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.

Islam vs who?

The recent clashes between Muslims of south Asian extraction and what looks like a group of angry young white British men have been portrayed as fascism vs Islam. My own view is that it isn't really clear what is going on here.

There are certainly elements of "go home" neo-fascist thuggery going on, but the organisers of the protest against the Harrow mosque appear to be a more mixed lot. I don't have a problem with there being mosques. Just going along to harass Muslims is wrong, but the key problem is what goes on inside. This is former Islamist Ed Husain's point in the Sunday Telegraph talking about his organisation Quilliam:

"When Quilliam's researchers revealed that Abu Qatada, "al-Qaeda's ambassador to Europe", was smuggling propaganda letters from inside a British prison, the then justice minister turned up on the BBC to dismiss our findings and say such work was "unhelpful". Boris Johnson recently called for greater understanding and tolerance of Islam at the East London Mosque – the same place where I and many others were introduced to radical Islamist ideology, and whose Saudi-trained imam is a signatory to a document that many say calls for attacks on the Royal Navy."

Indeed. If it were clear that mosques were places where Muslims were NOT being fed propaganda to undermine the British liberal secular democracy, there would be no fear. However, we know that the truth is different. Islam in Britain is different from the US and France as Husain says:

"When I visit America, I see Muslims who are free, vibrant, dynamic, and fully American. In France, too, there are greater rates of inter-religious marriages: Muslims marrying people of other faiths, and negotiating how we coexist. In Britain, rates of Muslims marrying outside their faith community are woefully low, and the numbers returning to the villages of Pakistan and Bangladesh for a spouse worryingly high."

So while tolerance of the right of Muslims to peacefully live their lives as they see fit matters, so does demanding tolerance by Muslim migrants (and indeed all migrants) for the British political system, and rejecting calls to use violence to change society. It also means respecting the rule of law, the equality of women before the law and respecting the right of free speech of others.

It means confronting the tendency of some young Muslim men to blame Western society for when they drink, are promiscuous and then feel guilty and want to turn to something "bigger than themselves".

This is why I am sceptical about news reports that simply portray street clashes as ones between fascists and Muslims, there is fascism on both sides, and fear of Islamism is a legitimate concern.

EU gives murderer succuour

Robert Mugabe, one of Africa's most vile, brutal and murderous thugs was greeted today by a delegation of nobodies from the European Union.

The nasty little thug greeted them with open arms, blaming sanctions for the destruction of Zimbabwe's economy, when it was all due to the mad thieving corrupt socialism he has implemented in the past decade or so.

However sanctions are not going to go soon, but isn't it nice to meet a man who deserves nothing less than a bullet in the head. Remember, the surest way you can get away with grand theft and murder, is to lead a country. Then you'll find you'll be treated with the greatest of respect.

Two views on how people should move

Joshua Arbury is a planner, his profile is here. He appears to be a reasonably intelligent young man who has a very different view of the world, and particularly the transport sector, than myself. You see he loves the development of the Auckland rail network, he appears to embrace the so-called "Smart Growth" land use intensification philosophy promoted by Auckland local government planners, and believes the future for Auckland's transport system is about railways and public transport. He is so keen on it he set up a separate blog about it. In it he posts about transport policy, taking a view that is pretty much in alignment with the Green Party. I have debated extensively on the blog, and to his credit he has engaged quite well on the issues, and has linked to me.

A little of what he writes is interesting urban design matters, like this and this.

So what is his perspective?

In short he believes (and no doubt will correct me if he sees fit).
- More use of public transport is a good thing;
- More use of the private car is a bad thing;
- The way to resolve traffic congestion is to improve public transport;
- Electric railways are good, the more the better;
- It doesn't matter if users don't pay for new public transport, it is a "good thing" and the way the rest of the world does it;
- Road building is something to be suspicious about because it encourages people to drive more;
- More road transport is bad for the environment, more public transport is good for the environment;
- Land use restrictions, urban boundaries and intensification polices are all good;
- Peak oil will happen and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Climate changing is happening, road transport is partly to blame and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Cities with more public transport, especially rail, have better transport and economic outcomes than those with less.

