Insanity, Or Sinister Overreach..?

I'm going with the latter...

Unless they've got a method of policing thoughts now, of course... 

H/T: Peter McDonald via Twitter

And 'The Cheque's In The Mail', 'The Dog Ate My Homework'...

Under the draft rules, internet companies are expected to introduce strict new age checks on their websites or treat all users as if they are children.

Like government departments do, you mean?

Critics have said that the move will 'infantilise' web users and severely limit online advertising, potentially driving local newspapers to collapse and causing serious harm to national titles.

But who knows best?

In response to the criticism, the Information Commission Elizabeth Denham said yesterday that the code would not lead to additional verification requirements for news sites. She said: 'We want to encourage children to find out about the world, we want children to access news sites.

'So the concern about the impact of the code on media and editorial comment and journalism I think is unfounded.'

 You think, eh?

She told the immersive and addictive technologies select committee: 'We don't think there will be an impact on news media sites. They are already regulated and we are not a media regulator.'

I don't think you've thought this through...

'What If' Is No Basis For Overbearing State Agencies...

Helen Daykin's little girls spent almost 24 hours with the body of their father after his sudden death.

When she rang in the morning she thought he was busy with the school run, then later that he might have lost his phone as there was no answer. At teatime, her mother drove over but couldn't open the door because Chris had left the keys in on the other side.

The milk was outside, the windows dark, so the police were called to break down the door.

 A terrible tragedy. But nothing's ever just that any more.

Pearl, who was four years old, had started school just a few weeks earlier. Iris was two.When a child doesn't attend, a school will normally call their contact number to check whether they are ill.

Pearl's school had tried Chris's number, but didn't ring Helen.

The school did nothing wrong here. They did what they were supposed to, but in her grief, and to assuage the sense of guilt that she must inevitably feel, this has now become a crusade. No longer just a sad codicil, this is now a lever to demand change, to insist someone 'do something':

Helen wants all schools to overhaul how they check up on children who don't arrive at school. She says second and third contact numbers and home visits should be part of their plans.

And, because she holds the status of 'grieving mother', bandwagon-jumpers everywhere will now scramble to unite behind her, no matter how ludicrous her demands.

Helen's campaign for better awareness is being backed by the Good Grief Trust charity, which has provided support through her bereavement.

Its founder, Linda Magistris, said: "A parent dies in this country every 22 minutes, and that could be one of those parents that are by themselves, nobody knows they're by themselves with the children."

And if the children are under school or pre-school age, do we just shrug? Logically, the next step is to demand that there be some system set-up for these parents too. Where will it end?

In October 2016 Esther had a fatal epileptic fit, and Chadrack who had special needs, spent two weeks in their flat unable to get help.

The coroner's report describes how school staff called his mother's number several times. They also tried to visit twice, but couldn't get into the block of flats.

The coroner called for the government to make changes and set out the policy subsequently put in place at Chadrack's school:

Three contact numbers are kept for every child

If a pupil fails to attend with no explanation, someone is immediately sent to the family home

If there is no response, the police are contacted

They will be delighted, I'm sure. Where's all the money and spare staff time for this coming from?

As we all lead increasingly less stable & more chaotic lives, the demand to 'stop bad things happening' risks fuelling an increasingly overbearing state apparatus - for our own good, naturally!

Jim Gamble (Ed: Wait, this one..?) wants the government to go further.

As chair of the independent safeguarding board in Hackney he commissioned a report after Chadrack's death which has yet to be published. He says the government needs to "breathe life" into policies to put child safety first, and prevent another tragedy if a loving parent like Esther dies unexpectedly.

Well, if anyone knows anything about hugely expensive, overbearing but ultimately futile government projects, it's Jim!

Why, Yes, Of Course 'More Action' Should Be Taken...

Parents are still packing their children’s school lunchboxes with junk food, despite high-profile awareness campaigns on childhood obesity and guidance provided by consumer groups, research has found. The Leeds University study published on Tuesday found just 1.6% of packed lunches for primary school children met tough nutritional standards set for their classmates eating in the school canteen.

 ...I mean, perish the thought that there should be anything the state doesn't have any control over, eh?

The study, described as “eye opening” by lead researcher Dr Charlotte Evans, saw only a fractional improvement from a decade ago, when 1.1% of lunches passed the standard set for school meals.

