Are you licensed to look after your neighbour's children?

For you see, in Britain, you might be breaking the law if you aren't.

According to The Times, Two Police officers regularly looked after each others' kids while they were on shift work. A perfectly normal voluntary arrangement between parents, for mutual benefit, and the benefit of the kids who have parents willing to work odd hours, to help raise the family.

You might think the state would simply let this be, or indeed private citizens would think nothing of it. No.

You see in Britain, there is an insipid culture that frankly would not have looked out of place in the former German Democratic Republic (that's "communist east Germany" for the confused). A neighbour noticed this arrangement and tipped off, Ofsted. Ofsted? The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. It has existed since 2007, and of course how did Britain cope without it?

You see if you look after children, who you are not related to, for more than two hours, for "reward", you must have a licence. You need to have First Aid training, training in childcare (amazing how parents can manage without this!) and be checked as to whether you have a criminal record. Reward in this case was the reciprocal provision of the service. However, money, baking a cake or giving a lift would also be a reward.

Yes, you read right. You cannot look after someone else's children for reward without a licence.

So the vile Stasi agent style neighbour having contacted Ofsted resulted in an inspector coming to visit to ask questions.

THIS is New Labour, this is the Nanny State going yet another step into intruding into the private arrangements of citizens. It follows on from the law that requires anyone who regularly deals informally with children, whether visiting a school or giving lifts to kids to sports clubs, to be vetted not just for crimes, but suspicions by private citizens that someone is a bit weird. It should send shivers up and down the spines of most people. It has shades of the Orwellian vision Dr. Cindy Kiro shared with the Green Party, had for New Zealand families.

At what point do people stand up and say no. When parents have a door knock every year to interview little Sam and Sarah, asking them if they ever get hit, ever see daddy's penis, ever hear anything racist from mummy and daddy, ever see them put recyclable items in with the rubbish, ever see any books that confuse them, ever get scared of mummy and daddy, what they eat and drink, whether they exercise much, etc etc?

Meanwhile, do people think it's ok for the state to licence almost every arrangements parents have with other adults involving their kids?

New Labour’s Britain, with full consent by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, doesn’t trust parents to make judgments about who should look after their kids, but apparently you’re all meant to trust the state.

So when a registered, state approved person next rapes a kid, will the parents be able to sue Nanny State for failing to protect them? No, of course not. It is more intrusion, and no more responsibility.

Those providing childcare should not rely on the state to approve its workers. No. Parents should ask childcare centres to demonstrate they do criminal vetting of their staff, and provide references. Most parents will only entrust their kids to centres who prove their safety and care for the kids. To make this a state regulated activity is in effect to nationalise it. It says to parents, don’t worry, the state has vetted everyone, they are trained, they are ok.

It says to parents, don’t you make your own judgment, the state knows better, and more disturbingly, it says that the state has the right to interfere in any private arrangements you make with others. In short, you can’t be trusted. Everyone’s a suspect until proven innocent. What sort of country does that make it then?

Backlash over Stalinist adult vetting proposal

The Sunday Telegraph reports how the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has come out against the Orwellian powers of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, saying:

"The warning signs are now out there that this scheme will stop people doing things that are perfectly safe and normal, things that they shouldn't be prevented from doing"

furthermore

"Prof. Alan Craft, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the state had already gone too far in creating a culture which restricted freedom for young families. He said: "We have created a climate where adults feel they can't put an arm around a child who is upset, and there is a real danger that this move takes us yet further down that road.""

"David Lyscom, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, said: "It is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of child protection which will be full of unintended consequences. This is another example of the Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, in Berkshire, said: "The scheme is as crazy a Government response as I have ever come across. It will not catch evil people who do these unspeakable things and it will divert resources away from other areas of child protection."

Indeed, no doubt Labour will find a way to spin this away, but the Tories have already shown themselves as soft cock and limpwristed as can be by saying they would "curb the ISA's powers", rather than abolish it and let schools and groups take their own steps - such as seeking criminal checks on those they have concerns about.

