It's for the children - state surveillance is only to protect them

How ridiculous it is to oppose doing something that is good for children, stupid hysterical idiots bringing up nonsense of privacy when it is childrens' lives at stake and how best to help them.

.

So the Commissar for the Next Generation Cindy Kiro has her little fascist bureaucrat eyes on a single ID for all children - so that she can put her maternal loving arms around your kids, because - you see- you're not competent enough to know what's best. You see we apparently have the third highest child homicide rate in the developed world - and that means your kids need to lose their privacy for life.

.

"Oh, but these issues can be managed". Of course, who wouldn't trust education, health, justice authorities to use data collected fairly - nothing wrong with them all knowing about your kids, after all "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". That, of course, justifies random searches of people's homes without warrants, or any state invasion of privacy.

.

So how is this meant to protect your kids from abuse? Well you see, Police and CYFS seem incapable of identifying children at risk of abuse - odd really, since the worst cases mostly appear to be committed by convicted criminals as it is. Odd further that the people who do so are often welfare beneficiaries, who the state should be checking up on to see if they are looking for work and trying to get out of the rut they are in. I am not saying it is an easy job, but giving all kids a national ID is a bit like saying we should fingerprint everyone, because we might then be able to match a few crimes to suspects we don't know yet. It is presuming that every child is at risk, which is nonsense - most parents do a perfectly reasonable job of raising their kids - certainly better than the state does when it holds them in its custody.

.

Kiro says ""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." So glue ear means the kids are being abused does it? How do you know about "major issues about safety at home", unless the state has released convicted rapists, child abusers and murderers out and allowed them to live with children again. What is most disturbing is the phrase "all the little bits need to come together" as if bureaucrats can piece together what is about to happen. When they get it wrong it can be devastating - consider when families are split up because some busybody social worker thought that a child was being abused, and the parents (usually fathers) were guilty till proven innocent. The state rarely compensates for getting that wrong.

.

You pay for Kiro and your pay for more of the incompetent abusive parents than you'd like to, and you pay for David Benson Pope, who is "seeking advice on how to set up such a scheme", not even evaluating the merits.

.

Before even contemplating treating everyone's children at risk, the state might think about offering judges the option of sentencing murderers, rapists, child molesters and other serious violent criminals to be denied custody of children for life. In other words, you have lost your right to be a parent when you acted violently against another.

.

For all of the allegations of DBP bullying, this is far more disturbing than any of that - because it means a national ID system for the whole country, in due course. You see all you need is to implement it for immigrants (you know those suspicious aliens who might change jobs without informing the authorities - deport them!) and within a generation, you all have a national ID - like Malaysia, Belarus, North Korea.

.

PC has written a pithy piece on this and Sir Humphreys, Rodney Hide, Lindsay Mitchell have as well. However, I Hate Socialism likes the idea.

Fly from Iran to relocated cities in Asia

Go here and check out the airline that flies to Delhi in Tibet, Shanghai in Japan, Bangkok on the Cambodian/Vietnamese border, Damascus in Turkey and Bahrain Saudi Arabia. Now it might be a perfectly good airline, and presumably its pilot don't get lost, no thanks to the IT department.

Paris riots not political - just thugs

The leftie bloggers who might think the Paris riots are some sort of youth proletarian fight against capitalism. Well, one word... bollocks.

.

The report this morning on the BBC World Service was from a journalist who was there, who said that he noticed the element of troublemakers who quietly were gathering while most protestors peacefully opposed the new youth employment law. Reuters reports much the same with "a few dozen youth" causing havoc. The riots were caused by teenagers out wanting to confront Police and wreck cars, vandalise and loot - many protestors distanced themselves from them - I doubt if most of the rioters even understood what they were getting involved in. That doesn't match with the romanticised leftist view of French political activism though.

Call for state funding of UK political parties

This is due to the scandal of loans given by rich Labour supporters in exchange for peerages. No doubt this happened with the Tories too. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott wants state funding for political parties, no doubt meaning most should go to Labour and the Tories. Political parties should be able to be funded by whoever wants to fund them – but that does not mean the state. The state would never fund new parties and will always be set up to primarily fund those already dominant. It is fundamentally undemocratic and corporatist – the status quo funding parties supporting primarily variations on the status quo. State funding of political parties will be resisted by many, and hopefully will be buried as a ridiculous socialist fantasy. If people wont voluntarily fund a political party, why should they be forced to pay for it campaigning to run their lives? If the British Labour Party struggles to get money (which seems unlikely), it might want to look at itself - maybe it doesn't deserve the campaign its power hungry MPs wish it to have?

Ken Livingstone blames Jeremy Clarkson for armageddon

According to The Times Red Ken - Mayor of London - has said that areas threatened with flooding will be called Clarkson zones, because he blames Jeremy Clarkson for global warming and the possible “destruction of life on earth”. Nutter. Jeremy Clarkson hosts the most popular show on BBC2 (and Prime TV in NZ), "Top Gear". Top Gear is fun because cars are fun, they are enjoyable to drive and there are millions who agree - because personal transport is pleasurable.

.

Now free market me believes the only problem is that roads are run by politicians, central and local government - who administer roads for political purposes, not according to the demands of users or the costs. In some cases roads are overcharged, in others undercharged, so in some places roads are too good, others they are inadequate - pristine empty roads and congested roads - it's central planning gone mad. I support his congestion charging zone, though not the extension - and generally support road pricing, as long as it is efficient.

.

You see I am neutral on whether people should drive or not, it is their choice as long as they don't expect anyone else to subsidise them and take responsibility for their actions - but Red Ken hates cars – he doesn’t own one or even drive. He blames London’s traffic problems on cars, ignoring that London has only around 9% of its land area covered by roads, unlike the average of most cities of 25%. Greenies would celebrate that, but it adds enormously to the cost of transport - and the burden on the economy, environment and people's health. It is no pleasure walking extensively on many London streets because of it - buses get caught in it too - the famous Kings Road in Chelsea was often quicker to walk than to drive or catch buses down. However, without decent highways traffic is funneled down local 2 lane streets.
.
Of course, the fact Ken uses London citizens' council tax to pay for buses to run, empty or not, doesn’t help either. The Strand is full day in day out of nearly empty buses clogging up the lanes – bus subsidies promote bus companies running services regardless of demand. Ken’s policy of free bus rides for under 16yos also encourages them to bus instead of walking – hardly environmentally or health friendly (or passenger friendly).
.
London would reduce emissions if a network of toll highways was built as originally planned (planned to be free, but tolls would ensure demand was reflected with user pays), completing the inner circular highways, even if tunnelled to avoid impact on the local environment. The tolls would restrain growth and the highways would remove cars from local streets, speeding up bus travel and reducing health impacts – but don’t expect Transport for London or Ken to support that – roads are evil after all. Far better to have pedestrians and cyclists choking with exhaust fumes from buses, trucks, cabs and cars.
.
Don’t say people should catch public transport, only 13% of peak commuting to central London is by car, it would be difficult to increase the public transport share much more. London public transport is excellent, although at peak times is at crush capacity (and it isn't efficient to provide more capacity). Most motoring in London is suburb to suburb, where it takes far longer to bus than to drive (a bus takes a more circuitous route and stops a lot after all) and these orbital movements will continue to grow. London has one of the worst roading networks of any major city in the world – it simply needs to let the private sector provide, and to let it toll freely to pay for it.