UK install cameras in private homes

[JizzInMyPants]

The UK government is about to spend $700 million dollars installing surveillance cameras inside the private homes of citizens to ensure that children go to bed on time, attend school and eat proper meals.

No you aren’t reading a passage from George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, this is Britain in 2009, a country which already has more surveillance cameras watching its population than the whole of Europe put together.

Now the government is embarking on a scheme called “Family Intervention Projects” which will literally create a nanny state on steroids, with social services goons and private security guards given the authority to make regular “home checks” to ensure parents are raising their children correctly.

Telescreens will also be installed so government spies can keep an eye on whether parents are mistreating kids and whether the kids are fulfilling their obligations under a pre-signed contract.

Around 2,000 families have been targeted by this program so far and the government wants to snare 20,000 more within the next two years. The tab will be picked up by the taxpayer, with the “interventions” being funded through local council authorities.

http://www.infowars.com/uk-government-to-install-surveillance-cameras-in-private-homes/


wow.

[JizzInMyPants]

o yea i 4got 2 say that America wins

[siva_chair]

/in b4 Alex Jones bashing

[TheDarkHorse]

in b4 Siva spews uncool Libertarian propaganda

[Against Miik!]

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

[mistersnitch]

god the UK is getting shitty

[Mr. Ron]

This is a bad joke, right?

[mistersnitch]

no
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678l

[gregulus]

This is a bad joke, right?

God, I hope so.

[mistersnitch]

k well it isn't so more like you wish so

[Mr. Ron]

lol first they're forcefully disarmed then they have to put up with this. Sorry, UK.

[Angmar]

this is lol

[freeliminator]

id hate to be a dustbin in shaftesbury tonight

[Raayl]

...what

cant be real.

wait, yes it can. it's the uk.

[Mr. Ron]

Is there any resistance to this at all or?

[JizzInMyPants]

well im thinking they are putting it into troubled homes not just any home ya know

[Raayl]

well im thinking they are putting it into troubled homes not just any home ya know

yeah that totally makes it ok wow thanks for clearing that up

"Another key aspect of the program will see parents deemed “responsible” by the government handed the power to denounce and report bad parents who allow their children to engage in bad behavior. Such families will then be targeted for “interventions”."

I wonder if "intervention" means a swat team shows up at your door at 2 AM and nobody ever hears from you again.

**** this planet.

[Meatplow]

The potential for abuse is staggering. Goddamn it.

[Raayl]

Potential for abuse? Buddy, this is already abuse. This is the savage beating of your human rights and the rape of its corpse.

[Meatplow]

you are correct but I was referring more to a "foot in the door" for even worse to happen kind of thing, i'm overtired and not posting my best please forgive me :3

[Raayl]

you are correct but I was referring more to a "foot in the door" kind of thing, i'm overtired and not posting my best please forgive me :3

I understand. This just infuriates me.

What's worse, is that nobody seems to care. That's the vibe I got from the story and from googling it. No riots yet, no protests. Sickening how complacent and useless we've become. So sedentary and disgustingly apathetic.

[siva_chair]

Lol the Brits should fight back....

Oh wait they don't really have anything to fight back with because they rolled over and gave the government all their guns. Smart move.

[gregulus]

I think fighting back with guns might be a bad idea at this point in time. It would be better to try a less abrasive form of fighting at first.

[Raayl]

Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with mass, organized protest. If the entire country stops complying...what are they gonna do? shoot everyone?

like George Carlin said: "I blame soldiers for war. Not politicians. We don't HAVE to go to war. So there's a draft? **** the draft. Nobody goes. Nobody goes. What, are they gonna shoot everybody for deserting? Is EVERYBODY gonna get a court marshall? No."

unrealistic, maybe. but hey - it can be done.

[Anglachel]

fight back with brix and punk music

[Against Miik!]

Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with mass, organized protest. If the entire country stops complying...what are they gonna do? shoot everyone?

like George Carlin said: "I blame soldiers for war. Not politicians. We don't HAVE to go to war. So there's a draft? **** the draft. Nobody goes. Nobody goes. What, are they gonna shoot everybody for deserting? Is EVERYBODY gonna get a court marshall? No."

unrealistic, maybe. but hey - it can be done.

You have to wonder then, what it would take for Brits to just rise up in arms, short of soldiers actually going around and shooting people. I mean, cameras in peoples houses? Is their government even trying to be discreet?

[gregulus]

Has there been any verification of this from a website other than infowars?

[Raayl]

idk. I know the UK is already really complacent regarding surveillance - especially in London, but this is just so ridiculous. If this happened here in america? I know my family (and my entire town) would be strapped and armed to the teeth lining the roads and filling up the town courts demanding change. I live in a really conservative, backwater area. Everyone has a gun, and nobody likes to be ****ed with by the government.

[Against Miik!]

Has there been any verification of this from a website other than infowars?

I can promise you I've read this elsewhere.

[gregulus]

I can promise you I've read this elsewhere.

From credible sources?

[Against Miik!]

Actual I think it was from some tech websites like Slashdot or Wired or something. So call those what you will.

O heres the legit one but I'm not sure if its exactly the same thing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html

[siva_chair]

I think fighting back with guns might be a bad idea at this point in time. It would be better to try a less abrasive form of fighting at first.

Because using the political system certainly worked well in stopping this....

Mass protests would be ok too, but if those don't work then what? The Brits are left with little to fight back with. In fact, having an armed population makes mass protests even more effective.

[Smokey D]

Um, I will buy you all a coke if this happens.

PS it won't.

PPS if you beat your child, why shouldn't you be put under surveillance?

PPS note the telegraph article doesn't actually refer to cameras.


Oh wait they don't really have anything to fight back with because they rolled over and gave the government all their guns. Smart move.

The funny thing is that the British system is way less open to some of the more pernicious forms of abuse than the US system, which ostensibly has a much stronger constitution. Pork barrel spending and earmarks aren't really a feature of UK legislation in the same way it is in the US.

[spitfirejunky]

fight back with brix and punk music

:lol::lol::lol:

Absolute ****ing gold.

[mistersnitch]

Has there been any verification of this from a website other than infowars?

yes. i already posted this link: http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678l

Um, I will buy you all a coke if this happens.

PS it won't.

uh i mean it already has happened in 2000 homes, i'm not sure what makes you say that.


PPS note the telegraph article doesn't actually refer to cameras.

k here's another one:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.


PPS if you beat your child, why shouldn't you be put under surveillance?

"They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals," says the Daily Express

i'm assuming daily express is reliable since so many other sites have gone on their word

[Meatplow]

oi!

[Pop music sucks]

I just want to see Britain a la Children of Men.

forceful eviction of immigrants
cordoning off 'Fugees into shantytowns

:')

[Meatplow]

reading that respect article brings some interesting arguments to light actually

thoughts on these? troubled families are quite a concern, and IMO the worst of the worst of them who perpetuate this vicious cycle probably need some form of personal rights taken away as they put a huge strain on the community around them and are eternally damaging to themselves. apparently this has already been tested and has a high rate of success.

i don't know if this is the right way to approach it, or indeed this signals some kind of big brother thing through its implications. the nanny state is a concern, and it would seem promises of curbing "anti-social behavior" might just be a way of weaseling nasty laws in. I wonder.