The truth is, at some point, a child will be murdered or raped in a high profile, brutal case. It will happen because there will always be someone who takes the chance to do such a thing, it will always frighten parents for whom their kids always come first, and will always provoke questions of "why". The answer which is too hard for many to swallow is this:

"You can never fully know the dangers and risks of the behaviour of others in a free society, the only way you can maximise protection against such risks is to sacrifice a free society".

Oh course, I'd never expect the British Labour Party or the average bureaucrat to really understand that.

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Gordon Brown does something right

Apologies for how Alan Turing was treated by the state.

About time. It is in an article in the Daily Telegraph by Brown himself:

"Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of the Second World War could have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely.

In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later"

Indeed.

Though, unfortunately, Brown's article makes one glaring error "For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour". Sorry Gordon, half of Europe was under totalitarian dictatorship, and it took another 45 years to liberate most of the other half. Even now, some remains under authoritarianism (Belarus and Russia most notably).

Authoritarian Britain to make kids safe?

New Zealand had a close call with the resignation of Dr Cindy Kiro and Labour losing the last election, to avoid a neo-Stalinist level of state intervention in families. Big mother was going to be watching you.

She wanted children monitored from birth, by the state, this was warmly embraced by former Maoist Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei had a high regard for her, as did some Labour MPs. She blamed everyone for child abuse, tarred everyone with the brush that they tolerated violence and made all children the issue. She preferred a nuclear bomb rather than a sniper.

So how could things have been in NZ?

Well let's look at the UK. The Daily Telegraph reports that parents who formally arrange to transport other people's children to and from sports events or the like will need to be criminally vetted:

"Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people."

So everyone is guilty till the state proves they are innocent, anyone who refuses to do so, is guilty of the crime of - not letting the state prove you are innocent.

Old Holborn says "This batty Quango seeking a role for itself at the public cost, is seeking to 'restrict access' to children. The little buggers are around us all the time, they are part of our lives not some protected species that is in danger of extinction."

So is this just about those convicted of abusing children? No. After all, not everyone caught abusing kids was caught before, so what will happen? The Times reports:

"Controversially, complaints or concerns from colleagues or members of the public that fall short of prosecutions may be held on an individual’s file, which will be available for viewing by any employer or voluntary group with which the person might work".

So got a grudge against someone, or a bit fearful of the eccentric chap down the street? Make a complaint, and you'll keep them from interacting with children. It IS akin to East Germany, where people were encouraged to report on their neighbours and files were kept about suspicious activities.

The Tories should promise to abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority. All that should be able to happen is for people to choose to check if someone has a criminal conviction. Anything less is accusing the innocent of being guilty, ignores the truth that much child abuse happens within families (so will never be caught by this).

Most importantly, there needs to be a recognition that the state cannot hope to protect all children from the risk of an adult abusing them.

Remember, you can always justify an increase in state interference in the lives of innocent people on the grounds of protecting children. Take it to its logical end and everyone will need a licence to have children, there will be cameras in every home, children will walk around in burqas (so perverts don't look at them and fantasise), and everyone they interact with, and everything they see or do is officially approved.

By the way, with the exception of the cameras (but there are people watching in every housing block) and burqas (though state approved clothing is fairly plain) North Korea has a lot of this already. That's a place that knows how to treat children, especially children of people who object to any of this.

However, will British people stand up? No, they'll be inert like they have been for years over this sort of authoritarianism. I don't expect the Tories to have the slightest testicular fortitude to do anything about it either.

UPDATE: 10 Drowning Street says the logical extension is to vet all parents, and for the state to remove the children if they are deemed unsuitable.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority website is here. "The Independent Safeguarding Authority’s (ISA) role is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Sadly they don't define themselves as being unsuitable people for working at all. What sort of control freak would "work" for this body?

Do nothing is an option, but

Some years ago when I worked in the public sector, I was reminded by a sagacious manager that "do nothing" was always an option that should be put forward to Ministers, with the relevant consequences. "Do nothing" was valid and often the best option he said.