I'm rather pleased to see that 98.9% of parents thought 'Sod you, nanny state! I'LL decide what I feed my kids'...

Naturally, the usual suspects be fewmin':

Evans said: “I hope the results of the study are an eye-opener, highlighting that more stringent policies need to be introduced if we want to see real change in the nutritional value of children’s packed lunches. New policies for schools, food manufacturers and retailers are needed, which will require strong support from government and stakeholders if progress is to be made.”

"People aren't obeying! Crack down HARDER!"

The report recommends that primary schools introduce a policy restricting sweetened drinks and encouraging water, salad and fruit. It also suggested parents pack smaller portions of the unhealthy snacks, such as packets of crisps that are around 15g rather than 26g and chocolate cakes and biscuits of 20g.

So schools should inspect all lunchboxes? FFS!

Sharon Hodgson MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for school food, said: “The research highlights the need for more action to be taken on food put in children’s packed lunches, something which the school food APPG has recently called for. Despite positive moves with regards to the food provided as part of a school meal, food brought in by children in their packed lunches is lagging behind. Therefore we need more action to be taken if we want to see positive changes.”

I think we do indeed need 'more action' to be taken. But I'd rather it was to strip these parasites of any government funding for their wasted time...

Fixing (Non)Problems…

MPs have ruled out a ban on keeping primates as pets…

Wha..?

… until the government has better figures on how many apes and monkeys are kept in British homes.

They don’t know if there’s a problem, but they were considering a ban? Lovely!

More & more, we are moving to the continental model, where it’s no longer a case that if there’s no law against something, you are free to do it.

This is, of course, driven by the animal rights crowd and those who see a role for themselves in any increased legislation, including the usual suspects:

The RSPCA estimates there are 3,000 to 9,000 primates being kept as pets in the UK, but that figure may be rising due to the ease of buying the animals over the internet.

"There is an alarming lack of regulation around the sale of primates and this makes it incredibly difficult to monitor," said Ros Clubb at the RSPCA.

"Primates have very complex needs and the level of suffering is high if these requirements are not met. In short primates are wild animals that cannot have their needs met in a household environment. They are not pets.

"Specialist expert knowledge and facilities are required to look after primates properly, which the vast majority of people lack. This is illustrated by the increase in the number of convictions for cruelty to primates we have recorded," Clubb said.

System working, then? People who are cruel to primates, as with any other pet, are prosecuted. So what’s the problem?

Philip Mansbridge from Care for the Wild said: "The report says that there are a lot of unknowns: we don't know how many primates are kept as pets, we don't know how well they are kept, we don't know if existing legislation is working.

"But deep down, we do know one thing: that monkeys, chimpanzees and other primates ultimately are not objects for us to own. And that information alone should be enough to settle this debate once and for all. "

The debate is settled! Phillip has spoken!

"It's true that currently under the Animal Welfare Act, pet owners must supply a suitable environment for an animal and allow it to exhibit normal behaviour.

"But no matter how you cut it, monkeys should be swinging in the trees with their family, not stuck in someone's back yard in Birmingham.

"We need to stop thinking about whether we can look after primates as pets, and start wondering whether we should. And frankly, we shouldn't. "

A lot of the ‘Royal We’ there, Philip? Who are you to determine this?

"The fact that no-one knows how many there are just illustrates a key part of the problem. I understand there are fears that by banning primates as pets, it would drive this activity underground. But if we don't know how many there are, it's already underground."

Well, no. That’s not what ‘underground’ means. If it’s driven underground, there will be more potential for cruelty rather than less. At the moment, primate owners will take sick animals to vets (sometimes travelling miles for specialist vets). If it truly goes underground…they won’t.

And make no mistake – the ‘animals are slaves’ crowd aren’t going to stop here.

First they came for the marmosets. Next…parrots? And then…your cat?

Who Is Kidding Whom Here..?

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose.

...

Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

Really? Gosh! Tim Worstall nicely outlines the pitfalls with this insanity, while Anna Raccoon poses a question of definition.  Meanwhile..

A nine-month-old baby was left 'severely emaciated' by his parents who failed to feed him properly.

Little Joshua Henry was so small when he was eventually taken into care that he weighed less than two thirds of what he should have, a court heard.

