Let's Not, After All, Because It's Too Hard...

Schools also know that enforcing such a ban is anything but straightforward. In February, research by Birmingham University found that staff at English schools with “restrictive” smartphone policies – those that require pupils to turn phones off and place them in a bag or hand devices in – spent more than 100 hours a week enforcing those rules. That’s the equivalent of a week’s working hours for three full-time members of staff. Researchers concluded that at a potential cost of £94 per pupil, enforcement was a “huge drain” on already stretched resources. The question then is, will the government increase school funding considering this reality?

This is the mad idea, beloved of authoritarian nut jobs everywhere that smartphones should be banned in school. And having suggested that, its ‘job done, trebles all round’ and onto the next idea, but it seems enforcing that is going to be quite the task. Not that that's their concern, after all.

The problem of enforcement will not magically disappear. Some teachers, too scared or tired of the disruption that will come when they ask for a pupil’s phone, will continue to “tactically ignore” the ping of WhatsApp notifications.

Well, that’s a disciplinary then, isn’t it? Punish all the teachers for the infraction of one, you know it makes sense, eh? 

A head of year working at a school with a “restrictive” smartphone policy told me of the typical reactions of pupils caught with their phones: “denial and resistance”, “verbal abuse” and “serious hostility”. They spoke of one colleague who was forced to “lock themselves in their office” when confronted by a raging student demanding the return of their phone.

Then there were the students who carried multiple phones so that when challenged by a teacher, they could offer up a decoy and appear compliant with school rules.

They've allowed the children to dictate to the adults for so long that this cannot get off the ground. And you can’t rely on the parents, who are often every bit as violent and ignorant as their spawn.

In another school, an assistant head recently told me that a parent, furious at the school’s confiscation of their child’s mobile, called the police.

And it’s all for nothing anyway: 

While schools can curb the use of phones during the day, they are powerless to enforce those boundaries beyond the school gates. Pupils compensate for their daytime sobriety with heavier phone use at home.

It is to laugh… 

So You Think It's Easy To Defend Against Online Harms?

Sir Keir Starmer will today say he is stepping up Government action to protect children online amid growing pressure for him to ban under-16s from social media. The Prime Minister will vow that no social media or internet platform will get a 'free pass' when it comes to children's safety.

Even though the Pakistani rape gangs all did?  

Ministers will also look at ways to prevent children using VPNs - which can bypass age verification systems - to access pornography. And they will consider measures to preserve phone data in tragic cases where online activity is suspected of being involved in a child's death.

They haven’t a clue, have they? If an adult gives a child in their house permission to use a VPN, what can the government do about it? Why do they even consider it their business? Especially considering they mandate VPNs for the public sector when WFH...

The PM said last night: 'As a dad of two teenagers, I know the challenges and the worries that parents face making sure their kids are safe online. 

'Technology is moving really fast, and the law has got to keep up. With my government, Britain will be a leader not a follower when it comes to online safety.

Which is why you immediately jumped on Australia's social media ban for under 16's without even waiting a few months to see how (or if) it worked?  

'We are acting to protect children's wellbeing and help parents to navigate the minefield of social media.'

IF you genuinely cared about children’s welfare, would you have locked them up for a year under Covid and imported infinity Third World migrants to compete with them for scant (and ever dwindling) social resources?  

"And 2023's Brass Neck Award Goes To..."

Yes, Reader, you read that right. The man who shut does the entire country, not just the schools, for a case of sore throats and runny noses for most people...

I find I have no words, so over to Longrider: 

"The man is a charlatan who is clearly out of his depth.

...

By God, a little abuse is the least these charlatans deserve. May they all rot in hell for all of eternity for what they did, and that includes Whitty. Every time I look at my shopping bill as it steadily increases as a direct consequence of the advice given to the government by these ‘experts,’ I curse the ground they walk upon. They have the gall to whine about how they are reviled when they deserve to be lying forgotten in a stinking oubliette, wallowing in their own waste."

Not Letting A Tragedy Go To Waste...

Former Lib Dem transport minister Norman Baker, has long campaigned against 4x4s on environmental grounds and believes they should face higher taxes to drive them off the road.

He told MailOnline: 'While they are useful for farmers, they are completely inappropriate for urban locations, and clearly more dangerous and have a bigger impact if a collision occurs.

'The taxation system should be changed to reflect that they are antisocial vehicles. We need to increase tax on them and make it social unacceptable to drive them in cities.'

Some of the victims of what's looking like a tragic accident that could have happened to a bus driver of lorry driver (all large heavy vehicles) are still in hospital. 

But don't let that stop you clutching their tattered blood-soaked clothing to your breast while you indulge yourself, eh. Norman? 

Not that you're the only rabid authoritarian out there...

John Scruby, a road safety campaigner and former policeman, suggested drivers of 4x4s could face extra tests before being allowed on the roads.

He told MailOnline: 'People in outlying areas need these vehicles, but I'm not sure that parents on the school run do.

How about we let people decide what they need, rather than some jumped up little popinjay? 