[mistersnitch]

thoughts on these? troubled families are quite a concern, and IMO the worst of the worst of them who perpetuate this vicious cycle probably need some form of personal rights taken away as they put a huge strain on the community around them and are eternally damaging to themselves. apparently this has already been tested and has a high rate of success.


they do indeed put a strain on the community around them, but the point of individual rights is that they can't be completely sacrificed for a collectivist purpose. some rights can be taken away if the parents are themselves violating the rights of others (their children), but 24 hour surveillance of a private household by the state? to me that just seems far too extreme to be justifiable.

[Raayl]

you guys can't seriously be trying to justify this type of garbage, can you?

stop. just stop. can't take anymore smart people justifying not smart things.

[siva_chair]

The funny thing is that the British system is way less open to some of the more pernicious forms of abuse than the US system, which ostensibly has a much stronger constitution. Pork barrel spending and earmarks aren't really a feature of UK legislation in the same way it is in the US.

I never said otherwise.

Funny thing is that isn't what I was talking about anyway.

[Raayl]

the government doesn't need to be telling people how to raise their children. this fantasy scenario where "at risk families are a huge strain on the community" is total garbage.

1) this scenario isnt even realistic it's totally made up by people who have no understanding of sociology

2) even if it were true the rights of the community should never impede the rights of the individual this is the basis of western culture

this is absolute garbage and deserves no justification at all it deserves to be stricken down and those who penned it cast out of office. (if its real at all, that is)

[Meatplow]

you guys can't seriously be trying to justify this type of garbage, can you?

stop. just stop. can't take anymore smart people justifying not smart things.

i'm trying to understand it from another perspective, in case people are overreacting a little because of the instant "big brother" association and not stopping to research it a little more to see what these people are blabbering on it.

so far what i've gathered is this -

- the worst troubled families spoken of are a big social problem that costs money and the time and resources of social workers
- this would seem limited entirely to in-home surveillance of those who demonstrate no ability to live in harmony with the community around them, and are clearly destructive to themselves and others.
- this has been already thoroughly tested, and the success rate is up in the 90% range.

On the surface this doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Then questions of basic human rights and privacy come into play, and people start speculating about what this really means.

Are these people deserving of the right to continue with their freedom to do what they do? We are talking internally destructive families that invariably upset every community they end up in, and quite simply cannot help but make a nuisance of themselves. Not your common (and generally respectful) joe who likes to smoke a bit of marijuana or engage in deviant sexual activity and doesn't want peeping tom looking in because of stupid government laws and public perceptions that regard debatable activities as "anti-social" and will get them demonised by others or thrown in jail. If you haven't made it clear that you need to monitored for some reason (not necessarily by the methods proposed here), individual rights should remain. It would seem there is a very clearly defined line regarding the definition of "troublesome" people here. As for cameras being installed in their homes, this method is too extreme for my liking. I feel something must be done all the same.

Moving on to this this whole foot in the door thing. It seems there are a lot of laws being gradually introduced which is seen by many as some kind of government conspiracy to sneak in new ways to hold the public under their thumb through promises of keeping people safe. This is a definite concern to me, and the introduction of surveillance in a persons own home is seen clearly as a gross invasion of privacy. Personally, I believe it is and an alternative should be sought. In turn I also believe some people might be blowing it out of proportion as well.

[Haliburton]

first of all

this system is like a year old

second

its either this or send them all to separate prisons

[spirit]

first of all

this system is like a year old

Just because the Terrorism Act was passed a few years ago doesn't make it any less of a danger to civil liberties.


second

its either this or send them all to separate prisons

Better yet, why don't we force everyone who wants to have children to get a license first, and forcibly abort any unlawful pregnancies? That'll show 'em!

[Foehammer]

Why wasn't this in my newspaper?

[JizzInMyPants]

cause the government is suppressing free speech!!!!!!

[DBoons Ghost]

I wish they would do this in Section 8 houses in the US.

It's scary, but I think it's cost effective and necesarry unfortunatly. When the people can no longer take care of themselves, I guess the only thing left is either mass murder or big brother.

Though, the very same public assistance and social services programs that failed these families will now watch them on TV and do what exactly?

[spitfirejunky]

I wish they would do this in Section 8 houses in the US.

It's scary, but I think it's cost effective and necesarry unfortunatly. When the people can no longer take care of themselves, I guess the only thing left is either mass murder or big brother.

Though, the very same public assistance and social services programs that failed these families will now watch them on TV and do what exactly?

This.

[Foehammer]

I wish they would do this in Section 8 houses in the US.

It's scary, but I think it's cost effective and necesarry unfortunatly. When the people can no longer take care of themselves, I guess the only thing left is either mass murder or big brother.

Though, the very same public assistance and social services programs that failed these families will now watch them on TV and do what exactly?

If they can't take care of themselves, they are a burden to my country and myself. I refuse to pay to help inferior people, and that is that.

I say, quite sincerely, we just kill them. What are they good for?

[Mr. Ron]

bring back the circus maximus!

[Haliburton]

Better yet, why don't we force everyone who wants to have children to get a license first, and forcibly abort any unlawful pregnancies? That'll show 'em!

you're being stupid

these people would otherwise have gone to prison

living (secured) in their own home is less government coercion not more

personally i think they probably should have been shot rather than spending this money being nice to them but whatever bro

[Haliburton]

also rofl you think the terrorism act is even notable in comparison with half the stuff the government does

but of course you're a silly leftard who thinks we should ban guns or something

THE ONLY FREEDOM IS MY FREEDOM

[JizzInMyPants]

Any nation that would give up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin

[PerpetualBurn]

I think it would be less of an infringement on the freedom of these people if we'd given them three felony strikes and therefore a huge prison sentence.

God bless America

Any nation that would give up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.

Paraphrasing dead guys proves you're right.

[JizzInMyPants]

dam right it does

[DBoons Ghost]

"Any nation that would give up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both."


Among the thousands of people who have used this quote improperly and incorrectly and without context, this is the worst application of it I have seen.

You assume society has not evolved and we're still living in a flightless, technology-less era in which human kind lived in a very different society.

While the message of the quote is clear, it's foundations are long gone.

Honestly I would appreciate some clarification as to how this quote still applies considering the age in which men lived when the quote was made, in comparison to today's society.

[Haliburton]

I think it would be less of an infringement on the freedom of these people if we'd given them three felony strikes and therefore a huge prison sentence.

God bless Americaso you dont think people should be protected from career criminals

i see

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol no.

[Haliburton]

well thats what you just said what am i supposed to think

felonies arent really things you just accidentally do

[DBoons Ghost]

Here comes liberal faggotry to the rescue! Hooray!

If society was set up properly, there would be no criminals ever, and if there were, we could cure them with rainbows and kittens.

[JizzInMyPants]

Among the thousands of people who have used this quote improperly and incorrectly and without context, this is the worst application of it I have seen.

You assume society has not evolved and we're still living in a flightless, technology-less era in which human kind lived in a very different society.

While the message of the quote is clear, it's foundations are long gone.

