Why, Hello There, 1984

fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families
THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.


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.
Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.
Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.
But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.
Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless.
Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.
He said: “This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support.”
But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little, much too late.
“This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse.”
Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons.
Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.
The updated Youth Crime Action Plan also called for a crackdown on violent girl gangs as well as drug and alcohol abuse among young women.
But a decision to give ministers new powers to intervene with failing local authority Youth Offending Teams was criticised by council leaders.
Les Lawrence, of the Local Government Association, said they did “crucial” work and such intervention was “completely unnecessary”.
Click to expand...
Here comes Big Brother.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm not going to say it's right by any means, but if you're family is that horrible, damn.[/QUOTE]

Seconded. I remember back in the old days (last year) when the government just removed kids from bad homes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']tabloid paper.[/QUOTE]
So?


Also:
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSL0434913620070405
LONDON (Reuters Life!) - Britain will fit more surveillance cameras with loudspeakers allowing security staff to berate people spotted dropping litter, fighting or vandalizing property, the government said on Wednesday.
Home Secretary John Reid hopes the talking cameras -- which have been on trial around the country -- will help cut crime. But critics say the idea is another lurch towards Britain becoming a "surveillance society."
The government has given nearly 500,000 pounds ($986,800) to pay for 20 new areas to install closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras that will allow staff to monitor pictures and talk directly to anyone observed behaving in an anti-social way.
"Talking CCTV is another tool in creating safer communities," Reid said in a statement. "It uses modern technology to allow camera operators to speak directly to people on the streets to stop or prevent them acting anti-socially."
Louise Casey, a civil servant who co-ordinates the government's Respect campaign to tackle bad behavior, said people could "face the shame of being publicly embarrassed."
"Talking CCTV ... is aimed at the small minority who think it is acceptable to litter our streets, vandalize our communities and damage our properties," she said.
Council chiefs in Middlesbrough, where the cameras have already been installed, said they had helped cut littering, vandalism and fights.
"Middlesbrough's cleanliness has improved dramatically since the speakers have been installed," said council security manager Jack Bonnar.
Civil rights group Liberty has described the new cameras as a "high-tech toy (that) gives camera operators massive powers to invade the lives of ordinary people."
Britain is the most watched country in the world, with an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 14 people.
The government already faces accusations that planned identity cards and a national computer database of personal details will increase state intrusion into people's lives.
The privacy watchdog warned last November that Britain was turning into a "surveillance society."
"More and more information is being collected," said Information Commissioner Richard Thomas. "Humans must dictate our future, not machines."
Liberal Democrat party leader Menzies Campbell accused the government earlier this year of "snooping" into every part of people's lives.
Click to expand...
Britain might as well change their name to Airstrip One.
 
You know what's funny about the use of CCTV cameras? It's exactly what is done on shows like big brother, only the people aren't getting paid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why but the UK love Big Brother. That show is a huge deal over there. What a coinky-dink, eh?

That's crazy how that one conservative guy calls it "too little, too late" as if something more obtrusive could be possible.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
That's crazy how that one conservative guy calls it "too little, too late" as if something more obtrusive could be possible.[/QUOTE]
Haven't you ever heard of the telescreen? They could have those. I'm sure that's what the guy wants.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Haven't you ever heard of the telescreen? They could have those. I'm sure that's what the guy wants.[/QUOTE]

Nah, chip me up with monitoring and deescalation software.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Nah, chip me up with monitoring and deescalation software.[/QUOTE]

Software, schmoftware. They just need a chip in every man, woman and child (required by the government) and you get injected with drugs if you get too excited, or have "non-normal" brainwave patterns.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wouldn't it just be easier to license having children?[/QUOTE]

It would be, but certain groups would claim they're being discriminated against. No worries though. Once governments have to choose between feeding the elderly who can vote and children who can't vote, the numbers of poor children will naturally thin out.
 
So I'm guessing you guys like when kids don't get fed or taken to school. It's either this or put the kids in foster care. I'd love to see some of you pussies make that choice.
 