Sadly, those days appear to have faded somewhat. "Do something" is what people expect and Ministers all want to "do something".

Lindsay Mitchell has written wisely about "what would happen if the government did nothing more about child abuse".

The state houses and pays for some child abusers, it supports those who don't want kids to keep them. So on the one hand it provide succour to those who abuse, on the other hand it also has its core and proper role, which is the identification and prosecution of cases of criminal abuse and neglect. In other words, when the state steps in for the rights of children not to be raped, punched and ignored.

There will always be parents, guardians and strangers who will abuse children in the foreseeable future. Quite simply because there will always be flawed human beings, who thrive in the torture and abuse of others, or those who are simply recklessly destructive, not caring who they ignore in the process. This sort of abuse always happened, children who would be beaten to within inches of being sent to A & E, who were too scared to tell anyone. Parents who knew they could physically abuse or sexually abuse, with others not able to find out. Indeed, in the not too distant past children weren't believed when they told of such things (fortunately the era seems ti have moved on from being convinced kids were being abused even when they adamantly denied it and there was no evidence of abuse).

So what can be done? You cannot hope to have the state monitor and interfere at every point in a child's life and detect abuse. No. Health professionals can keep their eyes open for signs of harm, as can teachers, but this will be by chance. The best hope is for the abused to be able to speak out, which beyond a certain age is possible.

That means both feeling confident to speak out to teachers, relatives, friends, neighbours and strangers, but also for those people to feel they can listen.

For one of the most malignant trends in the last 20 years has been scaremongering about the contact adults have with children, particularly men, particularly alone. Children are taught to fear adults, and adults are taught to not be seen alone with children who aren't their own.

Yes the odds are that every child will encounter at least one adult with such intent, but for every abuser, there are easily 100 adults who will do all they can to be helpful to children. Why? Because frankly if most human beings didn't act that way around children, the species would have died out a long time ago, or barely advanced from the caves.

So how about children being encouraged to talk to adults who they trust, how about children being taught self defence, and how about adults not being scared of children, and finally, how about NOT judging adults with children, unless it is obvious something is wrong?

Oh and while we're at it, is there any reason why those convicted of serious violence and sex ual offenders should be allowed to live with children? Isn't that one way to stop intergenerational abuse?

When will adults be given full time parents?

This sort of scheme is absurd. "A smart card that subsidises healthy foods has been recommended by obesity researchers. The system was proposed in research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Herald reported."

We have the nonsense that people who are overweight, are actually poor. The opposite of the developing world. The latest excuse is that "it's cheaper to eat badly". This, of course, is nonsense.

Here are some ideas:
- Pasta (without cheese);
- Soup, with bread;
- Canned vegetables;
- Water, the universal drink - or even tea and coffee.

The attitude that people are overweight because of money is the attitude that there are adults incapable of looking after themselves, that they should be wards of the state, that nanny looks after them, feeds them, spends their money and ensures they are healthy. It is at best patronising, at worst a damnation of decades of welfarism that has produced people who are no better than children, because the state houses them, gives them money to spend and expects little in return. Of course once obese, people have the delight of the state picking up the tab for health care, because it sends no price signals over the years about how much extra it will cost.

I love this at the end though "Pensioners should be excluded because they had not been found to experience food insecurity, he said."

Oh hold on, so pensioners don't have this problem because presumably they aren't so stupid as to buy unhealthy food, or they aren't so lazy to not think a little bit about their shopping?

It's time to give up on this nanny approach, start thinking about health care as a personal responsibility and move towards people paying towards their health costs. I don't support removing GST on food, as GST should simply be abolished altogether. Removing GST on food makes food relatively cheaper than other "entertainment". However, it wont make any difference to obesity.

One thing might though. Getting rid of subsidies for bus services would encourage more people to walk and cycle.

"Nanny state" is about defending freedom

Dr George Thomson from the University of Otago, Wellington has told delegates to a Public Health Association conference that 'public health initiatives to protect populations from the risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries have increasingly been labelled as nanny state'.