Honestly I would appreciate some clarification as to how this quote still applies considering the age in which men lived when the quote was made, in comparison to today's society.


wait so just because we have the internet and we are sending satelites into space, we dont deserve our freedom and privacy?

[PerpetualBurn]

well thats what you just said what am i supposed to think

felonies arent really things you just accidentally do

Well I was being facetious.

My point is that providing this scheme is applied to people who have committed crimes, it's potentially far better for many individuals than things like three strikes laws with would involve huge prison sentences.

Which I thought we were getting at similar points.

Also, it was a jab at all the sickening patriotism in the thread.

[Haliburton]

i dont know, im not into infringing on the economic liberty of the taxpayer to provide 'better' things for criminals when we could just let people shoot them on an individual basis and the problem would be solved

[DBoons Ghost]

wait so just because we have the internet and we are sending satelites into space, we dont deserve our freedom and privacy?

No it's just a lot more complicated then that these days, both in the people's valules and in their requirements, and the oppositions desire to destroy it all.

It's a ton more complicated then it was back when horse and buggy ruled the dirt roads, and men worked their own land, and was encouraged to protect it by any means necesarry.

Things have changed beyond the value of that quote and failing to recognize that while misusing that quote is fail.

In my humble opinion of course.

[PerpetualBurn]

i dont know, im not into infringing on the economic liberty of the taxpayer to provide 'better' things for criminals when we could just let people shoot them on an individual basis and the problem would be solved

Forced labour camps make more sense.

[DBoons Ghost]

But forced labor camps are inhumane! Oh those poor misled miscreants! Being forced to work when they could rob and steal from honest hard working people? No way! Just put them on the dole and watch them on TV! What's a few million bucks here or there when we could save all humanity from the cruelties of life?

[Haliburton]

Forced labour camps make more sense.
dunno, i'd rather they be indebted to any specific victims of their crime rather than serving the government

[Anglachel]

is there going to be like a swat team at the crooks door if the feed is lost for a minute or something

[Raayl]

if im reading this thread right i'd say at least half of the people posting here think this is a good idea

lmfao wow mx, wow

[Anglachel]

what who

[Haliburton]

if im reading this thread right i'd say at least half of the people posting here think this is a good idea

lmfao wow mx, wow
well its a good idea to the families

but not for third parties who are paying for it in taxes

[Raayl]

well its a good idea to the families

but not for third parties who are paying for it in taxes

no, it's not a good idea to the families. they deserve privacy and freedom just like everyone else.

you think there is some massive divider between you and these "troubled families." there isn't. if they can monitor every action of a troubled family, they can do it to you too. what exactly is an "at risk" family, anyway? Like Meatplow said, the potential for abuse is staggering. This is absolutely disgusting, and I know you don't really think it's a good idea.

this also assumes the government knows exactly how to raise a child. why, exactly? i know i would certainly never defer to my government for child rearing tips.

[1338 h4x0r]

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

great post

rep++

[Haliburton]

no, it's not a good idea to the families. they deserve privacy and freedom just like everyone else.no they dont they deserve to go to jail

instead they get to stay in their own home

how the **** isnt that good for them

[Raayl]

no they dont they deserve to go to jail

instead they get to stay in their own home

how the **** isnt that good for them

what are you talking about stop making up ridiculous scenarios to propagate your ignorance

[Haliburton]

there was no scenario in that post dumdum

[Haliburton]

do you really want to do limits of legal power in determining damages for copyright infringement part 2 though

cuz

i remember that

[Raayl]

yeah and i remember winning that famous legal battle with the ease of citing section 107 at which point you proceeded to just make fun of me instead of making actual points

typical chad mantra, just call the person an idiot im sure everyone will come around in the end

[Haliburton]

no im pretty sure you left the thread after i demonstrated you were being dumb

and never returned after tway showed up and compounded the verdict

[Haliburton]

anyway

staying in a secured version of your own home is better for you as a criminal than going to jail its not even debateable

[Raayl]

who said these people are criminals...wtf chad you're just making stuff up

[Haliburton]

the various articles and my personal knowledge of the system because you know i happen to live in the country its being used in

hurr

[Raayl]

oh i wasnt aware simply living in a place made you a knowledgeable expert of regional criminology

"at risk families" are not criminals chad

[Haliburton]

living in a place doesnt make you aware of the laws and justice system of that place?

are you on crack son

"at risk families" are not criminals chad
these families are criminals

[Raayl]

living in a place doesnt make you aware of the laws and justice system of that place?

are you on crack son


these families are criminals

no it does not

are you on crack?

[Haliburton]

ya it does of course being immersed in a culture with media makes you aware of things going on that are also within that culture

[GnRguitarist]

http://www.infowars.com/uk-government-to-install-surveillance-cameras-in-private-homes/


wow.

LOL UK!!!

*realizes he's an American, and that his people are just as stupid and probably next*

Ah ****.

[Haliburton]

Local communities who are plagued by significant anti-social behaviour from a small number of the country’s most badly behaved families will today be given a helping hand as the Government delivers on its promise to establish a network of 53 family intervention projects (FIPs) that will troubleshoot around 1,500 families across England a year.

Currently, problem families can disrupt the quality of life of whole communities and make the lives of residents around them miserable. They also put themselves at risk of losing their home, their children at risk of being taken into care if it’s in their best interest or having enforcement action such as anti-social behaviour orders taken against them.

Family intervention projects work hard with families to stop this happening by challenging and helping them to change their behaviour.

These families have and create multiple problems, and the way public services intervene currently is not always the most effective. For example the cost to the taxpayer can be between £250,000 and £350,000 per family per year* for a range of interventions by public services including social, children’s and housing services, policing, court services, criminal justice agencies and others.

http://www.respect.gov.uk/news/article.aspx?id=10318



protip: disrupting other peoples lives with your behavior and going through the criminal justice system makes you a criminal

[ridethelib]

regardless of whether or not these people are criminals having cameras installed in their homes for 24 hour cctv is ****ing ridiculous and only a step towards everyone having these cameras in their homes


also further raping the taxpayers with the burden of this cost is shitty

[Haliburton]

wtf how is it ridiculous are you aware of the nature of prison

[mistersnitch]

chad these people would not be sent to prison if it weren't for that program. they are problem families and the government is trying to fix them, sending them to prison wouldn't make sense and wouldn't happen. it's social engineering, not determent of crime.

[Haliburton]

ya they would they are habitual offenders they would and should be sent to prison to protect the immediate community from their continual criminal behavior

thats generally why people get sent to prison

the only reason it doesnt happen is because the government is dumb and does this stuff instead

[mistersnitch]

they would and should be sent to prison to protect the immediate community from their continual criminal behavior


that sounds pretty collectivist for a libertarian

and the specifics of what constitutes a "bad family" are too vague for this thing to not be horribly abused. they're planning to use it on 20,000 families, i really doubt all of them would(/should if you are crazy enough to even suggest that) be sent to prison.