Yeah, that's just ridiculous for problem families.

I could maybe see it for people on house arrest/home confinement with restrictions against leaving, drinking, drug use etc. as it's still less restrictive than prison and probably more effective than just probation or electronic monitoring.

But not for problem families. Either give them counseling and trust the results or take the kids away.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So I'm guessing you guys like when kids don't get fed or taken to school. It's either this or put the kids in foster care. I'd love to see some of you pussies make that choice.[/QUOTE]
Well, I suppose we should just put cameras in everyone's homes then. Oh noez!1!!11! There might be children not eating right! That kid didn't eat his carrot! Send the thought police!
You're seriously saying we need cameras in people's houses watching them 24/7, because they didn't eat their vegetables, or go to bed at the "right" time? Look at the quote from the article:
They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.
Click to expand...
Seriously?
If the parents are abusive, then there is already a system to fix that. Its called CPS. Do we really need cameras in people's homes? Do we really need security cameras that bark orders at you? Do we really need to live in a world like 1984?
If you don't think this will come to the US, think again.
HOUSTON (AP) — Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

...............Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association said that although some would consider cameras an invasion of privacy, "I think a lot of people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm
It won't be just for the "worst" families, it will be for everyone.
 
"I think a lot of people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."

LOL.

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster wanted me to have more eyes, HE would have put them on me.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm
It won't be just for the "worst" families, it will be for everyone.[/QUOTE]

You're talking about cameras outside in public places there. So that's a bit different. There is no expectation to privacy in public.

I don't have much problems with CCTV in public, provided that research shows them effective in reducing crime. Early reports from the UK where some cities are nearly totally covered by CCTV in public places have been promising.

The problems I do have arise from the slippery slope possibilities rather than any objection to say having my apartment complex parking lot covered with cameras so the car break ins stop.
 
I have no problem with recordings of public spaces. The law is pretty clear that it can be done anyway and I don't have a problem with law enforcement being given another tool to assist their work. As far as private spaces, no fucking way.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You're talking about cameras outside in public places there. So that's a bit different. There is no expectation to privacy in public.

I don't have much problems with CCTV in public, provided that research shows them effective in reducing crime. Early reports from the UK where some cities are nearly totally covered by CCTV in public places have been promising.

The problems I do have arise from the slippery slope possibilities rather than any objection to say having my apartment complex parking lot covered with cameras so the car break ins stop.[/QUOTE]
and even private homes to fight crime
Click to expand...
Uh.....
 
I assume that means on streets with private homes, not inside private homes. They have no way to put cameras in homes, but could put them on utility polls to film the street and sidewalks etc.

Would get front yards too I guess, but I have no problem with that. Again, no expectation to privacy outside in areas visible from public areas like streets and sidewalks.
 
They'll probably just rip the cameras out anyway. That or paint over the lens or something. I doubt these folks are against destroying government property.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']They'll probably just rip the cameras out anyway. That or paint over the lens or something. I doubt these folks are against destroying government property.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but of course the people watching the tapes would no they did it, so there would be penalties for that. Not like people with a camera in their home would be able to destroy it and get away with it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I assume that means on streets with private homes, not inside private homes. They have no way to put cameras in homes, but could put them on utility polls to film the street and sidewalks etc.

Would get front yards too I guess, but I have no problem with that. Again, no expectation to privacy outside in areas visible from public areas like streets and sidewalks.[/QUOTE]
Full quote:
Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that doesn't mean cameras in homes. I guess we should just live in a surveillance grid. Yeah! Cameras everywhere! Just like in 1984! Can't government just stay the fuck out of people's lives?
 
It still comes down to whether you would rather have this or kids in foster care. I'm sure these are the worst parents that don't give two shits whether their kids eat or go to school. In the article, it's stated that this is an intervention. It's basically a last ditch attempt to keep family together.