His mother Megan Tomlinson, 21, and father Benjamin Henry, 23, from Blackburn, admitted wilfully neglecting the child and were handed a suspended prison sentence by a judge yesterday.

/facepalm

The State Is Not Your Friend…But Should Provide You With One!

At least, that seems to be what Ryan Shorthouse is leading up to...

In today's Britain, people are impoverished by weak connections with, and minimal support from, family and friends. Iain Duncan Smith, the secretary of state for work and pensions, will announce this week new indicators to measure child poverty . Poor social networks should be included as a contributor to and signal of poverty.

Wha..?

Lamentably, social isolation seems to be on the increase. Single-person households have doubled over the past half-century. Time-use surveys indicate that people are spending more time working and looking after their own children than some decades ago, squeezing time for community and recreational activity.

Presumably, they are only concerned about government-approved activities?

When loneliness is combined with material deprivation, the result is toxic. A cycle of worklessness, indebtedness and depression is so much harder to escape. Policymakers need to focus resource and attention on these people.

How are you going to identify them, then?

Professionals such as health visitors need to focus efforts not only on social groups traditionally most likely to be associated with social exclusion – those on low income, teenage mothers – but also those identified as having poor social networks.

I just despair... WAIT! Don't send anyone round!

Duncan Smith is right to seek a richer understanding of poverty and its causes. Social isolation and loneliness are a growing scourge that should be understood as a major factor contributing to impoverishment in modern Britain. To support people in poverty, to help them escape it, policy is needed to enable them to foster stronger and more diverse social networks.

Is there no end to the personal details in which the government seeks to meddle?

Shakespeare Was Right…

Blitz USA is based in Miami, Okla., and is the largest manufacturer of portable gas cans in the country.

…

But Blitz has filed for bankruptcy and will shut its doors at the end of the month. Why? Because it can no longer afford product liability insurance, Marketplace’s Sally Herships reports.

And why should they need it?

Well…

Consumers have accused the company of making faulty cans that explode when used to pour gasoline onto fires.

But wait! Surely that’s not the fault of the company?

Blitz says its cans carry warnings that say you should never use gasoline to start or accelerate a fire.

And yet, even being in the right doesn't save them. This is, after all, America, the land where no matter how dumb your cause, it's not too dumb for a lawyer to take it on:

Even winning is expensive. Blitz beat one lawsuit in Texas, Marketplace reports, but the fight still cost the company about $2.5 million.

H/T: Protein Wisdom (via comments)

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Southend Council wants to give its counter-fraud teams new powers so they can carry out investigations independently of police and other law enforcement agencies.

The new powers would enable council officers to execute search warrants and seize assets that could be the proceeds of crime.

Note that: 'could be..'

These are the people that can't collect your bins without a song & dance, are always unprepared for ice & snow on the roads and would rather you didn't have any right of reply.

Martin Terry, leader of the council’s independent group, cautiously welcomed the plans.

So much for 'independence' then...

He said: “It seems a bit draconian for council officers to be able to search people’s homes and my biggest concern is that at some point they get it wrong.

Gosh, really?

“But, in principle, I support this, if it is to seize back money from people who have genuinely defrauded the taxpayer.”

And are we going to let them decide that?

Still, it'll give them something else to recruit a network of junior spies for, I suppose...

"Back Off, Copper! I've Got An 18thC Duelling Pistol & I Ain't Afraid To Use It!"

"We've got Heckler & Kochs, mate. Make our day...!

NABIS also maintains surveillance on multiple “routes” used to acquire weaponry. One is the rise in the use of so-called “antique” pistols and revolvers, some of them dating back as far as the First World War and even the American Civil War, by criminals who are finding their paths to new weapons smuggled into Britain narrowed.

Oh, really? That's a big threat, is it?

...whether antique or not, many of these weapons are in the same working order as the day they were made.

Martin Parker, head of forensics at NABIS, said: “The technology in these weapons has not changed for a century or more. An antique weapon can still be lethal but it is classified as a collector’s piece with no formal requirement for it to be registered.

“The problem occurs when criminals find they can’t get new weapons from outside of the country. It would be fair to say we have seen an emerging increase in the use of these antique guns.”