[Haliburton]

how is that collectivist

the optimum solution is letting people have guns and they can protect themselves but thats not going to happen

and the specifics of what constitutes a "bad family" are too vague for this thing to not be horribly abused. they're planning to use it on 20,000 families, i really doubt all of them would(/should if you are crazy enough to even suggest that) be sent to prison.
they should be sent to prison if they are habitual criminals

idk where the problem in this is why would you let people commit crime

[mistersnitch]

how is that collectivist

saying that people should be sent to prison over even light offenses as long as it's good for the community is collectivist

i mean i thought you were all about individual rights but maybe you are just misanthropic.

they should be sent to prison if they are habitual criminals


but it's not clear that these families are habitual criminals... hence the potential for abuse

[Haliburton]

saying that people should be sent to prison over even light offenses as long as it's good for the community is collectivist
i never said that i said they should be stopped from committing crime against their immediate community which consists of individuals with rights that shouldnt be violated wtf that has nothing to do with collectivism

unless all groups of people are collectivist now, maybe i should be against tennis clubs

but it's not clear that these families are habitual criminals... hence the potential for abuse
yeah it is

[mistersnitch]

i never said that i said they should be stopped from committing crime against their immediate community which consists of individuals with rights that shouldnt be violated wtf that has nothing to do with collectivism

unless all groups of people are collectivist now, maybe i should be against tennis clubs

okay fair enough, i didn't understand. i agree with you on this one

yeah it is

no they're not, they're problem families. they wouldn't be sent to prison in any country that half-way respects people's rights, i don't know how you can even argue that.

[Haliburton]

no they're not, they're problem families. they wouldn't be sent to prison in any country that half-way respects people's rights, i don't know how you can even argue that.
yeah they would because they're violating other peoples rights by engaging in criminal behaviour

if rights are valued then they should be protected

by restricting the liberty of violators if necessary

[mistersnitch]

yeah they would because they're violating other peoples rights by engaging in criminal behaviour

if rights are valued then they should be protected

by restricting the liberty of violators if necessary

yeah that is the foundation of the legal system, restricting the rights of those who inexcusably violate those of others. but different levels of extremity are given different levels of punishment. what you're arguing is irrelevant. i just think these intervention programs are too extreme and pervasive to match the "crimes" to which they are the response. that's why parents aren't given 10-year prison sentences for spanking their kids.

[Haliburton]

no it doesnt matter what the crime is if they refuse to stop doing it they should be forcefully stopped and if that means prison then thats fine

[mistersnitch]

do you realize how many people would be constantly in prison in the kind of world you are envisioning

[Haliburton]

no i already told you we should let everyone have guns and enact some kind of castle laws

but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences anyway

[mistersnitch]

is there some reason that people on this forum keep incorrectly claiming use of that fallacy?

i don't want this to happen because i think the consequences will be bad, that has nothing to do with the truth of anything so shut up shut up shut up shut up

and your idea is unrealistic and unrelated to whether or not these intervention programs are okay. i refuse to talk about libertarianism.

[Haliburton]

no im saying people should go to jail for habitually committing even petty crimes

you're saying thats untrue because that will result in a lot of people in jail

which is 100% appeal to consequences

[mistersnitch]

you're confusing is with ought

"people should go to jail for habitually committing even petty crime" isn't true or false, because of the word "should," it is an opinion

appeal to consequences only applies if a statement refers to the objective truth of something as it stands, and never never never to "should" statements

saying that something should not be/happen due to the consequences is reasonable and 100% not appeal to consequences. the consequences should always be considered about something that one proposes "should" happen

seriously though let's talk about the actual topic of this thread

[Haliburton]

not if we already know that we both agree that rights should be protected

then its a logical conclusion and you're contradicting yourself by saying it shouldnt be done because of the consequences

and what about the original topic this is the original topic, these people are infringing on other peoples rights and the government is stopping them - wheres the problem?

[mistersnitch]

not if we already know that we both agree that rights should be protected

then its a logical conclusion and you're contradicting yourself by saying it shouldnt be done because of the consequences

and what about the original topic this is the original topic, these people are infringing on other peoples rights and the government is stopping them - wheres the problem?

still no. we both agree that people who violate the rights of others should have their own liberty curbed in order to prevent it. that doesn't mean we agree on exactly what that entails. it's not an appeal to consequences, at all. this post is a logical mess.

[ridethelib]

wtf how is it ridiculous are you aware of the nature of prison

**** off you know its ridiculous you just want to argue with me so you can pick out on minute detail and focus on it

[die of starvation]

i dont get why people oppose this kind of stuff
just don't commit crimes

[Haliburton]

still no. we both agree that people who violate the rights of others should have their own liberty curbed in order to prevent it. that doesn't mean we agree on exactly what that entails. it's not an appeal to consequences, at all. this post is a logical mess.
either it should be curbed or it shouldnt

what curbing entails is what is required to curb

if they dont stop without going to prison then they go to prison wtf this is simple

**** off you know its ridiculous you just want to argue with me so you can pick out on minute detail and focus on it
no i dont know its ridiculous are you sure this forum is for you cuz saying you know im right isnt really the way to make your point

[spirit]

i dont get why people oppose this kind of stuff
just don't commit crimes

This has nothing to do with crime. Right now, it's targeting "At Risk" families. For starters, that term is so vague that the potential for abuse is built in to the concept. Furthermore, if, like Haliburton, you believe that it's this or prison, and that the government is protecting the rights of the many by infringing on the rights of the few, then you presumably aren't recognising the enormous potential for misuse or, worse, escalation.

Extending Haliburton's logic, the government could reasonably argue that one solution to the prison overcrowding problem would be to extend this kind of scheme to some lighter offences, keeping people out of the prison system, but under lock, key, and watchful eye in their own home. Then, it could be extended to other criminals, until we reach a point where it gets rolled out country-wide as a "crime prevention" measure. Then, we will be living in Orwellian nightmare; a government who can watch our every move, have our identities on file, and can put us in "detention" without charge or explanation for up to 28 days.

[Haliburton]

you're straw-manning

the government should put people in prison if they habitually commit crimes

its not needs of the many, if they are committing crimes against a single other person it should still happen

if you're a criminal then being secured in your own home is preferable to prison i dont even see how you can argue otherwise

i dont like this scheme because its costing me money, and i might disagree with what the government calls a crime but thats a different discussion

[Aaron]

Prison is ineffective for recidivist offenders and house-arrest is costly. Kill them if they kept reoffending in violent manners.

[Haliburton]

what do you mean prison is ineffective its 100% effective

[Aaron]

Of course it is. People never offend again after being in prison.

[Haliburton]

if you let them out then and they re-offend then its letting them out thats not effective and not prison

[Aaron]

Sure, if you use retarded logic.

[Haliburton]

no, you're the one being retarded

if someone is in prison they cant re-offend

thus prison is 100% effective

[Aaron]

You can't commit crimes while in prison? Oh okay.

[Haliburton]

not the ones you were put in there to stop you doing dumdum stop being irrelevant

and no not really you cant

[Aaron]

So noones ever died in a prison from violence? Oh okay.

[Haliburton]

this has nothing to do with the topic, and you're not arguing your original point anymore so im guessing this is some dumb face saving maneuver that i will ignore

[Aaron]

This is me trolling you.

Goodnight.

[Haliburton]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5746/1231218360446.png

[karmapavementplan]

http://www.infowars.com/uk-government-to-install-surveillance-cameras-in-private-homes/


wow.

