> den Otter [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
> >"In 1996 more than 3 million child abuse reports were made [3.1 million].
> >The actual incidence of abuse and neglect is estimated to be 3
> >times greater the number reported to authorities."
> Now, what definition of "child abuse" are they using there? Is that three
> million cases of violent abuse, or three million cases of causing
> psychological damage by refusing to buy Johny an ice cream?
This figure relates to sexual abuse, violent abuse, neglect and severe (systematic) emotional abuse.
> Child abuse is
> notorious for false charges brought to harass innocent people.
I think we can safely assume that the number of real abuse cases hugely outnumbers the number of false charges. Besides, strict punishment of false charges would be part of the "new deal".
> And note, of course, that that's only reports. How many of them are actually
> true? Someone's already pointed out Janet "Butcher of Waco's" early career
> in faking child abuse cases, before she decided it was easier to just burn
Power abuses of certain bureaucrats are no excuse to ignore the problem. By the way, I saw that Waco documentary on BBC a while back, and I must say that the US has indeed some *very* nasty fascists in their government agencies. Waco was murder, plain and simple. However, this doesn't change the fact that the cult's compound was probably a breeding ground for all kinds of (child) abuse, as communes often are. Of course shooting, gassing and burning everyone inside isn't exactly the proper government reaction to these kind of things...
> >Let's put it this way: in the hands of a more or less "democratic" regime
> >(as we have in the Western world) better surveillance and stricter
> >sentencing (based on surveillance evidence) pose no real threat.
> Nonsense. We have so many pointless "crimes" today that almost anyone would
> be put in jail if we had universal surveillance.
Right, and that would be quite impossible, wouldn't it? If they did that, the system would crash and there might even be a revolution. The cams would *force* the government to get rid of many of the bullshit laws to keep the country functioning. Either that or they'd abandon the surveillance idea altogether. In any case, there is an inherent safety to "transparency".
By the way, I have stated several times that the surveillance system should be part of a much bigger package which includes legalizing all victimless crime, among other things. I don't support any existing government system (though I do think that even in *their* hands camera surveillance has so far done more good than harm).
> So why is it that despite more and more and more monitoring, the quality of
> life in Britain is deteriorating rapidly?
Because you have screwed up economically?
Why is it that I hate the way it's
> going so much that I'm going to leave for good before too long?
The weather gets you depressed?
> you come over here and live in your wonderful surveillance paradise?
Actually, I *would* buy a second home in Britain if I could afford it. Not so much because of the surveillance, but because it's a beautiful country (and they have some of the most stylish and best looking women in the world) ;-)
> >And obviously this should be stopped too. However, these things
> >mostly occur because the justice system is doing a bloody awful
> >job. That is relatively easy to fix.
> Ok, so come over here and fix it. If it's that easy, get going. Or do you
> just have no idea what you're talking about?
Give me absolute power and I'll fix anything.
> Den, you're living in a fantasy world.
Nope, I know very well that most of my ideas will never be implemented, but it is interesting to think about and who knows, maybe something gets picked up by someone along the way...
> Stop trying to pull the rest of us
> into it with you.
Don't you have a free will and a "delete" button? (um, no, of course you don't have a free will. There ain't no such thing as...I meant "the illusion of free will", of course).