What is the name of the mother and boyfriend of Baby P? Tracey Connolly and Stephen Barker

Baby P was denied love, warmth, food, comfort and security by his 'mother' Tracey Connolly and her boyfriend Stephen Barker. They have been shielded by a system who failed to extend the same protection to the little lad.

I don't like censorship, but I can understand why some information should be withheld, but in this case, those who chose to condemn Baby P to a long and agonising death should be made to face society and the crimes they betrayed this little boys trust with.

Have the claims that the UK is an authoritarian police state been overused?

The countless articles that claim that the UK is on the rocky road, or has already arrived, at an authoritarian police state, show that there are a lot of people in this country who are concerned about the direction our politics has taken. It is easy to gloss over what these claims actually mean, waving them away as conspiratorial claptrap.

http://planetquo.com/Police-State-Britain

However, why would so many people take so much time and effort to write about their concerns? They serve them no political purpose, they get no economic gain from them, they are rational and concise people. The reason is simple, these people looked at examples of past societies that have had an unhealthy social control over their citizens and have seen similarities between those regimes and our own outstanding society. (If you don't think we have an outstanding country, it is in all our interests that we do whatever we can to change it for the better.)

I am not suggesting for a minute that our own government is anything like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Communist China, but there is no getting away from the fact that a government that seeks such absolute control over the people it is supposed to serve, may not have totally innocent motives. If they do have innocent motives now, putting a ring of steel around each individual is putting the mechanisms into place that could be misused by future governments.

We know what it feels like to live in our country, and going about our everyday lives, the surveillance about us is not always immediately evident. Apart from seeing the cameras, and knowing that we could be watched, it is hard to see straight away the impact that surveillance could have on us. But as with other authoritarian regimes, it is difficult to characterise our country as such, because what does that feel like? Often the revelation is felt by the country's population when it is too late in the day to act.

Our police force have been granted almost unbelievable powers in regard to law enforcement, and still they ask for more. It could be argued that the government is using excessive police powers to suppress any social, economic and political act that contradicts their policies. In doing this they pervade every part of our lives, and require rigorous compliance. It is this perception of the state of our country that has led so many to come to the conclusion that we are allowing our government to have an authoritarian hold over us.

This is of course my own opinion, and I may be misreading the evidence I think is plain to see. I hope I am wrong, in the years to come I may laugh at the conclusions I have come to. If I am only half right though, I want to be able to look my children square in the eye and tell them that I did everything, however small, that I could to aid the disquiet felt by the people in this country about their surveillance culture.

There's no way blogs should have 'civility' forced on them

Blogs are unique entities where people from every conceivable background can air their views, and they are by their very nature a reflection of their authors individuality, the idea that they should be censored is absurd. The founder of the computer book publisher O'Reilly Media thinks that we should be divided into the civilised and the uncivilised, and has proposed a bloggers code of conduct.

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html

If there were to be any guidelines on what constituted civility, you can be assured they would be open to interpretation, and there are no guarantees that the person who is enforcing the rules will be unbias on all counts. From which standpoint will they be judging the censorship from? in case it offends religion? race? sexuality? politics? state defence? or that the censor thinks it says something that someone, somewhere will find offensive? if that is to be the case, why bother trying to say anything at all? I think that may be the point.

There are already plenty of countries who use censorship of the internet to limit criticism levelled at religious or political groups, so in the end this code of conduct would almost certainly creep towards being concreted in law by our government at the time.

http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39168000,00.htm

This is about one group saying that others are not allowed to speak what is in their minds, i.e. it is about power. Like PC language, it is some people having the power to make others think that if any critism is levelled at them, they WILL be insulted. Censorship is a third party making a judgment about an expressed idea, and making an decision that the idea is not valid and should not be allowed to exist.

Blogs on the internet are important, and they shouldn't be limited to lighthearted, banal issues. I'm all for saying things in a rational and non aggressive way, but if I want to get angry about something what is wrong with that? Once censorship is brought in there will be no stopping its spread and it will consume many of the freedoms we feel as though we have left.

Are PC language and Newspeak one in the same thing?

Being politically correct in the way we speak and act has had it's advantages in helping us overcome problems that have dogged us in the past. Racism and sexism, to name but two, have been tackled by changing the way we think and talk about them.

The balance seems to have tipped too far the other way now though, and it has become impossible to say anything negative against anyone or anything, even if it is true. Political correctness is a form of social control, where one group has the power to define how others act and even think.

I'm not saying I want to offend people and spread a message of hate, but it is imperative in a healthy society that criticism and evaluation should be open and encouraged.

I should be able to say anything I like, and my freedom of speech should not be restricted by saying that I am not allowed an opinion, this is not a valid discussion. If someone disagrees with my point of view, then let them say so, and why, to just dismiss me as politically incorrect is bigoted bullying, the very thing that political correctness claims to be trying to stop.

The extent that this political correctness has reached can be shown by using the example of Lynette Burrows, who was 'leaned on' by the police for expressing her concern over children being adopted by gay men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/ngay10.xml

Whether you agree with Lynette Burrows opinion or not, it is just that, an opinion. Even the police admitted that a crime had not taken place, but that her details must be taken for the 'safety of the community'. It is only one step further for a law to be passed that will criminalise the expression of opinions that go against a government approved agenda, and this example is not an isolated one.