Shitty source and article has everyone going "wwwooooaaaah omfg! It's like George Orwell!". It's just some OTT sensationalist bullshit.

http://twitter.com/edballsmp/status/3124025586 - Lmao - in advance I know I'll get completely raped for citing this as a reference, but -"the idea we are planning to put CCTV in families' homes is complete and total nonsense" - Ed Balls.

[Raayl]

this has nothing to do with the topic, and you're not arguing your original point anymore so im guessing this is some dumb face saving maneuver that i will ignore

You're not arguing at all you're simply being contrary for the sake of it saying such stupid and inhuman things as "prison is 100% effective"

You ever been to prison, chad? I'm betting no. Ever even set foot inside a prison? I'm betting no. I know you'll say "you don't need to go there or see one to know it works" but yeah, chad - you kind of do. otherwise, you're just speculatively talking out your ***.

At risk families are not criminals they are potential criminals. Persecuting them for "risky" behavior that is not outright criminal is a violation of their civil rights and human rights. Western judicial justice does not fundamentally exist to prevent crime it exists to prosecute it and offer justice. What this bureaucracy has done does not reflect on the innate nature of the legal process but merely on the hysteria surrounding the issue propagated by general "contrarians" like you, chad.

EDIT: as for the legitimacy of the article, that doesn't really matter I think we all understand this is simply theoretical. That doesn't mean the discussion isn't necessary, however.

[Haliburton]

You're not arguing at all you're simply being contrary for the sake of it saying such stupid and inhuman things as "prison is 100% effective"

stop using words you only learnt yesterday

You ever been to prison, chad? I'm betting no. Ever even set foot inside a prison? I'm betting no. I know you'll say "you don't need to go there or see one to know it works" but yeah, chad - you kind of do. otherwise, you're just speculatively talking out your ***.

ever drunk bleach? how do you know its bad for you

why dont you try it


At risk families are not criminals they are potential criminals.

these families are criminals

the official government source i linked you to clearly states they are criminals

now stop making **** up

tia

[mistersnitch]

either it should be curbed or it shouldnt

what curbing entails is what is required to curb

if they dont stop without going to prison then they go to prison wtf this is simple


okay at least you have given up on the "appeal to consequences" nonsense.

there are various extremities of punishment you silly boy, and each level to some degree lessens the probability that the criminal will repeat the offense. you could fine them. you could make them do community service. you could put them in jail. **** you could just kill every single one of them, then they wouldn't do it again.

also there is the idea of actually helping them ("not with my tax money goddamnit!" - shhh in advance), which this plan attempts to do but in a very over-zealous and totalitarian manner.



Shitty source and article has everyone going "wwwooooaaaah omfg! It's like George Orwell!". It's just some OTT sensationalist bullshit.

k we have already linked to several more credible sources, including an official government source.

http://twitter.com/edballsmp/status/3124025586 - Lmao - in advance I know I'll get completely raped for citing this as a reference, but -"the idea we are planning to put CCTV in families' homes is complete and total nonsense" - Ed Balls.

no you won't, that's really interesting. that would mean the Daily Express article, which pretty much every website has been linking to as a source, was wrong.

but yeah i think it's worth discussing this even if it is just theoretical.



these families are criminals

the official government source i linked you to clearly states they are criminals



no it doesn't, actually. the part that you say proves they are all repeat-offending criminals is

"For example the cost to the taxpayer can be between £250,000 and £350,000 per family per year* for a range of interventions by public services including social, children’s and housing services, policing, court services, criminal justice agencies and others."

but that is so vague that you really don't have any grounds to say that with certainty

[Haliburton]

there are various extremities of punishment you silly boy, and each level to some degree lessens the probability that the criminal will repeat the offense. you could fine them. you could make them do community service. you could put them in jail. **** you could just kill every single one of them, then they wouldn't do it again.
no its not retribution you're just preventing then from committing the crime again and thats it

i wouldnt personally care if someone did shoot them during the course of a petty crime

which is why people should have guns

("not with my tax money goddamnit!" - shhh in advance)
so its wrong for criminals to steal money

but not wrong for the government to steal money to give to criminals

well that makes sense

including social, children’s and housing services, policing, court services, criminal justice agencies and others."

the only time any of these things get involved is when people violate the law wtf dont you know what they are

[mistersnitch]

no its not retribution you're just preventing then from committing the crime again and thats it

i wouldnt personally care if someone did shoot them during the course of a petty crime

which is why people should have guns

you can never be certain whether someone will commit a crime in the future. and you can never be sure they won't commit a crime once they get out of prison. so everyone who commits more than one crime of any kind should just be given a life-sentence? that would be a worthless piece of **** state that pulled that on it's citizens.


so its wrong for criminals to steal money

but not wrong for the government to steal money to give to criminals

well that makes sense

mhmm we're not talking about this. you are right okay? good you can be satisfied, but whether or not taxation is acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not, GIVEN THAT TAXATION ALREADY EXISTS, these intervention programs are acceptable.



the only time any of these things get involved is when people violate the law wtf dont you know what they are

okay so

you are saying that if services "including social, children’s and housing services, policing, court services, criminal justice agencies and others" get involved in the life of a family, then that family must be composed of career criminals? seeing as these are at-risk or problem families, that's really not a logical assumption. most likely the police, court services and criminal justice agencies are getting involved because the families are being obnoxious and problematic for their communities, not because they are actually committing serious crimes. should someone be given a long prison sentence if their neighbors continually call the cops over a noise violation?

[Haliburton]

you can never be certain whether someone will commit a crime in the future. and you can never be sure they won't commit a crime once they get out of prison. so everyone who commits more than one crime of any kind should just be given a life-sentence? that would be a worthless piece of **** state that pulled that on it's citizens.
people should be restricted indefinitely until they are no longer a danger to society there shouldnt be such a thing as a time defined sentence

people who wont do crime again (any crime) can just pay restitution


GIVEN THAT TAXATION ALREADY EXISTS, these intervention programs are acceptable.
no that doesnt follow

just because taxation exists that doesnt justify anything that tax funds are used for thats retarded, some things are obviously more worthwhile or justified than others

most likely the police, court services and criminal justice agencies are getting involved because the families are being obnoxious and problematic for their communities, not because they are actually committing serious crimes. should someone be given a long prison sentence if their neighbors continually call the cops over a noise violation?
so you admit they are habitual criminals, you just dont think the crimes they are committing are important

thats a whole different thing

and yes, if there is proof that they keep breaking a law, however petty, they should be stopped from doing it obviously or why is it against the law in the first place

[mistersnitch]

people should be restricted indefinitely until they are no longer a danger to society there shouldnt be such a thing as a time defined sentence

people who wont do crime again (any crime) can just pay restitution

that doesn't make sense. you can't know if someone will commit a crime again. that's why more humane and well-thought out measures than "put all criminals in jail until they won't commit a crime again" are put in place.



no that doesnt follow

just because taxation exists that doesnt justify anything that tax funds are used for thats retarded, some things are obviously more worthwhile or justified than others

alright then. when you said "so its wrong for criminals to steal money

but not wrong for the government to steal money to give to criminals

well that makes sense "
it sounded like you were going to pick apart the concept of taxation in itself, which is irrelevant.

so isn't that what we were talking about? whether or not these intervention programs are worthwhile and justified? you're the one who started hating on taxation.


so you admit they are habitual criminals, you just dont think the crimes they are committing are important

thats a whole different thing

sure, they (meaning one or more member of the family) are in many cases habitual criminals. i'll let you have that. just like someone who jaywalks two times, or drives over the speed limit two times is a habitual criminal. but these people and their immediate family shouldn't be placed in jail indefinitely just like they shouldn't be kept under 24-hour watch by the state.


and yes, if there is proof that they keep breaking a law, however petty, they should be stopped from doing it obviously or why is it against the law in the first place

i like how you keep euphemizing "placed in jail indefinitely" with "stopped from doing it." the deterrent should match the crime, that's pretty basic.

