Big Brother is alive , well, and getting weller

[pickup]

Heard about this on the radio and googled it and found many links but chose this one.

Appparently, in merry old england, some families are being presented with a choice: "Your kids are out of control, we are going to remove them from your family because you obviously don't know how to raise them, or you can keep them but only if you agree to have survellance cameras installed inside your homes: bedrooms, living rooms, kitchen, etc."

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

 

[wkmac]

pic,

I doubt we're that far behind in doing this ourselves. Someone just needs to lite the match of crisis and we're there!

 

[pickup]

pic,

I doubt we're that far behind in doing this ourselves. Someone just needs to lite the match of crisis and we're there!

I agree with you 100%. We are not far behind at all. We will probably follow right in the wake of this action.

 

[klein]

I don't even think it's that bad of an idea. Instead of sending these youngsters to Forster homes ( that costs the governments much more money), why not make this a second choice ?

We have ankle bracelets, and the breath analysers in vehicles of DWI drivers, already.

If it's possibe for the kids to stay at thier own home, go to thier own schools without interuption, and the parents need to become real ,(better) , parents.
Might be a good idea, and again, money saving, and easier on the children involved. Seems , everybody wins.

 

[moreluck]

Sometimes the parents are wonderful and as good as can be and the kids are just *********s. That's a fact!!

 

[fethrs]

I don't even think it's that bad of an idea. Instead of sending these youngsters to Forster homes ( that costs the governments much more money), why not make this a second choice ?

We have ankle bracelets, and the breath analysers in vehicles of DWI drivers, already.

If it's possibe for the kids to stay at thier own home, go to thier own schools without interuption, and the parents need to become real ,(better) , parents.
Might be a good idea, and again, money saving, and easier on the children involved. Seems , everybody wins.

How about not having kids in the first place?

 

[diesel96]

How about reading the bottom of the artcle.....Sounds like the other alternative is jail.

UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.

And an interesting comment from a reader.....

Posted by: benry | 08/3/09 | 1:09 pm
The mistake you have made is to take anything written by the Daily Express at face value. Perhaps it is a while since you were in the UK, but you should be aware that they print total and utter bollocks most of the time.
Firstly this story is at least a year old (and the trial scheme started in 1995), and secondly the most restrictive regime (with the monitors etc) is for a very small handful of families (not 2000) who cause extensive and very real misery to the lives of people around them and who have been escalated through the system. These are the real families from hell, “known” to social services, the police, the courts, just about everyone.
There are a small number (about 5 or 6) semi-secure units in the country (called “core residential units”) which house these extremely difficult families and are used as part of behaviour management programme. The most extremely disruptive families are moved to these units.
Most families that are part of these family intervention projects are dealt with by a combination of key workers and use of sanctions. They do not have CCTV installed in their homes
The alternative to these family intervention projects is jail - so this is a better regime than that.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

How about not having kids in the first place?

Bingo! We have a winner!

As for cameras, I hate the damn things. Everywhere you are, there is a camera staring at you.

Supposedly, they are there to protect people and property. Funny thing is, I feel less safe with them around because I know they are harbingers of a despotic future.

 

[wkmac]

If we stop having kids, who becomes the labor and tax payers? Where do the workers and taxpayers then come from?

Would it behoove the central planners to subsidize the creation on new taxpayers and corporate laborers? Would it benefit the central planners to encourage actions that produce new workers and taxpayers and to discourage actions that don't? Which action sustains the longterm state and it's corporate partners?

Freedom is only allowed when it benefits the central state and the central plan!



D,

Your point from your position may be valid but I'd ask what exactly these young ones did in the first place. Being outside a actual institution suggests that many? most? all? were of a non-violent nature. Therefore, the question in my mind begs, were the crimes committed outside of the use of any force or fraud on another human being? If yes then the question now begs, are these crimes victimless and nothing more than some violation of regulation and that the only "victim" is the State itself because some young skull full of mush decided to rebel against some authorterian control? If yes, then I guess the State had to heavy hand in order to show who truly is master!

Going back to the original above point, the bigger question here is, whose property are we should become the real central question here! What the State can plan to create it can plan to destroy? War! Disease! Work to death! Etc!

 

[klein]

wkmac, this one is for you. Describes you all the way !
If you lived here, you could run as a candidate (they are looking and even have a link)
http://www.libertarian.ca

 

[chev]

I don't even think it's that bad of an idea. Instead of sending these youngsters to Forster homes ( that costs the governments much more money), why not make this a second choice ?

We have ankle bracelets, and the breath analysers in vehicles of DWI drivers, already.

If it's possible for the kids to stay at their own home, go to their own schools without interruption, and the parents need to become real ,(better) , parents.
Might be a good idea, and again, money saving, and easier on the children involved. Seems , everybody wins.