In short, he wants to subsidise public transport users, and wants everyone else to pay for it. He considers more car use as bad.

I take a different view. I don't really care how you get yourself around (or your business's goods around). What primarily matters is that you pay for it.

That means, as far as public transport is concerned, the private sector investing in infrastructure and vehicles based on future projected fare revenue collected from users. As far as roads are concerned, the same basically.

Now the big problem at the moment is that roads are all priced on a common basis, vehicles pay different amounts based on the type of vehicle (trucks pay more, which tends to fairly reflect the wear and tear they impose), but the road and time of day does not change what you pay. The money all goes into a pot which is spent through bureaucratic processes, year by year, on road improvements officials think most benefit road users, and some on public transport.

What that means is that the busiest (most profitable) roads cost the same as the emptiest, when they should cost more when they get congested, so more money can be made from them, and decisions made as to whether to invest in more capacity. In other words popular roads should cost more because space is scarce. At other times, they may cost little to encourage people to use them. Big new roads should be funded on the basis of the numbers prepared to pay to use them, as should railways.

Of course under this scenario precious few railways would be built, because it is clear rail passengers don't value travel by train as much as politicians and planners value them travelling by train. For example in Auckland rail fares would have to treble for services to start to make a financial surplus, by contrast the roads already generate one. Some bus services do too, but others would have to rise by as much as double to make them profitable.

So it is about philosophy. I don't think transport is special. I think it should be treated like the rest of the economy. Indeed, most freight operates with little to no government involvement or subsidy. Aviation and intercity bus (and rail) services operate without subsidy either. Why can people travel between cities without a subsidy, but not within?

You see I don't it is bad for people to travel by car, as long as nobody is forced to subsidise them, likewise by public transport, cycling or walking or staying at home. I make no value judgment at all on it. It's called freedom.

Joshua doesn't share that. He wants to plan the city so you catch the modes he prefers, and he thinks we're all better off being forced to pay for this. I don't believe he is irredeemably irrational yet, he has good intentions. However, I encourage you to debate some of his points.

I believe the fundamental difference is between those who want to tell others what to do, and those who want to get the government out of the way of sending the right price signals. The fact he doesn't think price is the biggest issue says much.

So to conclude, have a think about this:

- If anything else you buy were priced the same year and day round, would you also expect to queue for a long time to get any goods or services at times of peak demand?
- If roads were such an inefficient way of moving goods and people then how come politicians in most countries can tax them well in excess of what is needed to pay to maintain the road network? In New Zealand the surplus is now spent on improving roads and public transport, in the UK most of it goes on general government spending. What railways do you know in state ownership that can be taxed and have their surplus spent on other things?
- If public transport is so efficient, go around railyards and bus depots outside the morning and evening peak times. Notice plenty of carriages or buses sitting around idle. They do that from around 9-9.30am till 3.30-4pm every weekday. Ask yourself why you should be forced to pay for all of this when most of the time it sits around as idle capacity. Before the public transport advocates point out this is what happens with cars most of the time, they should ask who paid for the car in the first place?

Oh and you'll find truck operators and intercity bus companies don't tend to do that, and airlines tend only to have planes sitting around due to noise restrictions at airports at night.

By the way, if you really want to find busybodies who think they know best, and treat economics as something they don't need to swallow, try the Campaign for Better Transport (better from their perspective, not from what the user wants to pay for, or others are willing to pay for). Don't hold your breath for comments on aviation.

National's big motorway through private property

The NZ Transport Agency is going ahead with the scaled down tunnel option for the Waterview connection motorway - the last stage of the Western Ring Route in Auckland. It is important to note that funding has NOT been approved for construction yet. What has been done is that the route has been decided, and so the road will proceed, once funding is approved, whether or not the property owners agree.

