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?"

55 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 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?
    6. 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 :-)

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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?

    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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?

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.
  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 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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?

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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?!)

  8. 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 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.

    2. 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?
    3. 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."
    4. 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.

    5. 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."
    6. 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"
  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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
  12. 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.

    --

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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 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?

    2. 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.