a good alternative

[Nathrael]

A lot of authoritarian states (including Nazi Germany and a number of middle-eastern states today) encouraged private ownership of firearms because presenting a foreign threat and stressing that individuals have to be ready to defend their country against foreign aggressors is a very easy way of promoting xenophobia.

Nazi Germany may have encouraged certain people to own guns, but the government still required all but government workers, NSDAP members and, to some degree, hunters to acquire licenses, and they certainly also disarmed a lot of people.
I have to admit though that I don't really know a lot about gun control laws in the Middle East, but according to what I've read about Iran, they are even worse (government has the sole right to distribute arms), especially since the Shah are gone (gun control laws where strict under their regime as well, though not really enforced in the countryside). Feel free to point out counterexamples to this though, I'd really be interested in reading them.

Re:It's a good alternative

[Nathrael]

I'm quite willing to believe this, but are there really any other options besides taking away children from abusive parents? Of course, people could try to fix the current care system though...

Re:It's a good alternative

[gnasher719]

A family 'failing to do its job' is by their definition a family that doesn't comply with middle-class behavioral norms. What if your child says something at school deemed a bit too radical (such as 'Blair should be hanged in accordance with the Nuremberg laws...'

I'd tell them to go to Wikipedia and look up what the Nuremberg laws were. Tony Blair, not being jewish, would certainly have nothing to fear from these particular laws.

The Resident Skeptic

[geegel]

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.

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[Anonymous Coward]

but the programs these people have border on downright nazi.

You have godwinned this conversation already.

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[Norsefire]

Infringing on people's rights to keep half the neighbourhood awake is "downright nazi"?

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[geegel]

Calling the damn police to hand over a fine is perfectly ok. Calling these morons, on the other hand, to establish the noisy guys as a "problem family" with all the exotic monitoring and bureaucracy is insane. Basically if you have a dog that barks too much and an otherwise perfectly normal toddler, you could instantly "win" a place in their database with all the intense surveillance that follows and the "informal" contracts they are being shoved down your throat.

Try to see beyond the PR and the positive spin for a second, you might be in for a surprise

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[damburger]

Ah yes, the 'respect' agenda. Jowly, sulking old men mutter that the 'youth' of today have no 'respect' for their elders. Ignoring the obvious question of 'what have you ever done to deserve respect?', they then go on a complete non sequitur and blame all social ills such as drugs, violence, prostitution etc. on the fact that young people today don't observe middle class baby boomer behavioral norms. From here, its a small leap to "imprison people for swearing because its only a matter of time before they murder someone"

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[damburger]

The best example from that site:

Public spaces should feel safe, welcoming and vibrant, and shopping areas and parades, city centres, parks and green spaces should be free from intimidation, harassment and anti-social behaviour. It is vital that we reclaim our streets for our communities. Begging - one of the most visible signs of a problem street culture - anti-social street drinking or prostitution can hold back the economic and social life of a community, as well as being intimidating and threatening to people. For example, 65% of the public resents being approached by people begging and 54% will not use a cash point if someone is begging near it; over a third of the public have cited teenagers hanging around in the street as being a problem in their area.

In other words, the same miserable selfish fuckers who created a massive and expanding underclass in this country ought to be able to go to a shopping centre without seeing the consequences of all those spending cuts they loudly demanded so they could upgrade their cars earlier or have a slightly longer holiday.

Begging is seen, to this government, as purely a nuisance to businesses and middle class shoppers. They don't see a beggar and think 'This person should not be so desperate' they look at a beggar and think 'This person is affecting the value of commercial and residential real estate in this area'

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[nyctopterus]

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.

Oh the horror!!! (???)

Re:The Resident Skeptic

[geegel]

Oh the horror!

It's time for the people to act.

[pecosdave]

I spoke to one of my British immigrant friends about the big brother attitude in England, saying I understand it's financially motivated in the U.S., but I couldn't see what motivated it there. He said a large portion of the population has absolutely no sense of personal responsibility and wants some one else (the government) to handle that for them. Of course this isn't everyone.

Let's look at history and see how British citizens who didn't agree with the crown acted and what came of it:

Scotland - William Wallace. They fought a good fight but ultimately failed. They made their point and over time, since people allowed the fight to die with him, it didn't matter.

Quakers, Puritans, other settlers. - Fled to the New World to escape the mainland oppression only to experience oppression by remote control. They eventually rebelled, established independence and we now have the United States. Some time later Canada decided to break free also - a little more peacefully and they still have the Queen on their money. I wouldn't.

It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war. They've already screwed up, they've let their government take their guns away, so it's going to be difficult, but I'm sure they can manage. If enough of the populace proves they're willing to go to war with rakes and shovels it may just get enough attention to prove to the government they're serious and the government may start listening. I'm sure it would only take a few government officials dieing during riots and stealth assassination missions before they agree to consider that 1984 wasn't meant as an instruction manual.

It's very important that the people declare war and actually send over a document declaring such, if they don't it's no better than gang terrorism.

The U.S. proved such a thing can work.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[meringuoid]

They've already screwed up, they've let their government take their guns away

We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it is financially motivated in the UK, too.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Burb]

Wrong on so many levels. Unless it's a troll in which case, hey you win. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most perceptions of WIlliam Wallace in popular culture are driven by that awful Mel Gibson film which could not have been more innacurate if it had a plasticene Grommit alongside Wallace. I can't speak for Quakers, but certainly a lot of settlers like the Puritans were intent on setting up their own theocracy in the new world as well as escaping persecution at home. Did Canada break free? I don't recall a Canadian War of Independence? No, it was done piecemeal and largely peacefully. I don't care if they have the Queen on their notes; at least no one pretends the British Crown is infallible like some of people in the US who believe the Founding Fathers were but a little lower than the angels. As to Civil War we've had ours thank you very much and it didn't solve much. Meanwhile the USA is full of far too many people who think that if you talk like Alan Rickman you must be the bad guy. Give me a break. We don't brainwash our kids every morning in school by making them worship a flag either. Polemic? Yes, of course. I've visited the USA many times and have found most people to be regular guys. I don't form my opinions of the USA based on the National Enquirer and one chap who emigrated to England from the States who I met in the pub. I suggest you take a broader look around. The UK is full of idiots of all political shades and colours just like any other nation. I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun. Fine. You do? Fine, your call. Just get a grip.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Lazy Jones]

It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war.

But this is a civil war already. It was started in 2001 by the groups that were already in power, in order to gain more power and make sure that they'd keep it. It wasn't started by oppressed people, which is why you may have overlooked it.

It's rather obvious who is losing this war...

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[kamapuaa]

Quakers, Puritans, other settlers. - Fled to the New World to escape the mainland oppression only to experience oppression by remote control. They eventually rebelled, established independence and we now have the United States. It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war. Maybe you (and the people who modded you insightful) should have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War - England had civil wars and not all the Puritans went to America. Puritans have a romanticized place in History books, but they were actually much, much more important and central to England.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Junior J. Junior III]

There will never be a revolt, until the government screws up so badly that they can't keep electric service up. People would miss something on TV if they were busy overthrowing the government. But if they don't have all the conveniences that keep the masses docile and which electricity provides, they'll be out in the streets very shortly.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[pecosdave]

Of all the replies, I find yours to be the most accurate.

Sad but true, and not limited to England.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[vague disclaimer]

How the hell did this bollocks get modded "interesting"?

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[subreality]

It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war.

You're assuming that the majority of the populace doesn't approve of what's happening.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[rohan972]

We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.

I don't know, what do you think of this article:
http://www.thesconce.com/ukreport.html
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns; there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials." Conan Doyle's Dr. Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potters' journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

Keep in mind that the right to bear arms as a protection in a "Bill of Rights" was copied by the US from England, as was the various US "Castle Doctrine" laws.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall a Canadian War of Independence? No, it was done piecemeal and largely peacefully.

