Obviously what all these "hidden" children need is the local authority to save them... Or not.

"Three young children trapped in a squalid 'hell hole' home were reported to the council by worried neighbours two years before the authorities finally rescued them, it was revealed today.

"The children, aged one, three and four, were kept in darkness inside the filthy house and never allowed out by their cruel parents. Neighbours, concerned that the youngsters were hardly ever seen or heard, repeatedly spoke to housing officials about them and have accused social services of negligence.

"The 26-year-old father and 25-year-old mother - who was university-educated and comes from a respectable middle-class background - were jailed for three years at York Crown Court after admitting cruelty charges this week."

What might happen next, do we think?

Option 1. Local authority admits that:

• it is almost impossible for a child to be "hidden" from society, and repeated references to this concept (most often used by politicans, quangos and fake charities) merely pander to the risk-averse, disproprotionate priorities of unthinking people 
  
• relying on strong, connected and interested communities to raise justified concerns about the welfare of children can work effectively and is a good thing
• they may, just possibly, have failed to act appropriately in this instance

OR:

2. Local authority claims that:

• they have followed procedures, acted reasonably and are not at fault
  
• they don't currently have sufficient powers to access people's homes and children where necessary
• it would be better all round if every family was inspected, at least once a year, just in case
• Anyone who is in their twenties, university-educated, and from a respectable middle-class background will be classed as "higher risk", just in case

We'll just have to await the outcome of York City Council's internal review, won't we?

H/T Ambush Predator

So, let me get this right.

The government uses our money to pay the NSPCC to employ a "relationship manager" to email us (well, Martin at least, who wisely deposited the offensive communication in his spam folder immediately) to implore us to petition the government to "make the net safer" for the chiiiiildren. Might there be another agenda here?

It's OK, Gordon, Ed, Graham et al. Why bother yourself with the charade any longer? Why don't you just help yourself and get on with appropriating and controlling our last bastion of freedom? The one that poses the biggest threat to you all by far, perhaps because you JUST DON'T GET IT?

Let's just quickly whizz through their missive, containing the recommendations (how I detest that word at the moment) to be presented to government, almost certainly influenced somewhere along the way by, er, government.

Warning, overblown DANGER ALERT TO TERRIFY THE PARANOID PARENT: 

"Dear Mr Smith,

"The internet is changing fast - and not always for the better - because for children the dangers it presents are just as real as the opportunities to learn and make friendships."

The dangers might be just as real, but as with the real world, they are not as prevalent as the wonderful opportunities it presents which should not be sacrificed because of hysterical, disproportionate fear.

"And unless we take the chance we have now to make the internet safer, we will fall even further behind the criminals who are taking advantage of the industry's slowness to act."

Sorry - did one of our DCSF friends write this? Dastardly dangers! Bad industry! Must act immediately! Moral imperative for heroic government to step in and save the day.

"As you read this there are millions of illegal images of child abuse in circulation online. Children are visiting social networking sites that have no effective control over their content. And with more and more public WiFi zones plus web-enabled mobile phones, access to dangerous content has never been easier."

What?

The "millions of illegal images of child abuse in circulation on line" have to do with paedophiles and their repugnant and illegal activities. These people should be located, stopped and suitably punished. Wait - that happens already - do I have to list all of those teachers, for example, who were found guilty of possessing child pornography AGAIN?

Providing there is no illegal activity taking place (which anyone is capable of reporting in any case), the operation of social networking sites is a completely separate issue. Most sites have their own security policies (some that come under fire for being too draconian - remember when Facebook decided to remove photos of women breastfeeding, for goodness' sake?) precisely to attract and retain the people who visit them. You know, their customers - the people no-one wants to piss off.

People (that includes children, believe it or not) should remain free to decide which sites do and don't offend them. No-one else is better placed to determine this; certainly not the government or its lapdog the NSPCC. Contrary to popular belief, penises do not spring up at every opportunity the moment one goes online. And even if they did, the sight of someone's genitals would not render anyone incapable of shutting down the offending window.

And incidentally, with "more and more public WiFi zones plus web-enabled mobile phones", access to ALL content has never been easier. This is a GOOD THING. Now make sure you and your children have a relationship built on mutual trust and openness of communication. Ensure they know how to keep themselves safe. Don't trust Gordon to do it for you.

"But together we can make the net safer - please sign our Safety.Net petition now."

No.

"The new UK Council for Child Internet Safety is deciding how to make the internet and mobile phones safer for children – and we have the chance to influence it by petitioning the Prime Minister directly on six key issues."

