When the UK’s DNA database plan for kids as young as five worked out so well, it seemed to embolden Her Majesty’s Government to really up the ante.  Now from the Jolly Old comes this fresh hell.

So the UK is going to register every single child in Great Britain, approx 11 million under 18 that is, in one gigantic database that will list their home addresses, doctors, schools, parents or guardians, whether they have ever visited a drug counselor, ever been arrested, etc.  That is, unless the kid happens to belong to a celeb or an MP…for security ya know.

Because of fears that certain children, including those of MPs and celebrities as well as abuse victims, will be at particular risk, a “shield function” has been created within ContactPoint to hide their addresses.

What utter horseshit.  The 25 million records that were “lost” by  Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs office last year received no such special treatment.  Oh, and it gets better.  Already:

Only this week a report warned that teenagers were being dragged into the criminal justice system rather than being given an old-fashioned “ticking-off”, while it has also been disclosed that the DNA profiles of almost 40,000 innocent children are now being kept on the national database.

So not only are kids being databased via DNA, they are being added to the CRIMINAL data bases as well.

The best part about this whole damn, the thing that makes me quake in my Keds, is that these programs, just like the CCTV’s all over the damn island, were supposed to help with specific problems.  It took some kind of special bureaucratic panache to expand these programs into obtrusive, omnipresent programs that are literally stealing a generation from their parents.  Except, you know, unless the elite don’t want it to touch them.  And isn’t this what it is really about: controlling the proles?

From the, er, horse’s mouth:

Labour backbencher Julie Morgan spent the day in the Commons arguing for the voting age to be lowered from 18 to 16.

“The purpose of the voting age (reduction) bill is straightforward: to reduce the legal voting age to 16 for all public elections across the United Kingdom,” she said.

“That is the only way to engage the young people to whom we desperately need to talk as politicians and the only way to send the message that we really care about the issues that affect those people.

From the sounds of things, you’re not going to even pique the interest of 16 year olds, much less “engage” them, without a bottle of uisghe or a swingin’ cod.  People with those sorts of priorities are not in the least bit interested in the political process.

If you lot could un-ossify your brains, you might recall YOUR priorities when you were 16 years old involved transportation, tail, and fundage…and the order of importance depended on the hour of the day.

These are the fine upstanding citizens you wish out there casting votes?  No, these are the malleable, suggestable blank slates you wish to train to party standards.  Get ‘em while they’re young and impressionable.

“I believe that by involving young people at a younger age we are more likely to involve those in older age groups as well, because people can get into the habit of voting when they are still in schools and institutions.

See?  They don’t want thinking voters, they want habit voters.  “Oh, this is all too complicated, I’ll just vote Labour and they can sort it out.”

“The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever.”

“…denied involvement…”  Waiting two measly years to gain a bit of much-needed emotional maturity is denying involvement?  No, stupid, it is simply common sense.  Adults surely do become engaged later in life…when they see what a cocked-up mess you troglodytes have made of everything, and move to vote you out of power.

At least those who bother paying attention do.

People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said.

The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, wrote in a parish letter that not confronting global warming meant people were “as guilty as” Josef Fritzl.

Personally, I think Mister Bishop there should have just used the word “shortsighted” instead.

Pastors are set to board Croydon buses to help control unruly schoolchildren and teenagers.

Because parents obviously should not be held responsible.

The religious volunteers – or “school pastors” – will also attempt to turn young people involved in crime away from breaking the law and into studying the Bible.

Ooh, that’s MUCH more exciting!

Rev Isaacs said: “I think our courts too readily hand out sentences to our youngsters, rather than looking for alternatives within the community to help them go through the most difficult adolescent period.

Yes, like ACTUAL PARENTING.

I know I’m not speaking Sanskrit* here, this is not a complex concept:  parent your children.  When they do something wrong, punish them.  It does not have to be ten swats across the bottom with a willow switch (though I tell you, that will FLAT get your attention), but it does have to be actual DISCIPLINE.  It has to start young, be consistent, and neverever waver.  Your child is not a precious irreplaceable snowflake, they’re just a kid, and they do not know what good behavior is unless you, THE PARENT, show it to them, expect it of them, and bloody well enforce it with your will.

And if you haven’t the will, you have no business being a parent, simple as that.  Just because you CAN make a child does not mean you should.

*Yes, I know it’s a written language, that’s what makes it, er, funny.

Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was set upon by three Asian youths shouting anti-Christian abuse when he confronted them for rowdy behaviour outside St George-in-the-East church in Shadwell, leaving him with two black eyes and cuts and bruises.

On the one hand, those “Asians” need to be acknowledged for what they really are, and deported back to “Asia,” posthaste.

On the other hand, it pleases a dark part of me that the Church is getting a taste of its own medicine.

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

Holy merde, pre-criminals??  You know, compared to what we DON’T know about the human brain, what we DO know could fit inside Michelle Obama’s tiny black heart, and leave ample room for the furnishings from a four bedroom Cape Cod. But still these people think it might be a good idea to slap the label “serial killer” or “child molester” or whatever other heinous description they can noodle up, on a child as young as five? It boggles the mind.