Gosh, I wonder what would 'solve' that? Let me think...

One urgent priority is work by NABIS and ACPO with the Home Office to revisit the regulations surrounding “antique” guns to ensure viable handguns are prohibited or more tightly controlled.

Thought so...

Philip Hensher: Wrong All The Time

...which shouldn't come as a surprise to readers of this blog:

Have we ever lived in a more wonderful age for readers? Self-published authors can reach a huge audience cheaply; the "long tail" means books with a tiny appeal can still be read; and popular successes are still commanding huge audiences, in hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Well, gosh, Julia, you say - surely he's right here?

Well, read on:

But the internet that presents any classic you can think of, pretty well, may be the thing that makes it harder to read that classic.

Errr...

Technology is one thing, impossible to resist or address, but another, more puzzling, is the institutional attitude towards books and reading. We all pay lip service to the importance of reading, but no public body seems very interested in serving it.

Ahhh, yes. Forget that the Internet and, more specifically, the e-book phenomenon, has brought instant access to books. If the State ain't involved, it ain't working properly..!

Front Row, where Rendell raised the question, is one of very few places on BBC radio where books can be mentioned, and does a very good job on an excruciatingly tiny budget. British terrestrial television hasn't had any kind of book programme for years – it engages with literature in rare, brisk dramatisations. What does television do, very happily? Well, a glance at BBC's schedules today shows five complete hours devoted to antiques, or, more accurately, junk-shop bargaining, and another two to baking. Is it not conceivable that half of one of those hours might, very cheaply, be devoted to talking about the passion of millions in this country: books?

Why? Most of the first half of your article shows that there isn't a problem. In fact, you haven't even outlined what you believe to be a problem in the rest of the article, except for this vagueness:

But when the American author George Saunders talks about "the very real (what feels like) neurological effect of the computer and the iPhone and texting and so on – it feels like I've re-programmed myself to become discontent with whatever I'm doing faster", everyone must recognise the sensation.

*baffled face*

I have a suggestion to affirm literature at the centre of our national life. Doctors, currently, operate to an official recommendation of no more than 21 units of alcohol (for men) a week, no less than five pieces of fruit or vegetable a day. Why shouldn't the government encourage the simple question: "Are you reading enough?"

Well, maybe because no-one listens to government on anything else?

And It's Absolutely Nothing To Do With Your 'Obesity Crisis' Campaigns?

Sue Kelly, a nurse specialist at the trust's child and adolescent team at Chalkhill Hospital in Haywards Heath said: “There is certainly a greater knowledge about disorders.

By which I think you mean 'Normal child fussiness is now a 'syndrome' to be accorded special status'?

See also ADHD or 'being a disobedient little shit'....

“Things that might have been dismissed as 'faddy eating' a decade ago is now being spotted as a sign of a potentially serious problem.

Yup! Thought so.

“Unfortunately there are still a lot of media images which give unrealistic expectations of how people should look and do not take into account people are built in different shapes and sizes.”

And the NHS constant blathering about Britain's 'obesity crisis' isn't contributing to that? With all that nonsense and hyperbole?

Really? Even when you are sending perfectly healthy schoolchildren letters that imply they are Billy Bunter-esque figures?

A spokeswoman for the eating disorders charity Beat said: “Recent studies show us there are more biological factors to eating disorders than we ever previously thought but socio-cultural factors such as the media, peer pressure, bullying and self-esteem and body image issues are now seen to affect boys, men and also younger children.”

When she gave that quote, do you think pound signs rolled up into her eyes like a character in a Bugs Bunny cartoon?

“Yes, Madam, Never Mind Your Cat Stuck Up A Tree & Your Shed Being Ablaze, Have You Tried Nicorette?”

All Merton fire fighters have recently completed their NHS level one intervention training, which means that they now have the knowledge to direct smokers towards the LiveWell stop smoking service, run by Merton Council.

I…

I just…

Words fail me. I bet they won’t fail Leg-Iron or Dick Puddlecote though!

How come doctors kick up an almighty stink when the state asks them to check eligibility for NHS treatment  but the emergency services don't mind at all being turned into health advice outreach?

Smoking is the primary cause of accidental fires and the brigade conducts more than 800 home visits per year.

With this added training the health and wellbeing of the residents concerned can be improved through signposting them towards this free six week programme.

