EU - Hidden Disaster

Already flagged up by various blogs and papers, etc, Hidden Disaster, the EU's expensive propaganda comic aimed at children. This time about the Commission's Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO). Written by Erik Bongers (yes, it is a 'g', not a 'k').

Should you have the slightest interest in reading and ridiculing this piece of rubbish, either check out the copy over at our Scribd site or pop along to the EU's own online bookshop for a free pdf.

Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation Toes Labour Bully Line

Good to see the BBC following the Labour spin-line on the Gordon Brown bullying story. The 6 o'clock news sidestepped anything to do with the sources of the stories, ie Peter Watts in January and now Andrew Rawnsley in favour of concentrating on a suitable diversion, ie Mrs Pratt and her National Bullying Helpline.

Mrs Pratt is indeed a useful idiot, a) for (ultimately) exposing those who called her helpline and b) for not realising the Labour monster and the media whores would be all over her and her past in an attempt to smear her.

Fortunately in this case, shit sticks, and there'll be enough residue clinging to Brown right up to the election, however new Labour try to spin it.

New Labour Britain - Guilty Even When Proven Innocent

Innocent people could have lives wrecked by 'Big Brother' vetting checks - Telegraph

No surprise to find that New Labour's policies are a police-state nightmare:

Workers judged to be lonely and to have a chaotic home life could be barred from working with vulnerable people, even though there is no evidence that they pose a risk, according to guidelines from the Government's new vetting agency.

Decisions about staff will be taken by officials who have never met them, based on details passed on by their employers.

Experts claimed that the "Big Brother" approach meant innocent people could have their careers wrecked on the basis of cruel rumours or ill-informed moral judgements.

The row is the latest controversy to hit the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), which was set up to vet millions of people working with vulnerable people.

The Government announced a watering down of the scheme in December in the wake of a public outcry over plans to force adults who give other children lifts to clubs and sports events to undergo criminal records checks and register with the ISA.

Since October, employers have been under a legal duty to refer staff to ISA for assessment if children or vulnerable adults who they work with are considered to have been harmed or put in danger.

Controversially, managers have also been told to pass on names of staff they have prevented from working with vulnerable people for fear they could "pose a future risk" - even though no incident has occurred.

Guidance seen by The Sunday Telegraph, which has been given to more than 100 case workers at the ISA reveals that those referred could be permanently blocked from work if aspects of their home life or attitudes are judged to be unsatisfactory.

It says case workers should be "minded to bar" cases referred to them if they feel "definite concerns" about at least two aspects of their life, which are specified in the document.

It means, for example, that if a teaching assistant was believed to be "unable to sustain emotionally intimate relationships" and also had a "chaotic, unstable lifestyle" they could be barred from ever working with children.

If a nurse was judged to suffer from "severe emotional loneliness" and believed to have "poor coping skills" their career could also be ended.

ISA's case workers, who have no minimum qualification or experience, make their decision about whether someone should be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults without ever seeing the person.

They are expected to establish the person's relationship history and emotional state based on the file passed on by their employer.

Psychologists, professional regulators and health and teaching unions last night expressed horror over the guidance.

Harry Cayton, chief executive of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which oversees Britain's nine health regulators, said: "My concern is that judgements are being made not on the basis of facts but on opinion and third party perceptions."

Dr Mike Berry, a leading forensic psychologist, described the system as "incredibly dangerous" and open to error.

The expert in criminal profiling said: "These tests are so subjective; plenty of people are lonely, while others have what some might call a chaotic lifestyle. It depends who is judging."

Dr Berry, a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University added: "This tool is based on a stereotype of paedophilia, based on social inadequacy, but there are plenty of people who are quite self-contained, a bit of a computer nerd, and perhaps a bit isolated who present no danger to society. Meanwhile Rose West would pass this test with flying colours."

He said the dangers in the scheme were compounded by the fact case workers had no direct contact with the person they assessed.

"I think it is a major problem that the person making this decision is so distant from the case, and to the consequences of what they are doing.

"They are essentially sitting in a call centre, following an automated system, and dependent on information from third parties. That in itself is very worrying," said Dr Berry.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "This Government is creating a society where everyone is treated as guilty unless they are proved to be innocent.