There was significant civil unrest at the time and multiple rebellions. Fortunately when it happened in Nova Scotia, Lower Canada and Upper Canada, someone at the British Colonial Office had learned at least a little bit from history and said "we don't want that happening again" and Canadians were given "responsible government".

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[chrb]

Gun ownership has been regulated in Britain for hundreds of years. Wikipedia has some info. The gun enthusiast site you quote misrepresents the level of gun ownership at the time - it was never commonplace for the average man to own a gun in Britain. Even during wartime, British citizens were not allowed to own guns - during the American war of independence there was a petition in the wake of John Paul Jones threatening the British mainland for British citizens to be allowed to own guns for self-defense, but nothing came of it. After the World Wars it was mandatory for returning soldiers to hand back their guns. Incidentally, the months following the end of WWII were when the highest murder rate ever in Britain was recorded - due, apparently, to many returning soldiers discovering that their wives had found new lovers and shooting either the wives or lovers, or both.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[colinrichardday]

Scotland - William Wallace. They fought a good fight but ultimately failed. They made their point and over time, since people allowed the fight to die with him, it didn't matter.

Scotland didn't "fail" until the Act of Union in what, 1707? And Wallace could not have been a British citizen, as no such nation as Britain then existed.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[colinrichardday]

Revolvers may be good at repelling muggers, but firing them at people armed with rifles might not be the best idea. How many Britons had rifles?

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[ChromeAeonium]

I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun.

Newsflash: That's all of them. Any country capable of now or in the future descending into some form of fascist or totalitarian or whatever government is a country where you are not safe unless you or the general population is armed. Although you apparently believe that your government is a little lower than the angels, so you don't need to take any prudent precautions and can just fully trust them to always and forever look out for the best interest of the people. However, those us in the real world, unfortunately, need arms.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[pjt33]

Allow me to highlight some key words in your quote (and correct a misplaced apostrophe - not your fault, I know):

A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns; there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials." Conan Doyle's Dr. Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

It might be fair to say that the upper and upper-middle classes typically owned guns, but they accounted for a pretty small proportion of the population. I didn't observe in the article any evidence that the working or lower-middle classes typically owned firearms.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[pecosdave]

Now, to get people to actually get their head out of the sand and acknowledge this fact. Any time one group of people gets power over another the potential for corruption exist, and will usually happen. Very few benevolent leaders actually exist.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Lunzo]

And at no time in history have the groups with guns used them to have power over other people. Ever.

I suggest you look at what has happened in any number of African and South American countries where exactly what you describe happened. The people got weapons and overthrew the totalitarians only to set up themselves as the new dictators when the old were gone.

Re:It's time for the people to act.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun. Fine. You do? Fine, your call. Just get a grip.

I recommend Pachmayr grips. Sweat has less effect on them and they reduce perceived recoil.

Tories just as bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the opposition will at least pretend they wouldnt do this.

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: âoeThis is all much too little, much too late.

Oh.

Re:Tories just as bad

[supersat]

I'm guessing it's about 25 years too late for him.

Re:Tories just as bad

[vidarh]

They always say that. By default the Tories will always complain it's "too little, too late", "just more of the same failed policies" or something similar, irrespective of whether they ever offered a solution, or whether Labour does exactly what the Tories want (queue frantic moves to change their platform). British politicians are incapable of agreeing on anything in public other than how incompetent their counterparts are.

Sigh

[thriemus]

This doesn't even suprise me, wtf is happening to the world?

+1 insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this modded funny? it seems like good sense

Yes

[bertoelcon]

At least 100, most likely more.

Re:Yes

[ciderVisor]

Over 9000 !!!

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know your all going to compare it to 1984, say this is a big brother police state, but to be honest, if you live on an area affected by youths who make you terrified to go outside, who intimidate you if you do, who will not hesitate to key your car, smash in it's windows or even set it on fire, who make it the norm to set of fireworks in the street and even post them through letter boxes, then you wouldn't be moaning about their human rights.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

then grow a fucking sack and beat one or two of the little shits. with a crowbar if you have to.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

If those youths are victimizing people they can certainly be prosecuted under existing laws. A new invasive monitoring program is not needed to deal with that. The thugs you describe will still exist after your government implements this program. What do you think they'll try next?

You need to have a line you aren't willing to cross, and you need to decide where that line is now. Seriously, sit down with a cup of coffee and some note paper and figure out what are the liberties you absolutely will not forfeit for any reason. Be at least mentally prepared to quit your job and move out of your home and country when those liberties are taken away.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't be prosecuted, because as you may or may not be aware, if you call the police, because someone has damaged you/your property/your familys property then it's like literally asking for your head to be kicked in. If they are being monitored then any victim won't need to call the police.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if you're elderly? Anyway, even if you could - you can't thanks to labour.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever thought that the solution to the problem could be something other than a police state?

Re:Good!

[Hognoxious]

There's never a Tony Martin around when you need one.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

This Orwell stuff is too ridiculous. At some point, they're either criminals, or they're not. If they are, send them to juvenile detention or prison.

Destroying everyone's rights in some ridiculous attempt to keep so-called families together seems to me to be a lot worse than tossing a chav in juvenile detention for a year or two if he starts setting things on fire.

This camera business is trying to salvage the unsalvageable. At some point, you just gotta take off, and nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

See, here in the US that kind of behavior will end up getting you shot. Not knowing if the the person your F!@$%ing with has a gun or not is a great deterant. Self defense with a deadly weapon is a great way to settle things and saves the people money too. :)

Re:Good!

[Hognoxious]

The thugs you describe will still exist after your government implements this program.

They'll exist, but they'll be caged up where they belong.

Re:Good!

[Reziac]

Nope... I'd be moaning about how the gov't has disarmed its citizens, so they cannot defend their persons and property against hooligans.

Used to be such behaviour would at the very least get you a load of rock salt in the britches. Maybe we need to return to such direct methods of discouragement -- as any dog trainer knows, an IMMEDIATE on-the-spot punishment works far better than a vague threat of being caught and punished in the remote future.

Re:Good!

[Blakey Rat]

What, you don't have police?

Put those youths in prison if they're committing crimes. What do cameras have to do with anything?

Re:Good!

[religious freak]

Too bad you folks don't enjoy the 2nd amendment, like we do in the USA. The elderly can protect themselves here in The States. First your second, now your fourth... when are you guys going to adopt a constitution over there? - seems like you're losing your "amendments" (analog to USA anyway) one by one...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry too much, soon this country will reach a breaking point.

Re:Good!

[tmosley]

In the ghetto with the Jews?

Re:Good!

[Ant P.]

The thugs are already better armed than the victims. That'll stay the same even if it were legal.

Re:Good!

[Reziac]

Didn't used to be that way. Used to be the average citizen had a well-made medium-calibre handgun for defense, and the thugs had to make do with cheapassed Saturday night specials and baseball bats.

Re:Good!

[Lunzo]

Mods, parent should be modded funny.

Too bad you folks don't enjoy the 2nd amendment, like we do in the USA. The elderly can protect themselves here in The States.

And what happens if they pull a gun on someone? Either the delinquent pulls a gun too and exercises his constitutional rights or the elderly person fires and ends up in jail for murder or manslaughter.

First your second, now your fourth... when are you guys going to adopt a constitution over there? - seems like you're losing your "amendments" (analog to USA anyway) one by one...

Good One! The UK doesn't have a constitution. Ha Ha Ha!

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens if they pull a gun on someone? Either the delinquent pulls a gun too and exercises his constitutional rights or the elderly person fires and ends up in jail for murder or manslaughter.