Because of course it’s all about safeguarding the ‘health and well-being of the residents’, isn't it? And nothing at all to do with conditioning the populace to believe that there's nothing wrong with agents of the state prying into your affairs and giving you unwanted advice...

Cabinet member for adult social care and health, Councillor Linda Kirby said: "Smoking has a major impact on a person’s health and working with our colleagues in the Fire Service will help us spread the message that we have an excellent service ready to support residents to stop smoking."

Oh, right. I forgot 'And ensuring we can still supply employment for a steady stream of nannies, prodnoses and fussbuckets while our core business - keeping the bins emptied and the roads passable - goes to hell in a handcart'.

” I would hope that common sense will prevail.”

Ahahahahahahahaha!

Trevor Cooper, a dog law specialist for Dogs Trust, said: ‘The difficulty for dog owners is in how they can anticipate a child coming in to their garden.

‘What can a dog owner do to prevent it? Put the dog in a cage in the garden or build large fences? That would be unacceptable for us.

‘The Government is going to have to work out a way of not criminalising dog owners if they have done nothing wrong.

‘It's quite difficult for a dog to distinguish between a lawful and unlawful visitor. I would hope that common sense will prevail.

You have to be joking, surely? When has common sense ever prevailed?

David Heath, the agriculture minister, said: ‘We certainly want to deal with the issue of the postman or the political canvasser who gets bitten by a dog out in the yard or garden, where they have perfectly legitimate business.‘‘

The postman, I’ll grant you. The political canvasser? No. Not so much.

‘But we also do not want to penalise the householder whose dog is doing its job of protecting property against an intruder.

‘Getting that balance right is critical. When someone is within a house, it can reasonably be assumed that unless they have been invited in, they must give a strong argument for why they have legitimate business in the house.’

And after they’ve been invited in – like vampires – they are free to do as they please? I think not!

Speaking to the Commons last month Mr Heath added: ‘It is different for a garden, or sometimes even a shed. A child going to pick up a football that has been kicked into a garden should not be set upon by a dangerous dog.

‘They may be an intruder, but they are nevertheless not a burglar or anyone with malicious intent. A public–interest test must be satisfied before a prosecution can be brought. I hope that the guidance to the prosecuting authority will make that distinction clear,' The Daily Telegraph reported.

And remember, a ‘child’ - in the eyes of various conflicting legal definitions - is anyone up to the age of 18. So, just a few months younger than this chap:

 

Fancy having him stroll into your garden unchallenged, and able to call the police to declare him a ‘victim’ just looking to retrieve a lost ball?

No. Me neither.

Well, I Suppose It All Comes Down To What They Plan To Do About Them...

Social workers will routinely go into new parents’ homes to check for dangers such as staircases and sharp table edges, under ‘intrusive’ plans drawn up by safety campaigners.

Will it be the hastily-drafted letter, or...something else?

A social worker has been suspended for 12 months after she turned up at a couple's house shouting 'baby murderers' and threatening to kill them.

Joanna Burgess admitted being part of a mob outside the house in July last year, where she was heard to shout out threats to kill before a brick was thrown at the property.

Well, I suppose at least she seems to care, unlike the rest of her ilk...

The First Rule Of (Children’s) Fight Club…

…is that there will be no Fight Club. At least, not if Southend Council have their way:

The Elite Fighting Championship: Double Impact event was supposed to take place at the Chase Sports and Fitness Centre in Westcliff on Saturday. However, a council spokesman said on Friday:

“Unfortunately we have had to ask for this mixed Thai and boxing event to be cancelled due to fundamental concerns over child protection.

“This centred around the apparent age of the children competing in this event.”

 Yes. That's all.

Oh, that and they had the nerve to fail to genuflect and ask their ruler's permission, of course:

The spokesman said had the council been involved from the beginning the outcome may have been different.

Oh, really? So, it's not really the age you object to at all, it's that they had the temerity to think they could do something without involving the State?

He said: “Then we would have been able to raise our concerns over the age of some competitors; the event organiser could have perhaps has a modified format, allowing it to go-ahead.”

 Even better - this was a charity event.

The poster for the Westcliff bouts features pictures of both children and adults, and advertised it as being a mixed “muay thai, K1 and boxing event” which was donating money to the Macmillan Cancer Support Fund.

