UK Government To Install Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes

[Sol Invictus]

State to spy on parents, make sure kids go to bed on time, attend school



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 3, 2009

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.

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”.

Both parents and children will also be forced to sign a “behavior contract” with the government known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, in which the state will dictate obligations that it expects to be met.

The opposition Conservative Party, who are clear favorites to win the next British election, commented that the program does not go far enough and is “too little, too late.”

Respondents to a Daily Express article about the new program expressed their shock at the totalitarian implications of what is unfolding in the United Kingdom under the guise of social services initiatives.

“Sorry, but what the hell? Why are people not up in arms about this?,” writes one, “This is a complete invasion of privacy, and it totally ignores the fact that the state does NOT own kids. It’s not up to them how parents choose to raise their children, as long as the parents do not actively harm them. Why on earth aren’t the public rioting? It’s completely anathema to basic British freedoms.”

“Excuse me!?! What an incredible intrusion into the privacy of a family! George Orwell must be spinning in his grave right now,” writes another.

“I have one comment to make: it completely violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998). Has this minister and his lackies even done any basic homework on basic human rights and civil liberties? Or rather they’ve just decided to completely ignore them,” adds another.

The move to install surveillance cameras inside private homes is also on the agenda across the pond. In February 2006, Houston Chief of Police Harold Hurtt said cameras should be placed inside apartments and homes in order to “fight crime” due to there being a shortage of police officers.

“I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?” Chief Hurtt told reporters.

Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association supported the proposal, saying privacy concerns would take a back seat to many people who would, “appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them.”

If such programs come to fruition and are implemented on a mass scale then the full scope of George Orwell’s depiction of a totalitarian society is his classic novel 1984 will have been realized.

The following passage is from Orwell’s 1984;

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

[Skandi]

Okay I have just read all the official literature I could find on the subject (non tabloid!) And I can't find a mention of the cameras anywhere. What I did find was this

3. Agree key aspects of project

Delivery model

There are three distinct models for delivering FIPs and a key decision is the model, or combination of models, that will be appropriate locally. The exact mix of provision will be determined by the level and intensity of local need. However, given the increased levels of success in residential accommodation all FIPs will need a residential element of some kind. The three models are:

OUTREACH: low/medium outreach support services to families in their own home. This support service would be offered to families in their current accommodation. It is appropriate where the family are responsible for persistent anti-social behavior. Often levels of anti-social behaviour will be increasing despite engagement with services and consequently members of the family are subject to or at risk of enforcement measures. It is likely that the family home will be at risk as a result of anti-social behaviour. A family in receipt of an outreach service would be visited by FIP staff within their own home a minimum of*three times a week. It will be possible to offer outreach services in all locations.

DISPERSED UNIT: medium/high outreach support services and a non–secure tenancy in a managed unit of accommodation in the community. This support and accommodation service would be offered on the same criteria as outreach but where the families’ behaviour is so serious that to remain in their present accommodation would place an unacceptable burden on the local community. They are likely to have had numerous previous tenancies across sectors and may not currently have permanent accommodation or accommodation suitable for children. The type of tenancy agreement in the dispersed unit would be dependent on the landlord organisation but during the period of project intervention would be non-secure in nature. If the family engage with support and change their unacceptable behaviour they would be offered the option to accept the tenancy on a more secure basis.

A family in receipt of this service would typically be visited by FIP staff in their managed unit of accommodation at least daily. Visits should be flexible and cover key points in the day such as getting up, mealtimes and bedtimes. They are likely to need to be significantly more frequent early on in families’ engagement.

In developing a dispersed service consideration should be given to the availability of accommodation from a range of registered social landlords, whether properties are available as required and the proximity of properties to key local facilities such as schools.

CORE UNIT: high level support and supervised accommodation within a residential core unit where families live alongside project staff on site. The key distinction between families best accommodated in core versus dispersed accommodation is the complexity of their needs. In both cases serious anti-social behaviour makes continuation in current accommodation intolerable. However, families who require core accommodation are likely to face serious family dysfunction, homelessness, child protection issues, mental health, substance abuse and chaotic lifestyles. To address their behaviour will require the highest levels of support and supervision on a twenty four hour basis. The family would receive a non secure tenancy. If they engage and agreed outcomes are met they would be offered dispersed accommodation.

A family in receipt of this service would receive twenty-four hour support from FIP staff. Structured individual, family, and group sessions would typically take place up to seven times per week, complemented by daily unstructured observation sessions at key times of the day such as getting up, mealtimes and bedtimes.

FIPs have found that it is most effective to work with small clusters of challenging and anti-social families. Provision varies around the country but typically that has meant that core units have the capacity to house no less than 2 and no more than 6 families with 3-4 being optimum. In identifying a suitable property consideration should also be given to the size of family units within the core unit, links to local amenities including schools and health centres and its relationship to other properties in the area

I wish them all well on this endeavour, the articles make interesting reading and I think it is a step in the right direction.