Now I agreed with Steven Joyce pulling the plug on the Helen Clark Commemorative Goldway, which was sheer pork barrel politics of the worst kind - putting one section of a motorway underground because it went through the then Prime Minister's electorate, when all of the rest of the route is at surface.

I also fisked a lot of nonsense from some other blogs about the project. It never had funding agreed before under the last government, and the land was NOT designated for the route.

So what's left?

In principle I agree a motorway ought to be built, one day, to connect the southwestern motorway (SH20) to the northwestern motorway (SH16). However, under two conditions:

1. It should be built respecting private property rights. Yes it was foolish for Auckland councils to abolish designations for building a motorway between Mt Roskill and SH16 nearly 40 years ago, but local property owners shouldn't bear the burden of this. If properties can be bought to build it then so be it, but those who don't wish to sell should not be forced to. Frankly given the enormous construction costs of the motorway, it may simply be a matter of being more flexible about the exact route, or offering more. $88.2 million has been approved to undertake property purchases. Hopefully that will all be achieved voluntarily. It is wrong otherwise.

2. It should be built when it is worth doing. How do you measure that? Well, without a commercially run network it is difficult. As a single tolled project it wont stack up, because the Auckland City Council has untolled roads in parallel that it uses ratepayers money to partially pay for. So a private builder faces unfair public sector competition. So I'd argue that either enough money is generated from the future fuel tax and road user charges consumed using the road, to pay for it, or it generates enough savings in time, vehicle operating costs for the users (and those on roads they once used) to make it an economically efficient project (using standard NZTA benefit/cost analysis). At the moment, it isn't worth doing.

The Mt. Roskill extension has just recently opened, and there are no reports that there are big queues between it and SH16. The Manukau extension remains under construction, as does the duplicate Mangere Bridge. Similarly the Hobsonville deviation of SH18 (last section of the Upper Harbour Motorway) is under construction. Until they are all complete, it is difficult to determine if such a hugely expensive motorway is worth building yet, with the bureaucratically based road funding system that exists. Certainly the "supercity" will not help.

$3.4 million in final investigation funding has been approved and is effectively what officials are spending now to get the route designated and go through the RMA. However, full construction funding approval is still a little off. The National Land Transport Programme shows that $22.7 million will "probably" be approved to spend on detailed design in the next two years, with $42.4 million "probably" approved for pre-construction site work for 2010/11 before the full project can proceed. The full construction cost is put at $976.3 million, to start in 2011/2012, just in time for a general election.

Assuming, of course, the property owners let it be, the RMA doesn't hold it up and the costs don't blow out of control. One thing we can sure of, the Greens will oppose it, because they think we wont need new roads when oil "runs out".

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?

Recession isn't over in Britain yet

One sign of a recovery, is an increase in business travel. One sign such a recovery hasnt't happened is heavy discounting of air fares on business routes. One of the world's busiest is London-New York, between the two financial capitals of the world. A 7-7.5 hour flight typically. So....

On Sale. British Airways

London Heathrow
New York First Class now £2387 rtn

Given it is typically £8212 return in First Class, it shows there are a lot less bankers etc doing this trip up the very front.

Oh and if you're right down the back it is £299 return, which given that almost all of that is tax, is essentially paying the marginal cost for the cheap meal, the air and the fuel to carry you. It's always been fairly cheap there, but even if the back is completely full, flights from London to New York lose money unless there are enough people in the first and business class cabins. Given this pricing (which is less than when I went business class 9 months ago, which was itself a discount fare), business travel remains VERY subdued.

Business class sale is £1389 return, when it can be up to £5322, Premium Economy is £536 return, when it can be up to £1800.

In effect if you plan wisely you can fly a class higher than you may normally for the same price, with plenty to spare.

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?

Half a man on 9/11

It's that anniversary again.

I can only link to what I wrote before as it is still apt, whilst there remain those keen to engage in mass murder for the sake of their ghost.