/golfclap for Southend Council there, then...

What Upsets 'The Daily Mail'...

...about Surrey Police:

Despite criticism that the police force, which is having to cut its budget by £30m by 2016, could spend its time better by catching criminals rather than writing jokes about them, Surrey Police's Tandridge Beat has nearly 1,500 'likes' on its webpage.

The police have won a huge following thanks to their casual style and light-hearted posts about their force and its work in Surrey just south of the M25 near Godstone.

Meanwhile, earlier in the week, the official Surrey Police feed sent this out:

                        

Yet this sinister invitation to spy on your fellow citizens based on nothing more than envy passed without comment by any national newspaper.

Is is me, or...?

Never Mind The Ministry Of Silly Walks, It’s The Ministry Of Silly Ideas!

London hoteliers were today urged to cut the size of plates in their restaurants to tackle food waste.

Ahahahahahaha! Who on earth could dream up something so stu…

Oh. Right.

The advice came from the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team which aims to “nudge” people into changing their habits.

It hailed “impressive results” from a study by Norwegian organisation GreeNudge into hotel buffets.

*sigh* Thank god, as Longrider points out, we aren't footing the bill for this nonsense any longer.

Where to start? That’s Norway. This is England. What works there won’t necessarily work here…

“They found that reducing plate size and communicating that it’s OK to come back for another serving resulted in a decrease in food waste whilst hotel guest satisfaction remained the same,” said the BIT.

Yes, well, I can only assume none of these people have ever patronised a buffet-style restaurant and seen the amazing towers-of-food that some people attempt to cram onto the tiny plates to save them the walk back to the buffet!

And is it cynical of me to see the potential for another team in this Unit, maybe one working on the ‘obesity crisis’, to badger the hotels into removing those signs suggesting guests go for another serving in the not-too-distant future?

So no, I don't particularly care if they aren't happy in their job. Not when their job consists of nagging and badgering everyone else.

When Did The 'Fourth Emergency Service' Decide To Be One Of The First Three Instead?

Maybe they've taken their advertising slogan a little too much to heart?

AA workers have been given police powers to stop drivers and demand names and addresses.

 W..T..A..F?

They would be able to stop vehicles, direct vehicles and demand names and addresses at events such as the Brighton Marathon to try to punish those committing traffic offences, such as using mobile phones at the wheel.

I'm a little confused here - who thought this was a good idea? Who thought 'I'm absolutely certain that our members won't mind us changing from becoming an excellent breakdown cover service to becoming yet another quasi-legal state arm?'

The AA staff would not be able to make arrests, but anyone refusing to reveal their details to them would be committing an offence and could be detained by police.

I don't understand this. The AA has had a very good reputation for years - helped by the fact that every time I've called them out, they've been superb; well-spoken, polite, friendly and competent.

What on earth could have persuaded a company to make this kind of PR misstep?

The majority of the workers are former police officers who joined the AA after retiring.

Ah. The penny drops. Subversion from inside. If they wanted to be police officers, they should have stayed in the force!

I'm an AA member. Have been for years. I Tweeted their account last night and got an immediate response:

I have accordingly emailed them this morning, and left them in no doubt what I think of this idea. And also left them with no doubt whatsoever that, should they continue with this association, they will no longer have me as a customer.

H/T: Jules Mattsson via Twitter

"Look, You Shouldn't Have Choice If You Are Going To Use It!"

Parents are being blamed for a rise in the number of children missing out on their school choice.

Oh? And why?

In 66 cases pupils missed out on all of their secondary school preferences, up from 58 last year. But Brighton and Hove City Council has blamed parents for not putting down schools in their catchment area. It said out of the 66 applicants who missed out not one had put their catchment area secondary school.

Ummm....

But that's their choice! You can't expect to give people choice and them whine when they take it. Can you?

The council’s cabinet member for children and young people Councillor Sue Shanks said: “Our catchment area system means that our young people are getting the chance to go to a school that’s near to them.

A chance they clearly don't want to take up. Maybe the closest school to them isn't very good?

“I know that all our schools work hard to help every child achieve so I am sure our children will receive a good education wherever they go to school.”

Clearly, that view isn't shared by your voters...