He of course portrays the "initiatives" as being benign measures by people who know what's best for us (doctors of course, who could dare question the good intentions of members of the medical profession, in whose hands we always want to submit our lives), and that the measures are protecting us from the "risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries", presumably because we are all naive children.

No Dr Thomson.

Virtually everyone knows smoking is bad for you. All children are taught it can cause lung cancer, emphysema and contribute to heart disease and many other cancers. It's no secret.

Virtually everyone knows alcohol is bad for you. Being drunk makes you less risk averse, excessive drinking kills your brain cells, causes cirrhosis and exacerbates some circulatory complaints and cancers.

Virtually everyone knows eating sweets, chocolate, snack food, deep fried takeaways and the like can make you fat, give you heart disease, diabetes, contribute to bowel and stomach cancers and other conditions.

Yet people do it. Why? Some because they like it, some because they are going through enormous stresses and strains, and getting drunk or gorging on ice cream can help you feel better.

The idea that people are naively being conned into eating, drinking and smoking is patronising and wrong - unless Dr Thomson can point out places where people don't know any better.

He thinks that the term nanny state comes from the industries selling these products:

“The increased use of these terms appears to be driven by industries that are afraid of increased control over the marketing of unhealthy products"

No it's not Dr Thomson, it is as much by individuals afraid of you controlling our choices in our lives. You don't get this, it is called freedom. Many people, fully aware of the risks, don't want to be told how to live their lives by do gooders.

He continues "There’s a need to reframe public health activity as stewardship that protects people. Governments are expected to balance the public good against the interests of big business, and to care for the vulnerable in society. We need to create the language to reflect this, which looks behind slogans and the stereotyping of opposition to unhealthy products"

The vulnerable? He means everyone. You can't target one without controlling all adults. More simply. I don't mind getting information about food, drink and other products for consumption, about the health effects, as long as I am not forced to pay for it.

However, I don't WANT your protection Dr Thomson. I'm an intelligent grownup who can make my own decisions.

He continues down a more disturbingly anti-business refrain "there’s a need to reframe and analyse businesses that inflict health damage to people, as leeches on society".

Ah so the pleasures people get from these products are worth nothing to you. They are not leeches, they are supplying products people want, that they choose to buy and enjoy. However, you're paid for by the taxpayer, forcibly, in other words people pay for you whether they want to or not. Who is the leech then?

He finally shows he true Orwellian hatred for freedom, by demanding the most intrusive nanny state possible by implication from this statement "Governments that allow damage to the general public are creating the ninny state, and are following corporate welfare policies, rather than the public good".

The government should protect us all from ourselves! We mere children, the state knows best, fortunately there are intelligent grownups to tell us what to do, for the "public good".

Dr Thomson, please kindly fuck off, feel free to spend your own money on promoting health living as much as you like, but when you force people to comply you're crossing a line. THAT is what Nanny State is about.

It's about freedom. Freedom to eat, drink, smoke whatever I want, as long as I am responsible for my actions. You see that is what differs us from the joyless drones who live in the likes of North Korea - where your message undoubtedly would be warmly embraced.

Nanny State UK - stop wasting food!

Never content with letting people make their own choices, waste food and money if circumstances allow it, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is calling for supermarkets to cease " 2 for 1 " deals that it says encourage people to buy more food than they need.

At what point do people in the UK tell these vile little finger pointers to royally fuck off and mind their own business?

Apparently it costs the average household £420 a year in food that it throws out. To which I say, so bloody what? How many households buy clothes they rarely wear? How many people buy a book they never read? In other words, who the hell made the state the guardian of waste like some sort of lemon sucking protestant ascetic during the war?

The Times reports "Households throw away 4.1 million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten if it had been managed better, according to Wrap, the Government’s waste watchdog". Waste watchdog? Hardly, Wrap IS a waste - it is a waste of something people DON'T choose to spend money on and throw away, their own money.

