And for incredibly stupid people
too, it appears! Following on from the recent announcement that our
parliamentarians are considering awarding themselves an extra week off work, as
a result of not having enough legislative business to occupy them for the
entire parliamentary term, it seems that one or two of our democratic
representatives are now busily thinking up new ways of interfering in people's
lives, in terms of their individual childcare skills and how they manage their
personal health. If you thought that our lives were already being blighted by
lots and lots of highly intrusive and generally unnecessary social conventions
wrapped up in the law, then stand by, because it's only likely to get much,
much worse in the future!
Stupid idea number one, which the
coalition are said to be seriously considering is a so-called
"Cinderella" law that will make it a criminal offence for any parent
to be emotionally cruel to their offspring, although defining what might be construed
as 'emotionally cruelty' has yet to be fully explained by the proponents of the
new law. In essence however, it seems that the new bill would seek to
strengthen existing neglect laws that are thought to have been in place for
well over a hundred years; and are regarded as being wholly out of date. Under
the provisions of the proposed new act, it has been suggested that police and
social services would be able to charge parents with isolating, belittling,
rejecting or corrupting their children, or encouraging them into committing
criminal or anti-social activities.
A number of leading children's
charities have welcomed the proposals, as has the like of MP Robert Buckland,
who has described the proposed changes as a monumental leap forward for thousands
of children in the UK, a view that is also shared by Liberal Democrat MP, Mark
Williams, another avid supporter of additional childcare protections.
Now obviously any new rules and
regulations, which are specifically designed to protect our children, the
youngest and most susceptible citizens within our society, are to be welcomed.
However, as with any new legislative measures the devil is often in the detail;
and it would be easy to see a situation arising where spurious and malicious
charges are brought against entirely innocent parents by a variety of accusers
with their own personal agendas, or their own malign intent. After all, what
constitutes "isolating", "belittling", or
"rejecting" a child in terms of the law; and who would be responsible
for determining whether or not such a charge were brought in the first place, a
neighbour, a relative, a social worker, a police officer, or a judge? And on
what basis would such a accusation be made, where a child has been
"grounded" for bad behaviour, where a child has been called a name by
a parent, or when a parent chooses to ignore the vocal pestering of a spoilt
child? Just who decides what constitutes "neglect" and how on earth
do you prevent malevolent reporting by someone with an axe to grind against an
individual parent. Along with the Tax Man, social workers in the UK are
probably some of the most heavily armed public sector workers in the world, in
terms of regulatory powers; and yet under these new proposals the government
would willingly offer them additional grounds and means to interfere with
parent's rights over their own children. History suggests that parliamentarians
are notoriously bad at drafting new laws that people are expected to live by;
and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any better with regard to
this particular issue.
The second stupid idea of the day
has been put forward by Lord Warner, a former Labour Health Minister, whose
suggestions have been endorsed by the right-wing think tank "Reform".
Lord Warner's basic proposal, of charging every citizen a £10 monthly health
tax, paid either locally or nationally, would help plug the financial shortfall
in the UK's public health system, the NHS, which most people now recognise is a
growing problem for the country. In addition to the monthly health tax, the
Labour peer has also suggested that certain patients should be asked to
contribute to their costs of staying in hospital, a so-called "hotel"
tax that would help offset the cost of a patient's "bed and board",
while they were undergoing some forms of, as yet to be disclosed, treatments.
Of course, even though Lord
Warner's proposals were immediately dismissed by both the coalition government
and the Labour party, who both professed their preference for the existing
health service model, which is paid primarily through Direct Taxation and
people's National Insurance Contributions, some commentators believe that Lord
Warner's proposal marks a statement of intent for future governments; and that
his report is simply a testing of the public waters for future changes to the
UK Health Service. As it is, with up to an estimated £5 billion a year being
lost to fraud in the NHS; and with billions more being taken out of the health
service by private "for profit" healthcare companies, it is perhaps
little wonder that the NHS is struggling to cope at the present moment in time.
Any commercial business that sees its most profitable customers taken away, who
are cherry-picked by the competition; will almost inevitably be left with the
most expensive and least profitable ones, who will eventually drive the company
into the ground, which is exactly what appears to have been happening to the
NHS over the past few years, under both Labour and the Coalition governments.
It is a grave mistake for any of
us to believe that our elected representatives represent the brightest and the
best of our society, as they clearly do not; and as has been said before, it is
often a fact that a significant number of our sitting MP's are only in the
House of Commons because they have failed to make the grade in their previous
careers, or didn't even try and find a proper job to begin with. If the Devil
does indeed make work for idle hands, then Old Nick is likely to be fully
employed finding work for the 650 idlers who presently occupy the comfy benches
in the Palace of Westminster, a bigger bunch of indigent loafers he would be
hard pressed to find.
No comments:
Post a Comment