I'm adopted and I would rather have had this than going to live with my aunt and uncle. I guess it really sucks when real life interferes with your 1984 Orwellian conspiracy theories.
 
It's likely just poor writing.

There is absolutely no legal grounds for them to put cameras inside private homes. It's just not remotely possible without a constitutional amendment. So just use that knowledge, along with most newspaper reporters being talentless hacks who write shit sloppily more often than not before jumping to level1online-esque conspiracy theory nonsense.

In apartment complexes would mean out in the common areas--parking lot, the landings (or hallways if it's a high rise) etc. etc. So by private homes, logic would dictate that it would mean just in neighborhoods with private homes.

And being a city person, I have no problem with public areas being under video surveillance. Even nice neighborhoods tend to have a good bit of crime with burglaries, car break ins, robberies, etc. since the low life's from the ghetto are going to go steal from people who have things of value.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It still comes down to whether you would rather have this or kids in foster care. I'm sure these are the worst parents that don't give two shits whether their kids eat or go to school. In the article, it's stated that this is an intervention. It's basically a last ditch attempt to keep family together.

I'm adopted and I would rather have had this than going to live with my aunt and uncle. [/quote]
Again, if the parents are abusive, take the kids away. Give them an intervention if you want, but if they keep doing it, take the kids away. Spying on someone in their own home is outrageous.
I guess it really sucks when real life interferes with your 1984 Orwellian conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
Oh noez!1111! Its a conspiracy theory! Is this your counter to fucking everything I say? These things exist. Read the articles. But, I guess none of it exists? The government isn't some loving force that never lies.
 
I'll say it again. I don't care if they put cameras in homes if it makes people feed their kids and send them to school on time. There's nothing worse than going to be hungry or walking to school by yourself because Mom is puking in the toilet from too many beers the night before. Again, this is personal experience not some bullshit trolling argument.

And to your leet argument against the government conspiracies, you're a fucking joke fullmetal. You take a report from a rag tabloid and then extrapolate that it's coming to America in some shape or form. You act like all these conspiracy theories are out there but you do nothing but bitch in a gaming forum about them. You're a chicken shit plain and simple.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's likely just poor writing.

There is absolutely no legal grounds for them to put cameras inside private homes. It's just not remotely possible without a constitutional amendment. So just use that knowledge, along with most newspaper reporters being talentless hacks who write shit sloppily more often than not before jumping to level1online-esque conspiracy theory nonsense.

In apartment complexes would mean out in the common areas--parking lot, the landings (or hallways if it's a high rise) etc. etc. So by private homes, logic would dictate that it would mean just in neighborhoods with private homes.

And being a city person, I have no problem with public areas being under video surveillance. Even nice neighborhoods tend to have a good bit of crime with burglaries, car break ins, robberies, etc. since the low life's from the ghetto are going to go steal from people who have things of value.[/QUOTE]
They already tap our phones. There's no law that says they can do that.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']They already tap our phones. There's no law that says they can do that.[/QUOTE]

Sure, and that sucks.

But that's a far cry from finding a way to enter people's homes and install video surveillance systems. That's just never going to happen. At least not to law abiding citizens. The government wouldn't even try, and if they did there were would be a huge uproar. Not enough people care about phone tapping, hence why it hasn't stopped.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'll say it again. I don't care if they put cameras in homes if it makes people feed their kids and send them to school on time. There's nothing worse than going to be hungry or walking to school by yourself because Mom is puking in the toilet from too many beers the night before. Again, this is personal experience not some bullshit trolling argument.[/QUOTE]
So you think there should be cameras in people's homes to make sure they are eating right and going to sleep at the "right" time? But, if the parents are being abusive, they shouldn't be taken away?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, and that sucks.

