Now safety police want to check all our homes

[Sam]

"Family homes could be invaded by health and safety inspectors checking that parents are keeping their children safe.
The guidance states: 'A home risk assessment involves systematically identifying potential hazards in the home, evaluating those risks and proving information-or advice on how to reduce them.'

Devices specified by the guidelines including smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, hot water temperature restrictors, safety and stair gates, and oven, window and door guards and locks.

There will be repeated return visits to check that parents have maintained their safety devices.

NICE has also called for a computer database to be set up to pick the homes and families who will be targeted for safety inspections.

There was a howl of protest over the proposals yesterday.

Researcher Patricia Morgan said: 'This is a nightmarish prospect. This is vetting and barring extended to the home. It is a major step towards total state control. When state intervention creeps into your home, where does it end? Will you have to have cameras in your house?'

Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, the human rights group, said: 'Why can't we have a public information campaign before we rush into creating databases and intrusion and introducing bureaucracy to the living room?'

Simon Davies, of watchdog group Privacy International, said: 'The problem here is the additional powers that would go to government authorities.

'Anybody who stands in the way of inspections will be considered suspect. This represents a landmark expansion of government intervention in home life. It must be regarded with great concern and suspicion.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0WLnYswYb



Not all homes though, just the ones identified on the database, hmm, wonder what the criteria will be for that ...
Sam.

[Loubeeloo]

'Why can't we have a public information campaign before we rush into creating databases and intrusion and introducing bureaucracy to the living room?'

errrm... because THAT would 'inform' the public maybe?
these people still aren't getting it are they....

It is a major step towards total state control.

... ok maybe they are sort-of getting it.... but i personally no longer believe that any kind of bureaucratic/democratic process is actually going to prevent this from happening to ALL of us... Home Ed or 'otherwise'... & whilst we are distracted with attempts at policy 'un-doing' they will be picking us off one by one until there is no resistance possible!

[Polly]

The page has been removed and I can't find a working link on a Google search but plenty of dead links

wonder why?

[s836apg]

Here's the NICE page - Sheila, you had better sit down....

http://guidance.nice.org.uk/PHG/Wave18/1

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf...nsultation.pdf

It may be carried out by a trained assessor or by the
householder themselves using an appropriate checklist.

Who should take action?
Local strategic partnerships (LSPs), children and young people’s strategic
partnerships (where they are not part of the LSP), local safeguarding children
boards (LSCBs) and children’s trusts.
What action should they take?
• Use local information to identify and prioritise households where children
and young people aged under 15 are at greatest risk of unintentional injury.
Factors could include overcrowding, a low income and a lack of
appropriately installed safety equipment. The data could come from
surveys and needs assessments and existing datasets (such as hospital
episode statistics). Or data could be gathered as part of routine practice
(for example, during home visits by community practitioners).

• Consider establishing or using an existing database to share information on
high-risk households with other statutory agencies. For example, social
workers, GPs and health visitors could identify overcrowded dwellings and
notify others via a database accessible to all statutory organisations.

Ensure the assessment, supply and installation of equipment are tailored to
meet the household’s specific needs and circumstances. Factors to take
into account include:
− the developmental age of the children (in relation to any
equipment installed)
− cultural and religious beliefs
− whether or not English is the first language
− levels of literacy
− the control people have over their home environment (for
example, tenants of social and private landlords, women in
traditional, patriarchal families and those living with extended
families may not have the authority to agree to an installation)
− the household’s perception of, and degree of trust in,
authority.

R

[Earthtracer]

I honestly thought this was a wind-up, or spoof - at first....
This bit is very scary:

This is one of five pieces of NICE guidance currently in development on how to prevent unintentional injuries among children and young people aged under 15. The others will address: road design and modification; education and protective equipment to prevent road injuries; outdoor play and leisure; and strategies, legislation, regulation, enforcement, surveillance and workforce development.

I am speechless. Thank God I should be dead before all this becomes 'normal' and people all accept it as such.

[s836apg]

Nah, they will be searching your nursing home room for subversive material :-)

R

[Sam]

Some of the missing article has been tagged onto the bottom of this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ated-home.html
"A pregnant woman who invited a policewoman into her half- decorated home ended up being reported to social workers for being a potentially unfit mother."

I just don't know what to say anymore,can it get any worse?

[Earthtracer]

The adjoining flagged article was as bad:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-checkout.html

A poll on that page asking if parents should be allowed to smack - smack, not beat - children had a 92% 'yes' response and there were over 900 commenst on the article!

(And Ronnie, you can P*** off!!! I have no intention of ending up in a nursing home. I'll paadle my kayak off into the sunset before that happens!)

[s836apg]

And if you get uppity with the inspector...

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_n....asp?ID=462342

A FURIOUS pensioner was given a fixed penalty and had his DNA taken for swearing at a council official.

Thomas Catcheside, 67, swore at the Cambridge City Council official after a three-year campaign to get steps improved outside his flat seemed to be getting nowhere.

The council says it was forced to report the incident to police because its supervisor felt threatened by Mr Catcheside - but the pensioner says he has been unfairly criminalised.

R

[Loubeeloo]

Thank God I should be dead before all this becomes 'normal' and people all accept it as such.

unfortunately i think this IS already happening, when i read it it reminded me of when my daughter burned her arm on an oil filled electric heater aged 5. when i took her to the minor injuries unit the nurse was most annoyed that i would not allow her to send the HV round to make a risk assessment of my house, just "to see if there's anything we can help you with"...
when i said i didn't think there was, she looked at me like i was mad and insisted that a HV would be able to "see if we can arrange to get you some other kind of heating appliance- or advise you of a more appropriate place to put it where the children are not at risk."... i pointed out that i was already aware of the danger of the heater but as a very capable & articulate person I was more than able to get access to services/advice when/if I deemed it appropriate & that in my opinion the situation would not have even occurred had my daughter just done as she had been told & stayed away from the damn thing! (she had purposely gone & sat next to it at about 6 in the morning before i had even risen from my bed, despite frequent warnings, funnily enough she never went near it after that!)... of course now I think about it I am lucky that social services didn't arrive at my door within the hour to remove my daughter from the dangerous house & her evil, uncaring parent!