What's in a name? ContactPoint sounds kinda nice. Perhaps it's a telephone box or some kind of new technology that makes it easier for us to talk to each other and give strangers and trees hugs.
Well it's not. It's another fucking government database - of every new person in the UK, or "every child" as the government puts it. It's received scant attention despite it's constant growth, because it's all warm and fuzzy and nice. It was recently announced that up to 390,000 people have access to the database (authorised access, that is) and "From late October, local authorities will start training users across England" so the number is going to get much higher.
Of course, those 400 thousand people are all vetted by the government (i.e. vetted by other people within the same group) and it isn't like the government already "lost" the details (including bank account information) of 25 million people. or misplaced a USB stick with 4 million criminal records. There aren't dozens of other examples of lost data.
But don't worry. If they lose the data again, our humble politicians have processes and procedures in place should anything go wrong. They will say sorry to other MPs and add in a lot of reasons why they shouldn't really have to apologise. And thus, justice will be done. And seen to be done, no less.
Have you ever seen the systems that will monitor a person's movements via their mobile phone. If I ever felt the need to monitor my child with such a thing, I would know that I was an utter failure as a parent. Just as our fearless leaders are an utter failure as a governing force. I look forward to someone picking up the data, unencrypted lying around on public transport somewhere.
Showing posts with label fuck the government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fuck the government. Show all posts
Politicians are a superior race of people
It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at some of the antics of the current government. The latest is man-hating lunatic Harriet Harman, who allegedly "crashed [her] car while on mobile and drove off without leaving details". Bad enough, of course, but the ever-charming Harman is accused of winding down her window and saying to the victim "I’m Harriet Harman- you know where you can get hold of me". Presumably the political equivalent of "don't you know who I am?". Although personally, I find it closer to "I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do".
The underlying feeling is clear: Harman is not going to waste her time dealing with some prole who stupidly parked their car in her way. Because she has important business to do. The business of fucking over anyone who doesn't share her misguided moral and social values.
It speaks volumes about the social attitudes of the UK government that a minister could have published these words on family roles:
Why not do away with the women and children too? But of course, Harman is a special breed of woman; one that wears a kevlar vest to tour her own constituency and an architect of the Equality Bill which takes the staggeringly stupid approach of promoting inequality in order to achieve...well, equality.
And let's not forget Harman's role in attempting a blatant cover-up of the MP's expenses scandal. She advocated exempting expenses from Freedom of Information requests, instead proving a summary under 26 headings. She was quite specific about the number of headings. If she'd thrown in a pie chart or two, maybe I could have been persuaded.
Of course, Harman's day to day rule is more prosaic; lying about statistics to support her personal views (with the aim of turning those views into policies) and taking dodgy "donations".
Yeah, Ms Harman is a different breed, alright.
The underlying feeling is clear: Harman is not going to waste her time dealing with some prole who stupidly parked their car in her way. Because she has important business to do. The business of fucking over anyone who doesn't share her misguided moral and social values.
It speaks volumes about the social attitudes of the UK government that a minister could have published these words on family roles:
"...it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion"
Why not do away with the women and children too? But of course, Harman is a special breed of woman; one that wears a kevlar vest to tour her own constituency and an architect of the Equality Bill which takes the staggeringly stupid approach of promoting inequality in order to achieve...well, equality.
And let's not forget Harman's role in attempting a blatant cover-up of the MP's expenses scandal. She advocated exempting expenses from Freedom of Information requests, instead proving a summary under 26 headings. She was quite specific about the number of headings. If she'd thrown in a pie chart or two, maybe I could have been persuaded.
Of course, Harman's day to day rule is more prosaic; lying about statistics to support her personal views (with the aim of turning those views into policies) and taking dodgy "donations".
Yeah, Ms Harman is a different breed, alright.
It's about time only government-approved adults had contact with children
Or, so, apparently, the current government believe.