So to help darken the day further, the Daily Telegraph reports that the highest paid actor in the USA - Charlie Sheen - has come out supporting most of the lunatic conspiracy theories about 9/11. Bush ordered it and Bin Laden worked for the CIA.

The sitcom he acts in, Two and Half Men, is meant to be about a financially bereft divorced man and his young son living with his wealthier brother (played by Charlie Sheen). The half is meant to refer to the son (who has been 10-15yo as the series has run).

Now it's pretty clear which one is half a man. Although apparently this is old news, he is insane, stupid or evil, or some combination of the above.

Subsidising entertainment and business

That's what Steven Joyce is advocating with new "targets for rural broadband".

Apparently if you locate your business and home where the square metre of land is cheap, where there is no traffic congestion, where you don't pay for parking, where it is quiet and the air is clean, and you have ample space to do, well most things, you don't have enough advantages over major cities. No. You should get communication networks akin to them, without paying the full cost.

Given rural local road networks are already effectively subsidised by urban ratepayers and state highway users, it's not surprising of course. Fair? No.

"Over 80% of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5Mbps, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1Mbps"

You might ask why this is special? If it is for business purposes, I'd expect it to be a cost of business, and so treated as such. After all, businesses in cities have costs that rural businesses don't have (far more expensive land, parking for example), but do not expect those to be cross subsidised by rural businesses.

If it is for private use then why again? High speed internet is fun for looking at pictures, watching Youtube, listening to internet radio, downloading music, multiplayer games or whatever. So why should rural folk, again with far bigger opportunities for a wide range of outdoor activities, get these subsidised?

"Mr Joyce says he expects the rural policy to cost around $300 million". That's just over $210 per household in tax across the country. This is to reach 25% of the population, so if that is pro-rata that means the subsidised households get $857 each from this scheme. Take away the $210 per household and it is $647 each.

You'd think if it was THAT special, they might all pay that.

It's not though. You see, I bet they'd rather spend that on something else. I bet you'd rather pay that for something else too.

She believed it was ok

NZ Herald reports:

"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.

Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."

"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."

As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.

The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.

Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.

Of course the law against smacking means this is now STILL illegal, but lets wait and see the sentence one can get, for permanently disabling a small child under your care. Surely it must be less than drowning and torturing a woman to death to remove a demon you believe possessing her?

I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.

Good news for UK libertarians

A Liberal Democrat councillor in Stoke on Trent has defected to the Libertarian Party UK according to Old Holborn.

Yes, a very small step, but positive nonetheless.

Although it is important to bear in mind that the LPUK is very mild, in fact I've seen more radical policies from ACT. Just goes to show how damnably statist UK politics is.

Perhaps time for some likeminded proper libertarians to try to inject some ideas there?

If the Greens just handed out condoms

it would apparently be far more effective per dollar spent to reduce CO2 emissions than the current panoply of subsidise what we like (solar energy, wind power, railways) and ban or tax what we hate (aviation, road transport, coal fired power stations) policies that the Greens and their friends embrace with such enthusiasm, so says the London School of Economics according to the Daily Telegraph.

"Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says"...."If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total"

In other words, address contraception and it will address the CO2 concerns that many have.

By contrast, of course, the Greens embrace subsidising breeding through the welfare state. So while they continue their adolescent approach to policy (car bad, train good, gas powered electricity bad, solar energy good), wouldn't everyone be a lot happier if the Greens, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (not people) etc raised money to pay for targeted contraception campaigns globally? Meanwhile, if they stopped supporting welfare programmes that reward breeding, it might help a little too? Consistent with freedom and reducing CO2 emissions.

Yes it would upset the Catholic Church, but you wouldn't be forced to use contraception, like you shouldn't be forced to breed.

However, I'm talking about people who believe in a certain catastrophe convincing people to act to reduce the risk - not about initiating force. I think that confuses far too many in the environmental movement (which is, perhaps, why my comments on Frogblog get moderated now?).

Whose tree?

Well it is still not yours, this doesn't make your property YOUR property.

However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um

If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.

