UK Government To Install Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes (RF-Chippy) [modified]
-
Computafreak wrote:
your article seems to have vanished
Really? Thats odd, I can still access it.
Yeah, I can see it now. Rather odd. If I can be bothered, I'll have a look. Having read some of this thread's comments, I'm not holding out much hope though - it seems fairly [rubbish|inaccurate|misleading]
Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow
-
Yeah, I can see it now. Rather odd. If I can be bothered, I'll have a look. Having read some of this thread's comments, I'm not holding out much hope though - it seems fairly [rubbish|inaccurate|misleading]
Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow
I've been looking for the proof they say doesn't exist. I won't tolerate them trying to discredit me and call me insane. At the most intensive level, families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit. Upon satisfactory completion of a programme, the family can move into a managed property.[^]
-
I've been looking for the proof they say doesn't exist. I won't tolerate them trying to discredit me and call me insane. At the most intensive level, families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit. Upon satisfactory completion of a programme, the family can move into a managed property.[^]
this refers to a managed residential home - more like a open-open prison rather than a true home, you state its putting cameras into homes when the truth is putting the worst parents into monitored homes as opposed to locking them up in a prison - a difference that is huge. what would your answer be? let them lose to mistreat the children? to terrorise other residents? to allow them to ruin the hilds life until enough of a case can be brought o have the child removed? (note that even that is suspect as they can just have another it is that they seem good at) or are you opposed to this as it would be difficult to give the kids porn when being so heavly supervised? and we know that you advocate this
-
The state is stepping in because of child abuse. Which is happening because the stupidest people in society are being allowed to breed. I've never seriously suggested forced birth control, but, you have to admit, the options are: 1 - let the kids suffer, and possibly die 2 - stop these people from breeding 3 - get the state involved to protect the rights of innocent children
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The state is stepping in because of child abuse.
Whatever the cause of this kak, it is scary. Not for a Free African, but for an evermore enslaved Englishman.
-
I am not in the least surprised that the story in question was stretching the truth. However, I can't find any reference to cameras in that pdf. Is there in fact no truth at all to the story ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
OK, I type this again, after once being thwarted by the auth. Whatever the Cap'n's maladies, he has raised a valid point. The people of Britain stand a very, frightening risk of this kind of shit being pulled on them. Just ask Holland. This is not a figment, but a story', not imagined by the Cap'n, but actually constructed by deluded leftits the world around.
-
I have made copious searches and can find no supporting references to statements or comments or opinions in any other UK newspaper that Ed Balls was supposed to have made. I have looked at Ed Balls home site, Hansard, UK Home Office press reports, CommunityCare website, TheyWorkForYou.com , Department for Children Schools & Familes. Frankly, I can't find anything that supports what this political journalist (Alison Little) says on the subject. But you can draw your own conclusions ... Examples of her other recent work include http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/117853/Mandelson-to-quit-as-a-peer-in-plot-to-fight-for-leadership/[^] http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/108279[^] http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/104853[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Alison Little) says on the subject.
Is she hot? That's all that counts on teh intehnt.
-
this refers to a managed residential home - more like a open-open prison rather than a true home, you state its putting cameras into homes when the truth is putting the worst parents into monitored homes as opposed to locking them up in a prison - a difference that is huge. what would your answer be? let them lose to mistreat the children? to terrorise other residents? to allow them to ruin the hilds life until enough of a case can be brought o have the child removed? (note that even that is suspect as they can just have another it is that they seem good at) or are you opposed to this as it would be difficult to give the kids porn when being so heavly supervised? and we know that you advocate this
Alex hogarth wrote:
what would your answer be?
Well first off the UK government broadly defines anti-social behavior to include just about anything they dictate as inappropriate. Second, the authorities can come in and inspect the home of anyone who is ratted out, but this is normal for the UK. Even back in the 1700s King George III enforced the Stamp Act on the American colonies which required every piece of paper, pamphlet, poster, ANY PIECE OF PAPER REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS USED FOR, be stamped with the king's stamp. How did they enforce this? The king gave the right to authorities to write their own search warrants to inspect people's homes, which is what they are doing now but all they need is someone's word that a family is anti-social. If someone is truly abusive or neglecting his or her children, then they should go to jail for a while and the children can live with other family or a willing adopter family or a temporary intervention family.
Alex hogarth wrote:
or are you opposed to this as it would be difficult to give the kids porn
I never advocated giving kids porn. I said I was against state sex-ed because they do show inappropriate material to young kids. My little brother when he was 10 or 11 told me that the school was showing a video of a man ejaculating. I don't think that is necessary for such a young mind. I'd like you to quote me saying I advocate giving porn to kids. You can't because I didn't.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The state is stepping in because of child abuse.
Where did the news article say anything about child abuse? It said it's main focus was making sure that kids go to bed on time and do their homework. It also said that the parents that are in good status with the government will be given new rights to complain about others that might not be in good standing with the person that is complaining to the government, and therefor the person who was ratted out would be subjected to government spying in their home. This sets the precedent for a massive expansion of the program, which I'm sure will become acceptable in the UK because they will tolerate anything except freedom. How do we know that you don't abuse your children? You seem to be a little off in your morals. You have stated that child molestation is OK as long as it is mainstream and is acceptable by the majority, and you clearly believe that people should be sterilized at birth and have camera in their homes to watch and listen to their every action. Perhaps you need one of those cameras.