If such an insane database were to come about, who would have access? Police, certainly…school officials, maybe? So what happens when Mrs. Smithers, first grade teacher, notices that little Johnny has been flagged as a potential weenie-wagger by the Magic Algorithm^TM? Does her behavior towards that child change? Absolutely it does, and not for the better. And who can predict what effect THAT will have on the little potential-monster’s psyche. What about the parents? Will they be told little Mary Anne is well on her way to becoming chapter president of Future Whores of Knightsbridge? How will that change the family dynamic, hmm?

This is a freaking nightmare waiting to happen. Look at the mentality of the genius pushing this concept in the first place:

‘If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

“The biggest threat to society…” Sometimes, Mister Pugh, society NEEDS threatening. There will always be criminals, just as there will always be people who will stand up to them. You cannot save humanity from itself, but fortunately people are more than capable of rising to the occasion.

Chris Davis, of the National Primary Headteachers’ Association, said most teachers and parents would find the suggestion an ‘anathema’ and potentially very dangerous. ‘It could be seen as a step towards a police state,’ he said.

Sorry, Mister Davis, but from here it looks like you lot are already up to a steady jog.

(Via AoSHQ)

Fined for having your parking sticker upside down? Seems a bit…nitpicky. The wardens have back troubles, do they? Can’t quite turn sideways and tilt the old noggin? Feh.

Ticketed for allegedly tossing down your cigarette butt? Ok, I only flicked off ash…produce the butt. What’s that? You can’t, but you’re going to ticket me anyway? Huzzah for the one sensible magistrate in the entire country for tossing this nonsense out.

Banned fire extinguishers because they’re too dangerous?? Attempting to survive a fire without one is fairly sodding dangerous as well, no?

Taxed for a business you do not own…but “might someday”? How about I pay you when I actually open this imaginary business, eh?

Fined for calling a bin inspector a wanker, or a jobsworth? Er, what if he actually *is* a wanker and a jobsworth?

Ordered to remove your pot(ted) plants from outside your home, lest someone be injured by them? They’re 3 feet tall. Unless it’s a community of Liliputians, I’d say the average human has little to fear.

It’s so good to see that Britain, like the United States, has solved all other crimes and can concentrate on poncy crap like this

Padded lampposts are being trialled in a London street to protect inattentive pedestrians.

A pilot scheme has been launched in Brick Lane after it was found to have the highest number of ‘walking and texting’ injuries in the country.

A study carried out by 118 118 found one in ten people has hurt themselves while focused on their mobile phone screen.

Instead of padding lampposts you might instead consider radio-tagging those head-bonkers, because sooner or later they’re going to need rescuing from a tar pit.

Come ON, people! When your government passes some stupid measure like this (which uses YOUR tax money, by the way), phone them up, succinctly point out what lobotomized baboons they are, and demand a refund!

Also rolling:

Rachel Lucas

Phelps

Mass Backwards

Marooned 

However.

A leading bishop today condemned the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on the formalisation of sharia law in Britain as a “shame on our nation”, after the former home secretary David Blunkett warned of catastrophic consequences.

The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, robustly defended Rowan Williams and said he was appalled at the “kneejerk” reaction to a serious piece of academic work.

“We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day,” he told BBC Radio 4′s World at One.

Well, Rt Rev Lowe, I’d say you have earned a place of honor on the Idiot List right there with your Archbishop of Stupid.

Excepting the Jesuits, I’m going to have to call foul on any member of the cloth who holds forth regarding secular issues, particularly regarding the rule of law.  Regardless of how conveniently you interpret it, Rev Lowe, what Mister Williams was speaking about was appeasement, pure and simple, of a faith that has no particular interest in harmonizing with your church or any other.

Your immigrants, be they Muslim, Buddhist or Zoroastrian, should be subject to BRITISH LAW.  And only British Law.  If they do not appreciate that then what business do they have being immigrants?

Patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous”, a leading educational body recommends.

History and citizenship lessons should stick to the bare facts rather than encouraging loyalty to Britain when covering subjects such as the Second World War or the British Empire, the Institute of Education researchers said. Teachers should not instill pride in what they consider great moments of British history, as more shameful episodes could be downplayed or excluded.

The British Empire can be described in many ways… Epic. World-changing. “Best forgotten” was not exactly on the tip of my tongue though.

As disdainful historians are pointing out to this committee of imbeciles, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The imbeciles again:

…Dr Hand, the co-author of the report, said: “Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both called for a history curriculum that fosters attachment and loyalty to Britain, but the case for promoting patriotism in schools is weak.

“Are countries really appropriate objects of love? Loving things can be bad for us, for example when the things we love are morally corrupt. Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it’s an open question whether citizens should love their countries.”

I ask you, Gentle Readers, when did patriotism become deserving of shame? It’s not just in Britain, I’ve noticed it a great deal in this country, as well. What is the problem with being proud of your country of birth? It does not mean you should blind yourself to the questionable actions of past policymakers. All it means is that you’re still capable of dreaming, of holding your nation, your neighbors, and yourself, to a higher ideal. When these children are denied the concept of patriotism, what will they have to inspire them to better anything outside their own self-centered view of the world?