Pass the sick bag someone, I had the great misfortune to watch Ed Balls (Children's Secretary - whatever that really means?) and Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, on TV last night trying to squirm their way out of the avalanche of criticism being heaped upon Nanny's head over her "Won't Someone Think of The Children?" database.
Balls now states that it is "tremendously important" to ensure the "right balance" has been struck and was relevant to "real life".
Sick bag again please!
When did this lousy government, and its brain dead apparatchiks, ever bother applying "real life" to their rules and diktats?
Balls droned on about what constitutes the difference between infrequent and frequent contact with children, as per Nanny's rule that frequent contact requires registration on her database.
Seemingly, in the eyes of Balls, 3 times a month would require registration.
That would of course mean, for instance, that shopkeepers who serve kids would have to register...wouldn't it?
This scheme is unworkable.
Aside from all the other points raised earlier on this site as to why it is wrong, can you seriously imagine that this government is capable of designing and building a database that can hold the details of 11 million people without there being some major cock up?
What government IT scheme has ever come in on time, on budget or on specification?
Take a look at HMRC or the NHS for "fine" examples of Nanny's failure in IT.
Anyhoo, dear old Ed (scared shitless by the public outcry, as I noted yesterday) has said he will review this lousy scheme.
Unfortunately he has passed the responsibility for the review to Sir Roger "The Dodger" Singleton (who has set the thing up). "The Dodger", who doesn't exactly exude charisma, bleated helplessly that this legislation was passed by parliament three years ago and that it was our "beloved" MPs who put this scheme together.
One might ask where were the Tories and Liberals then, and why didn't they kick up a fuss?
BTW folks, I warned about this in May 2008.
One might also ask why is it that our MPs are incapable of passing legislation that isn't full of holes?
As noted yesterday, Nanny is wounded. However, she is not yet ready to surrender, this needs to be taken to its final stage; to this end I suggest that you bombard your MPs, Balls and the media with your views as to why it is wrong.
It will be the only way to kill off this dangerous idea.
Here's Ed's addy ed@edballs.com, and here's his orifice dcsf.ministers@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Sadly politics in this country has become dictated by image and presentation. The political parties react to news and then hurry through legislation to cure an ill.....Even if it is a single ill that has only happened once, fix it they must and buggar anyone that may have to suffer or loose their privacy due to unforeseen consequenses of the new policy.
ReplyDeleteThe basic defence of any new policy is as follows; If you oppose the legislation, you must be supporting the ill it is designed to prevent. For example, if you oppose the safeguarding database then, under Nanny's logic, you must support harming children.....They always resort to emotional blackmail.
Rushed through, knee jerk legislation seldom makes good law and only benefits lawyers....Mind you, with so many lawyers in parliament, perhaps their looking after their futures for once the British public grow a spine again and kick these wasters out.
I hope EDucation BALLSup has been veted like a good little drone and he appears to spend a lot of time in schools and the company of children, recently teaching them to snot their sleeves....Idiot!!
This panicky rubbish is a craven surrender to the Murdoch media empire headed by the (now ex-)husband bashing Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), who as editor of the 'Sun' achieved such triumphs as inciting a mob to drive a paediatrician from her home under the delusion that the word meant 'paedophile'.
ReplyDeleteRoger Singleton was chief executive of Barnardos for a couple of decades, and now describes himself as an "accredited mediator" (whatever that is). Ed Balls, as we know only too well, is just a load of bollocks - the ideal bag-carrier for Gordon Brown.
In other words, these idiots underestimated the outcry there would be and has been over these pernicious proposals, and are trying to wriggle out of the mess they themselves have created.
ReplyDeleteTonk said: "I hope EDucation BALLSup has been veted like a good little drone and he appears to spend a lot of time in schools and the company of children, recently teaching them to snot their sleeves....Idiot!!"
Quite agree, and since he is chairman of that venerable body the Independent Safeguarding Authority, I see no reason why Sir Roger should not be vetted too: in fact, should not he and his political master (Ed Balls) be the first to volunteer?
anticant said... "This panicky rubbish is a craven surrender to the Murdoch media empire headed by the (now ex-)husband bashing Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), who as editor of the 'Sun' achieved such triumphs as inciting a mob to drive a paediatrician from her home under the delusion that the word meant 'paedophile'.
Roger Singleton was chief executive of Barnardos for a couple of decades, and now describes himself as an "accredited mediator" (whatever that is). Ed Balls, as we know only too well, is just a load of bollocks - the ideal bag-carrier for Gordon Brown."
Just the kind of people you'd trust running things in a crisis!
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Harriet Harperson hasn't had some input with this scheme too!
And if they are allowed to get away with this attack on civil liberties, what is the betting that in time, ALL adults who use sports centres and other facilities also used by children, will be required to register with this database or face a huge fine, if not imprisonment. It couldn't happen? I hope I AM being pessimistic, I really do, but I fear for the future.
ReplyDeleteOne thing they have not raised in their proposals is sleep-overs. A certain Mr Jackson used to have children stay with him at his ranch.
ReplyDeletePeople making speech visits to schools are going to be vetted, does this apply to politicians?
Surely the more obvious solution is simply to remove children from public places.
ReplyDeleteIf we institutionalise children from (planned) birth many of society's ills (alleged) could be solved very quickly.
Then, as young adults, the saved infants could be released into the wild fully developed in body and mind completely ready to do Nanny's bidding ... er, OK there is a small flaw there but it may be a price worth paying if it gets the nasty little ankle biters out of the way for most of the rest of my time here on the planet.
Tough on child abuse, tough on the causes of child abuse ... which, clearly, has to be the existence of children. No children, no child abuse.
Why is that so difficult?
Surely the logical next step is the prohibition of parenthood to all except those approved by the government (i.e. Ed Balls and Harriet Harman clones). Compulsory sterilisation of all the rest of the population would achieve the double whammy of fewer potential abusees and a sorely needed curb on world population growth.
ReplyDelete