Might this council have to do with Becta? Oh yes, of course it does. I think we need to start OPENING OUR EYES here.

"1. Stop the use of software for private sharing of child abuse images"

Oh, well, that's got to be the "child-porn-sharing-specific-software" we hear so much about. Or could it possibly mean any private file sharing software that doesn't accommodate immediate and full government access without question?

"2. Block children's mobile phone access to adult content"

Or, no doubt, block all mobile access to all adult content (for not all children have pink hello kitty phones and not all adults shun pink hello kitty phones) and require people to seek specific approval (no doubt registering their details somewhere "secure" in the process) before being allowed to access something that is perfectly legal.

"3. Ensure social networking sites protect young users by proactively reviewing and removing offensive/illegal content"

Hmmm, "offensive" content. Well if our government is involved in defining and policing this, I suppose it will include any content related to other political parties, then. Perhaps anything that is rude about Gordon Brown, or content that doesn't promote immediate removal of children at birth for placement in state-approved child development centres.

"4. Pre-install child safety software on all computer and mobile web devices"

I don't want anything pre-installed on my computer, thank you very much. G's head would go very red and then explode; code would come spilling out everywhere. 

"5. Make therapeutic services available for children who have been abused and had pictures and films of the abuse appear on the internet"

Fine - but I would hope these already exist. And if more therapy is required, do you have any particular service provider in mind, NSPCC-with-your-nose-in-the-trough-AGAIN?

"6. Provide specialist training for professionals who deal with online offenders"

  See previous comment.

"The NSPCC has influenced policy in the past with your help and we can, and must, do so again today."

Without my help - and without Martin's - I hope you CANNOT and you WILL NOT influence any more policy - unless you stop taking our money directly from the government.

"Please sign the Safety.Net petition now and make the net a safer place for children."

NO. I WILL NOT make the internet safer for the politicians, quangos and fake charities who are threatened by its existence.

"Thank you."

Goodbye (into spam folder).

I'll tell you what I am going to do. I am going to keep myself technology and computer literate until I die. As they grow, I am going help my children understand the reality of the internet by participating alongside them and ensuring they developing the vital skills necessary to stay safe and happy online.

Then they will see that the internet is no more and no less dangerous than what lies outside their own front door, and that they can be trusted, with my help, support and guidance where necessary, to protect themselves whichever world they are engaging in - whether they are crossing the road, or developing creatures in Spore.

Only then will I be reassured of their safety and wellbeing. Leaving it to Brown, Badman and Balls is NOT AN OPTION. It's not what they're really interested in.

H/t @contemptistotal via twitter

Someone to watch over you:

 

Apologies for the small picture - the Times Online has the full (untweaked) article here.

"It sounds like a fantasy straight from The Truman Show George Orwell's 1984: a house that monitors your every move, from bedside to bathroom and from medicine cabinet to fridge. The aim, however, is to help the elderly to ensure that children lead safe and independent protected lives.

"Researchers are working on a “health safe house” so sophisticated that it will not only track everyday habits but also check weight and blood pressure and predict whether a person is at risk of a serious fall child abuse.

"Britain is one of the largest investors in “telemedicineprotection” — using medical surveillance and monitoring technology to help chronically ill deprived and older people indeed all children to be treated for longer continually inspected at home rather than in hospitals or care homes through visits by social workers or education welfare officers.

"The system, developed by GE Healthcare and Intel Becta and the NSPCC, uses sensors that track a person’s behaviour and send alerts when unexpected disruptions or data are picked up. Similar networks are already being used by for about 3,000 people children in care-home settings but researchers now hope to introduce a much more sophisticated model for private homes.

"Patient data, such as risks of hypertension, diabetes and respiratory emotional disturbance, sleep disorders, over-attachment, concentration or eating problems, would be combined with information on daily routines to create an algorithm capable of identifying subtle health abuse indicators or behavioural changes that might signal more serious problems.

"Examples might include how many times a person opens the fridge door or uses a tap logs onto NotSchool; repeat trips to the fridge could signal mental impairment a danger of obesity while failure to use the tap log onto NotSchool might suggest an increased risk of dehydration lack of a suitable education.

"The next generation of sensors also studies activity such as use of the lavatory, time spent sleeping and when medicine mood stabilisers or enhancers are taken, plus vital signs such as blood pressure, weight and blood-oxygen levels.

"Work is under way on more advanced alerts that could identify changes to a person’s gait — providing an early signal of instability learning or behavioural difficulties, feelings of isolation or depression, lack of meaningful relationships or even substance misuse and heightened chances of a serious fall abuse by a neglectful parent — and how long it takes to get out of bed in the morning."