Not content with treating the adult population like children, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have decided that we need something called the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Independent as in "politically motivated", safeguarding as in "conducting expensive and pointless administration" and authority as in "self-appointed". From their website:
They'll have to pay too - £64 for the privilege of proving that they are not a dangerous criminal or paedophile. And we aren't talking small numbers. Apparently, something like 11 million people will have to register.
In situations like this, I find it difficult not to look for some other motivation than the stated object of the ISA. Because let's face it, it isn't going to work at all. The government's old boys network of incompetent IT contractors wouldn't know a secure database if they found one on a USB stick in the back of a taxi. And even if they did, this would do absolutely nothing to stop first time offenders, or those who have otherwise steered clear of the grasping arm of the law.
It reminds me of an endearing quote regarding the banning of parents from their children's school sports day:
That's unsupervised adults as in, the kids' parents. They have not been appointed by the state, and hence, are suspect. These days, suspects too, as the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is something neither the government or police seem to be able to tolerate.
The natural end would seem to be that only the state appointed and approved can be part of the normal upbringing of a child. We already have disturbing stories of children being forcibly seized from seemingly adequate parents.
And if the fact that the idea that the state - any state - is best placed to raise children is distasteful (who cares if Plato thought it would be great?) is less concerning than the moral values espoused and then broken in equal measure by an odious succession of British governments. I wouldn't turn to them for advice in a pub; much less entrust them as the caretakers of the nation's future generations.
Not content with treating the adult population like children, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have decided that we need something called the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Independent as in "politically motivated", safeguarding as in "conducting expensive and pointless administration" and authority as in "self-appointed". From their website:
"We will assess every person who wants to work or volunteer with vulnerable people. Potential employees and volunteers will need to apply to register with the ISA."
They'll have to pay too - £64 for the privilege of proving that they are not a dangerous criminal or paedophile. And we aren't talking small numbers. Apparently, something like 11 million people will have to register.
In situations like this, I find it difficult not to look for some other motivation than the stated object of the ISA. Because let's face it, it isn't going to work at all. The government's old boys network of incompetent IT contractors wouldn't know a secure database if they found one on a USB stick in the back of a taxi. And even if they did, this would do absolutely nothing to stop first time offenders, or those who have otherwise steered clear of the grasping arm of the law.
It reminds me of an endearing quote regarding the banning of parents from their children's school sports day:
"If we let parents into the school they would have been free to roam the grounds.
All unsupervised adults must be kept away from children."
That's unsupervised adults as in, the kids' parents. They have not been appointed by the state, and hence, are suspect. These days, suspects too, as the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is something neither the government or police seem to be able to tolerate.
The natural end would seem to be that only the state appointed and approved can be part of the normal upbringing of a child. We already have disturbing stories of children being forcibly seized from seemingly adequate parents.
And if the fact that the idea that the state - any state - is best placed to raise children is distasteful (who cares if Plato thought it would be great?) is less concerning than the moral values espoused and then broken in equal measure by an odious succession of British governments. I wouldn't turn to them for advice in a pub; much less entrust them as the caretakers of the nation's future generations.
Are there any parents amongst this retarded goverment of ours?
So, our loyal servants in the UK government continue their seemingly unstoppable campaign to, well, stop us doing anything that doesn't fit with their idea of a model society and their religious, cultural and ethical values. Most recently lying through their teeth to "denormalise" (shudder) drinking, which follows hot on the heels of a successful campaign to make smokers demeaned and despised (yes, lies featured heavily in that process too), yes, our misguidedly paternalistic governing fathers are coming for your vice next. What was it Doug Stanhope said about vice cops in the USA? Oh yeah:
Make no mistake, if you aren't silently queueing for your latest slice of government propaganda, punctuated infrequently by words of praise for our fearless leaders, our puritanical overlords are coming for you, and your chosen vice, whether that is a type of food, or a social, religious or political idea.
But what I don't get is, are there any parents amongst this retarded government of ours? Would they seriously use the same tactics when raising their own children?