[Haliburton]

that doesn't make sense. you can't know if someone will commit a crime again. that's why more humane and well-thought out measures than "put all criminals in jail until they won't commit a crime again" are put in place.
humane for the criminal not for the victim

your sympathies are in the wrong place

so isn't that what we were talking about? whether or not these intervention programs are worthwhile and justified? you're the one who started hating on taxation.taxation is dumb but if they are going to steal my money they might as well spend it on stuff that benefits me and not making a criminals life more comfortable

i like how you keep euphemizing "placed in jail indefinitely" with "stopped from doing it." the deterrent should match the crime, that's pretty basic.if you can suggest something else that will stop them with 100% certainty im willing to hear it

[mistersnitch]

humane for the criminal not for the victim

your sympathies are in the wrong place

because every single human being is either 100% criminal or 100% victim and stays that way their entire life

yes i have sympathy for someone who is put in prison indefinitely or put under constant government surveillance just because they committed two petty crimes. because 1)anyone has the potential to become a criminal, any criminal has the potential to become a victim 2)some crimes are victimless or the victim is done less damage than in other crimes 3)i'm not a raging misanthropic asshole


taxation is dumb but if they are going to steal my money they might as well spend it on stuff that benefits me and not making a criminals life more comfortable

why would they spend your tax money on things that just benefit you. taxation is collectivist, even if you don't like it. and the money spent on "making a criminal's life more comfortable" theoretically serves to deter that criminal from being a criminal by raising them out of circumstances in which they are more likely to commit crimes.


if you can suggest something else that will stop them with 100% certainty im willing to hear it

there is no way to stop them with 100% certainty, other than 1)life imprisonment or 2)death. i already said this.

respond to this:
someone who jaywalks two times, or drives over the speed limit two times is a habitual criminal. but these people and their immediate family shouldn't be placed in jail indefinitely just like they shouldn't be kept under 24-hour watch by the state.

[Haliburton]

because every single human being is either 100% criminal or 100% victim and stays that way their entire life
well yeah its a binary thing you're either a criminal or you're not what

1)anyone has the potential to become a criminal, any criminal has the potential to become a victim
so? we dont do anything until they make that choice

theres no excuse for repeatedly committing crime, and there should be no sympathy for it


2)some crimes are victimless
completely different discussion

3)i'm not a raging misanthropic spatula
now you're just getting frustrated


why would they spend your tax money on things that just benefit you.

because its my money obviously and ostensibly a better reason to take taxes would be to take advantage of bulk buying or economies of scale (not that thats how it works really but at least they'd have better intentions than helping lowlifes)


there is no way to stop them with 100% certainty, other than 1)life imprisonment or 2)death. i already said this.
no they only have to go to prison until they wont do it again not for life


respond to this:
someone who jaywalks two times, or drives over the speed limit two times is a habitual criminal. but these people and their immediate family shouldn't be placed in jail indefinitely just like they shouldn't be kept under 24-hour watch by the state.
well yeah because their family arent criminals and those things are victimless crimes which i already addressed when i said i disagreed with what the government calls crimes sometimes

but these families arent partaking in victimless crimes they're harassing neighbours and stuff

[mistersnitch]

well yeah its a binary thing you're either a criminal or you're not what

wtf is this, everyone's a criminal. everyone has done something illegal in their lives.


theres no excuse for repeatedly committing crime, and there should be no sympathy for it

a starving street kid steals a bag of chips

twice

throw that ****er in jail until he won't commit any more crimes (whatever that even means), right? even if your in-jail psychics say it'll be another 30 years


completely different discussion

no because victimless crimes are being punished in reality and so are applicable to your ideal of crime deterrence.

it seems like you are arguing for your own specific utopia rather than realistically for or against this specific topic.


now you're just getting frustrated

yes because your political beliefs seem to center around the fact that you don't have sympathy for people, which is not a very good basis for a political ideology.


because its my money obviously and ostensibly a better reason to take taxes would be to take advantage of bulk buying or economies of scale (not that thats how it works really but at least they'd have better intentions than helping lowlifes)

okay


no they only have to go to prison until they wont do it again not for life

tell me how you can determine that and how it isn't subject to abuse through human error rather than objective laws determining length/severity of punishment/deterrence based on the extremity of the crime committed.


well yeah because their family arent criminals and those things are victimless crimes which i already addressed when i said i disagreed with what the government calls crimes sometimes

but these families arent partaking in victimless crimes they're harassing neighbours and stuff

what? you have no grounds to say that. that respect website doesn't say specifically what crimes are being committed... which is why the potential for abuse is so great.

[Haliburton]

wtf is this, everyone's a criminal. everyone has done something illegal in their lives.



a starving street kid steals a bag of chips

twice

throw that ****er in jail until he won't commit any more crimes (whatever that even means), right? even if your in-jail psychics say it'll be another 30 years
well yeah hes retarded if he didnt go to the homeless shelter or any other charity what



no because victimless crimes are being punished in reality and so are applicable to your ideal of crime deterrence.
no its irrelevant to the methods the government should use to prevent crime

what stuff is a crime is completely unrelated



yes because your political beliefs seem to center around the fact that you don't have sympathy for people, which is not a very good basis for a political ideology.
says you



tell me how you can determine that and how it isn't subject to abuse through human error rather than objective laws determining length/severity of punishment/deterrence based on the extremity of the crime committed.


how do you think they determine parole now? magic perhaps


what? you have no grounds to say that. that respect website doesn't say specifically what crimes are being committed... which is why the potential for abuse is so great.

yeah i do it clearly says anti social behaviour

what victimless crimes do you think they are partaking in with kids around

[mistersnitch]

i'm pretty sure this is not going to happen:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/content.cfm?landing=family_intervention_projects&type=1

well yeah hes retarded if he didnt go to the homeless shelter or any other charity what

okay this really helps support your point


no its irrelevant to the methods the government should use to prevent crime

what stuff is a crime is completely unrelated


yeah but the methods the government should use to prevent crime should depend on the extremity of specific types of crime.


says you

very insightful


how do you think they determine parole now? magic perhaps

so you are proposing that every single person who commits more than one crime, no matter how petty, should be placed in jail indefinitely until a person or group of people come to a conclusion that they should be released from jail?

that is so amazingly inefficient and pointless


yeah i do it clearly says anti social behaviour

what victimless crimes do you think they are partaking in with kids around

okay i looked into it more and i think you're right that these families should be subject to some kind of punishment/deterrence for anti-social behavior. i still disagree that imprisonment or 24-hour government surveillance are appropriate responses. imprisonment doesn't make sense because it would just make the families even worse and 24-hour surveillance is a violation of privacy with too much potential for abuse.