With all the surveillance that constrains people in this country, especially microphones attached to CCTV systems, and the police having the power to remotely activate the microphone and video on your mobile phone, it will be easy for us to be policed over our opinions. In effect, suppressing our opinions is suppressing the kinds of people that we are allowed to be, and who is the government to tell us that?

Political correctness may seem to be a benign but good idea, but when put into practice with the full force of the law behind it, it becomes a mechanism of the state that forces us to think and act as we are told, and criminalises us if we oppose it......am I allowed to say that??

What the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance' argument says about the person using it

People like to think they can have predictability and consistancy in their contact with others, being an unpredictable person makes others nervous of you. To be deemed a liar is to be deemed unpredictable, it makes it seem as though you lie about everything you say.




However, it's not possible to be truthful about everything, there are some things you don't want others to know about you. But whether it's taking stationary from work, or having a brush with the police when you were younger, everyone has something they don't want shouted from the rooftops. It would make normal, credible people seem dishonest.



This creates a paradox, we want to know who is dishonest, but at the same time we know that everyone is, and it is this inconsistancy that people find difficult to come to terms with. Dishonest people are seen as inconsistant, but if no one is 100% honest, that makes for a very unpredictable society, which frightens people.



Some people don't want to accept that nobody is perfect, they want to root out and pass judgment on others they deem to be more badly behaved than they are, and they want to see them punished.



I'm sure everyone knows or has come across a 'little Hitler', those who go to ridiculous lengths to enforce even the smallest of rules, and it seems to be these types of personalities that are driving the surveillance culture.



I'm sure the little Hitlers have plenty of justifications for enforcing every rule in the book, but they cannot reconcile that they also do things that are wrong, and if they do recognise it they still want others to view them as whiter than white. They have such a low self esteem they feel they must put other people down in order to make themselves look and feel better.



No one knows every law, and if every law was enforced the criminal justice system would be enormous, we would no longer be able to single out those who had been to prison because we'd all have been punished for one thing or another. The whole country would be an authoritarian prison state, with all of us criminals to some varying degree.



If the little Hitlers are whiter than white, I don't believe them. I want to look into their bank accounts, phone records, internet history, medical records etc, etc, etc, I'm sure I'd find something. This is the problem though, the people in power can already do this. The little Hitlers wouldn't want me to have access to all that information about them, so why do they think it's OK for my information to be available, especially to people who have the power to socially control me.



To use this weak and implausable 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance' argument is a smokescreen, to divert attention away from the vengance mentality that the person holds. If this is the best argument that is put forward for surveillance, I think it is time we stopped it in it's tracks.

Listening and talking CCTV systems...why??

The City of Westminster has installed CCTV's that can listen as well as video you, and Middlesbrough council has installed a system that can bark orders at you from a tannoy. There are plans to spread this system to at least another twenty cities in Britain:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,2050297,00.html

The people in Britain must be so dangerous that anonymous council workers are obliged to morally control us with the use of a loudspeaker. I accept that there are people who can be violent and agree that criminal justice policy should be directed at them, but I do not want to be lumped in with any punishment meted out to them.



The City of Westminster has decided that it is in the best interest of their constituents that they listen in on their private conversations. Whatever the introduction of this system, terrorism or anti-social behaviour, I don't consent to having any of my conversations monitored as if I'm a delinquent.



When these measures are widened, the outcome will be that people will not voice any opinions in public, for fear of a council worker hearing it and reprimanding them like a naughty child. Conversations between people are private, and should not be scrutinised by anyone, let alone someone who has no elected authority over them whatsoever.

If the police don't want more surveillance powers, then why are they getting them?

The Information Commissioner has warned that Britain should not 'sleepwalk into a surveillance society'. I think his warning may have come a little late.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/aug/08uk-info-commissioner.htm

A former Chief Executive of the Police IT Organisation has warned that there is the potential for the misuse of information held on police databases.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/05/29/224372/data-misuse-threat-to-trust-in-police-it.htm

Ian Redhead, Hampshire's Deputy Chief Constable has said 'I have to question: does the camera actually instill in individuals a greater feeling of safety and does it prevent serious offences taking place?'

http://www.irdial.com/blogdial/?p=728

There seems to be a pattern emerging, if the people who are supposed to impliment and enforce the close surveillance of us are feeling uneasy about it, there must be something terribly wrong.



I would have thought the police force would want every technology available in order to carry out their job. I was suprised to find top police officers who believe that the loss of freedom that results from surveillance is too high a price to pay, and I would say that it must have taken alot for them to speak out about it.



If it is not the police force that is driving the surveillance initiative, then who is? and for what reasons? The police enforce the law and try to prevent criminality, if they are feeling disturbed about the means they are given to carry this out, why is even further surveillance being proposed?



This can only leave the government, who is granting the police powers they say do not want. I can only guess as why the government wants their law enforcing institution to have those powers, and I believe them to be only sinister and coercive. The government is the body which defines what is considered a crime, and they are giving the police the power to enforce every single one of them, whether we (or the police) like it or not.