An Englishman’s Home – No Longer His Castle…

..if these people get their way (Ed: link now dead, 'Mail' has pulled the story):

Family homes could be invaded by health and safety inspectors checking that parents are keeping their children safe.

Whitehall is recommending that inspectors make sure parents have fitted smoke alarms, stair gates, locks on medicine cupboards, windows and ovens, and temperature controls to stop bath water getting too hot.

Oh, just great…

This is the most egregious use of the ‘For the children!’ argument since…well, since the last one. And what has prompted this (assuming it isn’t the simple lust for power)?

A million accidental injuries, it seems:

According to NICE - which is responsible for public health promotion as well as deciding which drugs the NHS may supply to patients - a million accidental injuries happen to children at home each year 'and many are preventable'.

Its draft guidelines call for inspections of home safety to be carried out by trained staff from the NHS or councils. Officials would identify homes where children are thought to be most at risk of accidents and 'offer home risk assessments'.

You know what they mean when they say ‘homes where children are thought to be most at risk of accidents’, don’t you?

No, they don’t mean the kind of ‘homes’ where the likes of Baby P met his sad end. They mean the kind of homes where otherwise law-abiding people can be bullied and threatened into letting them in and where they will meekly comply in an attempt to be ‘good citizens’ through fear of the consequences of not doing so.

And of course, this will mean more money thrown down the drain on IT, and more public sector workers suckling at the teat of the State:

There will be repeated return visits to check that parents have maintained their safety devices.

NICE has also called for a computer database to be set up to pick the homes and families who will be targeted for safety inspections.

Of course they do…

Still, the fearless campaigners for personal liberty will roundly condemn this, won’t they?

Oh:

Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, the human rights group, said: 'Why can't we have a public information campaign before we rush into creating databases and intrusion and introducing bureaucracy to the living room?'

/headdesk

Well, that’s telling them, Shami. Wow, they’ll be reeling at the ferocity of this defence of our rights, won’t they? Don't give yourself a nosebleed, sweetie...

Anyone else?

Simon Davies, of watchdog group Privacy International, said: 'The problem here is the additional powers that would go to government authorities.

No, that’s not really the problem here, is it, Simon?

The problem is that the State thinks it can take this kind of action at all, never mind what additional powers they’d need.

'Anybody who stands in the way of inspections will be considered suspect. This represents a landmark expansion of government intervention in home life. It must be regarded with great concern and suspicion.'

No. You are fundamentally wrong.

It must be resisted and fought with every last breath.