1984 Becomes Reality In The Uk

[rvalkass 5]

Article: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Just... wow. I'm not quite sure what to really say about it, apart from "What's the quickest way to leave the country?". If anyone has read the novel (although I'm starting to think it's more non-fiction) 1984 by George Orwell, you'll notice startling identical features. Many government initiatives around the world are said to be Orwellian, or like 1984 but I don't think anything has been this obvious or close so far. Video monitoring in private homes? 'Private security guards' checking up on families? The state controlling daily activities and even your meals?

 

Opinions?

[Mordent 0]

To be honest, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me. The population of the UK is already one of the most monitored in the world, so it wouldn't be too long before this next step was taken. In all honesty, though, I don't really see it as a problem. Provided the monitoring stays with those families who are deemed to be "the worst" then it shouldn't affect the majority of us, and I doubt they'd be doing it if they hadn't seen positive results so far.This all said, though, if they can get away with this then it's only another step to monitoring private homes (as opposed to the "sin bins") - initially temporary installations of the equipment to act like portable sin bins, though there's little reason that this couldn't move on to a more permanent fixture given time by those in the government who view it as a useful tool - after all, what reason could we provide for not wanting it in our homes? There aren't any human rights that I'm aware of that stop mere surveillance, and why would honest, hard-working citizens mind having their lives watched?We'll see where this goes in a few years time, certainly something to watch out for.

[rvalkass 5]

There aren't any human rights that I'm aware of that stop mere surveillance [...]

I would say that this sort of surveillance certainly contravenes Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Making sure people are in their homes and bed at certain times could be brought under Article 13(1), although it is rather minor:

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

The social and psychological effects of being monitored at home 24-7 could break Article 23:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

I know I would certainly not have free development of personality in that sort of situation.

And, as the UK is in the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights applies. Article 8(1) states:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

[...] and why would honest, hard-working citizens mind having their lives watched?

It's a sense of privacy, and the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty". The arguments from both sides run like this:

"If you've nothing to hide, you won't mind being watched."
"Well, if I've nothing to hide, you don't need to watch me."
Ad infinitum...

In other cultures, privacy is not such a big thing as it is in the UK, or at least it doesn't go as far as it does here. However, there are exceptions (such as Swiss banking laws, etc.). The thing that goes round in my head is would you want your conversations taped, recorded, monitored? Or you taking a shower? Having sex? Having an argument? Embarrassing conversations?

[Mordent 0]

The wording in Article 12 is "arbitrary interference", so provided it's not arbitrary (namely they have a reason for doing it), then that's probably how they're getting around the issue now. Either way, don't get me wrong, I'm by no means in support of the idea. I just reckon they'll find some way of getting around it.

[jlhaslip 4]

Disturbing, indeed. I can see a use for this in Criminal cases, but for ensuring the kids get to school on time? Ridiculous.One step away from the full Orwellian Reality.

[moogie 0]

This is really pretty scary. All right, I can understand wanting to help families overcome certain social problems and assigning social workers to do that. But, to take it to the extreme of in-home cctv to monitor them? No way. And where exactly are these cameras going to be located? In every room??Invasion of privacy doesn't begin to describe what this is.

[anwiii 17]

sounds like only the tip of the iceberg to me. yup....scary

i didn't read the book 1984. i did however read the book "a brave new world". when i read it, cloning had just begun around 1990.

i'm not really familiar with the laws in the uk. in the u.s., there are no laws against someone not going to bed at a certain time or being troublesome in general. the government could be using the kids as an excuse for other hidden purposes. it's almost like the parental rights to raise their kids are being taken away. who judges the "troublesome" kids who don't go to bed on time??? haha that's funny to me....in a sick way.

maybe the residents in the uk need to ban together because like i said before....it sounds like only the tip of the iceberg...

This is really pretty scary. All right, I can understand wanting to help families overcome certain social problems and assigning social workers to do that. But, to take it to the extreme of in-home cctv to monitor them? No way. And where exactly are these cameras going to be located? In every room??
Invasion of privacy doesn't begin to describe what this is.

[sheepdog 10]

I don't really see it as a problem. Provided the monitoring stays with those families who are deemed to be "the worst" then it shouldn't affect the majority of us,

Are you serious??????!!!!!!!
And just who decides who is "the worst?"
This is absolutly riduculous, absurd, and downright disgusting. They had to start it with the poor (foolish) Brits, as they have allready taken their guns away so they can't fight back against the tyranny of their government.

[dangerdan 0]

That is absolutely outrageous. Orwell was only too right, it would seem. The UK is increasingly become a police state based on surveillance and inciting fear. The argument that "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" simply does not wash and it is definitely an invasion of our personal liberties on mass. Ah, I can't wait to emigrate.

[Watermonkey 0]

Slaves need to be monitored by their masters. Free men need to constantly monitor their elected (and NGO) civil servants in order that they stay in line.Any questions?Clearly, you are slaves and you're only now realizing it after being shackled. I dare say, too late. You've no firearms or other deadly weapons used to defend against tyrants. You let them take that away from you, and now you're surprised they've taken even your individual privacy? It doesn't take an Orwellian scholar to understand these things must transpire before total outright bondage takes place. Next up: forced vaccinations and mandatory euthanasia for "useless eaters". Wait and see, or flee. Your ability to resist your masters has been removed; you've been neutered. They're well on their way to neutering us (U.S.A./N.A.), the last bastion of freedom, and when that happens, the whole planet will be fair game and the fight will be won by the slave masters who themselves serve the Torch of Baphomet.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