Furthermore, the state continues to treat people as idiots and they respond in kind "Defra and the Food Standards Agency are also preparing new guidance to reduce confusion about date labels on food. Wrap research found that millions of people did not know the difference between “sell-by” and “use-by” dates". So bloody what? So there are people who are either illiterate or stupid. It's THEIR problem, it isn't everyone else's.

Fortunately, the retail sector has some courage and will resist the moves:

"The British Retail Consortium said it would resist attempts to restrict bogofs. “Retailers know their customers better and should be allowed to decide what’s the best policy,” a spokesman said. People who took home more than they could eat should give it to family and friends, he added."

You might hope that a Tory government would reverse the endless screed of "do what we say" parenting by the bloated state here in the UK - but with Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne already saying there will "have to be tax increases" to cover the budget deficit, I hold precious little hope. The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone.

2 degrees wants more government help

Remember I posted that 2 degrees started with an advantage over Telecom and Vodafone? Well it’s becoming more clear that 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on a level playing field. No. It wants the government to make life easier for it by forcing its competitors to charge less than they are willing to access their networks. According to NZPA it has a "Drop the Rate, Mate" campaign, which isn't as friendly as it sounds - it wants the government to use force to help its business out.

It wants mobile termination rates (which Vodafone never had regulated in the 17 years it has competed with Telecom) to be regulated because it thinks the cost is too high. Not that it would know since it isn’t interested in building much of a parallel network to the two major players, it never has been. 2 degrees, like Vodafone (when it was owned by BellSouth in the beginning) has few customers, so as a result it pays other mobile phone operators more than it receives in kind.

In fact I recall not long after BellSouth entered the New Zealand market, the CEO of Bellsouth (USA) visited New Zealand, and demanded from the then Minister of Communications (Maurice Williamson) that he regulate Telecom so BellSouth could get a fair share of the market. Williamson told him politely that New Zealand is not the United States, you can’t get politicians to do your bidding in New Zealand as easily as he thought, that BellSouth knew the regulatory environment when it invested and so should actually get out there and compete on its merits. Within a couple of years BellSouth, having underinvested in the network, and done little to attract new customers sold the business to Vodafone, which has been a roaring success.

However, after nearly 9 years of Labour intervening and regulating in the telecommunications sector, 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on merit, but using the state to give it a hand up – again.

It has former blogger and centre-left (well he is now) journalist Matthew Hooton to do its PR. Moreso it has an interesting ragtag mob of supporters. Consumer New Zealand has always supported regulating producers, so no surprise there. TUANZ is pretty much the same, always using never producing. NZUSA has long been a platform for socialism and the Federation of Maori Authorities has a corporate interest, as it owns the frequencies (thanks to the last Labour government) that 2 degrees uses. However, Federated Farmers is an odd one. I am sure in the interests of fairness, Federated Farmers might agree to the prices of all of its commodities to be reduced so that consumers can pay less for food and woollen items.

Steven Joyce should tell them the same as Maurice Williamson. Go away and compete. 2 degrees already has an advantage in that it didn’t pay a market price for its frequencies, it already doesn’t need to build the infrastructure of Vodafone and Telecom because it is reselling their capacity (by voluntary agreement). Grow up and move on. The last Labour government agreed, it should be a swift dismissal by Joyce.

"Mr Hooton said the new minister would face "ferocious corporate lobbying"." with apparently a large campaign, which wont be cheap, spent on lobbying - money presumably that could be used to build more of a network so less termination charges could be paid.

So, it is pretty clear 2 degrees is NOT a normal private enterprise, but one that seeks to make money through government favours. It would rather waste money engaging in currying favour with government than to build a network so it would need to pay less to its competitors (or indeed to negotiate with its competitors for better rates).

It's a company that believes in using force to get its own way, a company that I don't believe is moral to support.

How to help families?

Homepaddock proposes an excellent first step:

"If the Families Commission was really serious about addressing the causes of neglect and abuse it would disestablish itself and request that the funding it gets is redirected to where it will make a positive difference."

Now I know it would mean bugger all when you spread it around all families, but it is the principle of the thing.

Besides, wouldn't it be fun to watch Peter Dunne have a hissy fit about his pet bureaucracy?