I see my job as a parent to prepare my child for the world ahead; to equip him with the necessary skills and experience to make his own decisions, which will hopefully be the right ones. But he's going to do things I don't want him to, and make mistakes. I know I did, and it's pretty likely he'll do the same. As a teenager, he'll get drunk underage, and probably experiment with drugs. He'll sleep with girls he has do desire to be in a long term relationship with and may even commit some petty crime like shoplifting.
And then, he'll learn in the only way a child truly can - by experiencing things and then deciding for himself whether it's something to pursue. Does anyone really believe that they can tell a child to do something, and they will blindly follow along? This is why not everyone smokes, and not everyone who's tried crack is a crackhead. People exercise their freedom to choose, and hey, most of the time they seem to choose pretty well. If you deny your child experience, then you will create a child without the ability to learn from their experience. A child doomed to constantly making the wrong choices.
Now, there's a cut-off point. At various points (depending on what is being chosen) a child is too young to genuinely exercise free will. They can't be allowed to experience some things, and have to be physically made to do others because do not have the experience or skills to choose themselves. A baby doesn't really have free will at all, and a toddler is on the path to learning it. By degrees, we give our children the freedom appropriate to their knowledge and experience. At a certain age (our society seems confused as to whether this is 16 or 18) a child is considered to have complete free will, and is then able to make their own decisions.
Clearly our government either believes us to be akin to babies or toddlers, or has a very different approach to parenting to me. One that will undoubtedly lead to a generation that does not know how to exercise free will; one that does not have the equipment to make the right choices based on new experiences. One that has been denied something that is essential to them as a human being able to stand alone and exercise freedom.
Perhaps I'm developing alzheimers. How could I forget? That's the intention of this government, isn't it?
But then you think about it vice cops don't fight real crime; that's not their job. Real cops fight real crime. A vice cop's only job is to fuck up the party...
Make no mistake, if you aren't silently queueing for your latest slice of government propaganda, punctuated infrequently by words of praise for our fearless leaders, our puritanical overlords are coming for you, and your chosen vice, whether that is a type of food, or a social, religious or political idea.
But what I don't get is, are there any parents amongst this retarded government of ours? Would they seriously use the same tactics when raising their own children?
I see my job as a parent to prepare my child for the world ahead; to equip him with the necessary skills and experience to make his own decisions, which will hopefully be the right ones. But he's going to do things I don't want him to, and make mistakes. I know I did, and it's pretty likely he'll do the same. As a teenager, he'll get drunk underage, and probably experiment with drugs. He'll sleep with girls he has do desire to be in a long term relationship with and may even commit some petty crime like shoplifting.
And then, he'll learn in the only way a child truly can - by experiencing things and then deciding for himself whether it's something to pursue. Does anyone really believe that they can tell a child to do something, and they will blindly follow along? This is why not everyone smokes, and not everyone who's tried crack is a crackhead. People exercise their freedom to choose, and hey, most of the time they seem to choose pretty well. If you deny your child experience, then you will create a child without the ability to learn from their experience. A child doomed to constantly making the wrong choices.
Now, there's a cut-off point. At various points (depending on what is being chosen) a child is too young to genuinely exercise free will. They can't be allowed to experience some things, and have to be physically made to do others because do not have the experience or skills to choose themselves. A baby doesn't really have free will at all, and a toddler is on the path to learning it. By degrees, we give our children the freedom appropriate to their knowledge and experience. At a certain age (our society seems confused as to whether this is 16 or 18) a child is considered to have complete free will, and is then able to make their own decisions.
Clearly our government either believes us to be akin to babies or toddlers, or has a very different approach to parenting to me. One that will undoubtedly lead to a generation that does not know how to exercise free will; one that does not have the equipment to make the right choices based on new experiences. One that has been denied something that is essential to them as a human being able to stand alone and exercise freedom.
Perhaps I'm developing alzheimers. How could I forget? That's the intention of this government, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
