Blair is totally off his rocker

[DoYouEverWonder]

The Blair Government now wants to control anti-social behavior in the zero to ten crowd. The current law assumes that children under 10 can not commit a crime and Blair thinks this is a big problem that must be tackled and is a top priority for him.

You would think a man with young children at home would have a better understanding of children, but apparently not.

Blair has single handledly managed to combine 'Clockwork Orange' and '1984' to bring us all into 'A Brave New World.'

9 October 2005

Ministers are looking at the "options available" for dealing with bad behaviour by young children, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has said.

<snip>

Binge drinkers who repeatedly offend could be named and shamed in a similar way to those given Asbos, according to political commentators.

Meanwhile, repeat offenders' families could be housed in special units, guarded by security officers and monitored by CCTV cameras.

<snip>

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister has been very clear about making anti-social behaviour one of his priorities."

But he added: "We don't recognise these specific ideas. There is a consultation and discussions going on with police about what additional powers they need."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4324138.stm

[malaise]

1. Tell him he should have started with

his son. Then ask him how many lives his anti-social behaviour has cost the citizens of Iraq.

[jmatthan]

2. Scott Ritter says Blair is war criminal

http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/10/scott-ritter-labels-it-correctly.html

(Edited Rotter to Ritter. Sorry)

[mandyky]

4. Ritter LOL

not Rotter

[converted_democrat]

3. This is one of the strangest things I've ever read. Blair is indeed off

his rocker.

[Old Vet]

5. Scott Ritter was on point from the beginning.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

6. Every couple of months

Blair comes up with some totally insane right-wing policy that pleases the Sun/Mail. Thankfully almost all of these are forgotten about in about a month. (The most famous probably being frog-marching offenders to cash-points to pay on-the-spot fines.)

[tanyev]

7. Hmm...Coincidence?

Screening a child's mind
By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Throughout last summer and into the fall the news crept across websites and spilled onto talk radio: The Bush administration was planning to screen every American child for mental-health problems and put those deemed in need of help on powerful psychotropic drugs. Parental rights would be taken away, and the stigma of mental illness would stain the school records of innocent children. Libertarians and conservatives, home-schoolers and psychiatric rights groups, expressed their concerns.

Yet so far, the fears seem overblown - or at least premature. By the time Congress passed its enormous spending bill late last fall, only $20 million of new money was appointed as a grant to states to explore new ways of coordinating their "fragmented" mental-health services. The provision contained no mandate that the money be spent to screen children.


"There's this modern tendency to overmedicalize everything and to treat a rambunctious child ... or a sullen child as mentally ill when that's just his personality or he's a high-strung kid," Mr. Deist says. "We would rather be accused of being alarmist than just stand back and let this gather quiet momentum."

Antiscreening groups point to a report from the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, appointed by President Bush in 2002, as the source of their concerns. The report, issued in July 2003, spoke of the benefits of widespread mental-health screening of Americans of all ages. It also noted that schools provide a promising venue for administering such evaluations for both students and adult school workers.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p11s01-lifp.html

[Gyre]

8. I guess the British people have nothing to do with it.

Funny. I thought GB was a democracy.

Gyre