If he left the government nobody would care, and it would be far preferable for government supporters to vote for a National candidate in 2011 than Dunne. Winston's gone, Anderton must be nearly retirement, about time to remove the last party that is simply an offspring of Labour.

UK's big brother state inches forward

The BBC reports that ISPs and telcos are being "asked" to keep records of all phone calls, all emails and all website visits to assist the Police in surveillance.

Nice.

Maybe the Royal Mail should keep a record of who sends and receives mail too.

Maybe there should be microphones in public places to keep a record of who has conversations with whom.

Why? Well the usual "it's about protecting you from murderers and paedophiles" nonsense is being trotted out, ignoring that most murders are between people who know each others, as is most molestation of children - and it is rarely planned over the internet.

It is the state being lazy. Too lazy to get warrants for interception of communications of people who are suspects of real crimes. Far preferable to hold information on anyone, communicating with anyone, looking at anything online. It has abandoned the idea of a single government database of communications, but wants voluntary agreement from the comms sector (which implies if it doesn't get it, it will legislated).

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm." says Jacqui Smith.

Of course it would help if the UK didn't have prisons overflowing, with limp wristed sentencing for those committing most violent and sexual offences.

No, we would all be safer under a Police state where we were all watched and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. After all you can trust the state can't you?

UPDATE: Crusader Rabbit has essentially posted about the same thing.

Time for ACT to do something for freedom

It doesn't take much. Given this repulsive childishness from the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association (of which I was a member under protest, without choice), which I now understand includes the following in the past:

"In 2007 exec member Heleyni Pratley laid a communist wreath on ANZAC Day, reading “To the dead and the dying in the struggle against imperialism, victory shall be theirs”. The same wording featured in the wreath laid by 1973 VUWSA President Peter Wilson in protest against the Vietnam War and again 30 years later by 2006 President Nick Kelly."

No different from putting a swastika down - unspeakably vile.

Rodney it is time to set students free from being forced to fund these lowlife scum, enjoying the freedom of liberal democratic Western capitalist civilisation to spread their filthy philosophy of theft, death and denial of truth.

They have ever right to be Marxist fools, but no student should be forced to fund the cheerleaders of the most murderous philosophy of the 20th century.

I said it earlier this year here. What's stopping you?

Good riddance to Stalin Kiro - let's not replace her

The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.

I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.

Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.

It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.

I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:

In 2005, Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said "children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.

In 2006, Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase ""If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As Not PC said at the time "To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "did better", because the state, somehow can know best.

I first called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.

In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it "Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”

She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.

In September 2007 I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""

North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.

In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.

No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!

In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.

In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).

Finally in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired. Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.

However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.

That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.

She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.

She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.

She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.

but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.

The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.

but that's another story.

Free pools aren't free

John Walker is worried the megacity will see the end of Manukau's own little pork project, which is to take money from ratepayers to provide free access to baths pools in Manukau.

The NZ Herald reports "Since 1974, Manukau City Council has provided free public access to all pools, putting up to $7 million of ratepayers' money towards running the facilities each year."

It isn't providing anything - it is taking money from those who don't swim to subsidise those who do. Children wont lose access if their parents bother paying for it, instead of expecting everyone else to provide something to nothing.

The usual excuse is given that if you don't give kids something to do, they'll be criminals - which isn't a reason to blackmail ratepayers. "it's giving them something to do - take it away and they're on the streets, bored and [with] nothing to do - leading to trouble." says Walker.

I'm sorry, when I was bored as a kid, i didn't go round robbing people, or beating people up or vandalising buildings. Providing free pools because kids are feral is a copout out of ensuring that they have some respect for others, and get over "being bored". If the poor bubbas of Manukau can't cope with being bored now, then wait till have to work (or have to do stuff while on welfare).

Of course John Walker and other supporters could raise funds themselves to help pay for children from low income families to have access to the pools. However, that would require convincing people to pay for others, and why should you do that when you can force them to pay for what you want?

Labour complaining about its own policy!

