Friday, 12 September 2014

Think of the children

"Following a statement in the Home Secretary Theresa May’s Defence and Security Lecture in June, stating that the National Crime Agency (NCA) had to drop 13 threat-to-life cases due to missing communications data in which a child was assessed to be at risk of imminent harm"

There will always be some cases, and some of these sound like they were police not even using the powers they have properly.

But do I have to ask: How many cases of threat-to-life were dropped (or not even known about) because there are not covert police surveillance cameras in every child's bedroom and bathroom?

I mean, surely, the only way to guarantee that kids are 100% safe is to have someone monitoring them all day and anything less than that is negligence, bad parenting, and a failing of the [nanny] state?

Or maybe we can try and strike a sensible balance - how about that?

So yes, please think of the children and what sort of society we are bringing them in to!

I was watching kids TV as my grandson was round at the weekend, and there was some show on channel 5, lazytown or something. The story line included surveillance cameras with recording that these kids then used to track down a plot to harm the mayor and discredit someone else. It seems we are teaching kids that it is fine to have the authorities watch our every more and that everything we do is recorded. Is that a new political type of kids TV?


  1. Clearly you are wrong. A brief look at the happenings with the refusal to appear racist towards a certain group (by arresting rapists in the act), and instead prosecuting their underaged victims (for major crimes like truancy) proves that even a camera or two in every room is not enough.

    Surely lobotomy at birth is the only way to ensure a supply of subservient future voters and, vitally, politicians?

  2. Ironically Lazy town is an icelandic program, last time I checked they are not to hot on the intrusive thing..

  3. If they don't have the communications data, how do they know that communications occurred that would be relevant to their investigation and support a prosecution? This would seem a rather important pre-requisite for stating that cases "had to be dropped" due to "missing" data.

    Or do authoritarians just consider an absence of evidence to be automatic proof of criminal activity?