Maybe in the UK where the use of deadly force in self-defense is a crime. Here in the US, the elderly will get a pat on the back and get to go home and the worst part of their day is going to be cleaning up the mess.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Point! In fact, why don't we remove human rights entirely, and just kill anyone who misbehaves!

Re:Good!

[religious freak]

First your second, now your fourth... when are you guys going to adopt a constitution over there? - seems like you're losing your "amendments" (analog to USA anyway) one by one...

Good One! The UK doesn't have a constitution. Ha Ha Ha!

Uh, yeah that's why I was asking you when you would CREATE (as in make new, instantiate, or hell, even copy) one. If you don't articulate your rights on a written document, I think it's true that you are more vulnerable to losing them. UK seems to be validating that. So again, perhaps you should CREATE one.

And what happens if they pull a gun on someone? Either the delinquent pulls a gun too and exercises his constitutional rights or the elderly person fires and ends up in jail for murder or manslaughter.

That's not really how it works in the UK is it? (That's what the AC who responded to your post says and that's what you seem to be implying...) Yes, if someone walks into your house into the USA, in many cases you can kill them and defend yourself and folks will almost unanimously say "good thing you had a firearm" (yes, it has happened, and a few cases were elderly defending themselves against younger, stronger criminals).

If someone broke into your house and if you were to defend yourself through whatever means you've got on the other side of the pond over there (knife, I guess?), you would go to jail??? Jesus, I hope not...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

ummmm, well fortunately most Americans haven't been pussified to the point that we run scared by our youth!

In a related article

[zmollusc]

The UK gov also announced that it 'Really doesn't give a shit anymore' and will be opening the soylent green factories, imposing a curfew, recruiting Thought Police Officers, and 'Anything else we can think of, since the populace are disarmed and we can do what the fuck we like'. - Reuters

Sunday Express ? Then ignore it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if the Sunday Express is the best source the poster can find, then it is a non-story.

Relax: It's only the silly Season

[RotateLeftByte]

El Gordo is off on his hols and the underlings feel they can let out silly proposals like this. Then the ministers get to keep their TV hours up by spending copious amounts of time saying that this is only a proposal knowing full well that it will never happen.
The 'Comics', newspaper like the Daily Wail and Express need to fill their copy and stories like this are exactly the sort of thing to fill the 'silly season'.

Besides if by some legal mangling, the cameras were ever to be installed, they would be:-
(within minutes)
1) Stolen and sold down the Pub for Drink,Fags or Drugs.
2) Vandalised
3) The house sublet to a nice family ensuring nothing for the monitors to see.

Anyway, NuLab will get a real tanking in the next election and the Tories will have all their attention on getting the country out of the financial sesspit that Gordon 'prudence' Broone has got us into since 1997.

Finally, as this is in a clear breach of the European Human Rights Directive I think many of the wailers here should get a life.

DONT GO OUTSIDE!

[damburger]

Its full of queers, blacks and crime!

Oh, if only Diana were here!

Good. Screw the UK.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've meet more useless scumbags from the UK than almost any other country in the world. And I for one am glad that they are f'ing themselves up from the inside without any additional assistance.
Call me naive, but this is only going to happen in countries that can afford it and also happen to be sub-par culturally and morally. The US has made a lot of mistakes before late, but it's all been under the name of one party who has come to a definite end. The UK on the other hand, have been consistently making bad decisions for years, and have been producing some of the worst self-righteous, elitist, fraudulent scum this planet has ever seen for far longer than any other modern civilization. I have personally been ripped off and outright stolen from by 3 unrelated parties all with a UK background within the last year alone, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's part of the culture.
To the UK people out there that are good and decent, and I have meet, and loved a few of you, then my heart goes out to you, because this government of yours really sucks and I hope you overcome it. But to the rest of you wankers, hahahahahahahahah, piss off.

Mr Balls want to watch your kids

[dalleboy]

All I can say is: Poor Mrs Balls...

Re:Mr Balls want to watch your kids

[fabianmg]

I just can say.... this guy has Balls..

It's a HOAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax, it's a Hoax put on by an English TV station.

No Need to Fight Back.

[Fantastic Lad]

No need to fight back.

Just stop.

A general strike across all industries means that the slaves are no longer feeding their masters. The slave masters are frickin' terrified of this, which is why they work so hard to control people, to dumb them down and turn them against each other. The French have this worked out. Those giant cross-country strikes? Notice how the French have a better standard of living than virtually anybody else on the planet? This is why they were vilified by Bush-co. Fuck the slave masters and all their endless lies. Politicians are leaches. End of story.

If everybody puts a bit of canned food aside and commits to taking care of each other during the stoppage, then they can happily starve out the government and make it bend to their will.

That's all it takes. --That and a few hard-headed strike leaders willing to brave MI5's assassins. But that's not impossible, and they know it.

-FL

Re:No Need to Fight Back.

[Hognoxious]

The French have this worked out. Those giant cross-country strikes?

That's not the French. That's the French public sector.

Are you so naïve about economics that you think there's plenty for all and governments keep it from the people just to be mean? Every time civil servants get a rise in pay and a cut in working hours somebody, somewhere, has to pick up the tab. Usually it's the poor bastards in the private sector and small businesses.

Notice how the French have a better standard of living than virtually anybody else on the planet?

Only because they con all the other countries in Europe via the CAP. It'll be interesting when the Germans decide that 1940 is ancient history and cut off their allowance.

You can't generate wealth out of nowhere by doing nothing.

Re:No Need to Fight Back.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming government is the problem. What if the populace is corrupt?

Bernie Madoff had a lot of friends. He never got caught, and nobody ever turned him in. (Well, a couple people tried, and failed.)

Imagine a society where Bernie Madoff is a hero. That would be America, 1991-2008.

Re:No Need to Fight Back.

[Fantastic Lad]

Are you so naïve about economics that you think there's plenty for all and governments keep it from the people just to be mean?

Actually yes, I believe exactly that, but it doesn't stem from naivete. Economics is a bloody twisted shell game based on false credit creation. Though, I must also say that I am very impressed with your use of the double-dotted 'i'.

It's not nearly so straight forward as you make it out to be. And you know it. Where is your bias really coming from?

-FL

And the point is to . . .

[roseblood]

. . . have these cameras record their crimes for the sake of posterity?

You only have to look at the evening news with their "surveillance camera" footage to know that the ever-present camera does little to deter criminals. What we do get is a better record of the crime, which mostly just helps prosecutors convince the depicted offenders to agree to plea deals, as opposed to being used as a great bit of evidence to support a case to have them convicted and serve the prescribed time for the crime committed.

What the F?

[durval]

Ohmygod.

Government seriously proposes monitoring people in their own homes (the motivation/excuse doesn't really matter).

The article also mentions "violent girl gangs". What? A little googling got me an article at another online UK newspaper . I can't believe it. A Clockwork Orange, anyone?

Maybe it's just another british tabloid weaving elaborate lies and exaggerations, like some posts pointed as the explanation for the "family monitoring" news?

Please, let it all be lies and exaggerations, because I can't believe that Goode Olde England has degraded that much...

This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[Fantastic Lad]

Notice that nothing in this is compulsory. It is an option presented to families as an alternative to being prosecuted.

Not compulsory? Please re-read your own sentence. Anybody who would willingly agree to this 'non-compulsory' treatment is somebody under serious compulsion. Like the fear of prosecution.

Poor education and class warfare is why this situation exists at all. And it's deliberate.

Slave nation. We're not much better in the West. We have more television channels, so it's easier to keep people from open rebellion. In the UK, you need more truncheons.

I think of the UK rather as being the control sample in a large experiment.

-FL

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[TheRaven64]

Not compulsory? Please re-read your own sentence. Anybody who would willingly agree to this 'non-compulsory' treatment is somebody under serious compulsion. Like the fear of prosecution.