Are you kidding me. Just keep giving up every right you have? Holy crap@! What is wrong with people? Hey, what the hell. Why not let the gov't tell me when I can scratch my butt. God knows people have become so fat, lazy and complacent that they need Big Gov't to provide for their every need. In fact. "ITS THEIR RIGHT". (BULL SH**)
People, stop depending on someone else to hand you something. Take control damn it! Govt is not here to feed you grapes. Their grapes are sour.
Point is, who gave the gov't the right to tell anyone how to raise their kids? Will it end here? Hell no.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

If we stop having kids, who becomes the labor and tax payers? Where do the workers and taxpayers then come from?

Would it behoove the central planners to subsidize the creation on new taxpayers and corporate laborers? Would it benefit the central planners to encourage actions that produce new workers and taxpayers and to discourage actions that don't? Which action sustains the longterm state and it's corporate partners?

Freedom is only allowed when it benefits the central state and the central plan!

To pontificate on this for a moment...

It is ironic that all of the wealthiest nations have low or declining birth rates. They can afford to have children the most. But there seems to be a correlation between wealth and intelligence and the decision to not have children, or at least not an excessive amount of them.

My personal morality tells me that having more then two children in this time in history is morally indefensible, unless maybe you own a traditional family farm. If you have two children, at most you replaced your spouse and yourself. Have more then two, your growing the population. We don't need anymore people.

Again, this is my personal morality. But if as a society we do not start encouraging people to reproduce less, vast urban slums will be mankind's future. I of course do not endorse the draconian reproduction laws of China. I think the change must become a cultural one. And the message must especially be sent to the third world countries of the planet.

I live what I am saying here, I did not have more then two children. I recommend to them, as I do to all young people, to never get married and never have kids of their own (but that is also related to my own personal experience of the mental exhaustion that comes from having a family).

If I hit the lottery tomorrow, I would set up a fund offering free sterilizations.

I know, I know, I am a lunatic ! My wife would call me that too but she has more choice words to call me !

 

[wkmac]

To pontificate on this for a moment...

I know, ain't it fun. Drives some people here absoultely nuts and therein lay the point of it all!

 

[Jolly Rogers]

"If we stop having kids, who becomes the labor and tax payers? Where do the workers and taxpayers then come from?"

You see all the illegals UPS hires as janitors? Well each of them tend to have 5+ children so they are the "future". Sadly these people tend to use more taxes then they put in, each one of those babies cost over $10,000 to deliver each of those babies not to mention schooling, special ESL classes, healthcare, and other social services. Not to worry the US won't remain that much longer anyways, we'll be the North American Union soon enough and all our cares and problems will melt away and we'll be in socialist bliss.

 

[diesel96]

Are you kidding me. Just keep giving up every right you have? Holy crap@! What is wrong with people? Hey, what the hell. Why not let the gov't tell me when I can scratch my butt. God knows people have become so fat, lazy and complacent that they need Big Gov't to provide for their every need. In fact. "ITS THEIR RIGHT". (BULL SH**)
People, stop depending on someone else to hand you something. Take control damn it! Govt is not here to feed you grapes. Their grapes are sour.
Point is, who gave the gov't the right to tell anyone how to raise their kids? Will it end here? Hell no.

Where's the outrage when FISA and warrantless wiretapping was introduced ?
People have become fat, lazy, and unhealthy thru free reigning venture capalists, costing consumers and taxpayers billions every year and priemiums skyrocketing. So when the Gov't steps in and introduces legislation and regulation to upgrade and protect consumers consumption and healthcare, people cry communist and marxist takeover....Greenday is right...American idiots.

"If we stop having kids, who becomes the labor and tax payers? Where do the workers and taxpayers then come from?"

You see all the illegals UPS hires as janitors? Well each of them tend to have 5+ children so they are the "future". Sadly these people tend to use more taxes then they put in, each one of those babies cost over $10,000 to deliver each of those babies not to mention schooling, special ESL classes, healthcare, and other social services. Not to worry the US won't remain that much longer anyways, we'll be the North American Union soon enough and all our cares and problems will melt away and we'll be in socialist bliss.

It's not just an illegal alien thing, it's a Christian and religous thing. "Be fruitful and multiply".

 

[JimJimmyJames]

People have become fat, lazy, and unhealthy thru free reigning venture capalists, costing consumers and taxpayers billions every year and priemiums skyrocketing.

Here is the problem with allowing the government to get a foot hold into the door in the first place.

If you take the governments healthcare, you have to abide by their rules.

It would not cost us taxpayers a thing if we weren't forced to pay for it. Otherwise, why would I care if someone ate Big Macs 'til they popped, if thats what makes them happy? Should not their families care? Local community? Those would be the people who need to step up and help this person, if indeed the person feels he needs help.