'Drivers need to be aware that they're in a four-ton killing machine and they need to be used accordingly.

If the driver did suffer a medical episode, she wouldn't have been aware of anything, would she? 

'As police officers we needed to take a separate course to drive a heavy vehicle. That's something we could look at with 4x4 drivers more generally.'

Hasn't stopped your former colleagues killing people while driving, has it? 

And They Are Right To Be Worried...

Schools admit they are extremely worried about the copycat protests that have erupted in the last two weeks, typically sparked by videos shared on TikTok with many thousands of views. But what has shocked many leaders most is the number of parents on social media applauding pupils taking part.

Because this isn't just a case of don't-care, my-child-can-do-no-wrong chav parents. Far from it.

Sam Strickland, principal of Duston school, an academy in Northampton that teaches children aged four to 19, told the Observer: “Some parents have been arguing that it is an infringement of human rights for schools to restrict toilet use during lessons. That’s ludicrous.”

Is it? I suspect if the local 'refugee' centre told its inhabitants they could only use the toilets at certain times you'd be pretty vocal about it at cocktail parties with your fellow teaching heads... 

He argues that parents are “legitimising” demonstrations that could quickly get out of hand and become a serious risk to young people’s safety, by openly questioning the fairness of school rules and the authority of teachers.

You really believe you shouldn't be subject to questions on those issues, do you? 

Chris Stokes, principal of Farnley Academy in Leeds, wrote to parents on 24 February condemning a protest at his school that morning over locked toilets during lessons. A parent told the local newspaper the school was infringing young people’s human rights. Others backed her up on social media.

But Stokes said in his letter that the decision to lock toilets had followed “two very serious safeguarding events”. He wrote: “It was a necessary decision to keep all pupils safe.”

Because collective punishment is the easy way out, rather than dealing with those who break the rules. As expected.  

The Path To Net Zero Is Longer Than They Think...

...and is strewn with potholes.

A scheme to encourage UK households to upgrade their gas boilers to heat pumps and other low-carbon alternatives is failing to deliver after suffering a “disappointingly low” take-up, a parliamentary report has said.

People don't want them. And whose fault is that, exactly? 

The committee said that public awareness of low-carbon heating systems was “very limited” and promotion of the scheme had been “inadequate”. It also blamed a shortage of heat pump installers and “insufficient independent advice for homeowners” for the lack of take-up.

Yes, of course, it's the fault of the people, and the government. Not the fault of the people driving this, oh, dear me, no! If they were just told more about it, of course they'd agree to the upheaval and the expense and the after-installation problems...

Lady Parminter, chair of the environment and climate change committee, said: “The transition to low-carbon heat is fundamental in the path to net zero, given that 17% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from our homes.

“The government must quickly address the barriers we have identified to a successful take-up of the boiler upgrade scheme in order to help grow the take up of low-carbon heating systems. It is vital they do so if we are going to meet our net zero ambitions.”

And if people still don't want them? We know what comes after the carrot, don't we? 

'Can you imagine what would have happened if we had wanted to do that?'

Oh, indeed, I can well imagine. It would have been the end of you as a government, and Whitty wouldn't have had to fear just a bit of verbal abuse in the street...

Lord Bethell told Channel 4 News: 'What we shouldn't forget is how little we understood about this disease.

'There was a moment we were very unclear about whether domestic pets could transmit the disease.'

So, that's dogs and rabbits and hamsters and gerbils as well. And yes, there's precedent, but that was a very different time, and a very different, smaller, more obedient population. And it wasn't mandated, it was guidance. 

How could vets have coped, even if they had agreed to co-operate with such an edict, given most stopped seeing animals unless it was a dire emergency? 

It's not just the disease you understand little about, is it? The revelations coming out right now show how utterly unfit for government this bunch really is. And does anyone believe the other bunch is any better?

How About Starting With Your Bloated Government, Wales..?

Because you obviously have far too many little authoritarians who think what people choose to buy in Tesco is any of your business...

A Welsh Government consultation document exploring how to make the "food environment in Wales healthier" was published in June 2022 with several proposals on how to promote healthy eating. Some things considered in the original consultation are the banning of "meal deal" offers where products are cheaper if purchased together, multi-buy offers as well as reducing the prices of certain foods.

Wait, what?  

Now the Welsh Retail Consortium has written to ministers to to say that the plans would have a "disproportionate" impact on food producers, reduce choice and increase food prices.

Why a letter? Why not stop paying commecial rates and dare these arrogant little pipsqueaks to take you to court?  

A Welsh Government spokesperson said: “We are considering the next steps on price promotions and locations and no final position has been made following the pubic consultation. We are not proposing to ban meal deals themselves but to consider whether there should be restrictions on high fat, salt and sugar products, that may be part of a meal deal.”

Liars. You'd do it in a heartbeat if you thought you could get away with it. As Longrider succinctly puts it, Eu crogi, hongian nhw i gyd.  