Well, if you don't want the fear of prosecution, then don't set fire to your neighbours' cars and don't encourage your children to do the same. This is not compulsory. It is something that you can choose as an alternative to having to face the real consequences of your actions. It seems compulsory only because it is a lighter option than the sanctions that are already in place for criminal behaviour.

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[Hognoxious]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The prosecution is for an offence such as assault, vandalism or robbery. The gubmint don't just say to someone who#s done nothing "agree to the surveillance or we'll prosecute you for refusing".

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

And precisely what crime did the children, who will now be monitored 24/7 and babysat by the state, commit?

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[TheRaven64]

In many cases, criminal damage, often assault. In all relevant cases, truancy (they are required, by law, to be in school until the age of 16 unless their parents are providing their education at home), although technically I believe it is the parents who are liable to prosecution for this.

Read the numbers. This scheme is being applied to 0.08% of the population. If you have difficulty believing that 0.08% of the population are criminals then you should start wondering why almost 0.8% of the population of the USA, and 0.15% of the population of the UK, is in prison.

Personally, I'd rather we used a scheme that has a chance of rehabilitating the children before they reach adulthood than just put them in juvenile detention as preparation for prison when they grow up.

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[Fantastic Lad]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The prosecution is for an offence such as assault, vandalism or robbery. The gubmint don't just say to someone who#s done nothing "agree to the surveillance or we'll prosecute you for refusing".

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

My points, and there were two of them, were these:

1. The poster said that invasive surveillance was "non-compulsory" and that this made everything okay. This is false. When the only other option available is prison, then one is under the compulsion to comply. --Whether or not the punishment is deserving, (which appears to be the meat of your argument), is entirely irrelevant to this point.

2. My second point is that the behavior being punished is a direct result of class warfare, which is very deliberately waged upon the populace by the state. You seem to have missed this all-important item. Slaves who become angered for being slaves can be vilified by the state laws as much as you like, but it doesn't make the natural reaction of rage incorrect. The tragedy is that they have been so retarded by the system that they don't know how to best direct their rage. They're not attacking the right people. --Which is also a deliberate outcome of the control system.

-FL

Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks.

[Fantastic Lad]

If you have difficulty believing that 0.08% of the population are criminals then you should start wondering why almost 0.8% of the population of the USA, and 0.15% of the population of the UK, is in prison.

Who creates the conditions under which desperation arises, and who defines what it means to be a 'criminal'?

Are we to believe that humans in America are just naturally 'meaner' people than those in other first-world nations, or is the system to blame?

Any rational person who thinks through this question thoroughly will come to the conclusion that the system is at fault and 'creates' so-called criminals as a means of wealth creation (from direct profit for private incarceration facilities to the maintenance of general conditions of slavery through generational class warfare). So when the system then turns around and demands MORE powers to inflict pain, misery and loss of liberty upon the population, it should be obvious that this demand is not based on a fair assessment of the situation or on any moral high-ground. But we can expect that from the state; it is psychotic and evil. You, however, have the option of informing yourself.

-FL

No one will take this guy seriously -- ever.

[Laser_iCE]

His name is Mr. Balls. No, I'm not immature -- every living person on the face of the Earth finds the name Mr. Balls hilarious.

I hate my country

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate my country

Curtains anyone?

[Techmeology]

I too have expertise in the field of anti-censorship. Normally, I'd recommend a good old encrypted VPN, but in this case, I'd recommend some nice thick black curtains.

Just a spoonful of sugar!

[erroneus]

Two things popped into my head when I read the summary:

1. The "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" song
2. This is the ultimate nanny-cam for the ultimate nanny state

Perhaps I am missing something by not actually being in the U.K., but do they do anything along the lines of adding a spoonful of sugar to help this medicine go down or have they simply failed to realize how hard this is to swallow?

Ha-Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

You have obviously never been to the 'redneck' parts of the Southern USA.

Some of these people are just plain wierd.
One Cop (Western Tennessee) arrested me for riding a motorcycle through his town before Midday on a Sunday. His words were, 'Why aren't you in Church like all other God faring folk'.
Then (in East Texas) another Cop arrested me for riding a Motorcycle without a State Tag on the numberplate. He and his boss could just not comprehend that someone from outside the USA/Canada/Mexic would visit with their own Vehicle. The fact that I was riding a UK registered bike meant absolutely nothing to them. Then it got really complicated as the next day was 11th Sept 2001. To say that having an 'alien' in their midst really threw them into a panic. Luckily I had managed to contact a lawyer who went before a jugde and got me released. The only reason he did so was that I was able to describe the town near the Airforce base in England where he had served. To this day, I haven't been back to the US and hopefully I will never have to.

Two words

[ledow]

Two words tell you everything you need to know about this story:

Sunday Express.

Move on. Nothing to see here. And, Slashdot, for God's sake... please check your sources in future rather than the random cranks.

For those who don't know, imagine that bit in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones checks the papers for "information"... one of those would be the Sunday Express.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

But the papers that K checked were highly accurate. Best investigative reporting on the planet, if I recall.

Re:Two words

[mux2000]

Remember also that in MIB, Tommy checks these papers because he knows there's real news in there that won't ever be reported in the mainstream media. Not saying anything about this piece of news, just informing you that your example backfired.

Re:Two words

[PixelSmack]

WHAT?! So Diana wasn't murdered by Prince Phillip?!

They'll get used to it

[Lemming Mark]

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-06-20/

Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

Remove the defacto right that everybody is supposed to have to children - a lot of the less intelligent people will never make good parents, and shouldn't be allowed.

How to prevent it? Tell them if they do get a million dollar/pound fine and 10 years imprisonment.
Too many people on the planet as it is.

Re:Don't let them have children

[douglas98765321]

Do note we already have over crowding in our UK prisons. It is the culture in question that has caused these failed families, who are in fact victim to the poverty they have been born in to. Locking up the victims of their culture, in my eyes doesn't seem to be dealing with the problem. But nor does monitoring them like some lab experiment. There should be change. Social change. And the government does have the ability to make that change for the good.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Jurily]

Remove the defacto right that everybody is supposed to have to children - a lot of the less intelligent people will never make good parents, and shouldn't be allowed.

So who gets to decide in a culture where your right to vote is among the most sacred? Oh, and this very discussion is about how bad it is when governments just decide things.

Not to mention how easy it is to take this idea futher, but I don't want to be Godwinned.

Re:Don't let them have children

[rohan972]

Yet another eugenicist. You get to decide who is worthy to breed, compulsory sterilisation or prison camps for the rest.

You're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

Too many people on the planet as it is.

Show us you have the courage of your convictions, kill yourself. Oh, that's right, it's the others who are the too many, you'd be one of the chosen ones, correct?

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

What we should do instead is take the poorest 1% of the population each year, the people who havent done enough to raise themselves out of poverty through work and execute them.

Please bear in mind that one perspective on life would put not allowing people to have children on an equal footing with murder. Essentially you are removing people that you don't like from the gene pool. Children are important people are willing to risk everything to have children and to protect the children they do have.

Re:Don't let them have children

[mdwh2]

Good idea. I know, let's vote here on Slashdot whether Snaller (147050) should be allowed to breed.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

kill yourself

This is a stupid way to argue against him. He isn't advocating anyone being killed, he's advocating less children being born. And I would bet a reasonable sum of money he'd be willing to not breed, which means he DOES have the courage of his convictions.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

And I would bet a reasonable sum of money he'd be willing to not breed,

Pfft, no bet. This is slashdot after all...

Re:Don't let them have children

[Fastolfe]

not allowing people to have children on an equal footing with murder

Therefore, contraceptive use is murder. A cop tapping on a car window at Lover's Point has just committed murder. Anyone that decides "no means no" is a murderer. Don't be absurd.

