No doubt Labour will try and spin this as the Cons 'harming children' and try to make us forget they've already lost every family's details.
Hopefully one day we'll not need campaigns like http://no2id.net at all...
The Tory Party will scrap the government's controversial ContactPoint child database if elected. The database, with entries for every child in England and Wales, has been repeatedly delayed and attacked by data protection groups. It was originally due to go live in April of this year, then October. It is now meant to be ready …
1. Anything that the Tories say I have a natural instinct to believe is an utter lie, and something they will forget about if they do get into power.
2. It's the same as the other knee-jerk stuff the Tories constantly spout, while they are in the right place with this, they've said too many things that come across as naive and rushed for me to think that this is any different. It's designed to appease a certain section of society, honestly don't think they care that much about it though.
Until the next time a terrible event happens and the media cry out "Why didn't the authorities have access to information that could have protected this child?"
The media/government change their minds based on popular consensus, but that soon changes when the shit hits the fan....
Typical political bollocks.
Part of this was database was supposed to pass GCSE and similar results from schools to Further Education colleges. Later it would have passed A Level results and similar to the Universities. They haven't even managed to implement this non-controversial feature even though all the information is already in electronic format. Meanwhile we have to re-enter this data via OMR forms filled in by the students and checked by the teachers. What a waste of effort all over the country. <teacher-mode>By the way it's kids' not kids database! </teacher-mode>
When Michael Gove says "the govt" is bad at keeping data secure, he shold bear in mind two things:
a) its not the Govt , its salaried Civil Service staffers that lose stuff
b) if his lot win the next Election, they'll have exactly the same Civil Service.
Its the hopeless ignorance of technology in Whitehall that dooms these projects, ably assisted of course by even more clueless MPs. When some political party puts teaching themselves and their staff on the agenda, or listens to its expert panels instead of overriding them for political expediency reasons, then we'll see progress.
Till then it'll be more soundbites like this 'announcement' - and whats the betting that the scheme gets quietly revived later?
Reading the Wikipedia page on diagnosing Psychopathic complaints it seems to me that politicians are highly likely to suffer from it. So if anything they should be the ones whose children are on the database, and they should be the ones stored on ANPR databases.
The following findings are for research purposes only, and are not used in clinical diagnosis. These items cover the affective, interpersonal, and behavioral features. Each item is rated on a score from zero to two. The sum total determines the extent of a person's psychopathy.
Factor1: Aggressive narcissism
1. Glibness / superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning / manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Callous / lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
9. Promiscuous sexual behavior
Factor2: Socially deviant lifestyle
1. Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom
2. Parasitic lifestyle
3. Poor behavioral control
4. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
7. Juvenile delinquency
8. Early behavior problems
9. Revocation of conditional release
Look at it this way, you have one party (Tory) who are promising to scrap the children's database, scrap ID cards and scrap some other insane and unpopular government plans. Now maybe they can't be trusted to keep their word, we can't say either way - they've not been in power for ten years and a lot has changed in that time.
On the other hand you have a party in power (Labour) who are determined to go ahead with those policies and despite successive changes in the Cabinet and in party leadership they haven't changed their minds. They have a track record of lies and certainly can't be trusted.
Which is the lesser of two evils?
You might suggest that there is a third alternative (Lib Dems) who have likewise promised to scrap these schemes, but then the chances of them winning the next election are unfortunately slim to none. Voting for them in certain constituencies risks handing power back to Labour for another term.
What's more important at the end of the day? Long held party allegiances and hatred of the opposition for policies enacted 10, 20, 200 years ago, or freedom for us and our children?
At worst the tories only need to be in power for five years following the next election, after that we can vote in whoever we want (Lib Dem, Labour, Greens etc). The tories can't screw up things any worse than Labour has managed.
You're kidding, right?
Aggressive narcissism, grandiose sense of self-worth, Pathological lying, Cunning / manipulative, Lack of remorse or guilt, Callous / lack of empathy, Socially deviant lifestyle, Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom, Poor behavioral control (good procedural control), are all prerequisits for the ideal BOfH!
Hell, I fulfil all the above conditions >:-)
Quote: "shield" certain vulnerable children - like those of Members of Parliament.
Why is they always want all of US to be on thier database's but they are all exempt themselves ??
ID Card's, again they are exempt...
Remember uk.gov - nothing to hide, nothing to fear !
ahhhhhhhh THATS why they faught long and hard to avoid the Freedom of Information Act.
The only Checkpoint we need is keeping tabs on "those Members of Parliament".
And this is why we keep getting NuLab put in power.
So you don't trust either? Churn.
Sack this lot and get the Tories in.
Tories suck so sack them and get Nu Lab in.
They suck, so sack them and get the Tories in.
Even if you keep ping-ponging them, they will be unable to get ANYTHING done. People in positions of power will get no acknowledgement of that power. Rich figures will not court their attention and they'll not be able to pass legislation for their mates in time.
And without power, those who are politicians for the power will leave and we'll get people who want to help left.
Or nobody, which is just as good.
So, rather than go "Ooooh! Tories!!! SCARY!!!!" and ensure the complete fuckwits we have here now continue to shit over everyone without the cash to be important, vote them out.
And keep voting the incumbents out until they get the message.
THEY work for US.
> the chances of them winning the next election are unfortunately slim to none. Voting for them in certain constituencies risks handing power back to Labour for another term.
And as long as people keep saying (and believing) this, there isn't going to be the chance of any change!
Unfortunately too many people vote for Party X because "my parents voted for them and so did my grandparents" or they don't look further than their wallets and purses and so we're left with a two party state that operates on the principle of Buggins' Turn and neither of those parties have any inclination to change the system that keeps them in power.
An AC up there said this too. It isn't really NuLab. When the Tories or LibDems get in I'd bet a shilling that the Database Society will be iced for a bit 'cause of campaign promises, and then hauled out again to protect us from the next panic, like a pandemic disease or pirate TV broadcasting or whatever. The Sir Humphreys will look after the files until the idea is required for a new airing: they want it for non-loophole governmental control, the politicians seldom give a hoot for it.
Who drives the black helos? Civil Servants, not Elected Representatives.
Yesterday, Osborn promised to freeze council tax for two years.
In every "participating authority".
Great promise that. All he has to do is make the terms of "participation" so unpalatable and onerous for councils that none of them take up his "offer" and then he can
a) not worry about funding his promise or about the consequences of not being ablbe to fund it
b) blame the "uncooperative local councils" for any rises.
Win-win, there. I wonder if this is a similar class of promise, with some kind of weasel-codicil.