[Haliburton]

yeah but the methods the government should use to prevent crime should depend on the extremity of specific types of crime.
no i believe people should pay the correct amount of restitution to the victim, thats where the variable comes in but if its necessary then they should go to jail for any crime that they refuse to stop committing

very insightful
well you saying it to me doesnt mean anything

so you are proposing that every single person who commits more than one crime, no matter how petty, should be placed in jail indefinitely until a person or group of people come to a conclusion that they should be released from jail?
no im proposing that people we know are going to continue to commit crime be put in jail as the logical conclusion of the government being the rights protector

that is so amazingly inefficient and pointless
yes government is like that

i already told you they should just let people defend themselves

but they dont because government is also like that

[mistersnitch]

no i believe people should pay the correct amount of restitution to the victim, thats where the variable comes in but if its necessary then they should go to jail for any crime that they refuse to stop committing

...or they could go to jail for a certain amount of time based on how much damage they caused the victim, which is how it actually works and actually makes sense


well you saying it to me doesnt mean anything


it means exactly what i said.


no im proposing that people we know are going to continue to commit crime be put in jail as the logical conclusion of the government being the rights protector

and how do you know they're going to continue to commit crimes? they're not exactly going to tell you


yes government is like that

i already told you they should just let people defend themselves

but they dont because government is also like that

well yeah i would prefer that the people in these communities stopped being pussies and actually confronted the problem families themselves, but they are already so reliant on the government to solve their petty problems that they probably won't. and government may be like that, that's a given, but there are more efficient ways to structure the system of crime and punishment than what you are proposing.

[Haliburton]

...or they could go to jail for a certain amount of time based on how much damage they caused the victim, which is how it actually works and actually makes sense
no, retributive justice makes the least sense, it doesnt help anyone, it just satisfies some dumb desire to make the criminal feel pain - paying the victim helps repair the damage they've caused

it means exactly what i said.
which is meaningless because defining points of view as not widely accepted by society doesnt invalidate them in the slightest

and how do you know they're going to continue to commit crimes? they're not exactly going to tell you
we know quite a bit about human behavior, we have the entire area of study that is criminal psychology - these people are already involved in the parole process


but there are more efficient ways to structure the system of crime and punishment than what you are proposing.what i proposed was that the government let individuals defend their own rights, what do you think is more efficient than that

[mistersnitch]

no, retributive justice makes the least sense, it doesnt help anyone, it just satisfies some dumb desire to make the criminal feel pain - paying the victim helps repair the damage they've caused

only if you think there is inherent worth in money, which there isn't any more than in retribution. a noise violation can't be made up for by the perpetrator paying his neighbor. that doesn't make sense. i don't even know what we're talking about now.


which is meaningless because defining points of view as not widely accepted by society doesnt invalidate them in the slightest

cool good thing i never said anything about it being accepted by society.


we know quite a bit about human behavior, we have the entire area of study that is criminal psychology - these people are already involved in the parole process

so "so you are proposing that every single person who commits more than one crime, no matter how petty, should be placed in jail indefinitely until a person or group of people come to a conclusion that they should be released from jail?"


what i proposed was that the government let individuals defend their own rights, what do you think is more efficient than that

you are proposing that the government let individuals defend their own rights, but you are also somehow proposing that the government arrest people indefinitely for repeatedly committing petty crimes. the system already in place is less efficient than the former, but more efficient than the latter.

[wartomods]

well yeah hes retarded if he didnt go to the homeless shelter or any other charity what





I have to disagree, my dear chad, you clearly dont know what life is on the streets.

[Haliburton]

only if you think there is inherent worth in money, which there isn't any more than in retribution. a noise violation can't be made up for by the perpetrator paying his neighbor. that doesn't make sense. i don't even know what we're talking about now.
time is money, time lost is worth money

cool good thing i never said anything about it being accepted by society.
so why is having sympathy for people a prerequisite for forming a good political opinion


so "so you are proposing that every single person who commits more than one crime, no matter how petty, should be placed in jail indefinitely until a person or group of people come to a conclusion that they should be released from jail?"
no im proposing that people we know are going to continue to commit crime be put in jail as the logical conclusion of the government being the rights protector

if they arent going to commit crime again despite having already committed multiple crimes then theres no need to put them in jail


you are proposing that the government let individuals defend their own rights, but you are also somehow proposing that the government arrest people indefinitely for repeatedly committing petty crimes. the system already in place is less efficient than the former, but more efficient than the latter.
no im proposing the first one im saying the second one is the logical destination of saying the government should protect peoples rights

[Haliburton]

I have to disagree, my dear chad, you clearly dont know what life is on the streets.
clearly you do

getting good signal on your hobo laptop?

[TerranYouApart]

**** tha government!

[mistersnitch]

time is money, time lost is worth money

uh
um


so why is having sympathy for people a prerequisite for forming a good political opinion

it depends what you value. i mean if you don't give a **** about people then you don't give a **** about people, i can't really argue against it. if you value compassion then more than likely you are not going to propose inhumane measures uknowwutimean?


no im proposing that people we know are going to continue to commit crime be put in jail as the logical conclusion of the government being the rights protector

if they arent going to commit crime again despite having already committed multiple crimes then theres no need to put them in jail

and how do you know they won't continue to commit crimes?
because there are people who know enough about criminal psychology to tell.
so you are proposing that these people decide whether or not the criminal will continue to commit crimes.
no, you are proposing that they be placed in jail if they are going to continue to commit crimes

,


!!!


no im proposing the first one im saying the second one is the logical destination of saying the government should protect peoples rights

no it isn't, crime-fits-the-punishment/deterrent is the logical destination.

[Pastorius]

this will never go through

or has it gone through already with me wallowing in apathy

[die of starvation]

This has nothing to do with crime. Right now, it's targeting "At Risk" families. For starters, that term is so vague that the potential for abuse is built in to the concept. Furthermore, if, like Haliburton, you believe that it's this or prison, and that the government is protecting the rights of the many by infringing on the rights of the few, then you presumably aren't recognising the enormous potential for misuse or, worse, escalation.

Extending Haliburton's logic, the government could reasonably argue that one solution to the prison overcrowding problem would be to extend this kind of scheme to some lighter offences, keeping people out of the prison system, but under lock, key, and watchful eye in their own home. Then, it could be extended to other criminals, until we reach a point where it gets rolled out country-wide as a "crime prevention" measure. Then, we will be living in Orwellian nightmare; a government who can watch our every move, have our identities on file, and can put us in "detention" without charge or explanation for up to 28 days.
in that case
just don't commit crimes

[Dave de Sylvia]

If anybody read the Respect link that was posted (I'm guessing no), you'd notice there is no mention of CCTV. The Family Intervention Scheme is often voluntary, but even when it's not it's leveraged against the alternative: that the family will be evicted, sued or the children imprisoned. I'm guessing most parents, even the mentally ill, would rather have help restructuring their lives at home rather than in a gutter.

