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?"

82 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. Big Brother by sopssa · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Big Brother by arogier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no freedom if everything is criminal.

    2. Re:Big Brother by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  2. Holy shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Holy shit. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Holy shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's always been 2009.

    3. Re:Holy shit. by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Holy shit. by haifastudent · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
    5. Re:Holy shit. by Jurily · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    6. Re:Holy shit. by haifastudent · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
    7. Re:Holy shit. by FourthAge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    8. Re:Holy shit. by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:Holy shit. by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 :-)

    10. Re:Holy shit. by nyctopterus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Holy shit. by matt007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Holy shit. by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re:Holy shit. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

    14. Re:Holy shit. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:Holy shit. by FourthAge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    16. Re:Holy shit. by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    17. Re:Holy shit. by FourthAge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    18. Re:Holy shit. by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    19. Re:Holy shit. by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:Holy shit. by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:Holy shit. by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    22. Re:Holy shit. by Acer500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    23. Re:Holy shit. by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:Holy shit. by canadian_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    25. Re:Holy shit. by SomeStupidNickName12 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    26. Re:Holy shit. by ydrol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

  3. Jesus Fucking Christ by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mustafap · · Score: 5, Informative

      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..

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    2. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Funny

      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/

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    4. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by u38cg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by leenks · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    11. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Oh god, the Daily Express by ttlgDaveh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh god, the Daily Express by malkavian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Oh god, the Daily Express by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. CCTV part probably fake by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:CCTV part probably fake by phooka.de · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:CCTV part probably fake by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:CCTV part probably fake by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. And away we go... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  7. Orwellian by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Orwellian by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  8. New, updated version of the poem... by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?!)

  9. Let me be the thirst to say ... by gerddie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the UK, TV watches you!

    1. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by toriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by Kifoth · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    3. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Funny
      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

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    9. Re:Let me be the thirst to say ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  10. It's time for the people to act. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:It's time for the people to act. by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:It's time for the people to act. by Burb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

    3. Re:It's time for the people to act. by rohan972 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  11. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Relax: It's only the silly Season by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Time to get up and go by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  14. Re:This is what happens when your TV sucks. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  15. Two words by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Don't let them have children by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Don't let them have children by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  18. Use their own law against them by Hojima · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!!

    1. Re:Use their own law against them by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Use their own law against them by Reziac · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suggest rigging the view as a looping video of tubgirl...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Use their own law against them by Bragador · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Use their own law against them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:Use their own law against them by Lucractius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    6. Re:Use their own law against them by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and pornography does not require nudity.

      ...but it helps :)

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.