Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in England

[Little-Acorn]

In-home government-run closed-circuit TV cameras, government agents visiting homes to make sure families are behaving properly, etc. These things aren't just some far-off nightmare envisioned in futuristic novels and fictional books. They are already in place, in "civilized" countries with nanny-state governments and universal health care systems.

The purpose? To save those families from themselves, of course. Cut down alcoholism, reduce truancy and crime, make sure they eat proper meals at the right time, etc.

Oh, and also... they're doing it for the children.

Once we decide in this country, that the government is responsible for our heal, anybody want to guess how long it will be before Democrats in the U.S. govt adopt this quaint little custom to give them the REAL power to do so?

Democrats have already tried, more than once, to ram through programs the American people didn't want. Why would this one be any different?

The "progress" shown by these leftists is chilling.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

Thursday July 23,2009
By Alison Little

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, [England's Children Secretary] Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far. But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[PLC1]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

"Sin Bins?"

Is that religious connotation intentional, I wonder?

The government forcing people to stay sober fill their duties as parents sounds pretty Orwellian, doesn't it?

Still, if it only applies to people on the dole, why shouldn't that be a part of the contract? We'll help pay for you to live, but we want to keep track of what you're doing with your time.

If it doesn't, it's hard to see how the the people involved are able to support themselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

Still, if it only applies to people on the dole, why shouldn't that be a part of the contract? We'll help pay for you to live, but we want to keep track of what you're doing with your time.

Hmmm, thanks for the hint.

Let's see... So the first step is for govt to persuade people it's OK for govt to support them when they're indigent or whatever (the dole). Then the next step is for govt to tell those people that, since it's supporting them, it can now require them to behave in certain ways...

Good work, PLC1. You've shown the way to a very clear picture of the "incremental" way socialism takes over a formerly free people.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

Hmmm, thanks for the hint.

Let's see... So the first step is for govt to persuade people it's OK for govt to support them when they're indigent or whatever (the dole). Then the next step is for govt to tell those people that, since it's supporting them, it can now require them to behave in certain ways...

Good work, PLC1. You've shown the way to a very clear picture of the "incremental" way socialism takes over a formerly free people.

Yes, I did, didn't I?

Here's the conundrum:

We can ignore people who can't support themselves, in which case they're likely to resort to stealing from people who can.

We can pay them off in what we call "welfare", thus enabling them to continue to make the choices that makes them unable to support themselves to begin with.

Choosing plan B will encourage (no, make that has encouraged) people to choose welfare as a way of life while raising the next generation to be just as unemployable as they are.

Or, we could make a contract with the drug addicted and otherwise irresponsible who make a career out of the dole: Sure, we'll continue to pay for your living, but we, the taxpayers want an accounting of just what you do with your time.

Much like any employer wants an accounting of how his employees spend their time, at least while on the job.

We, the ones paying the bills, want to make sure that you send your kids to school so they are less likely to wind up on welfare themselves.

We, the responsible members of society who are paying the bills want to discourage your from spending your time stoned/drunk/high.


Now, which plan seems the most workable in the long term?

 

[Cassidy]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

In-home government-run closed-circuit TV cameras, government agents visiting homes to make sure families are behaving properly, etc. These things aren't just some far-off nightmare envisioned in futuristic novels and fictional books. They are already in place, in "civilized" countries with nanny-state governments and universal health care systems.

The purpose? To save those families from themselves, of course. Cut down alcoholism, reduce truancy and crime, make sure they eat proper meals at the right time, etc.

Oh, and also... they're doing it for the children.

Once we decide in this country, that the government is responsible for our heal, anybody want to guess how long it will be before Democrats in the U.S. govt adopt this quaint little custom to give them the REAL power to do so?

Democrats have already tried, more than once, to ram through programs the American people didn't want. Why would this one be any different?

The "progress" shown by these leftists is chilling.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

Thursday July 23,2009
By Alison Little

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, [England's Children Secretary] Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far. But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

That is scary

I wonder how long till they are wanting to do that here

a long time I hope

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

That is scary

I wonder how long till they are wanting to do that here

a long time I hope

Frankly, Cassidy, I'm of the mindset that this would be a excellent tool to utilize for how our elected official conduct themselves in Washington...say around those offices that they are supposed to be working so diligently and possibly those private house locations such as the 'exemplary location on C-Street'...
Let the light of truth and full disclosure shine ever so brightly upon their every minute while in office. Sure would weed out some of those lessor thinking adults that seem oblivious to their immoral activity/fornicating ways!!! They behave as though nothing will float to the surface while they are entertaining illicit thoughts/actions/deeds. IMHO

NOW HOW FAR OVER THE LINE HAVE I CROSSED...THE ECHOS OF THE FAR RIGHT WING NUT JOBS RELIGIOUS THINKING CONSERVATIVES SEEM TO BE RUBBING OFF ON ME...LMAO

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

Yes, I did, didn't I?