Christian Graus wrote:
Which is happening because the stupidest people in society are being allowed to breed.
Where did the article say anything about stupid people? Some of the smartest people in the world are psychopaths. Just look at the people in our government. They clearly don't care about anything except money and power, and those are the people that you want to allow to control, monitor, and inventory every aspect of people's lives.
Christian Graus wrote:
let the kids suffer, and possibly die
That is an intellectually bankrupt statement. If someone is really abusing a child, why isn't that person in jail and the child allowed to be raised by another family member or something?
Christian Graus wrote:
stop these people from breeding
Well you have already made it clear that you are all for it, but will you allow yourself to be sterilized? What about your children? You ought to take them in for sterilization to help save the planet.
Christian Graus wrote:
get the state involved to protect the rights of innocent children
Thats what the police are for, they come and arrest you after you break the law by committing child abuse. As the ar
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Thats what the police are
They aren't part of the state in your country?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Thats what the police are
They aren't part of the state in your country?
Brady Kelly wrote:
They aren't part of the state in your country?
They are mostly part of the city that they police. However they are constantly being federalized along with the states.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Where did the news article say anything about child abuse?
As Richard said, the story was written by someone with a tenuous grasp on the truth. Cameras will be installed in homes, if at all, because they are percieved as needed for child safety.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
How do we know that you don't abuse your children?
Well, because I have a job and pay taxes, I don't have any contact with welfare groups. Which means that the first line of defence is the schools. So long as the schools see well adjusted, confident kids who are obviously fed, clothed and not beaten, it will be assumed that I do not abuse them, but the truth is, you can't be certain.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have stated that child molestation is OK as long as it is mainstream and acceptable
No, you are an ignorant moron. On that front, someone actually stepped in to tell you that you were illiterate and obviously unable to understand what I was saying
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
, and you clearly believe that people should be sterilized at birth and have camera's in their homes to watch and listen to their every action.
Funny. This is the first time cameras have been discussed, and I did not say I wanted them. I've also never said people should be sterilized at birth . What you're doing to me is what you do to all news sources. Take what someone actually says, and twist it to fit your world view. That you do it to someone able to defend themselves here, only makes it more clear to others what a retard you are.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Perhaps you need one of those cameras.
To whatever degree it is true that this is happening in the UK, it wouldn't ever happen here, any more than it would in the US.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Where did the article say anything about stupid people?
I guess you have no grasp on reality. The people who are having kids, and failing to care for them, are overwhelmingly people on welfare who have kids so they can leave home and get their own welfare payment, instead of living off their mothers payments. You believe people are being chosen at random and having cameras installed in their homes ?
Christian Graus wrote:
To whatever degree it is true that this is happening in the UK, it wouldn't ever happen here, any more than it would in the US.
My recent sentiment includes this assertion. People in the UK are not less deserving of republican liberty than you in Australia, or those in the USA.
-
I've been looking for the proof they say doesn't exist. I won't tolerate them trying to discredit me and call me insane. At the most intensive level, families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit. Upon satisfactory completion of a programme, the family can move into a managed property.[^]
Still you find no support in the journalists statement of [quote] The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. [/quote] And no mentions whatsoever of this being done in "the home". IN FACT, you should read all the pages relevant here http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/SentencesOrdersandAgreements/IntensiveSupervisionAndSurveillanceProgramme/[^] then when you have done that, finding EXACTLY what is meant by "surveillance" then read this Management Guidance issued by the Youth Justice Board http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Resources/Downloads/ISSP%20Management%20Guidance%20Updated%200808.pdf[^]. Then you might be better informed than that political journalist.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
As Richard said, the story was written by someone with a tenuous grasp on the truth.
Well, he did not make it clear what was true and what wasn't. All he did was provide a little pamphlet full of broadly defined goals and double-think.
Christian Graus wrote:
Cameras will be installed in homes, if at all, because they are percieved as needed for child safety.
Did I say they wasn't? Everything is for the children right? They will get people to go along with anything if they say its for the children. What you will have though, is a bunch of pedophiles watching your children eat, sleep, run around, and they will watch the parents do whatever they do in their homes. Oh, and learn how to spell.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, because I have a job and pay taxes
You sit at your computer all day, and as of now you have little work to do. Having a job and paying taxes has absolutely no significance in determining who abuses their children. Quite frankly I think you do abuse your children. I think you need checked by the authorities.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is the first time cameras have been discussed, and I did not say I wanted them.
You didn't say you wanted them, but your defending the UK government by stating why they say its necessary for them to install cameras in people's homes to monitor "bad behavior".
Christian Graus wrote:
Take what someone actually says, and twist it to fit your world view.
My world view is one where people shouldn't be stupid slaves to the government. You let the government dictate your world view.