It's funny how willing people were to believe the infallible Daily Express though.

[Jonny]

OMGWTF OURFREEDOM!!!1984!!!11

Yeah, no.

Say some guy gets home from work every day and mercilessly beats his wife and small child, and they're too afraid to say anything. He can get away with that for a long, long time. Say he is now under surveillance- he has two options. Stop doing it or get caught in the act and punished like he deserves. These are the types of people we are talking about.

And it's not a stepping stone to putting cameras in all our homes.

[Metal_head]

It sounds like another Clockwork Orange, them Brits seem to be taking things extremly serious.

[Gattsu347]

****in pwned

[Pastorius]

OMGWTF OURFREEDOM!!!1984!!!11

Yeah, no.

Say some guy gets home from work every day and mercilessly beats his wife and small child, and they're too afraid to say anything. He can get away with that for a long, long time. Say he is now under surveillance- he has two options. Stop doing it or get caught in the act and punished like he deserves. These are the types of people we are talking about.

And it's not a stepping stone to putting cameras in all our homes.

bUt 1 dAY we wILL alL b3 ofF3nDerZ

[Futue te Ipsum]

there's always an evolution in threads on this forum. One that could be hastened if people were naturally sceptical of all great claims to start off with.

[pooble]

i occasionally visit these forums, but whenever i do, i usually come back to read about depressing things like people justifying the placement of cameras in homes or the eradication of jews and this makes me so depressed that i just leave the site for another few months.

ugh. i think miik had the right idea on the first page.

[Dave de Sylvia]

See ya in a few months then.

[Pastorius]

i occasionally visit these forums, but whenever i do, i usually come back to read about depressing things like people justifying the placement of cameras in homes or the eradication of jews and this makes me so depressed that i just leave the site for another few months.

ugh. i think miik had the right idea on the first page.

i like how cameras in violent spousal/child abuser's homes depresses you, but people beating their family apparently doesn't

[Tripp_chaos]

Then what about the children not being raised properly/or enforced or was that just another rumor spread by the multi-media, I mean that would suck if your home for holiday and your younger siblings a bad kid because they don't go to bed on time whether there 5 or 15 and you have to deal with a surveillanced holiday... I vaguely would combine this with American version of a social worker basically living with said disturbed family... As for them doing this I agree with whichever one of you brought up the notion as to say this was for extremely messed up homes at first but then if that get's a full pass what's saying they don't want to change the rules just a little each time... I'm not trying to say this is another big-brother scheme or any Orwell crap, but hell once a law like that is there it's harder to get rid of it then to add on to it... I brought this up to my more educated (american) friends and they had no idea about it so it shows how much people really know, they basically came to same conclusion of the addition of stricter laws to basically either make it vague to have an upper hand or make it in such detail that if anything you do remotely resembles anything written in such law happens then your next....

[Pastorius]

i don't think it was proposed that you be put under surveillance for your child being a brat

and regarding the wedge strategy, i don't think it really applies, seeing as a) it would cost way too much if they started putting it in loads of homes and b) that's retarded

the government is not out to get you, it's out to keep itself in power

[Tripp_chaos]

Obviously I'm just stating hypothetically what if the majority of the people lose fate in their governments power due to acts of such nature?

[Pastorius]

lose faith?

Then the government removes the cameras because they want to stay in power, and when people don't have faith in the government they vote someone else in.

I still don't see what's wrong with monitoring violent offenders who get away with it because they are violent in private and subdue their victims into silence

[Tripp_chaos]

I'm not against the idea entirely I still just have to keep my conspiracy side otherwise I'd be too laid back and then who knows what could happen... Again though whats their definition of violent? Spanking when it is due... Like beating is different but some people are like to spank your kid when necessary without overdoing it is ok for enforcement but others are like that's horrible to strike the bottom of a child you should be put in jail for it...

[Pastorius]

Yeah spanking would not earn you a camera in your home. My definition of violent is anything that constitutes assault. And spanking, what are you on about? It's not like they would put cameras in EVERY home then if someone is violent arrest them.

I like to keep my conspiracy side too but after you're 14 you realise that the government isn't out to get you, there is no system to keep our eyes closed, and there is no-one at the top directing the world

[Tripp_chaos]

Or so you think Dun dun dun... I realize this but it's to the extent of the person passing the laws views granted it has to go by more than one person but if you can convince thousands of people jews are bad? jus' saying... as for that I really have no more on the subject except to see how it turns out for you brits...

[fafafafa]

pretty sure spanking is assault

[Pastorius]

here we ****ing go

captain pedantic rears his ugly head

[fafafafa]

im sure you can tell the police that when they're charging you for doing it to the woman in line at the bank

[fafafafa]

also that was retarded dont use words that you dont understand

if you say grass is purple and i say wait no its the **** not im not being pedantic im correcting you quite normally

[Pastorius]

ok i'll tell them before they charge her for wasting police time

a slap on the arse is a compliment for a lady

but fine, spanking is assault, you win. but should you equate spanking to punching your spouse in the face and therefore install a camera? no, and that's what i was talking about

[Tripp_chaos]

Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at...

[fingers mccoy]

ok i'll tell them before they charge her for wasting police time

a slap on the arse is a compliment for a lady

but fine, spanking is assault, you win. but should you equate spanking to punching your spouse in the face and therefore install a camera? no, and that's what i was talking about

what the ****

[fafafafa]

the severity of the crime is irrelevant, it shouldnt be a crime if we're not willing to stop it from happening

i mean we might not punish it the same but the cameras arent retributive

[Pastorius]

but tripp, what i was getting at is no-one is suggesting that people be put under surveillance for spanking, people are suggesting for serious abuse cases where for some reason they abused does not want to leave the house (children involved, 'love' etc), a monitoring system is put in place

ok i agreed with you, if a house is put under surveillance and there happens to be some spanking going on, by all means send in social services to check up on the situation

[Tripp_chaos]

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just stating that some people see it like that, as to put it out there as another thought to look at...

[fafafafa]

i think people should be put under surveillance for spanking

why should they be allowed to do it what

[Pastorius]

but not being put under surveillance doesn't mean being allowed to do it

you'll still get punished if you do it and get caught

[fafafafa]

well the alternative is to take their kids so if they opt to go for the cameras then who cares

[Tripp_chaos]

well if they take there kids and solve the problem then why go for the cameras?

[Pastorius]

or educate them so they don't spank their kid again, teach them to sort the problem out before it comes to spanking. some good old hunger therapy should do it, "do what i say or you don't get dinner"

most likely the kid won't do whatever stupid thing he did after being spanked anyway, kids are animals and will learn through pain

they will

[fafafafa]

well if they take there kids and solve the problem then why go for the cameras?

because monitoring is less damaging than splitting up the family and the government shouldnt be paying for random kids to live

[Tripp_chaos]

But monitoring them is probably going to wind up with the same result...

[fafafafa]

how do you work that out

[Tripp_chaos]

They hit their kid the kid gets taken away, They monitor the family they hit their kid they get taken away...

[fafafafa]

theres more of a disincentive if they know they'll 100% get caught doing it

any chance of keeping the family together using that is better than the zero chance of splitting it up without trying