Diesel, remember, the freedoms we curtail in order to save money for society could effect our lives next. I know you love (at least it seems you do) that Harley (as I do mine), but boy, what expense you would cost us all if you (or I) got hurt on it !

 

[diesel96]

Here is the problem with allowing the government to get a foot hold into the door in the first place.

If you take the governments healthcare, you have to abide by their rules.

It would not cost us taxpayers a thing if we weren't forced to pay for it. Otherwise, why would I care if someone ate Big Macs 'til they popped, if thats what makes them happy? Should not their families care? Local community? Those would be the people who need to step up and help this person, if indeed the person feels he needs help.

Diesel, remember, the freedoms we curtail in order to save money for society could effect our lives next. I know you love (at least it seems you do) that Harley (as I do mine), but boy, what expense you would cost us all if you (or I) got hurt on it !

Would do think JJ, A family of 4 making $50,000-$60,00 paying 17% of their yearly earnings on medical premiums alone want to abide by Insurance rules, or, if they could get that percentage down to single digit go by Gov't Option. Who's rules shall we live by when it comes to healthcare? Profit driven market or non profit regulated Gov't. Or can our bought and paid for lawmakers come to an agreement with out party and lobbiest political BS?
I believe we, the taxpayers, are already paying for those that can't afford, and choose to be uninsured, and also paying for medical induced bankruptcies for those that already have insurance. Healthcare system is broken. The system has way surpassed the average wage earner. And we, the consumers and business owners, are overpaying for premiums for Insurance "dictated" (not Doctors) coverage that if pooled together, the ridiculusly high profiteering faciltators would be forced to compete to realistic affordable standards, and reduce wasteful spending, to mesh with the majority of America's stagnant wage earners.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

I agree that a single payer health care system does have appeal, my problem is one of trust. I think we both agree that corporate America is not our friend when it comes to health care, but who do you think gets our politicians elected? Would it be long before government health care was somehow perverted so that we would continuously pay more while getting less?

Hell, isn't that the case with Medicare now?

I think the solution might be one in which the government steps aside and allows the workers to organize and negotiate with their employers for these benefits. And it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.

But then again, will unions ever be given a chance to have real power again? Probably not.

Well, unless they are public employee unions! Government taking care of their own!

 

[island1fox]

Would do think JJ, A family of 4 making $50,000-$60,00 paying 17% of their yearly earnings on medical premiums alone want to abide by Insurance rules, or, if they could get that percentage down to single digit go by Gov't Option. Who's rules shall we live by when it comes to healthcare? Profit driven market or non profit regulated Gov't. Or can our bought and paid for lawmakers come to an agreement with out party and lobbiest political BS?
I believe we, the taxpayers, are already paying for those that can't afford, and choose to be uninsured, and also paying for medical induced bankruptcies for those that already have insurance. Healthcare system is broken. The system has way surpassed the average wage earner. And we, the consumers and business owners, are overpaying for premiums for Insurance "dictated" (not Doctors) coverage that if pooled together, the ridiculusly high profiteering faciltators would be forced to compete to realistic affordable standards, and reduce wasteful spending, to mesh with the majority of America's stagnant wage earners.

JimJIMMYJAMES,
While I know that it is a big nation out there --I believe that that diesel has ignored some "other" facts.
Lets see --UPS people --This is the Brown CAFE ---Take a poll vast majority will respond they are very happy with present health care.
There are many, many people who would never unload feeders, or deliver packages or drive trailors --much too hard for them --but they want the same heatlh care you work for.
Go in the military for 24 months to recieve healthcare the rest of your life --No way!!!
Work for any government job --including our post office or any of the thousands and thousands of companies that offer healthcare coverage ---no way!!
Laugh at people like UPS workers that leave their homes in the dark and return home when it is dark --Hard working people --who WORK for what they need.
Reign in the high costs with Tort reform --No way.
Legislate that medical Insurance can be purchased state to state to increase competetion --No way!!
The gov tells us they will save over 500 Billion in fraud in Medicare??? Please the government has never run anything efficiently.
The democrats wanted to lower Medicare to 55 throwing millions of additional people (including retired Teamsters who have worked so hard for their coverage) Including the millions and millions of baby boomers over the next few years, reduce the cost by 500 billion and maintain the program ???????
Once we would have been thrown into the gov system ---more and more Doctors, Hospitals and Hospices are rejecting medicare -----waiting lists,rationing etc --Common sense.
The majority of American"s --over 60% are against this lunacy.
Obama and the DEms with the use of Bribes to Senators --for their votes will push it through.
No one is against a safety net. Almost all are against covering the lazy and the illegals.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Go in the military for 24 months to receive health care for the rest of your life?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

You have to go in to the military for 240 months to get lifetime marginal healthcare.