Christian Graus wrote:
The people who are having kids, and failing to care for them, are overwhelmingly people on welfare who have kids so they can leave home and get their own welfare payment, instead of living off their mothers payments. You believe people are being chosen at random and having cameras installed in their homes ?
The UK is a socialist nation, everybody is on welfare in one form or another, and everyone is being made into a "bad person" through law. Its how they control them.
Christian Graus wrote:
In the real world, the pare
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What you will have though, is a bunch of pedophiles watching your children eat, sleep, run around
Only after they achieve the age of 16, if they are capable of that.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
'double-think' is what you call anything you're too dumb to understand.
Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.
Christian Graus wrote:
The journalist is known to fabricate stuff, and no other source backs up her claims
Well, I can find 331 hits using Mr. Ball's quote. Quite frankly I am not going to waste my time searching through UK government documents just to prove a point. Its not my country and if they want to be spied on in their homes or out in the streets then let them do it. I think its disgusting though.
Christian Graus wrote:
I said if it's being done, it's for a reason. I was expecting the story to be an exaggeration, rather than a lie.
Well they already have millions of cameras all over cities and towns so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Christian Graus wrote:
I get it from being an adult who interacts with the world and knows how it works
You have little idea how it works. You refuse to learn how the international banking system works and how its used to gain political power. You don't even understand power. The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America [^]
Christian Graus wrote:
This is just a pile of crap. Why would they want to do that ?
They are already setting it up. Just look at all the cameras in the UK. Its for power. Don't you understand that power is like a drug? They want more and more, they are a bunch of control freaks that cant get enough power.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
That makes me a SuperHero.
-
Just establishing that you sit alone with your paranoia, with no human contact to temper it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
That is why solitary is so bad, compared to sharing a cell with Bubba. No reaffirmation. No consensus.
-
Still you find no support in the journalists statement of [quote] The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. [/quote] And no mentions whatsoever of this being done in "the home". IN FACT, you should read all the pages relevant here http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/SentencesOrdersandAgreements/IntensiveSupervisionAndSurveillanceProgramme/[^] then when you have done that, finding EXACTLY what is meant by "surveillance" then read this Management Guidance issued by the Youth Justice Board http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Resources/Downloads/ISSP%20Management%20Guidance%20Updated%200808.pdf[^]. Then you might be better informed than that political journalist.
Quite frankly no matter how you look at it, its disgusting. You can quibble about this and that, but its still fucked up. You people will tolerate anything as long as it is certified by the Home Office. :laugh:
-
He's turning into Idíot. It's sad.
:~ Since when has this been news or concern to you?
-
Yeah, I can see it now. Rather odd. If I can be bothered, I'll have a look. Having read some of this thread's comments, I'm not holding out much hope though - it seems fairly [rubbish|inaccurate|misleading]
Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow
Just because you're paranoid (and CSS) doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern.
-
Still you find no support in the journalists statement of [quote] The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. [/quote] And no mentions whatsoever of this being done in "the home". IN FACT, you should read all the pages relevant here http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/SentencesOrdersandAgreements/IntensiveSupervisionAndSurveillanceProgramme/[^] then when you have done that, finding EXACTLY what is meant by "surveillance" then read this Management Guidance issued by the Youth Justice Board http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Resources/Downloads/ISSP%20Management%20Guidance%20Updated%200808.pdf[^]. Then you might be better informed than that political journalist.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Still you find no support in the journalists statement of
You can't blame Josh for the journalist's breadth of reality.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
what would your answer be?
Well first off the UK government broadly defines anti-social behavior to include just about anything they dictate as inappropriate. Second, the authorities can come in and inspect the home of anyone who is ratted out, but this is normal for the UK. Even back in the 1700s King George III enforced the Stamp Act on the American colonies which required every piece of paper, pamphlet, poster, ANY PIECE OF PAPER REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS USED FOR, be stamped with the king's stamp. How did they enforce this? The king gave the right to authorities to write their own search warrants to inspect people's homes, which is what they are doing now but all they need is someone's word that a family is anti-social. If someone is truly abusive or neglecting his or her children, then they should go to jail for a while and the children can live with other family or a willing adopter family or a temporary intervention family.
Alex hogarth wrote:
or are you opposed to this as it would be difficult to give the kids porn
I never advocated giving kids porn. I said I was against state sex-ed because they do show inappropriate material to young kids. My little brother when he was 10 or 11 told me that the school was showing a video of a man ejaculating. I don't think that is necessary for such a young mind. I'd like you to quote me saying I advocate giving porn to kids. You can't because I didn't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Second, the authorities can come in and inspect the home of anyone who is ratted out, but this is normal for the UK.
Crazy statement you make. NOBODY, repeat NOBODY can enter a private premises without 1. The owners permission 2. A Court Order 3. To prevent an on-going crime or 4. To prevent a disaster just a gas leak turning into a explosive situation.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'd like you to quote me saying I advocate giving porn to kids.
I wouldn't like to quote anything you spew. However, sex education of the right type delivered at the right time to the right people will help young people to better prepare themselves for the adult world they will be joining including all the unsavory aspects of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Still you find no support in the journalists statement of
You can't blame Josh for the journalist's breadth of reality.