How do these "sin bins" differ from being jailed as a family?When I first jumped onto this thread without reading the article, I thought that this was a nation-wide gig. But for rehabilitation?Maybe this won't be as bad as it actually is, but at the same time, I can see how it violates human rights. As much as I am for human rights, if things are this bad with "problematic" families, I am for it because this can only work to favor these children and hopefully set parents on a much better path.Think about the issues that we have in the United States. I don't know what it's like because I haven't been in that situation, so forgive me if I speak from the mind of a person who tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about. But we have our own problems with domestic violence, rape, and other bad things that happen behind closed doors or even out in the open. If there are children about, they will subliminally absorb this behavior and it will affect their thinking and cognitive development. Do we agree on this, or do you really think that being absorbed into this sort of environment won't change the cognitive development of a child?We don't have "sin bins" or Family Intervention practices... we only charge the guilty when proven as such, foster the children, and hope for the best. Will a new life with new beginnings and a safer, "healthier" environment help out with the prevention of a potentially-disturbed individual or criminal? We would like to think so. How about those closed-door activities that I mentioned earlier, when people aren't caught, when domestic violence continues, when children are sexually assaulted and raped, when children bear witness to the acts of these "problematic families..." Crazy to think that the government should interfere with these sorts of things to make the attempt at making things better, eh? Or should they do it like we do it here and wait for substantial evidence to charge people with crimes, hoping that court proceedings are successful and that the right people are receiving rehabilitation in a prompt manner, THEN end up with surveillance on parole to make sure that these family members don't repeat history?Yes, it revokes any sort of privacy and some human rights. No, it probably isn't a right thing to do. But what would be the right thing to do? What could someone possibly do that an unanimous vote would occur in favor for it?

[freshpub 0]

I will probably make myself impopular with this post, but these are my opinions. Feel free to disagree.I believe that monitoring these families that have known and important problems with violence, alcohol and drugs may be a good idea. The system as it is - with overworked and some plain stupid social workers - is clearly not working. If it was, Baby Peter would not have been tortured to death by his mother's new boyfriend. And children learn by experience. Then go on to repeat this during their adult lives. This is how cycles of violence and drug abuses keep on spinning. Waiting until they are in turn charged with the same offences their parents committed in not a good idea!There must be a better way than 24-7 CCTV surveillance. But if it helps saving children from a life of crime, violence and/or drugs, I say do it.I love the human rights. I am all for it. But in France, we have a saying:Your own personal rights stop where that of others begin.If people with these problems are putting others at risks through their behaviours, if they are limiting the rights of others to feel safe and to actually be safe, then something should be done to prevent them from doing so, even if it means restricting their own rights.We live in societies, and whether our societies are based on capitalism, socialism or religions, the rights of the many should prevails on that of individuals.

[Kusaa 0]

Lol funnyLike that's gonna improve of said worst families state.I wonder what were they thinking...They must of been on something.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Kusaa (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

I don't find that so worrying... And before you jump on me there is a but... Any intrusion intro private life is not really an intrusion - that depends in who does the watching and how the information is used. As long as the ones watching don't watch the CCTV as a reality show and no information is leaked - like "Big Brother" - it isn't a problem. The information discovered that way must only be used to do good - in this case to help families with problems. This way it's not really 1984...It's not a 1984 scenario anyway. We are in the digital era - we have less and less privacy. It's a trade off; we have more comforts - easy banking, easy payment systems, vast (unimaginable just 50 years ago) information at our fingertips. You can't have all that and expect to keep the same level of privacy as 100 years ago. Not to mention that compared to a 100 years ago we are a lot more people on the planet. That means less space for any of us. And in some ways that is better. Less secrets means people are far more open to each other, with differences going away. Lying and cheating would be a thing of the past. I know for some of you that must sound terrible, but in the long run its a good thing.I know in the UK people are very conservative and care very deeply about their civil liberties, but they don't have the experience of the communist regime first hand (only from the capitalist propaganda.... yes they also do propaganda). It's not the fact that somebody is watching you, but the fact that the one watching you does so to hear what you say and to not say anything bad about the government. The spying is not the real issue, but what they use the spying for. As long as it is to do good there is no problem whatsoever. And as long as I am just a figure on a TV screen like countless others I really don't care. And if somebody where to watch me he would really have a hard time not getting bored and going to sleep. He must really not have a life to watch me 24 hours a day.

Edited September 10, 2009 by adriantc (see edit history)

[kagerioshu 0]

The idea of this service is sound, but I could only agree with it on the basis that it is strictly a voluntary effort and that the ones rendering the service are in no way affiliated with the government.What I mean is that these families would have to willingly submit themselves to being monitored and regulated in order to improve their quality of living. This is simply a matter of keeping in line with what I believe are natural human rights; nobody has any obligation to anybody else to live up to a certain standard or maintain a certain conduct.More so, the regulating bodies would ideally be volunteer groups. I really shouldn't have to explain how absolutely criminally dangerous it is for the GOVERNMENT of all things to do the monitoring and regulating -- it's just simple sense. With anything of this nature that involves the government, there will ALWAYS be a prerogative to homogenize people in order to improve the convenience of ruling them. That's simply a fact.If anyone is wondering who would do the job, then that's quite easy to realize. There are always social workers and counselors ready and able to commit to these efforts, and giving them this responsibility would go very far in both helping the families that need this sort of strong-armed mentoring and protecting their natural rights. After all, what good could the government do to foster families when it would simultaneously teach the children by example that there are no inalienable human rights simply because the government methods do away with them? This is why government and morality do not go together -- nobody should be given the ruling authority to determine social moires and proper conduct.