I would agree with the argument that the option to have children should be a fundamental right. But if you can't support them, and their basic needs aren't being met, you don't get to keep them. I'd rather see things like free contraceptives and family planning services.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the original parent, but I did make a conscious decision to never have my own children... reducing overpopulation isn't necessarily a matter of killing people, just a matter of responsible reproduction. And no, I'm not even close to a virgin.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Fastolfe]

I think it's absurd to talk about removing the right, but at the very least, eliminate the welfare programs' cash incentives for having children. If a household is living on state assistance, then they should be looking for work, not thinking about having children and raising a family. If they want to try stretching the assistance they receive to support a child, let them try, but if their child's basic needs aren't being met, the answer isn't to give them money, it's to take the child away and put him or her into foster care. A good welfare system should always have the goal of getting participants off welfare. "Cash for kids" is just more perpetuation nonsense.

Re:Don't let them have children

[uncqual]

Prison isn't the answer - "welfare" is probably cheaper.

Just set a lifetime limit of one year on welfare per person - and recipients who conceive while receiving benefits will forever be banned from receiving future benefits.

Anyone who has had one or no children and has exhausted their "one year" of welfare can apply for an extension of lifetime welfare benefits of ten more years -- but they must be surgically, and permanently, sterilized to qualify for the extension. Possible exception on one/no children rule for those who have twins (triplets etc) without the use of fertility drugs.

In order to catch men who apply for extensions falsely claiming they have no children, maintain a registry of parent/child relationships. At birth, do DNA testing of every baby and purported parents to verify parent/child relationships. If mother can't identify father, mother can never get a welfare extension. Also, take DNA of every male who dies (in case two months after cremation, a women claims the dead guy was the father).

Re:Don't let them have children

[antdude]

We will kill you both. [grin]

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

You can ignore it all you want and claim that children are god sent beautiful little angels and nobody should get in the way of reproduction, but the fact of the matter is: global population is increasing at an unsustainable rate and eventually something will have to be done to curb that in order to maintain any reasonable quality of life.

Is that a ways off? Maybe, but why wait until something is a problem to open the dialogue on it? It doesn't hurt to talk about the difficult choices that will have to be made in the future.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you are quite the poker player. You saw their 1894, and you raised Gattaca. I'm sure you have best intentions at heart, but road to hell is paved with good intentions.

One thing you must realized every since the onset of Human Civilizations, all progressing economic structures have been a pyramid of sorts. What you proposed would lead to the bottom of said pyramid just falling off. Look forward to needing college education for low wage jobs.

Re:Don't let them have children

[aaandre]

Too many people on the planet as it is.

Show us you have the courage of your convictions, kill yourself. Oh, that's right, it's the others who are the too many, you'd be one of the chosen ones, correct?

Excellent argument. Logic is intact and no ad hominem.

If governments were mandated to live under their own rulership, laws would be different. It would be great if a trial run would be facilitated with the lawmakers' families being observed and recorded.

Oppression does not diminish violence nor crime. Prisons are a great example of that.

Re:Don't let them have children

[rohan972]

He isn't advocating anyone being killed, he's advocating less children being born.

He said there were too many people on the planet, he has the option of making an immediate difference.

And I would bet a reasonable sum of money he'd be willing to not breed

I'm not against anyone making that choice, I'm against one group of people making that choice for another group.

Re:Don't let them have children

[rohan972]

I did make a conscious decision to never have my own children

I highlighted the words that make what you did completely different than what was proposed by the GP.

Think how popular sex is, yet rape is a crime. The use of force vs the right to choose makes a vast difference in how people perceive something. Many people who would applaud your decision would be willing to fight wars to prevent the GP's idea taking hold.

Re:Don't let them have children

[zobier]

No need to decide, just set up "camps" with free beer and hookers. Once they fill up, lock the gates and do the business in the most humane way possible ;).

Re:Don't let them have children

[rohan972]

global population is increasing at an unsustainable rate and eventually something will have to be done to curb that in order to maintain any reasonable quality of life.

As far as I'm aware, pretty much every industrialised country has close to zero natural population growth. Continue the process of industrialisation and education across the world and this is likely a self-solving problem.

Is that a ways off? Maybe, but why wait until something is a problem to open the dialogue on it? It doesn't hurt to talk about the difficult choices that will have to be made in the future.

I'm partaking in the dialogue, you just don't like my contribution. As to whether those choices have to be made, that is very much unproven. Global warming may yet bring us to the point that much more of the world is a tropical environment, boosting food production to the point that we could have a much larger population. We're not exactly in the world's most fertile period right now you know. We could get back to that if we put enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere though.

Regarding "sustainable": no rate of increase is sustainable given limited resources, unless you think we will populate space. "Sustainable" is a red herring. Any rate of increase will eventually result in overpopulation, any rate of decrease will eventually result in extinction. Maybe there will be periods of increase and decrease. Just consider the possibility that it won't require a totalitarian state implementing a eugenics program to make that happen.

Re:Don't let them have children

[joss]

Well, its your [genes] funeral. Admirable, but not necessarily smart. I think intelligent, responsible, people should breed more, not less.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

"So who gets to decide in a culture where your right to vote is among the most sacred? "

Those without education, and with the lowest possible IQ?

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

"Yet another eugenicist."

Yet another liar.

"You get to decide who is worthy to breed, compulsory sterilisation or prison camps for the rest. "

You are describing yourself:

"You're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to maintain the right to keep and bear arms."

Even if we overlook that you are probably the product of generations of inbreeding, you are also a hypocrite - you accuse others of wanting to sit in judgement over other whilst at the same time wanting to exactly the same thing yourself.

"Show us you have the courage of your convictions, kill yourself. "

Ah, you see, if you hadn't be an inbred redneck living in a barn, and had actually had some kind of education, you would notice the talk was about unborn people - ie, something which does not exist yet. Its sickos like you who want to kill.

As for convection, it is a simple FACT there are too many people on the planet for it to sustain them, you are the mentally disturbed sicko who wants to kill people, as we can see here.

"Oh, that's right, it's the others who are the too many, you'd be one of the chosen ones, correct?"

You should really get some psychiatric help - you are deeply disturbed. (And tell your brothers and sisters to stop having sex with each other, it produces nutty off spring)

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

Very good AC - one point for you.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

"I highlighted the words that make what you did completely different than what was proposed by the GP. "

What was proposed by the GP was that people who are only an objective burden on society, who are not contributing or adding value, or even taking care of their lives should not be allowed to propagate.

There are too many people on the planet, and it will end in a big explosion because idiots like you totally freak out and act like a hysterical child when this fact is mentioned.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

"I'm partaking in the dialogue, you just don't like my contribution"

Indeed - we don't like that you are lying and making up stuff to support your agenda of killing people you don't like (don't wanna kill anybody? Hand over your weapons)

"Regarding "sustainable": no rate of increase is sustainable given limited resources, unless you think we will populate space. "Sustainable" is a red herring"

No, you just wrote it yourself "no rate of increase is sustainable given limited resources" - period. We have limited resources, your fantasies about killing people you have made up fantasies about is not going to work.

Re:Don't let them have children

[Snaller]

"Excellent argument. Logic is intact and no ad hominem."

I trust that was irony - there was no logic in it and it was entirely ad hominem

"Oppression does not diminish violence nor crime."

Then you aren't oppressing enough ;-)

Besides its not true, the so called democracies of the west are great suppressors of the populace, but most aren't educated enough to see it and those who are generally don't care because they make money.

Re:Don't let them have children

[rohan972]

liar ... inbreeding ... hypocrite ... redneck ... sickos like you ... mentally disturbed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

It does not matter how hard you work

[Anonymous Coward]

The bulk of the population will always be needed to drive vans, dig holes, sweep the streets, clean windows, drive buses, deliver mail, sell stuff in shops or some other mind numbingly boring task. They and everyone else can try all they might, but that will not change.

