13-09-2009, 12:06 AM
This post is an article from 2006 so you will probably have heard of it before, however it will precede another article from yesterday which on top of everything else this government has introduced just turns my stomach.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ldren.html
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
The 'children's index', which will cost the taxpayer £224 million, will even monitor whether youngsters are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, whether they go to church or are struggling to get good marks at school.
One assessment records whether a pre-school child is in day care - suggesting that those who are looked after by their mothers at home are not conforming to the state ideal.
Critics said the plan would sideline on an unprecedented scale the rights of parents to bring up their children in the way they see fit and amount to a 'bar-coding' of youngsters.
They questioned how the Government knew better than parents on the correct way to bring up a child, and warned that it would deter decent families from seeking help for fear of being branded at risk.
It could take just two warning flags on a child's file to trigger an investigation.
The Government handed itself sweeping powers in the 2004 Children Act to record basic information of all children in England and Wales, based on information from the register of births and child benefit.
The Act followed the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie - whose neglect by her aunt and her boyfriend was missed by social workers.
Section 12 of the act limits information to name, address, date of birth, gender, a unique id, contact details of parent or carer, school, GP practice and other practioners dealing with the child.
But the Government wants to extend the records to include detailed assessments of a child's life.
Ministers insist it will act as an early warning system to highlight children at risk.
The database has already been piloted in 12 local authorities and the Government plans to make it nationwide from next year.
It will try to introduce a regulation in Parliament in the autumn - allowing it to become law with barely any scrutiny by MPs.
Civil liberties and children's campaigners are to hold a conference at the London School of Economics on Tuesday to highlight their concerns.
Terri Dowty, director of children's rights group Arch, said: 'Who is bringing children up? Are parents effectively nannies for the state's children or are children born to families and the state just helps families when they ask for it?'
Dr Eileen Munro, an expert in child protection at the LSE, said: 'The authority of parents is being eroded because the children's services, health education and social care are being asked to intervene.
'On the whole parents are the greatest source of safety and welfare that any child has.'
Jonathan Bamford, the Assistant Information Commissioner which polices access to information, said there was no justification for keeping check on 12 million children when only a small proportion were at risk.
He said: 'When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?
'The cause for concern indicator against a child's record is expressed in very broad language. For example, it could be cause for concern that a child is not progressing well towards his or her French GCSE.'
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won't know what privacy is, as though we are preparing them for prison rather than life in a free society. It is time to ask ourselves why we sacrifice the privacy of our children first.'
Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: 'We are going to have bar-coded babies. This project is going to cost £224m over the three years to 2008 with subsequent operating costs of £41m a year. Would it not be better to focus this money on families in real need?'
A Department for Education spokesman said: 'We need to ensure that professionals work across service boundaries for the benefit of children. 'Our proposals balance the need to do everything we can to improve children's life chances whilst ensuring strong safeguards to make sure that information stored is minimal, secure and used appropriately.
'Parents and young people will be able to ask to see their data and make amendments and will retain full rights under the Data Protection Act.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ldren.html
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
The 'children's index', which will cost the taxpayer £224 million, will even monitor whether youngsters are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, whether they go to church or are struggling to get good marks at school.
One assessment records whether a pre-school child is in day care - suggesting that those who are looked after by their mothers at home are not conforming to the state ideal.
Critics said the plan would sideline on an unprecedented scale the rights of parents to bring up their children in the way they see fit and amount to a 'bar-coding' of youngsters.
They questioned how the Government knew better than parents on the correct way to bring up a child, and warned that it would deter decent families from seeking help for fear of being branded at risk.
It could take just two warning flags on a child's file to trigger an investigation.
The Government handed itself sweeping powers in the 2004 Children Act to record basic information of all children in England and Wales, based on information from the register of births and child benefit.
The Act followed the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie - whose neglect by her aunt and her boyfriend was missed by social workers.
Section 12 of the act limits information to name, address, date of birth, gender, a unique id, contact details of parent or carer, school, GP practice and other practioners dealing with the child.
But the Government wants to extend the records to include detailed assessments of a child's life.
Ministers insist it will act as an early warning system to highlight children at risk.
The database has already been piloted in 12 local authorities and the Government plans to make it nationwide from next year.
It will try to introduce a regulation in Parliament in the autumn - allowing it to become law with barely any scrutiny by MPs.
Civil liberties and children's campaigners are to hold a conference at the London School of Economics on Tuesday to highlight their concerns.
Terri Dowty, director of children's rights group Arch, said: 'Who is bringing children up? Are parents effectively nannies for the state's children or are children born to families and the state just helps families when they ask for it?'
Dr Eileen Munro, an expert in child protection at the LSE, said: 'The authority of parents is being eroded because the children's services, health education and social care are being asked to intervene.
'On the whole parents are the greatest source of safety and welfare that any child has.'
Jonathan Bamford, the Assistant Information Commissioner which polices access to information, said there was no justification for keeping check on 12 million children when only a small proportion were at risk.
He said: 'When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?
'The cause for concern indicator against a child's record is expressed in very broad language. For example, it could be cause for concern that a child is not progressing well towards his or her French GCSE.'
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won't know what privacy is, as though we are preparing them for prison rather than life in a free society. It is time to ask ourselves why we sacrifice the privacy of our children first.'
Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: 'We are going to have bar-coded babies. This project is going to cost £224m over the three years to 2008 with subsequent operating costs of £41m a year. Would it not be better to focus this money on families in real need?'
A Department for Education spokesman said: 'We need to ensure that professionals work across service boundaries for the benefit of children. 'Our proposals balance the need to do everything we can to improve children's life chances whilst ensuring strong safeguards to make sure that information stored is minimal, secure and used appropriately.
'Parents and young people will be able to ask to see their data and make amendments and will retain full rights under the Data Protection Act.
The worm has ate the apples core, beneath the skin lies curled.
Just so many a man lies sore, from the worm within the world.
Just so many a man lies sore, from the worm within the world.