Here's the conundrum:

We can ignore people who can't support themselves, in which case they're likely to resort to stealing from people who can.

We can pay them off in what we call "welfare", thus enabling them to continue to make the choices that makes them unable to support themselves to begin with.

Choosing plan B will encourage (no, make that has encouraged) people to choose welfare as a way of life while raising the next generation to be just as unemployable as they are.

Or, we could make a contract with the drug addicted and otherwise irresponsible who make a career out of the dole: Sure, we'll continue to pay for your living, but we, the taxpayers want an accounting of just what you do with your time.

Much like any employer wants an accounting of how his employees spend their time, at least while on the job.

We, the ones paying the bills, want to make sure that you send your kids to school so they are less likely to wind up on welfare themselves.

We, the responsible members of society who are paying the bills want to discourage your from spending your time stoned/drunk/high.


Now, which plan seems the most workable in the long term?

Neither plan.

The best option is for individuals and private agencies to take an active interest in the lives of people who ask for help so that they are neither ignored nor put on welfare with excessive government intervention.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

"Sin Bins?"

Is that religious connotation intentional, I wonder?

The government forcing people to stay sober fill their duties as parents sounds pretty Orwellian, doesn't it?

Still, if it only applies to people on the dole, why shouldn't that be a part of the contract? We'll help pay for you to live, but we want to keep track of what you're doing with your time.

If it doesn't, it's hard to see how the the people involved are able to support themselves.

Because it is an invasive violation of the right to privacy. Kind of like when the gov demands that your employer tells them who it hires and how much it pays them.

And it won't be limited to those on the dole. Income taxes are not limited to those on the dole and the plan to have "smart" thermostats that could be controlled from the utility company in homes was not limited to those on the dole either.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

Because it is an invasive violation of the right to privacy. Kind of like when the gov demands that your employer tells them who it hires and how much it pays them.

And it won't be limited to those on the dole. Income taxes are not limited to those on the dole and the plan to have "smart" thermostats that could be controlled from the utility company in homes was not limited to those on the dole either.

If it applies to people who aren't being supported by the public, then the public has no business violating their privacy, on that we agree.

I'm not sure what "smart thermostats" have to do with anything. Is that the plan to offer a discount on the electric bill in exchange for the power company having the power to reset your thermostat when there is danger of a blackout?

Isn't that a contract between a private company and an individual?

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

If it applies to people who aren't being supported by the public, then the public has no business violating their privacy, on that we agree.

Yes, we agree that people have a right to privacy.

And if the person does receive a benefit from the government then how does that permit the government to violate their rights? I mean, does it stop being a right? And if the gov then CAN violate their rights then can it start determining who can marry who and have sex with whom and sit where on the bus and drink from what drinking fountain?

I'm not sure what "smart thermostats" have to do with anything. Is that the plan to offer a discount on the electric bill in exchange for the power company having the power to reset your thermostat when there is danger of a blackout?

Isn't that a contract between a private company and an individual?

The state of California proposed having the government control thermostats.

But if it had been a private contract then as long as both parties had full knowlege of what they were getting into and the contract did not violate any laws it should be binding and free of government intervention into the rights of those in the contract.

 

[Cassidy]

Re: Govt in-home cameras,agents to check for proper behavior, already in place in Eng

Frankly, Cassidy, I'm of the mindset that this would be a excellent tool to utilize for how our elected official conduct themselves in Washington...say around those offices that they are supposed to be working so diligently and possibly those private house locations such as the 'exemplary location on C-Street'...
Let the light of truth and full disclosure shine ever so brightly upon their every minute while in office. Sure would weed out some of those lessor thinking adults that seem oblivious to their immoral activity/fornicating ways!!! They behave as though nothing will float to the surface while they are entertaining illicit thoughts/actions/deeds. IMHO

NOW HOW FAR OVER THE LINE HAVE I CROSSED...THE ECHOS OF THE FAR RIGHT WING NUT JOBS RELIGIOUS THINKING CONSERVATIVES SEEM TO BE RUBBING OFF ON ME...LMAO

Well at work would be ok but not in people's homes. There has to be some kind of private time