In a world where everyone has a degree, only those with PhDs will get the good jobs. The other difference will be that you will need a degree in transportation in order to drive a van.

While it is true that some people can raise their game, they are only able to do that while nobody else is competing. When the millions of others in a similar boat join in, it all becomes a little more difficult. We just don't need half the population to be lawyers and the other half to be architects. Someone - most people - have to do the boring, badly paid, stuff.

So no, the poor cannot work their way out of their condition.

Re:It does not matter how hard you work

[digitig]

In a world where everyone has a degree, only those with PhDs will get the good jobs. The other difference will be that you will need a degree in transportation in order to drive a van.

There's a degree of truth in that. At my gym all of the receptionists -- whose job is to swipe my membership card and hand me a towel, and to maintain the trainers' appointment book -- all proudly display their degree certificates in "Hospitality Management". I don't know what the degree entails, but assuming it really is a degree level course I'm damn sure you don't need it to do their job, and those who might be far better at the meet-and-greet public-facing work but who are not academically able are unnecessarily excluded.

This country is done...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrupt leaders, rotten citizens, high cost of living, and this sort of bullshit have made this country intolerable. I'll be packing up and moving to Canada within a few years. Get out while you still can.

Slippery Slope

[nurb432]

Nope, not in action here.

I think this is a great idea

[jipn4]

I think this is a great program. We should next extend it to 24/7 CCTV monitoring of politicians and their families to make sure that they do not betray the public trust, don't go sneaking off to their mistresses, don't take bribes, and don't do anything else that would embarrass us, the people who they represent.

Obligatory Daria

[Drakkenmensch]

"Is it 1984 already?"

Something new please

[euyis]

The year 1984 was 25 years ago.
Can't they come up with something new? Like brain implants or remote controlled electroshock shackles...

What do you expect with no democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have the option to vote on the legislation itself.

You can only vote for 'representatives'. Big joke. As soon as they get in to power they represent their own interests and you can go jump... until the next election approaches.

The system of government we have in the UK is far from democratic. It serves the elite and their interests. The rest of us are just fodder to be kept in line.

Re:What do you expect with no democracy

[Dunbal]

Like Benjamin Franklin said: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch"

It all goes to the Hub

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government agency responsible forr this surveillance is codenamed TORCHWOOD.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets start by placing them in the backroom parliament offices that create the laws.. shining some light on the process and the underhanded reasons. but its UK its expected. They like giving up rights to faults security.

Use their own law against them

[Hojima]

There are currently no laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house, so tell them not to. Then, the government records CP and they all burn at the stake!! It's flawless!!

Re:Use their own law against them

[Anonymous Coward]

There are currently no laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house, so tell them not to. Then, the government records CP and they all burn at the stake!! It's flawless!!
This implies there are laws requiring adults to wear clothes inside the house.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Reziac]

"There will soon be laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house..."

Fixed that for ya!

Seriously, that could readily be the upshot of such surveillance -- new laws requiring modest dress inside the home, lest your children be exposed to adult bodies, or worse, adults get to see children's bodies. Because after all, only someone who loves CP could possibly object! It's for the children, didn't you know!

Re:Use their own law against them

[CptNerd]

I wonder if they'll have CCTV cameras in the bathrooms...

"It's a fair cop..."

Re:Use their own law against them

[Reziac]

I suggest rigging the view as a looping video of tubgirl...

Re:Use their own law against them

[Bragador]

Since when is a nude child considered child pornography?

Main Entry: pornography
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from porn prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at fare, carve
Date: 1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Nudity is not pornography and pornography does not require nudity.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Anonymous Coward]

There are currently no laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house, so tell them not to. Then, the government records CP and they all burn at the stake!! It's flawless!!

Wouldn't that be nice!

No, what would actually happen is, the government would argue that the parents knew there were cameras in the house, so that by allowing their children to be nude in the house, they were complicit in the production of CP. Oh, I almost forgot! The kids knew it too, so they were also CP producers. So, they can pretty much throw the lot of them in jail, which is what they wanted in the first place, what with those being "the worst families in England." The government gets off clean because they can just argue that the purpose of the cameras wasn't to make CP, but was to rehabilitate those families, and part of rehabilitation is hiding their filthy, nasty, disgusting, sinful bodies at all times. So it's a double-strike against the families, and the government are heroes!

The one I'm waiting for isn't government sponsored. It's the biggest troll the world has ever known: A worm set up with a payload of hardcore CP, that sends emails to the FBI (truthfully!) alerting them that the host computer contains CP. I'm actually surprised this hasn't already been done several times now, let alone ever! You know, if your motive is mischief rather than money, why ruin mere data when you could ruin whole lives?

Re:Use their own law against them

[Hojima]

There are currently no laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house, so tell them not to. Then, the government records CP and they all burn at the stake!! It's flawless!!

Wouldn't that be nice!

No, what would actually happen is, the government would argue that the parents knew there were cameras in the house, so that by allowing their children to be nude in the house, they were complicit in the production of CP. Oh, I almost forgot! The kids knew it too, so they were also CP producers. So, they can pretty much throw the lot of them in jail, which is what they wanted in the first place, what with those being "the worst families in England." The government gets off clean because they can just argue that the purpose of the cameras wasn't to make CP, but was to rehabilitate those families, and part of rehabilitation is hiding their filthy, nasty, disgusting, sinful bodies at all times. So it's a double-strike against the families, and the government are heroes!

The one I'm waiting for isn't government sponsored. It's the biggest troll the world has ever known: A worm set up with a payload of hardcore CP, that sends emails to the FBI (truthfully!) alerting them that the host computer contains CP. I'm actually surprised this hasn't already been done several times now, let alone ever! You know, if your motive is mischief rather than money, why ruin mere data when you could ruin whole lives?

Someone mod this AC up. I was trying to be a wise ass, but this is a pretty good prediction of the implications of the proposed law.

Re:Use their own law against them

[tmosley]

Since the government forbade child pornography.

Re:Use their own law against them

[arkhan_jg]

I'm afraid you don't fully appreciate the mindset of the british police and crown prosecution service. Do that, and the *parents* wouldn't be investigated and prosecuted for the production of child pornography for allowing their children to be filmed naked. Then win or lose, the kids would be put into care due to the prosecution demonstrating the parents are unfit.

Oh, and they'd probably prosecute the tech who processed the images, just to be on the safe side - they've been known to do that too.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Lucractius]

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

By this i suppose that technically a significant proportion of modern news is in fact pornography.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

...and pornography does not require nudity.

...but it helps :)

Re:Use their own law against them

[abuelos84]

Indeed.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with this as a defense if you are a male and get caught with a bunch of nude pictures of children, especially if they are not your own kids.

Re:Use their own law against them

[Anonymous Coward]

BRILLIANT!!!!

Re:Use their own law against them

[Bragador]

True. A lot of people are paranoid about what is and what is not child pornography. This is why we must educate them. If not, one day, taking a picture of your kids in swimsuits will be considered indecent.

Re:Use their own law against them

[smoker2]

Many years ago, I was watching TV with my dad when there was a familiar scene played on the screen - the one from vietnam where the young girl is running down the road with most of her skin burnt off her back. My dad said at the time that that was pornography. So define modern.

Re:Use their own law against them

[mcgrew]

So some of my journals are pornography ("writing about prostitutes", some of my friends are hookers), even though there's only one journal that describes a sex act, which didn't involve a prostitute and was a "dream sequence" anyway?

Wow. Thanks for the education. It's why I love slashdot!

Re:Use their own law against them

[skeeto]

You made the mistake of applying reason to "think of the children" laws. Remember, in the UK even a drawing of a human that looks underage is usually considered CP.