But that's a far cry from finding a way to enter people's homes and install video surveillance systems. That's just never going to happen. At least not to law abiding citizens. The government wouldn't even try, and if they did there were would be a huge uproar. Not enough people care about phone tapping, hence why it hasn't stopped.[/QUOTE]
It starts with tapping phones, and reading emails of people who are "terrorists." Then, pretty soon its everyone. It starts with torturing "terrorists," and sending them to secret camps, and now it is raping and torturing "terrorist's" families. Young children, whatever. It starts with murdering innocents, because they live in a bad country. It starts with murdering leaders some people don't like. Where does it end? Is it possible we could get to the point where there are security cameras in your house? Yes. Has it been proposed? Yes.

If there's one thing the current and the past administration have shown us, its that they don't care about laws, or the Constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']I'll say it again. I don't care if they put cameras in homes if it makes people feed their kids and send them to school on time. There's nothing worse than going to be hungry or walking to school by yourself because Mom is puking in the toilet from too many beers the night before. Again, this is personal experience not some bullshit trolling argument.[/QUOTE]

I can see where you're coming from but you have to understand that something like this couldn't have fixed your situation. Having to forcefully care for you would be in your better interest physically but it would have made the situation worse because of resentment. I feel I'm much better off having to have been independent/semi-neglected for my formative years than if my mom were forced to help me, who already considers it such a bother.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.[/QUOTE]

Do these kinds of morons ever come up with a new argument? Why doesn't this bullshit one ever get old? Yes, of course, if you had nothing to hide, you wouldn't object to the government knowing everything about you, where you are at all times, what you are doing, etc.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It starts with tapping phones, and reading emails of people who are "terrorists." Then, pretty soon its everyone. It starts with torturing "terrorists," and sending them to secret camps, and now it is raping and torturing "terrorist's" families. Young children, whatever. It starts with murdering innocents, because they live in a bad country. It starts with murdering leaders some people don't like. Where does it end? Is it possible we could get to the point where there are security cameras in your house? Yes. Has it been proposed? Yes.

If there's one thing the current and the past administration have shown us, its that they don't care about laws, or the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Right. First we're tapping only those who are talking to terrorists on the phone without a warrant, even though they are American citizens. Then we're tapping whoever the current administration sees as enemies without a warrant, because they are a "threat to national security." Next we are blanket tapping all phones for "dangerous individuals" among us. And so on.

First we have more and more video cameras to monitor public areas. Then we put them alongside roads to raise revenue for the police. The are omnipresent soon enough and on residential streets, parking lots, parks...you name it. Don't do anything too embarrassing in the yard, Johnny.

But that's okay, if you don't want your whole life monitored by the government, you must be up to no good. What are you trying to hide? Don't you love Big Brother?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but of course the people watching the tapes would no they did it, so there would be penalties for that. Not like people with a camera in their home would be able to destroy it and get away with it.[/QUOTE]
Something tells me they wouldn't care what the penalty was.
 
big-brother-poster.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You should either shrink or spoiler that image. :([/QUOTE]

I tried, I can't. It must be like the government.

By tomorrow, it will probably be the image you go to when clicking on the VS forum.

By Monday, it will consume CAG completely.

Sorry for destroying CAG, folks. My bad.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Something tells me they wouldn't care what the penalty was.[/QUOTE]

They would if they wanted to keep the kids I'd think. I'd assume the cameras would only go in problem homes where the parents wanted to keep the kids.

I'd think the ones who wouldn't care about a penalty for smashing a camera would just say fuck it and give the kids up to foster care in the first place.

Unless the government is forcing kids to stay in such homes and putting up cameras which would be a terrible idea.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They would if they wanted to keep the kids I'd think. I'd assume the cameras would only go in problem homes where the parents wanted to keep the kids.

I'd think the ones who wouldn't care about a penalty for smashing a camera would just say fuck it and give the kids up to foster care in the first place.

Unless the government is forcing kids to stay in such homes and putting up cameras which would be a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]

I doubt the parents want to keep the kids if they are abusing them, which means that the government is either putting cameras in homes instead of removing the kids, or putting cameras in the homes not because the kids are being abused, but because they have bad grades in school, or aren't "eating right."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top