What else can explain the inane press release from former Beehive spin doctor Brendon Burns (now MP for Christchurch Central) moaning that Sky Television won the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup?

He says it "is another example of the National/Act Government’s ‘hands-off’ policies failing New Zealanders".

Brendon, it is the same frigging policy that existed under Labour.

There are no so-called "anti-siphoning" laws in New Zealand, there never were under Labour (although Jim Anderton supported them, they would be contrary to New Zealand's WTO commitments in audio-visual services for starters).

So moaning that less than half of households have Sky, really is unimportant, as most people know someone with Sky, and most pubs in the country have Sky.

Or would Brendon rather that taxpayers subsidised TVNZ to pay an unprofitable price for the broadcasting rights?

It hardly matters - National didn't change the law - Brendon just doesn't like a policy that has been in place for the entire period of the last Labour led government.

Talk about scratching around desperately for issues!

Rudman smarter than McClay

Yes, I'm astonished! I agree with Brian Rudman. In the NZ Herald he says "the simple solution does seem to be to remove all restrictions and be done with it."

Quite! It is symbolic of the disgusting interfering nature of New Zealand political culture that the ban on opening retail outlets on specific days, because some people hold them to have significance because of ghosts they worship, continues to exist and gets enforced by the most joyless set of government goons.

I blogged about this quite satisfactorily a year ago, saying Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians, responding to Sue Bradford's own mindless press release.

It is simply fascist to tell business owners when they can and cannot trade - it is such a clear example of a victimless crime that it is beyond a joke that it remains. However, as Rudman says that "both major parties too chicken to stand up to the high priests of Christianity and organised labour on this". Indeed it is true.

Christians who wont mind their own business (because they want to mind everyone else's) and unions who want workers to all follow in unison (!) like a lumpen proletariat.

National's latest gutless MP - Todd McClay (yes you know his dad), has a bill that would NOT do away with this vile law, which should be seen as contrary to the philosophy of the National Party. No. McClay, who has no media releases on his page on the National Party website, is going to let councils decide.

Instead of embracing the freedom of businesses to decide for themselves, he has embraced a new power for local authorities to decide for them. He has done nothing more than proposing the devolution of an authoritarian law from the Labour Department to local authorities. He talks the collectivist claptrap of letting "communities decide", as if it is right that the majority decide whether a business opens or not.

Well Mr McClay, you've proven that you, and the National Party, remain gutless failures in defending the fundamental right of any business to decide when it should trade.

It's time for ACT to propose that the Bill simply remove all restrictions on shop trading hours. It is what Libertarianz would do.

UPDATE: Andrei at NZ Conservative suggests that the Labour Department be prosecuted for having its "workers" "working" on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Lucyna at the same blog disagrees, just to show that Christian conservatives are not all of one opinion on this.

Rob Muldoon's back

The NZ Herald says NZ$1.5 billion of your money - an "investment" - which will "bring New Zealand into the 21st century" - "enable it to compete with countries such as Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong". (Ah yes the 20th century is alive in well in NZ, and which Korea are we competing with again?)

Yes, National is going to grow the state by setting up a "Crown investment company" called "Crown Fibre Investment Co" (not that it is picking technology winners of course!) to build a network, and the users will come. I said before the election that this was shades of Muldoon's Think Big.

Look at the promises behind it:
- John Key says "They will be able to watch TV comfortably and easily over their computer screens, ". OHH TV over the computer screen, now THAT will create jobs right? I mean it's not as if there isn't digital Freeview subsidised by the state, and Sky's own commercially provided satellite platform right? You need TV via broadband to.... let you watch foreign TV subsidised??
- and "they will be able to run businesses from home". Amazing. Don't believe anyone running a business from home at the moment, they LIE, you can't do it without fibre to your home!

This is despite Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear, the only real network providers in the country saying that their own plans will be adequate to meet demand - no doubt noting that when the government starts setting up a rival network, it devalues their own. In other words, the government is effectively shutting out significant new PRIVATELY funded network investment.