Re:Use their own law against them

[kalirion]

The one I'm waiting for isn't government sponsored. It's the biggest troll the world has ever known: A worm set up with a payload of hardcore CP, that sends emails to the FBI (truthfully!) alerting them that the host computer contains CP. I'm actually surprised this hasn't already been done several times now, let alone ever! You know, if your motive is mischief rather than money, why ruin mere data when you could ruin whole lives?

How do you know it's NOT happening?

Because children are just tomorrows criminals

[thc4k]

Ok, England is an isle, but does that explain why their children seem to be a demonic race of violent criminals from hell that needs constant supervision? How else can you explain that in the rest of the world tries to treat children with love and trust and they pretty much turn out great?

Every time i hear how the UK goverment looks down at and treats their population as if they were savage, violent Untermenschen i wonder how it could come so far. "Wehret den AnfÃngen!" is just a nice local quote, right?

So what will be next? Looking at my own country's history, the next step after demonizing and controlling a group in society was declaring them a treat to society. For the better of themselfes and society as a whole they need to be concentrated, reeducated and prevented from breeding. Oh and then the killing started, but i guess we live in different times now, right?

Reject the premise!

[rlseaman]

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.

Finally, some insight

[VampireByte]

There are plenty of humans, the last thing we need is unproductive ones breeding. In the US we get a tax break for each kid which just encourages breeding in this country... and that's just the start once you throw in welfare benefits that pay you to have kids and not work.

Can we monitor government for corruption?

[bigtrike]

This would be an amazing thing in the US, we could use it to monitor our elected officials to know who they're meeting with to prevent corruption.

Alternative is foster care???

[davidwr]

Look on the bright side, in the alternative "bad" universe the headline would read:

UK to take kids from 20,000 worst families and put them in state-run foster care, where they can be monitored by closed-circuit TV just like all other foster families.

Hmm, I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas there....

Geez.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, those brits are running amok with this surveillance thing. Every time they pass one of those crazy surveillance bill, they just make me think about Vendetta.

Express, eh?

[vague disclaimer]

You guys aren't familiar with the Express "news"papers are you?

One of these days...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo dawg i heard you like CCTV so we put a CCTV in yo CCTV so you can monitor while you monitor.

Futurecrime-predicting CCTV cameras in UK

[David Gerard]

The UK is introducing CCTV cameras claimed to "predict" if a crime is about to take place and alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering, apparent thought in public, walking while brown or not spending money fast enough.

Anyone spotted may then have to explain their behaviour to a police officer. "Tough on lack of consumer confidence, tough on the causes of lack of consumer confidence," said Nick Hewitson of EDS Capita Goatse SmartCCTV. ("Consumer confidence" is a technical economics jargon term measuring willingness to casually spend ridiculous sums of cash on idiotic rubbish, particularly while drunk.)

"Only a criminal terrorist paedophile with something to hide could possibly object," said councillor Jason Fazackarley. "Criminals will pay much better attention to their dress and grooming with cameras there. Channel 4 has tentatively offered us a reality TV show. And Channel 5 would quite like the tapes of drunken shagging in shop delivery bays."

The project has been compared to the Tom Cruise science-fiction film Minority Report, in which psychic journalists are arrested on CCTV before they commit the crime of not peppering articles with the most obvious possible cliches copied from other papers.

I strongly hope it *will* pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes when a system is so broken that any attempt to repair it would fail miserably, the only viable option is to wait for the inevitable system crash, then dismantle it and rebuild it from scratch, paying attention to keep away the old administrators from the new system. This proposal is one of the many awful things capable of igniting a revolt that could end up in the above system crash and the reconstruction that will follow.

Neither is Yes, Prime Minister

[Cassini2]

Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister were intended to be satirical comedies.

In Canada, every new MP in Ottawa is told to watch them on there first day. "Just to get an idea of how things actually work ..."

Contract Bullshit

[dcollins]

FTA: "Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parents' duties to ensure children behave and do their homework."

Man, I hate bullshit faux-"behavior contracts" like this. What do the families get in return? Do the students get barred from school if they refuse to sign?

Have behavioral standards and inform them in a handbook. If there's no negotiation or choice, then there's no real contract.

Re:Contract Bullshit

[Reziac]

"Behaviour contracts" tend to select for loonies, since only loonies will agree to them. *Normal* people don't want some third party intruding into their lives to that degree.

Rubbish ?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far."

Doesn't sound like rubbish or fantasising to me:

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

Do your own search for "FAMILY INTERVENTION PROJECT" - this isn't page 3 fabrication - this is a done deal ALREADY, and they just want more money to expand the scheme.

It only takes a tiny fraction of ostriches to declare that there's no issue at all - at least, not from their viewpoint with head stuck underground, and everyone will dismiss the "news" as a "comspiracy theory".

The newspapers are rubbish, but even a stopped watch tells the time correctly twice a day.

add social work requirements

[Dare nMc]

I did read it more as a "welfare state (concept)" doesn't have to create the problem, but this welfare state (implementation) doesn't reduce the problem as intended.
I always felt like their needs to be multiple different quotas. IE welfare females that put-out to welfare males = bad. welfare females should have to either babysit, or other productive work like putting out to nerds, or other socialy challenged males that need their social training = good.

Re:add social work requirements

[uncqual]

Eeew... I don't know where you live, but in my experience, most chronic "IE welfare females" over about 25 (and many below that) aren't really women most nerds would want putting out to them.

Escape from Britannia

[dcollins]

"Escape from Britannia": New movie starring Kurt Russell...

Re:social democracy into social darwinism

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwinism proposes that animals, in this case humans, adapt to their environment. The CCTVs put pressure on them to change, but not neccesarily as the government wishes.

So, these English families might learn to ignore the cameras. Or better yet, they will learn how turn off or place a loop-signal on the CCTVs. They can then start crime sprees at local banks and jewelry stores withe this new-found skill.

So we're copying the Americans?

[Ash-Fox]

So, I take it we're copying the yanks now?

I've seen a few Cops episodes where they had actually installed cameras in people's houses to stop domestic violence, and potential child abuse.

Re:So we're copying the Americans?

[otis wildflower]

I've seen a few Cops episodes where they had actually installed cameras in people's houses to stop domestic violence, and potential child abuse.

Err, if a frightened wife chooses to put a camera in her home, that's an entirely different situation..

Nope, your nation still vies with North Korea at the top of the league tables for privacy violation by the government. Congratulations!

Re:So we're copying the Americans?

[Ash-Fox]

Err, if a frightened wife chooses to put a camera in her home, that's an entirely different situation..

No, it was mentioned that it was mandated by a court, I recall that quite clearly from "Cops".

Look at the positive side

[houghi]

Due to all the cameras, there is almost no crime anymore. All they need to do is re-introduce the death penalty, so there will be no more murders, just like in the USofA.

Shudder

[aaaurgh]

If true, this is definately "Double-Plus Un Good", Orwellian England comes closer by the day. This level of nanny state interference deminishes the whole of society by creating an entire generation of citizens who will not only accept the state control but expect it too.

The more we read daily about the way the U.K. is going, the more we thank God that we were amongst the fortunate ones about to escape/emigrate from the place in the nineties for a better life in the land down under. Ok, so Oz isn't doing that well on the censorship rankings at the moment with the proposed internet filter, but we are getting more and more concerned each day about the quality of life and diminishing rights of the family and friends left behind.

What a shit people!!!

[Pig Hogger]

What a shit people those limeys are!!! They truly are really the worst, crappy, most disgusting people on Earth! They built a worldwide empire to pillage and plunder the Earth, they meddled in politics all over the planet and screwed-up most countries they set their little grubby hands on, they have had throughout their History the most callous, appaling, ghastly, disgusting attitute towards the poor, and now this!!! The poor are denied the very basic human rights that are taken as unalienable for those who are not poor!

Re:What a shit people!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...and yet you write your reply in English, not Russian or German or even Chinese....