H/T: Hellcid via Twitter

I've Found Someone With A Fondness For 'The Exercise Of Power'...

...and it didn't take me long at all!

Police officers should face random spot checks on their phones to help tackle the 'revolting' online misconduct as shown by Met officer who shared photos of two murdered sisters, the chief inspector of constabulary has said.

Fair enough. I have a work-issued mobile phone, and no expectation of privacy on it.  

Sir Tom Windsor has said that trawls of private and work mobile phones...

Oh, whoa! That can fuck off! 

...would help deter officers using WhatsApp and other social media channels to share photographs of crime scenes and inappropriate jokes.

Maybe so, but if the police want to look at a suspected criminal's phone, they have to get a warrant, or have them actively under arrest. 

Is this authoritarian whackjob actually suggesting the police should have fewer rights than the people they are dealing with? 

He told The Times he supported the idea that staff and police officers are to be checked in the same way they are required to undertake random drug tests.

It's not at all the same thing. Phones hold all kinds of private data. I assume when they do a random drug test they don't also test for veneral disease, pregnancy and cancer?

He called for a change of policing culture by weeding out police officers who showed a fondness for the exercise of 'power or violence', or 'display racist, homophobic or misogynistic tendencies'.

Has he looked in a mirror? 

'Let's say rather than put the information on an electronic message, the person in question wrote it down, put it in an envelope and posted it to another person.

'Nobody would seriously assert that the paper correspondence should be confidential in all circumstances.'

Nobody would seriously assert that all their incoming and outgoing post should be checked for all police officers everywhere either. Although this idiot probably would, come to think of it...  

Windsor warned, in the wide-ranging interview, that professional standards units and counter-corruption squads, whose job it is to uncover misconduct by officers and staff, were often staffed by weaker detectives.

And there's probably a reason for that. After all, they are clearly lead by weaker senior officers.  

Higher standards to become a police officer were also under consideration.

This, in the profession that's weakened them to get more women and ethnic minorities across the line? It is to laugh.  

The Most Sickening Thing Of All...

...is that they see fit to boast about it:

In a Facebook post, officers from GMP's Golborne and Lowton team said: 'As a follow on from yesterdays post reminding you we are currently in Lockdown 2.0 as they say and under Government restrictions, a fixed penalty was issued to a male last night who decided he was going to see his mate and have a brew with him and to make matters worse he tried to lie about why he was there.

'You cannot go to another persons address unless for certain exemptions i.e. child care, support bubble etc. full details are available on line.'

Imagine wanting to join the police to protect society from criminality, finding out instead that you were expected to fine people for socialising against current government regulations, and then shrugging and obeying orders, rather than leaving and finding a proper job. 

One you could do with your head held high and your integrity and self-respect intact. 

Is It Me, Or...?

More than 1,000 people who should have been self-isolating after entering the UK from abroad could not be traced by the police, the figures showed.

Officers calling to carry out checks found 380 people had given the wrong address so they could not be found, and another 629 were out when officers attended and so also faced no further police action.

If they were out, then...they weren't 'self-isolating', were they? And didn't it occur to the police to go back another time? 

This little nugget appears that the end of an article on Merseyside top cop vowing to crack down on Christmas parties if only enough people will snitch on their neighbours. 

You really couldn't make it up, could you?

Wait, Since When Was Noting Social Media Profiles A Crime?

I mean, they are out there in the public domain. Isn't that the entire point of them?

   

It's no surprise that it's Essex plod involved in this attack on the Crimebodge website. 

Or that the 'officers' in the video are the biggest advertisement for believing the police farce to be an utter waste of time and taxpayer money... 

H/T: Fahrenheit211 via email

It's Over. Common Sense And Rationality Lost.

Face coverings have been compulsory on public transport since June 15 and, last Friday, Scotland ordered shoppers to wear them.

I've driven past buses where the passengers onboard are clearly wearing them....round their necks, having pulled them down to speak to companions as soon as they have got on. The same has been reported all over the Tube and rail network.

The move may anger those who find them uncomfortable or dislike the idea of state compulsion.

Only 'may'...?

The move follows days of confusion about the Government’s stance on the issue.

On Sunday, Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said that while it was ‘basic good manners’ to wear masks in shops it would not be made compulsory.

He said it was ‘always better to trust to people’s common sense’.

Sadly, we don't have him as leader of the party. We apparently have a weak-willed, vacillating fool who listens to ... well, who? Not the scientists, clearly.

Or only when they say something he agrees with...

In March, deputy chief medical officer Jenny Harries said wearing a mask could ‘trap the virus’ and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in.

‘For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea [to wear a face mask],’ she added.

But scientists have changed their view as evidence of the risk of asymptomatic and airborne transmission has grown. Officials now believe that face coverings can help stop people spreading the virus, particularly when they do not know they have it.

I thought we were only supposed to believe science that was settled..? If we are supposed to believe them on climate change, anyway.

The move is part of a wider push to open up the economy and give consumers confidence to go out and spend.

By making it harder and more difficult for people to do so?