Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In case you were wondering Orwell's1984 is not actually a manual for statecraft. Just to clear that up.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
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.
Summation 2
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?!)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
In the UK, TV watches you!
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.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
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.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
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.
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.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
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
The best example from that site:
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'
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
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?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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!!
Help fight spam
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 ..."
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.
How do you know it hasn't happened? The FBI don't care who they throw in jail as long as they get credit.