"These changes contravene any principles of natural justice and will destroy the lives of decent innocent people. Gordon Brown is creating Government by "thought police"."

Gail Adams, head of nursing at Unison, said: "We are concerned that it is a paper process, that it is subjective.

"Of course we want to protect children and vulnerable adults, but you have got to get the balance right. This is more like Big Brother."

Amanda Brown from the National Union of Teachers said the union was "extremely worried" about the operation of the system.

Adrian McAllister chief executive of ISA said no one would be barred purely on the basis of their lifestyle or attitude, given that all referrals had to identify either harm done, or a "future risk of harm".

He said: "One of the understandable concerns we have heard from people is that they could be barred for private interests like pornography, or liking a drink. That isn't the case.

"We only look at these risk factors if relevant conduct [actual harm] or a risk of harm has been identified."

Mr McAllister said he expected the "vast majority" of its cases to involve incidents where actual risk or harm has occurred, based on evidence such as a police caution, "rather than cases based on a feeling or suspicion".

The organisation was unable to explain the reasoning behind its instruction to staff that definite concerns in two areas should be sufficient to be "minded to bar" staff.

It would only say that the protocol follows advice from a forensic psychologist.

I blogged ages ago about the forerunner of the ISA, namely the Allegations Management System, which was being implemented quietly through the county councils, doing exactly the same insane policing.

What an irony, though, that we can't apply the same procedures to the people in charge with regard to their psychological suitability for the job of running the country.

Truly these people deserve the rope.

Why British Journalists Are Shit

The deliberate refusal to acknowledge to influence of the EU in everyday life is a disgrace in most of the British media, particularly in the left-wing journals such as the Guardian and the Observer.

Hence this in the Observer's Business section today on Home Improvement Packs ('Will estate agents shake the Hips?'):

Hips were introduced in England and Wales in 2007 to provide more "up front" information for buyers. Before them some 28% of sales fell through, often because of problems discovered late in the purchase process.

Wrong. Hips were introduced to comply with the EU's Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Typically, though, whereas the original legislation demands only one document, the British government demands nine.

Check that out here.

As for Mr Norwood's second statement, I doubt very much that sales he said had fallen through because of 'problems discovered late' had anything to do with energy concerns.

Misleading, incorrect and uninformed. Since these journos are paid to investigate and check sources I can only assume it's deliberate. A bit like Toby Helm covering the problems at the Royal Mail without once mentioning the direct effect of the EU's Postal Services Directive.

Aussie Hackers Fight Back

Internet Censorship Protest Shuts Down Australian Government Websites

Kevin Rudd's government may have shown some initial decency and strength by shutting down the previous administration's ID card scheme but they're proving to be just as much a bunch of authoritarian wankers as Howard's lot when it comes to the internet. Read on and learn, because this is what is going to happen everywhere - not just China and Iran:

Hackers protesting government censorship of the Internet have shut down several Australian government websites in a demonstration against the announcement that filters would be imposed to block access to websites deemed offensive by the authorities.

'Deemed offensive by the authorities'? Fuck the authorities. Prepare to fight back.

Power Cuts, Rationing And High Energy Bills Ahead

British households risk unaffordable energy bills, Ofgem warns - Telegraph

The realisation that the government is about to drop us back into the 1970s when we had blackouts and energy rationing is just dawning on the media and the populace.

In a wide-ranging report into the future of Britain's energy market, Ofgem said that there is a risk that bills could rise by up to 25pc over the next decade unless measures are taken.

Ofgem said that the unprecedented combination of the global financial crisis, tough environmental targets, increasing gas import dependency and the closure of ageing power stations has combined to cast reasonable doubt over whether the current energy arrangements will deliver secure and sustainable energy supplies.

The Telegraph neatly omits the fact that 'tough environmental targets' and 'closure of ageing power stations' are both enforced by the EU.

The original press release from Ofgem can be read here.

Britain has only 3 weeks of energy reserves, as against four months for the Germans. And the EU still wants the ability to take British energy 'in solidarity' with other other member states if they have a shortfall, ie if Russia has another spat with Georgia.

In the meantime the government expands the number of windfarms, which are inefficient and expensive.

The next decade is going to dark in more ways than one.