Bullshit

[jared_earle]

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.

Roger Waters said it best....

[Oyjord]

"Oh Maggie, Maggie what did we do?"

I, too, blame Thatcher. Her legacy still stands strong. *sigh*

Funny. I thought the National Socialists

[presidenteloco]

had lost the war.

Double-plus UNgood!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the concept from the book, the kickass song by the Eurhythmics' underrated soundtrack of the film of the book from 1984.

But I do hope my choco-rations are maintained. I need the strength for the daily hate sessions. We have always been at war with Afghanistan.

I get it

[Pomnikow]

So this is how we create more jobs, good thinking!

Can't they just send them.....

[jwhitener]

....to Australia?

Seriously though, what is going in the UK? Does the majority of the population actually want to live in a society like '1984' or 'V is for Vendetta'?

That aside, where is the social worker in all of this? If the kids are not being cared for, not sleeping well and/or missing school, they should be removed from that home.

Dear UK government:

[kheldan]

By all means go ahead with your plan.
P.S.: this gentleman would like to have a word with you about it, first.

Brilliant idea (seriously)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great! The chav class love Big Brother and misbehaving on TV now they can be in it!
If they don't like it they can buy or rent a non state owned house and behave themselves, excellent incentive to educate and improve themselves!

Double plus good! (BTW I am not being sarcastic, I genuinely think this is a brilliant idea).

Moderated WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddammit. What kind of fuck do you have to be to mod this mental feces insightful?

Old news, not normal housing

[cstacy]

These are not normal private residences, but are Government housing where you are sent to live ("sin bins"). Also, the story is from October of 2005.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=2115

Futurephobia

[macraig]

GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE! Look up there, at the hovering gravball eyes: we now get to be on TV 24/7! Wave to the eyes!

I'm for it!

[b4upoo]

God help us if we force cameras upon people and force them to stop raping their children, assaulting elders, dealing in crack, selling stolen guns and the ten million other dangerous actions that trash tend to take, We sure wouldn't want to interfere with these jewels of society. Let's enforce privacy laws so that this evil continues to grow and spread!

Re:I'm for it!

[xmvince]

i don't think you understand

people shouldn't need cameras watching them
people should know that raping children and such is terrible
we need a better education system

Overthrow the monarchy and get a real constitution

[kk49]

Join US(A).

Will there be a camera in the royal household? They seem to be pretty fucked up.

WOw who is paying to run the camera's

[Archfeld]

that is the best response I've seen yet. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as well. Do they seriously expect a houshold to PAY for the electricity to run a camera ?!?! I can see the fuse blowing on these ALL the time.

I am disgusted by the present Governments acts

[pxpt]

Holy cow, I never thought surveillance would get this far in the UK. Once CCTV monitoring inside problem families homes is accepted (sounds reasonable doesn't it) then it will be inside convicted criminals houses (still sounds reasonable), then suspected criminals homes (hmm), then inside the homes of people who drop litter, then the homes of those who drove past a protest, then the homes of YOU. WAKE UP!

Knowing my luck I've now been put on a list somewhere for potential anti-government terrorist speak - just for this posting.

have the UK not watched v for vendetta

[Anonymous Coward]

have the UK not watched v for vendetta ?

Turn it into a 'Reality' show and profit

[matrixskp]

It worked for Ozzy Osbourne and his family. Survivor Little Britain anyone?

But seriously... what will putting a camera on these people 24/7 show? Its already understood there is a problem, having a camera to observe the problem doesn't do anything towards solving that problem. The solution of "make it easier to arrest these criminals" doesnt stand up to scrutiny... where would you put them all?

Why not spend 400m pounds (or other ridiculous amounts printed in crappy tabloids) on improving education and 'income assistance' where low wage earners have their wage topped up to make it more worth their while to get that low paying starter job? Not paying welfare beneficiaries any actual money (food coupons and essential utilities payed for instead) may help on the misspending.

This type of downward evolutionary spiral can not be combated from within... by applying opposing force, you simply make them push back harder (making their focus "how do I beat the law?" rather than "how do I make a better life for myself?"), the solution is to prevent new people from entering the vicious cycle and provide as many opportunities for people to leave it as possible. The reality is that human conditioning is very hard to change (even if the subject is willing) but hope is a very strong feeling and a small taste can stay with people for a lifetime.

Of course if you have a controlling elite that deliberately works at undermining the lower class to keep them dumbed down and locked into low income 'slavery', then you would need to resolve that issue first.

Plan V anyone?

I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If you agree to government surveillance of your home, we'll entertain your opinion.

Profligacy

[blippy]

Recently, the government had the idea of taxing employers for each parking place they provided to employees. No doubt they need this money so that they can waste on utter nonsense like CCTV in people's homes.

The UK taxpayer is handing over tax money for rubbish that we can ill afford.

total madness

[shnull]

failure to protest against this means you deserve it, really. I wouldnt have that in a million years, id rather go out bravehearted. uk gov tagged 'lame'

I love...

[nigel_atkinson]

...Big Brother.

The causes of crime

[jandersen]

It does, on first sight, seem rather invasive. On the other hand, so is jailing people; we are after all not talking about families that are bit out of the ordinary - we are talking about families that are a serious problem and causing major grief to all round them. And I imagine the way it will work is that if you are one of those families, you can get extra benefits, but only if you accept surveillance; I suppose it makes sense from a certain angle - society doesn't want to pour money directly down the drain, so they want to try to make sure that it doesn't get spent on drugs and booze, but actually ends up benefitting those that need it.

That being said - while the problem is real enough, I don't think the cure is the right one; it doesn't really address the root causes of the problems, it is merely trying to treat the symptoms. IMO a significant part of the problem is social inequality; if the parents are at the bottom of the ladder, then they don't have to resources necessary to provide good conditions for their children to grow up in, so they end up in the worst schools, they get into gangs and trouble, and when they grow up, they will become parents to whom this is just the way the world is, and who expect their children to go the same way.

Hahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

The Brits are all worried about some stupid hacker getting sent to the U.S. but they have no problem with putting government monitored cameras in the home? "If anyone is going to control our lives and make us slaves, it's going to be our government!!!".

Way to go!!

Where will it all end ? ...

[RockDoctor]

Can't imagine. I remember reading this book back in the 1970s that sounded eerily like this. Some guy ... Nene or Ouse or Orwell or some East Anglian river, "1948" or "2001" or "2010" or one of those 4-digit names? It's on the tip of my tongue. Like a rat.

I just feel bad for...

[rgviza]

Mr. Buttle (or is it Tuttle?)

-Viz

What next?

[xmvince]

Any chance I could get one of those toothbrush camera's installed as well so you guys can make sure I'm brushing my teeth properly? And how about a toilet paper camera as well? Make sure my ass is clean please!

Didn't Britain already try this?

[otis wildflower]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z62ikGqIuUY

"Where will it end?"

[SiliconAddiction]

"Where will it end?" Rectum Cam.

Re:A worm set up with a payload...

[mhajicek]

How do you know it hasn't happened? The FBI don't care who they throw in jail as long as they get credit.

Sharia applauds

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so that when Sharia law takes hold in the UK the Islamofacsist will be able to see that the Brit's are minding their p's and q's.

Reminds me of PoSV

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xff3ZJUFABE
'the friendship speech'
Anyway I agree it's all gone mad. It had to happen eventually - the tentacles of the old world would finally start to get a real grip. Britain IS big brother. Racism, discrimination, old-boys clubs, deception, elitism, hatred....

British people. Don't lie down and accept this stereotype!

Creepy

[BurzumNazgul]

After you get past the initial "Oh-no!" phase, it's actually somewhat humorous to see that guys picture and imagine him wanting to install a camera in your home. The icing on the cake is that his name is Mr. Balls.