No need to resort to violence.

More importantly, no right to resort to violence.

However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?

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.

Feedback on Telecom proposal

The NZ Herald reports "The Government wants feedback on Telecom's request for a variation on its planned operational separation.

Telecom announced a three-way split of its operations as part of the previous Labour Government's 2006 decision to reregulate aspects of the industry.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce said Telecom recently requested the government consider a variation to the proposed plan"

Here's my feedback:

1. Let Telecom do as it wishes. The Government does not own Telecom, Telecom's shareholders do.

2. Advise Telecom it does not need government permission for any changes to its own corporate structure, and that the Telecommunications Act 2001 will be amended to remove any powers of the government to direct the Telecom as to its property rights.

The NZX50 should take a rather significant leap at that point. The mooching participants in the telecommunications industry might have to think again before expanding their "businesses" using other people's property under duress.

"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.

OECD report IS a wake up call

Tariana Turia and Annette King both think the OECD report "Doing Better for Children" is a wake up call. Sadly the people who most need to wake up, spend too much time sleeping and ignoring their kids as it is.

Tariana Turia thinks it is a wake up call to the government and you. Yes you! It’s up to you to fix these problems and you should be forced to do so, through taxes.

The response has been tragically asinine:

- Labour is calling for more fiscal child abuse to subsidise errant families;
- Jigsaw family services is calling for the same;
- Idiot Savant continues his state worshipping;
- The perpetually inert Child Poverty (in)Action Group wants to pilfer more money from successful families to increase welfare benefits (whilst CPAG itself does nothing material to help children).

Lindsay Mitchell by contrast points out that the OECD report contains a damning indictment on welfare for single parent families. She quotes "Some countries spend considerable amounts on long-duration single-parent benefits. There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being. Durations could be reduced and resources concentrated on improving family income during the early part of the life cycle for those children".

In other words, the OECD doesn't support the blind "more welfare" approach at all, and denies that such benefits are good for children. Ironic, when so many want to use this report to promote more welfarism, they deftly avoided that.

Many New Zealand families function reasonably well, and don’t have suicidal children or children in poverty. The people who should be waking up are as follows:

1. Everyone who breeds without the means to look after their kids: Why would you do that? Why would you produce children in poverty? The reason your kids are living in poverty is you. Yes, you.

2. Parents who abuse their kids: Apparently most of you were abused yourselves, which is hardly an excuse to repeat the behaviour. You are vile, you don’t deserve to have children, and you should be in prison and denied ever having custody of kids again. Just because Sue Bradford made it look like most parents are like you, they are not.

3. Parents who ignore their kids: Yes it isn’t a crime to always go to the pub instead of staying home and playing with or helping your kids, to never read to your children, to take little interest in what they do, to tell them that a lack of schooling never did you any harm, to be more interested in picking up men that picking up your kids’ homework or to regard your kids as a nuisance. However, you’re pretty useless as parents.

4. Politicians who insist on forcing everyone to pay for categories 1-3 above: Why are you penalising good families by subsidising bad ones? Why do you want to continue treating children as a welfare gravy train for indolent nobodies? Why wont you confront the disincentive the status quo is for good behaviour? Why do you create virtually useless agencies like the Ministry of Youth Affairs or the malignant (nobody is to blame) Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner? Wouldn’t children be better off if their parents didn’t need to work so much to make a living because you weren’t strong arming so much tax from them?

5. Staff of the Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner, and Ministry of Youth Affairs: You have failed, time to resign. 5x the suicide rate of the UK? Double the suicide rate of Australia and the US? Time to ease the budget deficit back a bit and shut those entities down.

Quite simple, if you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. If you have them, make sure you love them and dedicate a good part of your life to giving them the attention they deserve and need. Beyond that, either close your legs, take the pill, wear a condom and stop producing children you wont love or can't care for - and stop electing politicians who encourage it.

Then, people who can afford to have kids, might have more, and besides - those who think human beings are a blot on the environment ought to support people breeding less.