Ask yourself how you'd feel now as Telstra Clear, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars ten or so years ago rolling out hybrid fibre-coax cable to the kerb in Wellington and Christchurch, for the state to be now using taxpayers' money to roll out a superior network? (Well frankly Telstra Clear, having called for state expropriation of Telecom's property rights SHOULD now feel some chagrine).

Ernie Newman of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (not producers mind you, and not taxpayers either) is happy as can be, having long demanded the state subsidise and regulate for the benefit of his members. He was long a chief advocate of confiscating Telecom's property rights.

So why is this happening? Does the government truly believe that subsidising a particular technology so that consumers (far more than producers) can download Youtube, music, listen to internet radio and play high definition interactive games is good for the economy, or even moral?

After all, Stuff says "Ultra-fast broadband will let people watch high-definition or three-dimensional TV online, while talking on the phone via broadband or making video phone calls. Downloading movies will become much faster."

Is that worth subsidising? Faster movie downloads??

Anyway, why wont the private sector provide if people want it (and crucially are willing to pay)?

Well when you add up:
- Government denying Telecom and Vodafone private property rights over their telecommunications networks by forcing both to sell capacity on their networks to competitors at a price set by government;
- Government likely to regard any collusion between telcos for a new fibre network to be "anti-competitive";
- The RMA allowing local authorities to prohibit new overhead wire telecommunications networks in their districts, even if there are already such networks at present.

Then you might figure out that this Muldoonist approach to telecommunications is the wrong approach, and that subsidising the entertainment of New Zealanders who want cheap fast broadband is quite simply wrong.

David Farrar is typically abandoning his usual rather liberal smaller state approach to affairs and swinging in behind Muldoonist central planning of internet infrastructure. He will enjoy fibre to the kerb, and thinks my parents and their elderly friends should be forced to pay for it.

It is Think Big for the 21st century, it is cheaper, and less ambitious, but is driven by the same cargo cult belief that it will be some sort of economic saviour.

At best, it might prove to be financially self sustaining at some point, and get enough use to not be a total disaster, but at worst it will prove to be far more expensive than predicted, will not be completed according to plan, supplant other technologies, and wont deliver cheap broadband because... quite simply, it can't make international internet backbone capacity cheaper.

UPDATE: Paul Walker at Antidismal quotes an interesting example of how private sector underinvestment occurs when it fears the risk of nationalisation.

Discriminate away

Catherine Delahunty, one of the new intake of post-modernist reason evading socialist MPs is upset that Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, has told a businessman to avoid the instructions of his local authority on a planning requirement. These apparently have no legal force.

According to Stuff, the council said that if the man, an employer, were to install a shower for staff, it would have to be wheelchair accessible. According to the employer, that would make it prohibitively expensive.

Catherine Delahunty's reality evasion sees her blogging that "There is a growing body of evidence that tells us people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met" and goes on to give no evidence at all, showing how shallow her argument is. That's it, just make it up, the Greens are used to faith based initiatives. Think about it - people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met. However she did make the faux pax in saying "And if you build a walk-in shower everybody can use it, whether they have been cycling on two wheels or rolling to work on the two wheels of a wheelchair". Yep those two wheeled wheelchairs are a real hit!

Idiot Savant is upset because a Cabinet Minister is advising someone to break the law. A position I am sure he wouldn't have had a problem with if it was a law he didn't agree with, like laws on blasphemy perhaps. It is hardly being a gangster saying "if you want to build a shower, build it how you like it". Particularly since it isn't a legal requirement (although Hide didn't know that at the time).

The point is simple, the law should leave this man well alone regardless. If he wants to install a shower for his employees, good for him! He probably figures that it is a good way of helping retain valued staff. If he doesn't want it to be available for those in wheelchairs, why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why is it the state's business if he doesn't want to employ people in wheelchairs?

In fact if Catherine Delahunty believes so passionately in "transition from a disabling environment to an equitable environment" why doesn't she offer to help pay for it? Does any property she own have fully accessible access, to all floors, rooms and showers?

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA